Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim.
This argument gets thrown around a lot but it can only be correct of SCO knowingly injected the code in question into Linux. However, that's not the argument. Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.
This counter-argument gets thrown around a lot as well, but it is only correct up to the point that SCO found out about the injected code. Once they did find out, they continued to release that code under the GPL. They were selling distributions of their "stolen" code themselves, long after they knew that it was in there. At that point, the whole "we didn't agree to GPL it" argument goes out the window.
"Theft is theft, but in this country we don't cut off your arm or fingers for stealing," said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who was a rock roadie in the 1960s.
So even a Senator doesn't understand the difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement"?
>>downloading music that does not belong to you is illegal. Period. >No it isn't. What law does this violate?
Title 17, 501 "(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a) [...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be" where Title 17, 106 (1) is "reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords".
Sorry, what was your argument again?
The exclusive rights of the owner which are being infringed upon are the creation and distribution of copies. Both of those are being done by the sharer. The downloader does neither. Nowhere in copyright law does it ever talk about receiving copyrighted material.
I go on KaZAa and sit there, looking for those GPL'ed parod songs I've heard so much about. My legitimately created files are open for the taking.
Copyright laws are about distribution rights. Your backup mp3s are only open for the taking if you specifically put them in your shared directory. Once you do that, you are breaking copyright law by offering up the files for distribution and may be sued.
20 years in the software industry is an eternity. The end of life on a piece of software will probably come many years before the patent ends.
*ahem* Unix is still around some 20+ years later.
Yes, but obviously Unix is very different than the average piece of software that would be granted a patent. There may be a handful of patents granted on things that are still used in the industry 20 years later, but it would be a rare.
the patents should be non-transferable and with a relatively short patent period. # We already have a relatively short patent period: 20 years.
20 years in the software industry is an eternity. The end of life on a piece of software will probably come many years before the patent ends. In that situation, they may as well be indefinite.
And you people still wonder why so many people stick to Windows instead of trying Linux? When I can double-click an icon and click OK and have it install the updates give me a call.
Wow, what icon can I click on in Windows to compile a new version of the OS from source code?
What exactly does getting internet service from a cable company have to do with subsidizing rural telephone companies or funding rural health care?
I would agree that those seem like reasonably decent causes. But why are you taxing cablemodem subscribers in order to fund them? I'm not even sure what taxing DSL subscribers has to do with it either. If you want to subsidize rural phone companies, tax non-rural phone bills. I don't even know where the health care thing came from.
The only thing in that group that makes even a bit of sense is the part about school and library internet connections.
When users wish to receive email that will be computer-generated, such as confirmations of email purchases or newsletter subscriptions, they can use a special email address to automatically allow those emails to be sent directly to their inbox.
How long before that "special email address" which you're giving out to online retailers shows up on the spammer's list? We all know that online retailers and mailing lists never sell their email databases to spammers, right?
Fancy "Linux Remote" for $1,700. Instead I could buy:
# Yamaha 400 Watt Dolby/DTS Receiver [bestbuy.com] ($299.99) # Yahama "natural sound" 5 disc CD Changer/ MP3 Player [bestbuy.com] ($150.00) # Sony Progressive Scan DVD Player [bestbuy.com] ($250.00) # GRaphic Equalizer [bestbuy.com] ($99.00) # Sony Surround Speaker Set [bestbuy.com] ($499.00) # Oh yeah... Home Theater Universal Remove with LCD Display etc. etc. [bestbuy.com] ($229.00) # With the change left, hmmm.. 10 DVD's? Monster cable? Taxes for the equipment?
Sure the remote is for the high end (like my boss's viewing room), but my Den could sure use the extra system above.
I don't think this remote is targeted at consumers who buy their home theaters at BestBuy. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they're probably not the audience Philips had in mind.
I'm a homebrewer with a bar and beer taps in the basement. It's not quite the same as a soda fountain, but the CO2 costs should be equivalent... It's true that a refill on a 20lbs. CO2 tank is on the order of $15. But that refill will last me for several years worth of drinking before I need to get another. It's not like you're spending $15 per keg or anything.
A more recently passed law says "X is permitted". This overrides the earlier one which said "X is prohibited". This is distinctly stronger than discussions about possibly overriding the prohibition.
TEACH says "X is permitted". DMCA says "Doing Y in order to get X is prohibited".
Think of placing a piece of information in a locked box. The issue is that TEACH allows them to use the information for their classes, but DMCA says they are not allowed to unlock the box.
Translation: 'For $40/mo, you can have all the surfing, etc. you can handle, OR you can have all the servers and crap you want with a 5 GB/mo cap. If you choose option 2, we'll be happy to sell you more throughput at $3/GB.'
So, I think they agree with you. IF you pay for your bandwidth, THEN you can use all you want. Otherwise, you're stuck with surfing really* fast.
(Bogus numbers, but I think they make the point)
So I can buy the first account and download 50GB of data per month for $40. However, if I also want to run a server that serves 1MB of data in a month and still want to download 50GB of data, then I am basically paying $135 for that 1MB of data I served.
"I am paying for the bandwidth - why cant I use it as I choose"
You honestly think that $39.95/month 'pays' for a 100mbps Internet feed? The current going rate for el cheapo national ISPs is about $75/meg in 100 meg chunks so you are talking about $7500/month. Decent backbones (i.e. WCOM, Sprint, ATT...) charge $200+/meg/month.
This cost per meg doesn't even cover the loop to get the bandwidth to the ISP router. Forget about the cost of delivering the 100 meg to your house. Now assuming your ISP buys the cheap stuff ($75/meg) and is selling you 100 megs for $39.95/month they are overcommitting about 200:1. If you did use your full bandwidth you would piss off 199 other customers. At 200:1 they STILL aren't making a profit.
All of the above is absolutely true, but it has nothing to do with not allowing users to run their own servers. If a user is hogging a significant amount of bandwidth and causing degredations in service to others, then I agree that the ISP should charge them more or cap their usage. But again, that has nothing to do with running servers. You can just as easily hog the bandwidth downloading data as you can serving data.
What you decide to do with your share of the bandwidth feed should be entirely up to you. Do they really believe that running your own secure mail server with 5 email addresses, or running a web server so that Grandma can see pictures of her grandkids online, is going to use more bandwidth than users who download ISOs and/or porn all day long? The policy and reasons for that policy as stated make no sense.
If I read the article correctly, they're not really "hiding" the options. They're all displayed where the user can get to them, you just need to scroll a window in order to see them all. The article is complaining that a user could hit the "Next" button without scrolling the window. If someone accepts default options without scrolling down the window and reading them, they sort of deserve what they get.
Re:Why should we care?
on
Root Zone Changed
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Think of it like this:
If you are looking for the phone number for a company you've never called before, you want to look in the Yellow Pages to find it. Now if your wife has moved the Yellow Pages to a different room in the house, you need to know where she put it. However, in this case it's more like there are 13 copies of the Yellow Pages in your home, and she's only moved one of them... so it's not too big of a deal. It's also not something you need to know unless you run a DNS server.
This is nothing. I get pieces of scrap wood or metal and fill the envelopes with those. I assume these postage-paid envelopes are charged based on weight, so the heavier you can make them, the better.
Tie the envelope to a brick. Yes, the USPS will actually deliver that and charge for it.
As far as Apple's Switch ads are concerned, it's hard to believe they aren't real. The people get up there and state their name. If I knew the person on the screen and knew that they were lying, then you can bet that I'd say something..
Do you believe that Michael Jordan wears Hanes underwear because he's in a commercial selling it. Do you believe that actor from the Cop shows uses Nextel phones. Do you believe that "insert famous person here" uses "insert company product here" that they are paid for endorsing?
I have no doubt that all of the people appearing in the Mac ads are using their real names. However, I also have no doubt that they are reading the script that Apple is paying them to read.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, without air, there would be no sound.
Actually, you could "hear" the explosion, when the shockwave gets to you, the same time you can hear it on Earth.
What shockwave? Not many of those occur in a vacuum.
Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim.
This argument gets thrown around a lot but it can only be correct of SCO knowingly injected the code in question into Linux. However, that's not the argument. Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.
This counter-argument gets thrown around a lot as well, but it is only correct up to the point that SCO found out about the injected code. Once they did find out, they continued to release that code under the GPL. They were selling distributions of their "stolen" code themselves, long after they knew that it was in there. At that point, the whole "we didn't agree to GPL it" argument goes out the window.
Also, from the article:
"Theft is theft, but in this country we don't cut off your arm or fingers for stealing," said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who was a rock roadie in the 1960s.
So even a Senator doesn't understand the difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement"?
>>downloading music that does not belong to you is illegal. Period.
>No it isn't. What law does this violate?
Title 17, 501 "(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a) [...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be" where Title 17, 106 (1) is "reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords".
Sorry, what was your argument again?
The exclusive rights of the owner which are being infringed upon are the creation and distribution of copies. Both of those are being done by the sharer. The downloader does neither. Nowhere in copyright law does it ever talk about receiving copyrighted material.
The fact is that downloading music that does not belong to you is illegal. Period.
No it isn't. What law does this violate?
Providing it to people is also illegal, it is known as unauthorized distribution.
Agreed. This is called copyright law.
I go on KaZAa and sit there, looking for those GPL'ed parod songs I've heard so much about. My legitimately created files are open for the taking.
Copyright laws are about distribution rights. Your backup mp3s are only open for the taking if you specifically put them in your shared directory. Once you do that, you are breaking copyright law by offering up the files for distribution and may be sued.
They're only suing SHARERS, not downloaders.
That's probably because only sharers are breaking the law. Downloaders are not. Copyright law is about distribution rights.
20 years in the software industry is an eternity. The end of life on a piece of software will probably come many years before the patent ends.
*ahem* Unix is still around some 20+ years later.
Yes, but obviously Unix is very different than the average piece of software that would be granted a patent. There may be a handful of patents granted on things that are still used in the industry 20 years later, but it would be a rare.
the patents should be non-transferable and with a relatively short patent period.
# We already have a relatively short patent period: 20 years.
20 years in the software industry is an eternity. The end of life on a piece of software will probably come many years before the patent ends. In that situation, they may as well be indefinite.
And you people still wonder why so many people stick to Windows instead of trying Linux? When I can double-click an icon and click OK and have it install the updates give me a call.
Wow, what icon can I click on in Windows to compile a new version of the OS from source code?
What exactly does getting internet service from a cable company have to do with subsidizing rural telephone companies or funding rural health care?
I would agree that those seem like reasonably decent causes. But why are you taxing cablemodem subscribers in order to fund them? I'm not even sure what taxing DSL subscribers has to do with it either. If you want to subsidize rural phone companies, tax non-rural phone bills. I don't even know where the health care thing came from.
The only thing in that group that makes even a bit of sense is the part about school and library internet connections.
When users wish to receive email that will be computer-generated, such as confirmations of email purchases or newsletter subscriptions, they can use a special email address to automatically allow those emails to be sent directly to their inbox.
How long before that "special email address" which you're giving out to online retailers shows up on the spammer's list? We all know that online retailers and mailing lists never sell their email databases to spammers, right?
Fancy "Linux Remote" for $1,700. Instead I could buy:
# Yamaha 400 Watt Dolby/DTS Receiver [bestbuy.com] ($299.99)
# Yahama "natural sound" 5 disc CD Changer/ MP3 Player [bestbuy.com] ($150.00)
# Sony Progressive Scan DVD Player [bestbuy.com] ($250.00)
# GRaphic Equalizer [bestbuy.com] ($99.00)
# Sony Surround Speaker Set [bestbuy.com] ($499.00)
# Oh yeah... Home Theater Universal Remove with LCD Display etc. etc. [bestbuy.com] ($229.00)
# With the change left, hmmm.. 10 DVD's? Monster cable? Taxes for the equipment?
Sure the remote is for the high end (like my boss's viewing room), but my Den could sure use the extra system above.
I don't think this remote is targeted at consumers who buy their home theaters at BestBuy. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they're probably not the audience Philips had in mind.
I'm a homebrewer with a bar and beer taps in the basement. It's not quite the same as a soda fountain, but the CO2 costs should be equivalent...
It's true that a refill on a 20lbs. CO2 tank is on the order of $15. But that refill will last me for several years worth of drinking before I need to get another. It's not like you're spending $15 per keg or anything.
You think Bush somehow enacted the legal loopholes that allow the government to keep someone like this.
You're right. Bush didn't make the loophole, he's just the one exploiting it.
A more recently passed law says "X is permitted". This overrides the earlier one which said "X is prohibited". This is distinctly stronger than discussions about possibly overriding the prohibition.
TEACH says "X is permitted".
DMCA says "Doing Y in order to get X is prohibited".
Think of placing a piece of information in a locked box. The issue is that TEACH allows them to use the information for their classes, but DMCA says they are not allowed to unlock the box.
Translation: 'For $40/mo, you can have all the surfing, etc. you can handle, OR you can have all the servers and crap you want with a 5 GB/mo cap. If you choose option 2, we'll be happy to sell you more throughput at $3/GB.'
So, I think they agree with you. IF you pay for your bandwidth, THEN you can use all you want. Otherwise, you're stuck with surfing really* fast.
(Bogus numbers, but I think they make the point)
So I can buy the first account and download 50GB of data per month for $40. However, if I also want to run a server that serves 1MB of data in a month and still want to download 50GB of data, then I am basically paying $135 for that 1MB of data I served.
Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
"I am paying for the bandwidth - why cant I use it as I choose"
...) charge $200+/meg/month.
You honestly think that $39.95/month 'pays' for a 100mbps Internet feed? The current going rate for el cheapo national ISPs is about $75/meg in 100 meg chunks so you are talking about $7500/month. Decent backbones (i.e. WCOM, Sprint, ATT
This cost per meg doesn't even cover the loop to get the bandwidth to the ISP router. Forget about the cost of delivering the 100 meg to your house. Now assuming your ISP buys the cheap stuff ($75/meg) and is selling you 100 megs for $39.95/month they are overcommitting about 200:1. If you did use your full bandwidth you would piss off 199 other customers. At 200:1 they STILL aren't making a profit.
All of the above is absolutely true, but it has nothing to do with not allowing users to run their own servers. If a user is hogging a significant amount of bandwidth and causing degredations in service to others, then I agree that the ISP should charge them more or cap their usage. But again, that has nothing to do with running servers. You can just as easily hog the bandwidth downloading data as you can serving data.
What you decide to do with your share of the bandwidth feed should be entirely up to you. Do they really believe that running your own secure mail server with 5 email addresses, or running a web server so that Grandma can see pictures of her grandkids online, is going to use more bandwidth than users who download ISOs and/or porn all day long? The policy and reasons for that policy as stated make no sense.
If I read the article correctly, they're not really "hiding" the options. They're all displayed where the user can get to them, you just need to scroll a window in order to see them all. The article is complaining that a user could hit the "Next" button without scrolling the window. If someone accepts default options without scrolling down the window and reading them, they sort of deserve what they get.
Think of it like this:
If you are looking for the phone number for a company you've never called before, you want to look in the Yellow Pages to find it. Now if your wife has moved the Yellow Pages to a different room in the house, you need to know where she put it. However, in this case it's more like there are 13 copies of the Yellow Pages in your home, and she's only moved one of them... so it's not too big of a deal. It's also not something you need to know unless you run a DNS server.
Hey...you mean we have to read a manual to get this stuff to work? But I want it now!
How are you supposed to save Xmas if you have to read a manual first!
This is nothing. I get pieces of scrap wood or metal and fill the envelopes with those. I assume these postage-paid envelopes are charged based on weight, so the heavier you can make them, the better.
Tie the envelope to a brick. Yes, the USPS will actually deliver that and charge for it.
Doh!
1) XML 1.0 does not follow the Unicode spec
3) XML 1.1 makes a change so that it does follow the spec
What's the complaint again?
As far as Apple's Switch ads are concerned, it's hard to believe they aren't real. The people get up there and state their name. If I knew the person on the screen and knew that they were lying, then you can bet that I'd say something..
Do you believe that Michael Jordan wears Hanes underwear because he's in a commercial selling it. Do you believe that actor from the Cop shows uses Nextel phones. Do you believe that "insert famous person here" uses "insert company product here" that they are paid for endorsing?
I have no doubt that all of the people appearing in the Mac ads are using their real names. However, I also have no doubt that they are reading the script that Apple is paying them to read.