If we are in agreement that safe harbor protections are only afforded to ISPs, then the agreement between him and his access provider do come into play. Is he an ISP as recognized by the law?
Your example of your ISP found violating an agreement with an upstream providing fails a couple of ways. 1) The ISP still has other upstream providers. 2) They are an establish business entity(e.g. corporation) built to provide internet access vs jow blow in his basement sharing out a wifi connection against his ISP's AUP. This goes towards establishing them as an ISP under the law. 3) If the ISP's upstream provider found them to be violating an agreement the upstream provider either terminates service(the ISP no longer is providing access to the internet, where's the traffic to go, how's the riaa going to check it;think private wan at this point) or fines the ISP.
If the ISP loses its designation as an ISP under the law, then yes they would lose safe harbor protections and become responsible for the traffic.
Acting as an ISP and being recognized as an ISP under the law are two completely different beasts. Not being recognized as a legitimate ISP under the law means he forgoes the safe harbor protections(he was relying on).
What are you going on about? This is about the civilized world, not US:p
My ISP lets me do anything that is legal and non-commercial, and I sincerely doubt that the non-commercial will really hold up in court. Not that it matters, since I have no intentions to. Providing free wireless is well within those parameters.
Yeah, my reply was us-centric. What does your ISP's AUP say?
I don't see why the private contractual arrangments between you and your ISP would affect whether you are an ISP according to the DMCA. A few problems with your persoanl contractual arrangments wouldn't usually affect something like that.
While I am not a lawyer, I believe it would hinge on the legal definition of an ISP. If your upstream provider doesn't allow you to re-sell your internet access, it makes it pretty difficult to argue that you are an ISP.
As for forbidding "resharing", how on earth can they ask for that? Can I share with my wife? Kids? Friends? Boarders? Relatives? Guests?
From Comcast's AUP ix. resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (i.e. wi-fi, or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, or on a bundled or unbundled basis. The Service is for personal and non-commercial use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network;
x. connect multiple computers behind the cable modem to set up a LAN (Local Area Network) that in any manner would result in a violation of the terms of this Policy or an applicable Service plan;
Note: that was just the first ISP's AUP I looked at.
I don't think the safe harbor provisions of the dmca would apply to you. The majority of ISPs' AUPs forbid "re-sharing" or re-selling of a subscriber's internet connection. You are a customer, not an ISP.
If you have an account with an ISP that permits you to re-sell the internet access, then you could claim safe harbor. Indeed, the riaa would be left sending you letters for ip-to-user translations.
Try finding a small local ISP and work with them to get re-sellable internet access. Maybe try the neighborhood wireless angle or free hotspot connectivity.
Let's see... a mirror is used in optics, something chilled to near-zero isn't moving(atoms are near motion-less), putting those two together means my pr0n is going to be that much crisper.
Or maybe someone would like to use the demonstrated cooling effect to chill some hardware? Maybe superconductors without having to use liquid nitrogen?
I mean telling a story about a funny camping trip 30 years from now vs. a raid or something.
What? You don't reminisce about online adventures? Well, you must not be playing the right games. We'll still bring up playing Quake, Doom, Duke Nuke'em when they first came out or some exploring, killing & dying we did in mmorpgs. And of course there are the exploits & getting stuck in a "corner".
It helps to game with friends you see outside of the game. Kinda like the camping story is better if more people than yourself are involved.
Fun is fun, doesn't really matter what the experience is... only that it is shared.
You laugh but I had a job where ping was their "solution". First day of "training" they show me this batch file that I needed to run in the morning. The batch went and pinged everything, if it ran successfully then everything was up and life was good.
I wonder if filing a DMCA counter claim and having it ignored is grounds for dismissal, so now she can keep it up on youtube forever?
No. Fumbling DMCA procedures not mean the copyright holder surrenders their rights.
The clip she posted is permitted under fair use; that is what allows her to post the clip on YouTube indefinitely. If it isn't(or the NFL thinks it isn't), the NFL can take her to court for copyright infringement. And if the court decides the clip isn't allowed under Fair Use, the clip must be removed.
The interesting part of this story is the second take-down notice filed by the NFL. By failing to follow the correct procedures when a counter-notice has been filed, it opens them(NFL) up to a lawsuit.
but the math does still jive because, like all other aspects of the economy, military spending gets re-used.
Sure but your calculation doesn't account for the re-use. You are comparing initial spending against the GDP; which includes all re-use. You need to either determine the value of the military spending after re-use has played out or divide the GDP by the level of re-use. (I wish I could remember that term. I'm stuck on fluidity of cash but can't find a link)
If a dollar gets re-use seven times in a year, then we would have to divide the GDP number by seven to get a more honest percentage of money spent on the military.
but I don't think it is possible to make that comparison in an accurate way because of the vast differences between our economy and that of say, Rome.
No need to go that far back. British empire comes to mind and I'd guess there are numbers available somewhere.
America, on the other hand, does not directly acquire conquered lands or plunder resources/people.
Wait... what? America was completely unpopulated before Europeans arrived? Our friends from Africa were just happy go lucky folk looking for plantation work? And we're currently in Iraq to stop the terrorists, right? We're not there for the oil, no sir.
One could probably argue that the benefits of trading with Germany and Japan made WWII a profitable venture.
WHAT THE FUCK? All I can say is you are wrong.
Not to mention the fact that a strong military prevents or deters the thing that has destroyed countless economies throughout history: [losing] war.
So the US economy is doing well right now? The US is winning their current war?
A strong military doesn't prevent war, especially today. National leaders are the ones that prevent and start wars. It's the military that fights the wars.
I'm just trying to say that America's economy obviously is not struggling because of its military budget
I'll agree there to a point. My disagreement was with the 4% figure, it paints a way too rosey picture. Military spending could be reduced and/or spent on something else. I would rather see the military R&D dollars go towards civilian R&D and have the military retro-fit it, instead of the current method of retro-fitting military tech to civilian uses. e.g. R&D for a fire fighter exo-skeleton and later retro-fit it for military use.
Since a military can, and is, used to expand, improve, or shape the global economy in a manner favorable to the nation investing in it,
I'll leave you with some words of wisdom from President Eisenhower
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Actually, it's more like $500 billion for 2007. In comparison to previous empires, though, this is remarkably low. Consider that it is only roughly 4% of the GDP
Isn't that statement a little dishonest? GDP is a measurement of good&services produced by a country. Saying 4% of that was spent on defense isn't accurate; the federal government doesn't have the entire GDP available to spend, they only have the federal budget available to spend. And I don't believe the federal budget is included in GDP calculations.
A better comparison would be percentage of federal budget spent on defense compare to previous empires' percentage of budget spent on defense.
Or you could say for $500 billion spent on defense which created $X of good&services and that comes out to be Z% of the GDP. I would be interested in knowing values for X & Z.
I think I know what you are trying to doing "X% of the economy is put towards defense" but your math doesn't jive... there isn't $13 trillion in circulation, dollars get "re-used"(I forgot the proper term for it).
Verifying Timezone Settings in Linux lists common distros & needed patches and how-to verify settings. Waaay less wordy than the article linked in the summary.
Remember, some 30 years ago, there was an OIL SHORTAGE. I mean serious. Rationing. You could buy gas on even days but not odd days. Cars that got over 40 miles to the gallon.
Umm, no it was an oil embargo. Which 1970s cars got 40mpg?
Money has an intrinsic value in the real world. Namely, that other people will give you goods and services in exchange for it.
Money in a virtual world works the same. Or to look at it from a different angle... what if the good&services you are interested in purchasing are only available in a virtual world?
Exchanging US Dollars for WoW gold is similar to exchanging US Dollars for Euros. The difference is government backing of the currency.
except that usually there is not a fixed amount of game money.
See, in the real world, money is the medium of exchange for goods and services. But in the game world, realistically, goods (items) are the same as money.
People still barter in the real world. Easy examples would include collectibles like comic books&baseball cards. Or how about trading in your old car when buying a new one?
Virtual currency is a curious thing when it can be exchanged for government backed currency.
Yeah, Really Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.
"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.
Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering.
"Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?"
Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion."
Where do you get these silly ideas? Police state? The US is still THE most free nation in the world.
The US is currently ranked 53rd in the world for Freedom of the Press. Mozambique rates higher than the US. Source
The US was tied with Greece for 31st in 2003. Source
You don't give a shit about losing rights within your own borders because you're too worried about the boogyman to our south.
It could be said the US people are also too afraid of the terrorist boogyman to give a shit about losing their rights.
And Canadians aren't the only ones uneasy with the US.
MUNICH, Feb. 10 -- Russian President Vladimir Putin, in some of his harshest criticism of the United States since he took office seven years ago, said Saturday that Washington's unilateral, militaristic approach had made the world a more dangerous place than at any time during the Cold War. Source
I can be arrested simply for voicing unpopular views or beliefs
People lacking tolerance tend to want to silence their critics and views they disagree with or don't understand. It just happens to be easier to do if you're in a position of power.
>> Two words: Judith Miller >> > >well.... yeah.... same situation, basically. Like the OP says: when the judge says >"show up and testify", you show up and testify. Refusing to show up gets you jail >time.
Not even close!
Judith Miler is unique, the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read.
Testimonial privileges require a court to weigh the government's evidence as to why they need her testimony. Yet Judith Miller was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison based exclusively upon written evidence from witnesses whose identities and testimony were kept secret from her and her lawyers. They were given no opportunity to defend her against, question, or rebut the secret evidence the courts relied upon exclusively in convicting her. Indeed, a full eight pages of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision discussing and analyzing this secret evidence was redacted from the published opinion. Source
Feb. 7, 2006 Significant sections of a previously redacted judicial opinion were released Friday after an appellate court ruled that certain information about grand jury testimony in the CIA leak investigation is no longer secret.
Dow Jones Inc. had filed a motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to release eight redacted pages from Judge David S. Tatel's concurring opinion in a February 2005 court ruling that then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matt Cooper must testify before a grand jury that was investigating who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the press.
Judge Tatel, in one of three concurring opinions written by the three-judge panel, found that there is a common law privilege but that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had overcome it. Tatel explained how Miller's testimony was critical to the investigation, how the grand jury had exhausted all other available resources, and that the public interest favored compelling her testimony. In doing so, eight pages of his decision were sealed from the public to preserve grand jury secrecy and to protect classified information.
The same three judges replied to Dow Jones' motion Friday and allowed large sections of Tatel's decision to be released, stating, in a decision written by the court as a whole, "we are satisfied here that there is no longer any need to keep significant portions of the eight pages under seal. Libby's indictment, now part of the public record, reveals some grand jury matters, and we see little purpose in protecting the secrecy of grand jury proceedings that are no longer secret."
I agree with you, that it is the hardware of the "big boys" that makes their toys useful. An actual switch that ran linux/bsd would be an interesting item.
There is, as of yet, no laws prohibiting thinking about commiting a crime.
Maybe if only you think about it but if a group of people are thinking about it, you're looking at conspiracy.
Picture this if you will.... brain-scans reveal two or more unrelated people thinking about the same crime(e.g. say cheating on taxes). Same crime, more one than one person thinking about it... round them up on conspiracy charges(conspiring to defraud the gov't). Nevermind they have never met or even know each other.
Check out the Miami 5 case for an example of a group of people just thinking about committing a crime. "more aspirational than operational."
I'm surprised tha suicides, assualts, and accidents rank so highly through most of your life.
I'm curious what you thought were the leading causes of death in the under 65 age group? What's left after you remove suicides, assaults and accidents? Disease, Flu ???
The world can be an amazingly violent&dangerous place, step lively. And if those don't get you, despair is batting cleaning up.
Slashdot Mirror
If we are in agreement that safe harbor protections are only afforded to ISPs, then the agreement between him and his access provider do come into play. Is he an ISP as recognized by the law?
Your example of your ISP found violating an agreement with an upstream providing fails a couple of ways.
1) The ISP still has other upstream providers.
2) They are an establish business entity(e.g. corporation) built to provide internet access vs jow blow in his basement sharing out a wifi connection against his ISP's AUP. This goes towards establishing them as an ISP under the law.
3) If the ISP's upstream provider found them to be violating an agreement the upstream provider either terminates service(the ISP no longer is providing access to the internet, where's the traffic to go, how's the riaa going to check it;think private wan at this point) or fines the ISP.
If the ISP loses its designation as an ISP under the law, then yes they would lose safe harbor protections and become responsible for the traffic.
Acting as an ISP and being recognized as an ISP under the law are two completely different beasts. Not being recognized as a legitimate ISP under the law means he forgoes the safe harbor protections(he was relying on).
Yeah, my reply was us-centric. What does your ISP's AUP say?
While I am not a lawyer, I believe it would hinge on the legal definition of an ISP. If your upstream provider doesn't allow you to re-sell your internet access, it makes it pretty difficult to argue that you are an ISP.
From Comcast's AUP
ix. resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (i.e. wi-fi, or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, or on a bundled or unbundled basis. The Service is for personal and non-commercial use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network;
x. connect multiple computers behind the cable modem to set up a LAN (Local Area Network) that in any manner would result in a violation of the terms of this Policy or an applicable Service plan;
Note: that was just the first ISP's AUP I looked at.
Haven't read your ISP's AUP, have you?
But still, if any ISP is innocent, so am I.
I don't think the safe harbor provisions of the dmca would apply to you. The majority of ISPs' AUPs forbid "re-sharing" or re-selling of a subscriber's internet connection. You are a customer, not an ISP.
If you have an account with an ISP that permits you to re-sell the internet access, then you could claim safe harbor. Indeed, the riaa would be left sending you letters for ip-to-user translations.
Try finding a small local ISP and work with them to get re-sellable internet access. Maybe try the neighborhood wireless angle or free hotspot connectivity.
Let's see... a mirror is used in optics, something chilled to near-zero isn't moving(atoms are near motion-less), putting those two together means my pr0n is going to be that much crisper.
Or maybe someone would like to use the demonstrated cooling effect to chill some hardware? Maybe superconductors without having to use liquid nitrogen?
Sometimes just seeing what you can do is enough of a reason. "Because it is there"
I thinking the same thing.
For example there is AC Propulsion's eBox or what I really want a Telsa Roadster, which they claim gets an equivalent 135mpg.
100mpg is certainly do-able with off-shelf technology.
I mean telling a story about a funny camping trip 30 years from now vs. a raid or something.
What? You don't reminisce about online adventures? Well, you must not be playing the right games. We'll still bring up playing Quake, Doom, Duke Nuke'em when they first came out or some exploring, killing & dying we did in mmorpgs. And of course there are the exploits & getting stuck in a "corner".
It helps to game with friends you see outside of the game. Kinda like the camping story is better if more people than yourself are involved.
Fun is fun, doesn't really matter what the experience is... only that it is shared.
Transcript of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
Audio of the hearing should be available at the same link in next week or two.
You laugh but I had a job where ping was their "solution". First day of "training" they show me this batch file that I needed to run in the morning. The batch went and pinged everything, if it ran successfully then everything was up and life was good.
Yeah, that was an interesting gig.
No. Fumbling DMCA procedures not mean the copyright holder surrenders their rights.
The clip she posted is permitted under fair use; that is what allows her to post the clip on YouTube indefinitely. If it isn't(or the NFL thinks it isn't), the NFL can take her to court for copyright infringement. And if the court decides the clip isn't allowed under Fair Use, the clip must be removed.
The interesting part of this story is the second take-down notice filed by the NFL. By failing to follow the correct procedures when a counter-notice has been filed, it opens them(NFL) up to a lawsuit.
Sure but your calculation doesn't account for the re-use. You are comparing initial spending against the GDP; which includes all re-use. You need to either determine the value of the military spending after re-use has played out or divide the GDP by the level of re-use. (I wish I could remember that term. I'm stuck on fluidity of cash but can't find a link)
If a dollar gets re-use seven times in a year, then we would have to divide the GDP number by seven to get a more honest percentage of money spent on the military.
No need to go that far back. British empire comes to mind and I'd guess there are numbers available somewhere.
Wait... what? America was completely unpopulated before Europeans arrived? Our friends from Africa were just happy go lucky folk looking for plantation work? And we're currently in Iraq to stop the terrorists, right? We're not there for the oil, no sir.
WHAT THE FUCK? All I can say is you are wrong.
So the US economy is doing well right now? The US is winning their current war?
A strong military doesn't prevent war, especially today. National leaders are the ones that prevent and start wars. It's the military that fights the wars.
I'll agree there to a point. My disagreement was with the 4% figure, it paints a way too rosey picture. Military spending could be reduced and/or spent on something else. I would rather see the military R&D dollars go towards civilian R&D and have the military retro-fit it, instead of the current method of retro-fitting military tech to civilian uses. e.g. R&D for a fire fighter exo-skeleton and later retro-fit it for military use.
I'll leave you with some words of wisdom from President Eisenhower
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
The entire Farewell Address can be found here
Isn't that statement a little dishonest? GDP is a measurement of good&services produced by a country. Saying 4% of that was spent on defense isn't accurate; the federal government doesn't have the entire GDP available to spend, they only have the federal budget available to spend. And I don't believe the federal budget is included in GDP calculations.
A better comparison would be percentage of federal budget spent on defense compare to previous empires' percentage of budget spent on defense.
Or you could say for $500 billion spent on defense which created $X of good&services and that comes out to be Z% of the GDP. I would be interested in knowing values for X & Z.
I think I know what you are trying to doing "X% of the economy is put towards defense" but your math doesn't jive... there isn't $13 trillion in circulation, dollars get "re-used"(I forgot the proper term for it).
Verifying Timezone Settings in Linux lists common distros & needed patches and how-to verify settings. Waaay less wordy than the article linked in the summary.
Umm, no it was an oil embargo. Which 1970s cars got 40mpg?
Money in a virtual world works the same. Or to look at it from a different angle... what if the good&services you are interested in purchasing are only available in a virtual world?
Exchanging US Dollars for WoW gold is similar to exchanging US Dollars for Euros. The difference is government backing of the currency.
Vs the real world, which has a fixed money supply?
People still barter in the real world. Easy examples would include collectibles like comic books&baseball cards. Or how about trading in your old car when buying a new one?
Virtual currency is a curious thing when it can be exchanged for government backed currency.
Wouldn't that undermine the GPL? If the linux kernel is in the public domain, companies could use it freely without having to give back.
Or what about street-performers performing their own material?
Yeah, Really
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution
doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when
the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.
"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a
prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.
Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican,
stammering.
"Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't
take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that
mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or
invasion?"
Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in
the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of
habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not
be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion."
Video of the above exchange
The US is currently ranked 53rd in the world for Freedom of the Press. Mozambique rates higher than the US. Source
The US was tied with Greece for 31st in 2003. Source
It could be said the US people are also too afraid of the terrorist boogyman to give a shit about losing their rights.
And Canadians aren't the only ones uneasy with the US.
MUNICH, Feb. 10 -- Russian President Vladimir Putin, in some of his harshest criticism of the United States since he took office seven years ago, said Saturday that Washington's unilateral, militaristic approach had made the world a more dangerous place than at any time during the Cold War. Source
Happens in the US, too.
People lacking tolerance tend to want to silence their critics and views they disagree with or don't understand. It just happens to be easier to do if you're in a position of power.
A group of people got together and organized a protest in support of anarchy?
>> Two words: Judith Miller
>>
>
>well.... yeah.... same situation, basically. Like the OP says: when the judge says
>"show up and testify", you show up and testify. Refusing to show up gets you jail
>time.
Not even close!
Judith Miler is unique, the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read.
Some Follow-up
OpenBSD has had stateful failover for a while now.
Failover Firewalls with OpenBSD and CARP
PF: Firewall Redundancy with CARP and pfsync
I agree with you, that it is the hardware of the "big boys" that makes their toys useful. An actual switch that ran linux/bsd would be an interesting item.
"Have you been living in a cave since Sept. 11, 2001?"
Or maybe the better question is.... is that you Osama?
Maybe if only you think about it but if a group of people are thinking about it, you're looking at conspiracy.
Picture this if you will....
brain-scans reveal two or more unrelated people thinking about the same crime(e.g. say cheating on taxes). Same crime, more one than one person thinking about it... round them up on conspiracy charges(conspiring to defraud the gov't). Nevermind they have never met or even know each other.
Check out the Miami 5 case for an example of a group of people just thinking about committing a crime. "more aspirational than operational."
I'm curious what you thought were the leading causes of death in the under 65 age group? What's left after you remove suicides, assaults and accidents? Disease, Flu ???
The world can be an amazingly violent&dangerous place, step lively. And if those don't get you, despair is batting cleaning up.