Welcome to the post 9/11 dumbing down of the word Hero. It literally has no meaning anymore because EVERYONE is a hero.

The proper way to resolve this, is to repel the DMCA

I'm repelled by that DMCA! (loved that typoo;)

But how are we to repeal it when Congress is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the corporatti? This is a plutocracy. You can only get laws passed or repealed by bribing politicians here.

I presented your idea to Sony's CEO, and here's what he told me:

"Fuck you I won't do as you tell me!"

(He repeated that until fading out)

The domain name owners should contact Erhan Karabardak from http://www.coopermills.com.au/

He's the Au lawyer who really knows domain name law and has previously taken on AuDA. He's also the guy who can authorize [authorise] whatever information deserves to be public.

E
Full disclosure: I don't work for Erhan, CooperMills Lawyers, AuDA nor am I involved in any current aspect.

Hard decision whether to mod this or comment, so I chose to comment so I can correct the erroneous information here.

What you wrote is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Intellectual property and intangible assets are absolutely part of one's estate (and also come into play in divorce proceedings, for that matter -- See the divorce of Tom Clancy) and are recognized as such under the law. If you disagree on a moral level with this practice, that's another matter, but to state that "it is not part of an estate" is spreading misinformation. I work at an IP consulting firm, and we are frequently asked to value intellectual works for use in estate planning. These can range from rights of publicity, to copyrights/copyrighted works, to trademarks, among other assets.

You say that "to consider intellectual works part of an estate diminishes human capital and is an insult to those who created it." I think you have this backwards. When the esteemed playwright George Abbott died, for example, his estate was left with the rights to his many copyrighted plays, which could then earn them royalties on performances. Similarly, after Marlon Brando's death, the demand to use his name and likeness did not immediately disappear. His heirs controlled his rights to publicity and had the power to decide when it was appropriate to use his voice or other personal aspects to endorse products for a fee. Don't you think that Marlon Brando would have wanted his legacy to continue to provide for his loved ones? Wouldn't it be more of an insult to George Abbott (whose "human capital" is at issue) to have his works just be taken away on the day of his death instead of allowing him to build something that could continue to benefit his family?

Copyright law may be totally frakked in its current iteration, but that is a completely separate issue. The fact is, people work to build an estate -- but this work does not always take the same form. Some people build corporations, invest is stocks, or gather cash; others create works of art. You would never just assume that a corporation should automatically become public because the owner died, so why should that novel or that play immediately lose all of its value to the owner? Somebody spent their life working on that (instead of pursuing other avenues of wealth accumulation) so those assets are what they have to pass along in their estate -- Or should everyone just give up creating original works to pursue entrepreneurial or big business goals so they can provide for their families after they are gone?

You're wrong (The threats against Israel in 1948 were to wage a war of extermination and to drive the jews into the sea.) but you didn't even bother to answer the question.

Should you not be wary of a group of people who have sworn to kill you for religious/racist reasons?

Well, when you say "most" humans are vaccinated, that means that "some" humans are not, and thus as long as some humans are not it will continue to persist. Not to mention the fact that we are playing around with a disease that at one time killed nearly half the planet's population of humans. So now it is grown in a lab around other diseases, and who knows what tests are being done to it. It may very well become like Hepatitis C which over decades of study and treatment has evolved sufficiently to be quite deadly and resistant to all treatments.

So, via extrapolation it isn't hard to imagine a new and improved Black Death killing machine at some point in time. I think that researchers are way to cocky and overconfident, in many fields. The "It won't happen to Me" Syndrome, that permeates mankind's mentality. I don't know whether bacteria can or can't be eradicated, I'm not so confident as you that it can't be done, if we really wanted to, but I doubt anyone, in a position to do it, really wants to. That however, doesn't mean we should be helping it evolve into something far more deadly. This facility is probably getting Federal grants, and there's probably some military funds in there somewhere.

That is the business version not the school one which is free.

2) The thing is, Java can be debugged/developed on a Windows box and deployed on a Linux box, without any further testing.

I mean, you'd be nuts to actually do it without testing, but if your coders are smart and multi-OS aware there won't be any problems.

I myself wrote a calendar app for personal use, on Windows 2000. One day I tried it on Ubuntu, and everything worked fine - although it looked like shit because Gnome skinning didn't work. Not the same category as a business app, but it didn't even need a recompile. When you can write something java in 2002, and it runs flawlessly on a 2009 OS that didn't exist when it was created, without a recompile... you have to factor that in as a feature.

3) Python? :P

Java's VM is impressive. When flipping from C-based to JVM-based, Python gets about a 2-5x speedup. At this point, Java is "the wheel", for a lot of non-business apps. Re-inventing the wheel in other languages is pointless - just build on top of it.

4) I agree with you here. Although Java encourages readable syntax, it's certainly not the best language available for it.

5) Java running in Server mode is effectively compiled. That's why it starts so slow. Java running in Desktop mode is quasi-compiled. Quasi-compiled works okay, because the Java interpreter is very fast, and it lets Java apps start quicker than C# apps.

6) Python and C/C++ are more popular for front-end apps - probably because there are more front-end apps than back-end apps. Java is extremely popular for DB stuff that connects with webservers. There seems to be a lot of government, banking, and business sites running on Apache Tomcat - but because of the nature of the JVM, each site is running its own unique applications.