Thanks for clearing that up. Who knew the comments forum could be used for the dissemination of knowledge, even when such dissemination involves no irony, sarcasm, or inside jokes?
If I remember correctly, the finding of the new Hobbit species was discredited as a "dwarf" mutant of a long-discovered human ancestor. Was this discrediting discredited itself?
I don't think AOL is much to blame for this; they can't be faulted for the fact that Microsoft provides a powerful media player (also free) and that Media Player is quite hard to keep up with. So blame Microsoft - isn't that easier anyway?
No, but your analogy doesn't pan out. The "Locker" association is creating the container for some content. If there was some content, say a diamond, and the proprietor of the diamond licensed the Security Locker Association of America to hold that diamond in their locker under the condition that they use a Master padlock, then the diamond's owner would sue the SLAA if such a padlock was not used. Masterlock hasn't done anything wrong, nor is SLAA in a position to litigate.
If you are legally entitled to bypass the security features, as you claim, then wouldn't it be legal to use the 'boltcutting' tools available? After all, it's *your* shed you're breaking into.
Sorry, bub, but I wasn't trying to justify the terms of the contract. You've been duped if you think that you can breach a contract after you've signed on the dotted line simply because it's easier to do so.
And, to take it off-topic a bit: You've also been duped if you think the American military is much different from Vinny & Sons. I live in the midwest, so I don't have much use for border protections or defense against foreign attack, at this point. Does this mean I don't have to pay the tab for the military? Absolutely not. My point is that your analogy is moot.
Since when has a breach of contract been legal? It may not be a criminal act against the state, but it's still not allowed by law, AFAIK. Can any REAL lawyers confirm/refute this?
These protection features are "just annoyances" in the same way that padlocks are "just annoyances". If someone wants to open something locked with a padlock, it's really *not that hard* for him to do so, either by picking or with some bolt cutters. If a company is licensed to sell someone's technology, provided they put a padlock on the box containing that technology, they had better put the padlock on there, regardless of the prevalence of boltcutters.
It's not news that security features only keep honest people out.
If the chipmakers violated their licenses, they have broken the law and possibly caused a loss of revenue at the same time. Pulling the licenses does not reverse the damage done, so MPAA is justified in trying to recover those damages.
If Ron Howard was not in it, then to me, it does not exist. That's my credo not only for George Lucas films, but everything in life. Without Ron Howard, life simply isn't life.
Certainly we ought not deal consequences that could haunt someone for the rest of their life. What other kind of real consequence is there? People are willing to risk a slap on the wrist; if they realize that their actions can affect the balance of their personal and professional lives, they might more seriously consider NOT doing the things that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
It's great that they do this of course, but even if the files weren't accessible on the Internet, they're still public. The Library of Congress is certainly public but this does not mean that every work is available online. Public does not necessarily mean Internet-accessible.
I'm not an advocate for child porn, but if the images are computer generated, then who is being victimized in these cases? Apparently the reasoning being used to argue against said images is the fact that they "whet" the appetite of pedophiles and would potentially hurt children in the future. However, rules regarding "prior restraint" prevent authorities from taking actions against speech that would have the potential to cause harm before it actually does so. So in other words, until these pedophiles actually victimize children, there is nothing to punish them for. And as much as we disagree with their perversions, we can't penalize the sickos for them.
You really have to get out of there. If you're getting multiple offers from other businesses, then apparently there's a market for workers of your caliber. If your coworkers are as talented as you say, then they should have no trouble finding work when they follow your lead and move on.
A cheap and easy way to get your feet wet so to speak would be to place an ad in your local paper. See if this would scare up some attention, and go from there.
One of the reasons for atc is that airplane altitude gauges are not always perfectly correct. Moreover, there are sometimes problems with these gauges. So it is important that pilots don't have to rely solely on their own instruments as their only source of information.
Okay, let me qualify my statement. Nobody I know uses it for legal purposes. Maybe Michigan is filled with law-breaking citizens (as are all the geographic locations of the people with whom I'm spoken through the Internet).
I understand that it is a tool and do agree with that. But unfortunately, it is hardly ever used for legal trading. Most people who use Napster use it to trade copyrighted work that is illegal to distribute. Until there is a way to combat that use effectively, I see nothing wrong with shutting Napster down. Of course, I'm not the judge.
Apparently it did, because I still don't get it. What is the right way to protect copyrights? I see nothing wrong with the way the RIAA is pUrsuing Napster, so maybe that's the source of my problem. I'd love it if you could explain it to me.
"This doesn't make any sense: why would you go after this kid? Shouldn't you sue the people who wrote his operating system and FTP server? *cough* *cough*."
What's the logic here? The programmers didn't write the OS and server with the intent that the kid would use it to break copyright laws. The kid, however, did use them to do so, so of course he's going to get in trouble. What's the part that doesn't make sense? If you do something wrong, you get in trouble.
As far as going after the other millions who do the same thing, they have to start somewhere. They can't nab all child pornographers at once but they're sure as hell going to get one at a time.
Defend what the kid did if you want, but it's currently illegal. He gets what's coming to him.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . that he is stressed, tense, not a natural leader, and struggling to concentrate. Something ELSE you want to tell us, Bill?
Thanks for clearing that up. Who knew the comments forum could be used for the dissemination of knowledge, even when such dissemination involves no irony, sarcasm, or inside jokes?
If I remember correctly, the finding of the new Hobbit species was discredited as a "dwarf" mutant of a long-discovered human ancestor. Was this discrediting discredited itself?
I don't think AOL is much to blame for this; they can't be faulted for the fact that Microsoft provides a powerful media player (also free) and that Media Player is quite hard to keep up with. So blame Microsoft - isn't that easier anyway?
So when I grow a pair, where do I grow it?
Please tell me my chin.
No, but your analogy doesn't pan out. The "Locker" association is creating the container for some content. If there was some content, say a diamond, and the proprietor of the diamond licensed the Security Locker Association of America to hold that diamond in their locker under the condition that they use a Master padlock, then the diamond's owner would sue the SLAA if such a padlock was not used. Masterlock hasn't done anything wrong, nor is SLAA in a position to litigate.
If you are legally entitled to bypass the security features, as you claim, then wouldn't it be legal to use the 'boltcutting' tools available? After all, it's *your* shed you're breaking into.
Sorry, bub, but I wasn't trying to justify the terms of the contract. You've been duped if you think that you can breach a contract after you've signed on the dotted line simply because it's easier to do so.
And, to take it off-topic a bit: You've also been duped if you think the American military is much different from Vinny & Sons. I live in the midwest, so I don't have much use for border protections or defense against foreign attack, at this point. Does this mean I don't have to pay the tab for the military? Absolutely not. My point is that your analogy is moot.
Since when has a breach of contract been legal? It may not be a criminal act against the state, but it's still not allowed by law, AFAIK. Can any REAL lawyers confirm/refute this?
These protection features are "just annoyances" in the same way that padlocks are "just annoyances". If someone wants to open something locked with a padlock, it's really *not that hard* for him to do so, either by picking or with some bolt cutters. If a company is licensed to sell someone's technology, provided they put a padlock on the box containing that technology, they had better put the padlock on there, regardless of the prevalence of boltcutters.
It's not news that security features only keep honest people out.
If the chipmakers violated their licenses, they have broken the law and possibly caused a loss of revenue at the same time. Pulling the licenses does not reverse the damage done, so MPAA is justified in trying to recover those damages.
If Ron Howard was not in it, then to me, it does not exist. That's my credo not only for George Lucas films, but everything in life. Without Ron Howard, life simply isn't life.
I'm still waiting for the second and third parts of the American Graffiti trilogy.
Don't keep me waiting, George!
Certainly we ought not deal consequences that could haunt someone for the rest of their life. What other kind of real consequence is there? People are willing to risk a slap on the wrist; if they realize that their actions can affect the balance of their personal and professional lives, they might more seriously consider NOT doing the things that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
Is there a "remove my incoherent post" option on here?
This is just Plume's red herring attempt to get the pressure off. They've got to still be doing something we can be angry about!
It's great that they do this of course, but even if the files weren't accessible on the Internet, they're still public. The Library of Congress is certainly public but this does not mean that every work is available online. Public does not necessarily mean Internet-accessible.
I'm not an advocate for child porn, but if the images are computer generated, then who is being victimized in these cases? Apparently the reasoning being used to argue against said images is the fact that they "whet" the appetite of pedophiles and would potentially hurt children in the future. However, rules regarding "prior restraint" prevent authorities from taking actions against speech that would have the potential to cause harm before it actually does so. So in other words, until these pedophiles actually victimize children, there is nothing to punish them for. And as much as we disagree with their perversions, we can't penalize the sickos for them.
You really have to get out of there. If you're getting multiple offers from other businesses, then apparently there's a market for workers of your caliber. If your coworkers are as talented as you say, then they should have no trouble finding work when they follow your lead and move on.
A cheap and easy way to get your feet wet so to speak would be to place an ad in your local paper. See if this would scare up some attention, and go from there.
One of the reasons for atc is that airplane altitude gauges are not always perfectly correct. Moreover, there are sometimes problems with these gauges. So it is important that pilots don't have to rely solely on their own instruments as their only source of information.
Okay, let me qualify my statement. Nobody I know uses it for legal purposes. Maybe Michigan is filled with law-breaking citizens (as are all the geographic locations of the people with whom I'm spoken through the Internet).
I understand that it is a tool and do agree with that. But unfortunately, it is hardly ever used for legal trading. Most people who use Napster use it to trade copyrighted work that is illegal to distribute. Until there is a way to combat that use effectively, I see nothing wrong with shutting Napster down. Of course, I'm not the judge.
Apparently it did, because I still don't get it. What is the right way to protect copyrights? I see nothing wrong with the way the RIAA is pUrsuing Napster, so maybe that's the source of my problem. I'd love it if you could explain it to me.
What's the logic here? The programmers didn't write the OS and server with the intent that the kid would use it to break copyright laws. The kid, however, did use them to do so, so of course he's going to get in trouble. What's the part that doesn't make sense? If you do something wrong, you get in trouble.
As far as going after the other millions who do the same thing, they have to start somewhere. They can't nab all child pornographers at once but they're sure as hell going to get one at a time.
Defend what the kid did if you want, but it's currently illegal. He gets what's coming to him.