This is being touted as a way to bring in tourist revenue. It can’t be treated any differently than any other tourist attraction proposed by a non-profit organization.
They’re not funding a church, they’re funding a construction project that will generate tourism which happens to be owned and operated by a church.
They have to treat it no differently than any other secular organization. Treating it differently would violate the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to the US constitution. It would also violate the 3rd section of the KY constitution.
Actually, the Constitution explicitly reserves to the states or the people any and all powers not explicitly given to the Federal government. Your logic is exactly backward.
The equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment does mandate that states have to give groups equal protection without discrimination, and establishing a religion would violate that, so states actually can’t establish religions. But Kentucky didn’t pass any law establishing a religion, either.
The 14th Amendment has been widely interpreted by the courts to mean that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the states, so the prohibitions in the first amendment apply to state legislatures as well.
So where’s the KY law that violates it? There isn’t one, just a 14-year-old budget that allows them to fund non-profits in some circumstances, which this meets.
nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion
It isn’t a place of worship, and the workers aren’t ministers.
Churches are non-profits and most of them are pretty discriminating when it comes to who they hire as their pastor. Usually it goes that to get hired as their pastor, you have to be exactly the same religion as them and agree with them on pretty much everything.
Yeah, the heat of cooking is a substitute for the natural enzymes and it also tends to destroy them in the process. It’s quicker to use heat, though, than letting the enzymes do their work.
He can go into any WD office on this planet (no way to preemptively put surveillance up), and even after you know where they picked it up, all you get from the WD employee is a description of some hobo.
You mean to say they can’t put a flag on that WD account (ID) so that no WD office will give anyone the money associated with it and they’ll call the local cops if anyone tries to pick it up?
What the hell, are they trying to help money launderers?
I was thinking more just use the OS system call functions, and overwriting all of the files in the %userprofile%\My documents folder with random data or something like that.
I'm really annoyed when some one says "Here, grab this file" and then hands me a rapidshare link. I'm usually inclined to ignore it. I'm not waiting 60 seconds to get a file some one has invited me to or pay the toll to be a "premium user."
Quit bitching and get jDownloader or install SkipScreen or something.
Neither HTML or JPEG files are Turing-complete programming languages.
It has nothing to do with Turing-completeness.
Sure, your HTML or JPEG parser might have bugs that allow remote exploits
And everything to do with that.
that's a huge difference from a language like Javascript which can trivially perform these kind of operations. _by design_
No. It can’t. It has a sandbox that it plays in. If JS code breaks out of that, it’s a bug. It’s nothing more than ones and zeros arranged in a semi-human-readable fashion that tells an interpreter what to do. You are an interpreter too, but if I told you to go kill yourself, you wouldn’t. Same thing.
More, if you also change the "unvisited links" color, then even a modified script designed to tell the difference won't know which color is your "visited" color and which is your "unvisited" color.
Sure you can. Just check a link to the page you’re on, since you know it’s visited.
Anyway changing those colours makes them clash with the rest of the stylesheet on a lot of websites.
The obvious part, of course, is that EMI cannot offer a song to you on RapidShare and then sue you for downloading it and seeding the exact same version of the same song
Actually they can sue you for seeding it. They authorized Rapidshare to distribute it. They did not authorize you to re-distribute it.
How does an average user know the difference today? How do I go on RapidShare and find freely licensed music right now and differentiate it from pirated music?
That’s a mere technicality... they can’t catch you for downloading. So they can’t sue you for it.
They tried putting honey-pots on P2P networks, serving up fake files with filenames that made them look like copyrighted stuff. Then when people downloaded them, they sued. They lost. No copyright infringement occurred, because no copyrighted material was actually copied.
They tried putting the real files on the P2P honey-pots, then suing people for downloading them. That went even less well, since the people were downloading the files from the copyright holder, which makes it all perfectly okay – even if the people downloading didn’t know it.
They tried downloading their files from people, then suing them for making the copy... but that failed for the same reason. If the copyright holder asks you to make them a copy of their own stuff, you’re authorized to do it. Even if you don’t know they’re the copyright holder.
Finally they claimed that simply making the files available is proof positive that you were infringing on their copyright, based on the way P2P networks work. They can’t prove that you uploaded it to anyone, but they claimed that it was a statistical certainty that you had.
And they still can’t get you for downloading the file. For all they know, you could have downloaded it from a legal MP3 store such as iTunes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is being touted as a way to bring in tourist revenue. It can’t be treated any differently than any other tourist attraction proposed by a non-profit organization.
They’re not funding a church, they’re funding a construction project that will generate tourism which happens to be owned and operated by a church.
They have to treat it no differently than any other secular organization. Treating it differently would violate the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to the US constitution. It would also violate the 3rd section of the KY constitution.
Actually, the Constitution explicitly reserves to the states or the people any and all powers not explicitly given to the Federal government. Your logic is exactly backward.
The equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment does mandate that states have to give groups equal protection without discrimination, and establishing a religion would violate that, so states actually can’t establish religions. But Kentucky didn’t pass any law establishing a religion, either.
They’re hoping to finish it in less than 100 years.
The 14th Amendment has been widely interpreted by the courts to mean that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the states, so the prohibitions in the first amendment apply to state legislatures as well.
So where’s the KY law that violates it? There isn’t one, just a 14-year-old budget that allows them to fund non-profits in some circumstances, which this meets.
nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion
It isn’t a place of worship, and the workers aren’t ministers.
The fact that the place exists doesn’t force any religion on anyone. Nobody is going to force anyone to go to it, so your argument is invalid.
No, those laws are not being violated at all.
Churches are non-profits and most of them are pretty discriminating when it comes to who they hire as their pastor. Usually it goes that to get hired as their pastor, you have to be exactly the same religion as them and agree with them on pretty much everything.
The first amendment says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion.
So if this violates the constitution, what’s its house or senate bill number?
Send an e-mail to the AG. If you should be contacting someone else, they’ll at least know who.
Is it possible for me to copyright my work, distribute it freely, not inform you of the copyright, then sue you when you distribute it?
Everything is copyrighted by default.
I’m pretty sure the precedent has been set and that wouldn’t hold up in court, in the US, anyway.
Your ISP might be able to legally terminate your service, though...
Since they gave it to you via a mechanism with redistribution part of the protocol
Rapidshare is direct HTTP download.
Yeah, the heat of cooking is a substitute for the natural enzymes and it also tends to destroy them in the process. It’s quicker to use heat, though, than letting the enzymes do their work.
He can go into any WD office on this planet (no way to preemptively put surveillance up), and even after you know where they picked it up, all you get from the WD employee is a description of some hobo.
You mean to say they can’t put a flag on that WD account (ID) so that no WD office will give anyone the money associated with it and they’ll call the local cops if anyone tries to pick it up?
What the hell, are they trying to help money launderers?
Then the implementation (compiler/interpreter running on that OS on that hardware) is still not Turing-complete.
I was thinking more just use the OS system call functions, and overwriting all of the files in the %userprofile%\My documents folder with random data or something like that.
good luck writing malicious C++ or python if you're not allowed to call any library functions
Am I allowed to use embedded assembly and make a few assumptions about the OS and architecture?
I'm really annoyed when some one says "Here, grab this file" and then hands me a rapidshare link. I'm usually inclined to ignore it. I'm not waiting 60 seconds to get a file some one has invited me to or pay the toll to be a "premium user."
Quit bitching and get jDownloader or install SkipScreen or something.
They put their poisoned copy behind 3 links labeled "download here" and then record the IP address of whoever gets to the third link.
Citation needed.
Neither HTML or JPEG files are Turing-complete programming languages.
It has nothing to do with Turing-completeness.
Sure, your HTML or JPEG parser might have bugs that allow remote exploits
And everything to do with that.
that's a huge difference from a language like Javascript which can trivially perform these kind of operations. _by design_
No. It can’t. It has a sandbox that it plays in. If JS code breaks out of that, it’s a bug. It’s nothing more than ones and zeros arranged in a semi-human-readable fashion that tells an interpreter what to do. You are an interpreter too, but if I told you to go kill yourself, you wouldn’t. Same thing.
More, if you also change the "unvisited links" color, then even a modified script designed to tell the difference won't know which color is your "visited" color and which is your "unvisited" color.
Sure you can. Just check a link to the page you’re on, since you know it’s visited.
Anyway changing those colours makes them clash with the rest of the stylesheet on a lot of websites.
The obvious part, of course, is that EMI cannot offer a song to you on RapidShare and then sue you for downloading it and seeding the exact same version of the same song
Actually they can sue you for seeding it. They authorized Rapidshare to distribute it. They did not authorize you to re-distribute it.
How does an average user know the difference today? How do I go on RapidShare and find freely licensed music right now and differentiate it from pirated music?
An excellent question.
That’s a mere technicality... they can’t catch you for downloading. So they can’t sue you for it.
They tried putting honey-pots on P2P networks, serving up fake files with filenames that made them look like copyrighted stuff. Then when people downloaded them, they sued. They lost. No copyright infringement occurred, because no copyrighted material was actually copied.
They tried putting the real files on the P2P honey-pots, then suing people for downloading them. That went even less well, since the people were downloading the files from the copyright holder, which makes it all perfectly okay – even if the people downloading didn’t know it.
They tried downloading their files from people, then suing them for making the copy... but that failed for the same reason. If the copyright holder asks you to make them a copy of their own stuff, you’re authorized to do it. Even if you don’t know they’re the copyright holder.
Finally they claimed that simply making the files available is proof positive that you were infringing on their copyright, based on the way P2P networks work. They can’t prove that you uploaded it to anyone, but they claimed that it was a statistical certainty that you had.
And they still can’t get you for downloading the file. For all they know, you could have downloaded it from a legal MP3 store such as iTunes.
No.