Sand is a nice idea. Another thing to try might be a nice thick layer of rubber cement. Pour it into the envelope, flatten it out, and visualize the meeting with the letter opener (human or automatic).
is that this is a prime, well exposed example of how hackers are beneficial to business and society, rather than the parasites media typically portrays them as.
What shortage? We get tons of people that apply for our IT positions here...
farmers, lawyers, teachers, child-care workers, nuclear waste disposal engineers, israeli air force pilots...
Yes, these are -actual- applicants. What's sad is that these are some of the ones that make it through the first screening... yikes.
Question, do you guys find that most IT people like to be specialists, or do they seem to prefer a wide variety of problems to tackle? Or do you get equal numbers of each kind of person?
Which, if any, of your arguments do you regret having presented to the court? What do you now see as your own stumbling blocks in your case?
For example, your argument that since CSS uses weak encryption, it is not 'effective' thus plaintiff's Section 1201(a)(2)(A) does not apply. This seems to be an argument that probably served only to anger Kaplan further (as characterized in his ruling). Another example is your argument that "the copyright holder has no statutory right to prohibit decryption" (ruling, page 31, footnote 137) which Kaplan calls 'pure sophistry'.
Might any of these apparently hostile words be used later to argue that he has an obvious bias here?
Which, if any, of your arguments do you regret having presented to the court? What do you now see as your own stumbling blocks in your case?
For example, your argument that since CSS uses weak encryption, it is not 'effective' thus plaintiff's Section 1201(a)(2)(A) does not apply. This seems to be an argument that probably served only to anger Kaplan further (as characterized in his ruling). Another example is your argument that "the copyright holder has no statutory right to prohibit decryption" (ruling, page 35) which Kaplan calls 'pure sophistry'.
Might any of these apparently hostile words be used later to argue that he has an obvious bias here?
Who cares if he pulled the number out of his ass, can you really dispute his point that the vast majority of music downloaded from Napster is NOT from unsigned artists?
Slashdot Mirror
Sand is a nice idea. Another thing to try might be a nice thick layer of rubber cement. Pour it into the envelope, flatten it out, and visualize the meeting with the letter opener (human or automatic).
Section 304 (Score:-4, Offtopic) Bill invalidated.
I would like to patent the business process of filing a lawsuit. Then I can sue everyone who sues anyone.
is that this is a prime, well exposed example of how hackers are beneficial to business and society, rather than the parasites media typically portrays them as.
What shortage? We get tons of people that apply for our IT positions here... farmers, lawyers, teachers, child-care workers, nuclear waste disposal engineers, israeli air force pilots... Yes, these are -actual- applicants. What's sad is that these are some of the ones that make it through the first screening... yikes. Question, do you guys find that most IT people like to be specialists, or do they seem to prefer a wide variety of problems to tackle? Or do you get equal numbers of each kind of person?
Which, if any, of your arguments do you regret having presented to the court? What do you now see as your own stumbling blocks in your case? For example, your argument that since CSS uses weak encryption, it is not 'effective' thus plaintiff's Section 1201(a)(2)(A) does not apply. This seems to be an argument that probably served only to anger Kaplan further (as characterized in his ruling). Another example is your argument that "the copyright holder has no statutory right to prohibit decryption" (ruling, page 31, footnote 137) which Kaplan calls 'pure sophistry'. Might any of these apparently hostile words be used later to argue that he has an obvious bias here?
Which, if any, of your arguments do you regret having presented to the court? What do you now see as your own stumbling blocks in your case? For example, your argument that since CSS uses weak encryption, it is not 'effective' thus plaintiff's Section 1201(a)(2)(A) does not apply. This seems to be an argument that probably served only to anger Kaplan further (as characterized in his ruling). Another example is your argument that "the copyright holder has no statutory right to prohibit decryption" (ruling, page 35) which Kaplan calls 'pure sophistry'. Might any of these apparently hostile words be used later to argue that he has an obvious bias here?
Who cares if he pulled the number out of his ass, can you really dispute his point that the vast majority of music downloaded from Napster is NOT from unsigned artists?