The EFF is making a serious blunder in saying nayh nyah Australian law does not apply in the US because that would cripple legal process between Australia and the US in both directions.
Actually, no. The EFF is doing just fine. They reason they don't give a shit about what some court rules on the other side of the world is that they don't have a legal reason to give a shit.
Well, yeah, of course -- when you travel to Outer Slobberistan, US rules don't apply.
But enforcement in the US was the bulk of the nit that was being picked.
The EFF is an organization that is focused on American laws. Australia has its own EFA.
I suppose that, if they want to be overcautious, any EFF staffers traveling to Australia on EFF business should insure they are taking personal laptops rather than organization-owned ones, but it's really difficult to imagine any enforcement of this particular default verdict would actually occur inside Australia.
and contempt of court rulings aren't covered by the SPEECH act even if the contempt is based on an original case which is, so any fines issued under contempt of court *can* be pursued in US courts against its US assets.
Bzzzt!!!
We have a loser. Contempt doesn't work that way in Australia, and even if it did, a US court wouldn't separate costs, fees, or fines from the underlying judgment.
Yes, absolutely, I said I was OK with that. But remind me where? I don't remember.
People like you frothing at the mouth and putting words in other peoples' mouths are unlikely to convince anybody of anything, same as those who you notice are frothing at the mouth on the other side.
You have appeared to completely miss my point. I was responding to the facile reasoning behind "facebook already does this, so who cares if your ISP does it as well."
Whether Facebook, with 2.8 billion users, should be somehow regulated is a different question than whether the ISP should be able to listen in on my internet traffic.
They don't (didn't?) let the phone company listen in; why is the ISP different?
If the ISPs want access to telephone poles and right-of-way, and all the other junk that goes with common-carrier status, then they should act like common carriers.
The metadata is absolutely valuable. I wasn't making a comment about how you were safe if you were using https, but rather about how a lot of people come out of the woodwork telling you how terrible it would be if everybody used https.
The cynic in me says they work for the NSA or ISPs when they do that. (Sure, https can't be cached, requires more CPU, etc. but the technical problems seem more and more like the 640K of RAM issue.)
Yes, Facebook already sees your other Webtraffic, because it has the ad networks bugged to track you. Google does. All of them do.
You can throw up speedbumps to what they can see, and limit the sharing quite a bit. But you can't do that with your ISP, and in a lot of places you have very little choice.
Or did you think that the price on Amazon is what everyone sees?
Yeah, actually, I do. Because they tried price discrimination once, and it blew up on them badly. Because people share information as well. Now, if you have evidence they are managing to do this more subtly now, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.
If you don't want the government tracking you, go offgrid. Though I hear that is illegal in some places.
I see this all-or-nothing bullshit all the time. Is this some sort of trollish astroturf campaign? It certainly doesn't mirror real life.
How can facebook and other web sites see all my web traffic?
Oh, that's right, they can't. Especially as I never use facebook, and don't allow their javascript to execute.
How can my ISP see all my web traffic? Pretty easily, if it's not encrypted, which is one reason why google is pushing https everywhere, and there's a lot of astroturfing here and elsewhere about why this is a bad thing.
Yeah, you're butt-hurt because you didn't do the word problem right originally, but that's no reason to keep spouting nonsense.
Keeping the same number of significant digits in the lower and higher efficiencies, a 3 percent increase from 25.6 would round to 26.4, and a 2 percent increase from 25.6 would round to 26.1.
This means that to describe a percentage increase that properly rounds to 26.3, you need one more digit, and once you decide to add the extra digit, you want to make it as accurate as possible. The 2.7 percent given in the article rounds to 26.3, as accurately as possible.
Um, yeah, but there are two "or" words there. If the last "or" ends the list, then what is the first "or" there for? That seems grammatically worse than a missing comma.
I suppose "Willis" is racist in the eye of the beholder, if the beholder thinks that Diff'rent Strokes is racist. I think we're done here; I certainly am.
Given that the DOD github site has now been updated to show they're no longer trying to enforce a license on people who download and use the code, I don't think I'm the clueless one here.
WTF are you talking about, Willis? Open source licenses are only effective because of copyright (and patent, in some cases).
If you tell someone that there's no warranty, that's a disclaimer. No license or contract required, and the disclaimer may or may not protect you, but that's another issue.
If you tell someone "you can only do 'x' with this" then you have to have a right to create that restriction. If we're discussing tangible property, the right is usually pretty obvious, e.g. you own the property. If we're discussing intangible property, then there are very few valid rights that allow imposition of restrictions, such as copyright or trade secret. In the case of true open source, trade secrets are pretty much non-starters, so that basically leaves copyright.
Without a valid right to impose a restriction, the restriction is void and unenforceable.
It says, if you're in a country where copyright doesn't apply then there is a contract enforcing the same conditions as the license would.
Except that doesn't apply in the U.S. Copyright 101 (and a zillion court rulings) say that you can't use a contract to do copyright-type things -- unless you actually have a copyright.
Ahh, the old "you're too stupid to understand," coming from someone who apparently doesn't realize that when you slot in any reasonable approximation of the current US population, the resulting numbers (2.4e-6 and 5.1e-6 for black-on-white and white-on-black, similar order of magnitude for the ones you claim are necessary for proper reasoning) are so small that any effect from the conditional probabilities will be well down in the noise.
Slashdot Mirror
P.S. Just to make it clear, that still doesn't give the EFF a reason to give a shit about what happens in Australia.
Actually, no. The EFF is doing just fine. They reason they don't give a shit about what some court rules on the other side of the world is that they don't have a legal reason to give a shit.
But enforcement in the US was the bulk of the nit that was being picked.
The EFF is an organization that is focused on American laws. Australia has its own EFA.
I suppose that, if they want to be overcautious, any EFF staffers traveling to Australia on EFF business should insure they are taking personal laptops rather than organization-owned ones, but it's really difficult to imagine any enforcement of this particular default verdict would actually occur inside Australia.
Bzzzt!!!
We have a loser. Contempt doesn't work that way in Australia, and even if it did, a US court wouldn't separate costs, fees, or fines from the underlying judgment.
Umm, no.
Have you actually read the SPEECH act?
Or even the very first sentence of the wikipedia article on it?
Seriously, DDOSing a real individual? They've jumped the shark on this one, for sure.
People like you frothing at the mouth and putting words in other peoples' mouths are unlikely to convince anybody of anything, same as those who you notice are frothing at the mouth on the other side.
Google's not perfect, and they have financial reasons to do this, but I agree with them on this issue.
Whether Facebook, with 2.8 billion users, should be somehow regulated is a different question than whether the ISP should be able to listen in on my internet traffic.
They don't (didn't?) let the phone company listen in; why is the ISP different?
If the ISPs want access to telephone poles and right-of-way, and all the other junk that goes with common-carrier status, then they should act like common carriers.
Oh, wait -- that's normal.
Wanker.
The cynic in me says they work for the NSA or ISPs when they do that. (Sure, https can't be cached, requires more CPU, etc. but the technical problems seem more and more like the 640K of RAM issue.)
You can throw up speedbumps to what they can see, and limit the sharing quite a bit. But you can't do that with your ISP, and in a lot of places you have very little choice.
Yeah, actually, I do. Because they tried price discrimination once, and it blew up on them badly. Because people share information as well. Now, if you have evidence they are managing to do this more subtly now, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.
I see this all-or-nothing bullshit all the time. Is this some sort of trollish astroturf campaign? It certainly doesn't mirror real life.
Oh, that's right, they can't. Especially as I never use facebook, and don't allow their javascript to execute.
How can my ISP see all my web traffic? Pretty easily, if it's not encrypted, which is one reason why google is pushing https everywhere, and there's a lot of astroturfing here and elsewhere about why this is a bad thing.
Keeping the same number of significant digits in the lower and higher efficiencies, a 3 percent increase from 25.6 would round to 26.4, and a 2 percent increase from 25.6 would round to 26.1.
This means that to describe a percentage increase that properly rounds to 26.3, you need one more digit, and once you decide to add the extra digit, you want to make it as accurate as possible. The 2.7 percent given in the article rounds to 26.3, as accurately as possible.
Never mind. Ignore me. Misread earlier post; saw two "ors" -- apparently wasn't actual law as written. Carry on.
Um, yeah, but there are two "or" words there. If the last "or" ends the list, then what is the first "or" there for? That seems grammatically worse than a missing comma.
I suppose "Willis" is racist in the eye of the beholder, if the beholder thinks that Diff'rent Strokes is racist. I think we're done here; I certainly am.
Way to deflect from your own supercilious ignorance, Willis.
Given that the DOD github site has now been updated to show they're no longer trying to enforce a license on people who download and use the code, I don't think I'm the clueless one here.
If you tell someone that there's no warranty, that's a disclaimer. No license or contract required, and the disclaimer may or may not protect you, but that's another issue.
If you tell someone "you can only do 'x' with this" then you have to have a right to create that restriction. If we're discussing tangible property, the right is usually pretty obvious, e.g. you own the property. If we're discussing intangible property, then there are very few valid rights that allow imposition of restrictions, such as copyright or trade secret. In the case of true open source, trade secrets are pretty much non-starters, so that basically leaves copyright.
Without a valid right to impose a restriction, the restriction is void and unenforceable.
Except that doesn't apply in the U.S. Copyright 101 (and a zillion court rulings) say that you can't use a contract to do copyright-type things -- unless you actually have a copyright.
That's a reasonable thing to do, of course, but that's a disclaimer, not a license.
Isn't there already enough disdain for stupid laws and red tape?
Ahh, the old "you're too stupid to understand," coming from someone who apparently doesn't realize that when you slot in any reasonable approximation of the current US population, the resulting numbers (2.4e-6 and 5.1e-6 for black-on-white and white-on-black, similar order of magnitude for the ones you claim are necessary for proper reasoning) are so small that any effect from the conditional probabilities will be well down in the noise.