Actually even trying to know is discouraged by the system. Intentional infringement carries greater statutory penalties, so people ignore other peoples software patents so they can prove the infringement wasn't intentional.
Actually they are kind-of obliged. One million spent of ID theft prevention will prevent a much greater liability from use of those identities. They are also covering their asses in case of a class-action suit. Their defence could now be contributory negligence because those in the class failed to accept the offer of ID theft protection. They aren't doing the right thing because their particularly concerned about being right, but because the benefits of being right are obvious enough to them, and the term of time is short enough to keep corporate attention. (Usually corps are oblivious to anything more than 3-5 years out)
Actually it's worse than that. The USPS is not paying taxes (would would amount to 40 billion) like private carriers do or would to if they replaced the USPS.
The American Letter company for the win. The main reason the USPS holds on is to deliver junk mail, and legal notices. However junk mail isn't really useful, and many states have made allowances to use private carriers to deliver such notices if USPS service is interupted in an area.
There's always a bar nearby. No matter where you are rest assured a good stiff drink is probably right around the corner. In rural areas that's where you can catch of on all the local news and gossip.
"The judge is right." That would be cheating — playing on people's tendency to believe that a judge's reasoning is usually superior
The judge is right. You've made two mistakes. The judge has a very large gang of men and women in blue costumes who view them as holy men, and are using violence to enforce their opinions without much regard to their content. The OP as a math major doesn't have this. Second is that law is hardly univocal, with many different conflicts and tensions within. It often says two or three or more things about one.
See The Myth of the Rule of Law by John Hasnas to drive the second point home
The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory a s a n ex post rationale for government intervention. Atthe time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood t h a t large-scale,capital intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was a n absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.
The theory of natural monopoly is also a-historical. There is no evidence of the "natural monopoly" story ever having been carried out-of one producer achieving lower long-run average total costs than everyone else in the industry and thereby establishing a permanent monopoly. As discussed below, in many of the so-called public utility industries of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, there were often literally dozens of competitors.
There is no evidence a t all that a t the outset of public utility regulation there existed any such phenomenon as a "natural monopoly." As Harold Demsetz has pointed out:Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota,was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. . . . During the latter part of the nineteenth century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operatingin New York City . . . competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry . . . Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pitts-burgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.14
Plus you argument if we were to accept it, would only really hold for the last mile. Over the long distances railroads will gladly rent their right of way to cables, and there are several methods of laying cables deep enough underground that you would never notice it went under your property unless you were told it did. Especially with TCP/IP where redirection, NAT, and proxy can be done almost transparently. The last mile could even be a cooperative based on wireless mesh making clever use of directed antennae charging a small fee to cover equipment cost, and then charging per gigabyte (based on competitive bidding of high level providers), perhaps even offering credits for opting into certain types of advertisement . And even then without government intervention you would see homes and neighborhoods built in such a way to minimize cost of infrastructure. Perhaps a single meta-conduit which would be rented by utilities for space or whose cost would be split according to how many systems you had running into your home, how far each had to run to a source or hub, and how much space each service took up in the big pipe. It's just one possibility of several and perhaps dozens. There are plenty of solution if those damn bureaucrats would just let it lie.
Your criticism of damage to public property such as roads, is an argument against public roads, not against direct competition of utilities. It's only a problem because there is no good way to internalize the the costs and delays of adding such infrastructure over and on public property.
Once AT&T's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung up. "By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had
already grabbed 5 percent of total market share . . . after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed.55In some states there were over
200 telephone companies operating simultaneously. By 1907, AT&T's competitors had captured 51 percent of the telephone market and prices were being driven sharp
Yes it would make sense. A single corporate body is a fiction. The reality is many different agents acting as it, and often many different principles. You're assuming that there was some formal internal process for that, (not 100% certain) and that is was clearer, more precise than what the DMCA provides (not 100% certain) and that they had no desire for the strong documentation such a formal process can provide for later use to take deal with repeat offenders or internal dissent over the decision. (not 100% certain) . Yes the DMCA would not have been necessary to justify for what they did (the TOS likely says they need no justification whatsoever to do what they did) but that doesn't mean there are no reasons whatsoever to believe there is some posiibility that a DMCA notice may have actually been used. You may find it unlikely, but it is not nonsensical.
Most musicians don't see a penny for thier work either. Most authors see their work rejected or consigned away after two years to the dustbins of history locked away for a century from everybody including themselves by the copyright they've signed over to the publisher The big and traditional publisher business model isn't very good for anyone except really big-name and prominent artists. Since she has a fan-base of thousands, she could use the ransom model. Using a third party like thepoint.com she could agree to release the next book free to the world, should be fans offer to pay 10, 20, 50 Grand.... To keep a small income stream after, offer hard-copies and some collectors items. Authors are in the business of inspiring and exemplifying, and as such are actually in the best position to inspire and convince people of the value and virtue or positive action taken to further and support you own personal values and preferences. If you believe in my work and find value in it, please pay me for it, so there may be another. When that other when comes out, take pride in the fact that that is existent in part due to your support.
You can mail yourself a letter, or send a email for yourself, so yes it does make sense. Also there could be one department in say in R$D that could deliver the notice to legal, choosing an clear external process over a murky internal one.
And while not fraud it could very well be negligent. Whenever you know or should have known a process could affect anothe'sr legal rights and possession, you have a duty to take reasonable care to avoid mistakes.
We have received a notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) from Dropbox that the following material is claimed to be infringing.
So they either lied about the existence of the notice, or actually went and delivered themselves the notice.
Yes, because even if a copyright system weren't in place you could still criticize copiers for a lack of reciprocity.
However unlike free riders on the train, it doesn't actually add any drag or cost. In most cases it's just free advertising.
You probably wouldn't even have to branch python, just create a script to parse brackets into the proper whitespace and pipe the output into the Python interpreter. If you wanted this feature, the script could probably be done in less than 50 lines of python.
Actually you also need to make sure a person is not allowed to execute programs in thier home directory. Otherwise they can just compile in an encryption or tunneling program and make the traffic much harder to spot.
A license is permission to do what would otherwise be illegal. If something really is a right, you don't need a license to do it, if you need a license to do it, it's not a right. Also the fact is that these licenses can be revoked by administrative rather than court procedures in certain situations. (Refusing a Breathalyzer test for instance)
Also a lot of statutes read, whoever operates a motor vehicle on the highways of this state whose privilege to do so has been revoked, shall by guilty of... (Most states a misdemeanor, some states like Florida a felony) of such and such a degree.
Another way of looking at licenses is as a privilege tax. If they believed it were a right, by their own rules they couldn't tax it.
Also see senate resolution 62 of April 1933. The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State.
In fact this is the only thing that could be implied by the idea of legislation. "What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed. " -Lysander Spooner, Natural Law.
Mary collect 354 coins, Paul collect 108. Whose coin collection is worth more?
It depends on the value of each coin.
Not a single highly or extremely critical advisory issued for the 2.6 kernel, and 42% of the advisories not critical at all. For Windows 7 42% of the advisories for were highly or extremely critical. 66% of the vulnerabilities of windows 7 are remotely exploitable, vs. 15% of 2.6.x
Beside that your comparing less than two years of history to over 7 as well. In addition the environment and incentives are different. In the FOSS world, shouting "Here's a bug and here's how I fixed it" gets you a lot of credibility. With M$ they want no publicity about bugs expect when it would irresponsible not to disclose them. (e.g. when they are actively being explioted). All the little bugs and fixes if any are held close to avoid publicity and hope that security through obscurity might hold up.
Bottom line, one of the best ways to test code for bugs is to throw random data (fuzzing) at it and see what happens. Or at least that's a much better way than to rely on than plain numbers generated by two very different operating philosophies and practices.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually even trying to know is discouraged by the system. Intentional infringement carries greater statutory penalties, so people ignore other peoples software patents so they can prove the infringement wasn't intentional.
Then add app armour, which prevents parsers from accessing system parts they don't need to actually do the parsing.
Actually they are kind-of obliged. One million spent of ID theft prevention will prevent a much greater liability from use of those identities. They are also covering their asses in case of a class-action suit. Their defence could now be contributory negligence because those in the class failed to accept the offer of ID theft protection. They aren't doing the right thing because their particularly concerned about being right, but because the benefits of being right are obvious enough to them, and the term of time is short enough to keep corporate attention. (Usually corps are oblivious to anything more than 3-5 years out)
Actually it's worse than that. The USPS is not paying taxes (would would amount to 40 billion) like private carriers do or would to if they replaced the USPS.
The American Letter company for the win. The main reason the USPS holds on is to deliver junk mail, and legal notices. However junk mail isn't really useful, and many states have made allowances to use private carriers to deliver such notices if USPS service is interupted in an area.
There's always a bar nearby. No matter where you are rest assured a good stiff drink is probably right around the corner. In rural areas that's where you can catch of on all the local news and gossip.
"The judge is right." That would be cheating — playing on people's tendency to believe that a judge's reasoning is usually superior
The judge is right. You've made two mistakes. The judge has a very large gang of men and women in blue costumes who view them as holy men, and are using violence to enforce their opinions without much regard to their content. The OP as a math major doesn't have this. Second is that law is hardly univocal, with many different conflicts and tensions within. It often says two or three or more things about one.
See The Myth of the Rule of Law by John Hasnas to drive the second point home
No, what is needed for those people is a mobile EMP blaster.
Sheesh, you only need to kill a guy once.
The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory a s a n ex post rationale for government intervention. Atthe time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood t h a t large-scale,capital intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was a n absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.
The theory of natural monopoly is also a-historical. There is no evidence of the "natural monopoly" story ever having been carried out-of one producer achieving lower long-run average total costs than everyone else in the industry and thereby establishing a permanent monopoly. As discussed below, in many of the so-called public utility industries of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, there were often literally dozens of competitors.
There is no evidence a t all that a t the outset of public utility regulation there existed any such phenomenon as a "natural monopoly." As Harold Demsetz has pointed out:Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota,was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. . . . During the latter part of the nineteenth century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operatingin New York City . . . competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry . . . Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pitts-burgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.14
https://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.PDF
Plus you argument if we were to accept it, would only really hold for the last mile. Over the long distances railroads will gladly rent their right of way to cables, and there are several methods of laying cables deep enough underground that you would never notice it went under your property unless you were told it did. Especially with TCP/IP where redirection, NAT, and proxy can be done almost transparently. The last mile could even be a cooperative based on wireless mesh making clever use of directed antennae charging a small fee to cover equipment cost, and then charging per gigabyte (based on competitive bidding of high level providers), perhaps even offering credits for opting into certain types of advertisement . And even then without government intervention you would see homes and neighborhoods built in such a way to minimize cost of infrastructure. Perhaps a single meta-conduit which would be rented by utilities for space or whose cost would be split according to how many systems you had running into your home, how far each had to run to a source or hub, and how much space each service took up in the big pipe. It's just one possibility of several and perhaps dozens. There are plenty of solution if those damn bureaucrats would just let it lie.
Your criticism of damage to public property such as roads, is an argument against public roads, not against direct competition of utilities. It's only a problem because there is no good way to internalize the the costs and delays of adding such infrastructure over and on public property.
Once AT&T's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung up. "By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already grabbed 5 percent of total market share . . . after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed.55In some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating simultaneously. By 1907, AT&T's competitors had captured 51 percent of the telephone market and prices were being driven sharp
Yes it would make sense. A single corporate body is a fiction. The reality is many different agents acting as it, and often many different principles. You're assuming that there was some formal internal process for that, (not 100% certain) and that is was clearer, more precise than what the DMCA provides (not 100% certain) and that they had no desire for the strong documentation such a formal process can provide for later use to take deal with repeat offenders or internal dissent over the decision. (not 100% certain) . Yes the DMCA would not have been necessary to justify for what they did (the TOS likely says they need no justification whatsoever to do what they did) but that doesn't mean there are no reasons whatsoever to believe there is some posiibility that a DMCA notice may have actually been used. You may find it unlikely, but it is not nonsensical.
Most musicians don't see a penny for thier work either. Most authors see their work rejected or consigned away after two years to the dustbins of history locked away for a century from everybody including themselves by the copyright they've signed over to the publisher The big and traditional publisher business model isn't very good for anyone except really big-name and prominent artists. Since she has a fan-base of thousands, she could use the ransom model. Using a third party like thepoint.com she could agree to release the next book free to the world, should be fans offer to pay 10, 20, 50 Grand.... To keep a small income stream after, offer hard-copies and some collectors items. Authors are in the business of inspiring and exemplifying, and as such are actually in the best position to inspire and convince people of the value and virtue or positive action taken to further and support you own personal values and preferences. If you believe in my work and find value in it, please pay me for it, so there may be another. When that other when comes out, take pride in the fact that that is existent in part due to your support.
Maybe an ENTFS (Even Newer Technolocy File System)
You can mail yourself a letter, or send a email for yourself, so yes it does make sense. Also there could be one department in say in R$D that could deliver the notice to legal, choosing an clear external process over a murky internal one.
And while not fraud it could very well be negligent. Whenever you know or should have known a process could affect anothe'sr legal rights and possession, you have a duty to take reasonable care to avoid mistakes.
We have received a notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) from Dropbox that the following material is claimed to be infringing.
So they either lied about the existence of the notice, or actually went and delivered themselves the notice.
Yes, because even if a copyright system weren't in place you could still criticize copiers for a lack of reciprocity. However unlike free riders on the train, it doesn't actually add any drag or cost. In most cases it's just free advertising.
Why would they pay themselves to hire an intern when they can just hire an intern?
You probably wouldn't even have to branch python, just create a script to parse brackets into the proper whitespace and pipe the output into the Python interpreter. If you wanted this feature, the script could probably be done in less than 50 lines of python.
Actually you also need to make sure a person is not allowed to execute programs in thier home directory. Otherwise they can just compile in an encryption or tunneling program and make the traffic much harder to spot.
You have to be added to the USB group in order to Use USB devices.
They aren't any worse than any other wiring. Some risk of explosion if you keep a battery bank, but most people on the grid don't bother.
A license is permission to do what would otherwise be illegal. If something really is a right, you don't need a license to do it, if you need a license to do it, it's not a right. Also the fact is that these licenses can be revoked by administrative rather than court procedures in certain situations. (Refusing a Breathalyzer test for instance)
Also a lot of statutes read, whoever operates a motor vehicle on the highways of this state whose privilege to do so has been revoked, shall by guilty of... (Most states a misdemeanor, some states like Florida a felony) of such and such a degree.
Another way of looking at licenses is as a privilege tax. If they believed it were a right, by their own rules they couldn't tax it.
Also see senate resolution 62 of April 1933. The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State.
In fact this is the only thing that could be implied by the idea of legislation. "What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed. " -Lysander Spooner, Natural Law.
Longsoon 3b? 4 core, with 4 vector coprocessors. Sopuusedly a raw power of 128 GFlops.
Mary collect 354 coins, Paul collect 108. Whose coin collection is worth more?
It depends on the value of each coin.
Not a single highly or extremely critical advisory issued for the 2.6 kernel, and 42% of the advisories not critical at all. For Windows 7 42% of the advisories for were highly or extremely critical. 66% of the vulnerabilities of windows 7 are remotely exploitable, vs. 15% of 2.6.x
Beside that your comparing less than two years of history to over 7 as well. In addition the environment and incentives are different. In the FOSS world, shouting "Here's a bug and here's how I fixed it" gets you a lot of credibility. With M$ they want no publicity about bugs expect when it would irresponsible not to disclose them. (e.g. when they are actively being explioted). All the little bugs and fixes if any are held close to avoid publicity and hope that security through obscurity might hold up.
Bottom line, one of the best ways to test code for bugs is to throw random data (fuzzing) at it and see what happens. Or at least that's a much better way than to rely on than plain numbers generated by two very different operating philosophies and practices.
Not necessarily. Some methods like fuzzing don't require source code analysis. Also being blindsided by and exploit is a sure way to find a bug.