All that shows is that there is some controversy about the claim about who was first. I'm in the Ada camp, personally, but I couldn't care less if the first programmer was a man or woman... what amazes me is that this happened over a hundred and fifty years ago!
This much I would agree with... and to that end, the power over privacy *IS* in the hands of the people.
One only really has a measure of privacy that is a function of the extent of whatever measures one can take to try to preserve it combined with however uninterested other people happen to be in that person. Only one of these does an individual truly have any control over.
Where is it permitted for the federal government to employ people who speak French?
It's not explicitly permitted, after all... therefore it must not be legal for the federal government to employ people who speak French.
Do you see the absurdity behind the notion?
Obviously, permission can be implied and there is no need for the constitution to explicitly spell out every permission that the federal government has.
No... they were not clear. If they were, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. Clear would mean that the term would privacy have been explicitly mentioned. It is not. *ANYWHERE* in the constitution.
But hey... America can always add a new amendment which includes it. To be perfectly honest, that'd be something I would personally really like to see happen someday.
Until it does, however... the government watching its citizens is not unconstitutional... no matter how much people might want it to be.
It's my understanding that she was the first programmer, period. Babbage was designing the machine, but Ada actually designed the first algorithms for it to run, when it was complete.
Personally, I'd suggest that it's limited by what is *physical*... if there is a physical component to what is being searched... ie, they must physically enter your home, or must physically detain you from going about your business or must physically confiscate property from you... those would definitely be unreasonable.
The funny thing is, however... that people have come to associate whatever information that might happen to exist about them as something which is somehow their own personal property. Until codified into an explicit law to contrary, I would wholeheartedly refute this assessment. If there is no physical component to a search, but it simply amounts to an amalgamation of data, it doesn't actually change how much security of person somebody has because that information already existed before somebody collected it.
I stand by my claim. the fourth amendment does not protect privacy, and for that matter, neither does the ninth. The assumption that privacy is implicitly included by the ninth amendment as a "right" could also, as I explained above, also mean that something like having a job could also be considered a right, and that would mean it would be unconstitutional to fire somebody who did not have alternative employment secured. The sheer absurdity of this notion means that the degree of importance that a person possess a particular thing does not and should not reflect whether or not that particular thing should be a "right"
We may have a right to defend our own privacy... but in the end, we have no real right *TO* it... nor do we really need the latter to have the former, since it is defined by our own personal goals and ideals, and not by mere government regulation.
The only way that privacy affects "security of person" is how it makes people feel... how much knowledge somebody has about you doesn't change how secure you really are.
Just because knowledge happens to be about you or involve you, does not mean that this knowledge is exclusively your personal property to dictate who is allowed to have it and where.
And if you're wondering, I apply the same metric to myself, and my privacy. Almost all of the privacy I have is just an illusion created by whatever level of disinterest people might have in what I happen to do, tempered by whatever precautions that I take to try to keep it. If somebody else exceeds those precautions without otherwise breaking the law, I may not like it very much... but that only means I would need to resort to more elaborate measures to prevent a recurrence.
Don't need to... all batteries leak charge, even when idle. In barely more than a week, even a completely undriven Tesla that started with a full charge will be empty. If you factor in that a car is typically being driven every day, you are still practically looking at having to recharge it almost every day that you drive it, unless you are driving such short distances that you may as well be walking or cycling.
When you accept that the privacy that anyone believes that they have is really just an illusion of comfort that is created by the fact that they aren't an interesting enough individual for anyone else to really want to know about, you will realize that what I'm saying is right.
The only people that believe "privacy" is not in the Constitution are the people that want you not to have any
Incorrect.
I do not see government invasion of privacy as being unconstitutional... I see it simply as them simply being unbecomingly nosey and rude. That said, unless the constitution were modified to explicitly state that residents are not to have any expectation of privacy from the government, then the government also has absolutely no jurisdiction to dictate that citizens cannot take matters into their own hands to protect their own privacy. If they want to haul somebody in under suspicion of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act simply for taking such measures, I think they'd need something a little more substantial to go on than a number of encrypted messages that they can't decipher when there's nothing else to indicate a person is doing anything wrong.
As things sit right now, however, I believe that the only people who have any entitlement to privacy are people who will actually take some measures to secure it that are greater than the measures that anyone who might otherwise want to find out about would be liable to take, without resorting to actually breaking the law.
That sounds far more like a bug in YaCY than in Java itself, since it does not affect the ability to run other Java programs.... It seems to simply be an example of software doesn't know how to recover after certain type of previous runtime failure.
That still doesn't solve the problem where facebook's edit box doesn't automatically scroll up or resize when you type past the bottom of your browser window.
I have a text editor window open at all times on my computer anyways... when I want to post a comment to Facebook, I compose it in my editor, lay it out how I want, and then copy and paste it into the edit box.
Doing this poses absolutely no problems with having line breaks in comments, but even more importantly, I don't have to worry about the edit box not sizing correctly if I end up going on and what I'm writing ends up going right off the bottom of box, which doesn't always scroll up as I type.
But where is it defined that privacy is ever really a "right"? I doubt you'll get any argument that it's a "nice-to-have", but what makes it really some sort of right?
If you want to argue that simply because it's something that everybody really *should* have, and so on that basis alone it should be labelled as a right, then by that reasoning, say... something like, for example, having a job should also be a right protected by the constitution, and it would be unconstitutional to fire somebody who had no recourse to immediately secure other work. I trust you can appreciate the absurdity of this notion.
Nowhere in this am I saying that privacy should not be considered as important... I'm trying to point out that the constitution, technically, can't really offer Americans a ton of protection in this regard unless or until there is a new specific amendment made to protect it.
If open source is so bad, surely maintaining open source projects is a liability, so why not sell them off to an interested party who's willing to take that headache away for them? I'm sure they'd find a few interested parties if the price was right.
To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't even prevent spying on its own citizens.
There are those who would suggest that this violates the fourth amendment, but then the matter becomes what the powers that be choose to define as "unreasonable".
Watching your every move, but still allowing you to do whatever it is you do, so long as it's perfectly legal, might conceivably satisfy the restrictions that the fourth amendment imposes.
Privacy, you see, is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
Yes... and that expression which works much better as a burn. As I said, recharging daily is not that atypical for even one of the best EV's available today, so substituting "recharge" for "repair" doesn't have anything close to the same bite to it.
The allegation that Aereo doesn't disrespect copyright is irrelevant to the issue that I believe that they do. Since I *DO* believe that they are disrespecting copyright, the objection is morally grounded. Even if the objection were invalid to the situation, it would be no less moral because of it.
My point is that they are calling their distribution a "private performance", on the grounds that it is being presented to specific individuals who have requested the service. What is to stop something similar from happening with other copyrighted works?
Because you see, am really suggesting that their alleged notion that what they are doing somehow qualifies as a "private performance' is very obviously just a bunch of hooey.... not that private performances should not be exempt from copyright infringement. They are doing these so-called "private performances" for anyone who wants to use their service among the general public, and that's very obviously not what private performance is supposed to mean. I am nothing less than shocked and very concerned that it has even made it this far.
So really, so far as copyright goes, people in the US only need to agree to the GPL to copy a work if they're going beyond the statutory exception that keeps copyright from stopping them making certain copies.
That is, more or less, what I said.... or at least what I was trying to say. If I didn't convey that, I'm sorry for the confusion.
Aereo is going through one of these holes -- a fairly big one, since copyright doesn't even apply to private performances
But when you allow the public to see your "private performances", it's not really private anymore is it? If I had a TV, I could invite friends over to watch a sporting event with me on my television. I could not, however, advertise that my house will be open to whomever wants to come over and watch sports with me, since that would constitute public viewing, even though it is in the privacy of my home. It's my understanding that there is even legal precedent for this exact situation, and why the argument that these are allegedly "private performances" is just a crock. What they are is less about what Aereo claims they are and much more a reflection of what is actually going on - a rebroadcast that even though it may be to specific individuals, should no more count as a private performance than personally giving a copy of another copyrighted work without authorization to somebody else in particular can actually constitute private use, and by virtue of not being private, should be considered an infringement of copyright law. If we allow the former, then why should the latter still not longer be allowed?
I maintain the position that this looks and smells exactly like copyright infringement to me... and Aereo seems to be getting away with what I sincerely fear, if this is upheld by the supreme court, could go so far as to compromise the integrity of copyright as a whole when people in the future try to argue that the distribution of copies of copyrighted works without authorization to other individuals should reasonably be considered "private copies".
If it happens, I can only hope I'm wrong about my assumption, but that doesn't mean I actually believe that there's any significant chance I might be.
>p>
I've always seen the GPL as less aboutt "infection", per se., and more basically that it just describes the conditions that a person must agree to in order to have permission to copy the work.
This works in complete harmony with copyright law since you need permission from the copyright holder in order to copy a copyrighted work for purposes that do not fall within the boundaries of fair use. The GPL, in a nutshell, is just simply the copyright holder granting that permission. The GPL may require that derivative works be covered under the GPL, but in reality, that's just part of the terms that a person is supposed to agree to in order to have permission to copy in the first place.
If a person does not abide by the terms of the GPL, however, then the permission that the GPL grants does not apply to that person, and so could be found guilty of copyright infringement when making copies of the work that do not fall within the boundaries of fair use.
as to your other point, I don't know how unlikely what I fear if this is upheld might actually happen is, to be honest... but it's the first thing that *I* thought of, and I can't help but express my concern for it.
Slashdot Mirror
All that shows is that there is some controversy about the claim about who was first. I'm in the Ada camp, personally, but I couldn't care less if the first programmer was a man or woman... what amazes me is that this happened over a hundred and fifty years ago!
Of course... but my point is that nowhere does it say that this includes, for example, people who speak French?
Clearly, you can *INFER* the legality of the matter from other things, and no explicit permission is required... even for the federal government.
This much I would agree with... and to that end, the power over privacy *IS* in the hands of the people.
One only really has a measure of privacy that is a function of the extent of whatever measures one can take to try to preserve it combined with however uninterested other people happen to be in that person. Only one of these does an individual truly have any control over.
Where is it permitted for the federal government to employ people who speak French?
It's not explicitly permitted, after all... therefore it must not be legal for the federal government to employ people who speak French.
Do you see the absurdity behind the notion?
Obviously, permission can be implied and there is no need for the constitution to explicitly spell out every permission that the federal government has.
No... they were not clear. If they were, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. Clear would mean that the term would privacy have been explicitly mentioned. It is not. *ANYWHERE* in the constitution.
But hey... America can always add a new amendment which includes it. To be perfectly honest, that'd be something I would personally really like to see happen someday.
Until it does, however... the government watching its citizens is not unconstitutional... no matter how much people might want it to be.
It's my understanding that she was the first programmer, period. Babbage was designing the machine, but Ada actually designed the first algorithms for it to run, when it was complete.
Personally, I'd suggest that it's limited by what is *physical*... if there is a physical component to what is being searched... ie, they must physically enter your home, or must physically detain you from going about your business or must physically confiscate property from you... those would definitely be unreasonable.
The funny thing is, however... that people have come to associate whatever information that might happen to exist about them as something which is somehow their own personal property. Until codified into an explicit law to contrary, I would wholeheartedly refute this assessment. If there is no physical component to a search, but it simply amounts to an amalgamation of data, it doesn't actually change how much security of person somebody has because that information already existed before somebody collected it.
I stand by my claim. the fourth amendment does not protect privacy, and for that matter, neither does the ninth. The assumption that privacy is implicitly included by the ninth amendment as a "right" could also, as I explained above, also mean that something like having a job could also be considered a right, and that would mean it would be unconstitutional to fire somebody who did not have alternative employment secured. The sheer absurdity of this notion means that the degree of importance that a person possess a particular thing does not and should not reflect whether or not that particular thing should be a "right"
We may have a right to defend our own privacy... but in the end, we have no real right *TO* it... nor do we really need the latter to have the former, since it is defined by our own personal goals and ideals, and not by mere government regulation.
The only way that privacy affects "security of person" is how it makes people feel... how much knowledge somebody has about you doesn't change how secure you really are.
Just because knowledge happens to be about you or involve you, does not mean that this knowledge is exclusively your personal property to dictate who is allowed to have it and where.
And if you're wondering, I apply the same metric to myself, and my privacy. Almost all of the privacy I have is just an illusion created by whatever level of disinterest people might have in what I happen to do, tempered by whatever precautions that I take to try to keep it. If somebody else exceeds those precautions without otherwise breaking the law, I may not like it very much... but that only means I would need to resort to more elaborate measures to prevent a recurrence.
Don't need to... all batteries leak charge, even when idle. In barely more than a week, even a completely undriven Tesla that started with a full charge will be empty. If you factor in that a car is typically being driven every day, you are still practically looking at having to recharge it almost every day that you drive it, unless you are driving such short distances that you may as well be walking or cycling.
When you accept that the privacy that anyone believes that they have is really just an illusion of comfort that is created by the fact that they aren't an interesting enough individual for anyone else to really want to know about, you will realize that what I'm saying is right.
Privacy is immaterial to security... it is a reflection of how people "feel" about something, and not something that is substantiated by any reality.
Incorrect.
I do not see government invasion of privacy as being unconstitutional... I see it simply as them simply being unbecomingly nosey and rude. That said, unless the constitution were modified to explicitly state that residents are not to have any expectation of privacy from the government, then the government also has absolutely no jurisdiction to dictate that citizens cannot take matters into their own hands to protect their own privacy. If they want to haul somebody in under suspicion of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act simply for taking such measures, I think they'd need something a little more substantial to go on than a number of encrypted messages that they can't decipher when there's nothing else to indicate a person is doing anything wrong.
As things sit right now, however, I believe that the only people who have any entitlement to privacy are people who will actually take some measures to secure it that are greater than the measures that anyone who might otherwise want to find out about would be liable to take, without resorting to actually breaking the law.
That's not my experience... every open source project that I've ever contributed to accepted my proposed changes.
Although granted, I haven't contributed to many... 3 or 4 different ones, I think.
That sounds far more like a bug in YaCY than in Java itself, since it does not affect the ability to run other Java programs.... It seems to simply be an example of software doesn't know how to recover after certain type of previous runtime failure.
That still doesn't solve the problem where facebook's edit box doesn't automatically scroll up or resize when you type past the bottom of your browser window.
I have a text editor window open at all times on my computer anyways... when I want to post a comment to Facebook, I compose it in my editor, lay it out how I want, and then copy and paste it into the edit box.
Doing this poses absolutely no problems with having line breaks in comments, but even more importantly, I don't have to worry about the edit box not sizing correctly if I end up going on and what I'm writing ends up going right off the bottom of box, which doesn't always scroll up as I type.
But where is it defined that privacy is ever really a "right"? I doubt you'll get any argument that it's a "nice-to-have", but what makes it really some sort of right?
If you want to argue that simply because it's something that everybody really *should* have, and so on that basis alone it should be labelled as a right, then by that reasoning, say... something like, for example, having a job should also be a right protected by the constitution, and it would be unconstitutional to fire somebody who had no recourse to immediately secure other work. I trust you can appreciate the absurdity of this notion.
Nowhere in this am I saying that privacy should not be considered as important... I'm trying to point out that the constitution, technically, can't really offer Americans a ton of protection in this regard unless or until there is a new specific amendment made to protect it.
If open source is so bad, surely maintaining open source projects is a liability, so why not sell them off to an interested party who's willing to take that headache away for them? I'm sure they'd find a few interested parties if the price was right.
I really can't stand hypocrites.
To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't even prevent spying on its own citizens.
There are those who would suggest that this violates the fourth amendment, but then the matter becomes what the powers that be choose to define as "unreasonable".
Watching your every move, but still allowing you to do whatever it is you do, so long as it's perfectly legal, might conceivably satisfy the restrictions that the fourth amendment imposes.
Privacy, you see, is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
Yes... and that expression which works much better as a burn. As I said, recharging daily is not that atypical for even one of the best EV's available today, so substituting "recharge" for "repair" doesn't have anything close to the same bite to it.
Even a Tesla generally requires a daily recharge. What's your point?
The allegation that Aereo doesn't disrespect copyright is irrelevant to the issue that I believe that they do. Since I *DO* believe that they are disrespecting copyright, the objection is morally grounded. Even if the objection were invalid to the situation, it would be no less moral because of it.
My point is that they are calling their distribution a "private performance", on the grounds that it is being presented to specific individuals who have requested the service. What is to stop something similar from happening with other copyrighted works?
Because you see, am really suggesting that their alleged notion that what they are doing somehow qualifies as a "private performance' is very obviously just a bunch of hooey.... not that private performances should not be exempt from copyright infringement. They are doing these so-called "private performances" for anyone who wants to use their service among the general public, and that's very obviously not what private performance is supposed to mean. I am nothing less than shocked and very concerned that it has even made it this far.
That is, more or less, what I said.... or at least what I was trying to say. If I didn't convey that, I'm sorry for the confusion.
But when you allow the public to see your "private performances", it's not really private anymore is it? If I had a TV, I could invite friends over to watch a sporting event with me on my television. I could not, however, advertise that my house will be open to whomever wants to come over and watch sports with me, since that would constitute public viewing, even though it is in the privacy of my home. It's my understanding that there is even legal precedent for this exact situation, and why the argument that these are allegedly "private performances" is just a crock. What they are is less about what Aereo claims they are and much more a reflection of what is actually going on - a rebroadcast that even though it may be to specific individuals, should no more count as a private performance than personally giving a copy of another copyrighted work without authorization to somebody else in particular can actually constitute private use, and by virtue of not being private, should be considered an infringement of copyright law. If we allow the former, then why should the latter still not longer be allowed?
I maintain the position that this looks and smells exactly like copyright infringement to me... and Aereo seems to be getting away with what I sincerely fear, if this is upheld by the supreme court, could go so far as to compromise the integrity of copyright as a whole when people in the future try to argue that the distribution of copies of copyrighted works without authorization to other individuals should reasonably be considered "private copies".
If it happens, I can only hope I'm wrong about my assumption, but that doesn't mean I actually believe that there's any significant chance I might be.
This works in complete harmony with copyright law since you need permission from the copyright holder in order to copy a copyrighted work for purposes that do not fall within the boundaries of fair use. The GPL, in a nutshell, is just simply the copyright holder granting that permission. The GPL may require that derivative works be covered under the GPL, but in reality, that's just part of the terms that a person is supposed to agree to in order to have permission to copy in the first place.
If a person does not abide by the terms of the GPL, however, then the permission that the GPL grants does not apply to that person, and so could be found guilty of copyright infringement when making copies of the work that do not fall within the boundaries of fair use.
as to your other point, I don't know how unlikely what I fear if this is upheld might actually happen is, to be honest... but it's the first thing that *I* thought of, and I can't help but express my concern for it.