Makes no distinction? This is a US-centric thread, so I'm using USC here. Counterfeiting, Trademark, Patents, and Copyright are all treated differently. In addition, there are separate rules for counterfeit Trademarks, counterfeit Coins (18 U.S.C. 485), counterfeit Dollars (18 U.S.C. 471), and counterfeit coins and dollars that are not exact copies but appear to be legit such as a $3 or $1000000000000 bill (18 U.S.C. 475 and 489). That's pretty specific, and the law does make very fine-grained distinctions.
that aside, I'd like to see any US law which says "1 kid sharing a song with a friend? GO TO JAIL". One court case would be acceptable, unless it was turned over on appeal. Lots of people copy stuff and sell it to people and get jail time, but "1 kid sharing a song with a friend" does not qualify. In fact, I'm not aware of any examples where "1 kid sharing a song with a friend" was ever prosecuted - it is sharing with numerous strangers which gets you noticed by MAFIAA lawsuits.
In short, I don't think you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. I'd love to read more.
Sic your lawyers on me for using words, which you continually try to say should not be punishable? Or do you mean that when I used words I acted, undermining your argument that the nurse using words was not an action?
Your point is basically that slander and libel are fine until they hurt you, then you have to take legal recourse. I can't believe you don't see how much sense this fails to make. With the current laws, you have a deterrent against libel and slander, so it doesn't happen as frequently. If everyone took your view and failed to put a stop to libel or slander, there would be a lot more of it around, and you'd have to fight a lot more legal battles based on your plan here.
You are not able to "do the same thing" - you believe that the system is stacked against the little guy already (1). The little guy can't afford commercial breaks on American Idol or other shows with lots of viewers. The slander and libel systems are set up to protect you, the little guy. If you have lawyers (plural), then you are not the little guy and your perspective does not capture how most people will be affected by this situation. Most people can only fight back by stopping the slander or libel and getting an official court declaration that says it was false. You're going to try to resolve it by spending lots of money on what's basically a political campaign war. No one wants to hear that crap, and it would undermine your purposes even if you attempted to be completely neutral. Either you're the little guy and you need laws against this sort of thing or you are the big guy and can afford to waste money on a public opinion campaign.
You have read and replied to enough slashdot comments that you should understand that few people verify what they hear, read, see. If you're depending on that as part of your remedy against slander, you're already lost.
Now, you're saying that you would ignore my commercials and "go after" the person who acts - but then you said above you would "go after" me since I acted. Using what laws, if not libel and slander? By your own words, which I would attempt to introduce in court, since I can afford expensive television advertising, you don't care until someone actually acts on those words. You're confusing your own defintition of "act", which was my point. Let me rehash.
You said slander and libel only exist to protect the big guys You would simply ignore it until someone acts (differentiating between words and actions) In my example I used words, not actions You would send your lawyers at me because I "acted" What basis would you use for the lawsuit if not slander and libel? I would otherwise have caused you no harm By your own words, you would wait for someone to use my information as a basis to discriminate against you or cause you harm, and then sue them What basis would you use against them?
In the majority of examples, you would have little or no recourse against a third party who does not want to enter into some sort of agreement or contract with you. I could spread all kinds of information about you which does not touch on any legally protected status, making any sort of discrimination based on that information completely legal. Most places reserve the right to refuse service for any reason (which is legal as long as the reason is not a protected status). So you can't legally force someone to provide goods or service or hire you or anything else. You are stuck, your lawsuit is thrown out. The only thing you have left is the libel and slander suit against me.
That suit against me gets thrown out because you stated that it is only words, and only actors can be punished. Or you win and by pursuing the suit you admit that words are actions, removing any basis of most of your comments in this thread. You have painted yourself into a corner by your own logic, and you fail to see it. You have to support your argument by making sense, not by re-defining words in different comments.
It's a nickname, like CoCo for Conan O'Brien, Bennifer for Ben Affleck and J Lo, and J Lo for Jennifer Lopez. Nicknames tend to stick, and this one Google just invented for himself (companies are people, does it say which gender?)
Although, it works better when whatever they are accused of is actually evil.
Or we send Sam Kinison down there with some U-Haul trucks to tell them to move where the food is. Populations have migrated before, what's stopping them now? OK, so Sam's dead and other countries probably have immigration policies, but otherwise it's a good plan.
No companies except Yahoo! which allows OSM to use their map data, and local governments which donate data or are required by law to make such data publically available, and country governments which provide additional data. So the govs contract out the work, some of it anyway, to companies, and we pay for it with our taxes.
OSM is cool, and I added my neighborhood and then it showed up on Google Maps. That's cool. I did it by tracing satellite pictures from Yahoo!.
Community-owned projects are good, but it requires a lot of effort on people to keep it coordinated unless someone is being paid somewhere. Money tends to complicate things, and you end up with either multiple losers or a company. Even if it's nonprofit. Or a government, which is a community owned project in itself. Actual community-owned projects which keep growing are few and far between. I'm sure you could name 50 exceptions to that, I could probably do 20, but when a company gives you data for free you're just one step up from that company's fan club. Tracing a map - that's josm. It's impressive, but it's not the solution to the problem of companies.
Define "go after", you pompous horse-fucking fart-smelling cross-dressing dim-witted thespian, who eats babies and impregnates women of a different race and is a shill for the Pretend-Nurse Unintentional Suicide Encouragement Association? I saw you littering, this person is a litterer and I'm sure I have proof around here somewhere.
So what happens now, how do you "go after" someone? I turn the above paragraph into a commercial and play it on every American Idol commercial break. You are internationally known as the poster who is insulted during American Idol, and I update the commercial to contain information relevant to whatever you're doing. Want a loan? Well you borrowed $800 from me and I never saw it. Looking to date someone? Well you wouldn't agree to a date if you know what happened to the last 2 relationships.
That's slander, and you say "prove it" - to whom? You buy a commercial slot to simply say "prove it"? Do you know how many athletes and other popular figures get caught, say "prove it" and end up in jail? A denial these days is almost the same as admission of guilt, and "prove it" is pretty much you saying "yeah, so?"
I've only done slander and libel, you say it's no big deal, your reply is "prove it." What action without proof do I even need to take at this point? How do you "go after" me without slander and libel laws? Screw the people who believed me, they're the ones who failed to investigate my claims, right? And how does the state have any obligation to you if you think slander and libel are not a problem?
If you can afford to rebut an international commercial slot, great. But since you can't the little guy just has to file a lawsuit for a few hundred dollars, instead of buying millions of dollars of advertising slots.
Not an error, I was talking about just multiplication and division. "Doesn't apply" was intended to mean it doesn't matter which one you do first, of the two operations I mentioned. Order of operations requires parentheses be evaluated first.
If you need an image manipulation tool that is functionally similar to Photoshop, there's GIMP. It fills the needs of people who don't need Photoshop specifically, but do need advanced image editing. And GIMP fills that need for free, which is a nice bonus. You can likewise arrange to purchase it if you'd like, or obtain it through more communist methods if you prefer.
So not really sure what your point was, but if everyone needed Photoshop the situation would be a lot different.
I don't know much about python, but if you're using Integer data types, you're taking the wrong approach. I assume Python implicitly converts 206 to an integer, and that division of integers results in integers. 206.0 would be currency if not an actual float, then, making the results floats.
But the best way to calculate fractional multiplication is get all of your multiplications done first, then do a single division. The last thing you want is a rounding error, so you do it last and it's the last thing you get!
206 * 2 / 3
2/3 of 206 is the same as 2/3 times 206, so you can write it as 2/3*206 if you like. But always do division last and remember order of operations doesn't apply to multiplication and division (aka do it in any order and it comes out the same).
Order of operations DOES matter, significantly, when rounding. Take 40 percent of any number, using integers, compared with 50 percent. 40 percent of 20 for example:
40 / 100 * 20 = 0 50 / 100 * 20 = 20
You can get better results if you move the division later, because rounding is the thing you do *last*. In order of operations, rounding is always last. So don't let your formula round until the last possible moment:
40 * 20 / 100 = 8 50 * 20 / 100 = 10
Applying this gives us 206 * 2 / 3
I don't know if you were trying to be funny or make fun of python, but people don't know how to do simple math, and your example and the article, although a year old (unless the year is a typo), don't help.
Dammit, I was just about to upgrade to PS3 just for God of War 3, and Bioshock 2 as a second game.
Now I no longer care. I bought a PS2 when the hardware made Sony a profit, not during the loss-leader years. I now regret that, and now that the PS3 is profitable I'm not even buying the damned thing. PS2 emulation gone, linux gone, there's no incentive other than GOW3. I'll just play through it on my friend's box so I'm not missing anything. HTPC only, hopefully running a PS2 emulator and I can get rid of my embarrassment of a system.
I reserve the right to eat all of your pudding, without warning. I reserve the right to punch France in the face. I reserve the right to make you levitate, permanently.
OK, so you didn't have to agree to any of that. But I can "reserve the right" to do whatever I want. When I actually do something then you get to argue whether it's legal.
If you read a bit further: Carletta Tilousi, one of the few Havasupai to attend college, stopped by Professor Martin's office one day in 2003, and he invited her to the student's doctoral presentation. Ms. Tilousi understood little of the technical aspect, but what she heard bore no resemblance to the diabetes research she had pictured when she had given her own blood sample years earlier.
I realize that "[t]he consent form was purposely simple, Dr. Markow said, given that English was a second language for many Havasupai," but when you explain it as diabetes research and the consent form says something different, there's a problem. After the above question, the following happened.
The presentation was halted. Dr. Markow and the other members of the doctoral committee asked the student to redact that chapter from his dissertation.
Bottom line is, if they were told it was one purpose, and the contract said something else, then you would have to prove that everyone who signed was capable of understanding that the contract did not match the verbal description. the sentence right before what you quoted was "I went and told people, if they have their blood taken, it would help them," said Floranda Uqualla, 46, whose parents and grandparents suffered from diabetes. "And we might get a cure so that our people won't have to leave our canyon." Does that sound like someone who thought the consent form was more broad than just diabetes?
"Doesn't matter, you signed a contract" is not bulletproof.
I learned that by watching Jackie Brown, so yeah I knew that much. Here's a website that lists state-specific laws where bondsmen are required to notify police of their actions, or those of hired bounty hunters so you can catch up.
In context, you're describing the current system while I was describing what could possibly change to meet the requirements of this new law. Police don't necessarily need the ability to spoof, but it's simple to do using PBX products (including open-source ones) so they could be equipped with no additional expense if they liked.
I usually get 15, I got 5 twice in a row a while back but that's abnormal.
I think it has to do with the number of comments modded up, as well as the amount of moderation. Starting with +2 karma bonus, I can only get 3 up-mods, but with +1 logged in bonus I can get +4 for a total of 5.
If I'm in an insightful mood I usually have 2 or 3 comments at +3 (plus karma) at the same time, and 15 mod points. When I had only 5 mod points, I think I just had 1 or two comments at +1 (with karma to make +3).
Hey, screw this debate, isn't the slashdot code open source? I'm not looking, but if you want to know I'm sure that would help more than nerd fights. Don't get me wrong I like nerd fights, but usually when there's something to debate. Objective code isn't debatable! Except for Objective-C, lots of people object to it, hence the name. Right? I'm confused now, what was the question?
Before anyone latches on to your caller ID spoofing part, these people are not spoofing ID info to a third party - they are generating an incoming call to themselves with spoofed data. From what I can see, the proposed bill does not outlaw that, so they aren't doing anything in this step that *will* be illegal.
And the matching data they buy is not legal in any of the states. They have to buy it from European companies, which obtain it from US companies. So saying it's "legal" is misleading - it's more accurate to say that it's not legal, but they let Europe do that step, and buy the information back, a workaround. "Legal in at least 49 states" implies you can do it start to finish inside the borders, I'd rather see "Legal using a loophole" instead.
The worst thing to come of this is going to be that people see "open-source PBX system", wonder how "hackers" are able to get phone system info, and then the war on open source begins. I suppose we'll see where that part of it goes.
That's funny, I get an authentication prompt from IE to view the folder, then opening a file gives me another prompt because Word does not share IE's authenticated session. I always complained about IE not using the normal download-and-ShellExecute() method, then found out via Microsoft's KB that it's WebDAV asking for the additional authentication.
When looking for the article to include here, I instead found this, "Authentication and security in the WebDAV environment" from the "Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac Administrator's Guide". I didn't read much but it looks helpful.
I'm surprised a the number of generalizations based on school - I went to a reputable school and met both good and bad professors. I've seen other schools, and they have their share. Some of the better schools have some terrible teachers, because they (schools and professors) are more interested in research results than teachers. Usually these become grad-asst. classes, but sometimes the bad teacher has to actually teach.
I firmly believe your diploma should list the professors for your primary classes - not just the figureheads. I learned from these people, with the school's name a footnote at the bottom.
Weird Al is parodying the original song in most cases, not just making up different lyrics. There's a big difference, and that's what lets him continue, while Don Henley sued Chuck DeVore for making up different lyrics to one of his songs and using it for a campaign. Below is DeVore's response, but you can search for the rest.
It's not objective, and Weird Al sometimes blurs the line. The difference is, Weird Al asks for permission (which he does not have to do if it's objectively a parody*). Once given permission, it doesn't matter whether it's a parody, he has permission.
"Bad" by Michael Jackson became "Fat" by Weird Al. Not only did the music video make it very obvious he was making a parody of Jackson, he even made fun of MJ's vocal inflections. Something that sounded like "Ja-mo", which was probably an out-of-breath version of "you know it", became "Ham-on, ham-on, ham on whole wheat" in Al's version. That's as clear of a parody as you can get, and if only one of Al's songs is protected that one is it.
Now, sometimes he just makes up random words that kinda sound similar, and it's not clearly parody, so a judge would have to decide. But he has permission.
Don't agree with me? Fine, but I'm spending energy to convince you otherwise, so do a little reading on differing opinions. I just gave you the *opposite* opinion above, feel free to read Don Henley's take on it.
Downfall parodies are about taking an actor's most intense scene in the film, start to finish, unedited, and with the original sound. It's not the entirety of the movie, but it is a pivotal moment. On the other hand, the ones I have seen are pretty funny. They do a good job contrasting the seriousness of the Third Reich and all of the problems caused by Hitler's drive with what the world might be like for him today. It's not a great defense, and it's not clear, and it's not Weird Al.
If you re-acted the whole thing verbatim and put subtitles on *that*, it's more clearly fair use. But only a judge can decide, since the law isn't clear, and nobody asked for permission.
Regulation is time- and context-dependent. Sometimes in some situations it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. The problem is, most regulation is written in inflexible language (because laws kinda have to be) and don't get revisited unless someone is paying money to have someone pay attention to it. Ideally, it would be monitored by someone with no conflict of interest and removed when unnecessary. This hypothetical person would have to live in a cave and herd goats for a living, but still keep up with details of the economy in order to be completely impartial, and then someone would find a way to send them comfortable shoes which, by the way, would be shipped annually if only this bit of deregulation permitted it, you see.
For example, speculation helped cause the great depression in america, so you get regulation to prevent further problems, like "Glass-Steagall". Some people believe repealing some of those regulations allowed consolidation to the point of "too big to fail", others believe the precipitating event (BoA's rescue of Merrill Lynch) would not have been possible and the real culprits (derivatives to be general) would have happened anyway. So it's not clear what truly would have happened had it not been repealed. But it was done to prevent problems which people caused, usually because of greed.
The problem with american regulation is that it is reactive. A free market is supposed to be self-correcting, but it takes a long time for everyone to correct. Longer because correction requires people to know things that they either can't or don't want to keep up with. But it takes a while. A truly free market would see many failures like the great depression before everyone wises up and decides not to ruin things again - but this would happen on the scale of human lifetimes. A person would have to learn the problems his grandfather had, and how to avoid them, and apply that to the economic landscape 50 or 70 years later. By that time the learned lessons are forgotten, and people think they can sneak by with a little advantage here and a little there.
So, in place of continuous vigilance and a public record of "lessons learned", we have regulation which steps in as the quick-fix and enshrines those lessons into law. When the economic landscape changes, the regulations no longer make sense and we don't truly grasp the original reasons behind the regulations. They get repealed, in whole or in part, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
But a free market has to be unspoiled. You can't build a processor in a clean room, drag it around in some kitty litter before the final weld, and expect it to function the way it did before. It's tainted. You can't open the oven door before a soufflé is done, watch it fall apart, and prop it up with toothpicks. To have a truly free market, you have to get rid of product safety, and any rules other than procedural "how to" type rules. FDIC insurance goes away because consumers have to learn which banks to avoid by watching their friends lose their life savings. They have to learn which drugs not to take the same way we found them originally - take something and see if it kills you, you get better, or nothing happens. If your internet service sucks, you have to find someone who will dig and build and connect and provide, all before having a single paying customer.
In america, "free market" is the period where companies present evidence for their inevitable regulation.
Your first sentence does not make any sense unless you're trying to frame this as a one-sided law which puts the good guys at a disadvantage. The banks don't currently use spoofing with intent to deceive, do they? And bad guys already do, which is part of the reason for the law. The bad guys won't "start" doing anything different, they will keep doing what the law is trying to prevent.
Since this law only works under the conditions you listed, and we know that won't be the case because no other law is enforced like that, your post boils down to "Make Caller ID spoofing easily reportable, [and] universally communicated to people." Is that fair?
Now, why would you want to report spoofing? It makes a better case for restraining orders, showing that the person is intentionally trying to bypass the system. Existing restraining orders can become arrest warrants. That is easily accomplished regardless of whether it's illegal or not, so the law has no impact other than the number of charges against someone. Educating people seems to be the best option.
As for the law itself, if all it does is reduce the amount of spoofing, I'm still all for it.
What little I know about bail/bounty scenarios suggests that they alert police in the area that they are working. Especially bounty hunters, who might be reported to police as an attacker. So as long as you're talking to the police, you get them to spoof your ID. Did you know that police are allowed to break laws in order to catch criminals? Not all laws of course, but they can wire-tap phones and I can't, they can record me and in some places I can't return the favor, even though they are recording the same thing as I would be. I can't lie to an officer, but he can lie to me.
Go to the police, make the spoofed call, and keep on rocking. If the police interfere with the bounty hunter by locating and arresting the perp first, word gets out and that's the last deal anyone makes with that office.
Stop and re-read my post, noting that I registered neither a "for" nor "against" stance. The closest I came was advocating education in place of laws. Do you disagree with my second paragraph? Or the first half of the third one?
"I'd rather see fewer criminals."
Yeah, we all would. We can repeal laws all day long and have just the original ten commandments if you'd like. I didn't say this was good. At no point in my post did I side with the politicians, and if you think I did it's probably because you fail to understand how government is supposed to operate. Quotes like the one I was replying to "Politicians are seen to do something about the problem," demonstrate massive ignorance about the political process, and citizens are not able to properly take part or guide their elected officials when they don't know how it works.
That's universally bad.
And that's a knee-jerk reaction. Convince me. Why would someone be arrested for caller-ID spoofing in the first place and be held for questioning? Is there going to be a government office comparing the caller ID packets with a live trace and detecting when the two don't match? Chances are they already have enough of a case, and a spoofed caller ID is going to be a giant red flag indicating more follow-up is needed.
Your explanation above did not convince me, it's simplistic "Government is too big" rhetoric. I agree with you. But I don't automatically reject all laws simply because government is too big. My quote ends with "Depends," but that word connected a prior thought with a following thought explaining what it might depend on. Let me ask again. "What legitimate need would you have for spoofing? Completely shutting off the ID is still an option, but what use would you have for pretending to be another phone number?"
Let me try my hand at your answer first: "It doesn't matter, the point is we have far too many laws, and people are probably breaking something every day, and adding one more law which won't stop actual crimes means more otherwise innocent people will be rounded up and charged with simple offenses" and you could go anywhere from here. What kind of people does this law impact?
Again, my opinion is that if caller ID exists, it should be accurate. Given that opinion, which legitimate users of call spoofing does this impact, necessitating re-thinking my opinion? Change my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes no distinction? This is a US-centric thread, so I'm using USC here. Counterfeiting, Trademark, Patents, and Copyright are all treated differently. In addition, there are separate rules for counterfeit Trademarks, counterfeit Coins (18 U.S.C. 485), counterfeit Dollars (18 U.S.C. 471), and counterfeit coins and dollars that are not exact copies but appear to be legit such as a $3 or $1000000000000 bill (18 U.S.C. 475 and 489). That's pretty specific, and the law does make very fine-grained distinctions.
that aside, I'd like to see any US law which says "1 kid sharing a song with a friend? GO TO JAIL". One court case would be acceptable, unless it was turned over on appeal. Lots of people copy stuff and sell it to people and get jail time, but "1 kid sharing a song with a friend" does not qualify. In fact, I'm not aware of any examples where "1 kid sharing a song with a friend" was ever prosecuted - it is sharing with numerous strangers which gets you noticed by MAFIAA lawsuits.
In short, I don't think you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. I'd love to read more.
Sic your lawyers on me for using words, which you continually try to say should not be punishable? Or do you mean that when I used words I acted, undermining your argument that the nurse using words was not an action?
Your point is basically that slander and libel are fine until they hurt you, then you have to take legal recourse. I can't believe you don't see how much sense this fails to make. With the current laws, you have a deterrent against libel and slander, so it doesn't happen as frequently. If everyone took your view and failed to put a stop to libel or slander, there would be a lot more of it around, and you'd have to fight a lot more legal battles based on your plan here.
You are not able to "do the same thing" - you believe that the system is stacked against the little guy already (1). The little guy can't afford commercial breaks on American Idol or other shows with lots of viewers. The slander and libel systems are set up to protect you, the little guy. If you have lawyers (plural), then you are not the little guy and your perspective does not capture how most people will be affected by this situation. Most people can only fight back by stopping the slander or libel and getting an official court declaration that says it was false. You're going to try to resolve it by spending lots of money on what's basically a political campaign war. No one wants to hear that crap, and it would undermine your purposes even if you attempted to be completely neutral. Either you're the little guy and you need laws against this sort of thing or you are the big guy and can afford to waste money on a public opinion campaign.
You have read and replied to enough slashdot comments that you should understand that few people verify what they hear, read, see. If you're depending on that as part of your remedy against slander, you're already lost.
Now, you're saying that you would ignore my commercials and "go after" the person who acts - but then you said above you would "go after" me since I acted. Using what laws, if not libel and slander? By your own words, which I would attempt to introduce in court, since I can afford expensive television advertising, you don't care until someone actually acts on those words. You're confusing your own defintition of "act", which was my point. Let me rehash.
You said slander and libel only exist to protect the big guys
You would simply ignore it until someone acts (differentiating between words and actions)
In my example I used words, not actions
You would send your lawyers at me because I "acted"
What basis would you use for the lawsuit if not slander and libel? I would otherwise have caused you no harm
By your own words, you would wait for someone to use my information as a basis to discriminate against you or cause you harm, and then sue them
What basis would you use against them?
In the majority of examples, you would have little or no recourse against a third party who does not want to enter into some sort of agreement or contract with you. I could spread all kinds of information about you which does not touch on any legally protected status, making any sort of discrimination based on that information completely legal. Most places reserve the right to refuse service for any reason (which is legal as long as the reason is not a protected status). So you can't legally force someone to provide goods or service or hire you or anything else. You are stuck, your lawsuit is thrown out. The only thing you have left is the libel and slander suit against me.
That suit against me gets thrown out because you stated that it is only words, and only actors can be punished. Or you win and by pursuing the suit you admit that words are actions, removing any basis of most of your comments in this thread. You have painted yourself into a corner by your own logic, and you fail to see it. You have to support your argument by making sense, not by re-defining words in different comments.
Now, either the fake nurse
It's a nickname, like CoCo for Conan O'Brien, Bennifer for Ben Affleck and J Lo, and J Lo for Jennifer Lopez. Nicknames tend to stick, and this one Google just invented for himself (companies are people, does it say which gender?)
Although, it works better when whatever they are accused of is actually evil.
Or we send Sam Kinison down there with some U-Haul trucks to tell them to move where the food is. Populations have migrated before, what's stopping them now? OK, so Sam's dead and other countries probably have immigration policies, but otherwise it's a good plan.
No companies except Yahoo! which allows OSM to use their map data, and local governments which donate data or are required by law to make such data publically available, and country governments which provide additional data. So the govs contract out the work, some of it anyway, to companies, and we pay for it with our taxes.
OSM is cool, and I added my neighborhood and then it showed up on Google Maps. That's cool. I did it by tracing satellite pictures from Yahoo!.
Community-owned projects are good, but it requires a lot of effort on people to keep it coordinated unless someone is being paid somewhere. Money tends to complicate things, and you end up with either multiple losers or a company. Even if it's nonprofit. Or a government, which is a community owned project in itself. Actual community-owned projects which keep growing are few and far between. I'm sure you could name 50 exceptions to that, I could probably do 20, but when a company gives you data for free you're just one step up from that company's fan club. Tracing a map - that's josm. It's impressive, but it's not the solution to the problem of companies.
Define "go after", you pompous horse-fucking fart-smelling cross-dressing dim-witted thespian, who eats babies and impregnates women of a different race and is a shill for the Pretend-Nurse Unintentional Suicide Encouragement Association? I saw you littering, this person is a litterer and I'm sure I have proof around here somewhere.
So what happens now, how do you "go after" someone? I turn the above paragraph into a commercial and play it on every American Idol commercial break. You are internationally known as the poster who is insulted during American Idol, and I update the commercial to contain information relevant to whatever you're doing. Want a loan? Well you borrowed $800 from me and I never saw it. Looking to date someone? Well you wouldn't agree to a date if you know what happened to the last 2 relationships.
That's slander, and you say "prove it" - to whom? You buy a commercial slot to simply say "prove it"? Do you know how many athletes and other popular figures get caught, say "prove it" and end up in jail? A denial these days is almost the same as admission of guilt, and "prove it" is pretty much you saying "yeah, so?"
I've only done slander and libel, you say it's no big deal, your reply is "prove it." What action without proof do I even need to take at this point? How do you "go after" me without slander and libel laws? Screw the people who believed me, they're the ones who failed to investigate my claims, right? And how does the state have any obligation to you if you think slander and libel are not a problem?
If you can afford to rebut an international commercial slot, great. But since you can't the little guy just has to file a lawsuit for a few hundred dollars, instead of buying millions of dollars of advertising slots.
Not an error, I was talking about just multiplication and division. "Doesn't apply" was intended to mean it doesn't matter which one you do first, of the two operations I mentioned. Order of operations requires parentheses be evaluated first.
If you need Photoshop, it's available for US $700 via capitalist methods, or you can get a hold of it in a more Communist way if you prefer.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/whatsnew/?sdid=FPVCB&
If you need an image manipulation tool that is functionally similar to Photoshop, there's GIMP. It fills the needs of people who don't need Photoshop specifically, but do need advanced image editing. And GIMP fills that need for free, which is a nice bonus. You can likewise arrange to purchase it if you'd like, or obtain it through more communist methods if you prefer.
So not really sure what your point was, but if everyone needed Photoshop the situation would be a lot different.
I don't know much about python, but if you're using Integer data types, you're taking the wrong approach. I assume Python implicitly converts 206 to an integer, and that division of integers results in integers. 206.0 would be currency if not an actual float, then, making the results floats.
But the best way to calculate fractional multiplication is get all of your multiplications done first, then do a single division. The last thing you want is a rounding error, so you do it last and it's the last thing you get!
206 * 2 / 3
2/3 of 206 is the same as 2/3 times 206, so you can write it as 2/3*206 if you like. But always do division last and remember order of operations doesn't apply to multiplication and division (aka do it in any order and it comes out the same).
Order of operations DOES matter, significantly, when rounding. Take 40 percent of any number, using integers, compared with 50 percent. 40 percent of 20 for example:
40 / 100 * 20 = 0
50 / 100 * 20 = 20
You can get better results if you move the division later, because rounding is the thing you do *last*. In order of operations, rounding is always last. So don't let your formula round until the last possible moment:
40 * 20 / 100 = 8
50 * 20 / 100 = 10
Applying this gives us 206 * 2 / 3
I don't know if you were trying to be funny or make fun of python, but people don't know how to do simple math, and your example and the article, although a year old (unless the year is a typo), don't help.
Dammit, I was just about to upgrade to PS3 just for God of War 3, and Bioshock 2 as a second game.
Now I no longer care. I bought a PS2 when the hardware made Sony a profit, not during the loss-leader years. I now regret that, and now that the PS3 is profitable I'm not even buying the damned thing. PS2 emulation gone, linux gone, there's no incentive other than GOW3. I'll just play through it on my friend's box so I'm not missing anything. HTPC only, hopefully running a PS2 emulator and I can get rid of my embarrassment of a system.
I reserve the right to eat all of your pudding, without warning. I reserve the right to punch France in the face. I reserve the right to make you levitate, permanently.
OK, so you didn't have to agree to any of that. But I can "reserve the right" to do whatever I want. When I actually do something then you get to argue whether it's legal.
Statement. Two - Love.
If you read a bit further: Carletta Tilousi, one of the few Havasupai to attend college, stopped by Professor Martin's office one day in 2003, and he invited her to the student's doctoral presentation. Ms. Tilousi understood little of the technical aspect, but what she heard bore no resemblance to the diabetes research she had pictured when she had given her own blood sample years earlier.
I realize that "[t]he consent form was purposely simple, Dr. Markow said, given that English was a second language for many Havasupai," but when you explain it as diabetes research and the consent form says something different, there's a problem. After the above question, the following happened.
Bottom line is, if they were told it was one purpose, and the contract said something else, then you would have to prove that everyone who signed was capable of understanding that the contract did not match the verbal description. the sentence right before what you quoted was "I went and told people, if they have their blood taken, it would help them," said Floranda Uqualla, 46, whose parents and grandparents suffered from diabetes. "And we might get a cure so that our people won't have to leave our canyon." Does that sound like someone who thought the consent form was more broad than just diabetes?
"Doesn't matter, you signed a contract" is not bulletproof.
I learned that by watching Jackie Brown, so yeah I knew that much. Here's a website that lists state-specific laws where bondsmen are required to notify police of their actions, or those of hired bounty hunters so you can catch up.
http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/new_html/compendium.htm
http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/new_html/Bounty%20Hunter%20Laws.htm
In context, you're describing the current system while I was describing what could possibly change to meet the requirements of this new law. Police don't necessarily need the ability to spoof, but it's simple to do using PBX products (including open-source ones) so they could be equipped with no additional expense if they liked.
I usually get 15, I got 5 twice in a row a while back but that's abnormal.
I think it has to do with the number of comments modded up, as well as the amount of moderation. Starting with +2 karma bonus, I can only get 3 up-mods, but with +1 logged in bonus I can get +4 for a total of 5.
If I'm in an insightful mood I usually have 2 or 3 comments at +3 (plus karma) at the same time, and 15 mod points. When I had only 5 mod points, I think I just had 1 or two comments at +1 (with karma to make +3).
Hey, screw this debate, isn't the slashdot code open source? I'm not looking, but if you want to know I'm sure that would help more than nerd fights. Don't get me wrong I like nerd fights, but usually when there's something to debate. Objective code isn't debatable! Except for Objective-C, lots of people object to it, hence the name. Right? I'm confused now, what was the question?
Uncheck the box and see if anything changes? We are nerds here, we like data. Keep track and let us know?
Before anyone latches on to your caller ID spoofing part, these people are not spoofing ID info to a third party - they are generating an incoming call to themselves with spoofed data. From what I can see, the proposed bill does not outlaw that, so they aren't doing anything in this step that *will* be illegal.
And the matching data they buy is not legal in any of the states. They have to buy it from European companies, which obtain it from US companies. So saying it's "legal" is misleading - it's more accurate to say that it's not legal, but they let Europe do that step, and buy the information back, a workaround. "Legal in at least 49 states" implies you can do it start to finish inside the borders, I'd rather see "Legal using a loophole" instead.
The worst thing to come of this is going to be that people see "open-source PBX system", wonder how "hackers" are able to get phone system info, and then the war on open source begins. I suppose we'll see where that part of it goes.
That's funny, I get an authentication prompt from IE to view the folder, then opening a file gives me another prompt because Word does not share IE's authenticated session. I always complained about IE not using the normal download-and-ShellExecute() method, then found out via Microsoft's KB that it's WebDAV asking for the additional authentication.
When looking for the article to include here, I instead found this, "Authentication and security in the WebDAV environment" from the "Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac Administrator's Guide". I didn't read much but it looks helpful.
http://www.microsoft.com/HK/mac/itpros/default.mspx?CTT=PageView&clr=99-15-0&target=38cbe923-418b-4e4f-92ff-0fcd06f8c40b1033&srcid=5c028854-8df7-4257-aee0-891eeffb66ac1033&ep=7&app=15
Did you mean wrote memory ?
I'm surprised a the number of generalizations based on school - I went to a reputable school and met both good and bad professors. I've seen other schools, and they have their share. Some of the better schools have some terrible teachers, because they (schools and professors) are more interested in research results than teachers. Usually these become grad-asst. classes, but sometimes the bad teacher has to actually teach.
I firmly believe your diploma should list the professors for your primary classes - not just the figureheads. I learned from these people, with the school's name a footnote at the bottom.
Weird Al is parodying the original song in most cases, not just making up different lyrics. There's a big difference, and that's what lets him continue, while Don Henley sued Chuck DeVore for making up different lyrics to one of his songs and using it for a campaign. Below is DeVore's response, but you can search for the rest.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cdevore/2010/04/05/henley-lawsuit-update/
It's not objective, and Weird Al sometimes blurs the line. The difference is, Weird Al asks for permission (which he does not have to do if it's objectively a parody*). Once given permission, it doesn't matter whether it's a parody, he has permission.
"Bad" by Michael Jackson became "Fat" by Weird Al. Not only did the music video make it very obvious he was making a parody of Jackson, he even made fun of MJ's vocal inflections. Something that sounded like "Ja-mo", which was probably an out-of-breath version of "you know it", became "Ham-on, ham-on, ham on whole wheat" in Al's version. That's as clear of a parody as you can get, and if only one of Al's songs is protected that one is it.
Now, sometimes he just makes up random words that kinda sound similar, and it's not clearly parody, so a judge would have to decide. But he has permission.
Don't agree with me? Fine, but I'm spending energy to convince you otherwise, so do a little reading on differing opinions. I just gave you the *opposite* opinion above, feel free to read Don Henley's take on it.
Downfall parodies are about taking an actor's most intense scene in the film, start to finish, unedited, and with the original sound. It's not the entirety of the movie, but it is a pivotal moment. On the other hand, the ones I have seen are pretty funny. They do a good job contrasting the seriousness of the Third Reich and all of the problems caused by Hitler's drive with what the world might be like for him today. It's not a great defense, and it's not clear, and it's not Weird Al.
If you re-acted the whole thing verbatim and put subtitles on *that*, it's more clearly fair use. But only a judge can decide, since the law isn't clear, and nobody asked for permission.
Regulation is time- and context-dependent. Sometimes in some situations it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. The problem is, most regulation is written in inflexible language (because laws kinda have to be) and don't get revisited unless someone is paying money to have someone pay attention to it. Ideally, it would be monitored by someone with no conflict of interest and removed when unnecessary. This hypothetical person would have to live in a cave and herd goats for a living, but still keep up with details of the economy in order to be completely impartial, and then someone would find a way to send them comfortable shoes which, by the way, would be shipped annually if only this bit of deregulation permitted it, you see.
For example, speculation helped cause the great depression in america, so you get regulation to prevent further problems, like "Glass-Steagall". Some people believe repealing some of those regulations allowed consolidation to the point of "too big to fail", others believe the precipitating event (BoA's rescue of Merrill Lynch) would not have been possible and the real culprits (derivatives to be general) would have happened anyway. So it's not clear what truly would have happened had it not been repealed. But it was done to prevent problems which people caused, usually because of greed.
The problem with american regulation is that it is reactive. A free market is supposed to be self-correcting, but it takes a long time for everyone to correct. Longer because correction requires people to know things that they either can't or don't want to keep up with. But it takes a while. A truly free market would see many failures like the great depression before everyone wises up and decides not to ruin things again - but this would happen on the scale of human lifetimes. A person would have to learn the problems his grandfather had, and how to avoid them, and apply that to the economic landscape 50 or 70 years later. By that time the learned lessons are forgotten, and people think they can sneak by with a little advantage here and a little there.
So, in place of continuous vigilance and a public record of "lessons learned", we have regulation which steps in as the quick-fix and enshrines those lessons into law. When the economic landscape changes, the regulations no longer make sense and we don't truly grasp the original reasons behind the regulations. They get repealed, in whole or in part, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
But a free market has to be unspoiled. You can't build a processor in a clean room, drag it around in some kitty litter before the final weld, and expect it to function the way it did before. It's tainted. You can't open the oven door before a soufflé is done, watch it fall apart, and prop it up with toothpicks. To have a truly free market, you have to get rid of product safety, and any rules other than procedural "how to" type rules. FDIC insurance goes away because consumers have to learn which banks to avoid by watching their friends lose their life savings. They have to learn which drugs not to take the same way we found them originally - take something and see if it kills you, you get better, or nothing happens. If your internet service sucks, you have to find someone who will dig and build and connect and provide, all before having a single paying customer.
In america, "free market" is the period where companies present evidence for their inevitable regulation.
Your first sentence does not make any sense unless you're trying to frame this as a one-sided law which puts the good guys at a disadvantage. The banks don't currently use spoofing with intent to deceive, do they? And bad guys already do, which is part of the reason for the law. The bad guys won't "start" doing anything different, they will keep doing what the law is trying to prevent.
Since this law only works under the conditions you listed, and we know that won't be the case because no other law is enforced like that, your post boils down to "Make Caller ID spoofing easily reportable, [and] universally communicated to people." Is that fair?
Now, why would you want to report spoofing? It makes a better case for restraining orders, showing that the person is intentionally trying to bypass the system. Existing restraining orders can become arrest warrants. That is easily accomplished regardless of whether it's illegal or not, so the law has no impact other than the number of charges against someone. Educating people seems to be the best option.
As for the law itself, if all it does is reduce the amount of spoofing, I'm still all for it.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1623638&cid=31901510
What little I know about bail/bounty scenarios suggests that they alert police in the area that they are working. Especially bounty hunters, who might be reported to police as an attacker. So as long as you're talking to the police, you get them to spoof your ID. Did you know that police are allowed to break laws in order to catch criminals? Not all laws of course, but they can wire-tap phones and I can't, they can record me and in some places I can't return the favor, even though they are recording the same thing as I would be. I can't lie to an officer, but he can lie to me.
Go to the police, make the spoofed call, and keep on rocking. If the police interfere with the bounty hunter by locating and arresting the perp first, word gets out and that's the last deal anyone makes with that office.
Stop and re-read my post, noting that I registered neither a "for" nor "against" stance. The closest I came was advocating education in place of laws. Do you disagree with my second paragraph? Or the first half of the third one?
Yeah, we all would. We can repeal laws all day long and have just the original ten commandments if you'd like. I didn't say this was good. At no point in my post did I side with the politicians, and if you think I did it's probably because you fail to understand how government is supposed to operate. Quotes like the one I was replying to "Politicians are seen to do something about the problem," demonstrate massive ignorance about the political process, and citizens are not able to properly take part or guide their elected officials when they don't know how it works.
And that's a knee-jerk reaction. Convince me. Why would someone be arrested for caller-ID spoofing in the first place and be held for questioning? Is there going to be a government office comparing the caller ID packets with a live trace and detecting when the two don't match? Chances are they already have enough of a case, and a spoofed caller ID is going to be a giant red flag indicating more follow-up is needed.
Your explanation above did not convince me, it's simplistic "Government is too big" rhetoric. I agree with you. But I don't automatically reject all laws simply because government is too big. My quote ends with "Depends," but that word connected a prior thought with a following thought explaining what it might depend on. Let me ask again. "What legitimate need would you have for spoofing? Completely shutting off the ID is still an option, but what use would you have for pretending to be another phone number?"
Let me try my hand at your answer first: "It doesn't matter, the point is we have far too many laws, and people are probably breaking something every day, and adding one more law which won't stop actual crimes means more otherwise innocent people will be rounded up and charged with simple offenses" and you could go anywhere from here. What kind of people does this law impact?
Again, my opinion is that if caller ID exists, it should be accurate. Given that opinion, which legitimate users of call spoofing does this impact, necessitating re-thinking my opinion? Change my opinion.