If these computers were over-seas then the FBi probably over-stepped their authority ina bad way.
The FBI is absolutely forbidden from engaging in foreign survailance. This is the role of the CIA.
I suspect this is just the beginning of how the net is going to break down all our preconceptions of geography and force major changes in the structure of our scoiety,
Its worth noting that there is an article in this month's NextGen on major cutbacks and retrenching at Nintendo's first party Gamecube game studio in texas, Retro.
They've cut half their projects and laid off 20 developers.
Just another data point. Lord knows what it means.
I DO know the game industry in general won't let MS gobble it all without a fight...
We've been sending non-satronauts into space for quite awhile ourselves. We call them "mission specialists."
The most famous beign the school techer we sent up in the ill fated challenger flight.
Frankly if we can risk lives and send up non-astronauts for political purposes I don't see why the russians should be prevented from doing the same for economic reasons.
At least this gent soudsn liek hes has soem kind of background in the field...
That small cats purr in response to **any** strong emotional state.
Which explains an awful lot better your "cats purr when injured" factoid as WELL as why they purr when stroked.
Ofcourse thats typocal psuedo-sciecne logic. "Cats purr when injurered therefor purring must be caused by injury." Thats called confusing a correlation with a causality.
That "definition i quote" is the onestill in use ast the Bronx zoo as of a year ago, the San Francisco Zoological society as of 2 years ago, and every boo kI've ever read on the subject hta was written by a DVm or someoen with similar academic crednetials. (And I read a lot of them. The cats are a great interest of mine.)
Can you show me a webstie with soemd egree of authority that says different? (Authority is key, I can show you a website thats says ANYTHING and websites often quote each other. According to most of the web Weird AL wrote "What if god smoked Canabis" which is completel;y wrong.)
I note though that evben yo uadmitted "iots not quite the same thing" which is to say you uadmitted that Great Cats DON'T purr. They do something else which you have arbitrarily over-loaded the term purr onto.
The fact of the matter, for anyone who is interested in real science, is cats can leap off of roofs because the have a much smaller body-mass to surface area ratio then huamns and thus have a lower terminal verlocity. Thsi is basic high-school physcis.
A mouse, which doesnt purr, can fall off the top of the empire state building and walk away.
I like someoen elses suggestion, go strap 5 cats on your body and jump off out a thrid story window if you buy this reseracher's nonsense.:)
Its not just Tigers, it sall great Cats that don't purr. Ist the construction of the voice box. Great Cats can growl but not purr, small cats can purr but not truely growl. in afct, this is the DEFINITION of Great Cat and small cat.
Hard to take any supposed 'resarcher" seriously who didn't even know the bilogical definitiosn of his subject material.
This belongs on Whitley's World, not Slashdot.
(If you are INTO new-age total BS psuedo-science you might want to try www.whitleysworld.com)
This can be extremely secure if absed on a smartcard. Basicly its public/private key encryption. Thec ard holds a private key which it uses to generate a token that can be public-key verified on the far end. In various ways it can be ensured that a number once used cannot be used again so in fact it is extra-secure against kiddies grabbing card numbers.
Keep in midn that vanilla credit cards have a 20% fraud rate. Thats a ALOT of money to pay for infrastructure if you can significantly reduce that percentage.
Many many years ago, i had a friend in the same CS program as myself. We tooka few classes together and, as I had a computer and he didn't (this was 20 years ago) we did our assignments on my machine.
This naturally led to designing the code together and, in afct, if you mapped variable names you'd fidn our assignments looekd rather similar.
Was this bad? i don't think so. I learend valuable thinsg about team projects. Years later my friedn told me he learned as much about engineering from me as he did from our professors.
Ultimately the goal of an educational institution shoudl be education and anything that enriches a student's education shoudl be good. While I don't support people riding along on others work and doign ntohing, the afct of the matter is that thsoe people aren't learnign anything the world will bite them in the ass soon enough.
My guess is your school is a big state school. Big state schoosl have a way of forgetting that the structure exists for education and start valuing the structure above all else. I fell for your fellow students. If I wer them, I'd try ot get a pro-bono attorney and fight back.
(I actually DID sue my school eventually over the administration taking an unreasonable action that hurt my transcript. It was avery diffrent sort of manner. They lied to me then told me I was responsible for knowing they were lying.)
In the US it probably is a Copyright issue, though it may be an employment issue as well when it coems to your agreement with them. (I hoep you kept a copy safely tucked away.)
In in the US, take heart in that the last revision of the US copyright law (1988 I believe) actually did a great deal to strengthen authors' rights in cases such as this.
(1) It doesn't say what I want to hear so it must be wrong.
(2) It doesn't say what I want to hear and thus evil corporations are to blame.
(3) hey, that was an interesting peice.
Sad thing is we see so little of 3. This man did a service to the community in writing a free plain-english legal brief. I for one am greatful he did so. I know a lot about copyright already but i learned a lot about the most recent decisions and their meaning.
That as soon as the copy shop publicizes the fact that, if you do your own copying, you can copy illegal stuff they DO become liable because they are actively encouraging and profiting from an illegal activity.
Itw as not considered reasonable that a copy shop have to stand over the shoudler and check copyrights on every thing brought in.
HOWEVER if there is a pattern of a given book being xeroxed at a given store-- al lthe students for one class fro instance regualrly photocopying the oen text book, the copy shopo CAN be made to watch for and stop that particular behavior.
Because all theys tore is raw bits they have no understanding inherently of the data.
Because they do not limit themsleves to a media type where the vast vast majority of fiels are infringing (ie MP3) they have a broad argument that their busienss is in vast majority legal.
FInally and priobably msot significantly since all they do is return bits back to the folks who stored them with them, this is actually archival, a specially protected area under copyright law. thsi is why its legal for you to make a tapew of oen of your CDs for yourself but NOT for a friend unelss he or she also owns the copyright.
So, in short, no.
HOWEVER if someoen could show the backup company that something stored on their site was clearly an infringing copy (ie the original copy was prvably illegal then they COUlD probably get it removed.
You wrote:
"Specifically, the Copyright Board says their ruling "does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else."
You had better check this witha canadian lawyer, I have a feeling youa re misinterpretiung this.
If you are in fact correct, then Canada has just violated the International Copyright treaty and you cna expect a general outcry from the rest of the developed nations. In fact if this were true I suspect record companies here in the states (I knwo how canadians hate it when refer to the sates as "america") will immediately stop shipping releases to Canada.
The technology employed to carry the data is not the issue.
The issues coem down to control or lack thereof, and your economic model in terms of where your profit derives from.
If the courts decided that youw er eseliing a program thats primary draw was to do somethign illegal with it then you might be in trouble. If its a generic, non centralized, non controlled file sharing prgoram you might be okay-- but then its doubtful you cna fidn any wayto make money off it.
As soon as you have any kind of ongoing conenction to the users (ie serving ads to them0 you have a potentail control mechanism and become obligated potetnailly to use that mechanism to police your users.
The courts work, once again its been restablished that making money off of the theaft of someone elses property, whether you do the theaft or enable others to, is an illegal act. Thsi s how it should be if we dont want rampant anarchy. If you really believe in this grand moral vision of a connected world then DON'T try to make money off it and you will be significantly safer.
if not go back to college and take a basic scientific methods course.
The Slashdot communty in NO way represents a reasonable or scientific sampling of anything other then the tiny subsection of the communtiy who are drawn to a place like Slashdot.
Nopw with that out of the way... why does anyone want to poll??? Yo udon't get to vote for what laws you do or don't want to be held accountable for. You vote for lawmakers who make laws we are ALL obliged to follow or suffer the consequences. Civics 101.
Pay attention to his concluisions about deniability and the need to act once notified.
Both FedEx and MaBell have many desirable characteristics:
(1) They are carriers but they never have even a transient copy of the item in memory. In contrats all P2P systems actually ceate a copy of the file. It is much more like a fax machine then a P2P system.
(2) The legal uses of the system far outweigh the illegal uses in terms of actual revenue drivers. The same cannot be said of naptser in actual practice. This helps reduce the idea of "vicarious infringement."
If you look at it honestly, you can see that napster was designed to be used for an illegal purpose, copying copyrighted music, promoted for that purpose, and thats far and away the most common use to which it is put and thus where the majority of their revenue directly or indirectly coems from.
(3) MaBell and FedEx both have models where it is not only difficult but in fact illegal for them to monitor activity of their users. Ergo again they have maximal deniability.
(4) When illegal uses of their systems are brought to their attention, both FedEx and maBell bend over backwards to support and help proper law enforcement.
As mucha s you'ld like to believe it does, the "common carrier" defense celarly does NOT apply to napster as the courts have decided.
Slashdot Mirror
If these computers were over-seas then the FBi probably over-stepped their authority ina bad way.
The FBI is absolutely forbidden from engaging in foreign survailance. This is the role of the CIA.
I suspect this is just the beginning of how the net is going to break down all our preconceptions of geography and force major changes in the structure of our scoiety,
Its worth noting that there is an article in this month's NextGen on major cutbacks and retrenching at Nintendo's first party Gamecube game studio in texas, Retro.
They've cut half their projects and laid off 20 developers.
Just another data point. Lord knows what it means.
I DO know the game industry in general won't let MS gobble it all without a fight...
vi
:s,JAVA,C++,g
:s,JVM,Vtable,g
Note that it now reads like something I read 8 years ago.
LMFAO
Every age has its luddites.
That a company that sues its own customers is headed for the end.
We can only hope...
We've been sending non-satronauts into space for quite awhile ourselves. We call them "mission specialists."
The most famous beign the school techer we sent up in the ill fated challenger flight.
Frankly if we can risk lives and send up non-astronauts for political purposes I don't see why the russians should be prevented from doing the same for economic reasons.
At least this gent soudsn liek hes has soem kind of background in the field...
That small cats purr in response to **any** strong emotional state.
Which explains an awful lot better your "cats purr when injured" factoid as WELL as why they purr when stroked.
Ofcourse thats typocal psuedo-sciecne logic. "Cats purr when injurered therefor purring must be caused by injury." Thats called confusing a correlation with a causality.
Great Cats are your lions, tigers and such.
'nuff said
I'd give you I may be mixing up growl and roar. Its been awhile (abt a year) since i last looked at these definitions.
Then again I'n not publishing on the topic or I'd be a LOT mor carefuly to get the details correct...
That "definition i quote" is the onestill in use ast the Bronx zoo as of a year ago, the San Francisco Zoological society as of 2 years ago, and every boo kI've ever read on the subject hta was written by a DVm or someoen with similar academic crednetials. (And I read a lot of them. The cats are a great interest of mine.)
:)
Can you show me a webstie with soemd egree of authority that says different? (Authority is key, I can show you a website thats says ANYTHING and websites often quote each other. According to most of the web Weird AL wrote "What if god smoked Canabis" which is completel;y wrong.)
I note though that evben yo uadmitted "iots not quite the same thing" which is to say you uadmitted that Great Cats DON'T purr. They do something else which you have arbitrarily over-loaded the term purr onto.
The fact of the matter, for anyone who is interested in real science, is cats can leap off of roofs because the have a much smaller body-mass to surface area ratio then huamns and thus have a lower terminal verlocity. Thsi is basic high-school physcis.
A mouse, which doesnt purr, can fall off the top of the empire state building and walk away.
I like someoen elses suggestion, go strap 5 cats on your body and jump off out a thrid story window if you buy this reseracher's nonsense.
This IS a joke, right???
Its not just Tigers, it sall great Cats that don't purr. Ist the construction of the voice box. Great Cats can growl but not purr, small cats can purr but not truely growl. in afct, this is the DEFINITION of Great Cat and small cat.
Hard to take any supposed 'resarcher" seriously who didn't even know the bilogical definitiosn of his subject material.
This belongs on Whitley's World, not Slashdot.
(If you are INTO new-age total BS psuedo-science you might want to try www.whitleysworld.com)
With some good historical supprot says all you need for a revolution is a fat and greedy middle class.
This can be extremely secure if absed on a smartcard. Basicly its public/private key encryption. Thec ard holds a private key which it uses to generate a token that can be public-key verified on the far end. In various ways it can be ensured that a number once used cannot be used again so in fact it is extra-secure against kiddies grabbing card numbers.
Keep in midn that vanilla credit cards have a 20% fraud rate. Thats a ALOT of money to pay for infrastructure if you can significantly reduce that percentage.
Many many years ago, i had a friend in the same CS program as myself. We tooka few classes together and, as I had a computer and he didn't (this was 20 years ago) we did our assignments on my machine.
This naturally led to designing the code together and, in afct, if you mapped variable names you'd fidn our assignments looekd rather similar.
Was this bad? i don't think so. I learend valuable thinsg about team projects. Years later my friedn told me he learned as much about engineering from me as he did from our professors.
Ultimately the goal of an educational institution shoudl be education and anything that enriches a student's education shoudl be good. While I don't support people riding along on others work and doign ntohing, the afct of the matter is that thsoe people aren't learnign anything the world will bite them in the ass soon enough.
My guess is your school is a big state school. Big state schoosl have a way of forgetting that the structure exists for education and start valuing the structure above all else. I fell for your fellow students. If I wer them, I'd try ot get a pro-bono attorney and fight back.
(I actually DID sue my school eventually over the administration taking an unreasonable action that hurt my transcript. It was avery diffrent sort of manner. They lied to me then told me I was responsible for knowing they were lying.)
In the US it probably is a Copyright issue, though it may be an employment issue as well when it coems to your agreement with them. (I hoep you kept a copy safely tucked away.)
In in the US, take heart in that the last revision of the US copyright law (1988 I believe) actually did a great deal to strengthen authors' rights in cases such as this.
.. of Slashdot repsonse to anything.
(1) It doesn't say what I want to hear so it must be wrong.
(2) It doesn't say what I want to hear and thus evil corporations are to blame.
(3) hey, that was an interesting peice.
Sad thing is we see so little of 3. This man did a service to the community in writing a free plain-english legal brief. I for one am greatful he did so. I know a lot about copyright already but i learned a lot about the most recent decisions and their meaning.
And some already exist for some things you specifiy.
For instance there are a few RFCs the togetehr define IRC.
I should add...
That as soon as the copy shop publicizes the fact that, if you do your own copying, you can copy illegal stuff they DO become liable because they are actively encouraging and profiting from an illegal activity.
Yes, it coems down to control.
Itw as not considered reasonable that a copy shop have to stand over the shoudler and check copyrights on every thing brought in.
HOWEVER if there is a pattern of a given book being xeroxed at a given store-- al lthe students for one class fro instance regualrly photocopying the oen text book, the copy shopo CAN be made to watch for and stop that particular behavior.
It all comes back to the control issue.
Because all theys tore is raw bits they have no understanding inherently of the data.
Because they do not limit themsleves to a media type where the vast vast majority of fiels are infringing (ie MP3) they have a broad argument that their busienss is in vast majority legal.
FInally and priobably msot significantly since all they do is return bits back to the folks who stored them with them, this is actually archival, a specially protected area under copyright law. thsi is why its legal for you to make a tapew of oen of your CDs for yourself but NOT for a friend unelss he or she also owns the copyright.
So, in short, no.
HOWEVER if someoen could show the backup company that something stored on their site was clearly an infringing copy (ie the original copy was prvably illegal then they COUlD probably get it removed.
Which is al las it should be.
Precisely.
The term for this in Copyright law is "implied license."
Is not to try to make money by stealing something of someone elses or providing the tools for that theaft.
You wrote:
"Specifically, the Copyright Board says their ruling "does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else."
You had better check this witha canadian lawyer, I have a feeling youa re misinterpretiung this.
If you are in fact correct, then Canada has just violated the International Copyright treaty and you cna expect a general outcry from the rest of the developed nations. In fact if this were true I suspect record companies here in the states (I knwo how canadians hate it when refer to the sates as "america") will immediately stop shipping releases to Canada.
The technology employed to carry the data is not the issue.
The issues coem down to control or lack thereof, and your economic model in terms of where your profit derives from.
If the courts decided that youw er eseliing a program thats primary draw was to do somethign illegal with it then you might be in trouble. If its a generic, non centralized, non controlled file sharing prgoram you might be okay-- but then its doubtful you cna fidn any wayto make money off it.
As soon as you have any kind of ongoing conenction to the users (ie serving ads to them0 you have a potentail control mechanism and become obligated potetnailly to use that mechanism to police your users.
The courts work, once again its been restablished that making money off of the theaft of someone elses property, whether you do the theaft or enable others to, is an illegal act. Thsi s how it should be if we dont want rampant anarchy. If you really believe in this grand moral vision of a connected world then DON'T try to make money off it and you will be significantly safer.
if not go back to college and take a basic scientific methods course.
The Slashdot communty in NO way represents a reasonable or scientific sampling of anything other then the tiny subsection of the communtiy who are drawn to a place like Slashdot.
Nopw with that out of the way... why does anyone want to poll??? Yo udon't get to vote for what laws you do or don't want to be held accountable for. You vote for lawmakers who make laws we are ALL obliged to follow or suffer the consequences. Civics 101.
Pay attention to his concluisions about deniability and the need to act once notified.
Both FedEx and MaBell have many desirable characteristics:
(1) They are carriers but they never have even a transient copy of the item in memory. In contrats all P2P systems actually ceate a copy of the file. It is much more like a fax machine then a P2P system.
(2) The legal uses of the system far outweigh the illegal uses in terms of actual revenue drivers. The same cannot be said of naptser in actual practice. This helps reduce the idea of "vicarious infringement."
If you look at it honestly, you can see that napster was designed to be used for an illegal purpose, copying copyrighted music, promoted for that purpose, and thats far and away the most common use to which it is put and thus where the majority of their revenue directly or indirectly coems from.
(3) MaBell and FedEx both have models where it is not only difficult but in fact illegal for them to monitor activity of their users. Ergo again they have maximal deniability.
(4) When illegal uses of their systems are brought to their attention, both FedEx and maBell bend over backwards to support and help proper law enforcement.
As mucha s you'ld like to believe it does, the "common carrier" defense celarly does NOT apply to napster as the courts have decided.