MAI v. Peak was a licensing issue. Section 117 of copyright laws says the owner of the copy has a right to make any copies they need to run it, and Peak was not the owner, but merely a contractor hired by the licensee. The license said that licensee was allowed to run the program only for data processing needs.
I've never seen a console game that even pretends to be licensed. (And EULAs are pretend licenses that won't hold up in court.)
And the other didn't involve a computer program, so no exception.
If you want to burn 1000 CDs, and don't have a professional solution, 48 single speeds are probably better than a 48 speed, if you handwave the machines required to operate them.
Why? Because you can stagger the burning and take breaks. Set them in a row, start loading up the blank CDs. By the time you finish loading the end, the first CD will be about 30% done. You can wander off for forty-five minutes, come back, repeat the process. Not only can you do other things, when you decide to quit for the night, you'll have some that get done while you're gone.
It's a hell of a lot better than a 48 speed, where you have to sit there and swap out CD every 2 minutes, pretending that a 48 speed actually burned at straight 48 speed, which doesn't.
I'd much rather have thirty minutes of work followed by forty-five minutes of downtime than 20 seconds of work every two minutes.
Um, and Playstations copy it to RAM also. No computer use CD-ROMs as program memory. It would be incredibly slow, for one thing. (Not to mention it's impossible on all CPUs ever made, there's no CPU instruction that says 'retrieve this location from CD and pull it into the CPU and execute it'. You have to copy it into memory.) And even then you'd be copying it through the processor as you executed each instruction.
If Playstations are legal to operate, than emulators are, in that regard.
And he already mentioned the exception: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.
Computer programs can be copied as much as needed to be used, as long as you don't use said copies in any other manner. (1) This has been law for over a decade now. I'm really tired of people still operating in 1972 or whenever. We don't need 'permission' to run computer programs.
1) Okay, that is a bit weird. How would you use a computer program in a manner that is different from 'utilization of the computer program'? Someone got their wires crossed while writing that. Maybe you could use a computer program as an encryption key, and it would not be legal to use the aforementioned memory copies for that.;)
The research is only controversial because idiots think it has something to do with abortion. IVF isn't controversial at all.
And tax money goes towards a lot of controversial things, anyway. It goes towards animal testing, which is a hell of a lot more controversial than taking eight cells that happen to be human that were left over from IVF.
Animals can feel pain, while pulling a hair kills more than eight cells. (I'm not against animal research, I'm just pointing out idiotic this 'standard' is.)
I don't know where the boundary of 'human' is but it sure as hell isn't eight or sixteen or thirty-two cells sitting in a test tube.
If you're clever, you'll design it so some inaction on your part can wipe the data. Install a switch under your seat. When you gets up, it should flash warning lights for thirty seconds, and then magnetically wipe the HD, unless you've toggled a few switches correctly. (Don't hook any of this into your computer.)
Also wipe the data if anyone breaks in. Easy enough to do with a standard security system, if you already have the electromagnet in place. In fact, you might want to forget the switch under your see, and just attach it to your door.
This way, you have less chance of them successfully arguing you tampered with evidence after you heard the police knock down your door. You didn't do anything. Be sure to not even stand up without the police asking you to.
This is better than a password. They can compel you to give up a password by going to court. They could, even more easier legally, compel you to turn off the electromagnet, but won't actually have time to get a court order.
(Nothing is stopping you from having a switch to turn the system on in the first place, and flipping that when the police break in (So you don't sit in eternal danger of losing all your data if something screws up.), as long as you are willing to lie and claim it was already on when they came in.)
While male infertility is usually due to bad sperm,
almost all difficulties with women giving birth are the inabilty to carry a pregnancy to term, not to get a fertilized egg.
The idea that we could get people to implant other IVF embryos laying around is silly, but I'm join to ask the next woman who starts yammering about stem cell research to do it.
You know, nothing in my morals has a clause that says 'if the Federal government funds it'. If something's immoral, people shouldn't do it. They shouldn't deny one specific type of funding into research that uses a side effect of the immoral action.
That's akin to having rape, legal, but setting up the inheritence laws so that the rapists can't end up with any assets of the victim if they produce a child with them, and then the victim and then the child dies. It really doesn't seem to make any sense at all to even bother with that law.
Not that I'm saying abortion is immoral, I'm just saying, if it was, it doesn't really make any sense to ban stem cell research.
In fact, the only thing I can think of with a clause like 'if the Federal government funds it' is the 1st amendment, where it forbids an establishment of religion. Hrm.
People who define it as conception are on crack anyway, as something like 50% of all 'pregnancies' end at the start of the mother's next period, and thus no one has the slightest clue they even happened.
Well, excuse me, you sounded reasonable in the post I responded to, unlike before, so I just assumed you were two different people. Since you've come back to being an idiot, I can't tell which Doc Ruby I'm talking to anymore.
And I'll exit this discussion right now because you're an idiot who's putting words in my mouth, specifically, where you claim I said hormones didn't come from genetics, which is a neat trick because that's what I've been saying from the start. I specifically said it in the post you responded to.
My claims, from the start: Genetics cause hormones which cause gender differences, including differences in brain development. As I've repeated over and over, we do not, at this point, know to what extent these differences affect skills.
I don't know what the fuck you're claiming anymore. You're the idiot who started talking about 'math genes' and how they don't exist.
Math skills are not genetic. You taking issue with that is silly, because only a fool would think that. You can't do math with DNA.
Math skills, however, exist in the brain, of which the growth and development is influenced by hormones, including sexual ones.
The question here is: Do sexual hormones influence brain development to the extent of causing a noticably statistical difference in math skills between the two genders? Or, indeed, in any mental skills?
I think you got the impression that I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't. I was saying 'Doc Ruby' was a fool, and that's what started this entire thread. There's no gene on a Y chromosome that says 'have more muscle mass than women', there's not even one that says 'grow a penis'. It's all hormonal.
You know, you're right about the freaking out. I know of at least three women who act that way around traffic, and no man who does. I don't know what's going on to make them freak, but it is a woman thing, and they'll just outright refuse to drive in places with heavy traffic.
But that's a 'fear' thing more than a 'poor driving' thing.
Men, OTOH, tend to drive too...um...strongly, especially young ones. Even ones that obey the speed limit will still accelerate to stops, speed up into curves only to have to slow down, etc.
And this is what happens when fools say 'genetic' when they mean 'hormonal'. Almost all primary and secondary sexual characteristics are hormonal, not genetic. Genes just give you something to make the hormones with, and from then on you're on your own. (There are the rather obvious examples of males who are born with an XY but the inability to use testrosterone, and everyone thinks they're women until they fail to hit puberty. (They usually just end up taking estrogen the rest of their life.))
No one is actually claiming that, genetically, either gender is better at anything else, except making testosterone or estrogen. The only genetic difference is the lack of a Y in women, and Y doesn't really have that many genes on it. No one thinks the gene for being good at math is carried on Y. The only other thing influenced by X and Y is that men have more sex-link diseases due to only having one X.
The claim is that hormones may have influenced brain development (Which we know they do) in such a way as to make one gender better at something than another. (Which we still have scant evidence of.)
My mail server defers mail coming in that doesn't have a valid email address domain.
So, basically, this is great for me. Spammers don't use open relays anymore, and thus the email isn't queued anywhere. So if I defer it at that point, they've lost.
And before anyone from outside think too badly of Americans, I should mention that the KKK itself gets protestors, who normally outnumber the KKK by at least ten to one. The KKK is normally this sad little group of twenty people who make sure to stay well behind the police while people yell at them.
That's not a conspiracy at all. A conspiracy is either a plot to do something illegal, or a plot to do somehting illegal by illegal means. And everyone in a conspiracy has to do something to advance the crime before or during the crime, if only planning.
Coming in afterwards cannot make you a conspirator on the orginal crime. It can make you a conspirator if you attempt to cover up the crime, but I fail to see how disclosing that a crime was committed is conspiracy to commit anything.
Did you get a ticket for speeding, or did you get a ticket and lose in court? Just getting a ticket doesn't prove anything. They give all sorts of illegal speeding tickets.
As for driving with expired tags...you're supposed to check that cars that are not owned by you are legal when you borrow them. This includes plates and insurance. But, anyway, traffic offenses, at least, speeding tickets, are not the same type of crimes as everything else. See below.
As for 'negligent homicide', the crime isn't killing someone, it's acting in a careless manner that you should have known could result in death, and in fact did. Having a gun laying around like that is fairly careless.
As for exactly what's going on, legally, almost all crimes must be committed with 'mens rea'. You have to mean to commit the crime. (Except the singular exception of trying to harm one person and accidently harming another, which the law treats as if you had meant to do that.)
The 'purposefully' and whatnot are a spectrum of awareness. Purposefully means you damn well meant to do that. Knowingly means you knew that would happen. Recklessly means you knew that might happen. (Recklessly is the standard if it is not specified, so you'll almost never see it used in a law.) Sometimes they say 'purposefully and knowingly', apparently just to confuse people.
And there's the spectrum of unawareness. There's negligent, which means you should have known that would happen, but apparently did not. And then there's 'strict liablity', like I was talking about with speeding tickets, where the mere act is illegal, full stop, no matter what you were thinking. In most places, it would technically be illegal for you to speed by being rear-ended and pushed along by a tractor trailer.
As reckless is the default, you are okay with negligent behavior as long as the law does not specifically allow you to be punished for negligent behavior, like it does for homicide. (And even then, it's usually a different crime.)
And all this is fairly unrelated to wifi. The law quite clearly says, in the case of computers, that access has to be taken from you or you have permission by default.
And you have permission to access slashdot how, exactly? Sure, there's permission somewhere on the site, in an EULA, but I fail to see how you had permission to access that.
A handy defination, from the law: 'Without authority' includes the use of a computer or computer network in a manner that exceeds any right or permission granted by the owner of the computer or computer network.
Without authority doesn't mean 'without permission in advance', it means 'exceeding permissions'. I don't need them to authorize me, I need them not to unauthorize me. I explained that quite clearly in the footnote.
Now, this unauthorization can be a password, or it can be as simple as simple notification of what you're not allowed to do.
It's basically the same concept as trespassing. Breaking and entering, like WEP cracking, is illegal. Wandering around obviously private areas, like shared directories, is illegal. Walking across someone's yard, or going through their own network for internet access, is not illegal unless posted or they told you not to.
The other way leads to madness, and I refuse to even discuss it here until you can produce your permission to be here. If it's on a webpage here, you'll need to explain how you managed to see that.
As for plugging a computer into a random RJ-45 jack...sadly for you, that, too, is legal, barring the possiblity of trespassing, or them having told you not to. Although it's trickier there...if you had to climb behind stuff to track down a jack, I can see how it could be argued that you had to trespass to get on the network, that it obviously wasn't intended for you to access and you should have known that.
But if I walk into a coffee shop and pull out my laptop and there's an RJ-45 jack on the table? No, that's perfectly legal to use.
Trespassing only applies to physical places. You can 'trespass' on another's airwaves and the FCC will come down on you hard, but wifi is unlicensed, and thus, anyone can use it in any circumstances.
Computer trespass, in my state, confusingly requires you to damage something. If you're just using their stuff, it's 'computer theft' instead. Which is exactly backwards of what makes sense, but whatever.
And, no, it's not trespass if you walk into a public place that's accidently left unlocked. It's not even trespass if you have permission from a previous property owner, the propert changed hands, and the new owner put up a bunch of 'no trespassing' signs. It's basically 'What would a reasonable person think about your permission to be there?'.
But that's not how it is for computers. For computers, it's 'Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority...'.
And the other important defination: 'Without authority' includes the use of a computer or computer network in a manner that exceeds any right or permission granted by the owner of the computer or computer network.
If you knowingly use a computer [network] past the rights granted to you by the owner, you're breaking the law. With an open wifi network, the owner's device had no problem with you joining the network. Usually it hands you a frickin IP!
Slashdot Mirror
I've never seen a console game that even pretends to be licensed. (And EULAs are pretend licenses that won't hold up in court.)
And the other didn't involve a computer program, so no exception.
Why? Because you can stagger the burning and take breaks. Set them in a row, start loading up the blank CDs. By the time you finish loading the end, the first CD will be about 30% done. You can wander off for forty-five minutes, come back, repeat the process. Not only can you do other things, when you decide to quit for the night, you'll have some that get done while you're gone.
It's a hell of a lot better than a 48 speed, where you have to sit there and swap out CD every 2 minutes, pretending that a 48 speed actually burned at straight 48 speed, which doesn't.
I'd much rather have thirty minutes of work followed by forty-five minutes of downtime than 20 seconds of work every two minutes.
And it's only a contract violation if they can prove you signed something.
If Playstations are legal to operate, than emulators are, in that regard.
And he already mentioned the exception: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.
Computer programs can be copied as much as needed to be used, as long as you don't use said copies in any other manner. (1) This has been law for over a decade now. I'm really tired of people still operating in 1972 or whenever. We don't need 'permission' to run computer programs.
1) Okay, that is a bit weird. How would you use a computer program in a manner that is different from 'utilization of the computer program'? Someone got their wires crossed while writing that. Maybe you could use a computer program as an encryption key, and it would not be legal to use the aforementioned memory copies for that. ;)
And tax money goes towards a lot of controversial things, anyway. It goes towards animal testing, which is a hell of a lot more controversial than taking eight cells that happen to be human that were left over from IVF.
Animals can feel pain, while pulling a hair kills more than eight cells. (I'm not against animal research, I'm just pointing out idiotic this 'standard' is.)
I don't know where the boundary of 'human' is but it sure as hell isn't eight or sixteen or thirty-two cells sitting in a test tube.
You just need to use fractal compression.
In what universe do dollar stores not use UPC barcodes? They do need to keep track of the stuff.
Um, unless they wanted the data without you knowing.
Also wipe the data if anyone breaks in. Easy enough to do with a standard security system, if you already have the electromagnet in place. In fact, you might want to forget the switch under your see, and just attach it to your door.
This way, you have less chance of them successfully arguing you tampered with evidence after you heard the police knock down your door. You didn't do anything. Be sure to not even stand up without the police asking you to.
This is better than a password. They can compel you to give up a password by going to court. They could, even more easier legally, compel you to turn off the electromagnet, but won't actually have time to get a court order.
(Nothing is stopping you from having a switch to turn the system on in the first place, and flipping that when the police break in (So you don't sit in eternal danger of losing all your data if something screws up.), as long as you are willing to lie and claim it was already on when they came in.)
You wear your shoes 24/7?
Of course, you didn't specify which average you were talking about.
The 'donor' is going to die anyway. The 'donor' is, in fact, a fertilized egg sitting in a freezer waiting to be thrown out with the trash.
While male infertility is usually due to bad sperm, almost all difficulties with women giving birth are the inabilty to carry a pregnancy to term, not to get a fertilized egg.
The idea that we could get people to implant other IVF embryos laying around is silly, but I'm join to ask the next woman who starts yammering about stem cell research to do it.
That's akin to having rape, legal, but setting up the inheritence laws so that the rapists can't end up with any assets of the victim if they produce a child with them, and then the victim and then the child dies. It really doesn't seem to make any sense at all to even bother with that law.
Not that I'm saying abortion is immoral, I'm just saying, if it was, it doesn't really make any sense to ban stem cell research.
In fact, the only thing I can think of with a clause like 'if the Federal government funds it' is the 1st amendment, where it forbids an establishment of religion. Hrm.
People who define it as conception are on crack anyway, as something like 50% of all 'pregnancies' end at the start of the mother's next period, and thus no one has the slightest clue they even happened.
And I'll exit this discussion right now because you're an idiot who's putting words in my mouth, specifically, where you claim I said hormones didn't come from genetics, which is a neat trick because that's what I've been saying from the start. I specifically said it in the post you responded to.
My claims, from the start: Genetics cause hormones which cause gender differences, including differences in brain development. As I've repeated over and over, we do not, at this point, know to what extent these differences affect skills.
I don't know what the fuck you're claiming anymore. You're the idiot who started talking about 'math genes' and how they don't exist.
Math skills, however, exist in the brain, of which the growth and development is influenced by hormones, including sexual ones.
The question here is: Do sexual hormones influence brain development to the extent of causing a noticably statistical difference in math skills between the two genders? Or, indeed, in any mental skills?
I think you got the impression that I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't. I was saying 'Doc Ruby' was a fool, and that's what started this entire thread. There's no gene on a Y chromosome that says 'have more muscle mass than women', there's not even one that says 'grow a penis'. It's all hormonal.
But that's a 'fear' thing more than a 'poor driving' thing.
Men, OTOH, tend to drive too...um...strongly, especially young ones. Even ones that obey the speed limit will still accelerate to stops, speed up into curves only to have to slow down, etc.
No one is actually claiming that, genetically, either gender is better at anything else, except making testosterone or estrogen. The only genetic difference is the lack of a Y in women, and Y doesn't really have that many genes on it. No one thinks the gene for being good at math is carried on Y. The only other thing influenced by X and Y is that men have more sex-link diseases due to only having one X.
The claim is that hormones may have influenced brain development (Which we know they do) in such a way as to make one gender better at something than another. (Which we still have scant evidence of.)
So, basically, this is great for me. Spammers don't use open relays anymore, and thus the email isn't queued anywhere. So if I defer it at that point, they've lost.
And before anyone from outside think too badly of Americans, I should mention that the KKK itself gets protestors, who normally outnumber the KKK by at least ten to one. The KKK is normally this sad little group of twenty people who make sure to stay well behind the police while people yell at them.
Coming in afterwards cannot make you a conspirator on the orginal crime. It can make you a conspirator if you attempt to cover up the crime, but I fail to see how disclosing that a crime was committed is conspiracy to commit anything.
As for driving with expired tags...you're supposed to check that cars that are not owned by you are legal when you borrow them. This includes plates and insurance. But, anyway, traffic offenses, at least, speeding tickets, are not the same type of crimes as everything else. See below.
As for 'negligent homicide', the crime isn't killing someone, it's acting in a careless manner that you should have known could result in death, and in fact did. Having a gun laying around like that is fairly careless.
As for exactly what's going on, legally, almost all crimes must be committed with 'mens rea'. You have to mean to commit the crime. (Except the singular exception of trying to harm one person and accidently harming another, which the law treats as if you had meant to do that.)
The 'purposefully' and whatnot are a spectrum of awareness. Purposefully means you damn well meant to do that. Knowingly means you knew that would happen. Recklessly means you knew that might happen. (Recklessly is the standard if it is not specified, so you'll almost never see it used in a law.) Sometimes they say 'purposefully and knowingly', apparently just to confuse people.
And there's the spectrum of unawareness. There's negligent, which means you should have known that would happen, but apparently did not. And then there's 'strict liablity', like I was talking about with speeding tickets, where the mere act is illegal, full stop, no matter what you were thinking. In most places, it would technically be illegal for you to speed by being rear-ended and pushed along by a tractor trailer.
As reckless is the default, you are okay with negligent behavior as long as the law does not specifically allow you to be punished for negligent behavior, like it does for homicide. (And even then, it's usually a different crime.)
And all this is fairly unrelated to wifi. The law quite clearly says, in the case of computers, that access has to be taken from you or you have permission by default.
A handy defination, from the law: 'Without authority' includes the use of a computer or computer network in a manner that exceeds any right or permission granted by the owner of the computer or computer network.
Without authority doesn't mean 'without permission in advance', it means 'exceeding permissions'. I don't need them to authorize me, I need them not to unauthorize me. I explained that quite clearly in the footnote.
Now, this unauthorization can be a password, or it can be as simple as simple notification of what you're not allowed to do.
It's basically the same concept as trespassing. Breaking and entering, like WEP cracking, is illegal. Wandering around obviously private areas, like shared directories, is illegal. Walking across someone's yard, or going through their own network for internet access, is not illegal unless posted or they told you not to.
The other way leads to madness, and I refuse to even discuss it here until you can produce your permission to be here. If it's on a webpage here, you'll need to explain how you managed to see that.
As for plugging a computer into a random RJ-45 jack...sadly for you, that, too, is legal, barring the possiblity of trespassing, or them having told you not to. Although it's trickier there...if you had to climb behind stuff to track down a jack, I can see how it could be argued that you had to trespass to get on the network, that it obviously wasn't intended for you to access and you should have known that.
But if I walk into a coffee shop and pull out my laptop and there's an RJ-45 jack on the table? No, that's perfectly legal to use.
Computer trespass, in my state, confusingly requires you to damage something. If you're just using their stuff, it's 'computer theft' instead. Which is exactly backwards of what makes sense, but whatever.
And, no, it's not trespass if you walk into a public place that's accidently left unlocked. It's not even trespass if you have permission from a previous property owner, the propert changed hands, and the new owner put up a bunch of 'no trespassing' signs. It's basically 'What would a reasonable person think about your permission to be there?'.
But that's not how it is for computers. For computers, it's 'Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority...'.
And the other important defination: 'Without authority' includes the use of a computer or computer network in a manner that exceeds any right or permission granted by the owner of the computer or computer network.
If you knowingly use a computer [network] past the rights granted to you by the owner, you're breaking the law. With an open wifi network, the owner's device had no problem with you joining the network. Usually it hands you a frickin IP!