I boil a kettle, immediately pour the water into the cup, add creamer and server. It's likely to be far hotter (close to 100 degrees C) than the coffee at McDonalds. I drink (well, sip) it pretty much straight-away as well. So does everyone I know.
You're a fucking imbecile if you think you're putting 95C or whatever water in your mouth. I'm sorry, but you need to learn this now, before someone hands you a cup of water that hot and you actually put in in your mouth. (Or, hell, hold it in your hands if it's a non-insulated cup.)
No human being can drink anything above 80C, or they at least can't take two sips of it because they're screaming. 70C will cause scalding within a second on your skin, and while it's possible to drink something that hot very quickly without causing physical burns, it's not a very clever idea. Thank goodness people's stomachs are full of liquids which immediately cool it down.
60C liquids will scald you within 5 seconds, and somewhere around there is about the hottest coffee is ever consumed on purpose, although it's usually handed out about 70C, which is still somewhat dangerous, although nowhere as dangerous as handing people a thin cup full of 80C liquid because it will cool quickly and some people are taking it for a thirty minute drive.
And for all you people using Fahrenheit, be sure to to recall that 10 degree C is about 18 degrees Fahrenheit. There's a pretty large difference between 60C and 70C and 80C.
Actually, she would have been fine, even then, if she'd been slightly observant.
Reading the article, it's clear she made it through the gate, and then, like a fucking moron, parked on the train tracks to close the gate behind her. If she'd just driven another ten feet and then gone back, her car would have been fine, although she could have been trapped on the wrong side waiting for the train to pass.
I don't know in what universe you can drive over railroad tracks without noticing. They're quite noticeable even on main roads with automated control systems, I can just imagine how bumpy it was on this unautomated gate. And she got out of her car while parked on them!
Oh, not to mention, she not only drove over them, she walked up right next to them to open the gate in the first place! I'm sure there was some sort of 'train' sign posted. Even the fully automated systems tell you to, after all the signals say you can go, to look for a train and then go.
Do you ever wonder, given how many people hate copy protection, why an enterprising studio hasn't sprung up, releasing their movies free of any restraints? Clearly many people would prefer to buy that kind of DVD. In fact, maybe you should start a company doing exactly that! You'd make a mint! All these noble, free spirited consumers just itching to fork over their money for a good, copy protection free DVD. Think of the profits!
Um, gee, could it be because the entertainment industry owns the means of production, owns the distribution channels, and is a cartel? If you operate outside the MPAA...have fun getting on store shelves or in movie theaters. Or even a rating.
Your question is rather akin to asking 'If everyone thinks the speed limits are too low, then why hasn't a competing set of roads sprung up?'. Well, a) that would be very difficult to set up, and b) they're not needed because everyone can violate the speed limit with impunity.
The constitution is not copyright law. (Which is a good thing, because neither movies nor audio recordings existed at that time.) The constitution merely gives Congress authorization to create copyright law. When Congress did did so, they put in specific rules about what could be copyrighted.
The constitution, itself, would allow the law to allow the copyright of non-creative works, but the law does not, at this time, allow that. The courts have also said that, barring some sort of specific wording from Congress, they will continue to test for 'creativity' in general when considering copyright claims.
And considering the first copyright law was created by the same people who made the constitution, they presumably knew what they were aiming for. We basically got the same law as England, although with a different moral justification. (We do it to promote arts and science, they do it because creators deserve to profit off their work.)
Just in case you aren't aware. While it may vary from state to state, your drivers license or other such IDs rarely belong to you, they frequently belong to the state. Any sane court would toss out any claims of theft of a false ID in a heartbeat and not waste a dime of taxpayer money pursuing such nonsnese, and would then proceed to punish the fool with the fake ID.
In addition to all the stupidity the other posters pointed out, I have to point out that it being a forged ID would make it not owned by the state, you fucktard. Your logic makes no sense at all, even if we concede the nonsensical claim that some random person in a bar is authorized to 'reclaim' state property, which they are not.
Police badges are owned by the state, too, that doesn't mean I can go around pulling them off police officers because I think they're fake. I can't walk up to a movie studio and take their police badges, either.
Police officers, as part of an investigation, can take evidence. While there are often 'citizen arrest' provisions that allow people to detain others that have obviously committed a crime, I am unaware of one that would allow people to take evidence of a crime and keep it for themselves, anymore than you can citizen arrest someone and make them clean your house before releasing them.
First of all, 'fire in a crowded theater' is an opinion, and not a legal predecent, and, second, the written phrase was 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.'
In other words, they were setting the standard that speech that, as they explained elsewhere, that presented a 'clear and present danger' to things laws protects. It is illegal to do things you know may result in the death of someone, and hence speech that causes a life-threatening panic can, in fact, be prohibited. This was a crazy restriction on free speech, and was used to outlaw all sorts of speech on the grounds that it could lead to some sort of illegal activity. Even if the person charged wasn't actually advocating anything illegal. (For example, people supporting the Communist party.)
However, this standard was overturned in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Court held 'that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation'. The standard for prohibiting speech now is if it results in 'imminent lawless action'. Imminent is pretty important there...it's legal to urge the murder of someone at some point in time, but not if they're standing right there and the person you're talking to has a gun and is likely to shoot the man if you urge him to.
Under that doctrine, falsely causing a panic would, possibly, be legal, because it might be indirect enough. You didn't tell anyone to start a panic, and you didn't tell anyone to trample someone else during said panic.
In the real world, almost all uses of this concept in court, both successful and otherwise, have been against people advocating the use of violence against others, and is thus almost completely and utterly irrelevant to anything slashdot discusses, including the DMCA.
You're just making an artificial distinction based on how a hammer looks. There's no difference between normal hammers and these 'assault hammers' the left keeps talking about.
The make of the grip and handle, and any concealed implements, are just cosmetic features that don't affect the use of the hammer at all. And adding rubber coating, or attaching small weights as to mimic the weight of a metal handle, are trivial and can be done in five minutes.
And limiting the length of the hammer penalizes all the people who hammer for fun, who like to go out and throw up a barn on a weekend with their friends, who observe all safety procedures, and are no threat at all. Shorter handles are much harder to swing with enough force to hammer in larger nails, and attempting to do so can cause physical injury by causing people to use too much force. Sure, shorter handles are no problem for someone tacking up a picture frame, but you can't make a wall with them, not easily.
Now, there are people out there who are opposed to all construction, who would rather everyone live in pre-fab houses built by large corporations, but those houses are full of artificial materials. Other people can live in them if they want, but I prefer to sleep under a natural roof I've constructed with my own hands.
I do agree with the comments about attached picks and prongs, though. There's no legitimate reason to have those, they're endangering everyone, including the operator. I don't see any constitutional issues there, picks and prongs attached to hammers are not, in themselves, 'hammers'.
Re:How long must a number be to be copyrightable?
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I'm aware they're issuing takedown notices under the DMCA because they're claiming the number is an illegal device, not because they have the copyright on it.
I was just pointing out that even if the number was copyrightable, which is moderately likely, unless someone broke into the MPAA and stole it, this number is not, legally, a copy of that number, even if they are identical.
Re:More Information at chillingeffects.org
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
They can, but just be sure to show the takedown notice itself at a URL that includes the key. Repeat.
Re:How long must a number be to be copyrightable?
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but they're actually fucked under copyright law, if this number was reverse engineered.
If so, than the MPAA has no claim on it at all. Why? Because independently invented works are not subject to the original copyright.
If I've been living on an island for the last decade, and I get rescued with all seven Harry Potter books, which I have independently written on tree bark, having never seen the originals, I own the copyright on those. I can copy them, sell them, whatever. Patents work the other way, independent reinvention isn't a valid claim, but copyrights only prevent actual copying.
This is mostly meaningless, except sometimes in the music recording industry where tunes have been independently reinvented.
But if I run a mechanical process that generates a bunch of numbers until one works to unlock ACS, then I didn't copy the number from anywhere. I made that number up myself, and the fact someone has a copyright on an exactly identical number is irrelevant.
Oh, and I want to clarify something: Turns out those quotes, as others have pointed out, were from before Saddam let the inspectors back in.
To restate the order:
Iraq kicks inspectors out
Clinton's administration demonizes his government
A lot of things get said about him. (A lot of things that weren't true, as it turns out, but when you refuse inspections people assume the worst.)
9/11 happens
US almost instantly declares war on Afghanistan
Saddam panics and lets inspectors back in
The inspectors find nothing
Bush's Administration makes up a bunch of shit
Bush's Administration get Congress to give them the right to invade if they don't comply with the UN.
Bush's Administration invades them anyway, despite the fact they're complying.
And now I'm wondering if the 'Overrated' my parent post got was because I attacked the Bush Administration. I doubt that. Or because I asserted that, basically, the exact same people in this Adminstration were the ones in Nixon's and Reagan's when they operated in violation of the law, and a damn good case can be made this is some sort of criminal conspiracy, which I didn't actually present any evidence of. (In this post, at least.)
But I'm betting it's because I attacked the fucking imbeciles in the Democratic party who went along with them. I'm sorry, those idiots have exactly one chance to redeem the party, and it's called 'stopping the war' and 'Democrats who supported the war quietly bowing out of politics'.
The Republicans gamed the system so that they would have gotten this war no matter what, because the Democrats had almost no power. I accept that. I also accept they had only the information they had. I don't accept the idiotic 'Let the president decide when to go to war' vote, although, to be fair, at that point, no one realized what a moron he was and that he wanted to invade Iraq.
What I don't accept is remaining silent about the war after the lies became obvious. Even now, Democrats don't want to just come out and say 'We were lied to', despite the fact that the fucking American people would support them in that, because we think that! Maybe this impeachment will help that, maybe not.
I actually was assuming that he was running CCA and using some other software to fake it out, not simply faking a computer that doesn't need to run CCA. But close enough.
Reading about it, I can see why people are upset. It's one thing to assert 'University students can only use the network in ways we want', which is somewhat true, and certainly some rules need to exist to keep the network usable, and 'You must run this piece of software that lets us do anything on your machine.' might be okay. (But only, apparently, if you're running Windows.)
While requiring students to run privacy invading software is not good, if they actually had specific written rules the stated in advance about what software they were looking for, and only reported back 'This machine meets the requirements' or not, I might be somewhat okay with that.(1) Running software that can tell them anything is something else...the school has no right to know what software I'm running in general, or what file I might have. They have the 'right' to know what passes over their network, and that's it. But CCA even goes past that and let them run stuff.
Remote management and control of known, owned computer in a business is a great thing, and CCA seems somewhat useful for that, although I will point out that Windows has a lot of that built in if you set it up right. Remote management and control of student computers, however, is an idea so full of crap I have no idea how it even got to this point.
1) For a while, a local school considered with not enabling network connections until the RA actually looked at your computer and verified you were running some sort of antivirus program, or not running Windows. I don't mind that idea, and it's a good deal less invasive than a software program, because the students are the ones demonstrating it and they know no one is poking around in their computer. The school eventually decided not to do it, though, I don't know why.
The important thing to note here is that all the software he 'bypassed' did was verify that software that kept his computer protected was up to date.
At no point did he magically get priviledges that any other computer wouldn't have, or that he couldn't have gotten just by running AV software. This isn't a security breach in any meaningful sense of the word.
It's just a demonstration that if you make random people run antivirus on their own computers, and have a program to check that which is, again, running on their own computers, another program on that computer could simply be faking being said antivirus and fool the second one.
Which actually is a security breach if viruses ever started using it.
However, this headline is wrong. He wasn't attempting to 'improve' anything. He was just someone who didn't want to use one of their antivirus products. We don't know if he had his own antivirus or had a Linux box that was being ID'd as Windows (Supposedly there's some sort of HTTP user agent checking going on.) or what.
Frankly, the concept is stupid. There already is a logical way to track down virus-infested computers on a network, it's called watching for abuse like spamming, and you have to do that anyway. The way they do it, they get a lot of irate users who have to set up some program they don't know anything about when they first set up their computer on campus, instead of just having to deal with students as they cut them off cause they're infected. And, as I said, it removes possibility of viruses doing what this program did and faking the antivirus checker. (This isn't that farfetched, viruses already are out there that attack antivirus programs, usually by breaking their ability to download updates.)
Monitoring the network is really the only option at schools. It's not rocket science, because the main abuse is spammers hijacking computers. Of course, nothing requires that virus infections use the network and get detected, but, really, the ones that don't aren't the school's problem.
You're trying to parse words so that it looks like the right didn't do anything here, but that's somewhat stupid.
Like I said, society had slowly, almost unnoticedly, been granting legal rights to gay people to go along with how society treated them. Some of these weren't even via laws, they were via court cases. Obviously, each legal change had someone that caused it, but blaming that person on it is like blaming Mississippi for Prohibition because they ratified the 18th amendment first. Prohibition was a result of a vast social movement and a majority of Americans were in favor of it, at least in theory, although heaven forbid it stopped their drinking. It wasn't some crazy guy with a piece of paper that everyone signed while drunk.
Likewise, the recognization of legal rights for gay people is the result of a societal change. The laws are following, not leading, society. Laws almost never lead society. The laws that lead society simply don't get passed, or don't stick around long after they do.
So, how then, do I know laws legalizing gay marriage aren't 'leading society'? After all, half of them aren't passing. Because it appears to be following, as I said, a progression, except the legal side stopped and the social side didn't. And it's not just gay marriage, including homosexuality as one of the criteria of 'hate crimes' was happening during the Republican push-back, and the states that already had such laws kept them, and the states that didn't yet have rarely managed to pass them since then, thanks to Republican interference. (Side note: I don't approve of any 'hate crime' laws.) Gays in the military, same thing. (And, no, Clinton's 'compromise' was stupid.)
In other words: Legalizing gay marriage wasn't a 'political issue'. It was something that was just going to happen. Gay people were, themselves, in a way, a political issue, but one that happened decades ago, and basically everyone said 'Well, I don't really like them, but okay, they are human beings.', and society moved on, true to form slowly handing out legal rights instead of giving them all at once as society became more accepting.
Saying 'No, gay people who wanted marriage started the political issue' is a bit akin to saying 'I didn't do anything, his train hit my parked car, he's clearly at fault!'.
OTOH, I'm happy with the theory that the country has inexplicably moved very very leftward in the past few years, which appears to be the other option. Maybe the entire country said "Well, the Republicans apparently aren't right on anything, maybe I should give that 'gay marriage' another chance after all. They say it will hurt traditional marriage, and considering how wrong they are about everything, I'm betting it will stop all divorce ever and cure cancer! Maybe I'll turn gay myself!".
I.e., the American people, in the last two years, took a look at the results of the right running the country, and sprinted, en mass, to the left, on global warming, national health care, gay marriage, abortion, economic disconnect between the haves and have-almost-nothings, essentially everything. It didn't have anything to do with the Republicans fighting what society actually wanted for the last decade, and that system eventually snapping in half when the Republicans got weakened by Bush. Nope, the US turned into France or something. That was probably Saddam's secret WMD, a chemical liberalifier.
That may be completely inaccurate, but it sure is a fun position to argue. Logically, by 2013, we'll be nationalizing industries and running around naked living in trees with constant orgies. Trees we have, in fact, married. Instead of the Republicans just interfering in things that were going to happen anyway and eventually 'losing' them, like they knew they would, but only after it had gotten them in office for a decade, which is my theory.
The...interesting outcome of all this mess is that there is no longer going to be a secular wall between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional powers. From what I understand, they are not big fans of each other.
There's one point where a Hitler comparison may actually work, although in what happened after. If Iraq is Germany, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the USA and USSR. (Which is which, of course, is unknown.)
Also, Syria is mostly Sunni, but Iran has a large amount of influence over it. If Saudi Arabia actually does make any inroads into Iraq, then there's going to be another fight there, possibly.
Congress should make it illegal for the president to breathe, and then immediately impeach him for it.
When the body doing the judging of the legality of actions is the same as the body that created the laws in the first place, they can be assumed to know their own intent.
But, anyway, I will point out that, while they can't get Cheney for lying to the American people, they can get him for lying to Congress. That is, in fact, illegal, as is causing others to lie to Congress.
And thus the assertation that Cheney 'corrupted' the NIE is, in fact, accusing him of an actual crime.
And threatening to attack other countries for no legal reason(1) is, indeed, illegal under international law, and that's an actual crime too. It's illegal for 'countries' to do it, but if the VP wasn't speaking in his capacity as VP, then he didn't exactly make that very clear. It's not exactly clear what the punishment would be, there actually isn't one for countries that do that, but signed treaties are law, and a case can certainly be made he violated them.
1) Legal reasons being limited, literally, to 'they attacked us' and 'the UN okayed it'. Even 'they were about to attack us' is dubious, and no one's asserted that Iraq was about to attack us, even in crazy Bushland. They didn't have a damn navy!
Come on, there are plenty of actual crimes the Bush Administration has committed. How about the NSA wiretapping?
I'm sure Cheney was involved in that, and you don't have to prove it beforehand. You put it out there, and hold hearings on it, forcing Cheney to testify.
what exactly is the point other than to send the White House yet another message that the Congress isn't happy, and to do even more strutting about?
Well, impeaching them will keep them invading Iran, which would possibly be the stupidest move, ever, in the entire history of stupid moves.(1)
And if you think it requires Congress to invade Iran, you're not living in a fantasy world. And Bush is, in fact, living in one. There's actually evidence that the CIA and American soldiers have already made incursions into Iran, hooking up with resistance groups.(2)
Bush probably thinks it's legal under the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force', which lets him 'use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons'. Arguably, it is legal. Thank you, Congress.
1) No, seriously. If you think Iraq was dumb, wait until you invade a country that's bigger, that can shut down almost all oil shipments to the US by shutting down the P, is not displeased with its ruler, and is not divided into factions. And is not a total shithole. Oh, and can screw with us in Iraq and Afganistan.
It won't be a clusterfuck like Iraq, because they won't be fighting each other. They'll be fighting us. The whole damn country.
And, more to the point, what the hell would we be doing? Iran is already, at least moderately, a democracy. They're not as free as us, but they're about as free as Iraq is supposed to be.
2) Some peoples say 'resistance groups', but a more accurate term is 'terrorist groups'. Or even 'Sunni Muslim terrorist groups'. You know, like the kind that attacked us, on 9/11? Yes, some of the groups we're working with in Iran are linked to al Qaeda. You know what they say: The friend of our enemy is our friend. And, with Iran being friendly with the Iraq government, the friend of our friend is apparently our enemy.
I agree with you, the entire criminal enterprise that has been operating as various Republican Presidencies for the last 40 years needs to be dismantled. Don't worry about the President, impeach the same damn criminal staff that's been riding the coattails of every criminal Republican since Nixon. Yes, you can impeach the staff, and that will stop them from ever holding an office of trust, profit, or honor in the US government again.
And unless the various Democrats that went along with this war have a damn good explanation, they're out as soon as we rid ourselves of the Republicans. Republicans first, they're more dangerous, but the Democrats need a good punch in the face afterwards, they need to realize that sort of crap will not be tolerated and anyone who went along with it is gone.
Oh, and I never want any sort of resolution giving the executive branch the ability to invade somewhere when they want. Congress either says 'Yes' or 'No', it doesn't authorize force 'if' a bunch of stuff is true, with no requirement for the President to actual demonstrate those things. I think a good argument can be made that that is not even constitutional, Congress cannot delegate the ability to declare war to the executive branch. Even if it is constitutional, it clearly is a fucking bad idea.
As for the quotes about Saddam, that's just fucking stupid right-wing talking points. There's a large difference between believing the executive branch's (Yes, Clinton executive did this too) demonization's of Saddam, and actually knowing they were lying and saying them. There's an even larger difference between any of that and invading the damn country.
The executive branch of the government, like it or not, runs PR, and part of these PR is to weaken 'enemies' by portraying them as worse than they are. I really don't have a big problem with this, as long as it's directed outward, even if it sometimes causes our own politicians to say stupid things.
The fact I once said 'I think that man is dangerous. He probably has a gun.' is not a valid excuse for the police to use when they shoot said man dead and it turns out he was unarmed, especially if it then turns out they knew he was unarmed, especially if they themselves had been spreading those rumors so they could shoot him. (Even if I said it before they started spreading them.)
Slashdot Mirror
The artists who think that the RIAA is going to fix that situation are somewhat delusional.
I boil a kettle, immediately pour the water into the cup, add creamer and server. It's likely to be far hotter (close to 100 degrees C) than the coffee at McDonalds. I drink (well, sip) it pretty much straight-away as well. So does everyone I know.
You're a fucking imbecile if you think you're putting 95C or whatever water in your mouth. I'm sorry, but you need to learn this now, before someone hands you a cup of water that hot and you actually put in in your mouth. (Or, hell, hold it in your hands if it's a non-insulated cup.)
No human being can drink anything above 80C, or they at least can't take two sips of it because they're screaming. 70C will cause scalding within a second on your skin, and while it's possible to drink something that hot very quickly without causing physical burns, it's not a very clever idea. Thank goodness people's stomachs are full of liquids which immediately cool it down.
60C liquids will scald you within 5 seconds, and somewhere around there is about the hottest coffee is ever consumed on purpose, although it's usually handed out about 70C, which is still somewhat dangerous, although nowhere as dangerous as handing people a thin cup full of 80C liquid because it will cool quickly and some people are taking it for a thirty minute drive.
And for all you people using Fahrenheit, be sure to to recall that 10 degree C is about 18 degrees Fahrenheit. There's a pretty large difference between 60C and 70C and 80C.
Actually, she would have been fine, even then, if she'd been slightly observant.
Reading the article, it's clear she made it through the gate, and then, like a fucking moron, parked on the train tracks to close the gate behind her. If she'd just driven another ten feet and then gone back, her car would have been fine, although she could have been trapped on the wrong side waiting for the train to pass.
I don't know in what universe you can drive over railroad tracks without noticing. They're quite noticeable even on main roads with automated control systems, I can just imagine how bumpy it was on this unautomated gate. And she got out of her car while parked on them!
Oh, not to mention, she not only drove over them, she walked up right next to them to open the gate in the first place! I'm sure there was some sort of 'train' sign posted. Even the fully automated systems tell you to, after all the signals say you can go, to look for a train and then go.
Do you ever wonder, given how many people hate copy protection, why an enterprising studio hasn't sprung up, releasing their movies free of any restraints? Clearly many people would prefer to buy that kind of DVD. In fact, maybe you should start a company doing exactly that! You'd make a mint! All these noble, free spirited consumers just itching to fork over their money for a good, copy protection free DVD. Think of the profits!
Um, gee, could it be because the entertainment industry owns the means of production, owns the distribution channels, and is a cartel? If you operate outside the MPAA...have fun getting on store shelves or in movie theaters. Or even a rating.
Your question is rather akin to asking 'If everyone thinks the speed limits are too low, then why hasn't a competing set of roads sprung up?'. Well, a) that would be very difficult to set up, and b) they're not needed because everyone can violate the speed limit with impunity.
The constitution is not copyright law. (Which is a good thing, because neither movies nor audio recordings existed at that time.) The constitution merely gives Congress authorization to create copyright law. When Congress did did so, they put in specific rules about what could be copyrighted.
The constitution, itself, would allow the law to allow the copyright of non-creative works, but the law does not, at this time, allow that. The courts have also said that, barring some sort of specific wording from Congress, they will continue to test for 'creativity' in general when considering copyright claims.
And considering the first copyright law was created by the same people who made the constitution, they presumably knew what they were aiming for. We basically got the same law as England, although with a different moral justification. (We do it to promote arts and science, they do it because creators deserve to profit off their work.)
Just in case you aren't aware. While it may vary from state to state, your drivers license or other such IDs rarely belong to you, they frequently belong to the state. Any sane court would toss out any claims of theft of a false ID in a heartbeat and not waste a dime of taxpayer money pursuing such nonsnese, and would then proceed to punish the fool with the fake ID.
In addition to all the stupidity the other posters pointed out, I have to point out that it being a forged ID would make it not owned by the state, you fucktard. Your logic makes no sense at all, even if we concede the nonsensical claim that some random person in a bar is authorized to 'reclaim' state property, which they are not.
Police badges are owned by the state, too, that doesn't mean I can go around pulling them off police officers because I think they're fake. I can't walk up to a movie studio and take their police badges, either.
Police officers, as part of an investigation, can take evidence. While there are often 'citizen arrest' provisions that allow people to detain others that have obviously committed a crime, I am unaware of one that would allow people to take evidence of a crime and keep it for themselves, anymore than you can citizen arrest someone and make them clean your house before releasing them.
First of all, 'fire in a crowded theater' is an opinion, and not a legal predecent, and, second, the written phrase was 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.'
In other words, they were setting the standard that speech that, as they explained elsewhere, that presented a 'clear and present danger' to things laws protects. It is illegal to do things you know may result in the death of someone, and hence speech that causes a life-threatening panic can, in fact, be prohibited. This was a crazy restriction on free speech, and was used to outlaw all sorts of speech on the grounds that it could lead to some sort of illegal activity. Even if the person charged wasn't actually advocating anything illegal. (For example, people supporting the Communist party.)
However, this standard was overturned in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Court held 'that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation'. The standard for prohibiting speech now is if it results in 'imminent lawless action'. Imminent is pretty important there...it's legal to urge the murder of someone at some point in time, but not if they're standing right there and the person you're talking to has a gun and is likely to shoot the man if you urge him to.
Under that doctrine, falsely causing a panic would, possibly, be legal, because it might be indirect enough. You didn't tell anyone to start a panic, and you didn't tell anyone to trample someone else during said panic.
In the real world, almost all uses of this concept in court, both successful and otherwise, have been against people advocating the use of violence against others, and is thus almost completely and utterly irrelevant to anything slashdot discusses, including the DMCA.
You're just making an artificial distinction based on how a hammer looks. There's no difference between normal hammers and these 'assault hammers' the left keeps talking about.
The make of the grip and handle, and any concealed implements, are just cosmetic features that don't affect the use of the hammer at all. And adding rubber coating, or attaching small weights as to mimic the weight of a metal handle, are trivial and can be done in five minutes.
And limiting the length of the hammer penalizes all the people who hammer for fun, who like to go out and throw up a barn on a weekend with their friends, who observe all safety procedures, and are no threat at all. Shorter handles are much harder to swing with enough force to hammer in larger nails, and attempting to do so can cause physical injury by causing people to use too much force. Sure, shorter handles are no problem for someone tacking up a picture frame, but you can't make a wall with them, not easily.
Now, there are people out there who are opposed to all construction, who would rather everyone live in pre-fab houses built by large corporations, but those houses are full of artificial materials. Other people can live in them if they want, but I prefer to sleep under a natural roof I've constructed with my own hands.
I do agree with the comments about attached picks and prongs, though. There's no legitimate reason to have those, they're endangering everyone, including the operator. I don't see any constitutional issues there, picks and prongs attached to hammers are not, in themselves, 'hammers'.
Yes, I'm aware they're issuing takedown notices under the DMCA because they're claiming the number is an illegal device, not because they have the copyright on it.
I was just pointing out that even if the number was copyrightable, which is moderately likely, unless someone broke into the MPAA and stole it, this number is not, legally, a copy of that number, even if they are identical.
Be quiet, we're screwing with the lawyers.
They can, but just be sure to show the takedown notice itself at a URL that includes the key. Repeat.
Ah, but they're actually fucked under copyright law, if this number was reverse engineered.
If so, than the MPAA has no claim on it at all. Why? Because independently invented works are not subject to the original copyright.
If I've been living on an island for the last decade, and I get rescued with all seven Harry Potter books, which I have independently written on tree bark, having never seen the originals, I own the copyright on those. I can copy them, sell them, whatever. Patents work the other way, independent reinvention isn't a valid claim, but copyrights only prevent actual copying.
This is mostly meaningless, except sometimes in the music recording industry where tunes have been independently reinvented.
But if I run a mechanical process that generates a bunch of numbers until one works to unlock ACS, then I didn't copy the number from anywhere. I made that number up myself, and the fact someone has a copyright on an exactly identical number is irrelevant.
Someone needs to file a trademark on that number, because domain name law explicitly protects trademarks and doesn't give a damn about copyrights.
9D
You say "09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0"
And I say "9F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0"
You say "11371021002235164343133330101126305143126210300"
And I say "MDlGOTExMDI5RDc0RTM1QkQ4NDE1NkM1NjM1Njg4QzA="
Let's call the whole thing off....
Oh, and I want to clarify something: Turns out those quotes, as others have pointed out, were from before Saddam let the inspectors back in.
To restate the order:
Iraq kicks inspectors out
Clinton's administration demonizes his government
A lot of things get said about him. (A lot of things that weren't true, as it turns out, but when you refuse inspections people assume the worst.)
9/11 happens
US almost instantly declares war on Afghanistan
Saddam panics and lets inspectors back in
The inspectors find nothing
Bush's Administration makes up a bunch of shit
Bush's Administration get Congress to give them the right to invade if they don't comply with the UN.
Bush's Administration invades them anyway, despite the fact they're complying.
And now I'm wondering if the 'Overrated' my parent post got was because I attacked the Bush Administration. I doubt that. Or because I asserted that, basically, the exact same people in this Adminstration were the ones in Nixon's and Reagan's when they operated in violation of the law, and a damn good case can be made this is some sort of criminal conspiracy, which I didn't actually present any evidence of. (In this post, at least.)
But I'm betting it's because I attacked the fucking imbeciles in the Democratic party who went along with them. I'm sorry, those idiots have exactly one chance to redeem the party, and it's called 'stopping the war' and 'Democrats who supported the war quietly bowing out of politics'.
The Republicans gamed the system so that they would have gotten this war no matter what, because the Democrats had almost no power. I accept that. I also accept they had only the information they had. I don't accept the idiotic 'Let the president decide when to go to war' vote, although, to be fair, at that point, no one realized what a moron he was and that he wanted to invade Iraq.
What I don't accept is remaining silent about the war after the lies became obvious. Even now, Democrats don't want to just come out and say 'We were lied to', despite the fact that the fucking American people would support them in that, because we think that! Maybe this impeachment will help that, maybe not.
Claritin used to be prescription, but it's now OTC, and it's come down from a buck a pill to something more reasonable.
I didn't know that, thanks. I'll try it.
Tavist is what I normally use when I know in advance I'll be out in pollen all day. It doesn't seem to bother me at all.
You are pretty much right.
I actually was assuming that he was running CCA and using some other software to fake it out, not simply faking a computer that doesn't need to run CCA. But close enough.
Reading about it, I can see why people are upset. It's one thing to assert 'University students can only use the network in ways we want', which is somewhat true, and certainly some rules need to exist to keep the network usable, and 'You must run this piece of software that lets us do anything on your machine.' might be okay. (But only, apparently, if you're running Windows.)
While requiring students to run privacy invading software is not good, if they actually had specific written rules the stated in advance about what software they were looking for, and only reported back 'This machine meets the requirements' or not, I might be somewhat okay with that.(1) Running software that can tell them anything is something else...the school has no right to know what software I'm running in general, or what file I might have. They have the 'right' to know what passes over their network, and that's it. But CCA even goes past that and let them run stuff.
Remote management and control of known, owned computer in a business is a great thing, and CCA seems somewhat useful for that, although I will point out that Windows has a lot of that built in if you set it up right. Remote management and control of student computers, however, is an idea so full of crap I have no idea how it even got to this point.
1) For a while, a local school considered with not enabling network connections until the RA actually looked at your computer and verified you were running some sort of antivirus program, or not running Windows. I don't mind that idea, and it's a good deal less invasive than a software program, because the students are the ones demonstrating it and they know no one is poking around in their computer. The school eventually decided not to do it, though, I don't know why.
The important thing to note here is that all the software he 'bypassed' did was verify that software that kept his computer protected was up to date.
At no point did he magically get priviledges that any other computer wouldn't have, or that he couldn't have gotten just by running AV software. This isn't a security breach in any meaningful sense of the word.
It's just a demonstration that if you make random people run antivirus on their own computers, and have a program to check that which is, again, running on their own computers, another program on that computer could simply be faking being said antivirus and fool the second one.
Which actually is a security breach if viruses ever started using it.
However, this headline is wrong. He wasn't attempting to 'improve' anything. He was just someone who didn't want to use one of their antivirus products. We don't know if he had his own antivirus or had a Linux box that was being ID'd as Windows (Supposedly there's some sort of HTTP user agent checking going on.) or what.
Frankly, the concept is stupid. There already is a logical way to track down virus-infested computers on a network, it's called watching for abuse like spamming, and you have to do that anyway. The way they do it, they get a lot of irate users who have to set up some program they don't know anything about when they first set up their computer on campus, instead of just having to deal with students as they cut them off cause they're infected. And, as I said, it removes possibility of viruses doing what this program did and faking the antivirus checker. (This isn't that farfetched, viruses already are out there that attack antivirus programs, usually by breaking their ability to download updates.)
Monitoring the network is really the only option at schools. It's not rocket science, because the main abuse is spammers hijacking computers. Of course, nothing requires that virus infections use the network and get detected, but, really, the ones that don't aren't the school's problem.
You're trying to parse words so that it looks like the right didn't do anything here, but that's somewhat stupid.
Like I said, society had slowly, almost unnoticedly, been granting legal rights to gay people to go along with how society treated them. Some of these weren't even via laws, they were via court cases. Obviously, each legal change had someone that caused it, but blaming that person on it is like blaming Mississippi for Prohibition because they ratified the 18th amendment first. Prohibition was a result of a vast social movement and a majority of Americans were in favor of it, at least in theory, although heaven forbid it stopped their drinking. It wasn't some crazy guy with a piece of paper that everyone signed while drunk.
Likewise, the recognization of legal rights for gay people is the result of a societal change. The laws are following, not leading, society. Laws almost never lead society. The laws that lead society simply don't get passed, or don't stick around long after they do.
So, how then, do I know laws legalizing gay marriage aren't 'leading society'? After all, half of them aren't passing. Because it appears to be following, as I said, a progression, except the legal side stopped and the social side didn't. And it's not just gay marriage, including homosexuality as one of the criteria of 'hate crimes' was happening during the Republican push-back, and the states that already had such laws kept them, and the states that didn't yet have rarely managed to pass them since then, thanks to Republican interference. (Side note: I don't approve of any 'hate crime' laws.) Gays in the military, same thing. (And, no, Clinton's 'compromise' was stupid.)
In other words: Legalizing gay marriage wasn't a 'political issue'. It was something that was just going to happen. Gay people were, themselves, in a way, a political issue, but one that happened decades ago, and basically everyone said 'Well, I don't really like them, but okay, they are human beings.', and society moved on, true to form slowly handing out legal rights instead of giving them all at once as society became more accepting.
Saying 'No, gay people who wanted marriage started the political issue' is a bit akin to saying 'I didn't do anything, his train hit my parked car, he's clearly at fault!'.
OTOH, I'm happy with the theory that the country has inexplicably moved very very leftward in the past few years, which appears to be the other option. Maybe the entire country said "Well, the Republicans apparently aren't right on anything, maybe I should give that 'gay marriage' another chance after all. They say it will hurt traditional marriage, and considering how wrong they are about everything, I'm betting it will stop all divorce ever and cure cancer! Maybe I'll turn gay myself!".
I.e., the American people, in the last two years, took a look at the results of the right running the country, and sprinted, en mass, to the left, on global warming, national health care, gay marriage, abortion, economic disconnect between the haves and have-almost-nothings, essentially everything. It didn't have anything to do with the Republicans fighting what society actually wanted for the last decade, and that system eventually snapping in half when the Republicans got weakened by Bush. Nope, the US turned into France or something. That was probably Saddam's secret WMD, a chemical liberalifier.
That may be completely inaccurate, but it sure is a fun position to argue. Logically, by 2013, we'll be nationalizing industries and running around naked living in trees with constant orgies. Trees we have, in fact, married. Instead of the Republicans just interfering in things that were going to happen anyway and eventually 'losing' them, like they knew they would, but only after it had gotten them in office for a decade, which is my theory.
The...interesting outcome of all this mess is that there is no longer going to be a secular wall between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional powers. From what I understand, they are not big fans of each other.
There's one point where a Hitler comparison may actually work, although in what happened after. If Iraq is Germany, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the USA and USSR. (Which is which, of course, is unknown.)
Also, Syria is mostly Sunni, but Iran has a large amount of influence over it. If Saudi Arabia actually does make any inroads into Iraq, then there's going to be another fight there, possibly.
Congress should make it illegal for the president to breathe, and then immediately impeach him for it.
When the body doing the judging of the legality of actions is the same as the body that created the laws in the first place, they can be assumed to know their own intent.
But, anyway, I will point out that, while they can't get Cheney for lying to the American people, they can get him for lying to Congress. That is, in fact, illegal, as is causing others to lie to Congress.
And thus the assertation that Cheney 'corrupted' the NIE is, in fact, accusing him of an actual crime.
And threatening to attack other countries for no legal reason(1) is, indeed, illegal under international law, and that's an actual crime too. It's illegal for 'countries' to do it, but if the VP wasn't speaking in his capacity as VP, then he didn't exactly make that very clear. It's not exactly clear what the punishment would be, there actually isn't one for countries that do that, but signed treaties are law, and a case can certainly be made he violated them.
1) Legal reasons being limited, literally, to 'they attacked us' and 'the UN okayed it'. Even 'they were about to attack us' is dubious, and no one's asserted that Iraq was about to attack us, even in crazy Bushland. They didn't have a damn navy!
Yeah, this is the best he could come up with?
Come on, there are plenty of actual crimes the Bush Administration has committed. How about the NSA wiretapping?
I'm sure Cheney was involved in that, and you don't have to prove it beforehand. You put it out there, and hold hearings on it, forcing Cheney to testify.
what exactly is the point other than to send the White House yet another message that the Congress isn't happy, and to do even more strutting about?
Well, impeaching them will keep them invading Iran, which would possibly be the stupidest move, ever, in the entire history of stupid moves.(1)
And if you think it requires Congress to invade Iran, you're not living in a fantasy world. And Bush is, in fact, living in one. There's actually evidence that the CIA and American soldiers have already made incursions into Iran, hooking up with resistance groups.(2)
Bush probably thinks it's legal under the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force', which lets him 'use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons'. Arguably, it is legal. Thank you, Congress.
1) No, seriously. If you think Iraq was dumb, wait until you invade a country that's bigger, that can shut down almost all oil shipments to the US by shutting down the P, is not displeased with its ruler, and is not divided into factions. And is not a total shithole. Oh, and can screw with us in Iraq and Afganistan.
It won't be a clusterfuck like Iraq, because they won't be fighting each other. They'll be fighting us. The whole damn country.
And, more to the point, what the hell would we be doing? Iran is already, at least moderately, a democracy. They're not as free as us, but they're about as free as Iraq is supposed to be.
2) Some peoples say 'resistance groups', but a more accurate term is 'terrorist groups'. Or even 'Sunni Muslim terrorist groups'. You know, like the kind that attacked us, on 9/11? Yes, some of the groups we're working with in Iran are linked to al Qaeda. You know what they say: The friend of our enemy is our friend. And, with Iran being friendly with the Iraq government, the friend of our friend is apparently our enemy.
I agree with you, the entire criminal enterprise that has been operating as various Republican Presidencies for the last 40 years needs to be dismantled. Don't worry about the President, impeach the same damn criminal staff that's been riding the coattails of every criminal Republican since Nixon. Yes, you can impeach the staff, and that will stop them from ever holding an office of trust, profit, or honor in the US government again.
And unless the various Democrats that went along with this war have a damn good explanation, they're out as soon as we rid ourselves of the Republicans. Republicans first, they're more dangerous, but the Democrats need a good punch in the face afterwards, they need to realize that sort of crap will not be tolerated and anyone who went along with it is gone.
Oh, and I never want any sort of resolution giving the executive branch the ability to invade somewhere when they want. Congress either says 'Yes' or 'No', it doesn't authorize force 'if' a bunch of stuff is true, with no requirement for the President to actual demonstrate those things. I think a good argument can be made that that is not even constitutional, Congress cannot delegate the ability to declare war to the executive branch. Even if it is constitutional, it clearly is a fucking bad idea.
As for the quotes about Saddam, that's just fucking stupid right-wing talking points. There's a large difference between believing the executive branch's (Yes, Clinton executive did this too) demonization's of Saddam, and actually knowing they were lying and saying them. There's an even larger difference between any of that and invading the damn country.
The executive branch of the government, like it or not, runs PR, and part of these PR is to weaken 'enemies' by portraying them as worse than they are. I really don't have a big problem with this, as long as it's directed outward, even if it sometimes causes our own politicians to say stupid things.
The fact I once said 'I think that man is dangerous. He probably has a gun.' is not a valid excuse for the police to use when they shoot said man dead and it turns out he was unarmed, especially if it then turns out they knew he was unarmed, especially if they themselves had been spreading those rumors so they could shoot him. (Even if I said it before they started spreading them.)