When the GP writes "Poison Pill" update, one thinks of a software update which is developed to be deliberately destructive -- rendering the basic functions of phone inoperable, at least without manually re-installing the operating system... knowingly deploying such an update in way users would be expected to automatically receive it, is essentially writing and propagating sabotage malware through a system users expect to receive bug patches ---- the reason Jail time could result is that willfully developing code intended to cause this kind of damage is the same as distributing any other kind of malware, which criminal laws exist to protect the public against.
A copyright owner's protections against illegal/unauthorized use of their works are important, BUT the law does not protect vigilantism or software-based ATTACKS directed against the users of devices running software suspected or known to be illegal; the remedies for copyright infringement are provided by the courts, and the technical ability to use auto-update propagation to brick a fully-functional device running an illegal operating system copy does Not provide a legal right to do so.
Delivering an update that retains basic operation of the device but restricts access to the closed-source features previously available to the user but developed specifically by the author and deployed without proper licensing is a potential gray area that would be more likely to result in actions for the civil courts to sort out than criminal issues.
Suppose the vendor roll out an update that just adds a nag screen and disables the Scientific CALCULATOR App for devices suspected to be illegally loaded, offering a chance to buy an activation key, but the open source code had no calculator app and it was a unique feature that vendor added.
The end customer might argue they never agreed to receive upgrades which would remove features from the software, And deploying the patch automatically through the update facility either fraudulently or negligently damaged features their device had previously, and from the EULAs the user accepted --- none of them granted the update vendor permission to disable or remove application features.
The Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2, but the rest of Android is licensed under the Apache License.
The binary firmware blob is under the GPL, because the Apache 2 license is GPL-compatible, what happens is the entire BLOB file which is distributed is subject to the most restrictive license, and distributing a Blob containing GPL binary code with additional non-commercial use restrictions would be a GPL violation.
The Apache 2.0 License most of Android is under permits Sublicensing, but not complete License Replacement -- the new license needs to include the Apache terms.
ALSO, the License they have cited the CreativeCommons-NonCommercial-ShareAlike is NOT DESIGNED to be used for software source code and binaries, and it does not even qualify as an Open Source software license.
How can we have the device accurately and securely track time over such long periods?
How about the use of a Secondary Unlock PIN with a hardware counter?
To be used, the 2nd Unlock PIN has to be entered 30 times successfully, BUT after the PIN is entered once, you have to wait a minimum of 24 hours before entering it the next time.
The secondary PIN can be something kept on record either by the manufacturer or by the service provider.
For now..... but we SHOULD tax outsourcing at a high rate -- when companies bring assets into the united states created by someone outside the US, the product, services, or software, should be labelled as an Import, and then a tarriff applied to the import based on the $$ value of any product licensing and the $$ value of any contract sold which outsourced services were used to fulfill.
This is because of COMPETITION for mining, AND the low cost of energy. When energy costs increases, mining will be less profitable or unsustainable at current hashrate at that point, and thus less power will be consumed mining, and the difficulty/energy required will drop.
I would point out that a LOT of mining is occurring in China and using up excess renewable/subsidized energy production that would be wasted otherwise.
So what happens is mining also incentivizes production of that renewable energy and the creation/provision of more energy sources which ought to be renewable/sustainable, BECAUSE the electricity has to be extremely cheap per kilowatt hour to provide profitability for mining BTC.
This provision of demand can provide economic incentive for good solid Solar/Wind power infrastructure creation where none existed previously.
No.... Make mining less profitable, and the amount of hash power being used for mining will go down.
For starters; I would suggest modifying the protocol so that miners have to pay some of their mining reward out to those operating full nodes -- basically add some "originating node" data to each transaction, where the first N nodes in the path through the network replace a designated piece of data being propagated with a blob that can be used to prove the node knew the correct piece of data without revealing the data, so the path the transaction took through the network can be verified by the public, but not altered by the miners, and X% of their reward has to be spent to bitcoin nodes' published wallet IDs from included TXes for the block to be valid.
If Uber drivers have to be employees because they don't get to negotiate with the end-client, then it sounds like Amazon Mechanical Turk is in the same situation. Must make sure they pay all users completing hits at least £7.20 / Hour.
Ticket the person who turned the AI on, or write the ticket you would write if the vehicle was known as offending, but the driver fled before police arrived.
Based on the picture; the shuttle should have been cited for pulling up too close to a vehicle moving in conflicting direction to cause a crash, not the truck driver --- sometimes the officer at the scene gets it wrong.
You DON'T pull up to obstruct the passage of the FRONT of a vehicle that is backing up, as the driver will clearly be looking at the path behind their vehicle, not at their front tire section, and you will get hit.
More people will trade in Bitcoin and that means more demand, and thus the price should go up. But what is the appeal of Bitcoin? There are really three strands; the limited nature of supply; fears about the long-term value of fiat currencies in an era of quantitative easing; and the appeal of anonymity.
These are NOT factual statements; Bitcoin could have other appeals to people than acknowledge, AND this might be in error, and yet Slashdot is writing as if these are established facts, rather than stating what person's opinion this is. As a matter of fact, the "appeal of anonymity" might be even more bogus, since Bitcoin transactions are recorded and public forever.
These three factors explain why there is some demand for Bitcoin but not the recent surge. The supply details have if anything deteriorated
Because the author doesn't even bring in significant happenings and events related to the technology. It's like "find reason to reject X other things I constructed, therefore this other theory I have must be true"
People are buying Bitcoin because they expect other people to buy it from them at a higher price; the definition of the greater fool theory.
Well, that might be true for some or not, maybe the expect to transact in it, and for it to gain in value as they transact in BTC.
I suggest we do what we should have done a long time ago..... pass a law that every stock trade has to be approved by at least 1 human before submitting it to a broker or marketmaker for minimal delay; if submitted electronically without answering a CAPTCHA or providing verbal confirmation then a minimum mandatory delay of 10 minutes shall be implemented before it may be taken to a market, and the pending trade will be announced/made part of public data, otherwise the mandatory delay will be 90 seconds. In other words Instant, Completely Automated Trades should be illegal.
Forcing users to upload highly-sensitive pics to make sure others' won't post them. There HAS to be a better way.... like: how about analyzing an image and computing the hash on a client device and uploading just the hash + analysis data? Or at the very least.... mask any public individual identifying info inside the image before uploading.
Yes, you can achieve CD quality on tape if you store CD streams on tape.
It sounds like you're making a veiled Analog vs Digital argument again.
Some forms of tape (not cassette, or anything the individual consumer will buy) can be used as the master and far exceed CDs just storing the audio; not that it matters for most purposes.
Heck, with really good tape and really good equipment, you can get audio that's almost CD quality.
My understanding is with metallic film tapes; it is possible for cassette to exceed the quality of vinyl in terms of media distortions, but not reaching the same theoretical level of fidelity, and the finest cassette setups will exceed many of the CD player setups that people actually use, because of things other than the medium ---- so the theoretical best you could get from a CD doesn't really matter if your speakers are crap or not perfect, as is often the case.
If workers are on the clock, then you probably don't want them billing you if they're doing unrelated tasks.
Workers who gain skills over time on the workplace or on the job MIGHT begin complete equal tasks faster or more quickly, for example they might finish the same task in HALF the amount of time they would have taken before, or one of their peers would take, because they are gaining in skills, abilities, and familiarity to the job, or learned some special shortcuts that work unique to them (E.g. Created a personal tool or batch script to help them, Assuming they were not paid/compensated for their additional development). The employer has no right to capitalize on this, unless they're providing additional compensation to this employee for being more skilled or more productive in a smaller amount of time than they hired for ---- the employee developed the ability to do the work faster on their own, and that increase in ability belongs only to the employee.
So in a sense "slacking off" is the employee's right to do in this case, unless the employee is requiring an unreasonably longer length of time on a task compared to an employee that had the same skill level as they demonstrated when the last hiring agreement or pay agreement was made.
Monitoring must avoid disseminating ANY personal information or data to avoid putting the company at risk.
If you want to monitor their app use and what they're doing fine --- logging individual keystrokes and capturing or sending a user's Amazon or Gmail password, credit card number, or SSN is Not OK; it's doubly not OK for HR keylogger history to figure out their password and access the employee's outside services or personal accounts to "Investigate".
But if they were not part of the suit, they cannot be part of the order.
That is not true; However, the order is too vague to understand who is being required to act, and exactly what step they are being ordered to take.
Depending on your interpretation of the order, they may be ordering something that is technically impossible for ISPs to do, Or they might be making an order that only applies to those doing business with Sci-Hub directly....
"In Active concert or participation with defendant" --- does not include merely routing packets that might somehow be associated with the defendant.
Furthermore: cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Sci-Hub engages in unlawful access to, use, reproduction, and distribution of ACS's trademarks or copyrighted works
ISPs have no way of knowing what domain names SciHub engages in unlawful access, etc,
with. Furthermore, ISPs have no way of knowing what domain names IP traffic are associated with, and to the degree they provide any DNS services typically have no capability to handle any destination domain differently than any other destination domain, thus there is no way to implement the order.
Why not? It is not Apple's fault. Some countries are to blame by creating unreasonable taxation on certain virtual goods sold by Apple not goods enabled to be produced by any particular host country, where lower rates are available in others.
Apple's fiduciary duty to their shareholders is their Number 1 duty, they must utilize all lawful means available to maximize their profitability which includes minimizing or deferring as much of their excess tax burden as long as possible.
Nothing illegal about fair use respins/parody showing well-known characters in dark situations.
Google should've known better. If you want to make sure content will be kid-safe, then engage human curators; Or at least require trusted creators to self-rate their content before it can appear in YT for kids.
Those are low-quality tapes or low-quality players. High-quality recordings to quality tape played by a good player can have very high audio fidelity -- heck; magnetic tape is a medium recording studios have used predominantly, before the advent of hard drives.
Slashdot Mirror
When the GP writes "Poison Pill" update, one thinks of a software update which is developed to be deliberately destructive --
rendering the basic functions of phone inoperable, at least without manually re-installing the operating system...
knowingly deploying such an update in way users would be expected to automatically receive it, is essentially writing and propagating sabotage malware through a system users expect to receive bug patches ---- the reason Jail time could result is that willfully developing code intended to cause this kind of damage is the same as distributing any other kind of malware, which criminal laws exist to protect the public against.
A copyright owner's protections against illegal/unauthorized use of their works are important, BUT the law does not protect vigilantism or software-based ATTACKS directed against the users of devices running software suspected or known to be illegal; the remedies for copyright infringement are provided by the courts, and the technical ability to use auto-update propagation to brick a fully-functional device running an illegal operating system copy does Not provide a legal right to do so.
Delivering an update that retains basic operation of the device but restricts access to the closed-source features previously available to the user but developed specifically by the author and deployed without proper licensing is a potential gray area that would be more likely to result in actions for the civil courts to sort out than criminal issues.
Suppose the vendor roll out an update that just adds a nag screen and disables the Scientific CALCULATOR App for devices suspected to be illegally loaded, offering a chance to buy an activation key, but the open source code had no calculator app and it was a unique feature that vendor added.
The end customer might argue they never agreed to receive upgrades which would remove features from the software, And deploying the patch automatically through the update facility either fraudulently or negligently damaged features their device had previously, and from the EULAs the user accepted --- none of them granted the update vendor permission to disable or remove application features.
The Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2, but the rest of Android is licensed under the Apache License.
The binary firmware blob is under the GPL, because the Apache 2 license is GPL-compatible, what happens is the entire BLOB file which is distributed is subject to the most restrictive license, and distributing a Blob containing GPL binary code with additional non-commercial use restrictions would be a GPL violation.
The Apache 2.0 License most of Android is under permits Sublicensing, but not complete License Replacement --
the new license needs to include the Apache terms.
ALSO, the License they have cited the CreativeCommons-NonCommercial-ShareAlike is NOT DESIGNED to be used for software source code and binaries, and it does not even qualify as an Open Source software license.
They could do that if they want to go to jail..... ILLEGAL.
How can we have the device accurately and securely track time over such long periods?
How about the use of a Secondary Unlock PIN with a hardware counter?
To be used, the 2nd Unlock PIN has to be entered 30 times successfully, BUT after the PIN is entered once, you have to wait a minimum of 24 hours before entering it the next time.
The secondary PIN can be something kept on record either by the manufacturer or by the service provider.
For now..... but we SHOULD tax outsourcing at a high rate -- when companies bring assets into the united states created by someone outside the US, the product, services, or software, should be labelled as an Import, and then a tarriff applied to the import based on the $$ value of any product licensing and the $$ value of any contract sold which outsourced services were used to fulfill.
This is because of COMPETITION for mining, AND the low cost of energy. When energy costs increases, mining will be less profitable or unsustainable at current hashrate at that point, and thus less power will be consumed mining, and the difficulty/energy required will drop.
I would point out that a LOT of mining is occurring in China and using up excess renewable/subsidized energy production that would be wasted otherwise.
So what happens is mining also incentivizes production of that renewable energy and the creation/provision of more energy sources which ought to be renewable/sustainable, BECAUSE the electricity has to be extremely cheap per kilowatt hour to provide profitability for mining BTC.
This provision of demand can provide economic incentive for good solid Solar/Wind power infrastructure creation where none existed previously.
No.... Make mining less profitable, and the amount of hash power being used for mining will go down.
For starters; I would suggest modifying the protocol so that miners have to pay some of their mining reward out to those operating full nodes -- basically add some "originating node" data to each transaction, where the first N nodes in the path through the network replace a designated piece of data being propagated with a blob that can be used to prove the node knew the correct piece of data without revealing the data, so the path the transaction took through the network can be verified by the public, but not altered by the miners, and X% of their reward has to be spent to bitcoin nodes' published wallet IDs from included TXes for the block to be valid.
If Uber drivers have to be employees because they don't get to negotiate with the end-client, then it sounds like Amazon Mechanical Turk is in the same situation.
Must make sure they pay all users completing hits at least £7.20 / Hour.
Ticket the person who turned the AI on, or write the ticket you would write if the vehicle was known as offending, but the driver fled before police arrived.
Based on the picture; the shuttle should have been cited for pulling up too close to a vehicle moving in conflicting direction to cause a crash, not the truck driver --- sometimes the officer at the scene gets it wrong.
You DON'T pull up to obstruct the passage of the FRONT of a vehicle that is backing up, as the driver will clearly be looking at the path behind their vehicle, not at their front tire section, and you will get hit.
More people will trade in Bitcoin and that means more demand, and thus the price should go up. But what is the appeal of Bitcoin? There are really three strands; the limited nature of supply; fears about the long-term value of fiat currencies in an era of quantitative easing; and the appeal of anonymity.
These are NOT factual statements; Bitcoin could have other appeals to people than acknowledge, AND this might be in error, and yet Slashdot is writing as if these are established facts, rather than stating what person's opinion this is. As a matter of fact, the "appeal of anonymity" might be even more bogus, since Bitcoin transactions are recorded and public forever.
These three factors explain why there is some demand for Bitcoin but not the recent surge. The supply details have if anything deteriorated
Because the author doesn't even bring in significant happenings and events related to the technology.
It's like "find reason to reject X other things I constructed, therefore this other theory I have must be true"
People are buying Bitcoin because they expect other people to buy it from them at a higher price; the definition of the greater fool theory.
Well, that might be true for some or not, maybe the expect to transact in it, and for it to gain in value as they transact in BTC.
Sure there is, take pictures of your bedroom empty,
Adding a nude person to an empty room is definitely going to change the hash....
I suggest we do what we should have done a long time ago..... pass a law that every stock trade has to be approved by at least 1 human before submitting it to a broker or marketmaker for minimal delay; if submitted electronically without answering a CAPTCHA or providing verbal confirmation then a minimum mandatory delay of 10 minutes shall be implemented before it may be taken to a market, and the pending trade will be announced/made part of public data, otherwise the mandatory delay will be 90 seconds. In other words Instant, Completely Automated Trades should be illegal.
Why bother with tokens at all? How about bytecodes interpretable by a specialized communication virtual machine?
Forcing users to upload highly-sensitive pics to make sure others' won't post them.
There HAS to be a better way.... like: how about analyzing an image and computing the hash on a client device and uploading just the hash + analysis data? Or at the very least.... mask any public individual identifying info inside the image before uploading.
Yes, you can achieve CD quality on tape if you store CD streams on tape.
It sounds like you're making a veiled Analog vs Digital argument again.
Some forms of tape (not cassette, or anything the individual consumer will buy) can be used as the master and far exceed CDs just storing the audio;
not that it matters for most purposes.
Heck, with really good tape and really good equipment, you can get audio that's almost CD quality.
My understanding is with metallic film tapes; it is possible for cassette to exceed the quality of vinyl in terms of media distortions,
but not reaching the same theoretical level of fidelity, and the finest cassette setups
will exceed many of the CD player setups that people actually use, because of things other than the medium ---- so the theoretical best
you could get from a CD doesn't really matter if your speakers are crap or not perfect, as is often the case.
The problem with goal-driven can be unreasonable goals. There are multiple forms of micromanagement possibilities.
If workers are on the clock, then you probably don't want them billing you if they're doing unrelated tasks.
Workers who gain skills over time on the workplace or on the job MIGHT begin complete equal tasks faster or more quickly, for example they might finish the same task in HALF the amount of time they would have taken before, or one of their peers would take,
because they are gaining in skills, abilities, and familiarity to the job, or learned some special shortcuts that work unique to them (E.g. Created a personal tool or batch script to help them, Assuming they were not paid/compensated for their additional development). The employer has no right to capitalize on this, unless they're providing additional compensation to this employee for being more skilled or more productive in a smaller amount of time than they hired for ---- the employee developed the ability to do the work faster on their own, and that increase in ability belongs only to the employee.
So in a sense "slacking off" is the employee's right to do in this case, unless the employee is requiring an unreasonably longer length of time on a task compared to an employee that had the same skill level as they demonstrated when the last hiring agreement or pay agreement was made.
There are a few off-limits categories though: ....
Monitoring must avoid disseminating ANY personal information or data to avoid putting the company at risk.
If you want to monitor their app use and what they're doing fine --- logging individual keystrokes and capturing or sending a user's Amazon or Gmail password, credit card number, or SSN is Not OK; it's doubly not OK for HR keylogger history to figure out their password and access the employee's outside services or personal accounts to "Investigate".
But if they were not part of the suit, they cannot be part of the order.
That is not true; However, the order is too vague to understand who is being required to act, and exactly what step they are being ordered to take.
Depending on your interpretation of the order, they may be ordering something that is technically impossible for ISPs to do, Or they might be making an order that only applies to those doing business with Sci-Hub directly....
"In Active concert or participation with defendant" --- does not include merely routing packets that might somehow be associated with the defendant.
Furthermore: cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Sci-Hub engages in unlawful access to, use, reproduction, and distribution of ACS's trademarks or copyrighted works
ISPs have no way of knowing what domain names SciHub engages in unlawful access, etc,
with. Furthermore, ISPs have no way of knowing what domain names IP traffic are associated with, and to the degree they provide any DNS services typically have no capability to handle any destination domain differently than any other destination domain, thus there is no way to implement the order.
I can't fucking stand Apple one bit.
Why not? It is not Apple's fault. Some countries are to blame by creating unreasonable taxation on certain virtual goods sold by Apple not goods enabled to be produced by any particular host country, where lower rates are available in others.
Apple's fiduciary duty to their shareholders is their Number 1 duty, they must utilize all lawful means available to maximize their profitability which includes minimizing or deferring as much of their excess tax burden as long as possible.
Nothing illegal about fair use respins/parody showing well-known characters in dark situations.
Google should've known better. If you want to make sure content will be kid-safe, then engage human curators;
Or at least require trusted creators to self-rate their content before it can appear in YT for kids.
Those are low-quality tapes or low-quality players. High-quality recordings to quality tape played by a good player can have very high audio fidelity -- heck; magnetic tape is a medium recording studios have used predominantly, before the advent of hard drives.