Wronged??? The case was thrown out for being held in the wrong State not because he was found Innocent.
I grant you that -- at least in my opinion -- the guy is a large-caliber asshole. On that we can agree.
But asshole does not equal crime. Illegal or negligent prosecution or imprisonment is.
The EFF claims he did nothing illegal in the AT&T affair. If anybody is an authority on this kind of thing, EFF is. That isn't proof, but I tend to believe EFF over overzealous, corporate-brownnosing, incompetent government cops.
Exactly. Printers have had LCD readouts since around 1990, give or take. Or about 25 years.
If one tried to show me an ad, though (or even suggested it might) then that is a NEGATIVE "feature" and I would not buy it.
A refrigerator really DOESN'T need a screen. Until they become intelligent enough to know that you're getting low on eggs or whatever. And that's not today.
A thermostat doesn't need an internet connection. Google acquired NEST and plans to use it (they said so) to gather more consumer information.
The DMCA was enacted in 1998. It's been in effect for over 15 years already. Unfortunately, I think it will last.
I don't think so. As someone I know likes to say, "The pendulum do swing."
Courts have been quite sympathetic to government over the last few administrations, to the point of ignoring precendent and stretching the Constitution and other laws beyond reasonable limits.
But those precendents haven't gone away. When one court ignores them, a future court can still assert them.
I agree that he was wronged. But rather than imply threats or demand money in an "open letter", he would be FAR better off getting an attorney and pressing charges under 18 U.S.C. 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law".
At first glance it appears to be an anti-discrimination statute. But on closer reading (and by both Congressional intent and court affirmation), it applies to all Constitutional and Common Law rights.
Government officials and law enforcement are not immune... the statute was specifically intended to curb governmental abuse.
The maximum penalty is life in prison. The conviction rate for 18 USC 242 once charges have been brought is impressive. Well over 90%.
Unlike physical goods, works of authorship in digital form need to be copied into RAM in order to be used, bringing in copyright law.
Even if that were true, copyright law and EULAs are vastly different things. In fact, the First Sale Doctrine in copyright law says that a EULA is prima facie invalid. So invoking copyright law probably won't get you anywhere here.
They also often need to be decrypted in order to be used, bringing in anticircumvention law.
But the "anticircumvention law" is anticompetitive and against pretty much all legal precedent prior to DMCA. I am pretty sure that one won't last, either.
US courts have invalidated "license agreements" or "use restrictions" on retail products, even when those restrictions are clearly visible on a package or label before purchase. Yes, really. The reasoning is: you paid your money, you own it. You have a legal right to use your property in any manner you choose. Although, as I mentioned, some uses can void the warranty, IF the warranty conditions are reasonably tied to possible damage of the product.
Especially since courts have upheld EULAs as being valid, even if they basically give themselves the power to do anything they like. And it's all nice and legal. For many consumers, they don't know or care -- sure I'll give you my data, just give me the stuff I want on the interwebs.
Actually no, at least in the US they haven't. With the sole (and bizarre) exception of software.
EULAs are hardly a new thing. They have been tried with everything from home appliances to garden shovels (yes, really). And the courts have consistently held that if you buy a product at retail, once you plunk down your money, the manufacturer or supplier cannot impose conditions on the use of the product. (They can void a warranty for activities that might damage the equipment, but that's about it.) There have been 2 exceptions, and they are very different kinds of exceptions:
One has been software. However, that has still not been firmly tested in higher court. There is no rational reason why software should be different from just about every other good that is for sale.
The other is when there is a prior agreement to use a product in a certain way. For example: your company has a contract or license with a software (or hardware!) company that imposes such rules. If you have an up-front agreement that mandates only certain kinds of use, it is enforceable.
"Shrink-wrap licenses" (the most common form of EULA today) are generally not enforceable in the US when it is a retail purchase. But again, as I say, some courts have (bizarrely, irrationally, and against all precedent) upheld them for software, on thin grounds. If it is ever tested in the higher courts, chances are post-sale "licenses" will be struck down for software, just as they have for every other kind of product under the sun.
Ok - try to be a bit introspective here. You quoted something that you found in a link that was referenced in another link that was posted several links up the chain - but you didn't cite the quote because, well, obviously everyone will have already followed every link tree right down to the leaf on every comment. You then went on to berate me for inquiring where the quote was from.
I don't need to "be introspective". I've already admitted to making an error. But this is all beside the larger point:
You spent many many comments picking on some minor error that I made. (It WAS minor, and you knew how it happened.) Instead of making any real point about the scientific issue I had raised.
FUD, misdirection, and ad-hominem. These are the "debate" strategies of losers who don't have a relevant, substantive argument to make.
In one of my replies, I quoted from the latter page's quote of the comments by the publishing house's Director.
You then suggested that we look at the actual review, when what I had quoted was from that page at ippublishing which does in fact contain quotes from the review itself, plus comments by the Director about the review.
And all of them supported the point I was making. While you, in turn, insisted in picking at irrelevant details about what I'd written, rather than addressing the actual points I made.
Is that accurate enough for you? Or do you want to nitpick/troll further?
Maybe it's not dictatorship, but it's interesting to point out that the countries that have contemplated and/or implemented (part of) what you're proposing are China, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Egypt.
And UK, and Russia, and any number of other countries. Each one wants to "govern" the internet in its own way. So... why not let them, in their own country? So they will leave others alone about how THEY want to govern THEIRS?
Because, quite frankly, these other countries have been having a negative effect on my own country's government and its idea of how to run the internet. And the "lowest common denominator" is not good enough, in my opinion.
All the information to understand the thermal expansion of ocean water is available with a few google searches,
Yes, it certainly is.
so why should you lean back and wait for somebody to enlighten you ?
Who said anything about ME?
The point here is that GP was talking out his ass, and actually doesn't know any of these specifics himself. His comment was nothing but a personal insult aimed at an entire category of people. Seems to me that isn't supposed to be socially acceptable these days.
If you believe in separation of state and church then that is indeed a serious problem. If the authorities fail to act you have a responsibility to take action yourself, to protect democracy and your country's values from corruption.
No, it was a good example of what I was talking about. It is a bad example of what you were talking about. But we weren't talking about the same things.
Since I had already explained that TWICE before, what are you thanking me for? Putting up with your BS for this long?
Long after I explained it to you, you continued to insist I did something I had not done. You continued to insist YOU had NOT done something you clearly did do.
So I am just curious why you would thank me. Sounds like more BS to me. You certainly haven't proved anything.
So, you were wrong to repeatedly say he linked to ioppublishing.org.
I did not "repeatedly" say he linked to ioppublishing.org. I erroneously stated it ONCE, then explained that it was an editing mistake. All other references were to his original link.
Period. End of story. As I already explained elsewhere in this thread, if you bother to read it.
And I now suspect that you are in fact the same troll posting under AC. You, or he, or whatever alternate personality you happen to be living in now, need to learn how to read.
In your atheist analogy, the atheist isn't really harmed except in the opportunity cost of putting something other than monuments to Jesus on the property, and indirectly from the promotion of Christianity as the state religion implicitly marginalizing atheists among others.
This is patently untrue. The atheist (let's assume he's a militant atheist) feels that religion rots kids mind and is completely horrified by the thought of government support for a particular religion like Christianity. So not only does he see it as personal harm, in his honest opinion it is grossly harmful to society as a whole. (This is, in fact, a situation that is rather close to a devout Christian believing that homosexuality is a crime against God and society. BUT I'm not claiming either side is right.)
And John Smith needs to be the CEO of, say, a law firm, which is itself not religiously oriented and has Christian, atheist, and other employees, and among whose many legal services is the ability to file disputes based on religious discrimination.
I don't give a damn whether he is CEO of Citicorp or a mail clerk in a medium-sized business. Business is business, and personal politics are something else. Too much mixing of business with politics is already one of the biggest problems with this country today. We hardly need more of it.
But you're outside the whole context of this discussion thread. It wasn't about what the ruling said, it was about what OP said.
At least get your context straight, please.
I happen to agree with you that it would be rather a joke for the U.S. government, say, to complain about someone else trying to tell them what to do. (Note, however, I am not my government.)
BUT... that simply isn't what this was about. I was proposing SEPARATE networks so each country can govern as it sees fit. No interference with anyone else. That's not dictatorship, that's freedom for each country to do what it wants.
Slashdot Mirror
Wronged??? The case was thrown out for being held in the wrong State not because he was found Innocent.
I grant you that -- at least in my opinion -- the guy is a large-caliber asshole. On that we can agree.
But asshole does not equal crime. Illegal or negligent prosecution or imprisonment is.
The EFF claims he did nothing illegal in the AT&T affair. If anybody is an authority on this kind of thing, EFF is. That isn't proof, but I tend to believe EFF over overzealous, corporate-brownnosing, incompetent government cops.
How else will it tell you "PC LOAD LETTER"?
Exactly. Printers have had LCD readouts since around 1990, give or take. Or about 25 years.
If one tried to show me an ad, though (or even suggested it might) then that is a NEGATIVE "feature" and I would not buy it.
A refrigerator really DOESN'T need a screen. Until they become intelligent enough to know that you're getting low on eggs or whatever. And that's not today.
A thermostat doesn't need an internet connection. Google acquired NEST and plans to use it (they said so) to gather more consumer information.
Scratch NEST off my list.
Etc.
The DMCA was enacted in 1998. It's been in effect for over 15 years already. Unfortunately, I think it will last.
I don't think so. As someone I know likes to say, "The pendulum do swing."
Courts have been quite sympathetic to government over the last few administrations, to the point of ignoring precendent and stretching the Constitution and other laws beyond reasonable limits.
But those precendents haven't gone away. When one court ignores them, a future court can still assert them.
I agree that he was wronged. But rather than imply threats or demand money in an "open letter", he would be FAR better off getting an attorney and pressing charges under 18 U.S.C. 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law".
At first glance it appears to be an anti-discrimination statute. But on closer reading (and by both Congressional intent and court affirmation), it applies to all Constitutional and Common Law rights.
Government officials and law enforcement are not immune... the statute was specifically intended to curb governmental abuse.
The maximum penalty is life in prison. The conviction rate for 18 USC 242 once charges have been brought is impressive. Well over 90%.
I learned about it in my Business Law courses in college, as a case study. I don't have citations on hand, but I do know they exist.
One of the problems with the Wikipedia article is that it appears to be ONLY about software EULAs.
Unlike physical goods, works of authorship in digital form need to be copied into RAM in order to be used, bringing in copyright law.
Even if that were true, copyright law and EULAs are vastly different things. In fact, the First Sale Doctrine in copyright law says that a EULA is prima facie invalid. So invoking copyright law probably won't get you anywhere here.
They also often need to be decrypted in order to be used, bringing in anticircumvention law.
But the "anticircumvention law" is anticompetitive and against pretty much all legal precedent prior to DMCA. I am pretty sure that one won't last, either.
I left something out which is important:
US courts have invalidated "license agreements" or "use restrictions" on retail products, even when those restrictions are clearly visible on a package or label before purchase. Yes, really. The reasoning is: you paid your money, you own it. You have a legal right to use your property in any manner you choose. Although, as I mentioned, some uses can void the warranty, IF the warranty conditions are reasonably tied to possible damage of the product.
Especially since courts have upheld EULAs as being valid, even if they basically give themselves the power to do anything they like. And it's all nice and legal. For many consumers, they don't know or care -- sure I'll give you my data, just give me the stuff I want on the interwebs.
Actually no, at least in the US they haven't. With the sole (and bizarre) exception of software.
EULAs are hardly a new thing. They have been tried with everything from home appliances to garden shovels (yes, really). And the courts have consistently held that if you buy a product at retail, once you plunk down your money, the manufacturer or supplier cannot impose conditions on the use of the product. (They can void a warranty for activities that might damage the equipment, but that's about it.) There have been 2 exceptions, and they are very different kinds of exceptions:
One has been software. However, that has still not been firmly tested in higher court. There is no rational reason why software should be different from just about every other good that is for sale.
The other is when there is a prior agreement to use a product in a certain way. For example: your company has a contract or license with a software (or hardware!) company that imposes such rules. If you have an up-front agreement that mandates only certain kinds of use, it is enforceable.
"Shrink-wrap licenses" (the most common form of EULA today) are generally not enforceable in the US when it is a retail purchase. But again, as I say, some courts have (bizarrely, irrationally, and against all precedent) upheld them for software, on thin grounds. If it is ever tested in the higher courts, chances are post-sale "licenses" will be struck down for software, just as they have for every other kind of product under the sun.
You haven't addressed the substantive point that the reviews clearly find fault with the study.
Yes, I very clearly did address it, in plain English. You persist in denying reality and trolling. This is my last post in this thread.
Ok - try to be a bit introspective here. You quoted something that you found in a link that was referenced in another link that was posted several links up the chain - but you didn't cite the quote because, well, obviously everyone will have already followed every link tree right down to the leaf on every comment. You then went on to berate me for inquiring where the quote was from.
I don't need to "be introspective". I've already admitted to making an error. But this is all beside the larger point:
You spent many many comments picking on some minor error that I made. (It WAS minor, and you knew how it happened.) Instead of making any real point about the scientific issue I had raised.
FUD, misdirection, and ad-hominem. These are the "debate" strategies of losers who don't have a relevant, substantive argument to make.
Since you insist on nitpicking, let's set the record straight.
YOU linked to THIS PAGE.
THAT page referenced THIS PAGE.
In one of my replies, I quoted from the latter page's quote of the comments by the publishing house's Director.
You then suggested that we look at the actual review, when what I had quoted was from that page at ippublishing which does in fact contain quotes from the review itself, plus comments by the Director about the review.
And all of them supported the point I was making. While you, in turn, insisted in picking at irrelevant details about what I'd written, rather than addressing the actual points I made.
Is that accurate enough for you? Or do you want to nitpick/troll further?
Well your country could have a separate network, that'd seem to solve the problem.
That's what I was saying all along.
Maybe it's not dictatorship, but it's interesting to point out that the countries that have contemplated and/or implemented (part of) what you're proposing are China, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Egypt.
And UK, and Russia, and any number of other countries. Each one wants to "govern" the internet in its own way. So... why not let them, in their own country? So they will leave others alone about how THEY want to govern THEIRS?
Because, quite frankly, these other countries have been having a negative effect on my own country's government and its idea of how to run the internet. And the "lowest common denominator" is not good enough, in my opinion.
All the information to understand the thermal expansion of ocean water is available with a few google searches,
Yes, it certainly is.
so why should you lean back and wait for somebody to enlighten you ?
Who said anything about ME?
The point here is that GP was talking out his ass, and actually doesn't know any of these specifics himself. His comment was nothing but a personal insult aimed at an entire category of people. Seems to me that isn't supposed to be socially acceptable these days.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions, yet again.
I'll just post this again, since you so obviously have no use for reading "skillz":
http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/02/15/1852235/psychologists-internet-trolls-are-narcissistic-psychopathic-and-sadistic
If you believe in separation of state and church then that is indeed a serious problem. If the authorities fail to act you have a responsibility to take action yourself, to protect democracy and your country's values from corruption.
No, it was a good example of what I was talking about. It is a bad example of what you were talking about. But we weren't talking about the same things.
This is just nuts. There was no slaying. Just trolling. It's all in the written record.
Further, I think you were thanking yourself.
Since I had already explained that TWICE before, what are you thanking me for? Putting up with your BS for this long?
Long after I explained it to you, you continued to insist I did something I had not done. You continued to insist YOU had NOT done something you clearly did do.
So I am just curious why you would thank me. Sounds like more BS to me. You certainly haven't proved anything.
Then by all means, enlighten them. Explain these sorts of sizes, and similar sizes to which they are relative.
I'll wait.
So, you were wrong to repeatedly say he linked to ioppublishing.org.
I did not "repeatedly" say he linked to ioppublishing.org. I erroneously stated it ONCE, then explained that it was an editing mistake. All other references were to his original link.
Period. End of story. As I already explained elsewhere in this thread, if you bother to read it.
And I now suspect that you are in fact the same troll posting under AC. You, or he, or whatever alternate personality you happen to be living in now, need to learn how to read.
In your atheist analogy, the atheist isn't really harmed except in the opportunity cost of putting something other than monuments to Jesus on the property, and indirectly from the promotion of Christianity as the state religion implicitly marginalizing atheists among others.
This is patently untrue. The atheist (let's assume he's a militant atheist) feels that religion rots kids mind and is completely horrified by the thought of government support for a particular religion like Christianity. So not only does he see it as personal harm, in his honest opinion it is grossly harmful to society as a whole. (This is, in fact, a situation that is rather close to a devout Christian believing that homosexuality is a crime against God and society. BUT I'm not claiming either side is right.)
And John Smith needs to be the CEO of, say, a law firm, which is itself not religiously oriented and has Christian, atheist, and other employees, and among whose many legal services is the ability to file disputes based on religious discrimination.
I don't give a damn whether he is CEO of Citicorp or a mail clerk in a medium-sized business. Business is business, and personal politics are something else. Too much mixing of business with politics is already one of the biggest problems with this country today. We hardly need more of it.
People that complain that corporations are worse than ever are very ignorant of history.
Yes. But to say that they were worse then is not the same as saying they aren't bad now.
But you're outside the whole context of this discussion thread. It wasn't about what the ruling said, it was about what OP said.
At least get your context straight, please.
I happen to agree with you that it would be rather a joke for the U.S. government, say, to complain about someone else trying to tell them what to do. (Note, however, I am not my government.)
BUT... that simply isn't what this was about. I was proposing SEPARATE networks so each country can govern as it sees fit. No interference with anyone else. That's not dictatorship, that's freedom for each country to do what it wants.
Love your tagline, by the way.
Steamed hot dogs are safe (except for some brands that add nitroseamines in ahead of time to improve the flavor).
Microwaving has been shown to minimize the formation of nitrosamines. I'm not claiming that it eliminates them entirely.