You do not want judges who will overrule the law based on their own individual sense of justice--whatever that may be.
You want judges who predictably follow the law--so that the rest of us CAN ORDER OUR LIVES SO THAT WE WILL STAY OUT OF COURT!!!!!
If we can't predict what judges will do, we can't avoid litigation risk.
Litigation risk is a COST. An unnecessary, socially unproductive, cost that should be minimized as much as possible.
You may want unpredictability in the courtroom, but fortunately the intelligent people of the world do not.
And, as a bonus parting shot: Would you rather have judges rule your life (with unwritten rules) or have legislators write the rules? It's not a hard choice.
First: This is not the United States. Great Britain has a different legal system that was forged in circumstances very different from the American experience. Generalized application of US principles to GB cases is foolish. If you're going to compare the two with any meaning, you've got to do some thinking. And this is/.
Second: Don't assume that the provision of information equates to self-incrimination. It may--and it may not. The recent case of the idiot with the laptop at the border is a good illustration of how the self-incrimination issue can get a little complex.
We now have fantastic communication access to our fellow humans. We also have access to awesome creative tools that allow us to express ourselves graphically and aurally. Thanks to the BSD and GNU people we have free creative tools and the tools to create those tools.
It seems to me that the vital battles over the Internet center on reasonable access to bandwidth--not bandwidth for receiving data from the Cloud, but bandwidth for uploading and receiving content to and from the World.
What's the big deal about downloading Michael Jackson music or Terminator videos? Why waste so much time over such stupid drivel!! Express your own damn self!!!!
The parts of the brain "geared toward bodily functions" is crucial to the functioning to the brain as a whole. The brain interaction with genitalia is just one example.
Your post brings up another good point though: Before the brain is thorougly constructed, the input streams into the brain need to be thoroughly understood as well.
And, where does the brain stop? The spinal column? The nervous system? Hormones?
An enterprising scumbag could put an RFID reader and a camera outside of the copshops and collect tons and tons of data. That data could then be refined and cross-referenced with other RFID data from other sources.
Then, the pictures could be translated into facial recognition data. With the facial recognition and the RFID-database information, you could generate a pretty good cop-detector.
DefCon is providing a wonderful wake-up call to the cops. I hope they are listening!! OTOH, this stuff is so cool that the CIA and the NSA must be using it like CRAZY!
The best interface for me is one that I custom-design for myself. It follows, for me anyway, that the best software is the software that gives me the most flexibility in designing my own custom interface.
I would like to see an interface that gives users the power to create a ribbon interface or to create, for example, an interface that provides context-driven menu items based on a database of my own prior use of the software, or to create one that does BOTH.
That kind of word-processing software would be dynamite!
That's like the story I heard about the student who wrote the best exam of his life while he was on speed. The only problem is that he wrote the whole exam on one line . . . over and over again.
This will probably prompt some zero tolerance laws--any illegal drugs in your system when driving, and you are guilty. I expect that such a law would pass constitutional muster, but there would be challenges.
Law enforcement will want to jump immediately on this stuff. The big expense with this kind of thing is not buying the units and training the users and maintainers--the big expense is the inevitable war of legal challenges that will result. If the manufacturer will not fully expose its schematics and software, then law enforcement should pass on this. Full transparency from the beginning is the only way to keep litigation costs down.
This technology changes, too. Each little change in the hardware or the software can bring a new slew of expensive legal challenges. You want a system that you can live with for a long time, because change is sooo expensive.
This technology is great, but it should be implemented very deliberately.
I don't know how Louis Nizer could have kept Mr. Tennenbaum from being found liable for copyright violation! Do you? Seriously . . . Tennenbaum admitted to the copyright violation. A good lawyer can't undo that!
A good lawyer can advocate for mercy (like Clarence Darrow did for Leopold and Loeb), but it's gotta be hard when your client gets the RIAA warning letter and continues with his merry downloading or when your client is believed by the jury to be flat-out lying his/her ass off.
Sorry, but I don't get your "a good lawyer would have made a difference" point. I think that kind of rhetoric has the unfortunate effect of jacking up the Slashdot crowd into believing that there is a real chance of beating these copyright cases (hand-picked by the RIAA to go to trial) on the merits with the law as it stands now.
Your statement regarding an "impervious record for an appeal" suggests that there is a sure-fire winner buried somewhere in the case, but that only a "good lawyer" can preserve it so that the appeals court will ultimately save the day. The only meaningful appellate argument that I can see centers around the extreme punishment inflicted in these two cases. I'm unwilling to conclude, based on the record I've seen, that the lawyers have screwed THAT up. I expect that the Courts of Appeals will ultimately decide whether or not that argument has merit.
What other arguments did these lawyers miss that a "good lawyer" wouldn't have missed? None that would be outcome-determinative, as far as I can see.
The people of the USA elected representatives who passed these stupid laws. It's not the "RIAA lawyers, the defendants and their representation, the judges, the juries . ..." It's the American People who don't give enough of a damn to participate in government and save us from the stooges of the moneyed interests.
The underlying problem is the draconian punishments imposed by the copyright law. The outcome of these stupid trials are foreordained by the law.
No. Besides, you have insufficient data to render such a broad opinion.
The metaphor was selected because the RIAA is going thermonuclear on people.
The RIAA may end up hurting itself in the end. These kind of damage awards are abusive and fairly intolerable in a democracy. On the other hand, all politicians suck up to the media for obvious reasons. Ironically, the pirates suck up to the media too (except they don't pay for the privilege).
(a) If you get caught by the RIAA, settle quick. (b) Don't be a dummy and keep ripping copyrighted material after you're caught. (c) If you're too stupid to settle quick, DON'T engage show--off lawyers who won't try to settle your case for the lowest possible amount. Engage lawyers tuned in with a sense of reality. (d) Talk strategy with a bankruptcy lawyer very early on in the process. (e) Don't listen to any of the whackos who keep railing about how (boo-hoo) unfair the copyright law is. Your predicament DEMANDS a pragmatic approach--devoid of political or emotional overtones or undertones.
In the Army, I was taught the practical response when exposed to a nuclear attack. It seems appropriate here: (1) Bend over; (2) Put you head between your legs; and (3) Kiss your ass goodbye.
The law makes DRM-cracking illegal. Does that mean that publishers can slap DRM on a public domain book (lapsed copyright or otherwise), and thereby for all practical purposes extend the copyright?
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean that Linux was never more secure than Windows--only more obscure?
What a perverted statement.
Don't stop him. He's on a roll.
Your post is completely foolish.
You do not want judges who will overrule the law based on their own individual sense of justice--whatever that may be.
You want judges who predictably follow the law--so that the rest of us CAN ORDER OUR LIVES SO THAT WE WILL STAY OUT OF COURT!!!!!
If we can't predict what judges will do, we can't avoid litigation risk.
Litigation risk is a COST. An unnecessary, socially unproductive, cost that should be minimized as much as possible.
You may want unpredictability in the courtroom, but fortunately the intelligent people of the world do not.
And, as a bonus parting shot: Would you rather have judges rule your life (with unwritten rules) or have legislators write the rules? It's not a hard choice.
Get Smart!!
First: This is not the United States. Great Britain has a different legal system that was forged in circumstances very different from the American experience. Generalized application of US principles to GB cases is foolish. If you're going to compare the two with any meaning, you've got to do some thinking. And this is /.
Second: Don't assume that the provision of information equates to self-incrimination. It may--and it may not. The recent case of the idiot with the laptop at the border is a good illustration of how the self-incrimination issue can get a little complex.
We now have fantastic communication access to our fellow humans. We also have access to awesome creative tools that allow us to express ourselves graphically and aurally. Thanks to the BSD and GNU people we have free creative tools and the tools to create those tools.
It seems to me that the vital battles over the Internet center on reasonable access to bandwidth--not bandwidth for receiving data from the Cloud, but bandwidth for uploading and receiving content to and from the World.
What's the big deal about downloading Michael Jackson music or Terminator videos? Why waste so much time over such stupid drivel!! Express your own damn self!!!!
This is a great reason for public-owned internet services. Once they get monopoly power, you feel the business end of their business.
The "Streisand Effect, Russia?"
Oh! To be young, and raised in a fat prosperous society where fear is nothing more than fear of social rejection.
URANIDIOT
The parts of the brain "geared toward bodily functions" is crucial to the functioning to the brain as a whole. The brain interaction with genitalia is just one example.
Your post brings up another good point though: Before the brain is thorougly constructed, the input streams into the brain need to be thoroughly understood as well.
And, where does the brain stop? The spinal column? The nervous system? Hormones?
This is so cool!
An enterprising scumbag could put an RFID reader and a camera outside of the copshops and collect tons and tons of data. That data could then be refined and cross-referenced with other RFID data from other sources.
Then, the pictures could be translated into facial recognition data. With the facial recognition and the RFID-database information, you could generate a pretty good cop-detector.
DefCon is providing a wonderful wake-up call to the cops. I hope they are listening!! OTOH, this stuff is so cool that the CIA and the NSA must be using it like CRAZY!
As if I needed one . . .
The best interface for me is one that I custom-design for myself. It follows, for me anyway, that the best software is the software that gives me the most flexibility in designing my own custom interface.
I would like to see an interface that gives users the power to create a ribbon interface or to create, for example, an interface that provides context-driven menu items based on a database of my own prior use of the software, or to create one that does BOTH.
That kind of word-processing software would be dynamite!
If they wanna do it, they gotta get a lawyer--a lawyer who knows HIPAA. HIPAA compliance is a pain--and noncompliance can be very expensive.
Lawyer costs may even outweigh the Google savings
That's like the story I heard about the student who wrote the best exam of his life while he was on speed. The only problem is that he wrote the whole exam on one line . . . over and over again.
This will probably prompt some zero tolerance laws--any illegal drugs in your system when driving, and you are guilty. I expect that such a law would pass constitutional muster, but there would be challenges.
Law enforcement will want to jump immediately on this stuff. The big expense with this kind of thing is not buying the units and training the users and maintainers--the big expense is the inevitable war of legal challenges that will result. If the manufacturer will not fully expose its schematics and software, then law enforcement should pass on this. Full transparency from the beginning is the only way to keep litigation costs down.
This technology changes, too. Each little change in the hardware or the software can bring a new slew of expensive legal challenges. You want a system that you can live with for a long time, because change is sooo expensive.
This technology is great, but it should be implemented very deliberately.
I don't know how Louis Nizer could have kept Mr. Tennenbaum from being found liable for copyright violation! Do you? Seriously . . .
Tennenbaum admitted to the copyright violation. A good lawyer can't undo that!
A good lawyer can advocate for mercy (like Clarence Darrow did for Leopold and Loeb), but it's gotta be hard when your client gets the RIAA warning letter and continues with his merry downloading or when your client is believed by the jury to be flat-out lying his/her ass off.
Sorry, but I don't get your "a good lawyer would have made a difference" point. I think that kind of rhetoric has the unfortunate effect of jacking up the Slashdot crowd into believing that there is a real chance of beating these copyright cases (hand-picked by the RIAA to go to trial) on the merits with the law as it stands now.
Your statement regarding an "impervious record for an appeal" suggests that there is a sure-fire winner buried somewhere in the case, but that only a "good lawyer" can preserve it so that the appeals court will ultimately save the day. The only meaningful appellate argument that I can see centers around the extreme punishment inflicted in these two cases. I'm unwilling to conclude, based on the record I've seen, that the lawyers have screwed THAT up. I expect that the Courts of Appeals will ultimately decide whether or not that argument has merit.
What other arguments did these lawyers miss that a "good lawyer" wouldn't have missed? None that would be outcome-determinative, as far as I can see.
The people of the USA elected representatives who passed these stupid laws. It's not the "RIAA lawyers, the defendants and their representation, the judges, the juries . . .." It's the American People who don't give enough of a damn to participate in government and save us from the stooges of the moneyed interests.
The underlying problem is the draconian punishments imposed by the copyright law. The outcome of these stupid trials are foreordained by the law.
No. Besides, you have insufficient data to render such a broad opinion.
The metaphor was selected because the RIAA is going thermonuclear on people.
The RIAA may end up hurting itself in the end. These kind of damage awards are abusive and fairly intolerable in a democracy. On the other hand, all politicians suck up to the media for obvious reasons. Ironically, the pirates suck up to the media too (except they don't pay for the privilege).
(a) If you get caught by the RIAA, settle quick.
(b) Don't be a dummy and keep ripping copyrighted material after you're caught.
(c) If you're too stupid to settle quick, DON'T engage show--off lawyers who won't try to settle your case for the lowest possible amount. Engage lawyers tuned in with a sense of reality.
(d) Talk strategy with a bankruptcy lawyer very early on in the process.
(e) Don't listen to any of the whackos who keep railing about how (boo-hoo) unfair the copyright law is. Your predicament DEMANDS a pragmatic approach--devoid of political or emotional overtones or undertones.
In the Army, I was taught the practical response when exposed to a nuclear attack. It seems appropriate here:
(1) Bend over;
(2) Put you head between your legs; and
(3) Kiss your ass goodbye.
If this is true, it is beyond appalling. Nothing is too bad for a company that makes software buyers into its servants.
When my bicycle HUD displays rear-views and navigational data I'll be all set.
If Amazon really cared about their customers, they'd remove the facility that allows them to delete user content from user devices.
Even the capacity is unthinkable. Amazon is always trying to see just how much invasiveness they can get away with.
There are other aggregators out there . . .
As an end user, I don't want to notice my OS at ALL.
Yeah, I like that. Taxpayers are obligated to subsize unrestricted file sharing. That'll go over big in ANY country.
The law makes DRM-cracking illegal. Does that mean that publishers can slap DRM on a public domain book (lapsed copyright or otherwise), and thereby for all practical purposes extend the copyright?