The great thing about this is: once this kind of data tracked and collected in a computer, we can finally *prove* that most people have the attention span of a gnat. The question you have to ask is: Did I really want to know that?
As pointed out on kuro5hin, this isn't actually open. The copyright restrictions are still there, if you click on the copyright link at the bottom of the page you get a page that says (among other things):
NOTICE SPECIFIC TO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THIS WEBSITE. Permission to use Documents (such as white papers, press releases, datasheets and FAQs) from this server ("Server") is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. Educational institutions ( specifically K-12, universities and state community colleges) may download and reproduce the Documents for distribution in the classroom. Distribution outside the classroom requires express written permission. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible
Documents specified above do not include the design or layout of the Microsoft.com website or any other Microsoft owned, operated, licensed or controlled site. Elements of Microsoft websites are protected by trade dress, trademark, unfair competition, and other laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. No logo, graphic, sound or image from any Microsoft website may be copied or retransmitted unless expressly permitted by Microsoft.
Looks pretty much like the previous release, just without the trade secret nonsense.
Within seconds you can have thousands of names (depending on the popularity of your tracks, of course), which can be exported to a.csv spreadsheet file, ready to print and deliver.
To whom, exactly, are you supposed to deliver this? Napster's case is fairly clear, but in the case of Gnutella, who are you going to give this to? That's the crux of the argument that gnutella/freenet are stronger than Napster in this regard: there's no one to complain to about abuse except for the users themselves....and, yeah, like they care....
You're right about a great many of the things you posted, but I think you're missing part of the point: While the press *has* been privately controlled for centuries, is that good? I think a lot of the worrying over "the world is becoming a terrible place" isn't about folks wanting to go back to old ways. I think it's more about them, probably subliminally, asking "is this a good thing?" and getting a different answer than their predecessors did. So, yeah, goverment has been bought many times before...but that's not good....the press is privately controlled, and manipulated constantly, has been for years, but that's not good...
You're right, people don't phrase it this way...they complain about how our rights are being "eroded" or "taken away." That's because what they think *should be* doesn't match what is. It's a matter of selective memory that makes them think things used to be better...but just because it's always been this way doesn't make it right.
Yeah, but it'll only take one case of that for the movie studios to impose *very* strict license restrictions. I suspect that they won't even get to the one case. The license that you're granted to show the movie (as a theatre owner) will probably restrict their doing this. Sure, you can still do it, but just try to get another Paramount film after pissing them off......
I can't remember any movies I've seen (maybe except some Disney flicks with Elton John tunes) where the trailers had any of the actual score.
To add to that, I'm getting increasingly annoyed with movies that use Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana" to build a dramatic trailer. I only know of one movie (Excalibur) that's actually used the music in the movie, but I've seen several that used it in trailers. It's a great piece, and perfect for the medieval/gothic/dramatic mood...I just don't get why they'd use it in trailers and not in the movie. If it works for setting a mood in the trailer, you'd *hope* that they'd want the same mood in the movie. Clearly that's not the case.
On a side note: if you know your classical music, the occasional commercial can be very funny...a few years ago there was a running shoe commercial that had this very dramatic music behind an image of a runner....I always wondered what they were thinking when they put Verdi's "Requim" (mass for the dead) in that ad....not exactly sending the message they had hoped for...(The discerning dead choose Fila!)
In addition to the comments already made about this (which are good points), I think it should be pointed out that a lot of the page defacements that Attition will get are due to FrontPage misconfigurations. This isn't a root/admin compromise (unless you're pretty creative, or you've *really* misconfigured FP), so I don't know if they'd count it as a "hack." It's a way to deface a web page, and that's about it.
That said, I think it *should* have been included, since it is the biggest source of web defacements out there....
Like the GUI, Apple didn't invent it, they just made it easy. Localtalk may suck, but it's totally plug-and-play. I can't tell you how many times I've just plugged two macs together, turned on Appletalk, and started moving files over...no config, no setup, just go.
The comment about them inventing it is hyperbole, certainly. I won't even try to defend it. But the networking on a Mac really is just like the GUI: simple, easy, and works out-of-the-box. That's the whole point as far as I'm concerned.
How many thousands of shares of VA/Andover do you have?
Oh, for fsck's sake, who gives a damn? If the man says that he has no interest in the stock market, why is it so hard for you to take his word for it? For a lot of people in this industry, money is not the reason they're doing this.
Do you honestly believe that Gates is doing this for money anymore? Why bother? Most of the sucessful computer-geek types that I've seen so far have done this because they enjoy the field, they like working with computers. They honestly enjoy their jobs, and would do this for fractions of their salary.
Yes, recently the suits have moved in, but it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a stuffed suit and a true geek. Try it some time.
I think jinker's question was very pertinent, and I note that Ian didn't answer it at all. I know the idealistic reasons to set up a FreeNet node...I understand the drive for it, I kinda agree with it.
But, there are legal limits to freedom of speech. If I posted something blatantly libelous, and claiming to be truth when it provably isn't, I should get sued. If I post it through FreeNet, they'll never find me. This is an invitation to abuse.
I think FreeNet will allow blatant violations of libel/slander laws, and they apparently know it, and are burying their heads in the sand. This is a good start, but needs some better thinking through.
Working together, I think that paying to buy movies online (maybe even before they're out in theatres) or buy songs will be the first step in preserving this threatened industry.
Threatened industry? Please tell me that's sarcasm. Please. Time Warner made a 1.91 Billion dollar profit last year, and this is a threatened industry? Granted, there are other record companies (and other movie houses) that made less, but I really don't see any reason to consider them threatened just yet.
IANAL (you're gonna see that a lot in this one, I think), but I would like to see code be treated similar to various other tools, where use determines whether it's legal or not. Having a car is, for instance, legal. Killing someone with it isn't. Having L0phtcrack is legal, writing L0phtcrack is legal. Using it to break into a corporate office network isn't. That would make sense to me. (of course, why should the legal system make sense?)
In addition to the other comments I've read (many of them very appropriate), I'd like to add one worry:
We're already running out of IP space. Now, this guy's talking about putting 2,3,4, etc IPs on *each* box to play these routing games. No way. There just aren't enough IPs. There would be in IPv6, but then, we're not using IPv6, so that's a moot point.
Yeah, I know it's bad form to follow-up on your own posts, but I read a little farther in a few of the links that google came up with and found this from stanford. It's aimed at educational folks, though, so it isn't entirely applicable to the DeCSS stuff, for instance.
What is fair use?
Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson.
How can I tell if my copying is allowed by fair use provisions of the Law?
There are no explicit, predefined, legal specifications of how much and when one can copy, but there are guidelines for fair use. Each case of copying must be evaluated according to four factors:
1.The purpose and nature of the use. If the copy is used for teaching at a non-profit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use. In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology" and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion.
2.The nature of the copyrighted work. For example, an article from a newspaper would be considered differently than a workbook made for instruction. With multimedia material there are different standards and permissions for different media: a digitized photo from a National Geographic, a video clip from Jaws, and an audio selection from Peter Gabriel's CD would be treated differently--the selections are not treated as a equivalent chunks of digital data.
3.The nature and substantiality of the material used. In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use.
4.The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work. In general, a work that supplants the normal market is considered an infringement, but a work does not have to have an effect on the market to be an infringement.
There is a judicial standard of ruling on such cases that is known as "fair use." I don't think it's been officially written into law. There are a number of educational links about it that I found from a quick google search, but none that are authoritative...at least, none of the first few pages.
Depends on your application. Solaris is great at pushing out scads of packets, but it's not so great at recieving scads of packets. That's intentional on the part of Sun. Solaris is designed as a server OS.
However, if you're running a prog (like an IDS or a firewall) that's supposed to be recieving a lot of packets, Solaris is not necessarily the best idea. BSD is. It would be nice to have the hardware flexibility of Sun's machines, and the OS power of Linux & BSD. I think this is a great idea.
Re:CNN has a report on this.
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, and wired has one here. It's not terribly flattering, though. In fact, it's downright depressing.
Now I nothing about Dr Yevgeny Podkletnov's experiments, maybe he is a loon, but if no other scientists has tried to reproduce the experiments then you can't just ignore them.
My info is about a year out of date (I left grad school), but last time I checked here was the story:
1) Podletnikov (sp?) would *not* share the design details of his experiment with anyone. This makes reproducing his results almost impossible, and made a lot of folks *very skeptical of his initial results. (Why's he hiding the apparatus?)
2) A few folks tried to piece todether experimental apparatus from what details they could glean from the paper, but none of them ever got any anti-grav results.
3) Nasa's folks said that they were talking to Podletnikov, but that they hadn't gotten any design specs from him yet.
Again, this may be out of date, but it's not very flattering to the research field.
Dear lord, there are going to be more of these than there were Halloween movies. What are they up toby now? Final Fantasy VIII? I can see it now:
Final Fantasy XXVII: This time we *really* blow up the world! Our hero, a misunderstood youth with a mysterious past, is caught in a web of conflicting powers, ending in a spectacular fight to save the world, and his own soul! Complicating his struggle is the love triangle between him, the tomboy friend from his youth, and a flirtatious, mysterious woman who will play a large role in the future of humanity. Don't miss this latest installment of the saga for the survival of humanity!
the solution is to share the web browser cahche directories and have a monitor computer which runs a ``slide show'' of all the images in the various terminals cache directories. This computer would be set up in a possition, like the circulation desk, where there is a librarian most of the time. Now, privacy concerns are a big problem with this system.
I like this idea, and I don't think that there are any real privacy concerns with this scheme, actually. While IANAL, I have been led to believe that your privacy rights in a public place are drastically different than those in the home.
Example: if you and your SO have sex in public, and people see you, they aren't violating your right to privacy...you gave that right up when you did it in public. If they looked into your home when you and your SO were in the bedroom, that is a violation of your privacy, since the home is not considered a public space.
I think a similar rule would apply to surfing at a library terminal...since the terminal is in a public area, you would surrender your right to privacy at that terminal. Hence, there would be no real privacy problems with having a librarian watch the images that went by. This could work, if libraries thought that their folks had the time to be nannies. (That's probably a bigger issue than the privacy one, actually)
1) Every digit, seperately, must be even. Today does not pass since neither 1 nor 0 are even numbers (even defined in my book as divisible by 2 with no remainder...and zero doesn't count anyway...no sneaky comments about how there's no remainder).
2) Every complete number (day, month, year, etc) must be even. Today passes that restriction, but in that case so did 12-28-1998.
The odd day thing was cute, and true...this is cute, but not true.
M$ got to their monopoly status perfectly legally. It's just the abuse of that monopoly *after* that which is causing the problems. I would certainly hope the Justice Dept would go after AOL/TW *if* they abuse their new-made monopoly. But they can't prevent companies from *becoming* monopolies.
One thing to keep in mind about all these ridiculous patents: They're only good if you can enforce them in court. There are plenty of absolutely loony patents out there...they're just paper until they reach court. (And that's *our* court....I'm under the impression that we will give someone who files for a patent in Europe/Asia/etc a one-year grace period to file here. If they don't file here in that time, tough...it's public knowledge.)
Plenty of patents are overturned in court as being pointless/silly/etc. This happens all the time. It's called having an indefensable patent.
I would put a pretty good amount of money down that this patent will *never* stand up in court. You get one company that thinks that fighting this is worth more than paying him off, and this patent's toast.
Slashdot Mirror
The great thing about this is: once this kind of data tracked and collected in a computer, we can finally *prove* that most people have the attention span of a gnat. The question you have to ask is: Did I really want to know that?
NOTICE SPECIFIC TO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THIS WEBSITE. Permission to use Documents (such as white papers, press releases, datasheets and FAQs) from this server ("Server") is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. Educational institutions ( specifically K-12, universities and state community colleges) may download and reproduce the Documents for distribution in the classroom. Distribution outside the classroom requires express written permission. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible
Documents specified above do not include the design or layout of the Microsoft.com website or any other Microsoft owned, operated, licensed or controlled site. Elements of Microsoft websites are protected by trade dress, trademark, unfair competition, and other laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. No logo, graphic, sound or image from any Microsoft website may be copied or retransmitted unless expressly permitted by Microsoft.
Looks pretty much like the previous release, just without the trade secret nonsense.
To whom, exactly, are you supposed to deliver this? Napster's case is fairly clear, but in the case of Gnutella, who are you going to give this to? That's the crux of the argument that gnutella/freenet are stronger than Napster in this regard: there's no one to complain to about abuse except for the users themselves....and, yeah, like they care....
You're right, people don't phrase it this way...they complain about how our rights are being "eroded" or "taken away." That's because what they think *should be* doesn't match what is. It's a matter of selective memory that makes them think things used to be better...but just because it's always been this way doesn't make it right.
Yeah, but it'll only take one case of that for the movie studios to impose *very* strict license restrictions. I suspect that they won't even get to the one case. The license that you're granted to show the movie (as a theatre owner) will probably restrict their doing this. Sure, you can still do it, but just try to get another Paramount film after pissing them off......
To add to that, I'm getting increasingly annoyed with movies that use Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana" to build a dramatic trailer. I only know of one movie (Excalibur) that's actually used the music in the movie, but I've seen several that used it in trailers. It's a great piece, and perfect for the medieval/gothic/dramatic mood...I just don't get why they'd use it in trailers and not in the movie. If it works for setting a mood in the trailer, you'd *hope* that they'd want the same mood in the movie. Clearly that's not the case.
On a side note: if you know your classical music, the occasional commercial can be very funny...a few years ago there was a running shoe commercial that had this very dramatic music behind an image of a runner....I always wondered what they were thinking when they put Verdi's "Requim" (mass for the dead) in that ad....not exactly sending the message they had hoped for...(The discerning dead choose Fila!)
That said, I think it *should* have been included, since it is the biggest source of web defacements out there....
The comment about them inventing it is hyperbole, certainly. I won't even try to defend it. But the networking on a Mac really is just like the GUI: simple, easy, and works out-of-the-box. That's the whole point as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, for fsck's sake, who gives a damn? If the man says that he has no interest in the stock market, why is it so hard for you to take his word for it? For a lot of people in this industry, money is not the reason they're doing this.
Do you honestly believe that Gates is doing this for money anymore? Why bother? Most of the sucessful computer-geek types that I've seen so far have done this because they enjoy the field, they like working with computers. They honestly enjoy their jobs, and would do this for fractions of their salary.
Yes, recently the suits have moved in, but it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a stuffed suit and a true geek. Try it some time.
(flame off)
But, there are legal limits to freedom of speech. If I posted something blatantly libelous, and claiming to be truth when it provably isn't, I should get sued. If I post it through FreeNet, they'll never find me. This is an invitation to abuse.
I think FreeNet will allow blatant violations of libel/slander laws, and they apparently know it, and are burying their heads in the sand. This is a good start, but needs some better thinking through.
Threatened industry? Please tell me that's sarcasm. Please. Time Warner made a 1.91 Billion dollar profit last year, and this is a threatened industry? Granted, there are other record companies (and other movie houses) that made less, but I really don't see any reason to consider them threatened just yet.
or have I just been trolled?
IANAL (you're gonna see that a lot in this one, I think), but I would like to see code be treated similar to various other tools, where use determines whether it's legal or not. Having a car is, for instance, legal. Killing someone with it isn't. Having L0phtcrack is legal, writing L0phtcrack is legal. Using it to break into a corporate office network isn't. That would make sense to me. (of course, why should the legal system make sense?)
We're already running out of IP space. Now, this guy's talking about putting 2,3,4, etc IPs on *each* box to play these routing games. No way. There just aren't enough IPs. There would be in IPv6, but then, we're not using IPv6, so that's a moot point.
What is fair use?
Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson.
How can I tell if my copying is allowed by fair use provisions of the Law?
There are no explicit, predefined, legal specifications of how much and when one can copy, but there are guidelines for fair use. Each case of copying must be evaluated according to four factors:
1.The purpose and nature of the use. If the copy is used for teaching at a non-profit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use. In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology" and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion.
2.The nature of the copyrighted work. For example, an article from a newspaper would be considered differently than a workbook made for instruction. With multimedia material there are different standards and permissions for different media: a digitized photo from a National Geographic, a video clip from Jaws, and an audio selection from Peter Gabriel's CD would be treated differently--the selections are not treated as a equivalent chunks of digital data.
3.The nature and substantiality of the material used. In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use.
4.The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work. In general, a work that supplants the normal market is considered an infringement, but a work does not have to have an effect on the market to be an infringement.
There is a judicial standard of ruling on such cases that is known as "fair use." I don't think it's been officially written into law. There are a number of educational links about it that I found from a quick google search, but none that are authoritative...at least, none of the first few pages.
However, if you're running a prog (like an IDS or a firewall) that's supposed to be recieving a lot of packets, Solaris is not necessarily the best idea. BSD is. It would be nice to have the hardware flexibility of Sun's machines, and the OS power of Linux & BSD. I think this is a great idea.
Yeah, and wired has one here. It's not terribly flattering, though. In fact, it's downright depressing.
My info is about a year out of date (I left grad school), but last time I checked here was the story:
1) Podletnikov (sp?) would *not* share the design details of his experiment with anyone. This makes reproducing his results almost impossible, and made a lot of folks *very skeptical of his initial results. (Why's he hiding the apparatus?)
2) A few folks tried to piece todether experimental apparatus from what details they could glean from the paper, but none of them ever got any anti-grav results.
3) Nasa's folks said that they were talking to Podletnikov, but that they hadn't gotten any design specs from him yet.
Again, this may be out of date, but it's not very flattering to the research field.
Ummm....I was *joking*. I made that summary up from my limited experience playing FF VII. Are they all like that?
Frightening.
Final Fantasy XXVII: This time we *really* blow up the world! Our hero, a misunderstood youth with a mysterious past, is caught in a web of conflicting powers, ending in a spectacular fight to save the world, and his own soul! Complicating his struggle is the love triangle between him, the tomboy friend from his youth, and a flirtatious, mysterious woman who will play a large role in the future of humanity. Don't miss this latest installment of the saga for the survival of humanity!
Did I miss anything in the plot summary?
I like this idea, and I don't think that there are any real privacy concerns with this scheme, actually. While IANAL, I have been led to believe that your privacy rights in a public place are drastically different than those in the home.
Example: if you and your SO have sex in public, and people see you, they aren't violating your right to privacy...you gave that right up when you did it in public. If they looked into your home when you and your SO were in the bedroom, that is a violation of your privacy, since the home is not considered a public space.
I think a similar rule would apply to surfing at a library terminal...since the terminal is in a public area, you would surrender your right to privacy at that terminal. Hence, there would be no real privacy problems with having a librarian watch the images that went by. This could work, if libraries thought that their folks had the time to be nannies. (That's probably a bigger issue than the privacy one, actually)
(preparing my flame-retardant suit...)
1) Every digit, seperately, must be even. Today does not pass since neither 1 nor 0 are even numbers (even defined in my book as divisible by 2 with no remainder...and zero doesn't count anyway...no sneaky comments about how there's no remainder).
2) Every complete number (day, month, year, etc) must be even. Today passes that restriction, but in that case so did 12-28-1998.
The odd day thing was cute, and true...this is cute, but not true.
Monopolies are legal.
(monotone)Monopolies are legal.
Abusing them isn't.
(monotone)Abusing them isn't.
M$ got to their monopoly status perfectly legally. It's just the abuse of that monopoly *after* that which is causing the problems. I would certainly hope the Justice Dept would go after AOL/TW *if* they abuse their new-made monopoly. But they can't prevent companies from *becoming* monopolies.
Plenty of patents are overturned in court as being pointless/silly/etc. This happens all the time. It's called having an indefensable patent.
I would put a pretty good amount of money down that this patent will *never* stand up in court. You get one company that thinks that fighting this is worth more than paying him off, and this patent's toast.