IANAL, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be. While the idea that you should never use an employer-provided advice for personal reasons is a good one to guard your privacy, that doesn't mean there's no law surrounding what the employer can do to its employees. When the employer is the government, the case is especially complex because the government must follow the fourth amendment, which guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. (This is applicable to the state governments because of the 14th Amendment.) But what does unreasonable mean, and what constitutes a search? The Constitution is vague (deliberately, and probably to our benefit), so the meanings change over time as social expectations change, and the Courts have to try to figure out the answers not to the theoretical world where nobody uses a device provided by an employer with an expectation of privacy, but to the actual world where people do have expectations of privacy in private communications made at work--even if nobody in the tech community would consider that expectation reasonable. This is all complicated more by a separate statutory basis for giving the employee an expectation of privacy in his communication--the Court of Appeals held that a statute provided an extra protection in this case, at least potentially (we'll have to wait for the SCT to rule to hear the last word).
I suppose one could sell hard disks with USB keys that contain random data matching a built-in datastore on the disk that one needs to access the disk or some-such; but OTPs are basically meant for encryption of communication, not local encryption of data. There are hybrid models and I'd imagine theoretical equivalence I won't think about right now. The classic example is embassy communication, where you don't want what you're saying to ever be decrypted. Have a courier deliver a DVD of random data, one of a pair, and you take a big technical risk out of electronic communication.
(Obviously there are still social engineering and EM leakage issues.)
(Ease bit: quantum computers tend to be specialized for particular algorithms, and we should be moving on to one-time pads anyway (Which are theoretically unbreakable absent social engineering or major design flaw), with some kind of automated exchange of random data whenever we physically visit our banks.)
Well, there goes encryption. (To oversimplify. To quote an honest prof, "I was trying to decide between ease of understanding and truth." Disclaimer: My understanding too.)
legos are good for modular design, infinite re-use--but you might stay away from the technical or specialty sets, as they tend to be more problematic and less re-usable; capsuela is good for basic gears and so on, and modularity; We also played with BASIC a bit at that age, IIRC. Oh, and Rocky's boots. You must get rocky's boots. Digital Logic for kids.
Clancy, for one; it's fiction, but he tends to do his research pretty well. When SAC-NORAD sees a heat bloom they verify that there's no launch scheduled before going crazy. The West Wing suggests it gets tricky when unofficial nuclear powers like Israel launch nukes, and IIRC also says that the US checks scheduled launches that other nuclear powers notify them of before launching. (I saw it in popular culture, so it must be true.:))
So happy not to be living in the cold war. Today, I like to think it's harder for fictional missiles to start WW3. Fewer false positives. Of course, here the missile was actually launched...
The assumption is that once there are a hundred thousand servers hit, and maybe fewer, if the hosting company doesn't shut down the site within an hour or two a responsible upstream router blocks traffic from the site. Every delivered payload costs society more time and money.
To put this in context, 60 Billion is just over the market capitalization for Disney.
So the claim is that the infringers... should have to give the producers... a little more than Disney.
A good theory, but faulty in this case: it's a question of trying not to intimidate someone one likes, not making a shout-out to a roomful of guys to see who likes one's awesomeness.
It goes beyond the stereotypes, because men tend to be more physically abusive while women tend to be more socially abusive. It's much easier to get evidence of the former, and there's a bigger stigma associated with it. Women are as likely to be abusive as men, but the kind of abuse they're likely to indulge in is not so obvious to a court of law or a jury. This tracks with developmental psychology's learning about children: as boys grow toward puberty they tend to be physically agressive, while as girls grow toward puberty they tend to be socially agressive. In both cases, there are people who never grow out of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture
Speaking of unsolved math mysteries, the 3n+1 problem is a fabulous way to spend days and days of your life. It's particularly fun if you think about it in binary. Whatever the answer is, it's either simple and elegant or complex beyond imagination.
An explanation may be long if it is explaining something complex that the code is doing. A long-winded comment may also be a precise one, rather than a general one: rather than an excuse, this may be an explanation.
Basically the provision was put into the legislation to give the Congresspeople political cover when they extended copyright terms again. This way they pretend to care about the artists (who don't give them as much money as the labels and producers), and because they do that the artists get something out of it. There has already been some litigation on the issue, particularly when the original copyright holder died and there are multiple family members involved in trying to get the revoked rights, IIRC.
From the publisher/producer side, they don't think about it as political cover because all that matters to them is that they'll lose the rights unless they renegotiate--and if the artist was successful, the copyright holder is often now in a position to get a much better deal.
Slashdot Mirror
I am thankful that they do; I just wish they had more taste. No... just better taste.
IANAL, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be. While the idea that you should never use an employer-provided advice for personal reasons is a good one to guard your privacy, that doesn't mean there's no law surrounding what the employer can do to its employees. When the employer is the government, the case is especially complex because the government must follow the fourth amendment, which guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. (This is applicable to the state governments because of the 14th Amendment.) But what does unreasonable mean, and what constitutes a search? The Constitution is vague (deliberately, and probably to our benefit), so the meanings change over time as social expectations change, and the Courts have to try to figure out the answers not to the theoretical world where nobody uses a device provided by an employer with an expectation of privacy, but to the actual world where people do have expectations of privacy in private communications made at work--even if nobody in the tech community would consider that expectation reasonable. This is all complicated more by a separate statutory basis for giving the employee an expectation of privacy in his communication--the Court of Appeals held that a statute provided an extra protection in this case, at least potentially (we'll have to wait for the SCT to rule to hear the last word).
I suppose one could sell hard disks with USB keys that contain random data matching a built-in datastore on the disk that one needs to access the disk or some-such; but OTPs are basically meant for encryption of communication, not local encryption of data. There are hybrid models and I'd imagine theoretical equivalence I won't think about right now. The classic example is embassy communication, where you don't want what you're saying to ever be decrypted. Have a courier deliver a DVD of random data, one of a pair, and you take a big technical risk out of electronic communication. (Obviously there are still social engineering and EM leakage issues.)
Apparently, there also goes... spelling...
(Ease bit: quantum computers tend to be specialized for particular algorithms, and we should be moving on to one-time pads anyway (Which are theoretically unbreakable absent social engineering or major design flaw), with some kind of automated exchange of random data whenever we physically visit our banks.)
Well, there goes encryption. (To oversimplify. To quote an honest prof, "I was trying to decide between ease of understanding and truth." Disclaimer: My understanding too.)
legos are good for modular design, infinite re-use--but you might stay away from the technical or specialty sets, as they tend to be more problematic and less re-usable; capsuela is good for basic gears and so on, and modularity; We also played with BASIC a bit at that age, IIRC. Oh, and Rocky's boots. You must get rocky's boots. Digital Logic for kids.
Some of these may have modern equivalents...
Clancy, for one; it's fiction, but he tends to do his research pretty well. When SAC-NORAD sees a heat bloom they verify that there's no launch scheduled before going crazy. The West Wing suggests it gets tricky when unofficial nuclear powers like Israel launch nukes, and IIRC also says that the US checks scheduled launches that other nuclear powers notify them of before launching. (I saw it in popular culture, so it must be true. :))
So happy not to be living in the cold war. Today, I like to think it's harder for fictional missiles to start WW3. Fewer false positives. Of course, here the missile was actually launched...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
The assumption is that once there are a hundred thousand servers hit, and maybe fewer, if the hosting company doesn't shut down the site within an hour or two a responsible upstream router blocks traffic from the site. Every delivered payload costs society more time and money.
To put this in context, 60 Billion is just over the market capitalization for Disney. So the claim is that the infringers... should have to give the producers... a little more than Disney.
A good theory, but faulty in this case: it's a question of trying not to intimidate someone one likes, not making a shout-out to a roomful of guys to see who likes one's awesomeness.
It goes beyond the stereotypes, because men tend to be more physically abusive while women tend to be more socially abusive. It's much easier to get evidence of the former, and there's a bigger stigma associated with it. Women are as likely to be abusive as men, but the kind of abuse they're likely to indulge in is not so obvious to a court of law or a jury. This tracks with developmental psychology's learning about children: as boys grow toward puberty they tend to be physically agressive, while as girls grow toward puberty they tend to be socially agressive. In both cases, there are people who never grow out of it.
describes her degree as a "science degree" to avoid scaring men away. She has a degree from one of the top colleges in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture Speaking of unsolved math mysteries, the 3n+1 problem is a fabulous way to spend days and days of your life. It's particularly fun if you think about it in binary. Whatever the answer is, it's either simple and elegant or complex beyond imagination.
An explanation may be long if it is explaining something complex that the code is doing. A long-winded comment may also be a precise one, rather than a general one: rather than an excuse, this may be an explanation.
Basically the provision was put into the legislation to give the Congresspeople political cover when they extended copyright terms again. This way they pretend to care about the artists (who don't give them as much money as the labels and producers), and because they do that the artists get something out of it. There has already been some litigation on the issue, particularly when the original copyright holder died and there are multiple family members involved in trying to get the revoked rights, IIRC. From the publisher/producer side, they don't think about it as political cover because all that matters to them is that they'll lose the rights unless they renegotiate--and if the artist was successful, the copyright holder is often now in a position to get a much better deal.