That would be a good analogy if the user had not specifically configured the WAP to advertise its presence. The user did not have to take this step. My other post has a defense of this analogy. I think it's perfect. You'll have to tell me why my analogy is wrong.
Yours is wrong, imho, because a wide open WAP with DHCP broadcasts instructions for its use. Your keys do not. The most important point, to me, is this: I desire strangers to make use of my WAP at their leisure. There is no way that I could be more clear to strangers about my intentions than to leave it wide open with DHCP. Can you think of a way that I could be more clear?
You've been trolled. If PhysicsGenius ever says anything that seems innoffensive, it's because he's trying to get karma so he doesn't get banned when he trolls.
You'll make sense: as soon as we start seeing the people who don't want intruders using their wireless network putting up signs that say 'Hi, this is my network, here is the info to use it.' (no, it will NOT be sufficient that it's possible to do so- people have cars with actual breakable windows in them, you know....)
Um. That's exactly what I'm saying. Every single person that has an unsecured wireless access point with DHCP has a 2.4 gHz EM loudspeaker broadcasting: "I'm a wireless network. I'm configured so that you may use me at your pleasure. If you'd like to access the internet, you can do so by setting your IP address to 10.0.1.5, your subnet to 255.255.255.0, and your router to 10.0.1.1." It transmits this information many times per second, and it transmits it through my body, let alone my computer.
In order to make your WAP say this, with my vendor's software at least, you must actively change the configuration.
Thus, I make sense right now, because the people that don't want intruders using their wireless networks are putting up signs that say, "Hi, this is my network, here is the info to use it." Those signs emit light at the 2.4 gHz end of the EM spectrum, rather than the visible end of the EM spectrum.
They had to actively put up the sign. They might be hoping that only their friends will read it. When I put up the sign, I was hoping that anyone might read it. There is no way that I could possibly be more clear in my desire for other people to use my network. You desire to remove my ability to share my connection with strangers.
Whatever. I'm talking to an AC. IHBT. IHL. IWHAND.
You're right. If someone paints a sign on unlocked car that "Hi, this is my car, and here are the keys. Feel free to use it as much as you like," then the metaphor is perfect.
Bad example. Yes, that would be the crime of tresspassing. However, in the case of the wifi honeypot, they're transmitting invitations through your body already.
It's more like, "If I leave my door open, and put up a gian neon sign that says, 'public restroom' and has an arrow pointing to the open door, then is it a crime if someone uses the restroom?"
There are already wifi ISPs that depend on this kind of neon sign to do their advertising. I've seen networks that are called, "MCN $40/mo 925-4900".
I was in college getting my BS in CS during the boom. I was never infected by the craze. I've wanted to go into this field since I can remember. All I ever wanted was a living wage, and I didn't think I had experience or skills.
I know I've got the ability to learn, and a company has made a bet on me. We'll see if I keep up. I've gotten exactly what I wanted out of this market. It didn't even take longer than I expected, and I wasn't spending every waking hour selling myself.
At the same time, I've got a friend that was employed doing network design in IT for a large insurance firm for over 20 years. He made an idiotic mistake, and believed some dot-com fraudster who promised him a massively higher salary, so he left his job. He didn't get paid what he was told, so he left, and his department at his old company had been dissolved. If he had stayed, he would have gotten severance that he could have retired on.
Admittedly, it's his mistake, but he's been out of work and searching for a year. I assume that by now he's not looking for a tech job. Before the beginning of the bubble, I believe someone would have been willing to hire him because of his skills. Now, there are many people with comparable skills, not experience, that are out of work and in their twenties. Able to work for peanuts. My friend is hurt by his mistake, and also by the bubble.
Oh, come on. There's plenty of reason to believe that the first amendment and article 1 section 8 clause 8 were both intended to be in effect at the same time. You've got to make the next leap, from Randian quote-artist (not that you're doing that here) to a framer-focused constitutionalist.
The folks that wrote and agreed to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 were all still paying attention when the first amendment was accepted (which was before anyone started ratifying anything). The folks that wrote the first amendment were all still paying attention when the first copyright law was enacted. If we used the standard of "what they said, not what they meant", we'd be in a really sorry place right now. Thankfully, given the writings at the time, we can usually tell what they meant. The framers intended a copyright. I'd also point out that they probably only imagined their copyright would apply to printed books, but... that's up to congress. Really. It's easy to read the constitution that way. It's hard to read it the way you describe.
Your point about the limited times discussion is almost exactly right. In all other portions of the constitution, where the constitution describes a limit, that is interpretted to mean that there is a real ability that the congress does not have. Given the current system of continuous extension, there is no real ability that congress loses due to the "limited times" section of the clause. If the framers did not intend for there to be a loss of governmental ability, then why did they describe a limit?
Also, as a Randian capitalist, you should know exactly what Britney Spears (or her album) is useful for: You can sell it! If they didn't want 1.8.8 to apply to such frivolous works, then their first copyright law would have been criticized. It waren't.
You are, of course, totally correct that the constitution doesn't grant copyright. Congress could make a law tomorrow that no new works will have a copyright.
In your summary, you say, "Stevens asked whether a retrospective extension that does promote progress is permissible. Lessig said yes. Stevens then said that the 1998 law, at least on its face, does that. Lessig: well, that's the government's position. Stevens: but that's what you just said. Lessig: no, Congress still has to abide by the constitutional limits. We were all confused."
I can explain that, if you still desire. It's pretty straightforward. Lessig is suggesting that the 1998 law, does not, on it's face, promote progress. This is a big deal. I *wish* I had a transcript. Another slashdot post has an essential point: "While it was conceded by Lessig that Congress could not grant a copyright on a work currently in the public domain, Congress could grant an extended term conditioned on a promise to preserve and actively distribute a work."
In Lessig's reply brief, he makes the point that judicial precedent has been set that there must be a quid-pro-quo for a retroactive extension. If congress said, "You can have a retroactive extension if you republish your work," or, "You can have a retroactive extension if you send congress a check for $5," then there would be an exchange, and it would be constitutional.
Unfortunately, I don't understand why this distinction exists. He says that it's due to judicial precedent, and *not* the constitutional stipulation on promoting progress. I'm not positive that the distinction is valid. It seems to be the very most core point, and none of the media is discussing it. Do you understand the point I'm making? Can you tell me if they spoke about that subject in further depth?
Anyway, hopefully Stevens will see that Lessig was not being childish, and was not reneging on his statement.
At the linked summary, it sounds like Lessig failed to address an essential portion of his argument. According to his reply brief, there is a huge difference between an equally applied retroactive extension and an equally applied proactive extension. He suggests, with references, that court precedent has shown that a retroactive extension requires a quid-pro-quo. If the law said copyrights were only extended for people that gave congress $5, or republished the work, or *something*, then the law would fly. Since there's no exchange, the law breaks judicial precedent.
I have *no* idea if this argument is correct. Please do not rely on my description of it. Read the brief (they're not hard to read at all). Is there a lawyer out there that can tell us if his quid-pro-quo argument is obviously valid, obviously wrong, or open for debate?
Does it make a difference if an essential point is only made in a brief, but not in oral arguments?
Am I misunderstanding the argument, or how it applies?
1) Nice troll. IHBT. IHL. IWHAND. 2) The people carping are not necessarily the same ones advising patents right now. 3) If this idea is innovative (I doubt it) then the complainers could advise a patent here, and their position would be completely non-contradictory. 4) What bigotry about lawyers? I haven't noticed any. 5) You are a member of the class "You people".
I can't wait until an enterprising Japenese company makes similar-scale r/c helicopters. I'd buy one in a heartbeat
I thought the same thing when they came out with the remote control mice: Yeah, that's cool. But how about a remote control hummingbird? That would be *tight*.
Surely these can't be Microsoft CDs!?! According to a KB article at Microsoft.com, "Disks are duplicated on a variety of industrial strength, quality focused systems. Most of these systems are UNIX-based. The UNIX-based duplication systems used in manufacturing are impervious to MS-DOS-based, Windows-based, and Macintosh-based viruses."
Um. I can't tell if you're kidding or not, so I'll bite:
It doesn't matter what kind of computer runs the machine that copies the CDs. The machine that creates the master CD could have a virus, and infect an executable on the CD. I'm sure microsoft has a number of failsafes in order to make sure that this master CD doesn't have a virus on it, but having a unix computer run the duplication machine is not one of those failsafes.
I should point out that it was in a psych course on personality theory that I was briefly exposed to the subject of evolutionary psychology. Even the guest lecturers who discussed it were totally up front about the lack of experimental data on the subject.
It's just a valuable way of looking at people. Not more valuable than many others. ydig?
Sometimes animals will freeze so that predators will not be able to see them. Sometimes they will play dead so that their potential predators will think they have been dead a long time and will not be good to eat.
Neither of those really fit the situation I'm talking about. I definitely can't think of an animal that does anything like it. It's a hypothesis, not a proven theory.
Fail? Define fail. Failed who? Try running Moz or IE on Mac OS X, then try running Chimera. It's succeeded with flying colors. It has no detractors. The only people that don't use it are the ones that can't be bothered to try. That is, of course, a substantial number of people, but while the developers are still getting paychecks...
Right. I exactly do not mean that there are genetic traits leading to suicide. I just mean that sometimes it is advantageous to die. Same for an individual cell as for a whole person. Individual cells have many more (and more codified) reasons.
And, aside from the metaphor:
You say, "Suicidal behaviors may or may not have been evolutionarily selected for, but could just be a part of the price we pay for other traits that are advantageous." I completely agree. That's exactly what I mean. I'm trying to suggest that one of the advantageous behaviors that lead modern humans to commit suicide might have been suicidal in the first place. Now, since our environment/society has changed faster than our genetics, those tendencies are engaged in all kinds of incorrect situations.
Also, I'm not trying to take credit for the idea. I hope I haven't totally misrepresented the proponents of evolutionary psychology.
Um, force how? If they want to apply economic pressure to us to do something, that's completely fair. Compromising is fine. When the US signed all it's current economic treaties, none of them were under military duress. (I say that with confidence, but if you'd like to dispute that, please do.) If we threaten to disrupt trade in order to secure an agreement, well... that's our right. Please describe the type of pressure we've used. I wouldn't know about it.
I'm discussing military force. The UK could not (and would not) say "Give us Most Favored Nation trade status, or we'll go to war with you." Even if we did not have such a substantial military, the rest of the world would come to our aid.
Anyway. I don't believe that my views are asymmetrical. I'm not a nationalist. "All men were created equal" applies to non-Americans just the same. The circular definition of "in our best interest" is essential. Compromise is often in our best interest.
So, if you're a furrinner, and you're angry at me... well, you've assumed something.
Evolutionary psychology has pointed out that it is possible for suicide to be evolutionarily advantageous. If my existance makes it less likely that my genes will be replicated, then it would be evolutionarily advantageous for me to kill myself.
For example, if I am a large drain on my family, and I'll never be able to have children, and I'll just make it harder for my siblings to get by, then my existence will make it harder for my (siblings) genes to be replicated.
Of course, this is almost never actually the case. But it makes sense that perhaps it used to be, when we didn't have such a easy time surviving. Now those same urges, that may have made sense when most people died by the time they were 30, are completely out of place.
It doesn't matter if Adobe had a change of heart. The Feds would have had to have done the same exact thing either way. Otherwise they lose their shiny little law. That's all I'm saying.
No need to jump to conclusions about my reasoning.
The courts in the Netherlands has said that distributing Kazaa is not illegal. That's where the servers are.
The court in LA could say it's illegal for those servers to do what they're doing. They may decide that they have jurisdiction because they are communicating with Americans. Punishable by the DMCA, whatever.
When the folks from Sharman Networks next fly to the US, federal agents could be waiting for them. It'll be up to Holland to decide if extradition treaties apply.
The jurisdictional problem would be the same if some folks in Holland built a bomb-mailer, and had some Danes set it up for them. The bomb-mailer then sent mail bombs to the US and killed Jack Valenti. The only difference is that those actions are much more clearly illegal. This copyright issue is more vague. It's a matter of degrees.
We can decide if it's illegal. It involves American people on American soil. We can only pressure other countries to extradite. They might want us to extradite their criminals at some point in the future.
Don't get me wrong, I do not feel that Sharman/the developers should get messed with. But this is how international law has always worked, and will always work. Furrinners might get upset that the US can apply more pressure than other countries. I'm curious what they might suggest we do to eliminate that problem. They can't *make* us agree to something that isn't in our best interests, and they shouldn't be able to. That would be a at least as warlike than we've ever been.
Also, you do not make this mistake, but I'd like to bring it up: In my (limited) discussion of US foreign policy with non-US citizens, they'll frequently become angry with me, even when I agree with them. I've been treated like an ignorant cretin by people that were respecting my advice only moments earlier. This came up most often in discussions of the Vietnam War.
I'm anti-war. My dad was a consciencious (sp?) objector, and would have served prison time rather than kill Vietnamese. It seems like in discussions like this, many people are happy to return to nationalism and assume that members of other countries are necesarily idiots. Again, these are people that both knew and liked me.
Iduno. I'm moving to Golden Rule when they build it.
1) If you buy them with a discount from your service provider.
2) You are under contract to your provider.
It's basically a way to make sure you don't walk away with a free phone. If you buy your phone from a manufacturer (expensive) you're phone is not locked. If you buy your phone from a provider and you stay with them for the duration of your contract, you can request that they remove the lock. If you terminate your contract and pay the early termination fee ($200 usually) then you can also request that your service provider unlock your phone.
Also, the only CDMA providers I know of are Sprint and Verizon. I've never heard that you can move your phone between these providers. Are there other CDMA providers I've never heard of?
I agree that locking phones is fucked up. That's the whole point of having good credit. I'm not walking out on my contract.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a good analogy if the user had not specifically configured the WAP to advertise its presence. The user did not have to take this step. My other post has a defense of this analogy. I think it's perfect. You'll have to tell me why my analogy is wrong.
Yours is wrong, imho, because a wide open WAP with DHCP broadcasts instructions for its use. Your keys do not. The most important point, to me, is this: I desire strangers to make use of my WAP at their leisure. There is no way that I could be more clear to strangers about my intentions than to leave it wide open with DHCP. Can you think of a way that I could be more clear?
You've been trolled. If PhysicsGenius ever says anything that seems innoffensive, it's because he's trying to get karma so he doesn't get banned when he trolls.
Don't worry about it.
You'll make sense: as soon as we start seeing the people who don't want intruders using their wireless network putting up signs that say 'Hi, this is my network, here is the info to use it.' (no, it will NOT be sufficient that it's possible to do so- people have cars with actual breakable windows in them, you know....)
Um. That's exactly what I'm saying. Every single person that has an unsecured wireless access point with DHCP has a 2.4 gHz EM loudspeaker broadcasting: "I'm a wireless network. I'm configured so that you may use me at your pleasure. If you'd like to access the internet, you can do so by setting your IP address to 10.0.1.5, your subnet to 255.255.255.0, and your router to 10.0.1.1." It transmits this information many times per second, and it transmits it through my body, let alone my computer.
In order to make your WAP say this, with my vendor's software at least, you must actively change the configuration.
Thus, I make sense right now, because the people that don't want intruders using their wireless networks are putting up signs that say, "Hi, this is my network, here is the info to use it." Those signs emit light at the 2.4 gHz end of the EM spectrum, rather than the visible end of the EM spectrum.
They had to actively put up the sign. They might be hoping that only their friends will read it. When I put up the sign, I was hoping that anyone might read it. There is no way that I could possibly be more clear in my desire for other people to use my network. You desire to remove my ability to share my connection with strangers.
Whatever. I'm talking to an AC. IHBT. IHL. IWHAND.
Yer right. That's why you do VNC via SSH to your box at home. Spoof away.
Huh. I wonder if there's an easy way to do https vnc on standard ports... in case someone spoofs web-only access.
Thank god for the "+4, Troll" moderation option...
You're right. If someone paints a sign on unlocked car that "Hi, this is my car, and here are the keys. Feel free to use it as much as you like," then the metaphor is perfect.
Bad example. Yes, that would be the crime of tresspassing. However, in the case of the wifi honeypot, they're transmitting invitations through your body already.
It's more like, "If I leave my door open, and put up a gian neon sign that says, 'public restroom' and has an arrow pointing to the open door, then is it a crime if someone uses the restroom?"
There are already wifi ISPs that depend on this kind of neon sign to do their advertising. I've seen networks that are called, "MCN $40/mo 925-4900".
Yes and no.
I was in college getting my BS in CS during the boom. I was never infected by the craze. I've wanted to go into this field since I can remember. All I ever wanted was a living wage, and I didn't think I had experience or skills.
I know I've got the ability to learn, and a company has made a bet on me. We'll see if I keep up. I've gotten exactly what I wanted out of this market. It didn't even take longer than I expected, and I wasn't spending every waking hour selling myself.
At the same time, I've got a friend that was employed doing network design in IT for a large insurance firm for over 20 years. He made an idiotic mistake, and believed some dot-com fraudster who promised him a massively higher salary, so he left his job. He didn't get paid what he was told, so he left, and his department at his old company had been dissolved. If he had stayed, he would have gotten severance that he could have retired on.
Admittedly, it's his mistake, but he's been out of work and searching for a year. I assume that by now he's not looking for a tech job. Before the beginning of the bubble, I believe someone would have been willing to hire him because of his skills. Now, there are many people with comparable skills, not experience, that are out of work and in their twenties. Able to work for peanuts. My friend is hurt by his mistake, and also by the bubble.
A novel is a great way to explain your ideals. It's a terrible way to prove them.
Oh, come on. There's plenty of reason to believe that the first amendment and article 1 section 8 clause 8 were both intended to be in effect at the same time. You've got to make the next leap, from Randian quote-artist (not that you're doing that here) to a framer-focused constitutionalist.
The folks that wrote and agreed to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 were all still paying attention when the first amendment was accepted (which was before anyone started ratifying anything). The folks that wrote the first amendment were all still paying attention when the first copyright law was enacted. If we used the standard of "what they said, not what they meant", we'd be in a really sorry place right now. Thankfully, given the writings at the time, we can usually tell what they meant. The framers intended a copyright. I'd also point out that they probably only imagined their copyright would apply to printed books, but... that's up to congress. Really. It's easy to read the constitution that way. It's hard to read it the way you describe.
Your point about the limited times discussion is almost exactly right. In all other portions of the constitution, where the constitution describes a limit, that is interpretted to mean that there is a real ability that the congress does not have. Given the current system of continuous extension, there is no real ability that congress loses due to the "limited times" section of the clause. If the framers did not intend for there to be a loss of governmental ability, then why did they describe a limit?
Also, as a Randian capitalist, you should know exactly what Britney Spears (or her album) is useful for: You can sell it! If they didn't want 1.8.8 to apply to such frivolous works, then their first copyright law would have been criticized. It waren't.
You are, of course, totally correct that the constitution doesn't grant copyright. Congress could make a law tomorrow that no new works will have a copyright.
In your summary, you say, "Stevens asked whether a retrospective extension that does promote progress is permissible. Lessig said yes. Stevens then said that the 1998 law, at least on its face, does that. Lessig: well, that's the government's position. Stevens: but that's what you just said. Lessig: no, Congress still has to abide by the constitutional limits. We were all confused."
I can explain that, if you still desire. It's pretty straightforward. Lessig is suggesting that the 1998 law, does not, on it's face, promote progress. This is a big deal. I *wish* I had a transcript. Another slashdot post has an essential point: "While it was conceded by Lessig that Congress could not grant a copyright on a work currently in the public domain, Congress could grant an extended term conditioned on a promise to preserve and actively distribute a work."
In Lessig's reply brief, he makes the point that judicial precedent has been set that there must be a quid-pro-quo for a retroactive extension. If congress said, "You can have a retroactive extension if you republish your work," or, "You can have a retroactive extension if you send congress a check for $5," then there would be an exchange, and it would be constitutional.
Unfortunately, I don't understand why this distinction exists. He says that it's due to judicial precedent, and *not* the constitutional stipulation on promoting progress. I'm not positive that the distinction is valid. It seems to be the very most core point, and none of the media is discussing it. Do you understand the point I'm making? Can you tell me if they spoke about that subject in further depth?
Anyway, hopefully Stevens will see that Lessig was not being childish, and was not reneging on his statement.
At the linked summary, it sounds like Lessig failed to address an essential portion of his argument. According to his reply brief, there is a huge difference between an equally applied retroactive extension and an equally applied proactive extension. He suggests, with references, that court precedent has shown that a retroactive extension requires a quid-pro-quo. If the law said copyrights were only extended for people that gave congress $5, or republished the work, or *something*, then the law would fly. Since there's no exchange, the law breaks judicial precedent.
I have *no* idea if this argument is correct. Please do not rely on my description of it. Read the brief (they're not hard to read at all). Is there a lawyer out there that can tell us if his quid-pro-quo argument is obviously valid, obviously wrong, or open for debate?
Does it make a difference if an essential point is only made in a brief, but not in oral arguments?
Am I misunderstanding the argument, or how it applies?
1) Nice troll. IHBT. IHL. IWHAND.
2) The people carping are not necessarily the same ones advising patents right now.
3) If this idea is innovative (I doubt it) then the complainers could advise a patent here, and their position would be completely non-contradictory.
4) What bigotry about lawyers? I haven't noticed any.
5) You are a member of the class "You people".
I can't wait until an enterprising Japenese company makes similar-scale r/c helicopters. I'd buy one in a heartbeat
I thought the same thing when they came out with the remote control mice: Yeah, that's cool. But how about a remote control hummingbird? That would be *tight*.
Surely these can't be Microsoft CDs!?! According to a KB article at Microsoft.com, "Disks are duplicated on a variety of industrial strength, quality focused systems. Most of these systems are UNIX-based. The UNIX-based duplication systems used in manufacturing are impervious to MS-DOS-based, Windows-based, and Macintosh-based viruses."
Um. I can't tell if you're kidding or not, so I'll bite:
It doesn't matter what kind of computer runs the machine that copies the CDs. The machine that creates the master CD could have a virus, and infect an executable on the CD. I'm sure microsoft has a number of failsafes in order to make sure that this master CD doesn't have a virus on it, but having a unix computer run the duplication machine is not one of those failsafes.
Well, fair 'nuff.
I should point out that it was in a psych course on personality theory that I was briefly exposed to the subject of evolutionary psychology. Even the guest lecturers who discussed it were totally up front about the lack of experimental data on the subject.
It's just a valuable way of looking at people. Not more valuable than many others. ydig?
Sometimes animals will freeze so that predators will not be able to see them. Sometimes they will play dead so that their potential predators will think they have been dead a long time and will not be good to eat.
Neither of those really fit the situation I'm talking about. I definitely can't think of an animal that does anything like it. It's a hypothesis, not a proven theory.
Fail? Define fail. Failed who? Try running Moz or IE on Mac OS X, then try running Chimera. It's succeeded with flying colors. It has no detractors. The only people that don't use it are the ones that can't be bothered to try. That is, of course, a substantial number of people, but while the developers are still getting paychecks...
Who failed?
Right. I exactly do not mean that there are genetic traits leading to suicide. I just mean that sometimes it is advantageous to die. Same for an individual cell as for a whole person. Individual cells have many more (and more codified) reasons.
And, aside from the metaphor:
You say, "Suicidal behaviors may or may not have been evolutionarily selected for, but could just be a part of the price we pay for other traits that are advantageous." I completely agree. That's exactly what I mean. I'm trying to suggest that one of the advantageous behaviors that lead modern humans to commit suicide might have been suicidal in the first place. Now, since our environment/society has changed faster than our genetics, those tendencies are engaged in all kinds of incorrect situations.
Also, I'm not trying to take credit for the idea. I hope I haven't totally misrepresented the proponents of evolutionary psychology.
Um, force how? If they want to apply economic pressure to us to do something, that's completely fair. Compromising is fine. When the US signed all it's current economic treaties, none of them were under military duress. (I say that with confidence, but if you'd like to dispute that, please do.) If we threaten to disrupt trade in order to secure an agreement, well... that's our right. Please describe the type of pressure we've used. I wouldn't know about it.
I'm discussing military force. The UK could not (and would not) say "Give us Most Favored Nation trade status, or we'll go to war with you." Even if we did not have such a substantial military, the rest of the world would come to our aid.
Anyway. I don't believe that my views are asymmetrical. I'm not a nationalist. "All men were created equal" applies to non-Americans just the same. The circular definition of "in our best interest" is essential. Compromise is often in our best interest.
So, if you're a furrinner, and you're angry at me... well, you've assumed something.
Well, it's come in very handy for me. Saved me money. Perhaps I'm the only one.
Evolutionary psychology has pointed out that it is possible for suicide to be evolutionarily advantageous. If my existance makes it less likely that my genes will be replicated, then it would be evolutionarily advantageous for me to kill myself.
For example, if I am a large drain on my family, and I'll never be able to have children, and I'll just make it harder for my siblings to get by, then my existence will make it harder for my (siblings) genes to be replicated.
Of course, this is almost never actually the case. But it makes sense that perhaps it used to be, when we didn't have such a easy time surviving. Now those same urges, that may have made sense when most people died by the time they were 30, are completely out of place.
Same basic concept.
It doesn't matter if Adobe had a change of heart. The Feds would have had to have done the same exact thing either way. Otherwise they lose their shiny little law. That's all I'm saying.
No need to jump to conclusions about my reasoning.
Um, it's pretty straightforward.
The courts in the Netherlands has said that distributing Kazaa is not illegal. That's where the servers are.
The court in LA could say it's illegal for those servers to do what they're doing. They may decide that they have jurisdiction because they are communicating with Americans. Punishable by the DMCA, whatever.
When the folks from Sharman Networks next fly to the US, federal agents could be waiting for them. It'll be up to Holland to decide if extradition treaties apply.
The jurisdictional problem would be the same if some folks in Holland built a bomb-mailer, and had some Danes set it up for them. The bomb-mailer then sent mail bombs to the US and killed Jack Valenti. The only difference is that those actions are much more clearly illegal. This copyright issue is more vague. It's a matter of degrees.
We can decide if it's illegal. It involves American people on American soil. We can only pressure other countries to extradite. They might want us to extradite their criminals at some point in the future.
Don't get me wrong, I do not feel that Sharman/the developers should get messed with. But this is how international law has always worked, and will always work. Furrinners might get upset that the US can apply more pressure than other countries. I'm curious what they might suggest we do to eliminate that problem. They can't *make* us agree to something that isn't in our best interests, and they shouldn't be able to. That would be a at least as warlike than we've ever been.
Also, you do not make this mistake, but I'd like to bring it up: In my (limited) discussion of US foreign policy with non-US citizens, they'll frequently become angry with me, even when I agree with them. I've been treated like an ignorant cretin by people that were respecting my advice only moments earlier. This came up most often in discussions of the Vietnam War.
I'm anti-war. My dad was a consciencious (sp?) objector, and would have served prison time rather than kill Vietnamese. It seems like in discussions like this, many people are happy to return to nationalism and assume that members of other countries are necesarily idiots. Again, these are people that both knew and liked me.
Iduno. I'm moving to Golden Rule when they build it.
Yes, phones are locked:
1) If you buy them with a discount from your service provider.
2) You are under contract to your provider.
It's basically a way to make sure you don't walk away with a free phone. If you buy your phone from a manufacturer (expensive) you're phone is not locked. If you buy your phone from a provider and you stay with them for the duration of your contract, you can request that they remove the lock. If you terminate your contract and pay the early termination fee ($200 usually) then you can also request that your service provider unlock your phone.
Also, the only CDMA providers I know of are Sprint and Verizon. I've never heard that you can move your phone between these providers. Are there other CDMA providers I've never heard of?
I agree that locking phones is fucked up. That's the whole point of having good credit. I'm not walking out on my contract.