Are you sure you have not broken any laws over the past 12 months?
If you are going to suggest that inadvertently allowing one's speed to drive only a few kph over the posted limit on a highway or main thoroughfair for a minute or two is against the law, then yes I have. Anybody who claims they haven't is, I would expect, a liar (or simply does not drive).
For what it's worth, however, I don't deliberately speed. Ever. And when I do realize that my speed has drifted above the limit, I will ease up on the gas to bring my speed in line with the regulation.
First of all, I don't typically allow visitors to connect to my wifi just because they are in my home. They are welcome to use the family desktop computer, however.
Second, it "ending on my doorstep" as it were, would only be an issue if I were giving permission to people to do stuff that they shouldn't be anyways. I don't... so it won't. If somebody hacks into my network without my consent (which I don't consider a very plausible scenario, but I address it for sake of completeness), I will file a police report of unauthorized computer network use as soon as the use is discovered, and cooperate with the police to find the perpetrator, providing whatever logs or evidence they might require.
But you do realize that your opinion puts you personally on the hook for $150k per song fines if someone else uses your IP address
Yup.
Which is why I don't let my kids friends connect to my wifi, even when they ask nicely. I have no problem if they want to use the family computer, however.
Like I said... I'm a hard-ass.
That said... I'll agree that an IP address is not a fingerprint... but it does identify the home subscriber, and I really don't see a problem with subscribers to services being held responsible for how those services are used by people who they gave permission to. As for people who didn't have permission, that would constitute unauthorized computer access, and is also a criminal offense. One would be remiss to not file a police report upon discovery, and cooperate with the police to discover the perpetrator. To not do this, in fact, would be indication of implied consent of the activity, and therefore you'd be held responsible again.
It takes about 60 seconds to teach somebody to secure their wireless router. The only remotely time consuming part is getting them to believe that it's actually a smart idea. Generally, the analogy of leaving one's house with their front door unlocked tends to convey the right amount of concern that most people are willing to do it... particularly when it is so easy to do.
It's not unreasonable for a home (ie, non-commercial, not another ISP, etc) subscriber to a subscription service such as Internet to be accountable for the activities of other people who use the services in his home. As a parent, I'm held responsible for the activities of my children. I see no reason why I, as an ISP subscriber, should not be also accountable for what people do with a network connection that I pay for. If I don't trust someone to do things that I don't want them to, I shouldn't be letting them on my network.
And as for people who run unlocked wireless routers and let anybody in the neighborhood utilize their bandwidth, I have zero sympathy.
This comment will probably be misinterpreted as as a troll, but it's not. I'm just a hard-ass who follows the rules and it just plain pisses me off that some other people figure they can ignore them just because their chance of being caught is infinitesimal.
...It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version.
If that provision *ONLY* applies when the user is utilizing the server via some direct network communication then it seems to me that one could effectively make a loophole in that provision simply by introducing an arbitrary layer of indirection that does not involve any actual network communication between the user and the software (possibly even an automated service). I had figured that the designers of the GPL v3 would have anticipated that loophole and plugged it, which is why I presumed that in my aforementioned hypothetical scenario that that a photo restoration placed which used a customized GIMP would have to distribute its modified source.
If I'm misunderstanding something, by all means, enlighten me.
It was my understanding that, with GPL v3, that if the users interacted with software in any way whatsoever, even if only by supplying it input and receiving its output, that such a person would be considered a user of the software, even if they never actually directly used it.
Would that not mean, for instance, if I run a commercial shop that does photo restoration and touchups, and I use a in-house customized version of GIMP to produce a result for a customer, that I must also make the source that I customized available to that customer?
Not really a superhero... but definitely aimed at kids. I still have all of my old Rupert books from when I was a kid, and I read them to my kids when they were little. They loved it.
How about their other bill (C-30) that allows for unlimited warrantless recording and logging of everything you ever do online?
What does doing something online have to do with private copying? You can copy a movie or song without being online at all.
What if the media companies seed their own movies, log the IP addresses and report those to the police?
If they seed their own movies, then they are willfully sharing them with the public. They cannot broadcast that they are giving permission to copy the files and then go after people that do, any more than it would be legal for a police officer to change a speed limit sign temporarily to a higher value and then ding somebody for going over the actual limit.
Easy. Strike it off the bill then. If it's unenforcable, remove it!
That's what everybody else was saying... but the conservatives insisted that it be in there anyways, because they seem to feel that the bill had no teeth otherwise.
If it's in the books, it's enforcable.
Again... please enlighten me as to how something illegal that nobody would or even *COULD* ever even know had occurred other than the person who did it, be enforced?
And yes... that's how utterly stupid the bill that they are intending to pass is.
Otherwise if it's so unenforcable, why bother having it in the bill in the first place?
See above.
Removing it is easy, after all (the bill hasn't passed and can be modified and debated).
Not now... the bill has passed final reading stages, in spite of unanimous objection to some of its provisiions from all parties other than the Conservatives. The Conservatives, having a majority seat position, seem to be in a position to do whatever they want, regardless of any outside opposition... until the next election. This bill will pass long before then.
The fact that the government chooses to not enforce a law doesn't make said law invalid
I wasn't arguing that it would be invalid... I was only arguing that it was so stupid to have it as a law at all that there aren't words invented to describe just how absent of any degree of real thought could have possible went into this. Is there such a thing as negative thought?
They aren't lying about not enforcing it in private copying matters, because it is actually entirely UNenforceable... (and the biggest reason why so many were pushing for its removal from the bill) How could they possibly prosecute a crime that nobody other than the perpetrator could ever possibly know had occurred?
Canada will be implementing said law... before the end of this year... but evidently not enforcing it on matters of private copying.... which makes one wonder if they are not intending to enforce it in such circumstances, why was it is evidently still going to be illegal in such a case, particularly when every other party in parliament was asking for that as a concession to the bill.
Wifi has positively abysmal transfer speeds compared to a modern wired LAN..
It's not that a big deal if you are only moving data between your computer and the Internet, but it can spell no end of difference when transferring large quantities of data from one system to another on one's own LAN.
No, actually... it is not that important to the net effect of wind. Even near the ground, it doesn't matter that much because the air near the ground is constantly intermixing with the air mass above it. The overall effect of such small man-made structures on wind any distance from them is invariably completely negligible. If you try to project a scale at which it would actually have a discernible impact, you end up going into the realm of the purely hypothetical, and talking about things that are either so far beyond today's engineering capabilities to even hope to actually construct before the technology itself could be rendered obsolete by other advances, or else simply physically impossible on account of ignoring some physical constraints which invariably have to apply.
Wouldn't matter even if it did... again, our atmosphere is many km thick, and the bulk of what affects climate takes place so far above the height of the wind farm blades that it would not hope to be appreciably affected. The most that might be affected are wind patterns near the ground, which is not what drives climate, local or otherwise.
The tides do, yes... but harnessing energy from them does not... the net percentage of energy that we could ever even theoretically hope to harvest from the system compared to the amount of energy actually within it is so tiny as to be considered inconsequential...
Wind farms *MIGHT* perceptably slow down air near the surface of the earth only... within a hundred meters or so.... in a not entirely dissimilar way to how buildings can shelter people from wind.
But you could cover the entire planet with wind farms, and that would have negligible impact on the earth's climate because 100 meters is positively puny compared to the total size of the earth's atmosphere. It would impact even less than buildings because buildings actually block the air, where turbines let it all through. Further, the cross sectional area of a blade that is 10 meters long is perhaps at most about 10 square meters, while the total swept area of a blade that long is over 300 square meters. Allowing for the fact that there are 3 blades per turbine, the turbine is only affecting (at most) 10% of the air that is passing through any given turbine. And again, it's not actually stopping it... it's passing right through. Coupled with the absolutely enormous mass of air above the turbines that is even more negligibly affected by the presence of stuff on the ground, the net impact on climate stands to be somewhere near nil.
One might as well suggest that harnessing the energy from tides might perceptibly impact the orbit of the moon...
Slashdot Mirror
If you are going to suggest that inadvertently allowing one's speed to drive only a few kph over the posted limit on a highway or main thoroughfair for a minute or two is against the law, then yes I have. Anybody who claims they haven't is, I would expect, a liar (or simply does not drive).
For what it's worth, however, I don't deliberately speed. Ever. And when I do realize that my speed has drifted above the limit, I will ease up on the gas to bring my speed in line with the regulation.
First of all, I don't typically allow visitors to connect to my wifi just because they are in my home. They are welcome to use the family desktop computer, however.
Second, it "ending on my doorstep" as it were, would only be an issue if I were giving permission to people to do stuff that they shouldn't be anyways. I don't... so it won't. If somebody hacks into my network without my consent (which I don't consider a very plausible scenario, but I address it for sake of completeness), I will file a police report of unauthorized computer network use as soon as the use is discovered, and cooperate with the police to find the perpetrator, providing whatever logs or evidence they might require.
Whether "scale" is the only difference between them doesn't change the fact that anybody with an iota of sense can tell the difference between them.
Yup.
Which is why I don't let my kids friends connect to my wifi, even when they ask nicely. I have no problem if they want to use the family computer, however.
Like I said... I'm a hard-ass.
That said... I'll agree that an IP address is not a fingerprint... but it does identify the home subscriber, and I really don't see a problem with subscribers to services being held responsible for how those services are used by people who they gave permission to. As for people who didn't have permission, that would constitute unauthorized computer access, and is also a criminal offense. One would be remiss to not file a police report upon discovery, and cooperate with the police to discover the perpetrator. To not do this, in fact, would be indication of implied consent of the activity, and therefore you'd be held responsible again.
It takes about 60 seconds to teach somebody to secure their wireless router. The only remotely time consuming part is getting them to believe that it's actually a smart idea. Generally, the analogy of leaving one's house with their front door unlocked tends to convey the right amount of concern that most people are willing to do it... particularly when it is so easy to do.
It's not unreasonable for a home (ie, non-commercial, not another ISP, etc) subscriber to a subscription service such as Internet to be accountable for the activities of other people who use the services in his home. As a parent, I'm held responsible for the activities of my children. I see no reason why I, as an ISP subscriber, should not be also accountable for what people do with a network connection that I pay for. If I don't trust someone to do things that I don't want them to, I shouldn't be letting them on my network.
And as for people who run unlocked wireless routers and let anybody in the neighborhood utilize their bandwidth, I have zero sympathy.
This comment will probably be misinterpreted as as a troll, but it's not. I'm just a hard-ass who follows the rules and it just plain pisses me off that some other people figure they can ignore them just because their chance of being caught is infinitesimal.
From here:
If that provision *ONLY* applies when the user is utilizing the server via some direct network communication then it seems to me that one could effectively make a loophole in that provision simply by introducing an arbitrary layer of indirection that does not involve any actual network communication between the user and the software (possibly even an automated service). I had figured that the designers of the GPL v3 would have anticipated that loophole and plugged it, which is why I presumed that in my aforementioned hypothetical scenario that that a photo restoration placed which used a customized GIMP would have to distribute its modified source.
If I'm misunderstanding something, by all means, enlighten me.
I am simultaneously both relieved and disappointed to see I'm not the only twisted individual who thought along similar lines.
It was my understanding that, with GPL v3, that if the users interacted with software in any way whatsoever, even if only by supplying it input and receiving its output, that such a person would be considered a user of the software, even if they never actually directly used it.
Would that not mean, for instance, if I run a commercial shop that does photo restoration and touchups, and I use a in-house customized version of GIMP to produce a result for a customer, that I must also make the source that I customized available to that customer?
Until there's a law prohibiting it, they do... and they even have the right to fire you if you refuse.
Yes, I know a law is currently in the pipe for this... but until it passes, employers can probably still do this.
Not really a superhero... but definitely aimed at kids. I still have all of my old Rupert books from when I was a kid, and I read them to my kids when they were little. They loved it.
What does doing something online have to do with private copying? You can copy a movie or song without being online at all.
If they seed their own movies, then they are willfully sharing them with the public. They cannot broadcast that they are giving permission to copy the files and then go after people that do, any more than it would be legal for a police officer to change a speed limit sign temporarily to a higher value and then ding somebody for going over the actual limit.
That's what everybody else was saying... but the conservatives insisted that it be in there anyways, because they seem to feel that the bill had no teeth otherwise.
Again... please enlighten me as to how something illegal that nobody would or even *COULD* ever even know had occurred other than the person who did it, be enforced?
And yes... that's how utterly stupid the bill that they are intending to pass is.
See above.
Not now... the bill has passed final reading stages, in spite of unanimous objection to some of its provisiions from all parties other than the Conservatives. The Conservatives, having a majority seat position, seem to be in a position to do whatever they want, regardless of any outside opposition... until the next election. This bill will pass long before then.
I wasn't arguing that it would be invalid... I was only arguing that it was so stupid to have it as a law at all that there aren't words invented to describe just how absent of any degree of real thought could have possible went into this. Is there such a thing as negative thought?
They aren't lying about not enforcing it in private copying matters, because it is actually entirely UNenforceable... (and the biggest reason why so many were pushing for its removal from the bill) How could they possibly prosecute a crime that nobody other than the perpetrator could ever possibly know had occurred?
What will it mean for Google? What will it mean for Oracle? What will it mean for Java?
No. You are thinking of Trademarks.
Thousands? Really? Think about that for a moment,. will you?
Canada will be implementing said law... before the end of this year... but evidently not enforcing it on matters of private copying.... which makes one wonder if they are not intending to enforce it in such circumstances, why was it is evidently still going to be illegal in such a case, particularly when every other party in parliament was asking for that as a concession to the bill.
Wifi has positively abysmal transfer speeds compared to a modern wired LAN..
It's not that a big deal if you are only moving data between your computer and the Internet, but it can spell no end of difference when transferring large quantities of data from one system to another on one's own LAN.
No, actually... it is not that important to the net effect of wind. Even near the ground, it doesn't matter that much because the air near the ground is constantly intermixing with the air mass above it. The overall effect of such small man-made structures on wind any distance from them is invariably completely negligible. If you try to project a scale at which it would actually have a discernible impact, you end up going into the realm of the purely hypothetical, and talking about things that are either so far beyond today's engineering capabilities to even hope to actually construct before the technology itself could be rendered obsolete by other advances, or else simply physically impossible on account of ignoring some physical constraints which invariably have to apply.
Wouldn't matter even if it did... again, our atmosphere is many km thick, and the bulk of what affects climate takes place so far above the height of the wind farm blades that it would not hope to be appreciably affected. The most that might be affected are wind patterns near the ground, which is not what drives climate, local or otherwise.
The tides do, yes... but harnessing energy from them does not... the net percentage of energy that we could ever even theoretically hope to harvest from the system compared to the amount of energy actually within it is so tiny as to be considered inconsequential. ..
Wind farms *MIGHT* perceptably slow down air near the surface of the earth only... within a hundred meters or so.... in a not entirely dissimilar way to how buildings can shelter people from wind.
But you could cover the entire planet with wind farms, and that would have negligible impact on the earth's climate because 100 meters is positively puny compared to the total size of the earth's atmosphere. It would impact even less than buildings because buildings actually block the air, where turbines let it all through. Further, the cross sectional area of a blade that is 10 meters long is perhaps at most about 10 square meters, while the total swept area of a blade that long is over 300 square meters. Allowing for the fact that there are 3 blades per turbine, the turbine is only affecting (at most) 10% of the air that is passing through any given turbine. And again, it's not actually stopping it... it's passing right through. Coupled with the absolutely enormous mass of air above the turbines that is even more negligibly affected by the presence of stuff on the ground, the net impact on climate stands to be somewhere near nil.
One might as well suggest that harnessing the energy from tides might perceptibly impact the orbit of the moon...
I'm not sure what's sadder... that utterly pathetic troll attempt, or that it's just possible you might genuinely believe any of what you just said.
Hmmm....I had thought Debian came out within two months or so of Slackware coming out. Thanks for the history update.