I agree morally with your viewpoint. I just don't think that's the way the DMCA is written. (You might want to start by looking into the way Warner Bros. admitted in court that they had no valid reason for their takedown claim.)
OTOH, IANAL. Perhaps they can get away with it because the system is totally corrupt. But in *this* case I think that it has to do with the way the law was written. (Guess who wrote it.)
That depends on how you do it (though the fake letterhead is improper).
If you hire someone to send in the requests, then they are allowed to trust that you are making the request in good faith. Their's no penalty to you for lying to them. So nobody violates the law, and you can accomplish the same goal. But you probably do want to use incorporated safety nets, so that the target of the takedown notice can't get anything by suing you. So you're likely to need a lot of throw-away corporations. Each one, of course, should have it's own letterhead. (Why fake someone else's letterhead, anyway. It's not as if it's difficult to mock up a letterhead with the Gimp, Simple Scan, and Inkscape. Takes a couple of hours for the first one, and 10 minutes for each change.
But, IIUC, the DMCA makes no requirement that the originator of the takedown request has a good-faith reason to believe that it is correct, merely that the person who files the request has a good-faith reason. And it is quite apparent that lawyers are always filing requests for someone else that have no validity or plausibility, and which they have reason to know have no validity. And NONE have ever been prosecuted. (Well, I've never heard of any being prosecuted.)
At least when I was in my late 20s staying a wake 2-3 days didn't produce hallucinations. It did result in some pretty bad code, though. But I got the project in by the deadline. (I think I was awake for four days that time, though towards the end I couldn't be trusted to walk down the street, because I'd fall asleep while walking in the crosswalk.
OTOH, that was decades ago. Perhaps now it would produce hallucinations. More likely I just couldn't do it.
I think that you think that you answered his question "How do you know they don't have a terrible IT department?". I don't believe that you did. What you did was say "Well, it's easy to see if there's any readily available public knowledge on the topic." And to that extent you are correct. But that's not answering the question. Some companies, when they've been penetrated, do everything possible to keep it quiet. Some, in addition, try to fix the problem, but not be any means all, and it is my belief that the reality is that most leave the problems unfixed. (But I have no good evidence on which to base that. A few anecdotes is all.)
So which is better, a business that hasn't any public sign of being penetrated, or one that has been, and has fixed the problems. And how can an outsider tell whether he's dealing with one or the other? (Answer: You can't.)
(P.S.: The answer isn't really that you can't tell. It's really that the only way to tell is to try to hack the company. If you succeed, it's clearly not someone you want to do business with. Of course, if they catch you...)
That only works to the extent that the laws allow the right to be waived. Or, of course, as propaganda. EULAs already frequently claim things that they have no legal right to claim.
Yeah. But they don't make the school history books. Everyone thinks the Luddites were being silly, when they were protecting their homes and families as well as they could against an intrusive national government that favored the wealthy and aristocratic. (It didn't work, but I really doubt they had anything available that would work...even in hindsight. The only possible exception is assassination, and that would likely have brought an unselectively violent response from the national government. So it probably wouldn't have worked either. Still, if you and your family are going to die anyway...)
History is written by the victors. This is especially true of the history that's taught in pre-college schools, and in college to that taught to non-majors.
Adding Java to the list *was* a bit over the top. It does have actual advantages in many situations. So far. Oracle, however, seems bent on fixing that problem.
This wasn't a well designed study, but it hasn't been shown to be wrong. And Elesevier has a history of doing favors for corporate citizens...like publishing a magazine as theirs where all the reviewers worked for the same drug company. So I'm quite skeptical when they claim that they did it for science.
To me this study doesn't meet the test of being significant, but is does appear to be an indication of something that should be investigated. With a larger population.
Withdrawing the paper seems a sign that it's actually more valid than I had been considering it. Normally results this weak are merely allowed to fade into insignificance. Unless someone else is inspired to replicate the study and publish either a stronger analysis or a refutation. (Withdrawal by the journal without showing fraud or misconduce is NOT a refutation.)
P.S.: Elsevier is the company that published a Journal for a drug company where the company controlled all the reviewers of articles and most of the contributors. Under Elsevier's logo. And without admitting who it was that had control. So I'm quite willing to believe that Elsevier was bought off. After all, they have been before.
Sorry, but the US didn't become the most powerful militarily until the early 20th century. It had shown some remarkable potentials in that direction as early as the Civil War, but a strong history of independent states and isolationism had kept it from actually building a strong military. Even as late as WWI the US was only potentially the strongest military. But we never really took WWI seriously. (For good reason. Compare the fraction of the population killed for the US vs. Britain, France, and Germany. The US was barely involved.)
It was only with WWII that the US really became a world military power, and it quickly expanded into the leading world military power. Then the apparently inevitable insanity which afflicts the leaders of such a power began to strike. I think every president since WWII has been insane. Eisenhower perhaps least so. That is probably because as a general he had experience in living with power. Do note, however, that he stabilized and expanded the CIA, and his Secretary of War (excuse me, State [John Foster Dulles]) invented "Brinksmanship".
Bingo. The terrorists ARE the government. They may or may not instigate any particular action. (The evidence isn't really convincing. It's not even certain that the decision makers knew ahead of time.) But the "profit" from it. And their "preventative" actions are more theater than useful. I've just recently gotten a jury summons, and I find that I can't even tak a pair of fingernail clippers with me when I report for jury duty. I presume that's to prevent me from hijacking the court-house...as I can't think of any other reason.
There is a big difference between "equating" and "drawing an analogy". Yes, your argument may mean that it was legal. But it's still analogus to an illegal action, and should be so recognized.
Mod parent up. It's not a troll, but rather an insightful paraphrase of the grandparent post. You may not think a particular term is abusive, but someone else may. He demonstrated this by replacing a reference to Perl with a reference to race. This isn't totally valid, because race has explicit legal protection, but it's still a valid point.
It isn't clearly hyperbole. It's also not clearly morally incorrect. PERHAPS for him to act to bring his wish about would be morally incorrect. Even this isn't clear, however. These are people who have already acted in such a way as to cause his father to be tortured. And are continuing to act so as to cause many (how many?) others to be similarly tortured every day. I really don't think you can claim it isn't torture merely because malice cannot be demonstrated.
I suspect that you don't clearly understand what he and his father experienced. (I *know* that I don't. I'm only reasoning by analogy.)
I don't think he went overboard. In fact, I wouldn't think he went overboard if he started arranging for people who vote against assisted suicide to end up in situations where they wished it was available. People should be accountable for their actions...and legislators, judges, and police should be even more accountable than the average citizen.
That said, I really doubt that it would change many minds. So it would probably be a useless action. And I feel that he shouldn't do it because the estimated benefit is lower than the estimated cost. But it's also true that one of the things that maintains the social morality of the powerful to the extent that it is maintained (not much, I know) is that occasionally someone will decide that revenge for injury is so important that it doesn't matter that the cost to them will be intolerable.
Please note that there was a time when presidents rode around on high platforms in open cars. And the people weren't all disarmed. But in those times more people felt the government was trying to build the country, rather than sell it to the highest bidder. (They may not have been right, but that was how they felt.) Note that even during the stresses of a civil war Lincoln went to a public performance of a play. (Yes, he was assassinated. You can argue about whether this was proper or not. He did, after all, trample all over the Constitution, but he also held the country together. But Booth had a reasonable point of view when he said "Sic semper tyrannis!".) The thing is, if someone wants to be a politician, they should be willing to be judged by the people. This shouldn't just be "Well, I've done enough damage, so now I'll take my guaranteed pension for life.". But, OTOH, you can never satisfy everyone. Allowing the legislators to decide how they should be treated for betraying the country, however, is just silly. So what alternative is there? Perhaps people should vote for what the just compensation is for a retiring politician? But it's got to include forbidding them from doing any business with any company they had contacts with while in office.
FWIW, I've heard that thalidomide is (sometimes) effective against end-level cancer pain. Of course it's illegal. And I've heard that LSD can cause cancer patients not to care about the pain. But that, too, is illegal. And there are a few other drugs that have the reputation of making end level cancer pain tolerable. Perhaps Yohimbine was one of them, or that might have been for depression.
Outside of thalidomide, most of these are forbidden for being pleasurable. (Surprising, isn't it, that drugs noted for being pleasurable cut through pain.) So I blame the current restrictions on pleasure-hating religions and philosophies. Doesn't mean that sometimes there aren't decent arguments, but I've never heard one that is valid for an end-level cancer patient.
It doesn't invalidate every rape case, but it makes the public statements of every prosecutor suspect.
And, FWIW, from what I remember of the early coverage this looks an awful lot like a subsidised attack. There was that web page posted by one of his accusers about how to get even with a guy you didn't like, e.g. Not proof, of course, but definitely enough to make me suspicious.
Then there's the bit of "We just want you to testify, but we won't take phone testimony.", even though they have done so in other cases.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree morally with your viewpoint. I just don't think that's the way the DMCA is written. (You might want to start by looking into the way Warner Bros. admitted in court that they had no valid reason for their takedown claim.)
OTOH, IANAL. Perhaps they can get away with it because the system is totally corrupt. But in *this* case I think that it has to do with the way the law was written. (Guess who wrote it.)
That depends on how you do it (though the fake letterhead is improper).
If you hire someone to send in the requests, then they are allowed to trust that you are making the request in good faith. Their's no penalty to you for lying to them. So nobody violates the law, and you can accomplish the same goal. But you probably do want to use incorporated safety nets, so that the target of the takedown notice can't get anything by suing you. So you're likely to need a lot of throw-away corporations. Each one, of course, should have it's own letterhead. (Why fake someone else's letterhead, anyway. It's not as if it's difficult to mock up a letterhead with the Gimp, Simple Scan, and Inkscape. Takes a couple of hours for the first one, and 10 minutes for each change.
But, IIUC, the DMCA makes no requirement that the originator of the takedown request has a good-faith reason to believe that it is correct, merely that the person who files the request has a good-faith reason. And it is quite apparent that lawyers are always filing requests for someone else that have no validity or plausibility, and which they have reason to know have no validity. And NONE have ever been prosecuted. (Well, I've never heard of any being prosecuted.)
At least when I was in my late 20s staying a wake 2-3 days didn't produce hallucinations. It did result in some pretty bad code, though. But I got the project in by the deadline. (I think I was awake for four days that time, though towards the end I couldn't be trusted to walk down the street, because I'd fall asleep while walking in the crosswalk.
OTOH, that was decades ago. Perhaps now it would produce hallucinations. More likely I just couldn't do it.
I think that you think that you answered his question "How do you know they don't have a terrible IT department?". I don't believe that you did. What you did was say "Well, it's easy to see if there's any readily available public knowledge on the topic." And to that extent you are correct. But that's not answering the question. Some companies, when they've been penetrated, do everything possible to keep it quiet. Some, in addition, try to fix the problem, but not be any means all, and it is my belief that the reality is that most leave the problems unfixed. (But I have no good evidence on which to base that. A few anecdotes is all.)
So which is better, a business that hasn't any public sign of being penetrated, or one that has been, and has fixed the problems. And how can an outsider tell whether he's dealing with one or the other? (Answer: You can't.)
(P.S.: The answer isn't really that you can't tell. It's really that the only way to tell is to try to hack the company. If you succeed, it's clearly not someone you want to do business with. Of course, if they catch you...)
That only works to the extent that the laws allow the right to be waived. Or, of course, as propaganda. EULAs already frequently claim things that they have no legal right to claim.
Yeah. But they don't make the school history books. Everyone thinks the Luddites were being silly, when they were protecting their homes and families as well as they could against an intrusive national government that favored the wealthy and aristocratic. (It didn't work, but I really doubt they had anything available that would work...even in hindsight. The only possible exception is assassination, and that would likely have brought an unselectively violent response from the national government. So it probably wouldn't have worked either. Still, if you and your family are going to die anyway...)
History is written by the victors. This is especially true of the history that's taught in pre-college schools, and in college to that taught to non-majors.
Good. What are some better ways? Has anyone debugged them?
Adding Java to the list *was* a bit over the top. It does have actual advantages in many situations. So far. Oracle, however, seems bent on fixing that problem.
This wasn't a well designed study, but it hasn't been shown to be wrong. And Elesevier has a history of doing favors for corporate citizens...like publishing a magazine as theirs where all the reviewers worked for the same drug company. So I'm quite skeptical when they claim that they did it for science.
You overstate your case.
To me this study doesn't meet the test of being significant, but is does appear to be an indication of something that should be investigated. With a larger population.
Withdrawing the paper seems a sign that it's actually more valid than I had been considering it. Normally results this weak are merely allowed to fade into insignificance. Unless someone else is inspired to replicate the study and publish either a stronger analysis or a refutation. (Withdrawal by the journal without showing fraud or misconduce is NOT a refutation.)
P.S.: Elsevier is the company that published a Journal for a drug company where the company controlled all the reviewers of articles and most of the contributors. Under Elsevier's logo. And without admitting who it was that had control. So I'm quite willing to believe that Elsevier was bought off. After all, they have been before.
Sorry, but the US didn't become the most powerful militarily until the early 20th century. It had shown some remarkable potentials in that direction as early as the Civil War, but a strong history of independent states and isolationism had kept it from actually building a strong military. Even as late as WWI the US was only potentially the strongest military. But we never really took WWI seriously. (For good reason. Compare the fraction of the population killed for the US vs. Britain, France, and Germany. The US was barely involved.)
It was only with WWII that the US really became a world military power, and it quickly expanded into the leading world military power. Then the apparently inevitable insanity which afflicts the leaders of such a power began to strike. I think every president since WWII has been insane. Eisenhower perhaps least so. That is probably because as a general he had experience in living with power. Do note, however, that he stabilized and expanded the CIA, and his Secretary of War (excuse me, State [John Foster Dulles]) invented "Brinksmanship".
Bingo. The terrorists ARE the government. They may or may not instigate any particular action. (The evidence isn't really convincing. It's not even certain that the decision makers knew ahead of time.) But the "profit" from it. And their "preventative" actions are more theater than useful. I've just recently gotten a jury summons, and I find that I can't even tak a pair of fingernail clippers with me when I report for jury duty. I presume that's to prevent me from hijacking the court-house...as I can't think of any other reason.
How can you pour hot grits down your pants when you're naked?
There is a big difference between "equating" and "drawing an analogy". Yes, your argument may mean that it was legal. But it's still analogus to an illegal action, and should be so recognized.
So what you're saying is "If the constitution says one thing and policy says something else, go with policy."?
You didn't refer to any language in the Constitution. You merely re-asserted current government policy positions.
Yeah. But there's no requirement that the counsel be any good.
If it's in a spreadsheet, can't you just change the font?
Mod parent up. It's not a troll, but rather an insightful paraphrase of the grandparent post. You may not think a particular term is abusive, but someone else may. He demonstrated this by replacing a reference to Perl with a reference to race. This isn't totally valid, because race has explicit legal protection, but it's still a valid point.
It isn't clearly hyperbole. It's also not clearly morally incorrect. PERHAPS for him to act to bring his wish about would be morally incorrect. Even this isn't clear, however. These are people who have already acted in such a way as to cause his father to be tortured. And are continuing to act so as to cause many (how many?) others to be similarly tortured every day. I really don't think you can claim it isn't torture merely because malice cannot be demonstrated.
I suspect that you don't clearly understand what he and his father experienced. (I *know* that I don't. I'm only reasoning by analogy.)
I don't think he went overboard. In fact, I wouldn't think he went overboard if he started arranging for people who vote against assisted suicide to end up in situations where they wished it was available. People should be accountable for their actions...and legislators, judges, and police should be even more accountable than the average citizen.
That said, I really doubt that it would change many minds. So it would probably be a useless action. And I feel that he shouldn't do it because the estimated benefit is lower than the estimated cost. But it's also true that one of the things that maintains the social morality of the powerful to the extent that it is maintained (not much, I know) is that occasionally someone will decide that revenge for injury is so important that it doesn't matter that the cost to them will be intolerable.
Please note that there was a time when presidents rode around on high platforms in open cars. And the people weren't all disarmed. But in those times more people felt the government was trying to build the country, rather than sell it to the highest bidder. (They may not have been right, but that was how they felt.) Note that even during the stresses of a civil war Lincoln went to a public performance of a play. (Yes, he was assassinated. You can argue about whether this was proper or not. He did, after all, trample all over the Constitution, but he also held the country together. But Booth had a reasonable point of view when he said "Sic semper tyrannis!".) The thing is, if someone wants to be a politician, they should be willing to be judged by the people. This shouldn't just be "Well, I've done enough damage, so now I'll take my guaranteed pension for life.". But, OTOH, you can never satisfy everyone. Allowing the legislators to decide how they should be treated for betraying the country, however, is just silly. So what alternative is there? Perhaps people should vote for what the just compensation is for a retiring politician? But it's got to include forbidding them from doing any business with any company they had contacts with while in office.
I have. You sanitized it a good bit. But they didn't have IV feeding tubes in those days, so Job got off easy.
There are, but most of them are committed by legislators.
FWIW, I've heard that thalidomide is (sometimes) effective against end-level cancer pain. Of course it's illegal. And I've heard that LSD can cause cancer patients not to care about the pain. But that, too, is illegal. And there are a few other drugs that have the reputation of making end level cancer pain tolerable. Perhaps Yohimbine was one of them, or that might have been for depression.
Outside of thalidomide, most of these are forbidden for being pleasurable. (Surprising, isn't it, that drugs noted for being pleasurable cut through pain.) So I blame the current restrictions on pleasure-hating religions and philosophies. Doesn't mean that sometimes there aren't decent arguments, but I've never heard one that is valid for an end-level cancer patient.
While you have good points, the question under discussion is "Should a patient be able to request assisted suicide for themself?"
So I don't think your points apply.
It doesn't invalidate every rape case, but it makes the public statements of every prosecutor suspect.
And, FWIW, from what I remember of the early coverage this looks an awful lot like a subsidised attack. There was that web page posted by one of his accusers about how to get even with a guy you didn't like, e.g. Not proof, of course, but definitely enough to make me suspicious.
Then there's the bit of "We just want you to testify, but we won't take phone testimony.", even though they have done so in other cases.