It seems like there are so many ways to get around this...who is to say that a prisoner can't remove the bracelet, give it to somone else while he goes and knocks someone off or beats the hell out of someone? So much for reducing violence. As for tracking...given this major weakness, I'm not sure what the attraction is.
If you read the patent, it could be interpreted as something innovative, until you start looking at the examples of how it's meant to be used.
Correct. Now, I'd imagine that the innovation tagged by use of the phrase "...on the internet" will be replaced by "...as an object". What absurdity. What companies have started doing is disecting broad areas of knowledge/application, and staking claim to individual pieces. In this case, "...as an object" is exceedingly trivial to anyone even mildly familiar with object-oriented programming...ANYTHING can be an object. And to think that having an icon to denote some kind of state, or classification is something new or innovative....
Not matter how one chooses to semantically dance around the issue, the result is still the same: one who copies STILL has something they have no right to have, and STILL derives value and/or benefit to which they are not entitled.
Let me point something else out...there are laws which define theft of intangibles. For example... you are paying for a service, and someone decides to "benefit" from that service without your knowledge or permission, they are, at least in some jurisdictions, engaging in theft of service. Take someone who pulls their car up to your dumpster and unloads their junk instead of taking it to the landfill themselves- nothing has physically been taken, but it's still considered theft. This could just as easily apply to copyright infringement.
I'd argue that copyright infringement is a form of theft- taking something or deriving value from something that is someone else's property, without due compensation.
My understanding is that there are one or two companies (the Microsofts of the diamond industry) that have a lock on a huge part of the market. They pretty much set the market rates. When manufactured diamonds are indistinguishable from the real thing, it's likely that an entire empire could tumble. Of course, they could always do what other large orgnizations in danger of being replaced have done- lobby Congress for laws that protect their interests, rather than allowing the market to take care of itself.
I could argue that those who are responsible for the safe-keeping of that information were at fault, not the ones to gained access to it. The access was only allowed to occur because of a faulty system. The faulty system could have been compromised by anyone. It just so happens that it was compromised by some students who wanted to show that it was indeed faulty- not so that they could criminally use the information they acquired, but so that those in charge might be inclined to take their responsibility more seriously, and get the problem fixed.
If this was the first effort on the part of the students to notify the school of the suspected problem, I will say that their modus operandus wasn't the smartest. If, however, the school had been notified earlier, by refused to take action, someone's head should roll...and I'm not talking about the students.
If anything, that perhaps there may not have been any fraud in the last election. Do we know this for certain? No. All they have are statistics. Does this mean that we should embrace a paperless vote, especially one that doesn't provide any means of verification/audit?? HELL no. This is something that requires a great deal of care- NOT the kind that we've seen exercised by the likes of Diebold. Knowing how the votes are processed is not an option- it should be public information, and it should be mandated by law. There are some things that are simply beyond the scope of "trade secrets".
You have to pay extra so that someone besides you can effectively tell you what you can and cannot do with your own computer.
I also see this as possibly a first step toward a software-by-subscription model. I realize that other vendors do this, but they don't have anywhere near the level of control that Microsoft has. If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft has demonstrated that they'd prefer this model anyhow, since having people pay annually, rather than once per upgrade, would likely mean a great deal more revenue.
...to explain WHERE in the LGPL that your scenario is comes into being, while the original poster took the time to cite a specific section of the license. I'm not sure who the troll is.
The statement you've cited is 100% pure Grade-A marketspeak...first they want to familiarize these markets with its products...then, not but a few words later...havens for piracy...
Now, color me idiotic, but why would a market that isn't familiar with a certain product be havens for piracy? I don't know if they realize this, but junk like this makes Microsoft look like an amateur.
Having a screen go black merely covers up the problem. Yes, it makes Microsoft/Windows look better than it really is, but it leaves people with a false impression. What you call "obtrusive" I call "informative".
It might help to brush up on your English. A bill is a draft of a law presented to a legislature for enactment; also: the law itself. (dictionary.com). Correctly stated: the bill to continue funding for the Iraq occupation had a rider attached (also a bill) which purportedly addresses a secondary issue related to "national security".
"So the bill says"?
See above.
"alleged"? Have you already forgotten the reason that Iraq was invaded in the first place? Since there was absolutely no evidence that the initial reason was proven ligitimate, it is therefore alleged.
but you don't really believe either of the two statements you use to show the relation?
Of course I do...it's just a matter of knowing what certain words mean, and using them appropriately.
The bill is very much related. It's all about national security (or so the bill says). It is also alleged that the occupation in Iraq is in the interest of national security. The bill has come up once before, but didn't pass muster.
I do agree with your sentiment though...the practice of "ridiing" bills that otherwise wouldn't get passed is a complete end run around the democratic process.
I laughed while I was reading the article, because nearly the exact scenario happened with us (here in the U.S.) as we were trying to transfer the provision of DSL service from AOL to Qwest. Because each one decided to point the finger at the other, it took several weeks of phone calls, several promises on their part, my increasiug ire, and finally, someone who decided that it might be a good idea to actually do their job and get things take care of. The whole experience was quite nasty, but unfortunately, not all that surprising.
I disagree. You see, the report issued by the commission that investigated the 9/11 attack had some pretty harsh words to say about how things were handled- how certain things, though very visible, were allowed to slip by. Technology and police-state policies will not remove the consequences that result from this kind of incompetence. I don't think you gain much in terms of government effectiveness by turning a free country into a police state with an attitude.
If we're going to let states issue IDs that are not worth the plastic they are printed on, what's the point? Why make everyone go through the trouble of getting an ID if the criminals are just going to walk into the DMV and get fake ones anyway?
You say this as though it's going to make any difference- or did I misunderstand your intent?
Instead, they'll just issue a "motor-vehicle operator's-license-turned-universal-id" so that everyone and their grandmother can have access to pretty much everything about you. That makes a MUCH more sense.
In other words, it won't solve the problem, and it will likely create a few that we have yet to see.
What if these so-called illegals aren't stupid enough to apply for a state ID or driver's license? What then? [That sensation that your soul is being pierced is from the blank stare you'll get when you ask any politician for an honest answer to this question.]
Obviously, the guy wants to cut down on the potential terrorist threat. But who in HELL says that a terrorist needs a driver's license? Or a state ID?
So who suffers? The criminals and terrorsts? Hell no- they'll just route around it. That leaves only one other class...the vast, vast majority of people who are neither terrorists nor criminals.
Anyone who really decides to be honest with themselves will have to admit that the "support" of most commercial products is dismal. Usually you end up reinstalling something, which doesn't give you a CLUE as to what was wrong, or why it happened. And to top it all off, you get to PAY for this "support" in many situations.
You can purchase the same kind of support from several Linux vendors, as others have pointed out. I haven't had any experience yet with the Linux vendors, but I can only hope they're more competent.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like there are so many ways to get around this...who is to say that a prisoner can't remove the bracelet, give it to somone else while he goes and knocks someone off or beats the hell out of someone? So much for reducing violence. As for tracking...given this major weakness, I'm not sure what the attraction is.
touche : )
If you read the patent, it could be interpreted as something innovative, until you start looking at the examples of how it's meant to be used.
Correct. Now, I'd imagine that the innovation tagged by use of the phrase "...on the internet" will be replaced by "...as an object". What absurdity. What companies have started doing is disecting broad areas of knowledge/application, and staking claim to individual pieces. In this case, "...as an object" is exceedingly trivial to anyone even mildly familiar with object-oriented programming...ANYTHING can be an object. And to think that having an icon to denote some kind of state, or classification is something new or innovative....
Not matter how one chooses to semantically dance around the issue, the result is still the same: one who copies STILL has something they have no right to have, and STILL derives value and/or benefit to which they are not entitled.
Let me point something else out...there are laws which define theft of intangibles. For example... you are paying for a service, and someone decides to "benefit" from that service without your knowledge or permission, they are, at least in some jurisdictions, engaging in theft of service. Take someone who pulls their car up to your dumpster and unloads their junk instead of taking it to the landfill themselves- nothing has physically been taken, but it's still considered theft. This could just as easily apply to copyright infringement.
I'd argue that copyright infringement is a form of theft- taking something or deriving value from something that is someone else's property, without due compensation.
My understanding is that there are one or two companies (the Microsofts of the diamond industry) that have a lock on a huge part of the market. They pretty much set the market rates. When manufactured diamonds are indistinguishable from the real thing, it's likely that an entire empire could tumble. Of course, they could always do what other large orgnizations in danger of being replaced have done- lobby Congress for laws that protect their interests, rather than allowing the market to take care of itself.
I could argue that those who are responsible for the safe-keeping of that information were at fault, not the ones to gained access to it. The access was only allowed to occur because of a faulty system. The faulty system could have been compromised by anyone. It just so happens that it was compromised by some students who wanted to show that it was indeed faulty- not so that they could criminally use the information they acquired, but so that those in charge might be inclined to take their responsibility more seriously, and get the problem fixed.
If this was the first effort on the part of the students to notify the school of the suspected problem, I will say that their modus operandus wasn't the smartest. If, however, the school had been notified earlier, by refused to take action, someone's head should roll...and I'm not talking about the students.
If anything, that perhaps there may not have been any fraud in the last election. Do we know this for certain? No. All they have are statistics. Does this mean that we should embrace a paperless vote, especially one that doesn't provide any means of verification/audit?? HELL no. This is something that requires a great deal of care- NOT the kind that we've seen exercised by the likes of Diebold. Knowing how the votes are processed is not an option- it should be public information, and it should be mandated by law. There are some things that are simply beyond the scope of "trade secrets".
Huge deficits, imaginary dragons, a new mecca for terrorism, the erosion of freedom, all this shiny new tecknarlogy to watch our every move...
Oops, guess not.
Thank you for taking the time to point out the missing information.
You have to pay extra so that someone besides you can effectively tell you what you can and cannot do with your own computer.
I also see this as possibly a first step toward a software-by-subscription model. I realize that other vendors do this, but they don't have anywhere near the level of control that Microsoft has. If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft has demonstrated that they'd prefer this model anyhow, since having people pay annually, rather than once per upgrade, would likely mean a great deal more revenue.
The statement you've cited is 100% pure Grade-A marketspeak...first they want to familiarize these markets with its products...then, not but a few words later...havens for piracy...
Now, color me idiotic, but why would a market that isn't familiar with a certain product be havens for piracy? I don't know if they realize this, but junk like this makes Microsoft look like an amateur.
Having a screen go black merely covers up the problem. Yes, it makes Microsoft/Windows look better than it really is, but it leaves people with a false impression. What you call "obtrusive" I call "informative".
t's an appropriation bill, with a law attached.
It might help to brush up on your English. A bill is a draft of a law presented to a legislature for enactment; also: the law itself. (dictionary.com). Correctly stated: the bill to continue funding for the Iraq occupation had a rider attached (also a bill) which purportedly addresses a secondary issue related to "national security".
"So the bill says"?
See above.
"alleged"?
Have you already forgotten the reason that Iraq was invaded in the first place? Since there was absolutely no evidence that the initial reason was proven ligitimate, it is therefore alleged.
but you don't really believe either of the two statements you use to show the relation?
Of course I do...it's just a matter of knowing what certain words mean, and using them appropriately.
The bill is very much related. It's all about national security (or so the bill says). It is also alleged that the occupation in Iraq is in the interest of national security. The bill has come up once before, but didn't pass muster.
I do agree with your sentiment though...the practice of "ridiing" bills that otherwise wouldn't get passed is a complete end run around the democratic process.
I laughed while I was reading the article, because nearly the exact scenario happened with us (here in the U.S.) as we were trying to transfer the provision of DSL service from AOL to Qwest. Because each one decided to point the finger at the other, it took several weeks of phone calls, several promises on their part, my increasiug ire, and finally, someone who decided that it might be a good idea to actually do their job and get things take care of. The whole experience was quite nasty, but unfortunately, not all that surprising.
You can make that argument about *ANY* change
I disagree. You see, the report issued by the commission that investigated the 9/11 attack had some pretty harsh words to say about how things were handled- how certain things, though very visible, were allowed to slip by. Technology and police-state policies will not remove the consequences that result from this kind of incompetence. I don't think you gain much in terms of government effectiveness by turning a free country into a police state with an attitude.
If we're going to let states issue IDs that are not worth the plastic they are printed on, what's the point? Why make everyone go through the trouble of getting an ID if the criminals are just going to walk into the DMV and get fake ones anyway?
You say this as though it's going to make any difference- or did I misunderstand your intent?
Instead, they'll just issue a "motor-vehicle operator's-license-turned-universal-id" so that everyone and their grandmother can have access to pretty much everything about you. That makes a MUCH more sense.
In other words, it won't solve the problem, and it will likely create a few that we have yet to see.
Read this: Miami Model, and tell me that a national ID (espeically under the auspices of "national security" won't make scenes like this even worse.
What if these so-called illegals aren't stupid enough to apply for a state ID or driver's license? What then? [That sensation that your soul is being pierced is from the blank stare you'll get when you ask any politician for an honest answer to this question.]
Obviously, the guy wants to cut down on the potential terrorist threat. But who in HELL says that a terrorist needs a driver's license? Or a state ID?
So who suffers? The criminals and terrorsts? Hell no- they'll just route around it. That leaves only one other class...the vast, vast majority of people who are neither terrorists nor criminals.
Anyone who really decides to be honest with themselves will have to admit that the "support" of most commercial products is dismal. Usually you end up reinstalling something, which doesn't give you a CLUE as to what was wrong, or why it happened. And to top it all off, you get to PAY for this "support" in many situations.
You can purchase the same kind of support from several Linux vendors, as others have pointed out. I haven't had any experience yet with the Linux vendors, but I can only hope they're more competent.
and when the kinks get worked out, step back!
Every FOSS project seems to have this hope.
That only means that FOSS and MS products have more in common than people realize.
..tack it onto the current "emergency" military spending bill right after the National ID Card rider.