Thus, as you can see, by allowing a caching-only service to be the arbiter for copyright law rather than requiring the aggrieved party to take legal action against the original site, you're just a hair's breadth away from throwing all free speech under the bus.
There are a few thing wrong wit this statement. 1. The court who handed down the injunction is the arbiter for copyright law. 2. The cache-only service is the means of enforcing the injunction. 3. If you go to the other end of the spectrum and follow the lowest level of law the copyright is dead on the internet. 4. The cache only service could segregate the different sources to different IPs so different countries could enforce their own laws by blocking selected content.
Why is protecting that artists' works more important than the protection of free speech?
I never said that. All I said is that they are very different and setting up a scenario so that infringing and non-infringing content is served from the same IP may be contrived.
Cloudflare could serve from different IPs if they wanted to but don't. That's what I mean by "human shield". Shield infringing material with non-infringing material. That is much the same as shielding combatants with non-combatants.
The thing is, you could say the same thing about any other form of speech
Sorry but "sharing" artistic works that can be purchased elsewhere is not speech. It may not be piracy but trying to hide behind free speech is not valid.
Is this the internet version of human shield? 1. Host infringing site under an IP 2. Host a non-infringing site under same IP 3. Act outraged when both are blocked. I am not saying blocking is right but there might be some "spin" going on.
Then there is the alternate scenario. 1. Find bug. 2. Report to Groupon. 3. Publish on group just long enough to get noticed and replicated. 4. Garner publicity for finding bug. 5. Groupon deny bounty 6. Garner more publicity from controversy.
It might not be as innocent as they make it out to be. For some the notoriety is more important than the money.
I have a feeling that plenty of people on here will upmod defenders of google, and perhaps age discrimination in general.
I am not defending Google or age discrimination. I am just saying that an industry average is a poor indicator of discrimination in a single company. The telling number is the difference, if any, between the ages of people who applied and that of people who were hired.
I guess you didn't read the part where the median age of programmers across the board is 43.
I did. That does not mean that the same spread of programmers applied for jobs at Google.
I guess Google is an exception to the rule, eh?
It is not a "rule" it is average over an entire industry. I bet there are a number of older companies working with older technology that have a much higher median age. Are you going to accuse them of age discrimination when few young people apply for their jobs?
Discrimination is based on who applies and not an industry average.
Part of the requirements to be paid a bounty is following the "responsible disclosure policy". The submitter did not follow that policy and therefore did not get paid. It seems pretty simple.
What is the median age of people who are applying to Google? I suspect that many older programmers are set in their job and/or do not have the skills in the newer technology and do not apply.
TFA is beyond dumb. It's not people switching back, it's people buying a second car for their household. Many people have one EV and one ICE car.
From the summary
Overall, only 45 percent of this year's hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012.
So 65% of the time a hybrid or EV was traded in it was replaced by a conventionally fueled car. If one is buying a second car one does not trade in the first car.
It has to be used every time an allegation is made no matter how many allegations are made in one paragraph. If in any single sentence it says the suspect did something and he is found not guilty the writer could be sued for libel.
it even describes layering as something that "was" sort of an industry standard practice.
How does having a name make it an industry standard practice? "Ponzi scheme" has a name too and it is illegal. I don't see and reference to "layering" being standard practice.
is it strange to ask for a facility into hft that would cancel unprofitable trades?
He cancelled trades that would have been profitable but that he had no intention of fulfilling. He created a large volume of sell offers just above the market price knowing that no one would buy them but that it would make it appear that there was a lot of supply. That drove down the price. He then lowered his offers to keep just above. By the volume and the pattern he was manipulating the futures.
The thing is that he priced the offers just above market price so they would not be accepted. The volume of his offers made it look like there was lots of supply which made the price go down. He kept following the prices down and rarely sold anything.
It sounds like it's a flaw in the NYSE and similar exchanges as well as greedy HFT algorithms. It seems like fixing these flaws is far more important than just arresting people who exploit them.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus, as you can see, by allowing a caching-only service to be the arbiter for copyright law rather than requiring the aggrieved party to take legal action against the original site, you're just a hair's breadth away from throwing all free speech under the bus.
There are a few thing wrong wit this statement.
1. The court who handed down the injunction is the arbiter for copyright law.
2. The cache-only service is the means of enforcing the injunction.
3. If you go to the other end of the spectrum and follow the lowest level of law the copyright is dead on the internet.
4. The cache only service could segregate the different sources to different IPs so different countries could enforce their own laws by blocking selected content.
Why is protecting that artists' works more important than the protection of free speech?
I never said that. All I said is that they are very different and setting up a scenario so that infringing and non-infringing content is served from the same IP may be contrived.
Cloudflare could serve from different IPs if they wanted to but don't. That's what I mean by "human shield". Shield infringing material with non-infringing material. That is much the same as shielding combatants with non-combatants.
The thing is, you could say the same thing about any other form of speech
Sorry but "sharing" artistic works that can be purchased elsewhere is not speech. It may not be piracy but trying to hide behind free speech is not valid.
Is this the internet version of human shield?
1. Host infringing site under an IP
2. Host a non-infringing site under same IP
3. Act outraged when both are blocked.
I am not saying blocking is right but there might be some "spin" going on.
Some of of can tell the difference between fiction and reality. They get away with lots of things in movies that are not acceptable in real life.
Groupon had no intention of paying at all.
That is a generalized assumption based on one incident. You have no idea if they have paid out in other instances.
Then there is the alternate scenario.
1. Find bug.
2. Report to Groupon.
3. Publish on group just long enough to get noticed and replicated.
4. Garner publicity for finding bug.
5. Groupon deny bounty
6. Garner more publicity from controversy.
It might not be as innocent as they make it out to be. For some the notoriety is more important than the money.
The other issue are the 30 additional bugs just permutations of the bug that was published?
Fair enough, but what about the other 30 or so bugs he reported?
By not following the rules he is disqualified from the program no matter how many bugs he submitted.
Next time someone finds a bug that effects Groupon what incentive do they have to report it to Groupon?
The same as before and they might actually follow the rules and get paid.
I have a feeling that plenty of people on here will upmod defenders of google, and perhaps age discrimination in general.
I am not defending Google or age discrimination. I am just saying that an industry average is a poor indicator of discrimination in a single company. The telling number is the difference, if any, between the ages of people who applied and that of people who were hired.
BTW, I am over 50 and therefore not a youngun.
I guess you didn't read the part where the median age of programmers across the board is 43.
I did. That does not mean that the same spread of programmers applied for jobs at Google.
I guess Google is an exception to the rule, eh?
It is not a "rule" it is average over an entire industry. I bet there are a number of older companies working with older technology that have a much higher median age. Are you going to accuse them of age discrimination when few young people apply for their jobs?
Discrimination is based on who applies and not an industry average.
Part of the requirements to be paid a bounty is following the "responsible disclosure policy". The submitter did not follow that policy and therefore did not get paid. It seems pretty simple.
What is the median age of people who are applying to Google? I suspect that many older programmers are set in their job and/or do not have the skills in the newer technology and do not apply.
TFA is beyond dumb. It's not people switching back, it's people buying a second car for their household. Many people have one EV and one ICE car.
From the summary
Overall, only 45 percent of this year's hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012.
So 65% of the time a hybrid or EV was traded in it was replaced by a conventionally fueled car. If one is buying a second car one does not trade in the first car.
It has to be used every time an allegation is made no matter how many allegations are made in one paragraph. If in any single sentence it says the suspect did something and he is found not guilty the writer could be sued for libel.
it even describes layering as something that "was" sort of an industry standard practice.
How does having a name make it an industry standard practice? "Ponzi scheme" has a name too and it is illegal. I don't see and reference to "layering" being standard practice.
is it strange to ask for a facility into hft that would cancel unprofitable trades?
He cancelled trades that would have been profitable but that he had no intention of fulfilling. He created a large volume of sell offers just above the market price knowing that no one would buy them but that it would make it appear that there was a lot of supply. That drove down the price. He then lowered his offers to keep just above. By the volume and the pattern he was manipulating the futures.
Are you an expert in how institutional high speed traders works?
Actually three Stingrays only running half the time would account for the usage.
forcing transactions on offers that are accepted
The thing is that he priced the offers just above market price so they would not be accepted. The volume of his offers made it look like there was lots of supply which made the price go down. He kept following the prices down and rarely sold anything.
The only difference here seems to be the volume of the trades.
Which crossed the line between normal practices and manipulation.
It sounds like it's a flaw in the NYSE and similar exchanges as well as greedy HFT algorithms. It seems like fixing these flaws is far more important than just arresting people who exploit them.
How do you detect such a pattern of trading?
How about you read the complaint?
Until a trial has been completed all allegations made by the government must be prefaced with "allegedly".
It has yet to be proven in court so it is "allegedly".
So was it illegal to do this?
Placing sell orders with no intention of fulfilling them is against SEC rules.