have fun pumping water by hand and hauling weekly shopping for your family home on the bike every day. Should leave you about 20 minutes to get productive work done a day.
So you've never written a/* yeah, I don't like this either */ comment? We've all done it now and then.
When your neat and tidy chunk of code just won't work and even after an hour of going over it trying to work out what the hell is wrong and eventually you just give up and drop in a messy horrible little snippet of code that you don't even like writing but which works.
Also is it about uploading or downloading? Because when it comes down to it how do I know the sites I'm on are authorised to distribute the content they do? I can't. No more than I can tell if a radio station I've tuned in to has been paying it's licence fees.
If I'm distributing, fine, it's my job to check if I have the right to distribute but I have problems seeing how they could sensibly go after downloaders.
Passwords are not items, they are not staplers, they are not chairs, they are not routers.
Passwords are knowledge.
If you follow your chain of "logic" then would he also be required to spend several weeks teaching his replacement how the network works? After all that knowledge is "company property" if it doesn't hand it over for free then he's STEALING FROM THE COMPANY!!!!
This may be hard for your to understand but if you work for a company and you have an important set of passwords and there is an official policy that says "You must not give the passwords to anyone apart from the president of the company" and your boss marches in and demands the passwords then you should not give them to him unless he happens to be the president of the company. He could be your boss, your bosses boss or your bosses bosses boss.
But if you ignore the policy and hand over the passwords to someone who is not authorized to have them then you could be held liable. It doesn't matter if that person is your manager or a hobo on the street. If you ignore policy then you can get it in the neck.
Childs followed policy and handed the passwords over to the only other person who was authorized to have them. His boss was not manager to have them. You seem to not understand that it's quite possible and normal for your manager to not be authorized to have passwords which you yourself are authorized to have.
1: Your letters will be ignored if they're accusing someone important. If you accuse a senator there's no way in hell they're getting disconnected.
2: If the RIAA accuse everyone in a network block of copyright infringement with no proof then so what? In theory there are penalties for sending fraudulent DMCA notices but you have to have deep pockets to make it stick and there's probably some crap whereby they only have to prove that they *believed* you were violating copyright because the magic 8 ball said so and hence were acting in good faith.
3: the penalties if you do make it stick are probably a drop in the bucket for the RIAA/MPAA etc
4: If you try to turn it against them and serve notices to them then they will have deep pockets to make it stick to you and will make an example out of you.
5: the penalties which would be a drop in the bucket for the RIAA/MPAA etc will make you bleed out your ears.
They want to focus on the people who are really breaking the laws, not just the people who kinda do.
if you're over the limit you're not kinda breaking the law, you are breaking the law.deal with it. at worst they're focusing on people who are breaking it in more sign significant ways or breaking the law in a manner which more seriously endangers the people around them.
because if you're within (margin of error of the speed gun) then they'll leave you alone because you may in fact not be over the limit. If you are over that then you are *definitely* speeding. Just because they don't pull you over when they can't be certain you're over the limit does not make the limit higher. Keep in mind that the radar guns could be off in the other direction as well, measuring you as being slower than you really were, they're only right on average. So if the margin of error is 10 mph and they clock you doing 75 in a 60 zone then you could potentially have really been doing anywhere between 66 and 84 so they ticket you for your most likely speed- what the gun said your speed was, 75.
now radar gun tolerances are different from above but I wanted to make a point.
it's a hell of a lot harder to defend yourself with words than with a rifle.
I don't own a gun, I have no interest in owning a gun but I recognise that ultimately it reduces to the question of what tools I should be allowed have in my possession.
Should I be forbidden from having a port scanner because I might use it as a hacking tool? Should I be forbidden a compiler because I might make a port scanner with it?
The problem isn't software patents, hell every now and then I see a really fantastic piece of code and think "I'd have never thought of that in a million years". Sometimes we see the software equivalent of the ball-bearing, simple, elegant but not obvious until someone comes up with it.
The problem is the hulk of intentionally obfuscated legalese in software patents which is utterly useless to an engineer trying to duplicate what's being patented. The problem is not including the actual source code in the patent. The problem is patenting a general idea rather than an exact way of doing it. The problem is flow charts with descriptions of what some section of what you're patenting does because while you can engineer around an innovative break design in a car you can never engineer your way around a box in a flow chart reading "slows car down".
The problem is the bastardised combination of patents and copyright software enjoys. Pick one or the other damnit.
colour tends to put people off food, perhaps something which shows up only under UV or some kind of chemical marker you concerned vegetarians could check for with a piece of consumer electronics.
If I'm downloading copyrighted material so what? It's not my responsibility to make sure that everyone sending me data has the right to send me data. If I'm downloading something from sky.com or NBC how do I know they've paid the royalties to the content creators? If some site sends me data how do you know I even asked for it? If someone starts firing a copy of some movie at a random port on my PC there's not even a grantee that I've asked for it.
The only thing I'm responsible for is what comes from my machine.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a question about IP6:
Is it better for things like privacy and anonymity or much much worse?
The fact that china is leaping on IP6 has me a little worried about it.
Does IP6 make it especially easy to intercept my traffic?
Does IP6 make it easier to keep tabs on users?
Slashdot seems like the place for this kind of question.
*week
plus all the other little things which you never even notice which are provided for you without the need for inefficient manual labour.
have fun pumping water by hand and hauling weekly shopping for your family home on the bike every day.
Should leave you about 20 minutes to get productive work done a day.
So you've never written a /* yeah, I don't like this either */ comment?
We've all done it now and then.
When your neat and tidy chunk of code just won't work and even after an hour of going over it trying to work out what the hell is wrong and eventually you just give up and drop in a messy horrible little snippet of code that you don't even like writing but which works.
Funny side note- I thought one of the big points of "green" tech was to cut down on Americas dependence on other countries when it comes to energy.
middle of page ten.
Why would he send copies of of network configurations to the copyright office I have no idea.....
Also is it about uploading or downloading?
Because when it comes down to it how do I know the sites I'm on are authorised to distribute the content they do?
I can't.
No more than I can tell if a radio station I've tuned in to has been paying it's licence fees.
If I'm distributing, fine, it's my job to check if I have the right to distribute but I have problems seeing how they could sensibly go after downloaders.
Reading that one thing jumped out at me as really weird...
"had sent a copy of the configuration to US copyright office"
This makes no sense to me....
Incorrect,
"Following his arrest, police searched his house and workspaces. Police turned up 9mm and .45 caliber bullets, but apparently no weapons"
No gun on him, they did find a small quantity of ammo in his house.
Where did your "pages of usernames and passwords" thing come from?
Passwords are not items, they are not staplers, they are not chairs, they are not routers.
Passwords are knowledge.
If you follow your chain of "logic" then would he also be required to spend several weeks teaching his replacement how the network works?
After all that knowledge is "company property" if it doesn't hand it over for free then he's STEALING FROM THE COMPANY!!!!
This may be hard for your to understand but if you work for a company and you have an important set of passwords and there is an official policy that says "You must not give the passwords to anyone apart from the president of the company" and your boss marches in and demands the passwords then you should not give them to him unless he happens to be the president of the company.
He could be your boss, your bosses boss or your bosses bosses boss.
But if you ignore the policy and hand over the passwords to someone who is not authorized to have them then you could be held liable.
It doesn't matter if that person is your manager or a hobo on the street.
If you ignore policy then you can get it in the neck.
Childs followed policy and handed the passwords over to the only other person who was authorized to have them.
His boss was not manager to have them.
You seem to not understand that it's quite possible and normal for your manager to not be authorized to have passwords which you yourself are authorized to have.
because if you send a million spam mails you only need a handful of people to actually buy anything, I'm talking a few dozen, to cover your costs.
Simply put
1: Your letters will be ignored if they're accusing someone important.
If you accuse a senator there's no way in hell they're getting disconnected.
2: If the RIAA accuse everyone in a network block of copyright infringement with no proof then so what?
In theory there are penalties for sending fraudulent DMCA notices but you have to have deep pockets to make it stick and there's probably some crap whereby they only have to prove that they *believed* you were violating copyright because the magic 8 ball said so and hence were acting in good faith.
3: the penalties if you do make it stick are probably a drop in the bucket for the RIAA/MPAA etc
4: If you try to turn it against them and serve notices to them then they will have deep pockets to make it stick to you and will make an example out of you.
5: the penalties which would be a drop in the bucket for the RIAA/MPAA etc will make you bleed out your ears.
They should not be allowed to pass laws that benefit themselves in any way shape or form
what if they're trying to improve the standard of living of people who are on a modest income?
I didn't want to get into a long rant about standard deviation etc, I'm quite aware of how error measurements work.
I'm sure once people who have no money start handing over their non-existent money things will be a lot fairer.
They want to focus on the people who are really breaking the laws, not just the people who kinda do.
if you're over the limit you're not kinda breaking the law, you are breaking the law.deal with it.
at worst they're focusing on people who are breaking it in more sign significant ways or breaking the law in a manner which more seriously endangers the people around them.
because if you're within (margin of error of the speed gun) then they'll leave you alone because you may in fact not be over the limit.
If you are over that then you are *definitely* speeding.
Just because they don't pull you over when they can't be certain you're over the limit does not make the limit higher.
Keep in mind that the radar guns could be off in the other direction as well, measuring you as being slower than you really were, they're only right on average.
So if the margin of error is 10 mph and they clock you doing 75 in a 60 zone then you could potentially have really been doing anywhere between 66 and 84 so they ticket you for your most likely speed- what the gun said your speed was, 75.
now radar gun tolerances are different from above but I wanted to make a point.
it's depressing how logical this is.....
That or hit that facility of theirs with something on a busy day of trading.
it's a hell of a lot harder to defend yourself with words than with a rifle.
I don't own a gun, I have no interest in owning a gun but I recognise that ultimately it reduces to the question of what tools I should be allowed have in my possession.
Should I be forbidden from having a port scanner because I might use it as a hacking tool?
Should I be forbidden a compiler because I might make a port scanner with it?
The problem isn't software patents, hell every now and then I see a really fantastic piece of code and think "I'd have never thought of that in a million years". Sometimes we see the software equivalent of the ball-bearing, simple, elegant but not obvious until someone comes up with it.
The problem is the hulk of intentionally obfuscated legalese in software patents which is utterly useless to an engineer trying to duplicate what's being patented.
The problem is not including the actual source code in the patent.
The problem is patenting a general idea rather than an exact way of doing it.
The problem is flow charts with descriptions of what some section of what you're patenting does because while you can engineer around an innovative break design in a car you can never engineer your way around a box in a flow chart reading "slows car down".
The problem is the bastardised combination of patents and copyright software enjoys.
Pick one or the other damnit.
and? freedom of speach gives every youtube commenter and conservative radio host air time. These are the people you want to let speak to everyone?
colour tends to put people off food, perhaps something which shows up only under UV or some kind of chemical marker you concerned vegetarians could check for with a piece of consumer electronics.
while roughly 40 percent pay absolutely NO income taxes
And how many of that 40% have any income to tax?
If I'm downloading copyrighted material so what?
It's not my responsibility to make sure that everyone sending me data has the right to send me data.
If I'm downloading something from sky.com or NBC how do I know they've paid the royalties to the content creators?
If some site sends me data how do you know I even asked for it?
If someone starts firing a copy of some movie at a random port on my PC there's not even a grantee that I've asked for it.
The only thing I'm responsible for is what comes from my machine.