How is this any more controversial than if Amazon bought book.com, author.com, read.com? book.com is owned by B&N. Is anyone jumping in their ass because "The potential for abuse seems limitless?"
Swimming pools are the only thing I know to have attractive nuisance laws applied to them; didn't even know about cars with keys in them until you mentioned it.
Consider it a side effect of living in a place that doesn't have attractive nuisance laws.
In Texas, it's a crime to leave your keys in a running car. If you want to address something, address that. The person gets their car stolen, and also gets charged with a crime themselves.
Yea, that's pretty stupid... as if having your car stolen isn't punishment enough.
Sounds more like rent-seeking than proper application of law, IMO.
actively installing malware
Again, different situation - if someone is intentionally installing "bad stuff" on their machine, there's intent, which is a very, very important factor regarding legal matters.
Your words do not match mine. I never said someone intentionally installed "bad stuff" but that they intentionally installed "something". Whether they expected it to be "bad stuff" is a separate question. Most "viruses" these days are not the passively transferred viruses and worms of old, but malware installed by the user as root (whether informed consent can be given is a separate question).
"Actively" implies willfull intent. So, if someone is "actively" installing malware, they are doing it knowingly and purposefully. It appears to me that the word you meant to use was "incidentally," or maybe "unwittingly."
To say that the mere act of installing software constitutes willfull intent to install malware as well is disingenuous at best...
'For example, a first device can emit an encoded audio signal that can be received by any capable device within audio range of the device. Any device receiving the signal can decode the information'
It's also called speech.
More specifically, language.
Ungeachtet, dessen ist es nicht neu oder einzigartige irgendeiner Form.
Apologies to any devices which can decode the above signal, my, er, "programming" skill are atrocious.
Seriously -- let's just all use GMT, and get rid of Daylight savings, and all use 24 hour time.
Want to schedule a meeting with your coworker 1 cubicle over? How about with your coworker over in the Paris office? Awesome: Let's meet on Monday the 22nd, at 17:34 via (insert voice/video chat system of choice).
Never knew you were a Todd Akin fan. What a piece of shit.
OTOH, you publicly display how ignorant you are about Capitalism and feudalism in your sig.
Yea, sure thing buddy... 'cause expecting you to have the capacity for critical thought is just going waaay too far...
So I guess I shouldn't be surprised by ignorant people thinking there opinion on the matters is valid.
Didn't your mother ever tell you, if you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, keep your self-aggrandizing, masturbatory petulance to yourself?
Oh, yes it is - it's an example of victim blaming, and it is a very, very bad thing.
Many places have it illegal to leave your car running with the keys in them. It's an attractive nussiance
Attractive nuisance laws are bullshit - they remove the onus of personal responsibility from the party, and transfers it to someone else, purely by virtue of the fact that the "someone else" own a certain thing. I.e., in places with such bullshit laws, if you have a swimming pool in your yard, and someone illegally trespasses on your property and drowns in the pool, you are liable for negligent manslaughter. I know that in California, if someone breaks their leg while holding your family hostage at gunpoint, they can sue you for negligence!
There's rarely a week that goes by, I don't thank $deity that I live somewhere a bit more sensible.
It's also illegal for you to lose a couch out the back of your truck while driving down the highway. In both cases the person "lost" something, so holding them responsible for their negligence is "blaming the victim".
OK, now, that's just false equivalence. Having a swimming pool or leaving your keys in the ignition is not even close to the same thing as traveling on a public road with an unsecured load.
Don't stoop to false equivalence, man, I know you're better than that.
And yes, I'd consider running an unpatched computer... to justify blame.
Blame as in, "Well, you didn't do anything to protect yourself, so we're not going to do anything to help, and we're cutting you off of the public networks until you get it fixed" I completely agree with. Blame as in, "Well, you didn't do enough to protect yourself, so we're going to make it harder for you by making you pay a fine / suffer criminal charges" Is bullshit, and a gross misapplication of law.
actively installing malware
Again, different situation - if someone is intentionally installing "bad stuff" on their machine, there's intent, which is a very, very important factor regarding legal matters.
if you gave me your email address, I could send you any itunes file that I ever bought. there are no barriers. there is no drm. apple is not involved. my understnading from the summary is that the patent is for creating a secondary marketplace where anybody could buy and sell. currently i don't have a marketplace where i could easily sell my songs. perhaps ebay, but i'm not even sure if thats allowed there.
Here's an excerpt from TFA:
The patent explains: "Techniques are provided for managing access to digital content items. In particular, various techniques are described herein to enable an authorised transfer of a digital content item from a current owner of a digital content item (the 'transferor') to a new owner of the digital content item (the 'transferee')...a 'digital content item' is any item that can be stored in a digital format, including but not limited to an ebook, music, movie, game, software application, ringtone, TV show, or audio book."
Every digital download sold by Apple through its iTunes, App and iBooks stores would keep a record of who owns it, giving them the sole right to consume the file. Selling the download to another user would make a change to this embedded information, transferring rights to the second user and preventing the original buyer from accessing the file.
Sounds like the "No-DRM" version of iTunes is about to go the way of the dodo...
Yea - one to get the horse to go right, and one to get him to go left! HA!
Side note: Slashdot is probably not the best place to invoke any holy deity in your reasoning, considering that a large portion of the audience here are atheists.
Saying "But GOD wants you to do this!" doesn't work real well on people who don't believe in any such thing.
If people are leaving their car keys in their cars, and there have been a rash of incidents where cars were stolen (keys already being in them) and used to commit various crimes and hit/ runs, then people who continue to leave their keys in their cars are absolutely part of the problem.
But do you put them in jail, or fine them for it? Because that's basically what OP is saying - those people should be fined for leaving their keys in the car, because apparently being robbed, repeatedly, isn't enough of a punishment. Granted, I am a firm believer that stupid should be painful, but I refuse to extend that to include state-induced pain.
FWIW, people leaving valuables in unlocked cars is a major issue in my municipality. The police, tired of having to deal with 300+ complaints a day, decided to issue a few public service announcements. The message? LOCK YOUR CAR, OR WE WON'T BOTHER INVESTIGATING.
Seems to be working fairly well, the number of valuables-stolen-from-unlocked-cars reports has dropped by more than half since the PSA campaign started.
Similar anecdote (this should piss you off real good):
The intersection of Hwy V and Hwy 67 in southeast Missouri was, for most of my life and a decade before, a death trap. Similar setup to the intersection you mentioned, where 2 highways cross with no overpass.
Every year, at least 20-30 people would be killed at this intersection, which had the side effect of causing massive traffic delays. I remember, when I was a kid, worrying about whether or not my dad would make it home from work that night, every single night.
Anyway, over the course of 2 decades the lady who owned the land surrounding this intersection offered, repeatedly, to sell it to the state for about 3/4 of the property's actual value. She (a family friend) said she didn't care about the money, she just wanted the deaths to stop. Time and time again, the state refused her offer, giving every bureaucratic excuse under the sun ('too much money,' 'not enough resources,' 'didn't follow accepted procedure,' et. al.).
Finally, about 5 years ago, the state DOT finally pulled their heads from their asses and decided to put an overpass there. So, they went to the lady's son (she had died of age several years before) to buy the land, and assumed he would give them the same deal his mother had. His response was, essentially, that if they wanted the cheap land price, they should have taken his mother up on her multiple offers. They tried to 'emminent domain' his ass, but since they had been offered the land so many times and refused, the judge wouldn't allow it. MODOT ended up paying every penny the land was worth (far more than what it was when it was originally offered to them), and finally, the deaths have stopped.
So yea, in my experience, positing a good idea to state officials is a sure fire way to make sure it doesn't happen. Stupid, I know.
I was merely pointing out that your sentence phrasing made it seem to the reader that the removal of toll booths is what caused the accident, whereas the actual situation was vice-versa. If you swapped "but at the cost of" with "as a result of," it would parse correctly.
Terrifying is how many people think the way AC above does. Utterly terrifying is how many of those same people are convinced that, because there are so many of them that think in such a manner, said thought process is correct, and should be enshrined in law.
Big part of the rationale behind my refusal to procreate.
All it will do is add $50 to the bill of anyone who gets infected (which is not, of itself, a bad thing...)
Oh, yes it is - it's an example of victim blaming, and it is a very, very bad thing.
Not that I disagree with the concept that folks need to be 'incentivized' in order to do things they should be doing anyway, but I don't believe punishing people for being attacked is the right way to go about it.
Slashdot Mirror
How can a product be a copy cat when it is *better* and *more innovative* than the original?
Is it just me, or does this sound like the beginning of one of those "how many lawyers" jokes?
https://www.google.com/search?q=nexus+5
How is this any more controversial than if Amazon bought book.com, author.com, read.com? book.com is owned by B&N. Is anyone jumping in their ass because "The potential for abuse seems limitless?"
Because B&N doesn't own *.com, jackass.
Really, dude, if you're going to comment, at least have half a fucking clue how whatever it is you're commenting on works.
Sheesh.
I can't even look at that dude without seeing the "diabeetus cat" meme pop into my head.
Nothing makes you feel like a bad person like laughing at jokes about terminal illness.
OK, now, that's just false equivalence.
So says the man who brought up swimming pools.
Swimming pools are the only thing I know to have attractive nuisance laws applied to them; didn't even know about cars with keys in them until you mentioned it.
Consider it a side effect of living in a place that doesn't have attractive nuisance laws.
In Texas, it's a crime to leave your keys in a running car. If you want to address something, address that. The person gets their car stolen, and also gets charged with a crime themselves.
Yea, that's pretty stupid... as if having your car stolen isn't punishment enough.
Sounds more like rent-seeking than proper application of law, IMO.
actively installing malware
Again, different situation - if someone is intentionally installing "bad stuff" on their machine, there's intent, which is a very, very important factor regarding legal matters.
Your words do not match mine. I never said someone intentionally installed "bad stuff" but that they intentionally installed "something". Whether they expected it to be "bad stuff" is a separate question. Most "viruses" these days are not the passively transferred viruses and worms of old, but malware installed by the user as root (whether informed consent can be given is a separate question).
"Actively" implies willfull intent. So, if someone is "actively" installing malware, they are doing it knowingly and purposefully. It appears to me that the word you meant to use was "incidentally," or maybe "unwittingly."
To say that the mere act of installing software constitutes willfull intent to install malware as well is disingenuous at best...
unless they're installing a Symantec product.
'For example, a first device can emit an encoded audio signal that can be received by any capable device within audio range of the device. Any device receiving the signal can decode the information'
It's also called speech.
More specifically, language.
Ungeachtet, dessen ist es nicht neu oder einzigartige irgendeiner Form.
Apologies to any devices which can decode the above signal, my, er, "programming" skill are atrocious.
Seriously -- let's just all use GMT, and get rid of Daylight savings, and all use 24 hour time.
Want to schedule a meeting with your coworker 1 cubicle over? How about with your coworker over in the Paris office? Awesome: Let's meet on Monday the 22nd, at 17:34 via (insert voice/video chat system of choice).
Time zones?
Daily savings time?
AM/PM?
Ain't nobody got time for that!
Obligatory Nationalist response:
FUCK GREENWICH!
lol
Yes, if you agree clearly it isn't stupid~
sheesh.
Never knew you were a Todd Akin fan. What a piece of shit.
OTOH, you publicly display how ignorant you are about Capitalism and feudalism in your sig.
Yea, sure thing buddy... 'cause expecting you to have the capacity for critical thought is just going waaay too far...
So I guess I shouldn't be surprised by ignorant people thinking there opinion on the matters is valid.
Didn't your mother ever tell you, if you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, keep your self-aggrandizing, masturbatory petulance to yourself?
Malarkey!
It's nice to see a mention of one of my great state's reps that, for once, doesn't involve them doing/saying something unspeakably stupid...
Yea, I'm talking about you, Todd Akin and Rory Ellinger.
They are going after visitor IP Addresses and comparing it to the list of pirating IP Addresses they already have.
Because, apparently, alleged pirates do not have a 1st Amendment right.
One octet per sheet of paper
With each IP put a code at the bottom of the page that match each octet.
Hashed and salted.
What? Did the subpoena specify what format the IP addresses had to be in?
*evil grin*
Oh, yes it is - it's an example of victim blaming, and it is a very, very bad thing.
Many places have it illegal to leave your car running with the keys in them. It's an attractive nussiance
Attractive nuisance laws are bullshit - they remove the onus of personal responsibility from the party, and transfers it to someone else, purely by virtue of the fact that the "someone else" own a certain thing. I.e., in places with such bullshit laws, if you have a swimming pool in your yard, and someone illegally trespasses on your property and drowns in the pool, you are liable for negligent manslaughter. I know that in California, if someone breaks their leg while holding your family hostage at gunpoint, they can sue you for negligence!
There's rarely a week that goes by, I don't thank $deity that I live somewhere a bit more sensible.
It's also illegal for you to lose a couch out the back of your truck while driving down the highway. In both cases the person "lost" something, so holding them responsible for their negligence is "blaming the victim".
OK, now, that's just false equivalence. Having a swimming pool or leaving your keys in the ignition is not even close to the same thing as traveling on a public road with an unsecured load.
Don't stoop to false equivalence, man, I know you're better than that.
And yes, I'd consider running an unpatched computer... to justify blame.
Blame as in, "Well, you didn't do anything to protect yourself, so we're not going to do anything to help, and we're cutting you off of the public networks until you get it fixed" I completely agree with. Blame as in, "Well, you didn't do enough to protect yourself, so we're going to make it harder for you by making you pay a fine / suffer criminal charges" Is bullshit, and a gross misapplication of law.
actively installing malware
Again, different situation - if someone is intentionally installing "bad stuff" on their machine, there's intent, which is a very, very important factor regarding legal matters.
More like George Jefferson.
Movin' on uuup, to the East Side...
if you gave me your email address, I could send you any itunes file that I ever bought. there are no barriers. there is no drm. apple is not involved. my understnading from the summary is that the patent is for creating a secondary marketplace where anybody could buy and sell. currently i don't have a marketplace where i could easily sell my songs. perhaps ebay, but i'm not even sure if thats allowed there.
Here's an excerpt from TFA:
The patent explains: "Techniques are provided for managing access to digital content items. In particular, various techniques are described herein to enable an authorised transfer of a digital content item from a current owner of a digital content item (the 'transferor') to a new owner of the digital content item (the 'transferee')...a 'digital content item' is any item that can be stored in a digital format, including but not limited to an ebook, music, movie, game, software application, ringtone, TV show, or audio book."
Every digital download sold by Apple through its iTunes, App and iBooks stores would keep a record of who owns it, giving them the sole right to consume the file. Selling the download to another user would make a change to this embedded information, transferring rights to the second user and preventing the original buyer from accessing the file.
Sounds like the "No-DRM" version of iTunes is about to go the way of the dodo...
Shame, that.
God gave Man two legs for a reason.
Yea - one to get the horse to go right, and one to get him to go left! HA!
Side note: Slashdot is probably not the best place to invoke any holy deity in your reasoning, considering that a large portion of the audience here are atheists.
Saying "But GOD wants you to do this!" doesn't work real well on people who don't believe in any such thing.
If people are leaving their car keys in their cars, and there have been a rash of incidents where cars were stolen (keys already being in them) and used to commit various crimes and hit/ runs, then people who continue to leave their keys in their cars are absolutely part of the problem.
But do you put them in jail, or fine them for it? Because that's basically what OP is saying - those people should be fined for leaving their keys in the car, because apparently being robbed, repeatedly, isn't enough of a punishment. Granted, I am a firm believer that stupid should be painful, but I refuse to extend that to include state-induced pain.
FWIW, people leaving valuables in unlocked cars is a major issue in my municipality. The police, tired of having to deal with 300+ complaints a day, decided to issue a few public service announcements. The message? LOCK YOUR CAR, OR WE WON'T BOTHER INVESTIGATING.
Seems to be working fairly well, the number of valuables-stolen-from-unlocked-cars reports has dropped by more than half since the PSA campaign started.
Similar anecdote (this should piss you off real good):
The intersection of Hwy V and Hwy 67 in southeast Missouri was, for most of my life and a decade before, a death trap. Similar setup to the intersection you mentioned, where 2 highways cross with no overpass.
Every year, at least 20-30 people would be killed at this intersection, which had the side effect of causing massive traffic delays. I remember, when I was a kid, worrying about whether or not my dad would make it home from work that night, every single night.
Anyway, over the course of 2 decades the lady who owned the land surrounding this intersection offered, repeatedly, to sell it to the state for about 3/4 of the property's actual value. She (a family friend) said she didn't care about the money, she just wanted the deaths to stop. Time and time again, the state refused her offer, giving every bureaucratic excuse under the sun ('too much money,' 'not enough resources,' 'didn't follow accepted procedure,' et. al.).
Finally, about 5 years ago, the state DOT finally pulled their heads from their asses and decided to put an overpass there. So, they went to the lady's son (she had died of age several years before) to buy the land, and assumed he would give them the same deal his mother had. His response was, essentially, that if they wanted the cheap land price, they should have taken his mother up on her multiple offers. They tried to 'emminent domain' his ass, but since they had been offered the land so many times and refused, the judge wouldn't allow it. MODOT ended up paying every penny the land was worth (far more than what it was when it was originally offered to them), and finally, the deaths have stopped.
So yea, in my experience, positing a good idea to state officials is a sure fire way to make sure it doesn't happen. Stupid, I know.
No worries, happens to the best of us.
I was merely pointing out that your sentence phrasing made it seem to the reader that the removal of toll booths is what caused the accident, whereas the actual situation was vice-versa. If you swapped "but at the cost of" with "as a result of," it would parse correctly.
Point wise, I totally agree.
Develop a sense of humor, you fucking Philistine.
Terrifying is how many people think the way AC above does. Utterly terrifying is how many of those same people are convinced that, because there are so many of them that think in such a manner, said thought process is correct, and should be enshrined in law.
Big part of the rationale behind my refusal to procreate.
All it will do is add $50 to the bill of anyone who gets infected (which is not, of itself, a bad thing...)
Oh, yes it is - it's an example of victim blaming, and it is a very, very bad thing.
Not that I disagree with the concept that folks need to be 'incentivized' in order to do things they should be doing anyway, but I don't believe punishing people for being attacked is the right way to go about it.
I've never lived in a state where the tolls were retired and the booths torn down.
It happened in Connecticut, but at the cost of an accident with 7 fatalities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Turnpike#Connecticut_abolishes_tolls
According to the Wiki page you linked to, the 7 fatality crash is why they abolished tolls.
Your post seems to indicate the opposite.
You do have a Buggy Whip in your car, yes?
Well sure! How else are we supposed to fend off the street urchins?