Much learning occurs *outside* of classrooms. Learning to be a good person, how to camp, swim, fish, etc. and enjoy life.
This reminds me of those 'Scout' camps I used to get sent on during the summer break.
I hated them so much that I didn't shit for the whole time I was there. The longest was 8 days, and after 7 days I was busting so badly that when I finally caved into desperation and sat on a toilet, I tore my ring with a shit so hard and long that I was scared to eat food for weeks afterwards.
In fact 20 years later, I still have a phobia of campsite latrines.
Text based terminal apps for DOS like Telix/Procomm/Zcomm/etc that were used in the '80s to connect to BBSs didn't execute any code at all. In fact, back then, with the exception of a few internet worms and trojan style applications, viruses were all disk based and propagated when someone physically passed the media to someone else.
It wasn't until email/internet and Windows became popular in the '90s that non-disk based viruses became a problem. For a time, browsers were utterly insecure, but at the time, web content was in it's infancy and drive by attacks were few and far between. Trojaned apps, and people clicking on 'images' with.exe extensions in their email clients (ie. Outlook) were the main concern towards the end of the '90s.
The problem with that reasoning is the assumption that the law in question is reasonable in the first place. "Working it out" may have involved a ridiculous settlement far exceeding any reasonable demand in a world where that law did not exist.
Let's say there was no patent system. If that were the case, there would be no dispute in the first place.
Now, let's say the patent system did exist, but had a much higher expectation of "inventiveness" and "non-obviousness" than it currently does. Again, the dispute would be easily resolved as it would be clear where copying had taken place.
However, the current system is comprised of ambiguous laws and patents that have so little (if any) inventiveness that they are almost entirely comprised of prior art (and anything left is obvious to anyone 'skilled in the art'). Now the courts are forced to sort everything out and verdicts become pot-luck.
With laws that bring entitlement where entitlement should otherwise not exist, there will always be a conflict that cannot be resolved anywhere but in the courts. Samsung had no way out, but to either pay Apple money, or go to court and take the chance of either paying or not paying. Apple held all the cards and had no reason to back down.
And more crucially: Is that claim negated by prior art? And should it have been considered obvious to a "person skilled in the art"?
From the comments of the jury foreman, he (they) seemed to misunderstand what prior art actually is. And thus had a conflict of reasoning in applying the patent loosely to the device in question, while requiring prior art to exactly match the device in question. Whereas, the prior art should have been loosely matched to the patent, and not to the infringing device - thus negating the claim in the patent. (Assuming the prior art did actually apply.)
I've noticed that people involved in the patent system (lawyers and inventors) seem to develop an increasingly more stringent view as to how closely prior art must be to invalidate a claim. Reworded, that means that their interpretation of novelty has the bar lowered to the point where the concept of obviousness gets watered down to be meaningless. So any 'invention' that is different in the most minor or pointless way becomes fair game for an IP grab.
Now that would be fine if infringement of the patent was taken as strictly, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If the claims are looked at more broadly when applied to "infringement" than they are when applied to the prior art that would invalidate them; then the patent system becomes a stumbling block rather than a way to 'promote science and the useful arts'.
Not really, but it's not a slam-dunk reason to say that they are not using the materials that they claim they are using.
It's also possible to have a great design, and be let down by inferior materials that don't meet the engineering specifications for a product. Without further details, it's impossible to make a call either way.
Any material needs to be used correctly to make sure it lives up to expectations. But, that doesn't mean that the iPhone screens wouldn't have been even worse should they have used a cheaper/weaker glass. Everything regarding a design needs to be viewed in totality, you can't just pass blanket blame to a subset without looking at the engineering and materials as a whole.
BTW, none of this excuses the fact that iPhone screens appear to be more fragile than the screens of their competition.
That may be purely because of implementation faults. Nothing in impervious to damage, and the iPhone design may have caused impact hot spots that distribute the force in a worst-case way as to cause the glass to suffer considerably more focused force than if it was designed to present this.
This is similar to how cryptography can be misused in such a way as to allow the key to be easily cracked without breaking the crypto algorithm; or how a bridge can collapse in an otherwise small earthquake/storm due to harmonic resonance. In both examples, it was the implementation and not the individual components that were to blame.
You immediately report the incident to the police in such a way as to make it seem like you saw an otherwise unremarkable crime that the event could have been mistaken for assuming you were partially blind and deaf.
If you don't care about your family, then I suppose you could try to disappear off the grid. But, it's far better to hide in plain site if you don't have the resources to disappear properly.
CSEs list online pricing. Most of the really cheap AU 'online' shops are really just fronts for Asian based warehouses. You order something from the 'Australian' site and it comes shipped in a package postmarked in Hong Kong. Or if nothing else, it'll come via a grey market channel that originated somewhere in Asia and is then reshipped to you locally from a local clearinghouse.
What's also annoying is that shipping on Ebay items from the USA is double the shipping cost of the same item mailed or couriered out of the UK. And the distance to the UK is further than the USA. In the last few years, the cost of shipping from the USA to Australia has grown by a factor of 2 to 3.
Men can subconciously detect women who are at the fertile point of their cycle, among other things men find women more sexually attractive. The obvious (to me anyway) hypothesis is that rapists are more likely to attack women who are ovulating.
Women dress more attractively and act more 'sexy' while they're at their most fertile part of their cycle. Even more interestingly, they tend to be more attracted to the rough and ready bad-boy types during this same fertile period.
Those observations would definitely account for a higher probability of being raped while being at their most fertile. Which would in turn lead to a higher proportion of pregnancy due to unplanned/unexpected/unwanted sexual intercourse.
It's called fearmongering and is really all about how it's covered in the press by pandering to people's inherent fear of change.
It's much easier to make a bogeyman out of something or to blow it out of proportion when it's something that people don't understand, are unfamiliar with, or is a change to the status quo. Since people are interested in what changes are happening around them - those kinds of articles end up selling more newspapers / ad impressions.
Let's say a random guy runs around the USA, and once a week he pops a bullet into someone's head. Statistically, this would be insignificant and just another unsolved murder. However, if in each case he left a calling card identifying him as a common element, that would be easy pickings for front page news. Suddenly, everyone is locking their doors and hiding under the bed. If the paper had simply reported the random deaths along with the amalgamated regular murder stats, the article would be boring and people would ignore it. ie. no change to the status quo.
If you read the actual letter from the UK nothing is said about "storming" anything. The only threat is that the embassy status can be revoked, at which point Assange can be arrested like any regular alleged criminal in any private residence.
Maybe. But, how are they going to get into the 'private residence' to arrest him without first 'storming' in?
The real problem seems to be due to automated infringement generation where it's too expensive/difficult to generate enough evidence to properly identify an offender for an alleged offence. The defence "it wasn't me" is really only applicable in situations where the constabulary are too lazy to do the work themselves and are leaving the enforcement to equipment such as 'speed cameras', 'ip loggers', etc. Just because it's far easier to ticket/fine 'a piece of equipment' (and by extension its owner) than to properly police and investigate the 'crime', doesn't excuse circumventing standard judicial process.
It's even more unjust when you consider that the infringement notices turn up weeks or months (or years!) after the actual infringement has taken place.
In the absence of automated traffic enforcement systems, the driver (not the car/owner) would get pulled over immediately and ticketed. "It wasn't me" wouldn't work. But, since the fines are relatively small compared to a criminal offence, people just put up with the automated 'road tax' collection and get on with their lives.
When it comes to copyright infringement, the penalties are so massive that justice can hardly said to be served when a teenager is bankrupted for life by penalties tens of thousands of times greater than any actual damage caused. This is why due process is so important. If the fine was $99, getting 'pinged' (even when you know it wasn't you) and paying the fine would just be life in the big city.
Law enforcement personnel can ask you about anything they want at any time. That doesn't mean you have to (or can) tell them what they want to hear.
They can try to get a warrant (or in the case of the MAFIAA, a subpoena) and turn up at your place with a forensic team and search it. But, that isn't going to help them if they don't find what they want. You still don't have to tell them who you think might have committed the crime, and the fact that you can't or won't accuse someone else doesn't automatically imply that you are the guilty party.
So, how do they know how many people live at the residence serviced by the named account? And by extension which one was using the computer at the time the alleged offence is supposed to have occurred?
It's where Eve and Mallory take Alice and Bob into a 10x10x10ft dungeon and extract the passwords by using a rubber hose:
a. to beat them senseless until they are willing to talk b. beat Alice until Bob talks c. beat Bob until Alice talks d. connect one end of the hose to an air compressor and put the other end where the sun don't shine - again until someone talks e. if both die before the information is extracted, then they probably didn't know anything anyway - so call in the 'cleaners' to cover up the botched op and find someone else to harass
If the existing algorithms and implementations are so bad as to make a brute force attack take less than some time period measured in ages of the universe, then they're doing it wrong.
True. However, of those in your example, the cause would be "drunk", which probably led to all the others.
If you took away "drunk", then the cause would be "running red light". If you were tailgating someone, then that is an unrelated stupidity that wouldn't otherwise cause the accident in question (which would probably be a T-boning into or by cross traffic).
The only thing speed would have done would have been to increase the kinetic energy of the impact, assuming you were the one doing the T-boning. If it was you getting T-boned, then excessive speed may have been the reason that while spinning out of control you took out three other cars, two pedestrians and a telegraph pole. In which case speed would have definitely been a contributing factor, but not the actual cause.
The problem with the term 'speeding' is that it has two meanings. The first is the simple "exceed the posted speed limit". The second is "too fast for the conditions".
The reality is that an experienced driver will drive to the conditions which in some (many?) cases may include "exceeding the speed limit", and in other cases will be driving far below the posted limit. The same driver is, however, very unlikely to drive "too fast for the conditions".
An inexperienced (or careless) driver on the other hand is likely to do the opposite. In your example, the driver is driving dangerously (irrespective of speed). "Shooting through" red lights is idiocy on the grandest scale (again irrespective of speed), and basically means they weren't paying any attention to the road at all.
Slashdot Mirror
http:/pirateparty.org.au
Much learning occurs *outside* of classrooms. Learning to be a good person, how to camp, swim, fish, etc. and enjoy life.
This reminds me of those 'Scout' camps I used to get sent on during the summer break.
I hated them so much that I didn't shit for the whole time I was there. The longest was 8 days, and after 7 days I was busting so badly that when I finally caved into desperation and sat on a toilet, I tore my ring with a shit so hard and long that I was scared to eat food for weeks afterwards.
In fact 20 years later, I still have a phobia of campsite latrines.
Huh? Maybe I missed the woosh.
Text based terminal apps for DOS like Telix/Procomm/Zcomm/etc that were used in the '80s to connect to BBSs didn't execute any code at all. In fact, back then, with the exception of a few internet worms and trojan style applications, viruses were all disk based and propagated when someone physically passed the media to someone else.
It wasn't until email/internet and Windows became popular in the '90s that non-disk based viruses became a problem. For a time, browsers were utterly insecure, but at the time, web content was in it's infancy and drive by attacks were few and far between. Trojaned apps, and people clicking on 'images' with .exe extensions in their email clients (ie. Outlook) were the main concern towards the end of the '90s.
The problem with that reasoning is the assumption that the law in question is reasonable in the first place. "Working it out" may have involved a ridiculous settlement far exceeding any reasonable demand in a world where that law did not exist.
Let's say there was no patent system. If that were the case, there would be no dispute in the first place.
Now, let's say the patent system did exist, but had a much higher expectation of "inventiveness" and "non-obviousness" than it currently does. Again, the dispute would be easily resolved as it would be clear where copying had taken place.
However, the current system is comprised of ambiguous laws and patents that have so little (if any) inventiveness that they are almost entirely comprised of prior art (and anything left is obvious to anyone 'skilled in the art'). Now the courts are forced to sort everything out and verdicts become pot-luck.
With laws that bring entitlement where entitlement should otherwise not exist, there will always be a conflict that cannot be resolved anywhere but in the courts. Samsung had no way out, but to either pay Apple money, or go to court and take the chance of either paying or not paying. Apple held all the cards and had no reason to back down.
And more crucially: Is that claim negated by prior art? And should it have been considered obvious to a "person skilled in the art"?
From the comments of the jury foreman, he (they) seemed to misunderstand what prior art actually is. And thus had a conflict of reasoning in applying the patent loosely to the device in question, while requiring prior art to exactly match the device in question. Whereas, the prior art should have been loosely matched to the patent, and not to the infringing device - thus negating the claim in the patent. (Assuming the prior art did actually apply.)
I've noticed that people involved in the patent system (lawyers and inventors) seem to develop an increasingly more stringent view as to how closely prior art must be to invalidate a claim. Reworded, that means that their interpretation of novelty has the bar lowered to the point where the concept of obviousness gets watered down to be meaningless. So any 'invention' that is different in the most minor or pointless way becomes fair game for an IP grab.
Now that would be fine if infringement of the patent was taken as strictly, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If the claims are looked at more broadly when applied to "infringement" than they are when applied to the prior art that would invalidate them; then the patent system becomes a stumbling block rather than a way to 'promote science and the useful arts'.
Not really, but it's not a slam-dunk reason to say that they are not using the materials that they claim they are using.
It's also possible to have a great design, and be let down by inferior materials that don't meet the engineering specifications for a product. Without further details, it's impossible to make a call either way.
Any material needs to be used correctly to make sure it lives up to expectations. But, that doesn't mean that the iPhone screens wouldn't have been even worse should they have used a cheaper/weaker glass. Everything regarding a design needs to be viewed in totality, you can't just pass blanket blame to a subset without looking at the engineering and materials as a whole.
BTW, none of this excuses the fact that iPhone screens appear to be more fragile than the screens of their competition.
That may be purely because of implementation faults. Nothing in impervious to damage, and the iPhone design may have caused impact hot spots that distribute the force in a worst-case way as to cause the glass to suffer considerably more focused force than if it was designed to present this.
This is similar to how cryptography can be misused in such a way as to allow the key to be easily cracked without breaking the crypto algorithm; or how a bridge can collapse in an otherwise small earthquake/storm due to harmonic resonance. In both examples, it was the implementation and not the individual components that were to blame.
You immediately report the incident to the police in such a way as to make it seem like you saw an otherwise unremarkable crime that the event could have been mistaken for assuming you were partially blind and deaf.
If you don't care about your family, then I suppose you could try to disappear off the grid. But, it's far better to hide in plain site if you don't have the resources to disappear properly.
Silly AC, only a religious organisation could bless wine. It'd have to be Apple...
...cider?
CSEs list online pricing. Most of the really cheap AU 'online' shops are really just fronts for Asian based warehouses. You order something from the 'Australian' site and it comes shipped in a package postmarked in Hong Kong. Or if nothing else, it'll come via a grey market channel that originated somewhere in Asia and is then reshipped to you locally from a local clearinghouse.
What's also annoying is that shipping on Ebay items from the USA is double the shipping cost of the same item mailed or couriered out of the UK. And the distance to the UK is further than the USA. In the last few years, the cost of shipping from the USA to Australia has grown by a factor of 2 to 3.
Men can subconciously detect women who are at the fertile point of their cycle, among other things men find women more sexually attractive. The obvious (to me anyway) hypothesis is that rapists are more likely to attack women who are ovulating.
Women dress more attractively and act more 'sexy' while they're at their most fertile part of their cycle. Even more interestingly, they tend to be more attracted to the rough and ready bad-boy types during this same fertile period.
Those observations would definitely account for a higher probability of being raped while being at their most fertile. Which would in turn lead to a higher proportion of pregnancy due to unplanned/unexpected/unwanted sexual intercourse.
Consumers in the US are 'innately biased' against GMO foods for the simple reason that they've been drowned in the 'frankenfood is death' hype.
And don't forget that consumers are also "innately biased" against GMO foods that have been drowned in pesticides and herbicides.
Competition in the marketplace?
It's called fearmongering and is really all about how it's covered in the press by pandering to people's inherent fear of change.
It's much easier to make a bogeyman out of something or to blow it out of proportion when it's something that people don't understand, are unfamiliar with, or is a change to the status quo. Since people are interested in what changes are happening around them - those kinds of articles end up selling more newspapers / ad impressions.
Let's say a random guy runs around the USA, and once a week he pops a bullet into someone's head. Statistically, this would be insignificant and just another unsolved murder. However, if in each case he left a calling card identifying him as a common element, that would be easy pickings for front page news. Suddenly, everyone is locking their doors and hiding under the bed. If the paper had simply reported the random deaths along with the amalgamated regular murder stats, the article would be boring and people would ignore it. ie. no change to the status quo.
If you read the actual letter from the UK nothing is said about "storming" anything. The only threat is that the embassy status can be revoked, at which point Assange can be arrested like any regular alleged criminal in any private residence.
Maybe. But, how are they going to get into the 'private residence' to arrest him without first 'storming' in?
Interesting.
The real problem seems to be due to automated infringement generation where it's too expensive/difficult to generate enough evidence to properly identify an offender for an alleged offence. The defence "it wasn't me" is really only applicable in situations where the constabulary are too lazy to do the work themselves and are leaving the enforcement to equipment such as 'speed cameras', 'ip loggers', etc. Just because it's far easier to ticket/fine 'a piece of equipment' (and by extension its owner) than to properly police and investigate the 'crime', doesn't excuse circumventing standard judicial process.
It's even more unjust when you consider that the infringement notices turn up weeks or months (or years!) after the actual infringement has taken place.
In the absence of automated traffic enforcement systems, the driver (not the car/owner) would get pulled over immediately and ticketed. "It wasn't me" wouldn't work. But, since the fines are relatively small compared to a criminal offence, people just put up with the automated 'road tax' collection and get on with their lives.
When it comes to copyright infringement, the penalties are so massive that justice can hardly said to be served when a teenager is bankrupted for life by penalties tens of thousands of times greater than any actual damage caused. This is why due process is so important. If the fine was $99, getting 'pinged' (even when you know it wasn't you) and paying the fine would just be life in the big city.
Law enforcement personnel can ask you about anything they want at any time. That doesn't mean you have to (or can) tell them what they want to hear.
They can try to get a warrant (or in the case of the MAFIAA, a subpoena) and turn up at your place with a forensic team and search it. But, that isn't going to help them if they don't find what they want. You still don't have to tell them who you think might have committed the crime, and the fact that you can't or won't accuse someone else doesn't automatically imply that you are the guilty party.
And if they don't like the answer?
eg 1. There are a number of people in my household, including friends that visit regularly and all have access to the wifi network.
eg 2. The wifi node at the local coffee shop is accessible by anyone within range.
eg 3. The wifi at the place where I work is accessible by hundreds of employees and clients.
Whoever owns the account is liable.
Maybe in Soviet Russia. (Soviet USA?)
Secure your network and keep an eye on what your kids are doing.
And your partner, and your room mates, and your friends, and your employees...
So, how do they know how many people live at the residence serviced by the named account? And by extension which one was using the computer at the time the alleged offence is supposed to have occurred?
It's where Eve and Mallory take Alice and Bob into a 10x10x10ft dungeon and extract the passwords by using a rubber hose:
a. to beat them senseless until they are willing to talk
b. beat Alice until Bob talks
c. beat Bob until Alice talks
d. connect one end of the hose to an air compressor and put the other end where the sun don't shine - again until someone talks
e. if both die before the information is extracted, then they probably didn't know anything anyway - so call in the 'cleaners' to cover up the botched op and find someone else to harass
If the existing algorithms and implementations are so bad as to make a brute force attack take less than some time period measured in ages of the universe, then they're doing it wrong.
Precisely.
True. However, of those in your example, the cause would be "drunk", which probably led to all the others.
If you took away "drunk", then the cause would be "running red light". If you were tailgating someone, then that is an unrelated stupidity that wouldn't otherwise cause the accident in question (which would probably be a T-boning into or by cross traffic).
The only thing speed would have done would have been to increase the kinetic energy of the impact, assuming you were the one doing the T-boning. If it was you getting T-boned, then excessive speed may have been the reason that while spinning out of control you took out three other cars, two pedestrians and a telegraph pole. In which case speed would have definitely been a contributing factor, but not the actual cause.
The problem with the term 'speeding' is that it has two meanings. The first is the simple "exceed the posted speed limit". The second is "too fast for the conditions".
The reality is that an experienced driver will drive to the conditions which in some (many?) cases may include "exceeding the speed limit", and in other cases will be driving far below the posted limit. The same driver is, however, very unlikely to drive "too fast for the conditions".
An inexperienced (or careless) driver on the other hand is likely to do the opposite. In your example, the driver is driving dangerously (irrespective of speed). "Shooting through" red lights is idiocy on the grandest scale (again irrespective of speed), and basically means they weren't paying any attention to the road at all.