So, System|Preferences|Network Connections (there's no "Network Configuration" item), | Mobile Broadband, Add, "Era" (it's my provider). Insert dongle, pick "modem" function on the phone, select IRDA as method of connection, Activate, place facing the dongle.
What next? 'Cause nothing happens, and the Network Applet doesn't display any new options?
I've never done this and, unfortunately, it does not seem like there is a convenient GUI yet. However, from what I gather there are two steps: 1) get your IR dongle to communicate with the IrDA stack and 2) configure PPP over IrDA.
It sounds like you have the first step already done. I don't know what kind of hardware you have, but you can follow the steps here (scroll about midway down) to make sure it works with IrDA. The two potential hangups I can see are a conflict with the serial port (see the notes on FIR mode) or a conflict with the ir-usb driver (see the notes on dongles). In both cases it may seem like the hardware is ok (ie: you will see a device entry), but attempts to communicate with the hardware will fail. You may need to blacklist the relevant drivers if they are problematic.
Once you know the IR hardware is working properly, you should be able to use NetworkManager to configure the ppp connection. If that doesn't work, you can try gnome-ppp. This is where you "modprobe irnet" and use/dev/irnet as your device.
I'm guessing you have a USB dongle, so try this and see what happens: > rmmod ir-usb > modprobe irda-usb > plug in dongle, monitor dmesg output > irattach irda0 -s > modprobe irnet > gnome-ppp
I agree this is an area that needs some work in Ubuntu.
It disables network connection over WiFi. The card remains switched on, the blue LED is lit, the card continues to draw battery. I can launch Kismet for example and it will work just fine.
I've never heard of this before. Which script are you running and how?
It's not that volume control doesn't work. It's the mute key on the keyboard that doesn't.
This should work, but maybe the keybindings aren't setup with the right keycodes. Try System|Preferences|Keyboard Shortcuts first. If that doesn't work, have a look at this to troubleshoot it.
Just out of curiosity...did you install from scratch or upgrade? Do you have the package eeepc-acpi-scripts installed?
Now there's no mouse cursor, the system doesn't react to keystrokes, it won't even switch to console (ctrl-alt-F1).
I don't know what the problem is. Have you tried Ekiga? You can also try running Cheese in a terminal to see if it gives you an error message of some kind.
Some of the stuff you mention does have problems, but other stuff is complete bullshit.
- configure GPRS modem over IRDA. In XP, place it close to the dongle, install a program from the CD, enter some info about your phone provider in a friendly dialog. In Linux I get somewhere between irdaping and irdadump with irattach not working correctly so that I could try to send AT commands to/dev/ircomm0
System|Preferences|Network Configuration
- Toggle WiFi on/off. Windows: FN+F2. Linux: supposedly run a script in/etc/acpi. Doesn't work.
Applet in the top right corner of the screen.
- Rotate the screen 90 degrees. Windows: properties, rotate 90 degrees. Linux: nope, you can do 180 degrees only.
System|Preferences|Screen Resolution
- Mute. Windows: FN+F7. Linux: Hold FN+F8 till volume drops to zero. Pressing FN+F7 turns it off for a fraction of second then it's back. There is a script that fixes that. It doesn't work.
Applet in the top right corner of the screen.
- Use the camera: Windows: detected out of the box. Linux - don't even get me started, took me about 4 hours.
Install the package Cheese. Apparently it is not installed by default.
Seriously, people like you drive me crazy. Just because you don't know how to do it and you haven't taken even a small amount of time to explore the interface and learn about the configuration apps doesn't mean it can't be done or the app isn't there. Yes, there are some hardware problems. I don't know about the tablet, touchpad, or GPS, but >90% of the time linux (ubuntu) works fine with everything I throw at it.
Now why in the hell can't some Linux developer develop an "Ndiswrapper" for printers?
Thinking about this a bit more, you don't actually need a GDI interpretor, like I suggested in my previous post. You just need something to convert to the same raster format GDI uses and passes on to the printer driver. I'm not sure how easy that is, but it should be doable. The tricky part would be executing the vendor driver under linux because that last conversion step still has to occur in software. You wouldn't want to have to bundle winelib with CUPS to support Winprinters.
Uuuhh....CUPS [cups.org] is a printer spec, specifically the Common Unix Printing System.
Yes, that is correct. All-in-ones are more complicated than standalone printers, of course. For the scanning, you would have to write a Sane backend. Faxing isn't really all that different from printing. You need a way to send some extra information along with the document (like the phone number), so that makes your driver a little more complicated, but not by much. One possible way to do this: 1) create a separate fax queue which when printed to using CUPS indicates that this is a fax job, 2) have your driver pop up a dialog asking for the phone number when a document is sent through the fax queue, 3) convert to your printer/fax's language and send it off.
I believe this is how the HPLIP system works. Heck, you could probably just piggyback off of the HPLIP project, assuming there are no licensing issues, by providing your own device backend. Then you have a really easy job.
And how is that easier than simply writing 3 drivers and never having to touch it again?
I thought it was self-explanatory. Write a driver that works with CUPS/Foomatic and that is all you will ever need to do.
Can you guarantee the printer manufacturers that the CUPS that is in release right now will still work 11+ years from now with no maintenance? Can you guarantee even 5 years with zero maintenance?
Zero maintenance is a bit of hyperbole for any system, including Windows. But, in general yes, write a driver now for CUPS/Foomatic and it will be good for a long time.
Considering how fast changes are coming to the kernel and the other underpinnings that make up Linux I kinda doubt it.
This has nothing to do with the kernel. All printer drivers are in userspace.
That is why it is easy to write drivers for Windows. Nothing changes. Maybe in another 5 years when everything has settled down in Linux it too will become that easy.
Some parts of Linux are volatile and others aren't. When it comes to printer drivers, there are several ways to write them, but the easiest would be something that converts Postscript to your printer language. Ghostscript is pretty standard just about everywhere and does half the work for you (interpreting the postscript file). All you have to do is convert the device-independent raster file to your printer language (essentially what the GDI printer drivers in Windows do). If you do that, you have a stable driver. Even if Ghostscript or CUPS are modified, the device-independent raster file format likely won't, so you shouldn't need to do anything to your driver once it is written.
Everything is changing so damned fast in Linux I just don't see it getting drivers from the Lexmarks of this world unless the Linux community does it themselves like they did with Ndis and the Winmodem. It is simply evolving too fast and has too few marketshare to make the expense worth it and as I said in the earlier post most companies are simply never going to release their specs, so if they can't release a single binary blob and be done with it like they can Windows then the one being hurt in the long run will be Linux adoption.
NDIS and Winmodems are different because they require a kernel interface. That said, NVidia manages to maintain a binary blob alongside the ever evolving kernel without too much trouble. They use an open source shim, which when combined with DKMS, as it is in many linux distributions, allows for a binary driver that works fairly well across distributions without a lot of extra work on NVidia's part. As for not releasing specs, if your driver is simply converting GDI to whatever your printer language is, I don't see why you wouldn't want to open source it. Unlike a video card, there isn't much of a case to be made for protecting a competitive advantage.
And as for why Lexmark doesn't support Linux? Frankly they would be nuts to even attempt it. Let us be honest here: a manufacturer can make a grand total of 3 drivers and support Windows from 1998-2011.
They wouldn't need to support Linux, just CUPS. Sounds a lot easier to me than writing and maintaining three Windows drivers. With CUPS, you get the added advantage of having a driver that works on all Unix-like operating systems (including OS X) spanning several decades. The disadvantage is that if you want the community to maintain it, it has to be open source. The standard arguments (trade secrets, etc) don't seem to apply to these things, though.
Can you even get a 3 year old program to work reliably in the latest distro?
You are probably right about the cheap Lexmark's. Although a quick look at openprinting.org shows plenty of supported Lexmark's. I imagine all of the "paperweights" are the cheap or all-in-ones you mentioned.
However, all things considered, I would say Linux has fantastic printing support. Far more than just "business network lasers." The problem with the cheap Lexmark's is that they use a proprietary printer language (not PS or PCL). The Foomatic printer drivers provide a way to support these languages, but if someone has to reverse engineer it, it can take a while. The upside is if you reverse engineer it once, you can usually support a whole class of printers (ex: hpijs driver for many HP printers). If Lexmark were more cooperative, this might happen faster (the reason hpijs exists is because HP wrote it).
As for a "GDIwrapper", GDI+ is an entire graphics subsystem. It is not trivial to write a wrapper. That said, it looks like the Mono project has a library to convert GDI+ to Cairo. That puts you about halfway to a GDIwrapper for printing. You still need an EMF backend for Cairo, and you would want to be independent of Mono, which may or may not be a simple matter. Maybe somebody can take this on and solve the "Winprinter" problem.
The reason TPB is not let off the hook, the court argues, is basically that a service provider is only allowed to keep copies of data for the duration required by the transmission, if they are to be held without responsibility. And TPB keeps.torrent files.
Ok, I agree that is a shaky argument to make. I don't think it is an argument that can ever be made against Google (the original topic) or any number of other search engines, though, because of the specific circumstances. If it ever is, I will have to eat my words, but as of now I am not alarmed by this verdict.
Because they act on takedown notices, their situation is different from TPBs. But where do you draw the line? How much effort is required preventing infringement? That, we do not know.
In gestures of good faith, there are rarely strictly defined lines. So I cannot answer your question. But if they felt they were acting in good faith, then that is at least an argument they could use in their defense with examples to back it up. Unfortunately, they were not able to use that in this case, but it was their own doing.
If you set up a public BitTorrent tracker/search engine, you can be sure people will use it for copyright infringement. What this verdict says is that you can not take a neutral stance as to what people are doing with this service (like slashdot does with comments, for instance).
There are ways to discourage such use, such as requiring registration and logging IPs. You are correct in that the neutral stance position is being threatened, but there is a dilemma here, and this goes back to one my original arguments. On Slashdot there is plenty to say and talk about without engaging in things like libel, or copyright infringement. So, for the most part, that doesn't happen on Slashdot. That makes Slashdot's position in court much more defensible if they are ever accused of being an accessory.
BitTorrent is a protocol specifically designed for the efficient exchange of large files. It just so happens that most large files people wish to exchange are copyrighted media/software files. Several Linux distributions run trackers to distribute isos, but there really isn't a lot of other activity out there. Smaller files are more efficiently distributed via HTTP or FTP, so most people don't bother setting up a tracker if that is all they are doing (ex: distributing code they have written or images they have created). So public trackers like TPB end up primarily used for copyright infringement. Neutral stance or not, that makes their position much harder to defend in court.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big fan of the media conglomerates. I do think copyright is overused and abused, but I'm not going to pretend TPB is without fault. I know a lot of people on Slashdot are anti-censorship, and I value free speech as well, but I don't see why we should defend sites that are serving limited constructive or legal purpose, and are instead used almost entirely for illicit activities.
1) Not irrelevant at all. If you think so, please elaborate. The question at hand is, does TPB assist in acts of copyright infringement? My argument is yes, because it runs a tracker that facilitates said infringement. Before you respond, you might want to read the rest of my posts on this subject.
2) Have you ever used either Google or TPB? I would hardly call my statement baseless speculation. However, if you can tally up some numbers for me indicating it is not true, I will accept that.
3) Again, please elaborate. I think I've explained my position well enough in other posts.
So your entire argument is basically BS.
Thanks for contributing to a constructive discussion of the article.
It would seem that according to the court, providing the.torrent file relating to copyrighted material constitutes making that material available, or at least helping in making it available.
The.torrent files are downloaded from their website. So, yes, they are provided by TPB. The.torrent files do contain the critical information needed to setup a torrent swarm with the TPB tracker. So, again yes, TPB is aiding and abetting copyright infringement.
The people behind TPB were convicted for helping making 33 specific films/music albums available, even though they were not aware of these particular files.
This is the key. Did they know about the infringement taking place using their service? It is quite clear they did. Everybody is aware of the content available on TPB, so the operators were most certainly aware of it. They were also informed of it, but did nothing to stop it. They can deny that they knew about 33 specific instances, but who is actually going to believe they don't know their service is used for massive copyright infringement and little else?
Well, if you don't have a DNS, which in a sense are the trackers of the web, you would have to know the (current) IP of the site you want to connect to.
No, not really. See, this is the problem. If you generalize enough, you can remove all significant distinctions from everything. I mean a semi-truck and a pickup truck pulling a trailer are essentially the same things right? So why do you need special training and a license to drive a semi-truck?
A tracker, as the name implies, tracks connections between peers, and the distribution of file chunks, and the verification of checksums. Neither Google nor a DNS is involved as intimately in a given transaction as a BitTorrent tracker.
Should we accept effectively banning one way of exchanging information and not the other?
No, but nobody is banning all BitTorrent trackers, just as they aren't banning all search engines. A collection of copyright holders identified one tracker being used for primarily illegal purposes and are attempting to have it shut down because it is the easiest (albeit probably futile) way of killing the torrent swarms facilitated by it.
But my question is, should the attitude make the difference between breaking the law and not breaking the law?
Certainly not. But it is hard to argue innocence in a case like this if clear copyright violations are brought to your attention and, in addition to simply refusing to comply with a takedown notice, you publicly display your contempt for copyright law.
Especially if you do not think what you are doing is illegal.
Well, there is a civil way to resolve such disputes...a courtroom and a judge. You can have a lawyer assure you are in compliance all you want, but legal gray areas like this are ultimately decided in the courts. If you are found to be in the wrong, a judge is more likely to be lenient with regard to reparations if you conduct yourself in a mature and responsible way throughout the process.
Would Google not index an ordinary HTML web page where someone threw up an MPEG file containing a newly-released movie and a description? What if someone else provided a web page containing a collection of links to such pages, with the actual content provided elsewhere?
Well, a copyright holder could request Google remove the page from their index, but as I said in a different post, it's fairly futile to do that. What a copyright holder can do instead, though, with help from Google, is find the actual website hosting the infringing material. This may still be somewhat futile, but less futile than simply removing an index entry.
That's all that's going on here, and it is the fundamental problem.
No, it really isn't. Again, as I've posted elsewhere, the index of torrent files is secondary to TPB's function as a tracker. The BitTorrent tracker more or less directly facilitates transactions between peers, and the process can't happen without it.
Are book publishers going to start suing libraries that provide their card catalogs on-line next? Are librarians destined to go to jail for aiding copyright infringement every time they point a potential copyright infringer towards the material they are searching for?
Well, if librarians notice copyright infringement, it is their responsibility to either stop it or notify authorities. Most users of libraries, however, operate within the realm of fair use.
But this reflects what the users do, not any conscious plan on the part of TPB.
Perhaps, but that makes it harder to argue in favor of the operation. TPB has the option of removing inappropriate torrents, which they do not. If TPB is used mostly for illegal file-sharing, there isn't much to say to defend it. It is one thing to say a service can be used to share files illegally, and another to say it is being used to share files illegally.
YouTube is filled to the brim with unauthorized copyrighted material that does not qualify for "fair use".
Yes, you are correct. But Google will remove such material if a copyright holder brings it to their attention.
I've seen examples of my own technical pictures, provided on my personal web site, indexed and cached in Google's image cache, that have been illegally used by someone else on the web. So, should I be suing Google, or should I go after the infringer? Apparently, according to TPB verdict, Google should also be hearing from my lawyers. After all, they're the one letting other people find that illicitly-copied material of mine.
Several things:
the Google image cache is within the realm of fair use,
on top of that they only store a small thumbnail,
they display a copyright notice when they show the thumbnail and publish a link to the image,
and they show the context from which the image was taken so users can see it is part of a website and not deprive the website of ad revenue.
One can say Google has made a good faith effort to prevent copyright infringement while still allowing content to be found. I don't think that argument can be made for TPB.
Given how ridiculous the expectations of some copyright holders are even in the case of dealing with Google (e.g., not wanting Google to provide an index and brief, fair-use-qualifying excerpt of news articles), I just don't have a lot of sympathy with laws that are pushed so far towards copyright holders wishes (and a pony)
I generally agree. But if you look at the legal notices on TPB, many of them are very reasonable requests for removal of explicitly infringing torrents. It's a simple matter to remove them, so they should just do it. Telling them to "sodomize themselves with retractable batons" is not a good way to respond to legal notices. Whether or not copyright is abused and over-leveraged is beside the point. Regardless of what you might think about copyr
Google tells me where to find torrent trackers. A torrent tracker tells me where to find a torrent. A torrent tells me where to find bytes 1000-3000 of a file.
TPB is a torrent tracker. A torrent tracker tells me where to find a torrent. A torrent tells me where to find bytes 1000-3000 of a file.
I would say it is pretty different. After Google provides the link to the tracker, it has no other part in the process. TPB, however, is required from the very beginning of the process to the end. There would be no way for the transaction to take place without TPB saying, "Hey, here's a list of peers, here's a list of checksums, that guy over there has these chunks, this guy has those, you have this many chunks you can share with other people, etc."
Remember the case against Napster? Napster never hosted any of the infringing content, but they were essential (in some ways less essential than TPB), to the process of connecting peers together so they could share files.
If TPB simply hosted a searchable index of places to download torrent files, and individual users had to run their own trackers, that would be a lot different (and more like what Google does). That would never work, though, because the anonymity of the process is what makes it appealing to most people.
The WWW would not function without DNSs and search engines like Google
The web would function without Google, it just wouldn't be very useful. Services like Google make it more pleasant to use. Without Google, I can still access any publicly available website.
BitTorrent would not function without trackers and search engines like TPB.
That is correct. Without a tracker and a.torrent file, there would be no way to find peers and piece together the shared content.
The correct equivalent would be Google removing links from search results.
Which they will do if it is brought to their attention. The thing is, it's not very helpful because if the page changes it will be reindexed. And other search engines will also have that page indexed. So, it is pretty futile to send takedown notices like that, and most copyright holders won't bother.
So it's their attitude that is the problem?
As I've said in other posts, your willingness to cooperate can help your case. There is a difference between breaking the law and breaking the law with contempt. They will be treated differently in a courtroom.
So TPB is a website that contains a user-editable index of links people wish to share with others?
No, TPB is a user-editable index of torrents, which contain hashes of the file to be shared and a tracker url. TPB is also a tracker (or set of trackers) that file-sharers use to coordinate the exchange of chunks of the files so that they can be put together in the right order. It is a distributed version of what Napster used to be.
So what percentage of legal/illegal content should there be that tips you from completely innocent to doing jail time?
It's not about percentage of content. It's about intent. If the vast majority of the Google index is links to legally shared content, and they make efforts to removed links to illegally shared content when it is brought to their attention, one can argue that their intent is entirely innocent. If the opposite is the case, that argument is much harder to make.
Google is based in the USA and subject to US law. TPB is based in Sweden and is under Swedish law. TPB is quite under its rights to refuse US take-down notices and understandable to be rude to US companies trying to bully it with false legal threats.
Yeah, well fine, let's see how far it gets them. Copyright law is fairly universal. The provisions of things like fair use vary from country to country, but even in Sweden it is not legal to rip a copyrighted movie and distribute it to everybody for free. While TPB is not doing this directly, they are facilitating the process. Their unwillingness to comply with takedown notices, whether in the right jurisdiction or not, says a lot about their intent.
What that means is that the precedent that is being set could be used against google and others in the future...
I don't really see how that is possible. I'm not sure if the legality of search engines like Google has been tested, but if somebody wanted to, there are plenty of small fish to fry to set precedent. TPB is really not the same thing, so I don't see how it could be used in a case against Google.
Well, it's not so much the method of index creation that matters. What matters is that Google provides a general service for finding content on any publicly available website it has access to (while respecting robots.txt, etc). TPB provides a specific service of finding.torrent content that other people have explicitly indicated they are willing to share. They then go a step further and facilitate that transaction.
Btw, immatureness isn't yet punishable by law.
No, but your willingness to comply with takedown notices is factored in cases like these. It is quite simple for TPB to remove infringing torrents if they are brought to their attention. They refuse to do so. That doesn't help their case.
Despite what you want to believe, your willingness to comply with notices of copyright infringement on your website says a lot about your intent and motivation. The maturity of your responses indicate your respect for other people and the law. A judge will take all of this into account when rendering a verdict and determining what reparations, if any, need to be made.
So are you saying that "making available" information is equivalent to a grant of copyright license when a website does it, but its a copyright violation when TPB does it ?
No, reread what I said. I said the degree to which Google and TPB assist in the process of copyright infringement is vastly different. There is no granting of a copyright license.
Look, there'a a huge difference between Google and TPB. It's willfully obtuse to pretend there isn't.
1) Google crawls the Internet and indexes content for searching. It presents search results in the form of hyperlinks to the sites of the people providing the content (exactly the way the WWW was intended to work). Yeah yeah, there is Google Cache, Google News, and Youtube, which occasionally gets them into trouble, but they make efforts to carefully remain within the realm of fair use, including removing copyrighted material from Youtube. One could argue that the WWW would not be able to function without search engines like Google.
TPB, on the other hand, is a website that contains a user-editable index of torrent files people are willing to share. In other words, TPB doesn't crawl for general content that is already publicly available. TPB then facilitates the transactions between users by functioning as a tracker. Torrents are useless without a tracker, so this is a critical difference. Google would not be able to provide the same service as TPB. Yes, you can find torrents via Google, but that is because Google has indexed a tracker like TPB and is just linking to their site.
2) Most of the content accessible through Google is legal, in the sense that the people who own the copyright have shared it explicitly on their website, which is crawled by Google. Most of the content on TPB is not legal, in the sense that the people sharing the files do not own the copyright and are not within the realm of fair use.
3) The content in both Google's search index and TPB's website is trivial to update to remove content that is in violation of copyright. Google willingly does so, usually at the notice of copyright holders. Google also removes content they don't necessarily have to, like Google Streetview images, when requested. TPB consistently refuses to remove content brought to its attention, and often responds with rude, immature, and insulting remarks.
Everybody stop pretending Google and TPB provide the same service. They just don't. Period.
Well, right, isn't that what I just said? If you don't have any interest in linux, why are you trying to get it to work with your hardware? Why do you care if it doesn't work with your hardware? And how does complaining about it loudly, while simultaneously refusing suggested workarounds, help anybody?
If hardware doesn't work with Linux, it's not Linux's fault, but it IS a problem for them.
You keep saying that, but I don't think you realize that linux developers/users/advocates can't do much about this problem. What can be done is already being done. See the Linux Driver Project for example. With limited to no cooperation from certain hardware manufacturers there isn't much more that can be done.
So, you're right, it is a problem, but solving it requires more than a bunch of linux developers deciding they want to solve it. We already have that. It requires cooperation from manufacturers, which is a continual work-in-progress, and it requires users to put a little pressure on manufacturers by voting with their wallet. This is a problem that has to be worked on by everybody who has an interest in linux. You can't put the responsibility entirely on one subgroup.
Or you could just tell people about the source, and let them decide whether or not to trust it.
They already do to some extent. It is your job as a juror, for example, to determine whether a witness is recounting events truthfully or accurately. But it's not reasonable or necessary for a juror to understand and take into account all of the minutia of evidence gathering. If you don't have any science training, how are you supposed to know about the likelihood of false positives or the likelihood of mishandling the equipment? In the case of proper legal procedure, it isn't a juror's option to disregard evidence not obtained with a search warrant. It is an obligation. Not presenting the evidence is the best way to keep it from being considered.
It's based on decisions which have been made in the past, by people, and by the judge's personal judgment about the applicability of such prior rulings. The theory is that as long as our court system is consistent, that makes it fair.
Yes and no. Decisions on admissible evidence are usually based on multiple rulings, so the whims of a single judge don't control the whole system. Decisions can also be reversed by other cases or higher courts. The system adapts as the needs present. It's arbitrary, but it's controlled, consistent, and supported by experience.
But that only has any meaning in the context of your emotions. Why do you wish to cross the street? Why do you wish not to be hit by a car while doing so? The core of every decision and judgment is an emotional response.
I never said I was trying to cross the street. I was just observing the cars. Yes it is possible to just observe with no other motive. I'm not saying there isn't emotion somewhere, it just isn't part of the decision-making process.
I good juror is, in my opinion, someone who cares about the outcome.
Well, that's scary. A juror who has made up their mind based on how they feel and not on the facts presented isn't likely to be swayed by rational arguments. If you don't have an open and unbiased mind, how can you make a rational decision? If decisions aren't made rationally, they are made impulsively, and that, history tells, is likely to result in more injustice than what occurs in the present system.
People who claim to be driven by a rational process are lying.
People are not completely rational, yes. I've said that before. People can, however, discipline their minds to think rationally, some better than others. There is nothing wrong with emotions, but a decision is more justifiable and, in the case of someone's life, more conscionable if you can support it with rational arguments. That's not easy in some cases, but it can be done. You don't deny your emotions. You have to recognize and acknowledge them if you want to successfully work toward eliminating your biases.
The only reasonable standard for what information is admissible in court is that all information should be.
Nonsense. Unless, of course, you are advocating mob justice. At a minimum, admissible evidence needs to be screened for verifiability and proper procedure. Did the tech do the fingerprint test right? Did he do it multiple times and document it properly? Were proper search warrants obtained? Juries need to receive evidence from proper sources. The newspaper or Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Anything else is really just an arbitrary standard which has to be drawn by someone, and we know that people should not make such decisions because no one is beyond bias.
It's not all that arbitrary. The standard of admissible evidence is quite clear and agreed upon. It is based on documented court cases and legal experience. The problem of bias is solved by the appeal system.
All of our rational judgments are based on our emotional response to external stimuli.
Not true at all. If you are sitting at an intersection observing the movement of cars, you can logically deduce whether the traffic light is red or green. Naturally, this is dependent on a premise: cars move when the light is green and stop when the light is red, which may or may not be true. But, regardless, the decision is based on reason and is not an emotional response.
It is true that people are not completely rational. One big problem with matters of justice is that people can think they are being rational when they aren't. So the court rules have been determined and refined through experience to try to eliminate distractions that can lead to irrational decision-making. It's not perfect by any means, but it works fairly well.
People only care about something if they are emotionally involved in it, and they only give attention to things they care about.
You can care about being a good juror without being emotionally involved in the outcome.
But the reality is that they are. There is no point trying to turn a fantasy into reality by pretending, and it makes no sense to try to do that in a court of law, where peoples lives are on the line.
Hmmm, ok. So if you are falsely accused of rape and a court acquits you, it's perfectly fine for people to think you still committed rape and discriminate against you appropriately? Sounds like some great justice you have created there. It's true that people think the way they think and you can't control it much, but you can control how a court operates. A court should not use hearsay as evidence.
The jury can not be reasonably said to make its own decisions if relevant information is deliberately and systematically withheld from them.
If a person commits a crime, you should be able to make a rational determination based on evidence at the crime scene and maybe elsewhere. It should be safe to assume that the prosecution will put together a compelling case based on whatever they can find. The defense should do everything they can to question and bring doubt to the prosecutor's evidence, and the result should be a fairly balanced and unbiased presentation. It is not likely a jury member could do better in a few hours of surfing on the Internet. So that is all the information a jury needs to render a determination of fact.
Doesn't that mean that the judge is manipulating the jury's emotions (after all, avoiding them is manipulating them too). That is dishonest.
Perhaps. But the premise behind the justice system providing a fair trial is that the all of the participants, judge/jury/lawyers, are completely impartial and perfectly rational. Of course, this is not the case in reality, so the court system is designed to promote rational consideration of the case at hand as best as possible. If the jury starts making decisions based on their emotional biases instead of on presented evidence, the system breaks down. Some bias always remains, but that is why you get 12 jurors.
I think the question of relevance is best answered by the jurors, given that the resolution of the case is supposed to reflect their views and opinions.
Not really. Hundreds of years of case precedence determines relevance. Initially, relevance should be constrained to the current case, excluding such things as other ongoing prosecutions and racial prejudice. If there are other factors to consider (past criminal record of the defendant, psychological state of the witness, etc), the judge is in a better position to decide because he/she has the benefit of knowledge of past cases to help inform their decision, rationally. A jury member who serves the court for a few days maybe once every several years is not in that position.
"How about a case where a woman is charged with a crime and in the past lost her children to Child Protective Services. Should the fact that her children are in foster care be considered in her current case?"
Does the jury think it's relevant?
It doesn't matter what the jury thinks is relevant. If the prosecution wants to presents the case based on a motive involving Child Protective Services, and the judge allows it, then the jury gets to decide whether the motive was really there. The defense, of course, gets to make a counter-argument so the jury gets the benefit of two interpretations of a given testimony while they make their decision.
"It could cause members of the jury to vote guilty, not for the allegation in the case, but rather for the case he has already been acquitted of."
Like OJ Simpson? I'm going to be honest, I don't really have a problem with that.
You should. Another premise of our justice system is that a person declared innocent isn't haunted for the rest of his life by past allegations. Cases like OJ Simpson's happen, but they are rare.
There are weaknesses in the system for sure, but they are minimized by having multiple unrelated participants with strictly defined roles. If the jury starts assuming the duties of the judge, you undermine the ability of the court to provide a fair trial.
Actually, determining whether a witness or expert testimony is factual is precisely what the jury is supposed to do. If you doubt they are telling the truth, hopefully you have a reason for that (body language, contradictory testimony, etc) which you can use to support that opinion.
The lawyers simply determine who will testify...both lawyers get a chance to see evidence that will be presented ahead of time so they can prepare a counter-argument. The judge determines whether certain types of evidence are admissible.
Slashdot Mirror
So, System|Preferences|Network Connections (there's no "Network Configuration" item), | Mobile Broadband, Add, "Era" (it's my provider). Insert dongle, pick "modem" function on the phone, select IRDA as method of connection, Activate, place facing the dongle.
What next? 'Cause nothing happens, and the Network Applet doesn't display any new options?
I've never done this and, unfortunately, it does not seem like there is a convenient GUI yet. However, from what I gather there are two steps: 1) get your IR dongle to communicate with the IrDA stack and 2) configure PPP over IrDA.
It sounds like you have the first step already done. I don't know what kind of hardware you have, but you can follow the steps here (scroll about midway down) to make sure it works with IrDA. The two potential hangups I can see are a conflict with the serial port (see the notes on FIR mode) or a conflict with the ir-usb driver (see the notes on dongles). In both cases it may seem like the hardware is ok (ie: you will see a device entry), but attempts to communicate with the hardware will fail. You may need to blacklist the relevant drivers if they are problematic.
Once you know the IR hardware is working properly, you should be able to use NetworkManager to configure the ppp connection. If that doesn't work, you can try gnome-ppp. This is where you "modprobe irnet" and use /dev/irnet as your device.
I'm guessing you have a USB dongle, so try this and see what happens:
> rmmod ir-usb
> modprobe irda-usb
> plug in dongle, monitor dmesg output
> irattach irda0 -s
> modprobe irnet
> gnome-ppp
I agree this is an area that needs some work in Ubuntu.
It disables network connection over WiFi. The card remains switched on, the blue LED is lit, the card continues to draw battery. I can launch Kismet for example and it will work just fine.
I've never heard of this before. Which script are you running and how?
It's not that volume control doesn't work. It's the mute key on the keyboard that doesn't.
This should work, but maybe the keybindings aren't setup with the right keycodes. Try System|Preferences|Keyboard Shortcuts first. If that doesn't work, have a look at this to troubleshoot it.
Just out of curiosity...did you install from scratch or upgrade? Do you have the package eeepc-acpi-scripts installed?
Now there's no mouse cursor, the system doesn't react to keystrokes, it won't even switch to console (ctrl-alt-F1).
I don't know what the problem is. Have you tried Ekiga? You can also try running Cheese in a terminal to see if it gives you an error message of some kind.
Some of the stuff you mention does have problems, but other stuff is complete bullshit.
- configure GPRS modem over IRDA. In XP, place it close to the dongle, install a program from the CD, enter some info about your phone provider in a friendly dialog. In Linux I get somewhere between irdaping and irdadump with irattach not working correctly so that I could try to send AT commands to /dev/ircomm0
System|Preferences|Network Configuration
- Toggle WiFi on/off. Windows: FN+F2. Linux: supposedly run a script in /etc/acpi. Doesn't work.
Applet in the top right corner of the screen.
- Rotate the screen 90 degrees. Windows: properties, rotate 90 degrees. Linux: nope, you can do 180 degrees only.
System|Preferences|Screen Resolution
- Mute. Windows: FN+F7. Linux: Hold FN+F8 till volume drops to zero. Pressing FN+F7 turns it off for a fraction of second then it's back. There is a script that fixes that. It doesn't work.
Applet in the top right corner of the screen.
- Use the camera: Windows: detected out of the box. Linux - don't even get me started, took me about 4 hours.
Install the package Cheese. Apparently it is not installed by default.
Seriously, people like you drive me crazy. Just because you don't know how to do it and you haven't taken even a small amount of time to explore the interface and learn about the configuration apps doesn't mean it can't be done or the app isn't there. Yes, there are some hardware problems. I don't know about the tablet, touchpad, or GPS, but >90% of the time linux (ubuntu) works fine with everything I throw at it.
Now why in the hell can't some Linux developer develop an "Ndiswrapper" for printers?
Thinking about this a bit more, you don't actually need a GDI interpretor, like I suggested in my previous post. You just need something to convert to the same raster format GDI uses and passes on to the printer driver. I'm not sure how easy that is, but it should be doable. The tricky part would be executing the vendor driver under linux because that last conversion step still has to occur in software. You wouldn't want to have to bundle winelib with CUPS to support Winprinters.
Uuuhh....CUPS [cups.org] is a printer spec, specifically the Common Unix Printing System.
Yes, that is correct. All-in-ones are more complicated than standalone printers, of course. For the scanning, you would have to write a Sane backend. Faxing isn't really all that different from printing. You need a way to send some extra information along with the document (like the phone number), so that makes your driver a little more complicated, but not by much. One possible way to do this: 1) create a separate fax queue which when printed to using CUPS indicates that this is a fax job, 2) have your driver pop up a dialog asking for the phone number when a document is sent through the fax queue, 3) convert to your printer/fax's language and send it off.
I believe this is how the HPLIP system works. Heck, you could probably just piggyback off of the HPLIP project, assuming there are no licensing issues, by providing your own device backend. Then you have a really easy job.
And how is that easier than simply writing 3 drivers and never having to touch it again?
I thought it was self-explanatory. Write a driver that works with CUPS/Foomatic and that is all you will ever need to do.
Can you guarantee the printer manufacturers that the CUPS that is in release right now will still work 11+ years from now with no maintenance? Can you guarantee even 5 years with zero maintenance?
Zero maintenance is a bit of hyperbole for any system, including Windows. But, in general yes, write a driver now for CUPS/Foomatic and it will be good for a long time.
Considering how fast changes are coming to the kernel and the other underpinnings that make up Linux I kinda doubt it.
This has nothing to do with the kernel. All printer drivers are in userspace.
That is why it is easy to write drivers for Windows. Nothing changes. Maybe in another 5 years when everything has settled down in Linux it too will become that easy.
Some parts of Linux are volatile and others aren't. When it comes to printer drivers, there are several ways to write them, but the easiest would be something that converts Postscript to your printer language. Ghostscript is pretty standard just about everywhere and does half the work for you (interpreting the postscript file). All you have to do is convert the device-independent raster file to your printer language (essentially what the GDI printer drivers in Windows do). If you do that, you have a stable driver. Even if Ghostscript or CUPS are modified, the device-independent raster file format likely won't, so you shouldn't need to do anything to your driver once it is written.
Everything is changing so damned fast in Linux I just don't see it getting drivers from the Lexmarks of this world unless the Linux community does it themselves like they did with Ndis and the Winmodem. It is simply evolving too fast and has too few marketshare to make the expense worth it and as I said in the earlier post most companies are simply never going to release their specs, so if they can't release a single binary blob and be done with it like they can Windows then the one being hurt in the long run will be Linux adoption.
NDIS and Winmodems are different because they require a kernel interface. That said, NVidia manages to maintain a binary blob alongside the ever evolving kernel without too much trouble. They use an open source shim, which when combined with DKMS, as it is in many linux distributions, allows for a binary driver that works fairly well across distributions without a lot of extra work on NVidia's part. As for not releasing specs, if your driver is simply converting GDI to whatever your printer language is, I don't see why you wouldn't want to open source it. Unlike a video card, there isn't much of a case to be made for protecting a competitive advantage.
And as for why Lexmark doesn't support Linux? Frankly they would be nuts to even attempt it. Let us be honest here: a manufacturer can make a grand total of 3 drivers and support Windows from 1998-2011.
They wouldn't need to support Linux, just CUPS. Sounds a lot easier to me than writing and maintaining three Windows drivers. With CUPS, you get the added advantage of having a driver that works on all Unix-like operating systems (including OS X) spanning several decades. The disadvantage is that if you want the community to maintain it, it has to be open source. The standard arguments (trade secrets, etc) don't seem to apply to these things, though.
Can you even get a 3 year old program to work reliably in the latest distro?
Yes, quite easily, but that's offtopic.
You are probably right about the cheap Lexmark's. Although a quick look at openprinting.org shows plenty of supported Lexmark's. I imagine all of the "paperweights" are the cheap or all-in-ones you mentioned.
However, all things considered, I would say Linux has fantastic printing support. Far more than just "business network lasers." The problem with the cheap Lexmark's is that they use a proprietary printer language (not PS or PCL). The Foomatic printer drivers provide a way to support these languages, but if someone has to reverse engineer it, it can take a while. The upside is if you reverse engineer it once, you can usually support a whole class of printers (ex: hpijs driver for many HP printers). If Lexmark were more cooperative, this might happen faster (the reason hpijs exists is because HP wrote it).
As for a "GDIwrapper", GDI+ is an entire graphics subsystem. It is not trivial to write a wrapper. That said, it looks like the Mono project has a library to convert GDI+ to Cairo. That puts you about halfway to a GDIwrapper for printing. You still need an EMF backend for Cairo, and you would want to be independent of Mono, which may or may not be a simple matter. Maybe somebody can take this on and solve the "Winprinter" problem.
The reason TPB is not let off the hook, the court argues, is basically that a service provider is only allowed to keep copies of data for the duration required by the transmission, if they are to be held without responsibility. And TPB keeps .torrent files.
Ok, I agree that is a shaky argument to make. I don't think it is an argument that can ever be made against Google (the original topic) or any number of other search engines, though, because of the specific circumstances. If it ever is, I will have to eat my words, but as of now I am not alarmed by this verdict.
Because they act on takedown notices, their situation is different from TPBs. But where do you draw the line? How much effort is required preventing infringement? That, we do not know.
In gestures of good faith, there are rarely strictly defined lines. So I cannot answer your question. But if they felt they were acting in good faith, then that is at least an argument they could use in their defense with examples to back it up. Unfortunately, they were not able to use that in this case, but it was their own doing.
If you set up a public BitTorrent tracker/search engine, you can be sure people will use it for copyright infringement. What this verdict says is that you can not take a neutral stance as to what people are doing with this service (like slashdot does with comments, for instance).
There are ways to discourage such use, such as requiring registration and logging IPs. You are correct in that the neutral stance position is being threatened, but there is a dilemma here, and this goes back to one my original arguments. On Slashdot there is plenty to say and talk about without engaging in things like libel, or copyright infringement. So, for the most part, that doesn't happen on Slashdot. That makes Slashdot's position in court much more defensible if they are ever accused of being an accessory.
BitTorrent is a protocol specifically designed for the efficient exchange of large files. It just so happens that most large files people wish to exchange are copyrighted media/software files. Several Linux distributions run trackers to distribute isos, but there really isn't a lot of other activity out there. Smaller files are more efficiently distributed via HTTP or FTP, so most people don't bother setting up a tracker if that is all they are doing (ex: distributing code they have written or images they have created). So public trackers like TPB end up primarily used for copyright infringement. Neutral stance or not, that makes their position much harder to defend in court.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big fan of the media conglomerates. I do think copyright is overused and abused, but I'm not going to pretend TPB is without fault. I know a lot of people on Slashdot are anti-censorship, and I value free speech as well, but I don't see why we should defend sites that are serving limited constructive or legal purpose, and are instead used almost entirely for illicit activities.
Not sure why I should respond to you, but,
1) Not irrelevant at all. If you think so, please elaborate. The question at hand is, does TPB assist in acts of copyright infringement? My argument is yes, because it runs a tracker that facilitates said infringement. Before you respond, you might want to read the rest of my posts on this subject.
2) Have you ever used either Google or TPB? I would hardly call my statement baseless speculation. However, if you can tally up some numbers for me indicating it is not true, I will accept that.
3) Again, please elaborate. I think I've explained my position well enough in other posts.
So your entire argument is basically BS.
Thanks for contributing to a constructive discussion of the article.
It would seem that according to the court, providing the .torrent file relating to copyrighted material constitutes making that material available, or at least helping in making it available.
The .torrent files are downloaded from their website. So, yes, they are provided by TPB. The .torrent files do contain the critical information needed to setup a torrent swarm with the TPB tracker. So, again yes, TPB is aiding and abetting copyright infringement.
The people behind TPB were convicted for helping making 33 specific films/music albums available, even though they were not aware of these particular files.
This is the key. Did they know about the infringement taking place using their service? It is quite clear they did. Everybody is aware of the content available on TPB, so the operators were most certainly aware of it. They were also informed of it, but did nothing to stop it. They can deny that they knew about 33 specific instances, but who is actually going to believe they don't know their service is used for massive copyright infringement and little else?
Well, if you don't have a DNS, which in a sense are the trackers of the web, you would have to know the (current) IP of the site you want to connect to.
No, not really. See, this is the problem. If you generalize enough, you can remove all significant distinctions from everything. I mean a semi-truck and a pickup truck pulling a trailer are essentially the same things right? So why do you need special training and a license to drive a semi-truck?
A tracker, as the name implies, tracks connections between peers, and the distribution of file chunks, and the verification of checksums. Neither Google nor a DNS is involved as intimately in a given transaction as a BitTorrent tracker.
Should we accept effectively banning one way of exchanging information and not the other?
No, but nobody is banning all BitTorrent trackers, just as they aren't banning all search engines. A collection of copyright holders identified one tracker being used for primarily illegal purposes and are attempting to have it shut down because it is the easiest (albeit probably futile) way of killing the torrent swarms facilitated by it.
But my question is, should the attitude make the difference between breaking the law and not breaking the law?
Certainly not. But it is hard to argue innocence in a case like this if clear copyright violations are brought to your attention and, in addition to simply refusing to comply with a takedown notice, you publicly display your contempt for copyright law.
Especially if you do not think what you are doing is illegal.
Well, there is a civil way to resolve such disputes...a courtroom and a judge. You can have a lawyer assure you are in compliance all you want, but legal gray areas like this are ultimately decided in the courts. If you are found to be in the wrong, a judge is more likely to be lenient with regard to reparations if you conduct yourself in a mature and responsible way throughout the process.
Would Google not index an ordinary HTML web page where someone threw up an MPEG file containing a newly-released movie and a description? What if someone else provided a web page containing a collection of links to such pages, with the actual content provided elsewhere?
Well, a copyright holder could request Google remove the page from their index, but as I said in a different post, it's fairly futile to do that. What a copyright holder can do instead, though, with help from Google, is find the actual website hosting the infringing material. This may still be somewhat futile, but less futile than simply removing an index entry.
That's all that's going on here, and it is the fundamental problem.
No, it really isn't. Again, as I've posted elsewhere, the index of torrent files is secondary to TPB's function as a tracker. The BitTorrent tracker more or less directly facilitates transactions between peers, and the process can't happen without it.
Are book publishers going to start suing libraries that provide their card catalogs on-line next? Are librarians destined to go to jail for aiding copyright infringement every time they point a potential copyright infringer towards the material they are searching for?
Well, if librarians notice copyright infringement, it is their responsibility to either stop it or notify authorities. Most users of libraries, however, operate within the realm of fair use.
But this reflects what the users do, not any conscious plan on the part of TPB.
Perhaps, but that makes it harder to argue in favor of the operation. TPB has the option of removing inappropriate torrents, which they do not. If TPB is used mostly for illegal file-sharing, there isn't much to say to defend it. It is one thing to say a service can be used to share files illegally, and another to say it is being used to share files illegally.
YouTube is filled to the brim with unauthorized copyrighted material that does not qualify for "fair use".
Yes, you are correct. But Google will remove such material if a copyright holder brings it to their attention.
I've seen examples of my own technical pictures, provided on my personal web site, indexed and cached in Google's image cache, that have been illegally used by someone else on the web. So, should I be suing Google, or should I go after the infringer? Apparently, according to TPB verdict, Google should also be hearing from my lawyers. After all, they're the one letting other people find that illicitly-copied material of mine.
Several things: the Google image cache is within the realm of fair use, on top of that they only store a small thumbnail, they display a copyright notice when they show the thumbnail and publish a link to the image, and they show the context from which the image was taken so users can see it is part of a website and not deprive the website of ad revenue. One can say Google has made a good faith effort to prevent copyright infringement while still allowing content to be found. I don't think that argument can be made for TPB.
Given how ridiculous the expectations of some copyright holders are even in the case of dealing with Google (e.g., not wanting Google to provide an index and brief, fair-use-qualifying excerpt of news articles), I just don't have a lot of sympathy with laws that are pushed so far towards copyright holders wishes (and a pony)
I generally agree. But if you look at the legal notices on TPB, many of them are very reasonable requests for removal of explicitly infringing torrents. It's a simple matter to remove them, so they should just do it. Telling them to "sodomize themselves with retractable batons" is not a good way to respond to legal notices. Whether or not copyright is abused and over-leveraged is beside the point. Regardless of what you might think about copyr
Google tells me where to find torrent trackers. A torrent tracker tells me where to find a torrent. A torrent tells me where to find bytes 1000-3000 of a file. TPB is a torrent tracker. A torrent tracker tells me where to find a torrent. A torrent tells me where to find bytes 1000-3000 of a file.
I would say it is pretty different. After Google provides the link to the tracker, it has no other part in the process. TPB, however, is required from the very beginning of the process to the end. There would be no way for the transaction to take place without TPB saying, "Hey, here's a list of peers, here's a list of checksums, that guy over there has these chunks, this guy has those, you have this many chunks you can share with other people, etc."
Remember the case against Napster? Napster never hosted any of the infringing content, but they were essential (in some ways less essential than TPB), to the process of connecting peers together so they could share files.
If TPB simply hosted a searchable index of places to download torrent files, and individual users had to run their own trackers, that would be a lot different (and more like what Google does). That would never work, though, because the anonymity of the process is what makes it appealing to most people.
The WWW would not function without DNSs and search engines like Google
The web would function without Google, it just wouldn't be very useful. Services like Google make it more pleasant to use. Without Google, I can still access any publicly available website.
BitTorrent would not function without trackers and search engines like TPB.
That is correct. Without a tracker and a .torrent file, there would be no way to find peers and piece together the shared content.
The correct equivalent would be Google removing links from search results.
Which they will do if it is brought to their attention. The thing is, it's not very helpful because if the page changes it will be reindexed. And other search engines will also have that page indexed. So, it is pretty futile to send takedown notices like that, and most copyright holders won't bother.
So it's their attitude that is the problem?
As I've said in other posts, your willingness to cooperate can help your case. There is a difference between breaking the law and breaking the law with contempt. They will be treated differently in a courtroom.
So TPB is a website that contains a user-editable index of links people wish to share with others?
No, TPB is a user-editable index of torrents, which contain hashes of the file to be shared and a tracker url. TPB is also a tracker (or set of trackers) that file-sharers use to coordinate the exchange of chunks of the files so that they can be put together in the right order. It is a distributed version of what Napster used to be.
So what percentage of legal/illegal content should there be that tips you from completely innocent to doing jail time?
It's not about percentage of content. It's about intent. If the vast majority of the Google index is links to legally shared content, and they make efforts to removed links to illegally shared content when it is brought to their attention, one can argue that their intent is entirely innocent. If the opposite is the case, that argument is much harder to make.
Google is based in the USA and subject to US law. TPB is based in Sweden and is under Swedish law. TPB is quite under its rights to refuse US take-down notices and understandable to be rude to US companies trying to bully it with false legal threats.
Yeah, well fine, let's see how far it gets them. Copyright law is fairly universal. The provisions of things like fair use vary from country to country, but even in Sweden it is not legal to rip a copyrighted movie and distribute it to everybody for free. While TPB is not doing this directly, they are facilitating the process. Their unwillingness to comply with takedown notices, whether in the right jurisdiction or not, says a lot about their intent.
What that means is that the precedent that is being set could be used against google and others in the future...
I don't really see how that is possible. I'm not sure if the legality of search engines like Google has been tested, but if somebody wanted to, there are plenty of small fish to fry to set precedent. TPB is really not the same thing, so I don't see how it could be used in a case against Google.
Btw, immatureness isn't yet punishable by law.
No, but your willingness to comply with takedown notices is factored in cases like these. It is quite simple for TPB to remove infringing torrents if they are brought to their attention. They refuse to do so. That doesn't help their case.
Manners are what the law is all about !
Despite what you want to believe, your willingness to comply with notices of copyright infringement on your website says a lot about your intent and motivation. The maturity of your responses indicate your respect for other people and the law. A judge will take all of this into account when rendering a verdict and determining what reparations, if any, need to be made.
So are you saying that "making available" information is equivalent to a grant of copyright license when a website does it, but its a copyright violation when TPB does it ?
No, reread what I said. I said the degree to which Google and TPB assist in the process of copyright infringement is vastly different. There is no granting of a copyright license.
Look, there'a a huge difference between Google and TPB. It's willfully obtuse to pretend there isn't.
1) Google crawls the Internet and indexes content for searching. It presents search results in the form of hyperlinks to the sites of the people providing the content (exactly the way the WWW was intended to work). Yeah yeah, there is Google Cache, Google News, and Youtube, which occasionally gets them into trouble, but they make efforts to carefully remain within the realm of fair use, including removing copyrighted material from Youtube. One could argue that the WWW would not be able to function without search engines like Google.
TPB, on the other hand, is a website that contains a user-editable index of torrent files people are willing to share. In other words, TPB doesn't crawl for general content that is already publicly available. TPB then facilitates the transactions between users by functioning as a tracker. Torrents are useless without a tracker, so this is a critical difference. Google would not be able to provide the same service as TPB. Yes, you can find torrents via Google, but that is because Google has indexed a tracker like TPB and is just linking to their site.
2) Most of the content accessible through Google is legal, in the sense that the people who own the copyright have shared it explicitly on their website, which is crawled by Google. Most of the content on TPB is not legal, in the sense that the people sharing the files do not own the copyright and are not within the realm of fair use.
3) The content in both Google's search index and TPB's website is trivial to update to remove content that is in violation of copyright. Google willingly does so, usually at the notice of copyright holders. Google also removes content they don't necessarily have to, like Google Streetview images, when requested. TPB consistently refuses to remove content brought to its attention, and often responds with rude, immature, and insulting remarks.
Everybody stop pretending Google and TPB provide the same service. They just don't. Period.
Well, right, isn't that what I just said? If you don't have any interest in linux, why are you trying to get it to work with your hardware? Why do you care if it doesn't work with your hardware? And how does complaining about it loudly, while simultaneously refusing suggested workarounds, help anybody?
If hardware doesn't work with Linux, it's not Linux's fault, but it IS a problem for them.
You keep saying that, but I don't think you realize that linux developers/users/advocates can't do much about this problem. What can be done is already being done. See the Linux Driver Project for example. With limited to no cooperation from certain hardware manufacturers there isn't much more that can be done.
So, you're right, it is a problem, but solving it requires more than a bunch of linux developers deciding they want to solve it. We already have that. It requires cooperation from manufacturers, which is a continual work-in-progress, and it requires users to put a little pressure on manufacturers by voting with their wallet. This is a problem that has to be worked on by everybody who has an interest in linux. You can't put the responsibility entirely on one subgroup.
Or you could just tell people about the source, and let them decide whether or not to trust it.
They already do to some extent. It is your job as a juror, for example, to determine whether a witness is recounting events truthfully or accurately. But it's not reasonable or necessary for a juror to understand and take into account all of the minutia of evidence gathering. If you don't have any science training, how are you supposed to know about the likelihood of false positives or the likelihood of mishandling the equipment? In the case of proper legal procedure, it isn't a juror's option to disregard evidence not obtained with a search warrant. It is an obligation. Not presenting the evidence is the best way to keep it from being considered.
It's based on decisions which have been made in the past, by people, and by the judge's personal judgment about the applicability of such prior rulings. The theory is that as long as our court system is consistent, that makes it fair.
Yes and no. Decisions on admissible evidence are usually based on multiple rulings, so the whims of a single judge don't control the whole system. Decisions can also be reversed by other cases or higher courts. The system adapts as the needs present. It's arbitrary, but it's controlled, consistent, and supported by experience.
But that only has any meaning in the context of your emotions. Why do you wish to cross the street? Why do you wish not to be hit by a car while doing so? The core of every decision and judgment is an emotional response.
I never said I was trying to cross the street. I was just observing the cars. Yes it is possible to just observe with no other motive. I'm not saying there isn't emotion somewhere, it just isn't part of the decision-making process.
I good juror is, in my opinion, someone who cares about the outcome.
Well, that's scary. A juror who has made up their mind based on how they feel and not on the facts presented isn't likely to be swayed by rational arguments. If you don't have an open and unbiased mind, how can you make a rational decision? If decisions aren't made rationally, they are made impulsively, and that, history tells, is likely to result in more injustice than what occurs in the present system.
People who claim to be driven by a rational process are lying.
People are not completely rational, yes. I've said that before. People can, however, discipline their minds to think rationally, some better than others. There is nothing wrong with emotions, but a decision is more justifiable and, in the case of someone's life, more conscionable if you can support it with rational arguments. That's not easy in some cases, but it can be done. You don't deny your emotions. You have to recognize and acknowledge them if you want to successfully work toward eliminating your biases.
The only reasonable standard for what information is admissible in court is that all information should be.
Nonsense. Unless, of course, you are advocating mob justice. At a minimum, admissible evidence needs to be screened for verifiability and proper procedure. Did the tech do the fingerprint test right? Did he do it multiple times and document it properly? Were proper search warrants obtained? Juries need to receive evidence from proper sources. The newspaper or Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Anything else is really just an arbitrary standard which has to be drawn by someone, and we know that people should not make such decisions because no one is beyond bias.
It's not all that arbitrary. The standard of admissible evidence is quite clear and agreed upon. It is based on documented court cases and legal experience. The problem of bias is solved by the appeal system.
All of our rational judgments are based on our emotional response to external stimuli.
Not true at all. If you are sitting at an intersection observing the movement of cars, you can logically deduce whether the traffic light is red or green. Naturally, this is dependent on a premise: cars move when the light is green and stop when the light is red, which may or may not be true. But, regardless, the decision is based on reason and is not an emotional response.
It is true that people are not completely rational. One big problem with matters of justice is that people can think they are being rational when they aren't. So the court rules have been determined and refined through experience to try to eliminate distractions that can lead to irrational decision-making. It's not perfect by any means, but it works fairly well.
People only care about something if they are emotionally involved in it, and they only give attention to things they care about.
You can care about being a good juror without being emotionally involved in the outcome.
But the reality is that they are. There is no point trying to turn a fantasy into reality by pretending, and it makes no sense to try to do that in a court of law, where peoples lives are on the line.
Hmmm, ok. So if you are falsely accused of rape and a court acquits you, it's perfectly fine for people to think you still committed rape and discriminate against you appropriately? Sounds like some great justice you have created there. It's true that people think the way they think and you can't control it much, but you can control how a court operates. A court should not use hearsay as evidence.
The jury can not be reasonably said to make its own decisions if relevant information is deliberately and systematically withheld from them.
If a person commits a crime, you should be able to make a rational determination based on evidence at the crime scene and maybe elsewhere. It should be safe to assume that the prosecution will put together a compelling case based on whatever they can find. The defense should do everything they can to question and bring doubt to the prosecutor's evidence, and the result should be a fairly balanced and unbiased presentation. It is not likely a jury member could do better in a few hours of surfing on the Internet. So that is all the information a jury needs to render a determination of fact.
Doesn't that mean that the judge is manipulating the jury's emotions (after all, avoiding them is manipulating them too). That is dishonest.
Perhaps. But the premise behind the justice system providing a fair trial is that the all of the participants, judge/jury/lawyers, are completely impartial and perfectly rational. Of course, this is not the case in reality, so the court system is designed to promote rational consideration of the case at hand as best as possible. If the jury starts making decisions based on their emotional biases instead of on presented evidence, the system breaks down. Some bias always remains, but that is why you get 12 jurors.
I think the question of relevance is best answered by the jurors, given that the resolution of the case is supposed to reflect their views and opinions.
Not really. Hundreds of years of case precedence determines relevance. Initially, relevance should be constrained to the current case, excluding such things as other ongoing prosecutions and racial prejudice. If there are other factors to consider (past criminal record of the defendant, psychological state of the witness, etc), the judge is in a better position to decide because he/she has the benefit of knowledge of past cases to help inform their decision, rationally. A jury member who serves the court for a few days maybe once every several years is not in that position.
"How about a case where a woman is charged with a crime and in the past lost her children to Child Protective Services. Should the fact that her children are in foster care be considered in her current case?"
Does the jury think it's relevant?
It doesn't matter what the jury thinks is relevant. If the prosecution wants to presents the case based on a motive involving Child Protective Services, and the judge allows it, then the jury gets to decide whether the motive was really there. The defense, of course, gets to make a counter-argument so the jury gets the benefit of two interpretations of a given testimony while they make their decision.
"It could cause members of the jury to vote guilty, not for the allegation in the case, but rather for the case he has already been acquitted of."
Like OJ Simpson? I'm going to be honest, I don't really have a problem with that.
You should. Another premise of our justice system is that a person declared innocent isn't haunted for the rest of his life by past allegations. Cases like OJ Simpson's happen, but they are rare.
There are weaknesses in the system for sure, but they are minimized by having multiple unrelated participants with strictly defined roles. If the jury starts assuming the duties of the judge, you undermine the ability of the court to provide a fair trial.
Actually, determining whether a witness or expert testimony is factual is precisely what the jury is supposed to do. If you doubt they are telling the truth, hopefully you have a reason for that (body language, contradictory testimony, etc) which you can use to support that opinion.
The lawyers simply determine who will testify...both lawyers get a chance to see evidence that will be presented ahead of time so they can prepare a counter-argument. The judge determines whether certain types of evidence are admissible.