Outside of any context and in theoretical terms, that makes sense. You know the next word will be "but" or however"...
You assume the store cannot re-spend that twenty. Any employee could swap the fake for a real twenty of their own, and spend the fake one. If it's at another store, the other store can repeat the process. If it's for goods or services in the same store, you can keep the fake twenty going around until it wears out and has to be destroyed. No loss occurred. At that point, it's up to the bank to validate each bill that comes in. Either the bank realizes it's fake, or it doesn't, or maybe it finds a few and misses a few. Point is, in a real-world scenario a person can mistakenly, or purposefully, mistake it as genuine. Your argument is theoretical, not practical.
The end result in a practical world is that the store made $2000 in profits that week, and deposited $1980 - in the event that the store does not swap the bill out, and the bank catches it as fake. The value of their deposit is diminished, which is the original point way up in this abysmal thread. A store will typically lose lots more than that due to internal theft, breakage or spoilage, discounts to whining customers, or unexpected surge in operating costs such as energy prices. So it goes in the column marked 'shrinkage' along with everything else. No one is going to call police and report a "theft" if they spot a fake $20, they would report a fake bill, or if they wanted to be sophisticated they could try to pronounce "counterfeit".
Let's take a twist now. The local sub sandwich store runs a marker over any bills over $10. They could choose to include $10 bills, or I could slip them a fake $10 which they don't check. They could have a n00b working who skips the marker check. They could decide it slows down the register and do away with the marker completely. Or they could refuse cash, operating completely electronically. Credit cards, debit cards, or electronic checks only.
In your example the store is accepting fake currency. No one made them, and they could completely prevent it if they wanted to. They opted to accept. When someone engages in theft, the victim typically does not opt to accept. Your conclusion is invalid, that's why we have the term "fraud" instead.
If you really wanted to make your point, you could note that people passing money can be charged with, among other things, theft by deception (TBD). As an aside, you could pass a non-existent $3 bill or $200 bill and only get "theft by deception", while passing a forged legitimate currency could also get you "counterfeiting", "possession of a forged instrument", "money laundering", or many other related crimes. Anyone whose job entails working with money and accepts a $3 or $200 bill is a victim of theft about as much as a typical citizen donating money to a homeless-looking person asking for money for food. He doesn't want food, he wants liquor (offer to buy him lunch and see if he sticks around). He lied to you, but you chose to believe it. You were deceived.
Theft by deception is usually a state-level law, however, not federal, so the criteria depends. In my state, the wording around TBD is more oriented towards bouncing checks, and a person in this situation would be convicted of counterfeiting or one of the related laws instead of TBD. That's because the law is more clear, and you're likely to get an easy conviction when the facts clearly match the wording of the statute.
"Loss of value" or "loss of object" or "loss of usage" or any other loss does not automatically mean it's theft, and your simplistic example does nothing to support that usage.
If you save excess water during a rain, and apply it to vegetation during non-rain, the water which normally would run off due to being excess would instead be absorbed and used by the ground and the vegetation.
You'll have some additional run-off, but it's going to be less than if you don't save it.
Re-read what you wrote - "they would be trapping the water so that they could USE it". Using it means at least some of it is going to be non-runoff.
Or, a faulty sensor which thinks "Resume" cruise control button was pressed.
Contest sponsors need to give a bit more data for this to be solved - each individual shouldn't be collecting this data independently. Well actually they should, but it's easier not to:
Do all models have Cruise Control? Antilock Braking System? Did we interview each person involved in an accident to see if cruise control was "on" but not "engaged"?
Similar data need gathered in order to find an answer.
Imperfect sense, rather. While technically correct and informative, it doesn't really help the poster. It can be summarized as: Get an older MFM/RLL/GCR drive, pay off the drive manufacturer, use a floppy with catweasel instead, they will all have the effect described above.
A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts: "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?" The man below says: "Yes, you're in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field. "You must be an engineer" says the balloonist. "I am" replies the man. "How did you know?" "Well," says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but it's no use to anyone." The man below says "You must be in management." "I am" replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?" "Well," says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going, but you expect me to be able to help. You're in the same position you were before we met, but now it's my fault."
Since you brought the law into this, I feel the need to correct you. Not sure what you meant by "the reason for the suppression is a law." The origin of freedom of speech was a time where saying something unpopular could get you thrown in prison or executed. There is no law requiring suppression of the type of content in question. It's not like someone is trying to suppress the spread of information in this case. Most likely it's an automated tool which analyzes audio tracks for familiar fingerprints, then sends a takedown notice.
Thankfully, the actual video is available elsewhere, where you can both hear and see it.
That's all you really need to know. Speech is not being restricted, and it's not due to a law.
Now, either it's a full DMCA notice or it's not, we don't know yet. The law makes it easy to issue a DMCA takedown request, but it allows for a counter-notice which reinstates the information. I hate the DMCA, but this aspect is fair. In this case, the reason for suppression is an unchecked tool. Either a tool which is a program or a person who is a tool, doesn't matter. Someone didn't double-check before requesting the audio be muted. This would be a clear-cut case of abuse of process by Warner. If it was a legit DMCA notice, Google did what it had to do according to the law. And that might be what you're referring to. But the same law allows for a counter-notice which restores the content, invalidating your claim.
If it's not a full DMCA notice, then the hosting company outs itself as pro-corporate, anti-user. The law has nothing to do with this case, the hosting company just likes annoying its users and pleasing business. You could argue that Google is deciding to be overly cautious due to the law, but that's not valid either. It's Google's decision whether to pull content without a full DMCA notice. The only argument you could make here is the same one that people make all of the time - it costs a hell of a lot of money to defend yourself if someone brings a lawsuit, even if every fact is clearly in your favor. You have to take time and money to fending off the suit. That's a universal problem with the legal system, and has nothing to do with a particular law.
As GP said, free speech is a somewhat tenuous claim when you're talking about a company that spends money hosting your content and serving it to unlimited numbers of people. Even if a video host takes down every video with any reference to a pickle, because the founder hates pickles, you can't claim your free speech is being violated ad you should be able to discuss pickles. The website makes its own rules, and the one with the least idiotic rules will generally win the most users.
The logical conclusion is either Google will keep pulling content, annoying its users and forcing a competitor to step in with a "no videos pulled without a fully valid DMCA 512 notice" policy, or it will get tired of going back and forth and require fully valid notices. You are still allowed to host it elsewhere, lots of places host videos, or you can pay to host it.
Copyright does not work that way. What happens during a football game is just a collection of facts. Collections of facts are not copyrightable in most circumstances. For example, if I photocopied the phone book, that's infringement. If I OCR the whole thing, that's probably infringement. If I OCR just the names and phone numbers, and present them in any other format, it's not copyright infringement.
When you give an account of the game, as long as you're not repeating something the announcer said, you're reciting facts. Doesn't matter what the contract says - contract law usually limits contracts to something reasonable. Especially when the only way to see a game is to buy a ticket, making the contract required. The requirements are at that point subject to a test of reason. It is perfectly reasonable for me to go home and tell my friends what happened at the game. It is reasonable that I discuss it at work the next day, where many people could overhear it. Where do you draw the line?
So now I'm reprinting a play-by-play of the game. Using just facts, I create my own artistic work and publish it on a blog. Is that fair use? Or is fair use not a question, because it's based on non-copyrightable facts? Now I'm earning money from my blog. Now ESPN posts my account without asking me. Did they violate my copyright or the NFLs'? The answer is, mine.
Now, what I've said depends on the contract being only partially enforceable. If you can show me any case where this has been upheld, I'll have to retract this comment. But what you'll find is a lot of heavy-handed take-down requests which never materialize into actionable legal situations. Threaten a lawsuit, point out the ticket contract, and hope you don't get challenged.
To put it another way, if you're right, everyone who repeats any detail about the game, including the scores or player stats, could be sued, even though copyright is assigned at the moment of creation and facts re not copyrightable.
"In the event someone kills you and mutilates your body beyond recognition, we will have the blood database to match you up and know you were brutally murdered instead of living with false hope for the rest of our lives that we might one day find out you just took a boat to a foreign country with the person you were dating at the time of whom we did not approve."
I'm not going to claim an abundance of tact here, but the point is there are other ways of explaining it.
Microsoft's complaint here is that they don't have enough data. They've already demonstrated incompetence with the data they have by rolling out a preview with MS bias in the results, or even completely unrelated search results. So I don't see how more data will help. They still have tweaking to do on the data they already have.
That observation can be boiled down to "make something useful and maybe people will use it." Especially when it's the default search provider for Windows/IE and an increasing number of hand-held devices as financial incentives encourage companies to strike a deal, and it's still struggling. People are willing to go the extra step of typing in google.com or using a bookmark instead of typing directly into the convenient Bing-hosted search window.
Turn it around as you did in an attempt to illustrate a point, and it makes no sense. Linux is useful as a server OS, and people use it. Lots of people. "It's not fair that Windows is successful," is basically the conclusion of the U.S. legal system when they convicted Microsoft of unfairly leveraging their monopoly to gain market share in unrelated markets. It is a finding of law, it is a heavily supported conclusion to which an ordinary person would arrive given the evidence presented. The only reason most people don't use Linux is that it doesn't come on the computers they bought from Best Buy or Wal-Mart, and that's because you can't run a good chunk of games on Linux. The only thing holding Linux back right now is lack of developers making apps for Linux. The only thing the Linux community can do to help is offer to write device drivers, which they do, or try to make things easier to port, which they try by supplying cross-platform libraries like Qt, wxWidgets, Wine, or similar. Why are they in that situation? Microsoft's illegal leveraging of its monopoly which stagnated the industry to 10 years resulting in the current lock-in.
If the IE engine is required, it can be installed via redistributables, just like the VB runtime used to be, or MSVC, or DirectX,.NET, Games for Windows Live, MDAC, Scripting Host, XML parser, or even Windows Installer.
Think about that - third party freeware can update the way your operating system installs applications, using Microsoft's own redistributable Windows Installer installer.
Now, most of these are obsolete since they are built in to XP SP3 and above, and updatable through Windows Update.
At this point, all it would take is a simple hook into LoadLibrary functions (or exe loader to look at the import table) to detect when an application requires IE, and give a warning - Warning, this software requires IE to run. Install it? If yes, then open the IE component installer first and then continue with the app installer. Heck, this can be built in to the Windows Installer.
So the only excuse for shipping Windows with IE is because so many operating system functions were moved into the "shell" library, where a lot of IE-specific code is. So there's normal Win32API stuff in there, there's the OS Shell code, and there's IE-specific functions. OK, that sounds like an insurmountable technical challenge.
Oh boy, now wait, what's this SXS thing? Side-by-side installation of libraries, allowing applications to determine which versions of.dll they need. If you need the bloated IE version, you can require it. If you can survive on the lightweight version, fine. Now Microsoft's only excuse is that they have 15 years of applications which can't take advantage of SXS because no one's going to re-compile them to take advantage of SXS. The OS has that figured out right now, selecting a default if none is specified, so I don't see a problem.
Oops there is one problem. Microsoft just doens't want to hint that there might be a way to use some other rendering engine. That's the only thing stopping IE from becoming a redistributable. Everything else is already solved, already has a working example from Microsoft. I bet the folks working on MinWin already have this sorted out, where the primary obstacle was separating components to reduce inter-dependencies and allow a solid fundamental kernel to support a separated GUI and shell. MinWin proves it can be done, it just needs a commitment from a convicted monopolist to get their architecture corrected, so that people can be free of their crappy browser which is part of their continued world domination plan. Not bloody likely.
MS fixed the problem, but not before being called out on it. If it were intentional, that would be expected but probably some serious antitrust concerns would be valid given the default search preferences on IE/windows, which dominates the market, and is branching out into other devices. It's getting better, proving that it can improve even if it doesn't have the huge number of searches to data-mine. Further, is anything stopping MS from looking at Google's search trend pages? Last, there was an article not too long ago about how Google tries to contextualize searches. Publically available, and easily implemented in a way which wouldn't infringe on their patents.
The alternative is even worse - that the biased results were unintentional. Sure it's been fixed, but if your initial launch has results skewed in favor of the owning company and it wasn't on purpose, that's a gigantic pile of fail rolled up in a little humiliation pastry and covered in skank sauce.
gp's point was that MS is complaining about having fewer searches to data-mine, but can't even get the existing search results "fair and balanced". In other words, they need to improve before whining. GGP of course was indicating that Google's method of competition is to produce fair results, while Microsoft's method would be to bias everything towards Windows. Of course we got here by GGGP suggesting that Google's high marketshare will always continue to guarantee high market share because they have more search data for research.
The whole point of all of this is that if Microsoft has good technology and good results, people will be exposed to it through vendor lock-in, one way or another, and eventually discover for themselves that it either sucks or doesn't suck. Microsoft's best strategy is to focus on getting good results with the data they do have, not whine about a better algorithm getting more hits. Of course it will have more market share, Google's ranking algorithm is extremely mature, apparently unbiased, and constantly improving.
Of course, the irony of the king of lock-in complaining about being locked out when they have Bing as default on Windows as well as increasing numbers of phones is delicious like a very expensive dessert. That the initial roll-out of Bing was so fundamentally flawed the GP post still remembers how skewed the results were and feels the need to comment on it should be a clear sign that Bing has an uphill battle, even if they got a live streaming copy of every Google search, legally and with Google's blessing.
Early shareware versions of Winzip had this - the "Please register" window comes up, and the placement of the Cancel and OK buttons would switch. Maybe it was Agree or No thanks or whatever it was, but two buttons that randomly changed places.
Once registered of course you don't see that dialog. But it did force me to think a little more. I clicked the same button I'm used to clicking, and it exits. WTF? Let's try that again. I clicked the correct button right? Wait, it moved on me.
The average user, however, will think it crashed. When it comes up again with the buttons in the order they are used to, they click the same area, and when it works they think they did something different and it didn't "crash".
Random button order is a terrible idea for the same reason a system modal dialog box saying In order to finish updates your computer must be restarted, Restart now?" with the 'Yes' or 'Restart' button being the default button and thus responding to a spacebar. People will click what they are used to clicking, regardless of what it says, just like people will keep typing, input goes to the dialog, and the computer restarts. Why? I was just typing and it restarted all by itself.
I have a bunch of other errors, and collecting more as time goes on. The requirement to register and enter bugzilla when you're just trying to browse the site and give a real bug report should be telling. If they didn't have so many bugs, they'd not mind a stray e-mail or two describing what's happening. Nope, they can't keep up with that, so users have to do it. And just wait in case someone feels like fixing it. This goes back to well before I had an account.
Most open-source fans I know read slashdot to keep up with tech news... but how can we support a site that doesn't support us?
When shopping for a couch, a salesman was very chatty. When he learned I do something with computers, he asked me some question about scanning or something. I queried for a general description of what he wanted to accomplish.
He gave me a 10-minute explanation of his business plan, how it would work, where he'd get his materials, and it would be simple to earn a lot of money. I said you might want to be careful who you tell that to, they might take your idea and steal your business.
His reply was essentially: Good for them. If they do the work, they should get paid. Doesn't matter if it's my idea, an idea is just sitting in my head. If someone actually does something with the idea, they did the work and can earn a profit. I asked him if by chance he is libertarian, and he said of course.
So that might have something to do with why people find this confusing. I assume gp was a bit of a troll, or at least sarcasm, but some people do believe that work earns money, and thought is just a way to get things done with less effort.
What the label says is not always how the product functions. It should probably say "in most cases, when used properly and according to directions, all bacteria will be killed but just in case there is a lawsuit we're going to claim 99%."
If you wash a surface evenly with alcohol or bleach, you're going to get 100% disinfection. If you get sloppy and rinse immediately, or end up diluting the poison, you can get exposure without death, leaving some bacteria. If you then repeat the process, the bacteria are no more resistant.
You'd have to have an extremely rare mutation that allows extremophile behavior in order for anything to have hope of evolving resistance.
I'm not sure about triclosan and other chemicals, but bleach and alcohol are really quite effective at preventing resistance. And most of the bleach-based cleaners say 99%.
You wanted a design that meets your requirements, and when security is part of the design it's an admission of failure?
This is an admission of failure -- you can't do what's needed, so you opt to limit damage. But it's not going to work perfectly.
Did you even read what I wrote? I offered a better way of implementing what you're doing, then admitted that it did not fit your scenario, and offered one that did.
Views help reduce duplication, and they can be parameterized. Some database servers allow using the results of a stored proc, so you can refactor a lot. Your example isn't the only way to accomplish what you want. You can do a stored proc that returns vastly different results based on input. In this system, you'd pass want_names to the database, and it would return the results for you. You can bypass the different number of columns problem by returning CASE when want_names then name ELSE '' END, so even the strictest systems will work.
Take for instance an interface that displays a list of songs, and allows sorting by name, artist, genre, duration or size
You could implement the sorting client-side with javascript, that's a more efficient way to interact with a website. The client already has the data, so why send it again? This is the point where you might be tempted to insert "that's an admission of failure". Here's my indication that I'm about to make an alternate suggestion. I'll even begin a new paragraph.
But, let's do it in SQL. You can use a view to eliminate duplication. You can use Order by case to determine which column to use, no duplication needed.
Selecting with different criteria can be done by using WHERE (@variable1 IS NULL or file == @variable1) for each variable. You only need to make two copies of the code if you want to use equals or like, or you can refactor everything but the criteria into a view, or you can add another variable that lets you check (@variable1 IS NULL or file == @variable1) when a 'like' variable is unset, or (@variable1 IS NULL or file like @variable1) when set.
So there goes your duplication complaint, and limits of practicality. So let's add a basic check for mismatched escape characters on to what I wrote and ignore your complaints. I think you underestimate what can be done in SQL.
It can't be that hard. As my evidence, I present the following. Treat the network like a file format, with any control codes functioning similar to the JFIF marker types.
Packed executables are routinely cracked, so encryption is not a problem. A simple update of an open-source virtual machine can record the execution path (and addresses if you want), so you can reverse engineer from assembly without having to decrypt the executable yourself. So the client should be understandable, eventually.
From there, you use wireshark and record the traffic. If you understand the client, it should be easy to figure out where you access the variables and do something and send them.
Last, the file format. Basically you're sending the save file over a network instead of writing it locally. It might have some control commands, not unlike FTP, but the file format has to have recognizable patterns. Treating the data like a file format means you save locally whatever you would normally send.
All you need at that point is dll injection to patch up the load/save routines, and you have a clean, distributable hack. It contains no copyrighted code, and is needed for interoperability. Sure you could reassemble patched disassembly, usually that's how it works, but I'm going for legal here.
Anyone who has written a binary parser for something could modify Qemu to trace the output, put the instructions in the correct addresses based on the dump, recreating the self-decrypted executable (identifiable because instructions overwrite different instructions, or execution outside the range of the disassembly). Anyone with a functioning mental faculty can capture network traffic. The binary parser guy can get a start on the network traffic part while someone else ports the disassembly to pseudocode, revealing what's happening.
You can be rather ignorant about the nature of the data if you just compare the written data with the input data, and provide a playback which matches expectations. It could be as simple as FTP, could be more difficult.
It's going to be a lot of data, and probably take a lot of time, but people are already doing this with every game ever published.
Of course, then you just have to worry about using an asymmetric encryption algorithm, so that the playback never matches the save game data that's written. So patch the executable so it skips the data encryption, and skip implementing it on the server. One less thing you have to know.
You'd have to write some extremely clever code to make this impossible. Especially since once something is being called "uncrackable" it becomes a target for some of the smartest people in the business.
Bytecode miniprogram to re-create the game state? Clever. It will be in the disassembly.
Every variable which needs to be saved has a set and get point. If you don't like how it sets or gets those, you just rewrite it.
It takes time, but some people are in it for the pr0pz. They're probably already doing it now.
Especially if you're a constituent of one of the sponsors, it's your duty to let them know what the technical community thinks of their shenanigans. They can read what real-world people think, and if they can argue their way out of it then fine pass the bill. but I bet they can't.
What's the point of posting an opinion here if you don't also send it to your representative?
Congress proposes bad bill Everyone in the world points out how stupid it is Congress doesn't read the internet or newspapers Bill passes, there's a law now. Everyone asks, how could this possibly have been passed? Did they not understand all of the stuff we said behind their backs? Government doesn't listen, why bother.
The cycle repeats. It's your responsibility to at least register opposition.
I accidentally hit both the brake and gas pedal when a road hazard happens, the engine power is cut.
Is this worse or better? I drive a manual (Nissan, but whatever). When my engine stalls, it's not pleasant, but I'm usually just starting. If it happened in the middle of a highway, I would expect a rather nasty crash.
Is there anyone who thinks cutting engine power is a good idea? Precedence of the brake makes sense, especially if it's one of those symptom patches which don't address the root cause. But cutting power in a situation where the driver is either careless or distracted?
You implement a system like that by preventing people from composing an arbitrary SQL query with variable amounts of selected columns, JOIN and WHERE clauses, etc. Hopefully when you read that it will make sense.
If you are doing a different join for different circumstances, it's probably a different query and should have a dedicated stored procedure for it. If you need different where clauses, you can use the construct:
WHERE (variable is null or field == variable)
.
What you're describing is basically an adhoc query environment, which should not be allowed. That's the point. Figure out what your database needs to serve up, and have a parameterized query ready for it. Pass all variables through as parameters.
If you want to provide arbitrary queries with arbitrary joins and whatever else that is not a good idea, you're going to have to authenticate a user first to ensure they have rights to do arbitrary stuff - usually on a read-only replicated database copy. But that's not the system that was described.
So to answer your question, the system would not allow SQL string concatenation - only calling stored procs and passing variables. One of the properties of the command or connection or whatever object/class you're using could convert it to ad hoc mode, where you enable string concatenation but also use an alternate set of read-only credentials. So your data connections have a normal read/write connection and a separate read-only connection.
This is entirely possible to do in current systems if you don't want a new library, you could add a new read-only database user and make all of the SELECT queries use the read-only ID. Go crazy with ad hoc stuff because this ID can't update the data. Then only use the read/write user when you actually make a change. You can implement a data access layer that handles all of this for you, if you like. The only annoying part is back-porting the code so it properly selects which method to use, and not forgetting one.
When you put the USB connector in, not looking, you know you have a 50% chance of getting it right. A little bit of resistance and you think it's the wrong way. Invert and retry, because now it's really going to work. Except it doesn't. So WTF?
The first time, you didn't try as hard.
Also, in a lot of cases, if you really pay attention, you'll notice that the USB cable develops a natural bend or twist, due to it being connected but not in a straight line. So when you pick it up and put it in its intended usage position, it naturally feels like it should be pointing a specific direction.
So you bring up the cable, in its natural position, and half expect it to fail. If you don't get it exactly correct, which is unlikely, you retry. It's not the tech, it's people expecting it to just work. Imagine if people spent as much attention to USB as they did to PS2 where you have to ensure you don't squash pins. Or VGA with its squash/screw combination.
USB cables are usually clearly marked, with the USB symbol on top, but most people don't look for them, or on a quick glance they blend in due to being the same color as the connector part. So for a quick visual cue, you can look at the metal part. The metal has holes, usually in both sides with a white plastic something showing through one side, and holes on the other. Guess which one is up?
Next time, just "look for the holes". Unless your manufacturer puts them vertically, or some other silliness. Further, trust the bend in your cable. It warps like that for a reason.
Patent something Fail to bring anything to market Have no idea how to leverage your IP Wait Take half a day to see if anything in your patent portfolio could be argued as being infringed by a new software or website Sue like the troll you are
I didn't see that for the acting, I went for the magic trick. Why? Because everyone loves magic tricks. It was well worth the ticket and concessions.
Heath's performance was a nice bonus, and I'm going to say the movie's success depended a lot more on it being a pretty well done movie than on a star dying. You need a quality movie in order for a death to boost sales, and it's free advertising at that point. If the movie sucks, all of the death coverage will mention "... who is in the crappiest movie ever, showing now" or some variation like "whose performance in... should have been a warning of personal problems".
So it's only the biggest stars (biggest in hindsight of course) that have the cloud of doom over them.
So why doesn't HSX take this to the logical conclusion?
Slashdot Mirror
Outside of any context and in theoretical terms, that makes sense. You know the next word will be "but" or however"...
You assume the store cannot re-spend that twenty. Any employee could swap the fake for a real twenty of their own, and spend the fake one. If it's at another store, the other store can repeat the process. If it's for goods or services in the same store, you can keep the fake twenty going around until it wears out and has to be destroyed. No loss occurred. At that point, it's up to the bank to validate each bill that comes in. Either the bank realizes it's fake, or it doesn't, or maybe it finds a few and misses a few. Point is, in a real-world scenario a person can mistakenly, or purposefully, mistake it as genuine. Your argument is theoretical, not practical.
The end result in a practical world is that the store made $2000 in profits that week, and deposited $1980 - in the event that the store does not swap the bill out, and the bank catches it as fake. The value of their deposit is diminished, which is the original point way up in this abysmal thread. A store will typically lose lots more than that due to internal theft, breakage or spoilage, discounts to whining customers, or unexpected surge in operating costs such as energy prices. So it goes in the column marked 'shrinkage' along with everything else. No one is going to call police and report a "theft" if they spot a fake $20, they would report a fake bill, or if they wanted to be sophisticated they could try to pronounce "counterfeit".
Let's take a twist now. The local sub sandwich store runs a marker over any bills over $10. They could choose to include $10 bills, or I could slip them a fake $10 which they don't check. They could have a n00b working who skips the marker check. They could decide it slows down the register and do away with the marker completely. Or they could refuse cash, operating completely electronically. Credit cards, debit cards, or electronic checks only.
In your example the store is accepting fake currency. No one made them, and they could completely prevent it if they wanted to. They opted to accept. When someone engages in theft, the victim typically does not opt to accept. Your conclusion is invalid, that's why we have the term "fraud" instead.
If you really wanted to make your point, you could note that people passing money can be charged with, among other things, theft by deception (TBD). As an aside, you could pass a non-existent $3 bill or $200 bill and only get "theft by deception", while passing a forged legitimate currency could also get you "counterfeiting", "possession of a forged instrument", "money laundering", or many other related crimes. Anyone whose job entails working with money and accepts a $3 or $200 bill is a victim of theft about as much as a typical citizen donating money to a homeless-looking person asking for money for food. He doesn't want food, he wants liquor (offer to buy him lunch and see if he sticks around). He lied to you, but you chose to believe it. You were deceived.
Theft by deception is usually a state-level law, however, not federal, so the criteria depends. In my state, the wording around TBD is more oriented towards bouncing checks, and a person in this situation would be convicted of counterfeiting or one of the related laws instead of TBD. That's because the law is more clear, and you're likely to get an easy conviction when the facts clearly match the wording of the statute.
"Loss of value" or "loss of object" or "loss of usage" or any other loss does not automatically mean it's theft, and your simplistic example does nothing to support that usage.
If you save excess water during a rain, and apply it to vegetation during non-rain, the water which normally would run off due to being excess would instead be absorbed and used by the ground and the vegetation.
You'll have some additional run-off, but it's going to be less than if you don't save it.
Re-read what you wrote - "they would be trapping the water so that they could USE it". Using it means at least some of it is going to be non-runoff.
Or, a faulty sensor which thinks "Resume" cruise control button was pressed.
Contest sponsors need to give a bit more data for this to be solved - each individual shouldn't be collecting this data independently. Well actually they should, but it's easier not to:
Do all models have Cruise Control?
Antilock Braking System?
Did we interview each person involved in an accident to see if cruise control was "on" but not "engaged"?
Similar data need gathered in order to find an answer.
Imperfect sense, rather. While technically correct and informative, it doesn't really help the poster. It can be summarized as: Get an older MFM/RLL/GCR drive, pay off the drive manufacturer, use a floppy with catweasel instead, they will all have the effect described above.
Since you brought the law into this, I feel the need to correct you. Not sure what you meant by "the reason for the suppression is a law." The origin of freedom of speech was a time where saying something unpopular could get you thrown in prison or executed. There is no law requiring suppression of the type of content in question. It's not like someone is trying to suppress the spread of information in this case. Most likely it's an automated tool which analyzes audio tracks for familiar fingerprints, then sends a takedown notice.
That's all you really need to know. Speech is not being restricted, and it's not due to a law.
Now, either it's a full DMCA notice or it's not, we don't know yet. The law makes it easy to issue a DMCA takedown request, but it allows for a counter-notice which reinstates the information. I hate the DMCA, but this aspect is fair. In this case, the reason for suppression is an unchecked tool. Either a tool which is a program or a person who is a tool, doesn't matter. Someone didn't double-check before requesting the audio be muted. This would be a clear-cut case of abuse of process by Warner. If it was a legit DMCA notice, Google did what it had to do according to the law. And that might be what you're referring to. But the same law allows for a counter-notice which restores the content, invalidating your claim.
If it's not a full DMCA notice, then the hosting company outs itself as pro-corporate, anti-user. The law has nothing to do with this case, the hosting company just likes annoying its users and pleasing business. You could argue that Google is deciding to be overly cautious due to the law, but that's not valid either. It's Google's decision whether to pull content without a full DMCA notice. The only argument you could make here is the same one that people make all of the time - it costs a hell of a lot of money to defend yourself if someone brings a lawsuit, even if every fact is clearly in your favor. You have to take time and money to fending off the suit. That's a universal problem with the legal system, and has nothing to do with a particular law.
As GP said, free speech is a somewhat tenuous claim when you're talking about a company that spends money hosting your content and serving it to unlimited numbers of people. Even if a video host takes down every video with any reference to a pickle, because the founder hates pickles, you can't claim your free speech is being violated ad you should be able to discuss pickles. The website makes its own rules, and the one with the least idiotic rules will generally win the most users.
The logical conclusion is either Google will keep pulling content, annoying its users and forcing a competitor to step in with a "no videos pulled without a fully valid DMCA 512 notice" policy, or it will get tired of going back and forth and require fully valid notices. You are still allowed to host it elsewhere, lots of places host videos, or you can pay to host it.
Copyright does not work that way. What happens during a football game is just a collection of facts. Collections of facts are not copyrightable in most circumstances. For example, if I photocopied the phone book, that's infringement. If I OCR the whole thing, that's probably infringement. If I OCR just the names and phone numbers, and present them in any other format, it's not copyright infringement.
When you give an account of the game, as long as you're not repeating something the announcer said, you're reciting facts. Doesn't matter what the contract says - contract law usually limits contracts to something reasonable. Especially when the only way to see a game is to buy a ticket, making the contract required. The requirements are at that point subject to a test of reason. It is perfectly reasonable for me to go home and tell my friends what happened at the game. It is reasonable that I discuss it at work the next day, where many people could overhear it. Where do you draw the line?
So now I'm reprinting a play-by-play of the game. Using just facts, I create my own artistic work and publish it on a blog. Is that fair use? Or is fair use not a question, because it's based on non-copyrightable facts? Now I'm earning money from my blog. Now ESPN posts my account without asking me. Did they violate my copyright or the NFLs'? The answer is, mine.
Now, what I've said depends on the contract being only partially enforceable. If you can show me any case where this has been upheld, I'll have to retract this comment. But what you'll find is a lot of heavy-handed take-down requests which never materialize into actionable legal situations. Threaten a lawsuit, point out the ticket contract, and hope you don't get challenged.
To put it another way, if you're right, everyone who repeats any detail about the game, including the scores or player stats, could be sued, even though copyright is assigned at the moment of creation and facts re not copyrightable.
"In the event someone kills you and mutilates your body beyond recognition, we will have the blood database to match you up and know you were brutally murdered instead of living with false hope for the rest of our lives that we might one day find out you just took a boat to a foreign country with the person you were dating at the time of whom we did not approve."
I'm not going to claim an abundance of tact here, but the point is there are other ways of explaining it.
Microsoft's complaint here is that they don't have enough data. They've already demonstrated incompetence with the data they have by rolling out a preview with MS bias in the results, or even completely unrelated search results. So I don't see how more data will help. They still have tweaking to do on the data they already have.
That observation can be boiled down to "make something useful and maybe people will use it." Especially when it's the default search provider for Windows/IE and an increasing number of hand-held devices as financial incentives encourage companies to strike a deal, and it's still struggling. People are willing to go the extra step of typing in google.com or using a bookmark instead of typing directly into the convenient Bing-hosted search window.
Turn it around as you did in an attempt to illustrate a point, and it makes no sense. Linux is useful as a server OS, and people use it. Lots of people. "It's not fair that Windows is successful," is basically the conclusion of the U.S. legal system when they convicted Microsoft of unfairly leveraging their monopoly to gain market share in unrelated markets. It is a finding of law, it is a heavily supported conclusion to which an ordinary person would arrive given the evidence presented. The only reason most people don't use Linux is that it doesn't come on the computers they bought from Best Buy or Wal-Mart, and that's because you can't run a good chunk of games on Linux. The only thing holding Linux back right now is lack of developers making apps for Linux. The only thing the Linux community can do to help is offer to write device drivers, which they do, or try to make things easier to port, which they try by supplying cross-platform libraries like Qt, wxWidgets, Wine, or similar. Why are they in that situation? Microsoft's illegal leveraging of its monopoly which stagnated the industry to 10 years resulting in the current lock-in.
Maybe you'd like to try again?
If the IE engine is required, it can be installed via redistributables, just like the VB runtime used to be, or MSVC, or DirectX, .NET, Games for Windows Live, MDAC, Scripting Host, XML parser, or even Windows Installer.
Think about that - third party freeware can update the way your operating system installs applications, using Microsoft's own redistributable Windows Installer installer.
Now, most of these are obsolete since they are built in to XP SP3 and above, and updatable through Windows Update.
At this point, all it would take is a simple hook into LoadLibrary functions (or exe loader to look at the import table) to detect when an application requires IE, and give a warning - Warning, this software requires IE to run. Install it? If yes, then open the IE component installer first and then continue with the app installer. Heck, this can be built in to the Windows Installer.
So the only excuse for shipping Windows with IE is because so many operating system functions were moved into the "shell" library, where a lot of IE-specific code is. So there's normal Win32API stuff in there, there's the OS Shell code, and there's IE-specific functions. OK, that sounds like an insurmountable technical challenge.
Oh boy, now wait, what's this SXS thing? Side-by-side installation of libraries, allowing applications to determine which versions of .dll they need. If you need the bloated IE version, you can require it. If you can survive on the lightweight version, fine. Now Microsoft's only excuse is that they have 15 years of applications which can't take advantage of SXS because no one's going to re-compile them to take advantage of SXS. The OS has that figured out right now, selecting a default if none is specified, so I don't see a problem.
Oops there is one problem. Microsoft just doens't want to hint that there might be a way to use some other rendering engine. That's the only thing stopping IE from becoming a redistributable. Everything else is already solved, already has a working example from Microsoft. I bet the folks working on MinWin already have this sorted out, where the primary obstacle was separating components to reduce inter-dependencies and allow a solid fundamental kernel to support a separated GUI and shell. MinWin proves it can be done, it just needs a commitment from a convicted monopolist to get their architecture corrected, so that people can be free of their crappy browser which is part of their continued world domination plan. Not bloody likely.
MS fixed the problem, but not before being called out on it. If it were intentional, that would be expected but probably some serious antitrust concerns would be valid given the default search preferences on IE/windows, which dominates the market, and is branching out into other devices. It's getting better, proving that it can improve even if it doesn't have the huge number of searches to data-mine. Further, is anything stopping MS from looking at Google's search trend pages? Last, there was an article not too long ago about how Google tries to contextualize searches. Publically available, and easily implemented in a way which wouldn't infringe on their patents.
The alternative is even worse - that the biased results were unintentional. Sure it's been fixed, but if your initial launch has results skewed in favor of the owning company and it wasn't on purpose, that's a gigantic pile of fail rolled up in a little humiliation pastry and covered in skank sauce.
gp's point was that MS is complaining about having fewer searches to data-mine, but can't even get the existing search results "fair and balanced". In other words, they need to improve before whining. GGP of course was indicating that Google's method of competition is to produce fair results, while Microsoft's method would be to bias everything towards Windows. Of course we got here by GGGP suggesting that Google's high marketshare will always continue to guarantee high market share because they have more search data for research.
The whole point of all of this is that if Microsoft has good technology and good results, people will be exposed to it through vendor lock-in, one way or another, and eventually discover for themselves that it either sucks or doesn't suck. Microsoft's best strategy is to focus on getting good results with the data they do have, not whine about a better algorithm getting more hits. Of course it will have more market share, Google's ranking algorithm is extremely mature, apparently unbiased, and constantly improving.
Of course, the irony of the king of lock-in complaining about being locked out when they have Bing as default on Windows as well as increasing numbers of phones is delicious like a very expensive dessert. That the initial roll-out of Bing was so fundamentally flawed the GP post still remembers how skewed the results were and feels the need to comment on it should be a clear sign that Bing has an uphill battle, even if they got a live streaming copy of every Google search, legally and with Google's blessing.
Or in other words: Red herring.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/169750/bing_search_reveals_promicrosoft_results.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1496589/can-trust-bing
Verizon require Blackberry default search be Bing, and not changeable. You can visit google.com of course, but that requires extra typing.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/verizon-forcing-microsoft-bing-search-blackberry-users-100
Illuminating comments thread
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1252533&cid=28175167
Early shareware versions of Winzip had this - the "Please register" window comes up, and the placement of the Cancel and OK buttons would switch. Maybe it was Agree or No thanks or whatever it was, but two buttons that randomly changed places.
Once registered of course you don't see that dialog. But it did force me to think a little more. I clicked the same button I'm used to clicking, and it exits. WTF? Let's try that again. I clicked the correct button right? Wait, it moved on me.
The average user, however, will think it crashed. When it comes up again with the buttons in the order they are used to, they click the same area, and when it works they think they did something different and it didn't "crash".
Random button order is a terrible idea for the same reason a system modal dialog box saying In order to finish updates your computer must be restarted, Restart now?" with the 'Yes' or 'Restart' button being the default button and thus responding to a spacebar. People will click what they are used to clicking, regardless of what it says, just like people will keep typing, input goes to the dialog, and the computer restarts. Why? I was just typing and it restarted all by itself.
I have a bunch of other errors, and collecting more as time goes on. The requirement to register and enter bugzilla when you're just trying to browse the site and give a real bug report should be telling. If they didn't have so many bugs, they'd not mind a stray e-mail or two describing what's happening. Nope, they can't keep up with that, so users have to do it. And just wait in case someone feels like fixing it. This goes back to well before I had an account.
Most open-source fans I know read slashdot to keep up with tech news... but how can we support a site that doesn't support us?
When shopping for a couch, a salesman was very chatty. When he learned I do something with computers, he asked me some question about scanning or something. I queried for a general description of what he wanted to accomplish.
He gave me a 10-minute explanation of his business plan, how it would work, where he'd get his materials, and it would be simple to earn a lot of money. I said you might want to be careful who you tell that to, they might take your idea and steal your business.
His reply was essentially: Good for them. If they do the work, they should get paid. Doesn't matter if it's my idea, an idea is just sitting in my head. If someone actually does something with the idea, they did the work and can earn a profit. I asked him if by chance he is libertarian, and he said of course.
So that might have something to do with why people find this confusing. I assume gp was a bit of a troll, or at least sarcasm, but some people do believe that work earns money, and thought is just a way to get things done with less effort.
What the label says is not always how the product functions. It should probably say "in most cases, when used properly and according to directions, all bacteria will be killed but just in case there is a lawsuit we're going to claim 99%."
If you wash a surface evenly with alcohol or bleach, you're going to get 100% disinfection. If you get sloppy and rinse immediately, or end up diluting the poison, you can get exposure without death, leaving some bacteria. If you then repeat the process, the bacteria are no more resistant.
You'd have to have an extremely rare mutation that allows extremophile behavior in order for anything to have hope of evolving resistance.
I'm not sure about triclosan and other chemicals, but bleach and alcohol are really quite effective at preventing resistance. And most of the bleach-based cleaners say 99%.
You wanted a design that meets your requirements, and when security is part of the design it's an admission of failure?
Did you even read what I wrote? I offered a better way of implementing what you're doing, then admitted that it did not fit your scenario, and offered one that did.
Views help reduce duplication, and they can be parameterized. Some database servers allow using the results of a stored proc, so you can refactor a lot. Your example isn't the only way to accomplish what you want. You can do a stored proc that returns vastly different results based on input. In this system, you'd pass want_names to the database, and it would return the results for you. You can bypass the different number of columns problem by returning CASE when want_names then name ELSE '' END, so even the strictest systems will work.
You could implement the sorting client-side with javascript, that's a more efficient way to interact with a website. The client already has the data, so why send it again? This is the point where you might be tempted to insert "that's an admission of failure". Here's my indication that I'm about to make an alternate suggestion. I'll even begin a new paragraph.
But, let's do it in SQL. You can use a view to eliminate duplication. You can use Order by case to determine which column to use, no duplication needed.
Selecting with different criteria can be done by using WHERE (@variable1 IS NULL or file == @variable1) for each variable. You only need to make two copies of the code if you want to use equals or like, or you can refactor everything but the criteria into a view, or you can add another variable that lets you check (@variable1 IS NULL or file == @variable1) when a 'like' variable is unset, or (@variable1 IS NULL or file like @variable1) when set.
So there goes your duplication complaint, and limits of practicality. So let's add a basic check for mismatched escape characters on to what I wrote and ignore your complaints. I think you underestimate what can be done in SQL.
It can't be that hard. As my evidence, I present the following. Treat the network like a file format, with any control codes functioning similar to the JFIF marker types.
Packed executables are routinely cracked, so encryption is not a problem. A simple update of an open-source virtual machine can record the execution path (and addresses if you want), so you can reverse engineer from assembly without having to decrypt the executable yourself. So the client should be understandable, eventually.
From there, you use wireshark and record the traffic. If you understand the client, it should be easy to figure out where you access the variables and do something and send them.
Last, the file format. Basically you're sending the save file over a network instead of writing it locally. It might have some control commands, not unlike FTP, but the file format has to have recognizable patterns. Treating the data like a file format means you save locally whatever you would normally send.
All you need at that point is dll injection to patch up the load/save routines, and you have a clean, distributable hack. It contains no copyrighted code, and is needed for interoperability. Sure you could reassemble patched disassembly, usually that's how it works, but I'm going for legal here.
Anyone who has written a binary parser for something could modify Qemu to trace the output, put the instructions in the correct addresses based on the dump, recreating the self-decrypted executable (identifiable because instructions overwrite different instructions, or execution outside the range of the disassembly). Anyone with a functioning mental faculty can capture network traffic. The binary parser guy can get a start on the network traffic part while someone else ports the disassembly to pseudocode, revealing what's happening.
You can be rather ignorant about the nature of the data if you just compare the written data with the input data, and provide a playback which matches expectations. It could be as simple as FTP, could be more difficult.
It's going to be a lot of data, and probably take a lot of time, but people are already doing this with every game ever published.
Of course, then you just have to worry about using an asymmetric encryption algorithm, so that the playback never matches the save game data that's written. So patch the executable so it skips the data encryption, and skip implementing it on the server. One less thing you have to know.
You'd have to write some extremely clever code to make this impossible. Especially since once something is being called "uncrackable" it becomes a target for some of the smartest people in the business.
Bytecode miniprogram to re-create the game state? Clever. It will be in the disassembly.
Every variable which needs to be saved has a set and get point. If you don't like how it sets or gets those, you just rewrite it.
It takes time, but some people are in it for the pr0pz. They're probably already doing it now.
Especially if you're a constituent of one of the sponsors, it's your duty to let them know what the technical community thinks of their shenanigans. They can read what real-world people think, and if they can argue their way out of it then fine pass the bill. but I bet they can't.
What's the point of posting an opinion here if you don't also send it to your representative?
Congress proposes bad bill
Everyone in the world points out how stupid it is
Congress doesn't read the internet or newspapers
Bill passes, there's a law now.
Everyone asks, how could this possibly have been passed? Did they not understand all of the stuff we said behind their backs?
Government doesn't listen, why bother.
The cycle repeats. It's your responsibility to at least register opposition.
I have big feet.
I accidentally hit both the brake and gas pedal when a road hazard happens, the engine power is cut.
Is this worse or better? I drive a manual (Nissan, but whatever). When my engine stalls, it's not pleasant, but I'm usually just starting. If it happened in the middle of a highway, I would expect a rather nasty crash.
Is there anyone who thinks cutting engine power is a good idea? Precedence of the brake makes sense, especially if it's one of those symptom patches which don't address the root cause. But cutting power in a situation where the driver is either careless or distracted?
You implement a system like that by preventing people from composing an arbitrary SQL query with variable amounts of selected columns, JOIN and WHERE clauses, etc. Hopefully when you read that it will make sense.
If you are doing a different join for different circumstances, it's probably a different query and should have a dedicated stored procedure for it. If you need different where clauses, you can use the construct:
.
What you're describing is basically an adhoc query environment, which should not be allowed. That's the point. Figure out what your database needs to serve up, and have a parameterized query ready for it. Pass all variables through as parameters.
If you want to provide arbitrary queries with arbitrary joins and whatever else that is not a good idea, you're going to have to authenticate a user first to ensure they have rights to do arbitrary stuff - usually on a read-only replicated database copy. But that's not the system that was described.
So to answer your question, the system would not allow SQL string concatenation - only calling stored procs and passing variables. One of the properties of the command or connection or whatever object/class you're using could convert it to ad hoc mode, where you enable string concatenation but also use an alternate set of read-only credentials. So your data connections have a normal read/write connection and a separate read-only connection.
This is entirely possible to do in current systems if you don't want a new library, you could add a new read-only database user and make all of the SELECT queries use the read-only ID. Go crazy with ad hoc stuff because this ID can't update the data. Then only use the read/write user when you actually make a change. You can implement a data access layer that handles all of this for you, if you like. The only annoying part is back-porting the code so it properly selects which method to use, and not forgetting one.
Easily explained, I believe.
When you put the USB connector in, not looking, you know you have a 50% chance of getting it right. A little bit of resistance and you think it's the wrong way. Invert and retry, because now it's really going to work. Except it doesn't. So WTF?
The first time, you didn't try as hard.
Also, in a lot of cases, if you really pay attention, you'll notice that the USB cable develops a natural bend or twist, due to it being connected but not in a straight line. So when you pick it up and put it in its intended usage position, it naturally feels like it should be pointing a specific direction.
So you bring up the cable, in its natural position, and half expect it to fail. If you don't get it exactly correct, which is unlikely, you retry. It's not the tech, it's people expecting it to just work. Imagine if people spent as much attention to USB as they did to PS2 where you have to ensure you don't squash pins. Or VGA with its squash/screw combination.
USB cables are usually clearly marked, with the USB symbol on top, but most people don't look for them, or on a quick glance they blend in due to being the same color as the connector part. So for a quick visual cue, you can look at the metal part. The metal has holes, usually in both sides with a white plastic something showing through one side, and holes on the other. Guess which one is up?
Next time, just "look for the holes". Unless your manufacturer puts them vertically, or some other silliness. Further, trust the bend in your cable. It warps like that for a reason.
I have discovered a truly remarkable explanation which this internet is too small to contain.
Nucleus is to Sun
as
Electron cloud is to Planet
Patent something
Fail to bring anything to market
Have no idea how to leverage your IP
Wait
Take half a day to see if anything in your patent portfolio could be argued as being infringed by a new software or website
Sue like the troll you are
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1561604&cid=31262548
What he said. Classic failure. I'm going to go Ricoh Minolta my tax return now.
I didn't see that for the acting, I went for the magic trick. Why? Because everyone loves magic tricks. It was well worth the ticket and concessions.
Heath's performance was a nice bonus, and I'm going to say the movie's success depended a lot more on it being a pretty well done movie than on a star dying. You need a quality movie in order for a death to boost sales, and it's free advertising at that point. If the movie sucks, all of the death coverage will mention "... who is in the crappiest movie ever, showing now" or some variation like "whose performance in... should have been a warning of personal problems".
So it's only the biggest stars (biggest in hindsight of course) that have the cloud of doom over them.
So why doesn't HSX take this to the logical conclusion?
1: Go through a list like this http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/actors.mv?actors+ByAG
2: See what movies they are "in production" according to IMDB
3: Place bets on who the MAFIAA will knock off just for the publicity
4: PROFIT!!