To steal, one must take something from another's possession, and deprive them of its use. What he did was illegal, as the jury found. However, if all he did was copy the code, as opposed to destroying the originals and all versioned/archived/backed-up copies, then he didn't steal anything. The MAFIAA (Music and Film Industry Associations of America) would like you to think that what this man did was steal, because it's a short hop to apply the same logic from code to music and film. They'd be wrong.
Yes, he DID deprive them of something. He deprived them of their ability to control the source code that they owned.
Here is a big example: the release of Spore. That game had thousands of bad reviews because of the DRM. People who never played/bought the game.
I saw something like this on Newegg(I believe), was researching graphic cards when I came across a review which had no depth to it. The review stated that for the same price you could purchase two graphics cards and basically have dual cards and have about 10% performance gain. The review neglected to say anything about having to purchase bigger case, motherboard that supports two video cards, and upping the power supply to accommodate the additional card.
So the review was obviously made by someone who didn't purchase the product.
None of that applies if you already have a large case, dual video card motherboard, and a large enough power supply.
I think where Wikileaks loses sympathy is with the release of diplomatic cables that have no other purpose than to release them. It's one thing to release information of wrong-doing. It's another altogether to release materials simply because you have them and can. It's disappointing that a) Ellsberg would equate the two and b) that Wikileaks is attempting to justify it.
For that reason I'm against Wikileaks. I don't consider them a journalistic organization. The NYT wouldn't ever say, "Look if you go after our reporter we'll release even more information!" They would take a stand or not take a stand. So Wikileaks really throws any media protection they may have had out the window. They've moved into a retaliatory mode. I'm not sure this doesn't make their actions combative and therefore a legitimate threat.
How do you know is or isn't important at the time? Some minor paper that at first glance appears totally trivial could provide the one piece of information that adds the context necessary to understand something much larger.
The real myth that should be tested is that President Obama is actually a progressive or a liberal kind of a politician.
I am a libertarian and I can't stand any other approach - socially liberal and completely free market fiscally, but to me it is obvious that Obama is actually not very socially liberal and definitely not free market oriented at all (*I think he has no clue about economics, period), but so many people believe that he is actually a liberal and yet so many believe that he is the Devil, etc. that there seems to be a good bunch of myths that could be busted about this guy, while some may just be confirmed. Maybe he is a Muslim/atheist/communist/fascist/Maoist/devil worshiper born in Kenya, I kind of hope he is all of those things at once, at least that would be interesting.
That sounds like it's all just arguing over the definition of words and political opinions. I think you have the wrong show.
Two years ago, an article in PC World likened putting a video card in a laptop to open heart surgery. Has this improved over the past two years? And how do kids convince mom to buy them gaming laptops instead of Nintendo DS?
I can't answer that. All the laptops my friends have are made for gaming, and they are all over 25 so purchased them on their own.
With or Without Wikileaks the documents would have been made public. They were already leaked before they were made public up on the web site, that's how wikileaks got them in the first place. It's the leak that was illegal, not the publishing.
Browsers "request" pages in the same way a garage door remote "requests" that a garage door open. Just because you happen to be able to open the garage door without having the specific remote designed to open it doesn't make the contents of a garage public. The login page for the website was the designated entry point for the video, no other public access point was published. He pointed people to a method for accessing the content without going through the login page.
This doesn't solve the problem of people going around the security, which was the entire point of my example.
But nobody went around security. We're talking about a guy who went up to the bouncer and was told, "yeah, you can go in" and who later got arrested for trespassing (in the terms of our analogy), and you're essentially arguing that this is legit because if the guard had said no, he could have potentially snuck in. Because he could have snuck in, he must be a criminal for going in the front door with permission!
No, he didn't even go up to the bouncer (the login page), we went around the bouncer and went in through an unmarked door (a URL that wasn't linked from anyplace). Servers are NOT intelligent, they are unthinking hunks of metal, you can not equate a server to a thinking person.
No, there's no unattended hole in the fence. If you're going to hand over control of anything to another party you need to set instructions.
FWIW, rent-a-cops and servers have a lot in common when it comes to making intelligent decisions. The only difference is that the servers are consistent and don't have "friends" they bend the rules for without you knowing.
But the server isn't another party, it's a tool. It's a hunk of metal and plastic, very much like a fence. HTTP uses words like "Request" and "Response" because they are convenient metaphors for humans, not because its some kind of real conversation. The browser requests a web page in the same way a key requests a lock to open. The Request / Key is a pattern that the Server / Lock is designed to respond to. Just because there may be another pattern that the lock will open for doesn't mean that what's behind the lock is public.
You're misinformed about how the internet works. The requesting browser _asks_ for content based on a URL. The server provides that content based on the permissions set in the server.
Imagine if you hired a security firm to work the gate at your private party, and told them that you had a bunch of people coming the party, but to only let those people in who came to the gate and asked to come in.
People you didn't know came to the gate, asked to get in, and YOUR security firm let them in based on your instructions. Who's fault is is that people you don't know got in the gate?
There was no hacking, no downed or cut fence. Everybody came in through the door, though they may have not taken the same road to get there as others. Even more importantly, they were let in by the security guard at the front. If you can't hand out tickets, or have the guard check IDs of of a guest list, it's YOUR problem for being an idiot.
I'm not misinformed at all, I know perfectly well how the HTTP protocol works. Servers are not intelligent in the same way a person is, they can't make informed decisions based on situations they aren't explicitly programmed for. The poorly configured fence is equivalent to the poorly configured server in my example. expecting a server to make an intelligent decision about who is allowed access is like expecting a fence to make a decision about who is allowed in. Just because there was a security hole that allowed people to access content in a way that wasn't intended does NOT make that content public. I'm definitely not arguing for the fines this man received, but this case isn't so cut and dry. There was no public "road" leading to the content (No links leading to the content in question). They made an attempt to secure their video, they didn't do a very good job, This is the same as my example where the property owners made an attempt to secure the concert with a fence, but missed the downed section.
Would a person guiding people through the fence hole be in legal trouble? I'm honestly interested in an answer to this example, because I don't know what would actually happen in that situation.
I don't really want to defend this, but it brought up another situation in my mind that seems similar.
Lets say there is a concert at on private property. There is a gate where tickets are sold for entry. They have a barbed wire fence around the area to keep non paying people from entering, but a section has fallen over. Would it be illegal to guide people though the hole in the fence to watch the concert without paying?
Just because some people don't finish games that doesn't mean the games should be made shorter. If you didn't finish the game (for reasons other than bugs) does that somehow diminish your enjoyment of it? There are lots of people who enjoy long games and will play through them. The people who like long and complex games shouldn't end up paying the same price for a shorted game just so that someone with little patience can get the "Completed the Game" achievement.
I'm not one of those people who mindlessly bashes on Microsoft for being Microsoft. But what I see here is the president of a Microsoft branch saying one of their competitors is dying. Specifically a competitor for, essentially, a government contract.
He didn't say it's dyeing, he said its at the end of it's software life-cycle. which means it's feature complete and mostly bug free.
Slashdot Mirror
To steal, one must take something from another's possession, and deprive them of its use. What he did was illegal, as the jury found. However, if all he did was copy the code, as opposed to destroying the originals and all versioned/archived/backed-up copies, then he didn't steal anything. The MAFIAA (Music and Film Industry Associations of America) would like you to think that what this man did was steal, because it's a short hop to apply the same logic from code to music and film. They'd be wrong.
Yes, he DID deprive them of something. He deprived them of their ability to control the source code that they owned.
Here is a big example: the release of Spore. That game had thousands of bad reviews because of the DRM. People who never played/bought the game.
I saw something like this on Newegg(I believe), was researching graphic cards when I came across a review which had no depth to it. The review stated that for the same price you could purchase two graphics cards and basically have dual cards and have about 10% performance gain. The review neglected to say anything about having to purchase bigger case, motherboard that supports two video cards, and upping the power supply to accommodate the additional card.
So the review was obviously made by someone who didn't purchase the product.
None of that applies if you already have a large case, dual video card motherboard, and a large enough power supply.
I think where Wikileaks loses sympathy is with the release of diplomatic cables that have no other purpose than to release them. It's one thing to release information of wrong-doing. It's another altogether to release materials simply because you have them and can. It's disappointing that a) Ellsberg would equate the two and b) that Wikileaks is attempting to justify it.
For that reason I'm against Wikileaks. I don't consider them a journalistic organization. The NYT wouldn't ever say, "Look if you go after our reporter we'll release even more information!" They would take a stand or not take a stand. So Wikileaks really throws any media protection they may have had out the window. They've moved into a retaliatory mode. I'm not sure this doesn't make their actions combative and therefore a legitimate threat.
How do you know is or isn't important at the time? Some minor paper that at first glance appears totally trivial could provide the one piece of information that adds the context necessary to understand something much larger.
15 days after air ?
Pfft
I can get them on torrents after 1 or 2 days
unless its the next day, I am still not interested.
One or 2 days? If you know the right sites you can get them 5 to 10 minutes after they air.
The real myth that should be tested is that President Obama is actually a progressive or a liberal kind of a politician.
I am a libertarian and I can't stand any other approach - socially liberal and completely free market fiscally, but to me it is obvious that Obama is actually not very socially liberal and definitely not free market oriented at all (*I think he has no clue about economics, period), but so many people believe that he is actually a liberal and yet so many believe that he is the Devil, etc. that there seems to be a good bunch of myths that could be busted about this guy, while some may just be confirmed. Maybe he is a Muslim/atheist/communist/fascist/Maoist/devil worshiper born in Kenya, I kind of hope he is all of those things at once, at least that would be interesting.
That sounds like it's all just arguing over the definition of words and political opinions. I think you have the wrong show.
I have played a pirated copy of Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 for years.
While true, you just suck at it so much you lose every game in under 30 seconds so you wouldn't have noticed the explosion. :)
“Our gold nanoparticles are not only ecologically and biologically benign, they are also biologically active against cancer cells,”
A) How can you be benign AND active?.
B) everything is poisonous. It's the dose them makes the poison.
C) I can't see how this process uses no electricity. How does the cinnamon and gold particles get together? how is the cinnamon remove?
D) How much energy will go into harvesting more cinnamon?
I hope is true because Oz. to Oz Cinnamon will be a safer product to use in the process, but it's not magic.
A: Magic
B: Cinnamon is all natural, and there for only hurts bad things. It's good for your skin too!
C1: Elves, C2: Free Range Hamsters
D: None
What about electrical transmission, smart guy?
It's not like people haven't tried to steal that copper wire from power lines. I'm pretty sire fiber optic won't help there.
That's easy! just replace the copper with something else that isn't copper that still conducts electricity, something like gold maybe.
Two years ago, an article in PC World likened putting a video card in a laptop to open heart surgery. Has this improved over the past two years? And how do kids convince mom to buy them gaming laptops instead of Nintendo DS?
I can't answer that. All the laptops my friends have are made for gaming, and they are all over 25 so purchased them on their own.
I started buying more titles on PC than console last year
So what do you drag out when you have friends over? What PC games supporting, say, four gamepads and an HDTV monitor do you recommend?
Well, I play on my desktop, and they play on their laptops. We all get our very own screen!
With or Without Wikileaks the documents would have been made public. They were already leaked before they were made public up on the web site, that's how wikileaks got them in the first place. It's the leak that was illegal, not the publishing.
Still the safest place until you house burns down
Until everyone starts doing it. Then the crooks know there's a goldmine in practically every empty house.
multiplied by millions or billions of chips. k.
He's only going to eat one... How many do you think the average person is going to eat?
Font size: this time it'll be 84 point.
http://linuxers.org/article/browser-fingerprinting-technique-identify-users-without-using-cookies
Browsers "request" pages in the same way a garage door remote "requests" that a garage door open. Just because you happen to be able to open the garage door without having the specific remote designed to open it doesn't make the contents of a garage public. The login page for the website was the designated entry point for the video, no other public access point was published. He pointed people to a method for accessing the content without going through the login page.
This doesn't solve the problem of people going around the security, which was the entire point of my example.
But nobody went around security. We're talking about a guy who went up to the bouncer and was told, "yeah, you can go in" and who later got arrested for trespassing (in the terms of our analogy), and you're essentially arguing that this is legit because if the guard had said no, he could have potentially snuck in. Because he could have snuck in, he must be a criminal for going in the front door with permission!
No, he didn't even go up to the bouncer (the login page), we went around the bouncer and went in through an unmarked door (a URL that wasn't linked from anyplace). Servers are NOT intelligent, they are unthinking hunks of metal, you can not equate a server to a thinking person.
This doesn't solve the problem of people going around the security, which was the entire point of my example.
No, there's no unattended hole in the fence. If you're going to hand over control of anything to another party you need to set instructions.
FWIW, rent-a-cops and servers have a lot in common when it comes to making intelligent decisions. The only difference is that the servers are consistent and don't have "friends" they bend the rules for without you knowing.
But the server isn't another party, it's a tool. It's a hunk of metal and plastic, very much like a fence. HTTP uses words like "Request" and "Response" because they are convenient metaphors for humans, not because its some kind of real conversation. The browser requests a web page in the same way a key requests a lock to open. The Request / Key is a pattern that the Server / Lock is designed to respond to. Just because there may be another pattern that the lock will open for doesn't mean that what's behind the lock is public.
You're misinformed about how the internet works. The requesting browser _asks_ for content based on a URL. The server provides that content based on the permissions set in the server.
Imagine if you hired a security firm to work the gate at your private party, and told them that you had a bunch of people coming the party, but to only let those people in who came to the gate and asked to come in.
People you didn't know came to the gate, asked to get in, and YOUR security firm let them in based on your instructions. Who's fault is is that people you don't know got in the gate?
There was no hacking, no downed or cut fence. Everybody came in through the door, though they may have not taken the same road to get there as others. Even more importantly, they were let in by the security guard at the front. If you can't hand out tickets, or have the guard check IDs of of a guest list, it's YOUR problem for being an idiot.
I'm not misinformed at all, I know perfectly well how the HTTP protocol works. Servers are not intelligent in the same way a person is, they can't make informed decisions based on situations they aren't explicitly programmed for. The poorly configured fence is equivalent to the poorly configured server in my example. expecting a server to make an intelligent decision about who is allowed access is like expecting a fence to make a decision about who is allowed in. Just because there was a security hole that allowed people to access content in a way that wasn't intended does NOT make that content public. I'm definitely not arguing for the fines this man received, but this case isn't so cut and dry. There was no public "road" leading to the content (No links leading to the content in question). They made an attempt to secure their video, they didn't do a very good job, This is the same as my example where the property owners made an attempt to secure the concert with a fence, but missed the downed section.
Would a person guiding people through the fence hole be in legal trouble? I'm honestly interested in an answer to this example, because I don't know what would actually happen in that situation.
I don't really want to defend this, but it brought up another situation in my mind that seems similar.
Lets say there is a concert at on private property. There is a gate where tickets are sold for entry. They have a barbed wire fence around the area to keep non paying people from entering, but a section has fallen over. Would it be illegal to guide people though the hole in the fence to watch the concert without paying?
Just because some people don't finish games that doesn't mean the games should be made shorter. If you didn't finish the game (for reasons other than bugs) does that somehow diminish your enjoyment of it? There are lots of people who enjoy long games and will play through them. The people who like long and complex games shouldn't end up paying the same price for a shorted game just so that someone with little patience can get the "Completed the Game" achievement.
Because there's never a reason that a passenger would want to take a phone call. Or for a driver to call 911 for any reason...
Or pedestrians walking down the street close to a running car for that matter.
He didn't say it's dyeing, he said its at the end of it's software life-cycle. which means it's feature complete and mostly bug free.
Please see the wikipedia article on CPRM and SD Cards. It most certainly CAN be made permanent as part of the Spec.