Way to patronize someone who clearly knows far more about law than you do.
If the law is meant to be followed by the people, then it should be written to be understood by the people.
Giving the password to a collection of encrypted files is pretty similar to giving the keys to a safe full of incriminating documents.
There's a huge difference between giving a physical object and something that only exists in my mind.
The fifth amendment is intended to prohibit confessions collected by torture. If I say "I don't have the key to that safe" a search warrant will let the police find the key, it it exists. But no search warrant will let the police torture me to tell them where the key is hidden.
If they ask me "where is the key" I can always say I forgot, I lost it, someone stole it. It's up to them to find it. Likewise, if they ask "what is the password" I should have the right to say I forgot. But then there's no way they can search my possessions to find it, unless I wrote it down somewhere.
Have you factored in the cost of the plants to build the Kindle? The training, the tech support, distribution, the marketing and the fact that everyone has to have an internet connection to read a frikin paper?
Yes, exactly, that's what makes it a "broken window" fallacy. All the training and tech support for the people will make them more productive workers. People will progress from being lumberjacks to professionals trained in advanced technology.
$80 billion spent in cutting trees and making pulp paper will be trash at the end of the day. $80 billion spent in building factories and training people is an investment that will be repaid in the future.
You can't get on the stand at your own trial to testify in your own defense, and then start invoking the 5th when the prosecutor asks questions you don't like.
IANAL, but AFAIK you can do so. You can testify in your own defense and refuse to answer any particular question.
And as a matter of fact, so can any witness. Suppose you are called to testify on a crime you saw being committed. You can refuse to answer any question that would show you were an accessory to that crime.
For example, The Pirate Bay. What's the problem with them going out of business? They host a lot of illegally copied content, cracked content, or what have you. Unfortunately, though, we have the nit-picking crowd that says "but just making it available isn't illegal" that also says "but just downloading it isn't illegal"
You don't seem to be reading the news. The Pirate Bay hosts *no* content at all. They don't make anything available. All they do is supply pointers to people who claim to have something available. The whole process is called "peer-to-peer".
Or me, being a composer, am going to go buy a big gun and take copyright infringement punishment on my own hands.
I can understand your problem and sympathize with you and all other artists and people who depend on selling their intellectual creations. But the fact is that the current business model for that is broken. We need a new way to let people earn a living from their creations. Misunderstanding the problem and trying to implement radical solutions will not help accomplish that end.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I wonder, which part of "nor shall be compelled" did the honorable judge not understand?
What happened to the 80 billion worth of printers, loggers, paper mills, transport, and fish-wrappers?
They will get better-paying jobs in more productive activities.
It took a caveman at least one day of work to make a chipped stone knife. A worker in a factory makes several thousand knifes each day using automated machines. Do you consider that a loss?
Some books have special editions in large typeface, intended for people with eyesight impairments. These books are more expensive, because more paper is used in printing them.
According to the Authors Guild logic, using a magnifying glass with a normal print book should be illegal, because then one gets large typeface for free?
Government departments will be required to adopt open source software when "there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products" because of its "inherent flexibility".
The problem is that the "overall cost" depends on how much marketing $$$ is thrown in.
That combination of timescales--nothing much happening for decades or centuries, then closure in a single year--bounds the acceptable parameters from both sides, which means that it would be a little surprising if they just happened to fall into that range. This is pretty much the textbook definition of "peculiar".
Take an old building. Its structure gradually weakens by the effect of time. Suddenly it collapses. Do you find it peculiar that a building that existed for a hundred years falls down in a matter of seconds? Or would you think it would be more likely that the first floor would gradually decrease in height over the years?
The reason an old building falls suddenly is that, as the concrete or bricks weaken over time, there will be one point when the material breaks. Let's say a column buckles under the strain. Suddenly all the weight that was supported by that column must be supported by the neighboring columns. As the whole building is weakened by aging, it's very likely that the remaining columns will not be strong enough to take the increased strain, so the whole building falls down at once.
Now replace the bricks with snowflakes. The whole snow mass is supported by the individual flakes, whose arms resemble microscopic columns and beams. There will be one point down there where the weight of the accumulated snow will be in the limit that individual snowflakes will support. Below that there is a solid mass of ice, with included bubbles. Above that, a porous mass of snowflakes where gas will diffuse from the atmosphere. Right in the middle, a region where snowflakes break down and entrap the diffused gas into the bubbles.
It would be very peculiar, albeit not impossible, to have a process that sealed the ice tens or hundreds of years after it was laid down as snow, but did so on a timescale of a year or so.
Why peculiar? That's exactly what I would expect. As snow gets piled higher, there will come a point when the weight from the accumulated snow is more than the strength of snow crystals can support. At the crystals get crushed, the structure will change from a porous mass of snow crystals to solid ice with some bubbles of gas.
This shift from snow to ice will happen quickly, because as a snow crystal breaks the weight it supported will shift to nearby crystals, increasing the stress on them. It could well be that the shift from porous to solid ice happens in a short period of time and, depending on average amount of snowfall, this could take tens of years of accumulated snow to happen.
I think one important fact here is that scientists can measure the effect on the atmosphere of an event that happened a thousand years ago. Would it be reasonable to assume that they couldn't measure the effects of what's happening right now?
Yes, the sun variations influence climate. But human emission of gases into the atmosphere also influence climate, and scientists have means to determine the amount of influence due to each effect.
aren't there already more people equipped with computer skills than the market needs?
There surely seems to be too many MCSEs around. But I think there are jobs available for setting up and running Linux servers. Perhaps that's Microsoft's plan?
That's an issue which applies to any form of intercepted communication not just skype
Precisely. Intercepting communications is pointless if the target has reason to suspect they are being watched. That's why the US and Britain went to great efforts to disguise the fact that they had broken the German and Japanese encryption systems during WWII.
For instance, when American fighters shot down admiral Yamamoto's plane the US didn't report the fact. They wanted the Japanese to believe that was just a chance encounter, not an action planned from a flight schedule they had known from decrypted Japanese communications.
Suppose they have a way to intercept Skype calls and decrypt everything. How will they know a conversation like "Aunt Emma's cat had seven kittens, three black and four white" actually means "I'm sending seven kilos of heroin, Giuseppe will take three and Giovanni four"?
Why wasn't the collision predicted and prevented ?
It was predicted, but not with the required accuracy. The problem is that inactive satellites, like the Cosmos, can only be tracked by radar, and radar is not precise enough. From the prediction, these satellites would pass at 137 meters from each other, the probability of a collision was very small.
Iridium has over 60 satellites in orbit, they receive hundreds of warnings each day from NORAD about possible encounters, the prediction for this one wasn't close enough to warrant evasive action.
That's because ads in television are directed to the mass market, while newspapers carry classified ads. With the internet full of advertisements which are easier to search and read than newspaper classified ads, there's that much less motivation to buy printed papers.
As its name says, it's a private property that's open to the public.
You clearly don't understand anything about how the law works and how politicians leverage the law to get what they want.
And you clearly could gain something from reading more history and less Orwell. The origin of oppressive states has never followed the law. Dictatorships, like Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Franco in Spain, etc, are born from a period of economic chaos and extreme poverty, often caused by war.
I don't know of any dictatorship in recent centuries that was created from a gradual erosion of people's rights by legislation. However, a legislative culture that allows anarchy to form, by creating weak or illogic laws, will eventually degrade into a dictatorship.
Which country has more problems with illegal immigration from less developed countries? Perhaps this is the true measure of general quality of life.
Since Canada has a wider public health coverage than the US they should have, by your logic, a bigger problem in illegal immigration. However, a quick Google search shows that the opposite is true. Surprise! It seems that the government isn't the most efficient manager of public services after all
Slashdot Mirror
If the law is meant to be followed by the people, then it should be written to be understood by the people.
There's a huge difference between giving a physical object and something that only exists in my mind.
The fifth amendment is intended to prohibit confessions collected by torture. If I say "I don't have the key to that safe" a search warrant will let the police find the key, it it exists. But no search warrant will let the police torture me to tell them where the key is hidden.
If they ask me "where is the key" I can always say I forgot, I lost it, someone stole it. It's up to them to find it. Likewise, if they ask "what is the password" I should have the right to say I forgot. But then there's no way they can search my possessions to find it, unless I wrote it down somewhere.
Yes, exactly, that's what makes it a "broken window" fallacy. All the training and tech support for the people will make them more productive workers. People will progress from being lumberjacks to professionals trained in advanced technology.
$80 billion spent in cutting trees and making pulp paper will be trash at the end of the day. $80 billion spent in building factories and training people is an investment that will be repaid in the future.
IANAL, but AFAIK you can do so. You can testify in your own defense and refuse to answer any particular question.
And as a matter of fact, so can any witness. Suppose you are called to testify on a crime you saw being committed. You can refuse to answer any question that would show you were an accessory to that crime.
You don't seem to be reading the news. The Pirate Bay hosts *no* content at all. They don't make anything available. All they do is supply pointers to people who claim to have something available. The whole process is called "peer-to-peer".
I can understand your problem and sympathize with you and all other artists and people who depend on selling their intellectual creations. But the fact is that the current business model for that is broken. We need a new way to let people earn a living from their creations. Misunderstanding the problem and trying to implement radical solutions will not help accomplish that end.
Here's the full text:
I wonder, which part of "nor shall be compelled" did the honorable judge not understand?
Yet Another Broken Window Fallacy
They will get better-paying jobs in more productive activities.
It took a caveman at least one day of work to make a chipped stone knife. A worker in a factory makes several thousand knifes each day using automated machines. Do you consider that a loss?
OK, do you want the cheapest one or do you have real bucks to spend?
Some books have special editions in large typeface, intended for people with eyesight impairments. These books are more expensive, because more paper is used in printing them.
According to the Authors Guild logic, using a magnifying glass with a normal print book should be illegal, because then one gets large typeface for free?
Look here to see how step (1) is done in the Linux kernel. Sourceforge has more details
FTA:
The problem is that the "overall cost" depends on how much marketing $$$ is thrown in.
You're quite right, a Taurus is meant for shooting down things, not launching them.
Take an old building. Its structure gradually weakens by the effect of time. Suddenly it collapses. Do you find it peculiar that a building that existed for a hundred years falls down in a matter of seconds? Or would you think it would be more likely that the first floor would gradually decrease in height over the years?
The reason an old building falls suddenly is that, as the concrete or bricks weaken over time, there will be one point when the material breaks. Let's say a column buckles under the strain. Suddenly all the weight that was supported by that column must be supported by the neighboring columns. As the whole building is weakened by aging, it's very likely that the remaining columns will not be strong enough to take the increased strain, so the whole building falls down at once.
Now replace the bricks with snowflakes. The whole snow mass is supported by the individual flakes, whose arms resemble microscopic columns and beams. There will be one point down there where the weight of the accumulated snow will be in the limit that individual snowflakes will support. Below that there is a solid mass of ice, with included bubbles. Above that, a porous mass of snowflakes where gas will diffuse from the atmosphere. Right in the middle, a region where snowflakes break down and entrap the diffused gas into the bubbles.
If you depend on Google for your searches, you don't have access to the whole internet
Why peculiar? That's exactly what I would expect. As snow gets piled higher, there will come a point when the weight from the accumulated snow is more than the strength of snow crystals can support. At the crystals get crushed, the structure will change from a porous mass of snow crystals to solid ice with some bubbles of gas.
This shift from snow to ice will happen quickly, because as a snow crystal breaks the weight it supported will shift to nearby crystals, increasing the stress on them. It could well be that the shift from porous to solid ice happens in a short period of time and, depending on average amount of snowfall, this could take tens of years of accumulated snow to happen.
I think one important fact here is that scientists can measure the effect on the atmosphere of an event that happened a thousand years ago. Would it be reasonable to assume that they couldn't measure the effects of what's happening right now?
Yes, the sun variations influence climate. But human emission of gases into the atmosphere also influence climate, and scientists have means to determine the amount of influence due to each effect.
There surely seems to be too many MCSEs around. But I think there are jobs available for setting up and running Linux servers. Perhaps that's Microsoft's plan?
Precisely. Intercepting communications is pointless if the target has reason to suspect they are being watched. That's why the US and Britain went to great efforts to disguise the fact that they had broken the German and Japanese encryption systems during WWII.
For instance, when American fighters shot down admiral Yamamoto's plane the US didn't report the fact. They wanted the Japanese to believe that was just a chance encounter, not an action planned from a flight schedule they had known from decrypted Japanese communications.
Suppose they have a way to intercept Skype calls and decrypt everything. How will they know a conversation like "Aunt Emma's cat had seven kittens, three black and four white" actually means "I'm sending seven kilos of heroin, Giuseppe will take three and Giovanni four"?
You mean at least one website is still safe? So, the internet won't be entirely gone then?
It was predicted, but not with the required accuracy. The problem is that inactive satellites, like the Cosmos, can only be tracked by radar, and radar is not precise enough. From the prediction, these satellites would pass at 137 meters from each other, the probability of a collision was very small.
Iridium has over 60 satellites in orbit, they receive hundreds of warnings each day from NORAD about possible encounters, the prediction for this one wasn't close enough to warrant evasive action.
All in all, it was terrible bad luck.
That's because ads in television are directed to the mass market, while newspapers carry classified ads. With the internet full of advertisements which are easier to search and read than newspaper classified ads, there's that much less motivation to buy printed papers.
They do. The problem is when one of them fails, as happened to Cosmos-2251. You cannot deorbit a satellite that doesn't respond to commands.
As its name says, it's a private property that's open to the public.
And you clearly could gain something from reading more history and less Orwell. The origin of oppressive states has never followed the law. Dictatorships, like Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Franco in Spain, etc, are born from a period of economic chaos and extreme poverty, often caused by war.
I don't know of any dictatorship in recent centuries that was created from a gradual erosion of people's rights by legislation. However, a legislative culture that allows anarchy to form, by creating weak or illogic laws, will eventually degrade into a dictatorship.
Which country has more problems with illegal immigration from less developed countries? Perhaps this is the true measure of general quality of life.
Since Canada has a wider public health coverage than the US they should have, by your logic, a bigger problem in illegal immigration. However, a quick Google search shows that the opposite is true. Surprise! It seems that the government isn't the most efficient manager of public services after all
Anyone who has played adventure games knows there's no space janitor like Roger Wilco!