The judge ruled that just having the files open for sharing on her computer constituted her breaking the law. The judge ruled that even if no one ever downloaded a song from her that just having the shared file open was enough to break the law.
Anyone who downloads kazaa or other file sharing programs, it comes with that folder open to everyone by default. You can then choose to close it to others.
That means a newby who doesn't even know that there is an open file or how to change the settings, or even know that they should make the folder unavailable, is now guilty because they left the software in it's default mode.
So who is really breaking the law? Kazaa for making the default setting with the shared folder open to everyone or the newby who didn't know any better?
I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the people that own kazaaa chose knowingly to make the shared folder open to everyone else on the network by default.
Yes give to the homeless organizations, just make sure the money is being used for the needs of the homeless and not the needs of a few administrators.
The term ''cybersquatting'' is sometimes wrongly used to refer to the sale or purchase of generic domain names. Due to the shortage of descriptive and generic available domain names, covetous entities often try to exploit the term Cybersquatting to suit their desired ends.
Gosh. I came to a page about a fingerprint DNA databse and it's a discussion about IRAQ, the IRA, guns, Hilary Clinton, and revolution. Did slashdot have a link foulup or is everyone just totally off topic?
I just find the article funny. Someone from microsoft calling something not from microsoft slow. Kind of like George Bush saying he's smarter than Dan Quayle.
Sony is also considering another option it's engineers have suggested. Making the game system and the disks so large that resellers would have a hard time stocking many games in their inventory.
http://www.blogs.pn/images/computer/giant_gameboy. jpg
Ahhh and then there is the whole new thing with the patent from Phillips where if something is copied, you can't fast forward through the commercials. The ability to do so is disabled. It will even disable your ability to channel surf during the commercials. Basically disabling your remote control.
You Vill Vatch All of Our Commercials. Ve have our Vays!
Maybe the schools could take it one word at a time and teach the students to be "literate" first, then we can tackle that whole computer question later.
He didn't seem to think it was arbitrary. He stated it as fact.
But if I see a number of unique visitors to my website AND I check the cities where they come from AND the browsers and operating systems they are using, I get a much better picture.
For instance I doubt my unique visitor at 3pm in the afternoon is the same as the unique visitor that came to my site at 10am. Why? Unless at 10am he was at home in Buffalo, NY, and then drove to work in Thailand by 3pm, he probably isn't the same guy.
Also he failed to mention that not all dsl customers get a different IP everytime we log in.
Either way, he is guessing. I agree you can't count every unique visitor as unique and that some are returning visitors, but I doubt the 10 to 1 ratio is even close.
ICANN will approve anything that isn't commercially viable and anything that could not possibly compete with dot com.
To help people manage all their contact information online, the Internet's key oversight agency is considering a ``.tel'' domain name. If approved, the domain could be available this year.
You can already do all of those things with a myriad of software applications and you can do it from websites on ANY TLD. This is just like saying that you should only stream video from websites that end in dot tv.
Just like dot museum and dot aero, this TLD, dot tel is a sham to make people think ICANN is approving new TLDs like they are being asked to do.
What we need are viable commercial alternatives like dot lawyer, dot doctor, dot medical, dot auto, dot realestate, dot construction, dot design, and others that reflect real business categories. That would increase competition on the web and that is good for everyone.
Not only is promoting competition good for everyone, it is one of the prime directives of ICANN's Memorandum of Understanding. Many on ICANN's Board of Directors cater to big business who wants to maintain the advantage they have in owning premium domain names. They want opportunity, then they want to shut the door on anyone coming after them.
I respect your opinion as well, that's why sometimes it's better to agree to disagree. I've been to blogs like redstate.org where you are banned for having an opposing position. I'm happy slashdot isn't one of those.
What you are proposing is like uber-affirmative action. We need x% of people with this viewpoint, x% of people with that viewpoint, etc. etc.
How do you plan on insuring that they really have the viewpoints you are suggesting and not just saying so to get hired under your viewpoint-diversity hiring program?
Ahhhh, you want the students to decide if their viewpoints are being discussed by the professors, then report them if they do not present those viewpoints. Basically letting the inmates run the asylum.
If a student gets a bad grade from a professor, then the student says it's all because the mean ole professor doesn't share my viewpoint therefore is biased against me.
I'm sorry, your plan is ridiculous. They hire professors based on qualifications to be a professor and to teach the course in question, not for their political point of view.
You seem to desire a time when we will have the thought police out in force making sure everyone thinks and acts in acceptable ways or they cannot be hired to do jobs they are otherwise qualified for.
Chris McElroy
http://www.newsandmediablog.com/
You're arguing from the perspective of the professors after they are already there.
I'm going to assume you just need help keeping up here. The original post we are responding to IS talking about professors who are already there.
Let's say that someone wanted to change the hiring practices of the public universities to create a more ideologically diverse set of professors.
someone? No need to be more specific, we all know the someone you are referring to. The same someones that want to freely tap your phones and email. The same someones who want the ability to arrest people without allowing them a lawyer or being forced to charge you with an actual crime. The same someones who view torture a legitimate means of interrogation. The same someones who believe the executive branch of the governement is not equal to, but above all other branches of governemnt.
You still have teachers teaching Marxism and they are still thinking freely and expressing themselves. However, they are balanced by other professors that have a different perspective.
So, the professors that you CHOOSE to hire would be able to talk freely. But say you had too many professors that held the same viewpoint, you want to discriminate against them in hiring practices because you already hired someone who shares their viewpoint? Extremely well thought out argument there. Democracy is messy. Freedom is messy. But both are still preferred by most of us, except of course those currently in the white house.
I think our goal should be ideologically diverse professors, and they should be allowed to express themselves freely.
This is exactly what we currently have.
Another goal should be to encourage the professors to stay on the topic of the course and not rant about something tangentially related.
In other words you believe they forfeited their right to free speech when they took the job? That we should control their speech, because of what? Because they might not share your viewpoint? That we should control and censor what they are allowed to say? Who would be in charge of monitoring their words to see if the balance you suggest is maintained with the proper amount of right and left keywords in them?
Public universities have a responsibility to provide many viewpoints. If it's heavily slanted to the left, students are not able to form meaningful opinions.
Ahhh, here you show your true colors. Nothing on the left could be misconstrued as a meaningful opinion. The only meaningful opinions come from the right? People who support the dems or the republicans and never disagree with what their party does or stands for are sheep.
My "perfect world" comment was weak, I'll agree with that.
There is no reason for government to fund higher education. If it does this anyway, it damned well better do it under strict conditions of political neutrality.
1. Yeah, a terrible thing for the government to fund any education, higher or otherwise? No, a good thing for government to fund higher education. It's obvious that education in this country is lacking quality as it is.
2. So, you are saying that if government funding is included in the organization, company, or entity that hires you and pays your salary, that your right to freedom of speech is forfeited? That since government funding is involved, your speech should be regulated?
That is like the seperation of church and state argument. Find one quote in the bill of rights or the constitution that includes the phrase "seperation of church and state". There is no such clause, yet people have decided that there is some law that says seperation of church and state exists.
Currently a company must prove it is technically capable to run the tld on the root servers. Next must present a business plan plus proof of financial stability. Then must put up a $50,000 application fee with no guarantee you will be approved. Companies who placed such an application fee with ICANN in 2000 still have not had their money returned despite promises by ICANN.
In reality, this is anti-competitive. ICANN's purpose is to foster competition but their actions do not reflect their mission. They don't really have the right to decide who can or cannot start a business that sells domain names, therefore cannot say anyone cannot run a tld. They do have that right if you are not "technically" able to run a tld because they are supposed to be a technical body.
They have no right to see your business plan. You may want to keep your plan a secret until time to launch to get a jump on competitors. If they turn you down what is to stop them from revealing such a plan to your competitor who they do award the tld to?
There are absolutely no technical reasons why hundreds of tlds cannot be created. Alternative roots like the pacific root, the atlantic root, and the ORSC have proven that.
By restricting namespace they give unfair advantage to those with short domain names over those who have to create long ones due to lack of other tlds to register in. That is anti-competitive and anti-free enterprise system and in direct violation of their mou with the dept. of commerce.
What about future generations of people who are not on the Internet yet or not even born yet? How long will their domain names have to be as long as ICANN refuses to open up the creation of more tlds? How is that fostering competition?
Planning ahead now will avoid Internet Namespace Congestion in the future and relieve some of the pressure now.
Allowing companies to create their own tlds they wish to manage is the preferred method. Let the market decide which tlds are viable and which or not. Let the business owners take their chances as in any business you choose to operate.
Second preferred method would be to create tlds that represent every category that trademarks are also registered in. That way a mark owner would only have tm protection in the tld that reflects the same category his tm is registered in. That would reduce the amount of UDRP actions needed now due to limited generic tlds like com, net, org, biz, and info.
Third method would be to create tlds that match all the categories of the phone book which would provide similar trademark protection and would be simple for users to learn.
A fourth choice is not to have tlds created at all. You would simply go register a domain name and choose what goes before and after the dot yourself. Example, I create mywebsite.something, someone else creates anything they want as long as both sides of the string are not identical. It would be automatically entered in the root server so it would resolve. This is technically possible and has actually been done. I once registered PinkyAndTheBrain.ICANN because they want to control the world.
Any of the above methods would also need to allow the creation of tlds that reflect all languages as well. That is why I prefer the first method or the fourth method. Let people create the tlds they want to create. Some will do so in other languages and the DNS will evolve on it's own, as it was intended to do.
I'm sure that more than answered your question, but might as well put it all in the post I guess. There is more at http://www.newsandmediablog.com/
Slashdot Mirror
an "ex" is a has been and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure.
The judge ruled that just having the files open for sharing on her computer constituted her breaking the law. The judge ruled that even if no one ever downloaded a song from her that just having the shared file open was enough to break the law. Anyone who downloads kazaa or other file sharing programs, it comes with that folder open to everyone by default. You can then choose to close it to others. That means a newby who doesn't even know that there is an open file or how to change the settings, or even know that they should make the folder unavailable, is now guilty because they left the software in it's default mode. So who is really breaking the law? Kazaa for making the default setting with the shared folder open to everyone or the newby who didn't know any better? I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the people that own kazaaa chose knowingly to make the shared folder open to everyone else on the network by default.
Yes give to the homeless organizations, just make sure the money is being used for the needs of the homeless and not the needs of a few administrators.
The term ''cybersquatting'' is sometimes wrongly used to refer to the sale or purchase of generic domain names. Due to the shortage of descriptive and generic available domain names, covetous entities often try to exploit the term Cybersquatting to suit their desired ends.
Yeah, I see that. There's off topic though and wayyyyyyyy off topic. :) Doesn't bother me. I enjoyed the comments anyway.
Gosh. I came to a page about a fingerprint DNA databse and it's a discussion about IRAQ, the IRA, guns, Hilary Clinton, and revolution. Did slashdot have a link foulup or is everyone just totally off topic?
Not much protection if atty gen gonzales has his way. He wants to make it a crime to report on information obtained through leaks.
Or . . . File one patent or trademark app with false info and you can never get a patent or TM again.
I just find the article funny. Someone from microsoft calling something not from microsoft slow. Kind of like George Bush saying he's smarter than Dan Quayle.
Sony is also considering another option it's engineers have suggested. Making the game system and the disks so large that resellers would have a hard time stocking many games in their inventory. http://www.blogs.pn/images/computer/giant_gameboy. jpg
Ahhh and then there is the whole new thing with the patent from Phillips where if something is copied, you can't fast forward through the commercials. The ability to do so is disabled. It will even disable your ability to channel surf during the commercials. Basically disabling your remote control. You Vill Vatch All of Our Commercials. Ve have our Vays!
Maybe the schools could take it one word at a time and teach the students to be "literate" first, then we can tackle that whole computer question later.
He didn't seem to think it was arbitrary. He stated it as fact. But if I see a number of unique visitors to my website AND I check the cities where they come from AND the browsers and operating systems they are using, I get a much better picture. For instance I doubt my unique visitor at 3pm in the afternoon is the same as the unique visitor that came to my site at 10am. Why? Unless at 10am he was at home in Buffalo, NY, and then drove to work in Thailand by 3pm, he probably isn't the same guy. Also he failed to mention that not all dsl customers get a different IP everytime we log in. Either way, he is guessing. I agree you can't count every unique visitor as unique and that some are returning visitors, but I doubt the 10 to 1 ratio is even close.
ICANN will approve anything that isn't commercially viable and anything that could not possibly compete with dot com.
7 .html
To help people manage all their contact information online, the Internet's key oversight agency is considering a ``.tel'' domain name. If approved, the domain could be available this year.
You can already do all of those things with a myriad of software applications and you can do it from websites on ANY TLD. This is just like saying that you should only stream video from websites that end in dot tv.
Just like dot museum and dot aero, this TLD, dot tel is a sham to make people think ICANN is approving new TLDs like they are being asked to do.
What we need are viable commercial alternatives like dot lawyer, dot doctor, dot medical, dot auto, dot realestate, dot construction, dot design, and others that reflect real business categories. That would increase competition on the web and that is good for everyone.
Not only is promoting competition good for everyone, it is one of the prime directives of ICANN's Memorandum of Understanding. Many on ICANN's Board of Directors cater to big business who wants to maintain the advantage they have in owning premium domain names. They want opportunity, then they want to shut the door on anyone coming after them.
More on my blog.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060416-660
I opened the page to read this story and there is a popup without a way to close it covering the story?
Yeah, thats it, we'll create a popup they have to click on. That won't annoy them.
We have to at least be in the right subteraneancavedivision.
I respect your opinion as well, that's why sometimes it's better to agree to disagree. I've been to blogs like redstate.org where you are banned for having an opposing position. I'm happy slashdot isn't one of those.
We will just have to agree to disagree, I guess. Anything that includes more government monitoring is a bad thing. I was hoping you would get it.
What you are proposing is like uber-affirmative action. We need x% of people with this viewpoint, x% of people with that viewpoint, etc. etc. How do you plan on insuring that they really have the viewpoints you are suggesting and not just saying so to get hired under your viewpoint-diversity hiring program? Ahhhh, you want the students to decide if their viewpoints are being discussed by the professors, then report them if they do not present those viewpoints. Basically letting the inmates run the asylum. If a student gets a bad grade from a professor, then the student says it's all because the mean ole professor doesn't share my viewpoint therefore is biased against me. I'm sorry, your plan is ridiculous. They hire professors based on qualifications to be a professor and to teach the course in question, not for their political point of view. You seem to desire a time when we will have the thought police out in force making sure everyone thinks and acts in acceptable ways or they cannot be hired to do jobs they are otherwise qualified for. Chris McElroy http://www.newsandmediablog.com/
Chris McElroy http://www.newsandmediablog.com/
1. Yeah, a terrible thing for the government to fund any education, higher or otherwise? No, a good thing for government to fund higher education. It's obvious that education in this country is lacking quality as it is.
2. So, you are saying that if government funding is included in the organization, company, or entity that hires you and pays your salary, that your right to freedom of speech is forfeited? That since government funding is involved, your speech should be regulated?
That is like the seperation of church and state argument. Find one quote in the bill of rights or the constitution that includes the phrase "seperation of church and state". There is no such clause, yet people have decided that there is some law that says seperation of church and state exists.
Currently a company must prove it is technically capable to run the tld on the root servers. Next must present a business plan plus proof of financial stability. Then must put up a $50,000 application fee with no guarantee you will be approved. Companies who placed such an application fee with ICANN in 2000 still have not had their money returned despite promises by ICANN.
In reality, this is anti-competitive. ICANN's purpose is to foster competition but their actions do not reflect their mission. They don't really have the right to decide who can or cannot start a business that sells domain names, therefore cannot say anyone cannot run a tld. They do have that right if you are not "technically" able to run a tld because they are supposed to be a technical body.
They have no right to see your business plan. You may want to keep your plan a secret until time to launch to get a jump on competitors. If they turn you down what is to stop them from revealing such a plan to your competitor who they do award the tld to?
There are absolutely no technical reasons why hundreds of tlds cannot be created. Alternative roots like the pacific root, the atlantic root, and the ORSC have proven that.
By restricting namespace they give unfair advantage to those with short domain names over those who have to create long ones due to lack of other tlds to register in. That is anti-competitive and anti-free enterprise system and in direct violation of their mou with the dept. of commerce.
What about future generations of people who are not on the Internet yet or not even born yet? How long will their domain names have to be as long as ICANN refuses to open up the creation of more tlds? How is that fostering competition?
Planning ahead now will avoid Internet Namespace Congestion in the future and relieve some of the pressure now.
Allowing companies to create their own tlds they wish to manage is the preferred method. Let the market decide which tlds are viable and which or not. Let the business owners take their chances as in any business you choose to operate.
Second preferred method would be to create tlds that represent every category that trademarks are also registered in. That way a mark owner would only have tm protection in the tld that reflects the same category his tm is registered in. That would reduce the amount of UDRP actions needed now due to limited generic tlds like com, net, org, biz, and info.
Third method would be to create tlds that match all the categories of the phone book which would provide similar trademark protection and would be simple for users to learn.
A fourth choice is not to have tlds created at all. You would simply go register a domain name and choose what goes before and after the dot yourself. Example, I create mywebsite.something, someone else creates anything they want as long as both sides of the string are not identical. It would be automatically entered in the root server so it would resolve. This is technically possible and has actually been done. I once registered PinkyAndTheBrain.ICANN because they want to control the world.
Any of the above methods would also need to allow the creation of tlds that reflect all languages as well. That is why I prefer the first method or the fourth method. Let people create the tlds they want to create. Some will do so in other languages and the DNS will evolve on it's own, as it was intended to do.
I'm sure that more than answered your question, but might as well put it all in the post I guess. There is more at http://www.newsandmediablog.com/