Do you have any information or references to the bit about the parachute drops using cataract-surgery spotters? That's *cool*.
I hate to say it, but I read this more than thiry years ago, back in my misspent youth, so I am totally unable to confirm.
The source was one of the many books about the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the CIA. This outfit did a wide variety of amazing things during WW II. Even if you can't confirm the UV spotter story, and even if you hate and fear the modern CIA, the history of the OSS is well worth reading.
Prot can see ultraviolet light. Humans cannot see ultraviolet light. Thus, Prot is not human.
Actually, it's my understanding that humans can see ultraviolet if they've had their lenses removed, for instance if they've had cataract surgery. The trick is that the lens has a slight yellowish cast to it that filters UV.
It's said that during WWII, OSS parachute drops were made to targets laid out with UV beacons, using post-cataract-surgery spotters.
As far as K-Pax goes, this is another nail in the idea that an alien could take over a human and see in UV; the requisite wavelengths wouldn't even reach the retina.
He's obviously ignorant of a basic fact of copyright law: if you own a copyright, you must enforce it, or risk losing it.
*weary sigh*
No, you're thinking of trademark laws. Copyright can be enforced or not, now or later, entirely at the whim of the copyright owner.
The fundamental difference is that copyrights protect the interests of the creator, by allowing the creator to decide who can and cannot duplicate the item in question. Trademarks protect the interests of the consumer, by preventing "inferior" knockoffs of a product from being marketed as the original. If a trademark holder ignores infringement, the damage is irreparable, and the mark loses force in fact.
Sony could play nice by granting a license to select hackers' sites, and thereby remove even the appearance of neglecting their interests. In this case, they could have asked that actual copies of their software be removed from the site, while permitting, even encouraging, the how-to files and
new software, akin to what we've seen with Lego Mindstorms. Instead, they've killed a potentially fanatical market. They're within their rights (as defined by the evil DMCA) but by doing so, they've proved themselves idiot bullies.
Or whatever beings or forces of nature you want to thank that the self-interests of major companies and industries are seldom in line with each other.
Weeelll, not exactly.
I've seen this idea before (George Will, maybe?), that consumers don't have to worry, because the Big Boys will fight it out, and keep each other from doing anything really nasty.
Balderdash.
Consumers--no, CITIZENS, DAMMIT! -- must have their own voice. What's good for GM, Sony, MS/AOL/TW, and the insurance companies is not necessarily good for us. This is just the wolves making sure that there's enough sheep to go around.
What I want is for corporations larger than, oh, say, 1000 employees or $5M/year gross to be counted as quasi-governments, not quasi-citizens. No rights, just responsibilities and Constitutionally mandated limits.
I'm going to be hard pressed to find kindergardens that will teach my baby how to use an AK47. Point is, do you think the type of mind that would train their children such things would care if they had a legit excuse or not?
Why, yes indeed; exactly the point. Only folks who think they have a "legit excuse" would do such things to their children (and ours).
...if one adopts the rhetorical conceit that this crime is somehow an "act of war"...
They attacked the Pentagon, a military target. If that's not an act of war, what is? Also, Bin Laden's previous targets, such as embassies, are also governmental/military -- fair game in war.
Or just do a search for "Ladenese Epistle". This thing usually shows up in three parts. What appears to be the primary site for this document, msanews.mynet.net is not responding as I write.
What do you want to bet that the brave heroes of UA93 who died in Pennsylvania to save our Capitol City fought with Leathermans, penknives, and letter openers?
I'm definitely on the side of concealed carry permit holders being able to board with their weapons.
Instead, the FAA has outlawed all knives, except for plastic butter knives with our meals.
In other words, the law abiding American traveling public will be treated like insane children. Under these rules, UA93 would have had to fight with their bare hands. What's next, demanding our belts and shoelaces? Having everyone change into tissuepaper pajamas? I've heard people suggest outlawing carry-on luggage. What, no diaper bags? No books or toys for bored children (and adults)? What about delicate equipment and valuables? Are you sure you want to trust your laptop to the baggage handlers?
This is totally unacceptable. Particularly on domestic flights, we must be free to go where we like when we like with whatever we like. Arrogant? Damn betcha. The earned arrogance of a free and powerful people. Anything less is giving in to fear, advertising our weakness, asking to be robbed, raped, and murdered.
Allowing our government and the airlines to act as our nannys only breeds irresponsibility and self contempt in us.
I will not, will not, trade one comma of the Bill of Rights for useless, even counterproductive attempts to make me safe from myself -- or anyone else.
To convince the judge to not enforce the law (judge-nullification??)
You say that like it's a bad thing, or even novel.
Yes indeed, the courts do in fact have the power
to strike down unjust or even unpopular laws. That is exactly and precisely why the judiciary is a third, separate branch of government, not subsumed under the Legislative or Administrative
branches.
You think you have a RIGHT to any of those things?
Why, yes, in fact, I do believe that if I buy something, it's mine. It's a well-established
principle of law called "fair use".
I'm not advocating distributing unlimited copies of commercial software; a big part of my job is
telling my co-workers they have to buy a license
if they want to use something.
But I'm not at all averse to uninstalling software from an old machine and putting it on
a new one. Darn betcha I make back-up copies of
the installation media. I learned far more in
libraries than I ever did in a classroom.
Before the DMCA, licenses (I can't bring myself
to call them "license agreements") that imposed restrictions on fair use like the above have not been broadly enforceable, and where they were, it was in civil court.
The DMCA makes violating these restrictions criminal. It may make even discussing ways of getting around technical enforcement of these restrictions criminal. (The fact that the RIAA backed away from Felton doesn't erase the fact that they were willing to prosecute until they found he could fight back. The law has not yet been overturned.) This does indeed deprive me of rights I formerly enjoyed, and I won't stand for it.
EFF gets a big chunk of my tax refund, on this issue alone.
if the law's so patently unconstitutional, then why do we need a criminal case to overturn it?
One of the things that makes the DMCA unconstitutional (or so I believe) is that it criminalizes what ought to be protected speech. Further, the courts do not hear cases "just to see"; there has to be an actual dispute. (There's a $5 legal term for this, but I can't remember it.) So, to challange a statute defining supposedly criminal behavior, there must be a criminal case in hand.
Why Dimitri? On the one hand, I dunno; he strikes me as a bad example, precisely because there seem to be several jurisdictional problems. On the other hand, this is (as noted) the kind of behavior the DMCA seems designed to criminalize. On the gripping hand, the prosecuters get to decide who to prosecute. One guess why they don't like to pick fights with folks that have the resources to fight them.
If you'd like to "volunteer," violate the DMCA, flaunt it, and wait to be arrested. Don't be surprised if the Feds actually want to hold you in jail, rather than shake hands and agree to a fair fight in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any information or references to the bit about the parachute drops using cataract-surgery spotters? That's *cool*.
I hate to say it, but I read this more than thiry years ago, back in my misspent youth, so I am totally unable to confirm.
The source was one of the many books about the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the CIA. This outfit did a wide variety of amazing things during WW II. Even if you can't confirm the UV spotter story, and even if you hate and fear the modern CIA, the history of the OSS is well worth reading.
Prot can see ultraviolet light. Humans cannot see ultraviolet light. Thus, Prot is not human.
Actually, it's my understanding that humans can see ultraviolet if they've had their lenses removed, for instance if they've had cataract surgery. The trick is that the lens has a slight yellowish cast to it that filters UV.
It's said that during WWII, OSS parachute drops were made to targets laid out with UV beacons, using post-cataract-surgery spotters.
As far as K-Pax goes, this is another nail in the idea that an alien could take over a human and see in UV; the requisite wavelengths wouldn't even reach the retina.
He's obviously ignorant of a basic fact of copyright law: if you own a copyright, you must enforce it, or risk losing it.
*weary sigh*
No, you're thinking of trademark laws. Copyright can be enforced or not, now or later, entirely at the whim of the copyright owner.
The fundamental difference is that copyrights protect the interests of the creator, by allowing the creator to decide who can and cannot duplicate the item in question. Trademarks protect the interests of the consumer, by preventing "inferior" knockoffs of a product from being marketed as the original. If a trademark holder ignores infringement, the damage is irreparable, and the mark loses force in fact.
Sony could play nice by granting a license to select hackers' sites, and thereby remove even the appearance of neglecting their interests. In this case, they could have asked that actual copies of their software be removed from the site, while permitting, even encouraging, the how-to files and
new software, akin to what we've seen with Lego Mindstorms. Instead, they've killed a potentially fanatical market. They're within their rights (as defined by the evil DMCA) but by doing so, they've proved themselves idiot bullies.
Or whatever beings or forces of nature you want to thank that the self-interests of major companies and industries are seldom in line with each other.
Weeelll, not exactly.
I've seen this idea before (George Will, maybe?), that consumers don't have to worry, because the Big Boys will fight it out, and keep each other from doing anything really nasty.
Balderdash.
Consumers--no, CITIZENS, DAMMIT! -- must have their own voice. What's good for GM, Sony, MS/AOL/TW, and the insurance companies is not necessarily good for us. This is just the wolves making sure that there's enough sheep to go around.
What I want is for corporations larger than, oh, say, 1000 employees or $5M/year gross to be counted as quasi-governments, not quasi-citizens. No rights, just responsibilities and Constitutionally mandated limits.
Never happen, of course, but I can dream....
I'm going to be hard pressed to find kindergardens that will teach my baby how to use an AK47. Point is, do you think the type of mind that would train their children such things would care if they had a legit excuse or not?
Why, yes indeed; exactly the point. Only folks who think they have a "legit excuse" would do such things to their children (and ours).
(Oops, lost a sentence. Just before the links, insert:)
Bin Laden himself thinks he's at war with us:
...if one adopts the rhetorical conceit that this crime is somehow an "act of war"...
They attacked the Pentagon, a military target. If that's not an act of war, what is? Also, Bin Laden's previous targets, such as embassies, are also governmental/military -- fair game in war.
Same stuff we hit when we go to war.
goose.sauce=gander.sauce
U.S. Government charges against Bin Laden
"You've Got War"
Or just do a search for "Ladenese Epistle". This thing usually shows up in three parts. What appears to be the primary site for this document, msanews.mynet.net is not responding as I write.
What do you want to bet that the brave heroes of UA93 who died in Pennsylvania to save our Capitol City fought with Leathermans, penknives, and letter openers?
I'm definitely on the side of concealed carry permit holders being able to board with their weapons.
Instead, the FAA has outlawed all knives, except for plastic butter knives with our meals.
In other words, the law abiding American traveling public will be treated like insane children. Under these rules, UA93 would have had to fight with their bare hands. What's next, demanding our belts and shoelaces? Having everyone change into tissuepaper pajamas? I've heard people suggest outlawing carry-on luggage. What, no diaper bags? No books or toys for bored children (and adults)? What about delicate equipment and valuables? Are you sure you want to trust your laptop to the baggage handlers?
This is totally unacceptable. Particularly on domestic flights, we must be free to go where we like when we like with whatever we like. Arrogant? Damn betcha. The earned arrogance of a free and powerful people. Anything less is giving in to fear, advertising our weakness, asking to be robbed, raped, and murdered.
Allowing our government and the airlines to act as our nannys only breeds irresponsibility and self contempt in us.
I will not, will not , trade one comma of the Bill of Rights for useless, even counterproductive attempts to make me safe from myself -- or anyone else.
To convince the judge to not enforce the law (judge-nullification??)
You say that like it's a bad thing, or even novel.
Yes indeed, the courts do in fact have the power to strike down unjust or even unpopular laws. That is exactly and precisely why the judiciary is a third, separate branch of government, not subsumed under the Legislative or Administrative branches.
You think you have a RIGHT to any of those things?
Why, yes, in fact, I do believe that if I buy something, it's mine. It's a well-established principle of law called "fair use".
I'm not advocating distributing unlimited copies of commercial software; a big part of my job is telling my co-workers they have to buy a license if they want to use something.
But I'm not at all averse to uninstalling software from an old machine and putting it on a new one. Darn betcha I make back-up copies of the installation media. I learned far more in libraries than I ever did in a classroom.
Before the DMCA, licenses (I can't bring myself to call them "license agreements") that imposed restrictions on fair use like the above have not been broadly enforceable, and where they were, it was in civil court.
The DMCA makes violating these restrictions criminal. It may make even discussing ways of getting around technical enforcement of these restrictions criminal. (The fact that the RIAA backed away from Felton doesn't erase the fact that they were willing to prosecute until they found he could fight back. The law has not yet been overturned.) This does indeed deprive me of rights I formerly enjoyed, and I won't stand for it. EFF gets a big chunk of my tax refund, on this issue alone.
if the law's so patently unconstitutional, then why do we need a criminal case to overturn it?
One of the things that makes the DMCA unconstitutional (or so I believe) is that it criminalizes what ought to be protected speech. Further, the courts do not hear cases "just to see"; there has to be an actual dispute. (There's a $5 legal term for this, but I can't remember it.) So, to challange a statute defining supposedly criminal behavior, there must be a criminal case in hand.
Why Dimitri? On the one hand, I dunno; he strikes me as a bad example, precisely because there seem to be several jurisdictional problems. On the other hand, this is (as noted) the kind of behavior the DMCA seems designed to criminalize. On the gripping hand, the prosecuters get to decide who to prosecute. One guess why they don't like to pick fights with folks that have the resources to fight them.
If you'd like to "volunteer," violate the DMCA, flaunt it, and wait to be arrested. Don't be surprised if the Feds actually want to hold you in jail, rather than shake hands and agree to a fair fight in court.