> The information is being taken from these books. > The authors are not getting a cent from these > people. > Shouldn't authors like Stephen King or better > yet Radia Perlman file suit against these > companies to change their buisness practices? > Why isn't B&N tracking these copyright > infringers?
Very good point but...they are not infringers.
If they were, then anyone who checked a book out of the local library would be an infringer too.
I do however think that this highlights one of the greatest flaws in copyright: it is inconsistant in real world settings.
I can goto a library and legally borrow a book. I can give a book to a friend to read. I can lend a friend a CD to listen to...hell I can goto the library and take out CDs and movies. its FREE.
These things can be obtained easily and free by anyone. Goto the book store and read...or the library. but...make a copy for a friend,,...and your a "Pirate". You are suposedly "stealing" from the author/publisher even though they could have easily gotten the same thing 100 other ways without paying the publisher/author a cent.
> Yep. The old "History is inevitable, your kind > will be relegated to the dustbins of history" > crap. Please stop with the "all the laws of >commerce have changed" bullshit. Laws are based > on deliberation and debate, and on well formed > arguments from the constituents involved, not on > technological change
That depends on what "laws" you mean...
If your deliberation, debate and well formed arguments conclude that the earth is flat...then your "laws" are wrong.
If you mean "legalist laws". Then they tend to be based more on money and the will of the vocal minority than anything else. Wittness prohibition which was pushed through by a vocal minority, and not supported by the majority of the country.
Witness the "debate" over the illegalization of marijuana, where medical doctors where told by senators that "if you can't say anything good about what we are doing here, then why don't you just go home" or in the house of representatives where the reps didn't even know what marijuana was and the actual debate can be quoted verbatim in about 4 lines of text.
"What is marijuana?" Speaker: "I don't know. Some kind of narcotic I think"
Or to be more relavent...things like the DMCA, legislation bought and paid for by deep pocket interests.
> Study a little history. The 'history is > inevitable' people in the last century or so > have been the Marx, Lenin, Stalin sorts of > people. With a little Pol Pot thrown in too
Yes and? Just because the person who advocated an idea was wrong about some things, or was a horrid dictator, doesn't mean the idea was necissarily wrong.
Just because Marx, Lenin, hell, even Hitler, advocated something, doesn't, in and of itself, make it wrong. Don't make it right either.
I think of napster more like a "Swap Party" or similar. Now imagine this....
I setup a "Swap Party" and say "Bring stuff to trade with people" its the whole point of the party (I actually went to one once. The Geek Pride festival one in Boston a couple of months back).
Now, if you bring a whole bunch of CDs full of music that you copied to the Swap party...is it my fault as the organizer of the party that YOU did this?
Add to the fact that its impossible to check and verify that you have legal right to "swap" everything that you bring to the party.
Thats all napster really is...a big "virtual place" where people can get together and share files.
How can the napster people possibly verify that NO "illicit trading" is done? They would have to have someone listen to EVERY mp3 that was distributed...check to see if it was a copy of some piece of music that is copyrighted (good luck on that...how many songs by how many bands fall under copyright still? Everything made in the past 100 years or so). THEN see if the person doing the distribution has legal right (ie IS the opyright holder...or has permission from the copyright holder).
In short...it would be like the phone company moniroting calls to see if people were using the phone to plan crimes.
As for flea markets setting up a way for people to be anonymous... they don't exactly take names and force people to display their real name on their table. (at least not at any one I have been to) I also doubt they have any policy requring sellers to not say, wear black ski masks all day long.
There is nothing wrong with annonymity. If your not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be forced to give out your identity. (hows that for a twist on the old "if you arn't doing something wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide)
Its actually NOT ALL from habitual vi use...its habitual use of editors in text screens and email.
I learned, years ago, to hit enter before the end of the line, why? simple...email quoting.
It was said (and as I found out later, really is) to be very annoying when a person writes an entire paragraph with no line breaks, because their editor line wraps.
Also I have used vi and other programs on broken terminals that will line wrap...but go all crazy and nuts if they do (ie in vi it would line wrap in such a way that the cursor position on the screen was out of sync with where vi thought the cursor was....made writting code fun)
On the "I hate vi"...well I love it:) especially vim. Its sweet! The vi I know and love with good searching and syntax highlighting!
> Well, knock it the hell off. If I want your > posts to look like that, I'll make my browser > skinnier. You're just wasting space. > Do slashdot a favor and stop inserting line > breaks at the end of each line or just GO AWAY.
Can't help it. I am a vi user. Use vi for editing code, use vi for editing email. I habitually line break as I am comming to the edge of the screen.
Its a pretty ingrained habbit. I can try to stop, but it just doesn't work very well. Now....if the slashdot text entry box was a bit bigger, it would not be so bad. Its not my fault that the text area is only 50 cols wide. Would be much nicer if it was 80x24.
You have any idea how often I see a mistake and want to go back to change it, and instincivly hit the escape key? or x when I want to delete a char?
There....hows that. A post without the line breaks. Much easier to just put them in though.
The article is quite interesting. Not knowing more about the subject than the claims of that article and what little of the popular media fanfare has trickled down to me (I try to avoid the news whenever possible, but inevitably some gets through)...I really can't comment farther.
However...so what if GWS doesn't exist? The book is fiction. In the book, it does exist. In the book ANYTHING can exist. If the author decides that Elves exist in his book, then guess what? In the book, elves exist.
Whether or not GWS exists...thats a completely seprate issue. Its long been known that soldiers tend to become guinea pigs during wartime. (its not like they have much of a choice, refusing to go where they are told or be injected with this or that isn't much of a good option for them) So many things are certainly possible.
Its also not like our government has any qualms about covering up dirty laundry either.
None of that of course proves that GWS exists... just that its not impossible. Also you call these people decievers and liars. Is it not possible that they actually believe what they are claiming? (I am an atheist...I see people going around claiming that some God or other exists...that doesn't mean i think they are liars, they are just wrong IMNSHO)
So in any case...like I said, its a book. The real world existance or non-existance of GWS is a complete non-issue in this context.
Actually....this may be why Microsoft may decide to back down. They may NOT want to goto court over this...even though they might be able to win.
Slashdot is a news organization. Its not a big important one, but it is big in the circles that it is big in. The surest way to get bad press is to attack a news organization (well, supermarket tabloids excluded).
It has already happend. Look how many large and "legitamate" news agencies picked up on this when it first happend. The articles all seemed very heavily slanted towards defending slashdot.
Well the feild that Microsoft used was "reserved" that means "If you use this slot, you are violating the protocol - it is reserved. The next version of the protocol may use this"
If you use a reserved slot, in any protocol, then you are violating the protocol. Kerberos is Kerberos because ANY server that impliments the protocol can talk to ANY client that also does.
Mickeysoft has made a client that does NOT speak the protocol properly. It is NOT compatible with protocol complient servers. Therefore it is NOT kerberos, it is a broken Kerberos-like protocol that they are using.
Calling it Kerberos is a lie. Saying that a system uses "Kerberos" means that it will work with any server that impliments Kerberos. That is NOT true.
A suit should be brought against them for "False Advertising" for saying that Microsoft Windows2000 uses Kerberos.
Lawyers are just professionals. If their client says "We arn't going to budge for anything short of a court order" then the Lawyer fights it thats what he is paid to do.
As for "doing the right thing"...I could say a lawyer did the right thing if he quit his job because they asked him to do something immoral, or offered his services for free to someone who was being screwed and needed legal help.... however...when he is just doing what he is paid (and I assume, paid well) to do....
Now Andover.net *IS* (IMNSHO) doing the right thing by fighting it. However, the lawyer is more of a combonation ground troop/stratagist than someone who makes the decision on whether to fight or not.
This is not to say that he doesn't believe in whats going on. Maybe he is a nice guy who wants to do the right thing, but there is, as of yet, no real evidence for this.
I have to agree here. We have too many good examples of this sort of thing NOT working.
Take paid informants. There was an incident in Florida where a paid informant informed police that a certain house was a drug house. The truth turned out to be that it was nothing more than the residence of an old couple. That fact wasn't found out until police showed up in full storm trooper gear and killed an innocent old man. Need I mention that no "drugs" were found in the house?
I think this is an issue that is best dealt with on the ISP level. Give ISPs the ability to sue spammers who use their machines to relay spam. That should help..
Beyond that....Laws can't really stop the problem. Spammers will just spam from acounts in other countries where the laws are les strict.
You obviously don't run systems with more than a couple of thousand users.
Sure its only a 2k email....however when you multiply it by 10,000 users, that "one little mail" will take up 10 MB of space...not much by todays standards....but given that it is not unheard of for an individual on spam lists to get several spams per day....it adds up quick.
Plus the greif of admins. When a student where I work sent out 5,000 spam messages, advertising a company he was running on the side, the university abuse adress (which I am one of the recipients of mail to) was recieveing several spam complaints per day for 4 days...which of course we had to answer and tell these people that the issue was resolved.
Forget about user quotas (which are finite, as is the very nature of quota) and what happens when a user runs out of quota...I am sure they would rather the last 2k of their quota going to a message from their friends than some spam advertising some "get rich quick" shceme.
(yes, our users have quota. I know that some people are amazed by this - like say the people who wrote pine - but its true)
I happen to agree and have also been saying for years that this government needs to fall. I like the "Invite all the state government people to DC and nuke the lot"...hadn't thought of them.
Its funny...the sentiment is rampent these days. I was pissed off after my 2nd time in one day trying to get my new motorcycle registered at the RMV, I was ranting outside the building about how "This government just needs to fall" and some random guy who was leaving th ebuilding turned to me and said "Now that ill agree with".
If the plaintif loses or his case is dismissed with prejudice, the the defendant should be able to bring suit against him for legal fees (for both suits)
Allow the judge or jury to make the determination based on the income of both and whether the original plaintif (now defendant) had a semi-valid case.
Ie, if you sue microsoft and lose, microsoft suffered no real hardship by the trial and has no ability to sue.
If they sue you, and they lose, then you can sue them for legal fees.
The idea here is to try to level the playing feild and give the "Good guy" with little money the ability to have equal legal representation of any "Bad Guy" with lots of money.
Also the idea is to punish "bad guys with lots of money" who bring about frivolous lawsuits. (bad guys with no money have a hard time doing such things).
Its simple...the dialectizer is a tool that users use. It doesn't store pages and serve them, it translates for users.
The fact that it is re-transmitting the content to the user is a technical artifact of how it was created. It should be treated no differently than if you downloaded a perl script that did the same thing and ran it yourself on the pages (which would be fair use)
In my eyes it would be like stephen king suing the maker of Red Tinted glasses because someone read a Stephen King book with the glasses on, and the tint changed the color of the page, and thus infringed on his copyright by delivering a deriviative work to the end user.
> What a joke. No exceptions, no data hiding, weak > typing.
No Data Hiding? Not fammiliar with closures are you? They make it quite easy to hide your data.
> Stick with a language that has modern features > (strong data types, exceptions, proper data > visibility)... leave the 1970s-era procedural > scripting languages "now with faux object > orientation!" to the virus authors.
Lame. No language features are an excuse for not learning to program properly. Also...I doubt highly that Virus authors write perl code...while it would be easy to do...it would also be damned silly.
Not everyone programs in the same environment, with the same groups that you do. No language is perfect for every job...but PERL is good for many of them. C and Java each have their place too.
> A little more on-topic though, I don't like Perl > much, but its object orientation is rather well > tacked on, even if it's only been tacked on, > rather than being a fundamental design decision. > In truth, it's the only aspect that > encourages me to use the language,
Actually....I like perl alot BECAUSE OOP is only kind of tacked on, rather than a fundamental design of the language (like java).
While I like using objects et al, for most smaller and even medium sized things, PERL is a great language. 99% of the scripts and things I write have little or no need for the features of OOP. Mostly write once and run stuff (little tools, things that check for this or that...admin stuff)
For larger things, I like the ability to grab a module off CPAN and use its objects. Works wonders.
I like a language that lets me jump between doing things in an object oriented manner, right over to a functional manner. It makes it very flexible.
I guess thats why perl is called the "Swiss Army Chainsaw".
> whereas there are many aspects that discourage > me, not least the way it's not at all easy on > the eye.
Bad perl code can be horrid to read (true of any language really, but especially true of perl)
But...you CAN write good, easy to read and maintain code in perl...its just a matter of being onsitstant about what you do.
> So what if somebody can make a closed version > based on it? The benefits to open software, > maintained by a community, are greater than any > one company can provide.
Its a matter of your point of view. As I said above, it DOES matter if you believe that people who use software have the RIGHT to do what the GPL allows them to do (ie, they have those rights regardless of the GPL, its just that the current day society does not recognize these rights)
From that viewpoint, allowing people to use the software in non-free software programs is sitting back and allowing them to screw the public out of what is there right.
ie. Its saying, "If you want to write closed software, I can't stop you - but I will NOT help you".
> Do you realize the irony in that statement? You > claim that the GPL enforces sharing, yet you > compare it with cryptographic systems designed > to limit access!
It is somewhat ironic...but not incorrect. The GPL is designed to protect what some (like myself) believe is the rights of the people. Strong cryptographic software does the same, but in different ways (by keeping out intruders who have no right to the system or the information in it... ie private data)
Different types of protection for different things.
Well if they are quoting you...then you can't really call them guilty of slander (unless perhaps they purposfully distorted your words)
Aftrall, its a quote, you said it, not them. You can't exactly blame someone for spreading lies about you, when you are the one that told them the lie to begin with.
Now private documents, or things said in private may be different. However, if you say it in public you sure can be quoted.
> Not just a user preference. This doesn't help > people that post anonymously. Make it an option > on the form, and (very important)
Thats simple to solve. Post anonymously...you don't get to specify...it should be assumed that quoting is ok...
afterall, you have dissassociated your name from the comment, that act, to me, disavows any connection to the comment, you shouldn't care if it is quoted elsewhere.
But seriously....Slashdot is a public forum. If you don't want people to quote you, then don't say it in public.
> This is the part of this whole thing I don't > understand. What are the lessons we've learned? > A couple of unstable wackos went bonkers and did > something really terrible. But what did this > teach us?
That, in and of itself, has nothing to teach us. Unstable people will do nasty things. People can be hurt. We knew that.
The real lesson is in what happend AFTER columbine which is what the articles were really about. The lesson is that we can't just easily "Explain away" bad things that happen. The lesson is that it is wrong to punish anyone who is "different" because they "scare us".
The worst atrocities happend not at columbine, but all over the country. It was the reactonary measures to "Protect the children" where innocent kids were punished to satisfy some parents, and educators need to "feel safe".
> Right. GPL and it's cousins (including the LGPL, > which I personally use) use "intellectual > property" laws to place restrictions on the use > of the software.
Thats a matter of debate really. Under "IP" laws, there are, by default, restrictions on use of the software. The GPL is LESS restrictive than the laws defaults.
The question is this....do you believe that the people who use software have the RIGHT (irregardless of local law) to see how software works, modify it for their use, and distribute it to others who need it? (further, do you believe that a person who is purchasing a cereal or soda, has the right to know what is actaully in the food they buy?)
Those, like Mr Stallman (and myself) who believe in such a right, argue that the GPL is NOT restricting the rights of those who would distribute prioprietary software, but protecting the rights of the public to know what is in their software by not aiding those who would try to take away that freedom.
> Richard Stallman attempts to claim the side of > "freedom" against "slavery", but to me, the > minute he began using the laws he compares with > slavery, he lost any "moral" high ground.
Well, thats your judgement and you are free to make it. I don't see a conflict here. If you found a way to "Free Slaves" within the constraints of slavery laws, would you not do it, simply because it is "Using the bad laws"? Sure its best to work to change bad, immoral laws, but in the mean time you have to work within them.
> I just hate it when people act like the GPL is > the epitome of sharing, when it's the GPL that > usually ends up being very hard to be compatible > with.
Yes, it is unfortunate that the GPL is very hard to be compatible with. However, it is designed, from the very start, to provide STRONG protection for peoples rights to the software.
Like many things designed to provide strong protection of anything, it is a pain in the ass in many ways. Of course...so is typing in strong passphrases.
Slashdot Mirror
> The information is being taken from these books.
> The authors are not getting a cent from these
> people.
> Shouldn't authors like Stephen King or better
> yet Radia Perlman file suit against these
> companies to change their buisness practices?
> Why isn't B&N tracking these copyright
> infringers?
Very good point but...they are not infringers.
If they were, then anyone who checked a book out
of the local library would be an infringer too.
I do however think that this highlights one of
the greatest flaws in copyright: it is
inconsistant in real world settings.
I can goto a library and legally borrow a book. I
can give a book to a friend to read. I can lend
a friend a CD to listen to...hell I can goto
the library and take out CDs and movies. its FREE.
These things can be obtained easily and free by
anyone. Goto the book store and read...or the
library. but...make a copy for a friend,,...and
your a "Pirate". You are suposedly "stealing"
from the author/publisher even though they could
have easily gotten the same thing 100 other ways
without paying the publisher/author a cent.
> Yep. The old "History is inevitable, your kind
> will be relegated to the dustbins of history"
> crap. Please stop with the "all the laws of
>commerce have changed" bullshit. Laws are based
> on deliberation and debate, and on well formed
> arguments from the constituents involved, not on
> technological change
That depends on what "laws" you mean...
If your deliberation, debate and well formed
arguments conclude that the earth is flat...then
your "laws" are wrong.
If you mean "legalist laws". Then they tend to be
based more on money and the will of the vocal
minority than anything else. Wittness prohibition
which was pushed through by a vocal minority, and
not supported by the majority of the country.
Witness the "debate" over the illegalization of
marijuana, where medical doctors where told by
senators that "if you can't say anything good
about what we are doing here, then why don't you
just go home" or in the house of representatives
where the reps didn't even know what marijuana was
and the actual debate can be quoted verbatim in
about 4 lines of text.
"What is marijuana?"
Speaker: "I don't know. Some kind of narcotic I think"
Or to be more relavent...things like the DMCA,
legislation bought and paid for by deep pocket
interests.
> Study a little history. The 'history is
> inevitable' people in the last century or so
> have been the Marx, Lenin, Stalin sorts of
> people. With a little Pol Pot thrown in too
Yes and? Just because the person who advocated
an idea was wrong about some things, or was a
horrid dictator, doesn't mean the idea was
necissarily wrong.
Just because Marx, Lenin, hell, even Hitler,
advocated something, doesn't, in and of itself,
make it wrong. Don't make it right either.
I think of napster more like a "Swap Party" or
similar. Now imagine this....
I setup a "Swap Party" and say "Bring stuff to
trade with people" its the whole point of the
party (I actually went to one once. The Geek Pride
festival one in Boston a couple of months back).
Now, if you bring a whole bunch of CDs full of
music that you copied to the Swap party...is it
my fault as the organizer of the party that YOU
did this?
Add to the fact that its impossible to check and
verify that you have legal right to "swap"
everything that you bring to the party.
Thats all napster really is...a big "virtual
place" where people can get together and share
files.
How can the napster people possibly verify that
NO "illicit trading" is done? They would have to
have someone listen to EVERY mp3 that was
distributed...check to see if it was a copy of
some piece of music that is copyrighted (good
luck on that...how many songs by how many bands
fall under copyright still? Everything made in the
past 100 years or so). THEN see if the person
doing the distribution has legal right (ie IS the
opyright holder...or has permission from the
copyright holder).
In short...it would be like the phone company
moniroting calls to see if people were using the
phone to plan crimes.
As for flea markets setting up a way for people to
be anonymous... they don't exactly take names and
force people to display their real name on their
table. (at least not at any one I have been to)
I also doubt they have any policy requring sellers
to not say, wear black ski masks all day long.
There is nothing wrong with annonymity. If your
not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be forced
to give out your identity. (hows that for a twist
on the old "if you arn't doing something wrong,
you shouldn't have anything to hide)
Old comment but...hey...
:) especially
Its actually NOT ALL from habitual vi use...its
habitual use of editors in text screens and email.
I learned, years ago, to hit enter before the end
of the line, why? simple...email quoting.
It was said (and as I found out later, really is)
to be very annoying when a person writes an entire
paragraph with no line breaks, because their
editor line wraps.
Also I have used vi and other programs on broken
terminals that will line wrap...but go all crazy
and nuts if they do (ie in vi it would line wrap
in such a way that the cursor position on the
screen was out of sync with where vi thought the
cursor was....made writting code fun)
On the "I hate vi"...well I love it
vim. Its sweet! The vi I know and love with good
searching and syntax highlighting!
Gives me wood just thinking about it.
> Well, knock it the hell off. If I want your
> posts to look like that, I'll make my browser
> skinnier. You're just wasting space.
> Do slashdot a favor and stop inserting line
> breaks at the end of each line or just GO AWAY.
Can't help it. I am a vi user. Use vi for editing code, use vi for editing email. I habitually line break as I am comming to the edge of the screen.
Its a pretty ingrained habbit. I can try to stop, but it just doesn't work very well. Now....if the slashdot text entry box was a bit bigger, it would not be so bad. Its not my fault that the text area is only 50 cols wide. Would be much nicer if it was 80x24.
You have any idea how often I see a mistake and want to go back to change it, and instincivly hit the escape key? or x when I want to delete a char?
There....hows that. A post without the line breaks. Much easier to just put them in though.
The article is quite interesting. Not knowing more
about the subject than the claims of that article
and what little of the popular media fanfare has
trickled down to me (I try to avoid the news
whenever possible, but inevitably some gets
through)...I really can't comment farther.
However...so what if GWS doesn't exist?
The book is fiction. In the book, it does exist.
In the book ANYTHING can exist. If the author
decides that Elves exist in his book, then guess
what? In the book, elves exist.
Whether or not GWS exists...thats a completely
seprate issue. Its long been known that soldiers
tend to become guinea pigs during wartime. (its
not like they have much of a choice, refusing
to go where they are told or be injected with
this or that isn't much of a good option for them)
So many things are certainly possible.
Its also not like our government has any qualms
about covering up dirty laundry either.
None of that of course proves that GWS exists...
just that its not impossible. Also you call these
people decievers and liars. Is it not possible
that they actually believe what they are claiming?
(I am an atheist...I see people going around
claiming that some God or other exists...that
doesn't mean i think they are liars, they are just
wrong IMNSHO)
So in any case...like I said, its a book. The
real world existance or non-existance of GWS
is a complete non-issue in this context.
This is an important point.
Actually....this may be why Microsoft may decide
to back down. They may NOT want to goto court
over this...even though they might be able to
win.
Slashdot is a news organization. Its not a big
important one, but it is big in the circles that
it is big in. The surest way to get bad press is
to attack a news organization (well, supermarket
tabloids excluded).
It has already happend. Look how many large and "legitamate" news agencies picked up on this when
it first happend. The articles all seemed very
heavily slanted towards defending slashdot.
Well the feild that Microsoft used was "reserved"
that means "If you use this slot, you are
violating the protocol - it is reserved. The next
version of the protocol may use this"
If you use a reserved slot, in any protocol, then
you are violating the protocol. Kerberos is
Kerberos because ANY server that impliments the
protocol can talk to ANY client that also does.
Mickeysoft has made a client that does NOT speak
the protocol properly. It is NOT compatible with
protocol complient servers. Therefore it is NOT
kerberos, it is a broken Kerberos-like protocol
that they are using.
Calling it Kerberos is a lie. Saying that a system
uses "Kerberos" means that it will work with any
server that impliments Kerberos. That is NOT true.
A suit should be brought against them for "False
Advertising" for saying that Microsoft Windows2000
uses Kerberos.
I have to agree with this here...
Lawyers are just professionals. If their client
says "We arn't going to budge for anything short
of a court order" then the Lawyer fights it
thats what he is paid to do.
As for "doing the right thing"...I could say a
lawyer did the right thing if he quit his job
because they asked him to do something immoral,
or offered his services for free to someone who
was being screwed and needed legal help....
however...when he is just doing what he is paid
(and I assume, paid well) to do....
Now Andover.net *IS* (IMNSHO) doing the right
thing by fighting it. However, the lawyer is more
of a combonation ground troop/stratagist than
someone who makes the decision on whether to
fight or not.
This is not to say that he doesn't believe in
whats going on. Maybe he is a nice guy who wants
to do the right thing, but there is, as of yet,
no real evidence for this.
Well there is always the "of" subdomains. and to
will.of.god
submission.to.god
house.of.god
-Steve
hmmm there are plenty of communists who believe
:)
in freedom and privacy.
Besides...doing something "for the money" and
being willing to forsake the privacy of the masses
for capital gain isn't a very communist idea
In fact...its one of the things many communists
would point to and say "Look at what those
capitalist pigs do to the people!"
I have to agree here. We have too many good
examples of this sort of thing NOT working.
Take paid informants. There was an incident in
Florida where a paid informant informed police
that a certain house was a drug house. The truth
turned out to be that it was nothing more than the
residence of an old couple. That fact wasn't found
out until police showed up in full storm trooper
gear and killed an innocent old man. Need I
mention that no "drugs" were found in the house?
I think this is an issue that is best dealt with
on the ISP level. Give ISPs the ability to sue
spammers who use their machines to relay spam.
That should help..
Beyond that....Laws can't really stop the problem.
Spammers will just spam from acounts in other
countries where the laws are les strict.
-Steve
You obviously don't run systems with more than
a couple of thousand users.
Sure its only a 2k email....however when you
multiply it by 10,000 users, that "one little
mail" will take up 10 MB of space...not much by
todays standards....but given that it is not
unheard of for an individual on spam lists to
get several spams per day....it adds up quick.
Plus the greif of admins. When a student where
I work sent out 5,000 spam messages, advertising
a company he was running on the side, the
university abuse adress (which I am one of the
recipients of mail to) was recieveing several
spam complaints per day for 4 days...which of
course we had to answer and tell these people that
the issue was resolved.
Forget about user quotas (which are finite, as is
the very nature of quota) and what happens when a
user runs out of quota...I am sure they would
rather the last 2k of their quota going to a
message from their friends than some spam
advertising some "get rich quick" shceme.
(yes, our users have quota. I know that some
people are amazed by this - like say the people
who wrote pine - but its true)
I happen to agree and have also been saying for
years that this government needs to fall. I like
the "Invite all the state government people to DC
and nuke the lot"...hadn't thought of them.
Its funny...the sentiment is rampent these days.
I was pissed off after my 2nd time in one day
trying to get my new motorcycle registered at the
RMV, I was ranting outside the building about
how "This government just needs to fall" and some
random guy who was leaving th ebuilding turned to
me and said "Now that ill agree with".
I agree....
How about this...
If the plaintif loses or his case is dismissed
with prejudice, the the defendant should be able
to bring suit against him for legal fees (for
both suits)
Allow the judge or jury to make the determination
based on the income of both and whether the
original plaintif (now defendant) had a semi-valid
case.
Ie, if you sue microsoft and lose, microsoft
suffered no real hardship by the trial and has
no ability to sue.
If they sue you, and they lose, then you can sue
them for legal fees.
The idea here is to try to level the playing feild
and give the "Good guy" with little money the
ability to have equal legal representation of any
"Bad Guy" with lots of money.
Also the idea is to punish "bad guys with lots of
money" who bring about frivolous lawsuits. (bad
guys with no money have a hard time doing such
things).
I would disagree....
Its simple...the dialectizer is a tool that users
use. It doesn't store pages and serve them, it
translates for users.
The fact that it is re-transmitting the content
to the user is a technical artifact of how it
was created. It should be treated no differently
than if you downloaded a perl script that did the
same thing and ran it yourself on the pages (which
would be fair use)
In my eyes it would be like stephen king suing
the maker of Red Tinted glasses because someone
read a Stephen King book with the glasses on, and
the tint changed the color of the page, and thus
infringed on his copyright by delivering a
deriviative work to the end user.
So you are blaming the language for the faults of
the people who use it? (ie being lazy).
And closures aren't really so hard as I would call
them "bending over backwards". They are just not
as commonly known about as they should be.
Besides...not everyone cares about black boxen.
OOP is nice, if thats what you like. However, it
is not the be all and end all of programming.
You don't like PERL...don't use it.
> What a joke. No exceptions, no data hiding, weak
> typing.
No Data Hiding? Not fammiliar with closures are
you? They make it quite easy to hide your data.
> Stick with a language that has modern features
> (strong data types, exceptions, proper data
> visibility)... leave the 1970s-era procedural
> scripting languages "now with faux object
> orientation!" to the virus authors.
Lame. No language features are an excuse for not
learning to program properly.
Also...I doubt highly that Virus authors write
perl code...while it would be easy to do...it
would also be damned silly.
Not everyone programs in the same environment,
with the same groups that you do. No language
is perfect for every job...but PERL is good for
many of them. C and Java each have their place
too.
> A little more on-topic though, I don't like Perl
> much, but its object orientation is rather well
> tacked on, even if it's only been tacked on,
> rather than being a fundamental design decision.
> In truth, it's the only aspect that
> encourages me to use the language,
Actually....I like perl alot BECAUSE OOP is only
kind of tacked on, rather than a fundamental
design of the language (like java).
While I like using objects et al, for most smaller
and even medium sized things, PERL is a great
language. 99% of the scripts and things I write
have little or no need for the features of OOP.
Mostly write once and run stuff (little tools,
things that check for this or that...admin stuff)
For larger things, I like the ability to grab a
module off CPAN and use its objects. Works
wonders.
I like a language that lets me jump between doing
things in an object oriented manner, right
over to a functional manner. It makes it very
flexible.
I guess thats why perl is called the "Swiss Army
Chainsaw".
> whereas there are many aspects that discourage
> me, not least the way it's not at all easy on
> the eye.
Bad perl code can be horrid to read (true of any
language really, but especially true of perl)
But...you CAN write good, easy to read and
maintain code in perl...its just a matter of being
onsitstant about what you do.
No it doesn't....
It says you CAN change the licence, but if its not
a free software licence, then you must work out
a special patent licence.
> So what if somebody can make a closed version
> based on it? The benefits to open software,
> maintained by a community, are greater than any
> one company can provide.
Its a matter of your point of view. As I said
above, it DOES matter if you believe that people
who use software have the RIGHT to do what the
GPL allows them to do (ie, they have those
rights regardless of the GPL, its just that the
current day society does not recognize these
rights)
From that viewpoint, allowing people to use the
software in non-free software programs is sitting
back and allowing them to screw the public out of
what is there right.
ie. Its saying, "If you want to write closed
software, I can't stop you - but I will NOT help
you".
> Do you realize the irony in that statement? You
> claim that the GPL enforces sharing, yet you
> compare it with cryptographic systems designed
> to limit access!
It is somewhat ironic...but not incorrect. The
GPL is designed to protect what some (like myself)
believe is the rights of the people. Strong
cryptographic software does the same, but in
different ways (by keeping out intruders who have
no right to the system or the information in it...
ie private data)
Different types of protection for different
things.
Well if they are quoting you...then you can't
really call them guilty of slander (unless
perhaps they purposfully distorted your words)
Aftrall, its a quote, you said it, not them.
You can't exactly blame someone for spreading
lies about you, when you are the one that told
them the lie to begin with.
Now private documents, or things said in private
may be different. However, if you say it in public
you sure can be quoted.
> Not just a user preference. This doesn't help
> people that post anonymously. Make it an option
> on the form, and (very important)
Thats simple to solve. Post anonymously...you
don't get to specify...it should be assumed that
quoting is ok...
afterall, you have dissassociated your name from
the comment, that act, to me, disavows any
connection to the comment, you shouldn't care
if it is quoted elsewhere.
But seriously....Slashdot is a public forum. If
you don't want people to quote you, then don't
say it in public.
> This is the part of this whole thing I don't
> understand. What are the lessons we've learned?
> A couple of unstable wackos went bonkers and did
> something really terrible. But what did this
> teach us?
That, in and of itself, has nothing to teach us.
Unstable people will do nasty things. People can
be hurt. We knew that.
The real lesson is in what happend AFTER columbine
which is what the articles were really about. The
lesson is that we can't just easily "Explain away"
bad things that happen. The lesson is that it is
wrong to punish anyone who is "different" because
they "scare us".
The worst atrocities happend not at columbine,
but all over the country. It was the reactonary
measures to "Protect the children" where innocent
kids were punished to satisfy some parents, and
educators need to "feel safe".
-Steve
> Right. GPL and it's cousins (including the LGPL,
> which I personally use) use "intellectual
> property" laws to place restrictions on the use
> of the software.
Thats a matter of debate really. Under "IP" laws,
there are, by default, restrictions on use of the
software. The GPL is LESS restrictive than the
laws defaults.
The question is this....do you believe that the
people who use software have the RIGHT
(irregardless of local law) to see how software
works, modify it for their use, and distribute
it to others who need it? (further, do you believe
that a person who is purchasing a cereal or soda,
has the right to know what is actaully in the
food they buy?)
Those, like Mr Stallman (and myself) who believe
in such a right, argue that the GPL is NOT
restricting the rights of those who would
distribute prioprietary software, but protecting
the rights of the public to know what is in their
software by not aiding those who would
try to take away that freedom.
> Richard Stallman attempts to claim the side of
> "freedom" against "slavery", but to me, the
> minute he began using the laws he compares with
> slavery, he lost any "moral" high ground.
Well, thats your judgement and you are free to
make it. I don't see a conflict here. If you found
a way to "Free Slaves" within the constraints of
slavery laws, would you not do it, simply because
it is "Using the bad laws"? Sure its best to work
to change bad, immoral laws, but in the mean time
you have to work within them.
> I just hate it when people act like the GPL is
> the epitome of sharing, when it's the GPL that
> usually ends up being very hard to be compatible
> with.
Yes, it is unfortunate that the GPL is very hard
to be compatible with. However, it is designed,
from the very start, to provide STRONG protection
for peoples rights to the software.
Like many things designed to provide strong
protection of anything, it is a pain in the
ass in many ways. Of course...so is typing in
strong passphrases.