Twitter advertises a service and provides the service at user request. They probably have a clause in their TOS that releases them from liability for indirect harm; while those kinds of term are often over-broad and partially unenforcable, this is pretty much exactly the kind of thing they're designed for: user does X using vendor's product/service, and an unintended consequence bites user in the rear.
The folks with the Please Rob Me campaign probably aren't breaking any criminal laws (though I wouldn't be surprised to see an enterprising prosecutor come up with a conspiracy charge of some sort), but they are certainly risking civil liability, and they don't have any legal agreement with the victim to get them out of trouble.
I'm all for green designs, but you need to re-think your arguments.
The lower cost to operate does not change the fact that the device itself is twice as expensive. In any case, there's nothing misleading about saying that you should know the thing works before putting twice as much money up front as you would for a traditional model. After all, if it doesn't work, then you're never going to realize any of that long-term cost-savings.
I've never heard of anyone having problems with fumes from a zamboni. If you're going to paint hypotheticals about front-row asthma sufferers as an advantage of the electric version, then citation needed.
I'll buy that they are likely to have problem with resurfacing in general due to weather, but I also saw pictures of the ice after the first attempt to resurface. The coaches were shocked that anyone would suggest sending speed-skaters onto that surface. It was inexcusable, and apparently it was ultimately the old model that was able to do a better (if still imperfect) job.
Maybe the electric models are more prone to problems in warm weather. Maybe design factors unrelated to the power source are inferior (since they are made by a different company). Maybe a lot of things, but it sure looks like the rush to go green caused them to utilize equipment that was not sufficiently tested for big-time use - and it doesn't get much bigger-time than the olympics. Whether or not electric is the future of ice resurfacing - and hey, if it's cheaper and less polluting then I hope it is - the IOC should be embarrased as hell by this.
Perhaps you're one of the marketing weasles? If not you may have missed a calling, because that was pretty good manipulative use of language. Too bad not everyone's dumb enough to miss it...
"Nowhere does the article mention what these repeatable conditions are"
And the content of the article is Woz's fault?
"you'd think someone who found a problem in a car that can kill the unwary would report the conditions it's triggered under"
I'd think he would report the conditions when reporting the bug to the manufcaturer and regulator, and I see no reason to think he didn't.
I would not think he would include those details in a digression from a speech he was giving, which is what the article covers.
If his bug report had such a serious flaw as not reporting the failure conditions, I would think the Toyota press release would say so - but that's yet another thing they don't say.
Semantic relativism is not compatible with being pedantic about others' word usage. If GGP's "correction" is based on the existance of a lay usage of the term "accelerate", then he cannot at the same time exclude the validity of using the more precise definition.
I'm not sure why you think the names of the controls that cause different types of acceleration would have any bearing at all.
If they had just said "we take all complaints seriously", that would be one thing.
They then go on to make excuses for why Woz's complaint hasn't gotten more attention. (Under no other interpretation would the "man-years of testing" in which they found no problem be at all relevant.)
Now, since they've essentially admitted that the first sentence is a lie, we can ignore it and focus on the "man-years of testing". Anyone who'se worked software testing either knows that's not good enough reason to dismiss a specific report of a specific error condition, or isn't good at software testing.
And as always, pay attention to what they didn't say. Nowhere do they say "we tested the conditions that were reported and couldn't find a problem under those conditions".
I have no idea if this is a serious problem or not, but I have no use for this kind of attitude that corporations pretty much habitually display.
While I agree with you in principle, I would advise against being pedantic unless you yourself know the exact definitions of the words involved.
Slowing down is acceleration; it just happens to be opposite to your direction of motion. We know this must be true, because in a different frame of reference you would in fact be speeding up.
My post, to which you responded, is about trademark. A clue to this would be early in the post where I said "for now, ignore the copyright implications". Your response, however, is about copyright, which means it really isn't a response at all. Please try to keep the issues straight.
The trademark question is about how you are, or are not, allowed to use the term "Super Bowl", and has nothing to do with whether you can show the game or to what audience.
On matters of copyright, I think the major sporting leagues' position is bat-shit crazy in many regards. However, public performance rights do apply to works even if they are broadcast on open airwaves; so while I think the NFL is shooting itself in the foot by demanding licensing fees from bars (for reasons you noted), it may still be within its rights to do so. Something people tend to forget, is that ownership of property (real or intellectual) is not predicated on some promise that you'll use it in a way that suits anyone's best interests, even your own.
Ok, car analogy time: If you ask to borrow my car to drive me to the hospital, I'm not compelled to say yes. If you're lucky, you'll be able to loot the car when the medical condition for which I refuse to let you help me get treatment kills me.
Suppose I printed out "super-bowl tickets" to grant admission to my party. Ignore the copyright implications of that for a moment - yes there would be some.
Is my use of the Super Bowl mark on those tickets a trademark violation? Probably so. My ticket does not, in fact, grant access to the event that is the Super Bowl, even if it does grant access to an event at which we will viewing parts of the event that is the Super Bowl.
So where's the line? You might think it's the line between commercial and non-commercial use, but you'd be wrong; non-commercial use of a trademark can still be a violation.
Argubaly an event like the Super Bowl isn't like a shrink-wrapped product that you can point to and say "see, I have one here, and that's what I was referring to".
I'm not saying the NFL is right in all of their claims; I think all of the sports leagues have been taking far too many liberties with their claims of IP rights. But when it comes to events that are not the Super Bowl using the Super Bowl name, I think they have an arguable case even if the event in question is bulit around watching the same game that is at the center of the event that is the Super Bowl.
"IM demands a specialized version of English grammar, the way that writing in science or creative fiction does"
Nonsense.
First of all, most scientific writing still follows the basic rules of English. Where it deviates, it does so for the purpose of expressing a different type of information than would be expressed in conversational English. (Or whatever natural language the particular paper is written in.) The vocabulary tends to be different, but again this is because the paper is talking about different things.
Creative fiction sometimes deviates from natural language conventions for artistic effect.
IM is not science, and it is not art. Its subject is almost always just plain, conversational material. Online shorthand served a purpose in the days of 1200-baud modems and pay-per-bite ISP's, but today it only serves to show disregard for the recipient's time.
Chat window too small? Then make it bigger. The computer is there to serve the person, not the other way around.
Texting on a T9 keypad is a marginally different story; this is one of the reasons I dislike texting. Solution: speak properly, but keep the conversation short. If you need a longer conversation, texting isn't the right medium.
Don't even get me started on the waste of time that is Twitter.
What makes you think the software isn't a legitimate part of the assembled device?
Not every limitation of the Segway is a hardware limitation. Those gyros are going to have computer control, and if the software were different they - and the device as a whole - could do things they cannot do.
Now you can disagree with Apple's reasons for putting in components - be they hardware of software - that limit the usability of the CPU in their product, but the only vote you get is with your wallet. They get to define what their product is, and all your excuses don't change the fact that you are complaining about non-flying segways.
When you buy an iPad, or a segway, you aren't buying a box of parts; you are buying a device that was designed and marketed for a purpose.
Yes, the CPU in the iPad is capable of things it won't do as part of that product. Likewise, the gyros in the Segway are capable of things you can't make them do as long as they're part of a segway.
The assembled segway does what it was designed to do to the best of its ability, but still that wastes some of the capabilities of some of its components. This is exactly the same as the iPad.
Get over it. If you don't want something that is what the iPad is, buy a general-purpose computer instead. Quit trying to make the iPad be something it's not.
Also because it isn't intended - or marketed - to be a general-purpose computing device. The nature of the device is a choice by the people who make and sell it, and is a contrast to their general-purpose computing product line, the Macintosh. If you want a general-purpose computer from Apple, they sell one and you can buy it; but its name isn't iPad.
Again, I suppose you can claim that the only reason the segway isn't an aircraft is because it doesn't fly, but if so you're missing the point.
Does the regulation mention BitTorrent, or is this just the author's interpretation?
Any time someone says "Law X would let Person Y do Z by claiming A, B, and C", take it with a grain of salt. Sure, they can claim that blocking BT is a reasonable restriction, and then it would be up to the courts to decide if it really is. If the court decides not, then blocking BT is illegal. Anyone can claim whatever they want; and look how well that worked for SCO in the long run.
Might the court reach the wrong conclusion? That risk is inherant in the nature of the court system. It's the responsibility of those who understand the legitimate uses of BT to advocate for them as effectively as possible. Of course, every moment spent arguing that "sharing" of copyrighted works should be legal is worse than wasted effort. That argument will increase regulators' perception that blocking BT is reasonable.
The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device. It cannot be compared to, nor can it show the direction of, the market for general-purpose computers. This is like saying that the segway is a major step backward in international travel because it can't fly.
If the next version of OSX were to have similar limitations, that would be worthy of this line of criticism. Of course, the criticism would then be unnecessary, as the Mac would drop out of the PC market promptly of its own accord.
One of the more annoying displays of bias is to desribe the act you think should be more severely punished as what it is, and then describe the act you think should be less severly punished in terms of a series of constituent actions. Bonus points for effectively lieing about what actions make up a DoS attack.
A more apples-to-apples comparison would be "so if you tap someone on the back a few times, you'd probably get less jail time than refreshing a website a few times with a script".
Also, punishments for assault and battery vary widely with circumstances, so I'm not sure you can say that you'd get a lesser sentence without being a lot more specific.
So, he made one correct statement about the law, and from that you derived his entire legal philosophy and decided it was "too robotic"? I hope I never see you on a jury.
By the way, the fact remains that the identity of the victim is not an element in the severity of the crime.
"he purpose of the case is to set a precedent and demonstrate to the defendants that their behavior is unacceptable"
In other words, the EFF is trying to legislate punitive damages on their client's behalf even though the law doesn't allow for such damages. (Hint: the purpose of an award of attourney's fees is not to punish the party that pays; it is to avoid unequitable expenses for the party whose expenses are covered.)
Since you state that they are manipulating an award of one type for an unintended purpose, I'm not sure how you think my post that they are abusing the system is nonsense.
"But that doesn't mean the EFF didn't have to spend $400,000 in order to secure a win."
EFF lawyers did not spend $400k to research and write a counter-notice in a case of "obvious" fair use.
I think you're forgetting that the criminals who run botnets aren't as worried about damaging the normal operation of the Internet as the rest of us might be.
We start detecting their templates; they start making their templates more and more flexible. We chase, giving our filters broader and broader definitions of "bad" email. Clever spammers start sacrificing the percentage of thier mail that's coherant just to increase the output range of their templates, forcing the template-recognition filters to get looser. Eventually the filters become useless because they can't pick out every variation that could come from a template without also capturing a lot of legitimate messages.
Or something else happens that renders the filters useless. THe point is - yes, it's a win in that it fights techniques used today. No, it is not the grand victory proclaimed by the headline.
Slashdot Mirror
Doubtful.
Twitter advertises a service and provides the service at user request. They probably have a clause in their TOS that releases them from liability for indirect harm; while those kinds of term are often over-broad and partially unenforcable, this is pretty much exactly the kind of thing they're designed for: user does X using vendor's product/service, and an unintended consequence bites user in the rear.
The folks with the Please Rob Me campaign probably aren't breaking any criminal laws (though I wouldn't be surprised to see an enterprising prosecutor come up with a conspiracy charge of some sort), but they are certainly risking civil liability, and they don't have any legal agreement with the victim to get them out of trouble.
I'm all for green designs, but you need to re-think your arguments.
The lower cost to operate does not change the fact that the device itself is twice as expensive. In any case, there's nothing misleading about saying that you should know the thing works before putting twice as much money up front as you would for a traditional model. After all, if it doesn't work, then you're never going to realize any of that long-term cost-savings.
I've never heard of anyone having problems with fumes from a zamboni. If you're going to paint hypotheticals about front-row asthma sufferers as an advantage of the electric version, then citation needed.
I'll buy that they are likely to have problem with resurfacing in general due to weather, but I also saw pictures of the ice after the first attempt to resurface. The coaches were shocked that anyone would suggest sending speed-skaters onto that surface. It was inexcusable, and apparently it was ultimately the old model that was able to do a better (if still imperfect) job.
Maybe the electric models are more prone to problems in warm weather. Maybe design factors unrelated to the power source are inferior (since they are made by a different company). Maybe a lot of things, but it sure looks like the rush to go green caused them to utilize equipment that was not sufficiently tested for big-time use - and it doesn't get much bigger-time than the olympics. Whether or not electric is the future of ice resurfacing - and hey, if it's cheaper and less polluting then I hope it is - the IOC should be embarrased as hell by this.
"...people thought it was an good idea."
Partial credit. The full answer would be "...people thought it was a good idea for structural reasons."
Yes, and the thick end went down because...?
So I'm all for moderation not being aligned with agreement, but I'm not sure how a factually incorrect post can be "Informative"...
Oh, wait, I get it... the post informs us in that now we know chemists can fall for myths just like everyone else.
(The reason old windows are thicker at the bottom is that they were built that way, for structural reasons.)
Perhaps you're one of the marketing weasles? If not you may have missed a calling, because that was pretty good manipulative use of language. Too bad not everyone's dumb enough to miss it...
"Nowhere does the article mention what these repeatable conditions are"
And the content of the article is Woz's fault?
"you'd think someone who found a problem in a car that can kill the unwary would report the conditions it's triggered under"
I'd think he would report the conditions when reporting the bug to the manufcaturer and regulator, and I see no reason to think he didn't.
I would not think he would include those details in a digression from a speech he was giving, which is what the article covers.
If his bug report had such a serious flaw as not reporting the failure conditions, I would think the Toyota press release would say so - but that's yet another thing they don't say.
Thanks for playing.
Semantic relativism is not compatible with being pedantic about others' word usage. If GGP's "correction" is based on the existance of a lay usage of the term "accelerate", then he cannot at the same time exclude the validity of using the more precise definition.
I'm not sure why you think the names of the controls that cause different types of acceleration would have any bearing at all.
If they had just said "we take all complaints seriously", that would be one thing.
They then go on to make excuses for why Woz's complaint hasn't gotten more attention. (Under no other interpretation would the "man-years of testing" in which they found no problem be at all relevant.)
Now, since they've essentially admitted that the first sentence is a lie, we can ignore it and focus on the "man-years of testing". Anyone who'se worked software testing either knows that's not good enough reason to dismiss a specific report of a specific error condition, or isn't good at software testing.
And as always, pay attention to what they didn't say. Nowhere do they say "we tested the conditions that were reported and couldn't find a problem under those conditions".
I have no idea if this is a serious problem or not, but I have no use for this kind of attitude that corporations pretty much habitually display.
While I agree with you in principle, I would advise against being pedantic unless you yourself know the exact definitions of the words involved.
Slowing down is acceleration; it just happens to be opposite to your direction of motion. We know this must be true, because in a different frame of reference you would in fact be speeding up.
Thanks, captain obvious. Now learn to follow a conversation and you'll notice that you're repeating what I already said.
My post, to which you responded, is about trademark. A clue to this would be early in the post where I said "for now, ignore the copyright implications". Your response, however, is about copyright, which means it really isn't a response at all. Please try to keep the issues straight.
The trademark question is about how you are, or are not, allowed to use the term "Super Bowl", and has nothing to do with whether you can show the game or to what audience.
On matters of copyright, I think the major sporting leagues' position is bat-shit crazy in many regards. However, public performance rights do apply to works even if they are broadcast on open airwaves; so while I think the NFL is shooting itself in the foot by demanding licensing fees from bars (for reasons you noted), it may still be within its rights to do so. Something people tend to forget, is that ownership of property (real or intellectual) is not predicated on some promise that you'll use it in a way that suits anyone's best interests, even your own.
Ok, car analogy time: If you ask to borrow my car to drive me to the hospital, I'm not compelled to say yes. If you're lucky, you'll be able to loot the car when the medical condition for which I refuse to let you help me get treatment kills me.
Don't get boxed in.
At a red light, with 3 or more lanes of traffic, you should ensure that no situation could develop in which you are boxed in.
Please, do elaborate.
Do it in your basement, or don't claim that you could do it in your basement.
If I had a nickel for every time someone assumed that something they don't know how to do must be easy...
If only it were that clear-cut.
Suppose I printed out "super-bowl tickets" to grant admission to my party. Ignore the copyright implications of that for a moment - yes there would be some.
Is my use of the Super Bowl mark on those tickets a trademark violation? Probably so. My ticket does not, in fact, grant access to the event that is the Super Bowl, even if it does grant access to an event at which we will viewing parts of the event that is the Super Bowl.
So where's the line? You might think it's the line between commercial and non-commercial use, but you'd be wrong; non-commercial use of a trademark can still be a violation.
Argubaly an event like the Super Bowl isn't like a shrink-wrapped product that you can point to and say "see, I have one here, and that's what I was referring to".
I'm not saying the NFL is right in all of their claims; I think all of the sports leagues have been taking far too many liberties with their claims of IP rights. But when it comes to events that are not the Super Bowl using the Super Bowl name, I think they have an arguable case even if the event in question is bulit around watching the same game that is at the center of the event that is the Super Bowl.
"IM demands a specialized version of English grammar, the way that writing in science or creative fiction does"
Nonsense.
First of all, most scientific writing still follows the basic rules of English. Where it deviates, it does so for the purpose of expressing a different type of information than would be expressed in conversational English. (Or whatever natural language the particular paper is written in.) The vocabulary tends to be different, but again this is because the paper is talking about different things.
Creative fiction sometimes deviates from natural language conventions for artistic effect.
IM is not science, and it is not art. Its subject is almost always just plain, conversational material. Online shorthand served a purpose in the days of 1200-baud modems and pay-per-bite ISP's, but today it only serves to show disregard for the recipient's time.
Chat window too small? Then make it bigger. The computer is there to serve the person, not the other way around.
Texting on a T9 keypad is a marginally different story; this is one of the reasons I dislike texting. Solution: speak properly, but keep the conversation short. If you need a longer conversation, texting isn't the right medium.
Don't even get me started on the waste of time that is Twitter.
What makes you think the software isn't a legitimate part of the assembled device?
Not every limitation of the Segway is a hardware limitation. Those gyros are going to have computer control, and if the software were different they - and the device as a whole - could do things they cannot do.
Now you can disagree with Apple's reasons for putting in components - be they hardware of software - that limit the usability of the CPU in their product, but the only vote you get is with your wallet. They get to define what their product is, and all your excuses don't change the fact that you are complaining about non-flying segways.
When you buy an iPad, or a segway, you aren't buying a box of parts; you are buying a device that was designed and marketed for a purpose.
Yes, the CPU in the iPad is capable of things it won't do as part of that product. Likewise, the gyros in the Segway are capable of things you can't make them do as long as they're part of a segway.
The assembled segway does what it was designed to do to the best of its ability, but still that wastes some of the capabilities of some of its components. This is exactly the same as the iPad.
Get over it. If you don't want something that is what the iPad is, buy a general-purpose computer instead. Quit trying to make the iPad be something it's not.
No, not "only" because it's locked down.
Also because it isn't intended - or marketed - to be a general-purpose computing device. The nature of the device is a choice by the people who make and sell it, and is a contrast to their general-purpose computing product line, the Macintosh. If you want a general-purpose computer from Apple, they sell one and you can buy it; but its name isn't iPad.
Again, I suppose you can claim that the only reason the segway isn't an aircraft is because it doesn't fly, but if so you're missing the point.
Does the regulation mention BitTorrent, or is this just the author's interpretation?
Any time someone says "Law X would let Person Y do Z by claiming A, B, and C", take it with a grain of salt. Sure, they can claim that blocking BT is a reasonable restriction, and then it would be up to the courts to decide if it really is. If the court decides not, then blocking BT is illegal. Anyone can claim whatever they want; and look how well that worked for SCO in the long run.
Might the court reach the wrong conclusion? That risk is inherant in the nature of the court system. It's the responsibility of those who understand the legitimate uses of BT to advocate for them as effectively as possible. Of course, every moment spent arguing that "sharing" of copyrighted works should be legal is worse than wasted effort. That argument will increase regulators' perception that blocking BT is reasonable.
The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device. It cannot be compared to, nor can it show the direction of, the market for general-purpose computers. This is like saying that the segway is a major step backward in international travel because it can't fly.
If the next version of OSX were to have similar limitations, that would be worthy of this line of criticism. Of course, the criticism would then be unnecessary, as the Mac would drop out of the PC market promptly of its own accord.
Well, you're quite simply factually wrong (the law applies equally to everyone), but have fun with it.
One of the more annoying displays of bias is to desribe the act you think should be more severely punished as what it is, and then describe the act you think should be less severly punished in terms of a series of constituent actions. Bonus points for effectively lieing about what actions make up a DoS attack.
A more apples-to-apples comparison would be "so if you tap someone on the back a few times, you'd probably get less jail time than refreshing a website a few times with a script".
Also, punishments for assault and battery vary widely with circumstances, so I'm not sure you can say that you'd get a lesser sentence without being a lot more specific.
So, he made one correct statement about the law, and from that you derived his entire legal philosophy and decided it was "too robotic"? I hope I never see you on a jury.
By the way, the fact remains that the identity of the victim is not an element in the severity of the crime.
"he purpose of the case is to set a precedent and demonstrate to the defendants that their behavior is unacceptable"
In other words, the EFF is trying to legislate punitive damages on their client's behalf even though the law doesn't allow for such damages. (Hint: the purpose of an award of attourney's fees is not to punish the party that pays; it is to avoid unequitable expenses for the party whose expenses are covered.)
Since you state that they are manipulating an award of one type for an unintended purpose, I'm not sure how you think my post that they are abusing the system is nonsense.
"But that doesn't mean the EFF didn't have to spend $400,000 in order to secure a win."
EFF lawyers did not spend $400k to research and write a counter-notice in a case of "obvious" fair use.
I think you're forgetting that the criminals who run botnets aren't as worried about damaging the normal operation of the Internet as the rest of us might be.
We start detecting their templates; they start making their templates more and more flexible. We chase, giving our filters broader and broader definitions of "bad" email. Clever spammers start sacrificing the percentage of thier mail that's coherant just to increase the output range of their templates, forcing the template-recognition filters to get looser. Eventually the filters become useless because they can't pick out every variation that could come from a template without also capturing a lot of legitimate messages.
Or something else happens that renders the filters useless. THe point is - yes, it's a win in that it fights techniques used today. No, it is not the grand victory proclaimed by the headline.