What is the precendent? The ruling does not say that changing your IP address is a violation. The only reason the IP address change is important is because that is shows the defendant intentionally accessed the site after they were told not to. The first words of the CFAA are 'whoever having knowingly...'. They got a C&D letter, they had their IP blocked, so the changed their IP to get around the block. Kind of hard at that point to claim you didn't know you were not authorized.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Authorization is a property, not a technical control. No, everybody does NOT access the site 'without authorization', because the site owner has implicitly given authorization to the general public. That in no way prevents him from revoking that authorization from specific people.
You have not given a single reason that the analogy is incorrect, other than that you apparently wish it were.
Do you require explicit 'authorization' to enter a Walmart? Does Walmart check the ID of each person entering the store to see if they are authorized? Can Walmart ban certain people from entering their stores? The answers to these questions are no, no, and yes.
Finally, your idiotic use of bold reminds me of the adage 'when the law is on your side, pound on the law. When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When neither are on your side, pound on the table.' You are doing a hell of a job pounding on the table, without offering a single reason or even example of why your argument is correct.
Say what?? That makes it a publicly accessible private place, which is far different from a public place. And being a private place, they are perfectly free to restrict who uses it, authorization required or not.
Uh, no. When you access a website you are using the web site owners property (the server). When you are watching a ballgame from outside the stadium you are not using their property. I can not tell you where not to look, but I sure as hell can tell you to stay off my property.
So, to fix your very flawed analogy, it is more like 'I got caught using a hole in the fence to get into Wrigley Field. They told me not to do that anymore, and fixed that hole in the fence. According to this ruling it would be illegal for me to find and use another hole in the fence.'
There is no such question for anyone who can read. The first three words of the CFAA are "Whoever having knowingly..."
They weren't banned from 'the internel', they were banned from craigslist, a 100% private web site. Where do you get the idea that craigslist is 'publicly funded'?
So you think you can increase the capacities of both LAX and SFO to handle this additional traffic, purchase the additional planes needed, etc for less?
For starters, how often to you hear of a railway-in-a-tube (ie subway) being delayed by weather? Have you ever actually been involved in a flight delay?
Second, you seem to assume that the airports (and air spaces) in these cities are not already at or near capacity.
Any JVM that would run this code will be tunable, including the ability to tune the GC so it becomes more deterministic. The fact that your desktop app runs in 'use all memory then GC' does not mean that is the only way the JVM can work.
You lost all credibility as soon as you used Eclipse as an example. I use Eclipse almost every day. It does exhibit some of the behaviors you say. BUT, and this is a very large BUT, Eclipse is a desktop application, running on whatever you happen to be running, with absolutely NO tuning of the JVM. Applications like HFT are NOT running on some random desktop, they are running in servers with sufficient resources and, more importantly, proper tuning of the JVM to meet their needs.
There is no reason Java can not run just as fast and predictably as C/C++, given people who know what they are doing.
None of the above. It is the equivalent of Columbo's 'oh, you know, headquarters makes me ask these questions, nothing to worry about'. It puts the person at ease, and maybe they let their guard down a bit.
I am confused. Which 'false accuser' are you speaking of? The guy who told the cops that he saw some searches for pressure cookers on the guys work computer? That wasn't a false accusation, it was a true statement. Or maybe you are referring to the hundreds of people who were accusing the goverment of doing deep packet inspection of all traffic, accusing Google of forwarding all searches, in real-time, to the goverment, etc. Those, as far as we know, were actually false statements.
Since the judges said that the athletes could not be exploited like that I find it unlikely that they would think it 'is all good'. Did you have a point, or did you just fail reading?
While I agree that the UK has more safe roads than the US, it is nowhere near 4 times safer. Using the metric of 'deaths per population' doesn't really say anything about the safety of the roads, only about your chances of being killed in an accident. Staying off the road decreases your chances of dying in an accident, but says nothing at all about the safety of the roads. A more useful metric is deaths/distance driven. The UK is 5.7, and the US is 8.5. Both are great compared to the UAE (310!!), Brazil (55.9)
Where did I say all accidents are caused by dangerous driving, and where did I say the accident rate would be zero if everyone drove carefully? Nowhere.
Let's take a simple example. You (assuming you are the OP), want people to be pulled over if they are driving dangerously. No argument, and I don't know where you are put around here they are. Now let's say that the 'dangerous driving' involves drifting into the oncoming lane. If, BY LUCK, there is no-one in that lane, you have a simple case of dangerous driving. But, if perchance some poor bastard is in the oncoming lane, you now have a deadly accident. Therefore, it would be better if the action that caused the drifting into the other lane was not done at all. No, it would not prevent EVERY accident (and nobody said it would), but to claim it would prevent NO accidents is even stupider.
Eh, no. If you are driving in such a manner that there are far more important things to look at than speed limit (or any other) signs, then you are a dangerous driver, and an app is not going to fix it. If you are in a situation where traffic is so dense that it requires your attention (bad thing to begin with), what difference does the speed limit make? What, if your little app says you are far under the speed limit you are magically going to remove the dense traffic that is causing the problem? If your app says you are too fast (in this dense traffic) you are going to slow down? If traffic is that dense, slow down anyway.
Yes, obviously the laws set the limit. The signs are the official notice of the limit. If someone changes the sign, and you are under what the new sign says, you have a very good chance of getting any charge thrown out. You have zero chance of getting the charge thrown out when your excuse is 'Google said it was OK'.
Most of these suggestions for 'improving' driving seem to come from quite crappy drivers. I include you in that category because you use the phrase '... focus on anything but the road'. WRONG! You are not supposed to be 'focused' on ANYTHING, including 'the road'. You are supposed to be ALERT. Your eyes are supposed to be constantly moving, look at the road, look at the car in front of you, look in front of that car, look in your mirrors, look at your gauges, look to at the sides, look off in the distance. ANYTHING that encourages (or allows) you to focus on ANYTHING, including the road, is a detriment to good driving, not an aid.
Focusing on the road is called (or used to be) highway hypnosis. You are nicely focused, convinced that everything is OK (after all, if it wasn't OK my wonderful gadgets would tell me), and you are as dangerous as if you were just about asleep.
The FEAR is not 'fear of the new', it is both the combined experience of the past (ie texting and cell phones), and the fear that these gadgets would cause crappy drivers to somehow think they are now better. Neither one of those is good.
It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.
Seeing speed limit signs are difficult for you? Also, the signs are what set the limit, not some app. If GG can see the sign, so can you. If you are trusting some unofficial source to tell you the speed limit you are an idiot. And if you are like the vast majority of people you are almost always over the speed limit, making this indication useless. On the other hand, I am sure the cops would just love to know that you had already been warned about exceeding the speed limit.
It could detect erratic driving and warn you to stay away from drunk drivers.
That is your job as the driver. If you don't know how to do it, take a defensive driving course. Your job is to be alert for ANYTHING that can affect you, not just something previously identified as 'erratic'.
It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.
Why are you looking at a nav for directions? You should be using voice directions. As I said above, the problem is what you are focused on (ie getting directions), not where you are looking.
It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.
Adding additional distractions is not the answer to being distracted. What could be worse than being distracted, having the car stop in front of you, and having your attention drawn to your freaking app? If such alerts are desirable they would be FAR better delivered as an audible signal than something that takes your focus.
It could tie into your car's sensors, when you try and change lanes with someone in your blind spot it could warn you about a possible collision.
Again, that is your responsibilty. Relying on some app to do it is just stupid. And again, it will take your attention at exactly the wrong moment.
Tie it to a infrared camera so when your driving in rural areas in the night it could warn you of dangerous deer on the road.
If you are outdriving your headlights you are a dangerous driver. An app is not going to fix that.
NONE of those things would make you 'a better driver'.
The difference between 'driving dangerously' and 'deadly crash' is nothing but luck. The point is to stop the problem BEFORE it becomes 'dangerous driving'. You did know that, right?
The most important thing in driving is to be alert. Anything that focuses your attention prevents you from being alert. It doesn't matter if the thing you are staring at is the road, the car in front of you, your phone, your gauges, or anything else. It all reduces alertness.
GG is not some piece of magic. It WILL focus your attention.
This was not a discussion about nuclear power, it was a discussion about regulation and nuclear power was an example. The problem IN GENERAL is how to get someone to do something that, while it may cost them personally, is better for society in general. The only thing you have said that makes any sense so far is that nobody has a solution. The best we have is threat of violence, and chances are excellent that will be the best we EVER have. Constant whining and complaining is not going to change that.
Libertarians are always saying the solution to everything is lawsuits. Well, what happens when someone loses a suit and refuses to pay? You would never threaten violence, would you?
Slashdot Mirror
What is the precendent? The ruling does not say that changing your IP address is a violation. The only reason the IP address change is important is because that is shows the defendant intentionally accessed the site after they were told not to. The first words of the CFAA are 'whoever having knowingly ...'. They got a C&D letter, they had their IP blocked, so the changed their IP to get around the block. Kind of hard at that point to claim you didn't know you were not authorized.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Authorization is a property, not a technical control. No, everybody does NOT access the site 'without authorization', because the site owner has implicitly given authorization to the general public. That in no way prevents him from revoking that authorization from specific people.
You have not given a single reason that the analogy is incorrect, other than that you apparently wish it were.
Do you require explicit 'authorization' to enter a Walmart? Does Walmart check the ID of each person entering the store to see if they are authorized? Can Walmart ban certain people from entering their stores? The answers to these questions are no, no, and yes.
Finally, your idiotic use of bold reminds me of the adage 'when the law is on your side, pound on the law. When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When neither are on your side, pound on the table.' You are doing a hell of a job pounding on the table, without offering a single reason or even example of why your argument is correct.
Say what?? That makes it a publicly accessible private place, which is far different from a public place. And being a private place, they are perfectly free to restrict who uses it, authorization required or not.
Uh, no. When you access a website you are using the web site owners property (the server). When you are watching a ballgame from outside the stadium you are not using their property. I can not tell you where not to look, but I sure as hell can tell you to stay off my property.
So, to fix your very flawed analogy, it is more like 'I got caught using a hole in the fence to get into Wrigley Field. They told me not to do that anymore, and fixed that hole in the fence. According to this ruling it would be illegal for me to find and use another hole in the fence.'
There is no such question for anyone who can read. The first three words of the CFAA are "Whoever having knowingly ..."
They weren't banned from 'the internel', they were banned from craigslist, a 100% private web site. Where do you get the idea that craigslist is 'publicly funded'?
Since when is craigslist (or any other web site) a public place?
So you think you can increase the capacities of both LAX and SFO to handle this additional traffic, purchase the additional planes needed, etc for less?
You read the PDF and find out the proposal includes 15.2 miles of tunnel.
For starters, how often to you hear of a railway-in-a-tube (ie subway) being delayed by weather? Have you ever actually been involved in a flight delay?
Second, you seem to assume that the airports (and air spaces) in these cities are not already at or near capacity.
Educate yourself.
Any JVM that would run this code will be tunable, including the ability to tune the GC so it becomes more deterministic. The fact that your desktop app runs in 'use all memory then GC' does not mean that is the only way the JVM can work.
You lost all credibility as soon as you used Eclipse as an example. I use Eclipse almost every day. It does exhibit some of the behaviors you say. BUT, and this is a very large BUT, Eclipse is a desktop application, running on whatever you happen to be running, with absolutely NO tuning of the JVM. Applications like HFT are NOT running on some random desktop, they are running in servers with sufficient resources and, more importantly, proper tuning of the JVM to meet their needs.
There is no reason Java can not run just as fast and predictably as C/C++, given people who know what they are doing.
The closer you get to stripped down, just what you need, compiled language, the faster and less system resources the code will take to execute.
Which is exactly why modern, JIT-compiled Java can, and often does, outperform C.
None of the above. It is the equivalent of Columbo's 'oh, you know, headquarters makes me ask these questions, nothing to worry about'. It puts the person at ease, and maybe they let their guard down a bit.
I am confused. Which 'false accuser' are you speaking of? The guy who told the cops that he saw some searches for pressure cookers on the guys work computer? That wasn't a false accusation, it was a true statement. Or maybe you are referring to the hundreds of people who were accusing the goverment of doing deep packet inspection of all traffic, accusing Google of forwarding all searches, in real-time, to the goverment, etc. Those, as far as we know, were actually false statements.
There is currently an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA. That sort of move would not help their position.
Since the judges said that the athletes could not be exploited like that I find it unlikely that they would think it 'is all good'. Did you have a point, or did you just fail reading?
While I agree that the UK has more safe roads than the US, it is nowhere near 4 times safer. Using the metric of 'deaths per population' doesn't really say anything about the safety of the roads, only about your chances of being killed in an accident. Staying off the road decreases your chances of dying in an accident, but says nothing at all about the safety of the roads. A more useful metric is deaths/distance driven. The UK is 5.7, and the US is 8.5. Both are great compared to the UAE (310!!), Brazil (55.9)
Where did I say all accidents are caused by dangerous driving, and where did I say the accident rate would be zero if everyone drove carefully? Nowhere.
Let's take a simple example. You (assuming you are the OP), want people to be pulled over if they are driving dangerously. No argument, and I don't know where you are put around here they are. Now let's say that the 'dangerous driving' involves drifting into the oncoming lane. If, BY LUCK, there is no-one in that lane, you have a simple case of dangerous driving. But, if perchance some poor bastard is in the oncoming lane, you now have a deadly accident. Therefore, it would be better if the action that caused the drifting into the other lane was not done at all. No, it would not prevent EVERY accident (and nobody said it would), but to claim it would prevent NO accidents is even stupider.
What part of my statement was 'not true'?
Eh, no. If you are driving in such a manner that there are far more important things to look at than speed limit (or any other) signs, then you are a dangerous driver, and an app is not going to fix it. If you are in a situation where traffic is so dense that it requires your attention (bad thing to begin with), what difference does the speed limit make? What, if your little app says you are far under the speed limit you are magically going to remove the dense traffic that is causing the problem? If your app says you are too fast (in this dense traffic) you are going to slow down? If traffic is that dense, slow down anyway.
Yes, obviously the laws set the limit. The signs are the official notice of the limit. If someone changes the sign, and you are under what the new sign says, you have a very good chance of getting any charge thrown out. You have zero chance of getting the charge thrown out when your excuse is 'Google said it was OK'.
Most of these suggestions for 'improving' driving seem to come from quite crappy drivers. I include you in that category because you use the phrase '... focus on anything but the road'. WRONG! You are not supposed to be 'focused' on ANYTHING, including 'the road'. You are supposed to be ALERT. Your eyes are supposed to be constantly moving, look at the road, look at the car in front of you, look in front of that car, look in your mirrors, look at your gauges, look to at the sides, look off in the distance. ANYTHING that encourages (or allows) you to focus on ANYTHING, including the road, is a detriment to good driving, not an aid.
Focusing on the road is called (or used to be) highway hypnosis. You are nicely focused, convinced that everything is OK (after all, if it wasn't OK my wonderful gadgets would tell me), and you are as dangerous as if you were just about asleep.
The FEAR is not 'fear of the new', it is both the combined experience of the past (ie texting and cell phones), and the fear that these gadgets would cause crappy drivers to somehow think they are now better. Neither one of those is good.
That's a whole lot of 'what ifs'.
It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.
Seeing speed limit signs are difficult for you? Also, the signs are what set the limit, not some app. If GG can see the sign, so can you. If you are trusting some unofficial source to tell you the speed limit you are an idiot. And if you are like the vast majority of people you are almost always over the speed limit, making this indication useless. On the other hand, I am sure the cops would just love to know that you had already been warned about exceeding the speed limit.
It could detect erratic driving and warn you to stay away from drunk drivers.
That is your job as the driver. If you don't know how to do it, take a defensive driving course. Your job is to be alert for ANYTHING that can affect you, not just something previously identified as 'erratic'.
It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.
Why are you looking at a nav for directions? You should be using voice directions. As I said above, the problem is what you are focused on (ie getting directions), not where you are looking.
It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.
Adding additional distractions is not the answer to being distracted. What could be worse than being distracted, having the car stop in front of you, and having your attention drawn to your freaking app? If such alerts are desirable they would be FAR better delivered as an audible signal than something that takes your focus.
It could tie into your car's sensors, when you try and change lanes with someone in your blind spot it could warn you about a possible collision.
Again, that is your responsibilty. Relying on some app to do it is just stupid. And again, it will take your attention at exactly the wrong moment.
Tie it to a infrared camera so when your driving in rural areas in the night it could warn you of dangerous deer on the road.
If you are outdriving your headlights you are a dangerous driver. An app is not going to fix that.
NONE of those things would make you 'a better driver'.
The difference between 'driving dangerously' and 'deadly crash' is nothing but luck. The point is to stop the problem BEFORE it becomes 'dangerous driving'. You did know that, right?
The most important thing in driving is to be alert. Anything that focuses your attention prevents you from being alert. It doesn't matter if the thing you are staring at is the road, the car in front of you, your phone, your gauges, or anything else. It all reduces alertness.
GG is not some piece of magic. It WILL focus your attention.
This was not a discussion about nuclear power, it was a discussion about regulation and nuclear power was an example. The problem IN GENERAL is how to get someone to do something that, while it may cost them personally, is better for society in general. The only thing you have said that makes any sense so far is that nobody has a solution. The best we have is threat of violence, and chances are excellent that will be the best we EVER have. Constant whining and complaining is not going to change that.
Libertarians are always saying the solution to everything is lawsuits. Well, what happens when someone loses a suit and refuses to pay? You would never threaten violence, would you?