Nominally subordinate to only the 4th Amendment, which it violated by allowing exceptions to the Amendment's requirement of a warrant issued prior to any wiretapping.
Um, no. The Fourth Amendment says no unreasonable search or seizure, not no unwarranted search and seizure. It does, however, set out what a warrant requires, but it does not require a warrant for a lawful search:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There are many cases where a warrentless search has been held to be reasonable, and thus not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
That being said, warrantless wiretapping of the entire US population is, indeed, an unreasonable intrusion, in my opinion.
The problem with a system that relies on trusted third parties is that these third parties have to be, well, trusted. This implies that they are trustworthy. Have you evaluated all of the CAs on the list included with your operating system and browser for trustworthiness? I know I haven't. I've delegated that to the OS vendor and the browser vendor. Should I be doing this? Do I have evidence that shows that my OS vendor and browser vendor are trustworthy? And whose interest do they work for?
These are all things that need to be evaluated when dealing with a system that requires trusted third parties. The problem, of course, is that very few people actually do this. SSL is a system that requires trusted third parties if you are to put any trust in the fact that the certificate signed by a CA really belongs to the person the CA says it belongs to.
[This is, technically not true with self-signed certificates. Anybody can be a CA. Just self-sign a certificate and use that to sign the certificates of others. The problem is that you're not included by default. Of course, there are some sites that have their own CA, either for business reasons or because they can. They have an internal CA that they use to sign certificate for business purposes. These CAs are verified and pushed to machines, either by Active Directory at Windows sites or some other mechanism. There's no reason that an individual can't do the same when they generate certificates. The problem is that the fingerprint of CA certificates needs to be validated out of band in order for you the avoid a man in the middle attack when distributing the CA certificate to somebody else. This sort of distribution of SSL certificates would not require a trusted third party, but you would need to be able to identify the person or organization giving you the fingerprint and judge their trustworthiness.]
It sure does. When someone signs up for online banking, make them go to the branch to set a password and give them documentation showing how to verify the certificate and set it up in their browser. Bonus points for making this a bank-specific CA and then having rotating certificates on the bank website that are signed by this bank-specific CA so that this only needs to be done once per computer/browser.
Think of anti-virus as a vaccination. When you receive a vaccination, it protects you against the specific threat that the vaccination is designed to protect you from. The same holds true for anti-virus software. There is no magical "this program will destroy your computer or steal your personal information" opcode in software, so anti-virus software is designed to detect things it knows to be suspicious. If something is unknown (either because it is new and there aren't virus definition files for it or if your virus definition files are out of date because your 30-day trial has expired or you're not connected to the Internet or the software fails to automatically update or your anti-virus software has been compromised or switched off), your anti-virus software has a very slim chance of picking something malicious.
That is why an anti-virus package wouldn't stop threats newer than its definition files.
The constitutional definition of treason is as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
It's rather difficult to get a conviction for treason, and there's a damn good reason - the Founders wanted the people to be able to criticize their government freely. That's why it's "levying war" or "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort". That being said, the maximum penalty for treason is the death penalty. Judges sentencing have leeway in what they decide, and unless someone died, critical state secrets were passed along, or troop movements were disclosed, it's unlikely that any judge would sentence someone convicted of treason to death.
That shouldn't be a surprise to any. Especially as we see more about self-fixing computers, the furthering of object oriented programming which is leading to simpler and simpler APIs so you don't even have to be a programmer to make things happen.
Yes, but who makes the APIs that do all of the hard work? Nerds! That's great that what they make can be easily used, but as long as humans want to do something new with the computer, there will always be the need for a nerd that knows more than the average person to implement it.
There are still many open questions in computer science (which is to computer programming as astronomy is to telescopes) which will both push the boundaries of what computers can do as well as make computers more usable for the average person to solve problems. If you're concerned about job availability as well as not being treated a cog in the machine by your co-workers, then work on the edges of the field, not in the well-defined center.
Re:Danielle Bunten should have been credited
on
M.U.L.E. Is Back
·
· Score: 1
Genitals are not the same as gender identification. One can identify as female and still have male genitals, just as one can identify as male and have female genitals.
She's not saying that she regrets changing her name and assuming her gender identity. She's saying that she regrets changing her genitals.
That's not what I'm arguing for at all. In fact, I'm arguing for the opposite - that the market value of a work is a poor indicator as to whether the work is critically important or not. Indefinite copyright terms stifle the progress of the arts by not providing a larger pool to draw ideas and inspiration from.
There have been arguments that artists shouldn't be professionals - that first, they should make a living and then produce art, and further, that there should be minimal funding of the arts as they produce little of economic value. Many of the people that advance this argument also complain that there's not enough funding for basic science. They continue by saying basic science advances our fundamental understanding of the universe and that funding should be provided for basic science even if it does not produce much of economic value in the short term, and that basic science shouldn't be relegated to a part time endeavor by scientists who have to first make a living by doing more commercially viable research.
What I am saying is that art can have just as large of an impact of our understanding of the world - not in increasing our understanding of how the universe fundamentally works, but by increasing our understanding of the human condition. Art can be just as thought provoking as science. They're similar but not the same.
In my view, anybody complaining about the slashing of science and not the slashing of art is a short sighted hypocrite. Nobody should make a living for doing nothing. Nobody should be guaranteed their position at the table or guaranteed a living. Both the artist and the scientist should work hard, and we should be rewarding those that turn out the best critical work, even if that work is not economically profitable in the short term because not doing so relegates art and basic science to side projects.
Some art is both commercially and critically successful. Some basic science is commercially profitable and beneficial. But always tying profitability to success in art and science misses the times when unprofitable things are beneficial.
And I, am of course, an idiot. Yes, an advance has plenty to do with production and distribution costs - namely, that an advance is part of production costs. However, if you lower production costs and distribution costs and the gross amount that the book makes, then an advance could be the major part of the production cost, and be what the publishing houses trim next.
Only if you believe that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual citizen.
I used that example only because it was convenient. Let's take the corporations out of it and see if it still holds, and if it does, then you are right.
then any person with your credit card number could freely share it with anybody else. Your local grocer or your friends could share your history of purchases with your local insurance agent so they can set rates based upon your diet, your recreation habits, and the power tools you own.
It sounds like that would be an invasion of privacy (and speech restricted on the basis thereof) regardless of whether a corporation was involved.
I'm not saying that they should be guaranteed an income or a living. What I am saying is that it's hard to be an artist. Those that are truly motivated because art is a calling will be fine no matter what happens. Those who have talent but would like to make a living are either going to have to produce what society wants (as society's judgment of the market value of their work is what feeds, clothes, and shelters them) or do something else for a living, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with it.
However, without incentives, only those that are truly devoted to their calling or who have a knack for producing what society wants will be able to create. Some of the most radical, thought-provoking, and critically acclaimed art is not popular or profitable, much like basic science research is rarely profitable, but they both advance mankind.
What I see on Slashdot is hypocrisy. On one hand, people complain that science, basic, fundamental science, is not being funded enough, and that governments or large organizations should be giving more grants to researchers to keep science from being a strictly commercial venture, as commercial ventures, as a rule, focus on what brings in more profit in the near and medium terms. Some organizations (for example, back when Bell Labs was active) focus on the long term, but most focus on the short term.
On the other hand, people are complaining that artists shouldn't expect funding in the form of grants (advances, for example) from governments or large organizations even though artistic contributions can have similar effects on society. They feel that artists should produce what is profitable. Ideas are powerful and insight into how we perceive this world, either scientific or artistic, has real meaning, regardless of if they bring in the most profit.
You'd have less crappy books out there from young authors who want a simple "cash in" solution to paying the bills by throwing any garbage out there and having it published.
It seems rather silly to think that large publishing companies won't sponsor people, regardless of the distribution medium, if they think they're going to get large return on investment. That's good economics, regardless of the medium.
Only those truly dedicated to the craft would succeed. You would of course have fewer books, but of better calibre.
Self publishing might open the market to persistent authors, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be of higher quality.
It's a bootstrapping problem. You're not likely going to be able to find a large enough audience to pay in advance for a book unless you've already written something already popular. Some of the most critically acclaimed works are not popular, and some of the most popular works are not critically acclaimed.
An advance has nothing to do with production and distribution costs. The amount of money a book makes has everything to do with those two factors. A book published digitally will have a lower production and distribution cost, however, in most cases, it will also be available for less money.
It would be interesting to see the revenue and profit breakdown between books available only digitally, only on paper, and on both.
Yes, but if an author can't get an advance from a publishing company, fewer authors will be able to afford to take the time away from their "real jobs" to write a book. Yes, you can build an audience using unpolished, unedited work, and yes, you can take many years to write a book, but the first route leaves you looking like an amateur and the second route means you are more likely to get frustrated and give up halfway through.
The vast majority of books aren't a hit on the level of Harry Potter or Twilight. Most barely break even. The way that an author can afford to write them is by taking an advance and writing the book. It's the advances that keep the author fed, clothed, and sheltered between books if it's budgeted properly. I'm sure book signings and other "feelies" can help, but for every New York Times bestseller, there are hundreds of decent books that barely break even.
This goes down to the root of one primordial liberty: Free speech. If you can talk freely, it means you can communicate freely with your neighbor. So you can give hime any information. Including a movie, MP3 or a digital book. Because down to its core, digital data is just information.
The thing is, in the United States, we regularly limit free speech rights. For example, speech that incites criminal acts (for example, a riot) is regulated. Commercial speech is regulated. Copyright limits freedom of speech. Society would not function otherwise. If we define the sharing of information as freedom of speech, then any company with your credit card number could freely share it with anybody else. Your credit card company or bank could share your history of purchases with your insurance company so they can set rates based upon your diet, your recreation habits, and the power tools you own. All of this is information, yet we see fit to regulate the ways in which it is shared.
I agree with you that DRM is bad and it is an abuse of copyright and the right of first sale. Trotting out the old hacker belief that "information wants to and ought to be free" and "freedom of speech trumps all" does not reflect the mindset of the framers of the United States Constitution nor does it reflect the mindset of society today, regardless of how simple, romantic, and seductive the argument seems.
Plus, when you redistribute, you're free to re-license under the GPL. So if this gets someone's panties in a twist, fix a few bugs and fork under the GPL. Clearly, if you're complaining about the license, you can do a better job so this should be trivial for you.
Actually, they're just using the LGPL. If that bothers you, declare your copy to be GPL and follow the restrictions of the GPL, according to the LGPL:
3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices.
Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.
This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the Library into a program that is not a library.
Does this mean that I'll finally be able to enjoy a movie in a theater without some annoying person poking at their cellphone, either making noise or light?
Those people are the reason I don't see movies in theaters and just watch them at home when they come out on DVD.
Gotta love the editing on Wikipedia, coupled with a sick sense of humor:
1984 - Baby Safety Capsule - Babies in a car crash used to bounce around like a football. In 1984, for the first time babies had a bassinette with an air bubble in the base and a harness that distributed forces across the bassinette protecting the baby. New South Wales public hospitals now refuse to allow parents take a baby home by car without one.
Stable, reliable, well-understood, and bug-free are true of many more recent languages.
<sarcasm>I didn't know that more modern languages had a 50 year history of reliability, scalability, and security to process transactions 24/7. Live and learn I guess...</sarcasm>
Further, the cost of developing, debugging, and testing the replacement in any language (including redeveloping the system from the ground up in COBOL) is quite expensive, no matter what language you choose. Likely more expensive than the big iron and software environments necessary to run the old code that has worked reliably for the last 20 to 40 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Nominally subordinate to only the 4th Amendment, which it violated by allowing exceptions to the Amendment's requirement of a warrant issued prior to any wiretapping.
Um, no. The Fourth Amendment says no unreasonable search or seizure, not no unwarranted search and seizure. It does, however, set out what a warrant requires, but it does not require a warrant for a lawful search:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There are many cases where a warrentless search has been held to be reasonable, and thus not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
That being said, warrantless wiretapping of the entire US population is, indeed, an unreasonable intrusion, in my opinion.
The problem with a system that relies on trusted third parties is that these third parties have to be, well, trusted. This implies that they are trustworthy. Have you evaluated all of the CAs on the list included with your operating system and browser for trustworthiness? I know I haven't. I've delegated that to the OS vendor and the browser vendor. Should I be doing this? Do I have evidence that shows that my OS vendor and browser vendor are trustworthy? And whose interest do they work for?
These are all things that need to be evaluated when dealing with a system that requires trusted third parties. The problem, of course, is that very few people actually do this. SSL is a system that requires trusted third parties if you are to put any trust in the fact that the certificate signed by a CA really belongs to the person the CA says it belongs to.
[This is, technically not true with self-signed certificates. Anybody can be a CA. Just self-sign a certificate and use that to sign the certificates of others. The problem is that you're not included by default. Of course, there are some sites that have their own CA, either for business reasons or because they can. They have an internal CA that they use to sign certificate for business purposes. These CAs are verified and pushed to machines, either by Active Directory at Windows sites or some other mechanism. There's no reason that an individual can't do the same when they generate certificates. The problem is that the fingerprint of CA certificates needs to be validated out of band in order for you the avoid a man in the middle attack when distributing the CA certificate to somebody else. This sort of distribution of SSL certificates would not require a trusted third party, but you would need to be able to identify the person or organization giving you the fingerprint and judge their trustworthiness.]
That doesn't help taking to your bank
It sure does. When someone signs up for online banking, make them go to the branch to set a password and give them documentation showing how to verify the certificate and set it up in their browser. Bonus points for making this a bank-specific CA and then having rotating certificates on the bank website that are signed by this bank-specific CA so that this only needs to be done once per computer/browser.
Think of anti-virus as a vaccination. When you receive a vaccination, it protects you against the specific threat that the vaccination is designed to protect you from. The same holds true for anti-virus software. There is no magical "this program will destroy your computer or steal your personal information" opcode in software, so anti-virus software is designed to detect things it knows to be suspicious. If something is unknown (either because it is new and there aren't virus definition files for it or if your virus definition files are out of date because your 30-day trial has expired or you're not connected to the Internet or the software fails to automatically update or your anti-virus software has been compromised or switched off), your anti-virus software has a very slim chance of picking something malicious.
That is why an anti-virus package wouldn't stop threats newer than its definition files.
The constitutional definition of treason is as follows:
It's rather difficult to get a conviction for treason, and there's a damn good reason - the Founders wanted the people to be able to criticize their government freely. That's why it's "levying war" or "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort". That being said, the maximum penalty for treason is the death penalty. Judges sentencing have leeway in what they decide, and unless someone died, critical state secrets were passed along, or troop movements were disclosed, it's unlikely that any judge would sentence someone convicted of treason to death.
Thanks.
I love you too?
That shouldn't be a surprise to any. Especially as we see more about self-fixing computers, the furthering of object oriented programming which is leading to simpler and simpler APIs so you don't even have to be a programmer to make things happen.
Yes, but who makes the APIs that do all of the hard work? Nerds! That's great that what they make can be easily used, but as long as humans want to do something new with the computer, there will always be the need for a nerd that knows more than the average person to implement it.
There are still many open questions in computer science (which is to computer programming as astronomy is to telescopes) which will both push the boundaries of what computers can do as well as make computers more usable for the average person to solve problems. If you're concerned about job availability as well as not being treated a cog in the machine by your co-workers, then work on the edges of the field, not in the well-defined center.
Genitals are not the same as gender identification. One can identify as female and still have male genitals, just as one can identify as male and have female genitals.
She's not saying that she regrets changing her name and assuming her gender identity. She's saying that she regrets changing her genitals.
That's not what I'm arguing for at all. In fact, I'm arguing for the opposite - that the market value of a work is a poor indicator as to whether the work is critically important or not. Indefinite copyright terms stifle the progress of the arts by not providing a larger pool to draw ideas and inspiration from.
There have been arguments that artists shouldn't be professionals - that first, they should make a living and then produce art, and further, that there should be minimal funding of the arts as they produce little of economic value. Many of the people that advance this argument also complain that there's not enough funding for basic science. They continue by saying basic science advances our fundamental understanding of the universe and that funding should be provided for basic science even if it does not produce much of economic value in the short term, and that basic science shouldn't be relegated to a part time endeavor by scientists who have to first make a living by doing more commercially viable research.
What I am saying is that art can have just as large of an impact of our understanding of the world - not in increasing our understanding of how the universe fundamentally works, but by increasing our understanding of the human condition. Art can be just as thought provoking as science. They're similar but not the same.
In my view, anybody complaining about the slashing of science and not the slashing of art is a short sighted hypocrite. Nobody should make a living for doing nothing. Nobody should be guaranteed their position at the table or guaranteed a living. Both the artist and the scientist should work hard, and we should be rewarding those that turn out the best critical work, even if that work is not economically profitable in the short term because not doing so relegates art and basic science to side projects.
Some art is both commercially and critically successful. Some basic science is commercially profitable and beneficial. But always tying profitability to success in art and science misses the times when unprofitable things are beneficial.
And I, am of course, an idiot. Yes, an advance has plenty to do with production and distribution costs - namely, that an advance is part of production costs. However, if you lower production costs and distribution costs and the gross amount that the book makes, then an advance could be the major part of the production cost, and be what the publishing houses trim next.
I used that example only because it was convenient. Let's take the corporations out of it and see if it still holds, and if it does, then you are right.
It sounds like that would be an invasion of privacy (and speech restricted on the basis thereof) regardless of whether a corporation was involved.
I'm not saying that they should be guaranteed an income or a living. What I am saying is that it's hard to be an artist. Those that are truly motivated because art is a calling will be fine no matter what happens. Those who have talent but would like to make a living are either going to have to produce what society wants (as society's judgment of the market value of their work is what feeds, clothes, and shelters them) or do something else for a living, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with it.
However, without incentives, only those that are truly devoted to their calling or who have a knack for producing what society wants will be able to create. Some of the most radical, thought-provoking, and critically acclaimed art is not popular or profitable, much like basic science research is rarely profitable, but they both advance mankind.
What I see on Slashdot is hypocrisy. On one hand, people complain that science, basic, fundamental science, is not being funded enough, and that governments or large organizations should be giving more grants to researchers to keep science from being a strictly commercial venture, as commercial ventures, as a rule, focus on what brings in more profit in the near and medium terms. Some organizations (for example, back when Bell Labs was active) focus on the long term, but most focus on the short term.
On the other hand, people are complaining that artists shouldn't expect funding in the form of grants (advances, for example) from governments or large organizations even though artistic contributions can have similar effects on society. They feel that artists should produce what is profitable. Ideas are powerful and insight into how we perceive this world, either scientific or artistic, has real meaning, regardless of if they bring in the most profit.
It seems rather silly to think that large publishing companies won't sponsor people, regardless of the distribution medium, if they think they're going to get large return on investment. That's good economics, regardless of the medium.
Self publishing might open the market to persistent authors, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be of higher quality.
It's a bootstrapping problem. You're not likely going to be able to find a large enough audience to pay in advance for a book unless you've already written something already popular. Some of the most critically acclaimed works are not popular, and some of the most popular works are not critically acclaimed.
An advance has nothing to do with production and distribution costs. The amount of money a book makes has everything to do with those two factors. A book published digitally will have a lower production and distribution cost, however, in most cases, it will also be available for less money.
It would be interesting to see the revenue and profit breakdown between books available only digitally, only on paper, and on both.
Yes, but if an author can't get an advance from a publishing company, fewer authors will be able to afford to take the time away from their "real jobs" to write a book. Yes, you can build an audience using unpolished, unedited work, and yes, you can take many years to write a book, but the first route leaves you looking like an amateur and the second route means you are more likely to get frustrated and give up halfway through.
The vast majority of books aren't a hit on the level of Harry Potter or Twilight. Most barely break even. The way that an author can afford to write them is by taking an advance and writing the book. It's the advances that keep the author fed, clothed, and sheltered between books if it's budgeted properly. I'm sure book signings and other "feelies" can help, but for every New York Times bestseller, there are hundreds of decent books that barely break even.
The thing is, in the United States, we regularly limit free speech rights. For example, speech that incites criminal acts (for example, a riot) is regulated. Commercial speech is regulated. Copyright limits freedom of speech. Society would not function otherwise. If we define the sharing of information as freedom of speech, then any company with your credit card number could freely share it with anybody else. Your credit card company or bank could share your history of purchases with your insurance company so they can set rates based upon your diet, your recreation habits, and the power tools you own. All of this is information, yet we see fit to regulate the ways in which it is shared.
I agree with you that DRM is bad and it is an abuse of copyright and the right of first sale. Trotting out the old hacker belief that "information wants to and ought to be free" and "freedom of speech trumps all" does not reflect the mindset of the framers of the United States Constitution nor does it reflect the mindset of society today, regardless of how simple, romantic, and seductive the argument seems.
I love you.
Plus, when you redistribute, you're free to re-license under the GPL. So if this gets someone's panties in a twist, fix a few bugs and fork under the GPL. Clearly, if you're complaining about the license, you can do a better job so this should be trivial for you.
Actually, they're just using the LGPL. If that bothers you, declare your copy to be GPL and follow the restrictions of the GPL, according to the LGPL:
That was back when exercising discretion wasn't a one-way ticket to being sued.
Does this mean that I'll finally be able to enjoy a movie in a theater without some annoying person poking at their cellphone, either making noise or light?
Those people are the reason I don't see movies in theaters and just watch them at home when they come out on DVD.
Gotta love the editing on Wikipedia, coupled with a sick sense of humor:
1984 - Baby Safety Capsule - Babies in a car crash used to bounce around like a football. In 1984, for the first time babies had a bassinette with an air bubble in the base and a harness that distributed forces across the bassinette protecting the baby. New South Wales public hospitals now refuse to allow parents take a baby home by car without one.
Stable, reliable, well-understood, and bug-free are true of many more recent languages.
<sarcasm>I didn't know that more modern languages had a 50 year history of reliability, scalability, and security to process transactions 24/7. Live and learn I guess...</sarcasm>
Further, the cost of developing, debugging, and testing the replacement in any language (including redeveloping the system from the ground up in COBOL) is quite expensive, no matter what language you choose. Likely more expensive than the big iron and software environments necessary to run the old code that has worked reliably for the last 20 to 40 years.
Except the $10 that was turned into Wii points and can't be turned back into cash.
So exactly $10 was lost.