If thermal imaging devices REALLY are that cheap, then there is a grand opening for people who want to do good.
The constitution only prevents cops (and their agents) from collecting the thermal imaging data. It's perfectly lawful for citizens to scan their world. If a neighbor happens to detect a heat pattern far outside the norm along with all sorts of unusual foot traffic, then they could share the information with the cops and do their neighborhood a good turn.
I've thought about toxic chemical sensing in the context of Kyllo. Does this mean that the government can't drive around the neighborhood using enhanced sensing technology to detect poisonous chemicals (think meth manufacturing)? I would sure hope not.
"Fascism" has a clear meaning--in any context. At a minimum, it means a totalitarian movement where the citizen exists to serve the state. Mussolini's regime was the Europeanprototype.
Australia is not fascist, although it does censor some material.
"ists" and "isms" usually represent concepts that are more complex than intended by mere slur_throwers.
I still don't think I'll sign over my credit card to a MM online game, but a game that lets you destroy THOUSANDS of dollars of stuff that other people value for the sheer malicious joy . . . well, that's perversely COOL!
Inadvertence is incompatible with "full responsibility."
Inadvertence doesn't make sense when you figure out the number separate, independent, goal-directed decisions that he needed to make in his effort to use a government resource to advance his personal agenda.
When he says that the act was inadvertent, either he doesn't know what the word means or he is lying.
Now they want to give him control over one of the most intrusive databases of all time?
The truth can be buried in a big pile of disinformation. Goebbels proved that and Orwell observd it. Nothing really new there.
If you want to believe that history is "determined" by people who "alter the records," more power to you. I'd rather believe that history is intelligently designed by 45 people who work at the Wal-Mart in Branson, Missouri.
Charles and his kids are not very impressive material. Why not bring some new blood into the family, Liz? The Windsors are all about acting like monarchy, anyway! Bring in a real actor!
"Cory's Sacred Ancestors (or whoever the hell he was referencing) didn't have a clue about what effect the scanning and distribution of a book to 100,000 strangers on the Internet would have on the publishing industry."
It's not about the publishing industry. The publishing industry can go to hell. It's all about the free exchange of information. We are at the age where the author himself is placed directly next to his reader, without any need of a bloody intermediating publishing industry.
What do you need a damn publishing industry for when all you really need are authors and readers? The publishing industry only gears for the "hit" of a book. That provides no great social value. Forget the publishing industry.
On the other hand, if an author wants to slap DRM on his or her work, more power to him/her. It's the author's absolute right. But the publishing industry has no need to be in the equation anymore. They're an artifact, a relic of the times when the cost of bringing a book to the public made the "publishing industry" an economic necessity. That time is no more. The "publishing industry" needs no social support via mandated technology. We can happily let it die.
The same with the "music industry". People can make their own music now. The technology has gotten really easy in the last ten years.
The "film industry" is different. Some movies require a big chunk of capital to make, and if you make copying easy those movies might not get made. I can see the utility in some sort of protection there, but I have no good response to the argument that if books and movies are not worthy of legal propping up, then why should films be?
Let's not forget the most basic entitlement of all: The right of the people to bring down a government that does not give them the entitlements that they demand!
We poor modern peasants work a LOT more than our peasant forefathers did, thanks to our ginormously longer life expectancy. How grossly unjust!
The life of a middle age serf was nasty, brutish and short. My peasant life is fairly pleasant, protected from brutes by the cops and the army, and long-lived.
Oh, how I yearn from the idyllic peasant life of yore! When a peasant knew his place and stayed exactly the fuck there!
A State Court can only order an out of state person to do anything if that person is a party to the lawsuit. A non-party to a lawsuit can never be bound by a judgment--period. Due Process forbids this.
A state long arm statute allows the state court to take jurisdiction over out of state parties, but the parties getting "long-armed" must have "minimum contacts" with the State sufficient to justify jurisdiction (Due Process, again). Without minimum contacts you don't get jurisdiction over the out of state person, so it's impossible to make the out of state person a party to the case.
The previous post is misleading because it forgets the most very important thing--if you want to bind a person with a court judgment, you have to bring that person before the jurisdiction of the court BEFORE you get the judgment.
Finally, there is no such thing as a motion to ignore a court order (although, I admit that the idea is somewhat hilarious).
A contract is a shared "understanding" between people. You cannot copyright an understanding.
Copyright law is not a tool to protect ideas. For example, if I come up with a note for note, sound for sound duplicate of Britney Spears' latest masterpiece--without ever having been previously exposed to any of Britney's work--then my act of creation does not violate the copyright laws.
An intangible agreement itself is not copyrightable because it is merely a common thought shared in two minds. No "work" has been produced that could violate a copyright.
You can attempt to copyright a contract form. Contract form printers (in the 'old' days) would litigate over whether one form printer wrongfully copied another's form. A big problem in those kind of lawsuits was establishing originality. It is a rare contract that is executed entirely from scratch. A good lawyer takes language that has worked in the past and adapts that language to his present purposes. Using untried language is usually an unwarranted gamble. If Apex did create an "original" contract form, then that form could be copyrightable. There is is insufficient information provided on this point.
There are also "fair use" questions that come up when someone copies a copyrighted document for the purpose of debating the terms of the "understanding" and not for reuse of the form for commercial purposes.
The information provided by the linked pages is sketchy at best. It provides no "news" at all. I'm thinking that the admins just want to post provocative statements that inspire discussion, rather than providing "News for nerds. Stuff that matters."
You are naive. Many crooks are monumentally stupid. Many are too stupid to live,in fact. They die, stupidly.
The 'master criminal' looks great in the fiction media, but he doesn't appear in real life that often. I doubt that this dirtbag is any Einstein, given that he is STUPID enough to bring a weapon along during his burglary.
The USOC once gave max due process to suspected drug cheats. Dopers would get off for the stupidest reasons. Now, the focus has shifted to a 'you are responsible for the content of your own body.' This has been good for sport.
Just like a polluted athlete pollutes his sport, so does a bot pollute the internet. Suspending access is not a question of right or wrong, it is a question of ensuring the integrity of the network.
It seems clear from this thread that employers generally suck at identifying the most valuable coders. I' ve heard managers trash coders as a class (as compared to the designers who manage the project).
Basically, coders are hidden from the world by layers of management. Often that management cannot competently evaluate their work. That problem cannot be meaningfully addresssed from within. Value of a worker can only be determined by reference to the market for similar workers.
The focus should be on showcasing your capabilities to the 'outside' world, as much as doing good work for your employer. MBA morons will covet you proportionately to how others covet you.
I don't think that it's a good idea for a church to be able to assert a copyright monopoly over ANY aspect of religious doctrine.
If such nonsense were lawful, the Church could bring a lawsuit against schismatics for copyright infringement. That would infringe the right of schismatics to split from the church and form their own church.
One more VERY GOOD REMINDER why we need to separate church and state!
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks again for the legal opinion, /.
I'll take it for what it's worth.
If thermal imaging devices REALLY are that cheap, then there is a grand opening for people who want to do good.
The constitution only prevents cops (and their agents) from collecting the thermal imaging data. It's perfectly lawful for citizens to scan their world. If a neighbor happens to detect a heat pattern far outside the norm along with all sorts of unusual foot traffic, then they could share the information with the cops and do their neighborhood a good turn.
I've thought about toxic chemical sensing in the context of Kyllo. Does this mean that the government can't drive around the neighborhood using enhanced sensing technology to detect poisonous chemicals (think meth manufacturing)? I would sure hope not.
"Fascism" has a clear meaning--in any context. At a minimum, it means a totalitarian movement where the citizen exists to serve the state. Mussolini's regime was the Europeanprototype.
Australia is not fascist, although it does censor some material.
"ists" and "isms" usually represent concepts that are more complex than intended by mere slur_throwers.
I still don't think I'll sign over my credit card to a MM online game, but a game that lets you destroy THOUSANDS of dollars of stuff that other people value for the sheer malicious joy . . . well, that's perversely COOL!
It is not impossible to insult the dead. You could insult the dead by making them undead.
Inadvertence is incompatible with "full responsibility."
Inadvertence doesn't make sense when you figure out the number separate, independent, goal-directed decisions that he needed to make in his effort to use a government resource to advance his personal agenda.
When he says that the act was inadvertent, either he doesn't know what the word means or he is lying.
Now they want to give him control over one of the most intrusive databases of all time?
I'll buy that! Hail to the victors valiant, hail to the conquering heroes, hail, hail to Michigan the Champions of the West!
The truth can be buried in a big pile of disinformation. Goebbels proved that and Orwell observd it. Nothing really new there.
If you want to believe that history is "determined" by people who "alter the records," more power to you. I'd rather believe that history is intelligently designed by 45 people who work at the Wal-Mart in Branson, Missouri.
Charles and his kids are not very impressive material. Why not bring some new blood into the family, Liz? The Windsors are all about acting like monarchy, anyway! Bring in a real actor!
"Cory's Sacred Ancestors (or whoever the hell he was referencing) didn't have a clue about what effect the scanning and distribution of a book to 100,000 strangers on the Internet would have on the publishing industry."
It's not about the publishing industry. The publishing industry can go to hell. It's all about the free exchange of information. We are at the age where the author himself is placed directly next to his reader, without any need of a bloody intermediating publishing industry.
What do you need a damn publishing industry for when all you really need are authors and readers? The publishing industry only gears for the "hit" of a book. That provides no great social value. Forget the publishing industry.
On the other hand, if an author wants to slap DRM on his or her work, more power to him/her. It's the author's absolute right. But the publishing industry has no need to be in the equation anymore. They're an artifact, a relic of the times when the cost of bringing a book to the public made the "publishing industry" an economic necessity. That time is no more. The "publishing industry" needs no social support via mandated technology. We can happily let it die.
The same with the "music industry". People can make their own music now. The technology has gotten really easy in the last ten years.
The "film industry" is different. Some movies require a big chunk of capital to make, and if you make copying easy those movies might not get made. I can see the utility in some sort of protection there, but I have no good response to the argument that if books and movies are not worthy of legal propping up, then why should films be?
We do live in interesting times!
Let's not forget the most basic entitlement of all: The right of the people to bring down a government that does not give them the entitlements that they demand!
We poor modern peasants work a LOT more than our peasant forefathers did, thanks to our ginormously longer life expectancy. How grossly unjust!
The life of a middle age serf was nasty, brutish and short. My peasant life is fairly pleasant, protected from brutes by the cops and the army, and long-lived.
Oh, how I yearn from the idyllic peasant life of yore! When a peasant knew his place and stayed exactly the fuck there!
Parent post is very misleading.
A State Court can only order an out of state person to do anything if that person is a party to the lawsuit. A non-party to a lawsuit can never be bound by a judgment--period. Due Process forbids this.
A state long arm statute allows the state court to take jurisdiction over out of state parties, but the parties getting "long-armed" must have "minimum contacts" with the State sufficient to justify jurisdiction (Due Process, again). Without minimum contacts you don't get jurisdiction over the out of state person, so it's impossible to make the out of state person a party to the case.
The previous post is misleading because it forgets the most very important thing--if you want to bind a person with a court judgment, you have to bring that person before the jurisdiction of the court BEFORE you get the judgment.
Finally, there is no such thing as a motion to ignore a court order (although, I admit that the idea is somewhat hilarious).
You are hilarious. If I'm living a peasant life, I wonder what kind of life those in 3rd world countries live!
Fat, happy peasants of the world UNITE! You have nothing to lose except your consumer goods!
Easy. Employment contract implementing a trade secret. Employment contract in anticipation of litigation. Many more good secret contracts.
Cases say a blank form can be copyrighted. But the form must still meet the copyright standard to receive copyright protection.
A contract is a shared "understanding" between people. You cannot copyright an understanding.
Copyright law is not a tool to protect ideas. For example, if I come up with a note for note, sound for sound duplicate of Britney Spears' latest masterpiece--without ever having been previously exposed to any of Britney's work--then my act of creation does not violate the copyright laws.
An intangible agreement itself is not copyrightable because it is merely a common thought shared in two minds. No "work" has been produced that could violate a copyright.
You can attempt to copyright a contract form. Contract form printers (in the 'old' days) would litigate over whether one form printer wrongfully copied another's form. A big problem in those kind of lawsuits was establishing originality. It is a rare contract that is executed entirely from scratch. A good lawyer takes language that has worked in the past and adapts that language to his present purposes. Using untried language is usually an unwarranted gamble. If Apex did create an "original" contract form, then that form could be copyrightable. There is is insufficient information provided on this point.
There are also "fair use" questions that come up when someone copies a copyrighted document for the purpose of debating the terms of the "understanding" and not for reuse of the form for commercial purposes.
The information provided by the linked pages is sketchy at best. It provides no "news" at all. I'm thinking that the admins just want to post provocative statements that inspire discussion, rather than providing "News for nerds. Stuff that matters."
Silly. There is no bail. He was serving time.
No reward either.
Fool's poking a stick at a sleeping bear.
You ignore context. ."
"Even the dumbest . .
The context was not about motivation.
You are naive. Many crooks are monumentally stupid. Many are too stupid to live,in fact. They die, stupidly.
The 'master criminal' looks great in the fiction media, but he doesn't appear in real life that often. I doubt that this dirtbag is any Einstein, given that he is STUPID enough to bring a weapon along during his burglary.
The USOC once gave max due process to suspected drug cheats. Dopers would get off for the stupidest reasons. Now, the focus has shifted to a 'you are responsible for the content of your own body.' This has been good for sport.
Just like a polluted athlete pollutes his sport, so does a bot pollute the internet. Suspending access is not a question of right or wrong, it is a question of ensuring the integrity of the network.
The world will get to that place sooner or later.
Our government responds like a bull in a china shop to stuff like this.
It seems clear from this thread that employers generally suck at identifying the most valuable coders. I' ve heard managers trash coders as a class (as compared to the designers who manage the project).
Basically, coders are hidden from the world by layers of management. Often that management cannot competently evaluate their work. That problem cannot be meaningfully addresssed from within. Value of a worker can only be determined by reference to the market for similar workers.
The focus should be on showcasing your capabilities to the 'outside' world, as much as doing good work for your employer. MBA morons will covet you proportionately to how others covet you.
I don't think that it's a good idea for a church to be able to assert a copyright monopoly over ANY aspect of religious doctrine.
If such nonsense were lawful, the Church could bring a lawsuit against schismatics for copyright infringement. That would infringe the right of schismatics to split from the church and form their own church.
One more VERY GOOD REMINDER why we need to separate church and state!