for me to run my own (non-inspected) meat packing plant in my backyard?
(Cause the FDA regulates food production. Why, you ask? Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle'.)
For the record, I do support being able to make pretty much whatever you want for your own use, but I do think anything that's going to get sold should have inspection & regulation processes behind it. The early part of last century & the late part of the previous demonstrated why outside inspectors need to be involved.
True, you could have something along the lines of an Underwriter's Laboratory for food, but it would still need to have some kind of legal force. (For instance, the NEC being given force of law in many local jurisdictions.)
Re:Does this "challenge" have any legal significan
on
Microsoft, Sue Me First
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
That's actually just more specific, not really more accurate. His original post was complete true, but it left no indication as to the relation between copyright & trademark.
You're one of the people who thinks that computer security personnel should keep quiet about exploits, because the clueless script kiddies won't find out about them otherwise, aren't you.
This information was already out there, and we don't know if somebody on the real 'enemies of America' list already knew this trick. But we know there's computer-savvy people in terrorist organisations already. It's safer to assume that they already know this trick - in which case publishing it to call attention to the problem might save considerably more damaging information from being released later.
100 calories per hour * 8 hours per day = 800 per day. 5 days a week = 4000 calories per week. That's like running a marathon. Just over 40 hours instead of 3 or 4.
It's rarely difficult to find a person (in the US) who can forge a photo ID. There was three people I knew in college with who made fairly convincing fakes of out-of-state driver's licenses in their spare time. This is part of the reason for the 'Real ID' act.
I thought the MS fanboys stretched to fit...
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
Please tell me you're kidding me. Do you actually believe that somebody would be that Machiavellian in order to "do no evil"? Were this the case, then you could probably come up with someone who was told at a Google interview, in confidence, "Oh, this won't stand up in court, it's just hear to make the lawyers happy."
It's the method, not the goal. From a number of perspectives, more readers/posters on Slashdot is a good goal for the editors. Doing so by finding new stories, making a better discussion system, keeping the polls interesting, etc, will increase the readers & not piss off the current ones. Over the short term, making flamebait editorial remarks will increase the number of posts/clicks, but they won't be happy posts or clicks (at least not for a significant percentage.) Piss off enough people, and they'll (eventually) start leaving.
The story where they announced the pulling of the article contained links to five or six sites you could then find the Fishman Affadavit on. Don't know how many of those are still alive today, but...
It's not a part, it's a number. I'm sure the number 13 could be found somewhere in the deCSS program too; is that illegal now? Or how about the letter 'd'?
Look at the key. Then look at 16 hex pair blocks of a DeCSS executable. What's the difference? Neither of them would allow copying of a movie by themselves. But they're both a piece of the solution to that problem. Again, the problem comes down to the fact that the DMCA doesn't define "part" in the code where it states that certain "parts" are now contraband. Which leaves it up to a judge to decide.
No, it's not. It's a number, just like the number 13. It's not a device or product. The idea that a number can be restricted is utterly ridiculous.
But the entire HD-DVD could be looked at as a single, massive, 30 billion digit number. Try to argue that can't be restricted.
And regardless of what we'd like to be legal, the DMCA makes a "part" of a program designed to bypass DRM is illegal. Now, in this context, what is the definition of a "part"?
a constituent piece of a machine or tool either included at the time of manufacture or set in place as a replacement for the original piece.
(2006 Random House Unabridged dictionary) Of course, that's not the legal definition... as far as I can tell, it's not defined anywhere in the US code. Which means, when & if a case goes to trial, a judge (or several judges, once appealed) will be deciding how much is needed to call it a "part". Alternately, they'll decide it's too vaguely written to be enforceable, and the "part" piece will be struck from the law. Then only fully assembled, ready-to-compile code would be illegal.
This case would test the limits on what constitutes a "part" of a "device."
And we can really, really hope there's a reasonably informed judge should the case every go to trial. Probably 99%+ of internet population would need to look up rather more information than just the key in order to produce a program that would allow an HD-DVD crack. Since the (legal) code doesn't contain a definition of how much (computer) code is or isn't a "part", the legal precedents that this could set would be dramatic.
I would guess (although trying to read the minds of judges is a good way to look silly) that it would hinge on whether or not a piece of code had any use in a non-infringing device.
Actually I used this specific example because it is an example used in OPSEC training for military employees.
Well, I can't really say what the Army teaches, as I never wore a green uniform. All of the OPSEC training I've ever sat through was much more concerned with, as you said later, patrol times & the like. (In my case, port call dates, fuel stops, etc.) And since it's a matter of public record where ships are homeported, it's the simple matter of looking at the big numbers on the side & going to the internet to find out where the USN/USMC/USCG guys you're looking at came from. So there wasn't ever any mention of "don't say where you're from", with the exception of the obvious "don't put your address/telephone on the internet."
Will there be more attacks in the US? Most likely. Will they be going after military family members? Exceptionally unlikely. I'd be more concerned with house burglary... or, hell, lightning strike starting a fire.
Can you honestly tell me that no one has ever died from pot laced with something nasty?
This is an excellent point in favor of legalizing drugs. How often is there contaminantion of a batch of Jim Beam that makes people sick or kills them? Has there been any since Prohibition ended? But moonshine during Prohibition was often dangerous - homemade stills were much more likely to leech lead into the final product. Much like the 'but people steal to buy drugs', it's not a good arguement for keeping it illegal.
Now, the driving/walking under the influence arguement is different - I would believe that more people would die that way. But if other recreational drugs were illegal, would alcohol remain as popular? I'm not sure, really. (IIRC, results from Amesterdam seemed to indicate no - roughly the same total number of people would be getting stoned or drunk, it just shifted the share about.)
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, the reinstatment of the Holy Roman Empire is starting to look better.
(Cause the FDA regulates food production. Why, you ask? Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle'.)
For the record, I do support being able to make pretty much whatever you want for your own use, but I do think anything that's going to get sold should have inspection & regulation processes behind it. The early part of last century & the late part of the previous demonstrated why outside inspectors need to be involved.
True, you could have something along the lines of an Underwriter's Laboratory for food, but it would still need to have some kind of legal force. (For instance, the NEC being given force of law in many local jurisdictions.)
That's actually just more specific, not really more accurate. His original post was complete true, but it left no indication as to the relation between copyright & trademark.
This information was already out there, and we don't know if somebody on the real 'enemies of America' list already knew this trick. But we know there's computer-savvy people in terrorist organisations already. It's safer to assume that they already know this trick - in which case publishing it to call attention to the problem might save considerably more damaging information from being released later.
I think what he was asking was, "Why do people still make booze in such a way that it is illegal?", not, "Why is there any booze that is illegal?"
100 calories per hour * 8 hours per day = 800 per day. 5 days a week = 4000 calories per week. That's like running a marathon. Just over 40 hours instead of 3 or 4.
So rather than Democrats vs. Republicans, we should call it movie producers & labor unions vs. bankers & defense contractors?
Relic's probably afraid that Tycho actually would kill Gabe this time...
The phasing cloak is the problem here, especially considering that the AI won't use it.
Technically, the posts you're replying to prove you wrong on this point. Not to be pedantic or anything.
It's rarely difficult to find a person (in the US) who can forge a photo ID. There was three people I knew in college with who made fairly convincing fakes of out-of-state driver's licenses in their spare time. This is part of the reason for the 'Real ID' act.
Do you see the giant gaping hole in that idea?
It's the method, not the goal. From a number of perspectives, more readers/posters on Slashdot is a good goal for the editors. Doing so by finding new stories, making a better discussion system, keeping the polls interesting, etc, will increase the readers & not piss off the current ones. Over the short term, making flamebait editorial remarks will increase the number of posts/clicks, but they won't be happy posts or clicks (at least not for a significant percentage.) Piss off enough people, and they'll (eventually) start leaving.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking for one...
The story where they announced the pulling of the article contained links to five or six sites you could then find the Fishman Affadavit on. Don't know how many of those are still alive today, but...
Look at the key. Then look at 16 hex pair blocks of a DeCSS executable. What's the difference? Neither of them would allow copying of a movie by themselves. But they're both a piece of the solution to that problem. Again, the problem comes down to the fact that the DMCA doesn't define "part" in the code where it states that certain "parts" are now contraband. Which leaves it up to a judge to decide.
Well, they'll have to get to him first. If you thought the last few were bad, just wait till you see them try to occupy Asgard...
But the entire HD-DVD could be looked at as a single, massive, 30 billion digit number. Try to argue that can't be restricted.
And regardless of what we'd like to be legal, the DMCA makes a "part" of a program designed to bypass DRM is illegal. Now, in this context, what is the definition of a "part"?
(2006 Random House Unabridged dictionary) Of course, that's not the legal definition... as far as I can tell, it's not defined anywhere in the US code. Which means, when & if a case goes to trial, a judge (or several judges, once appealed) will be deciding how much is needed to call it a "part". Alternately, they'll decide it's too vaguely written to be enforceable, and the "part" piece will be struck from the law. Then only fully assembled, ready-to-compile code would be illegal.
I thought everyone on Digg were the trolls who left Slashdot years ago?
Wouldn't that be "nth through n2th digit of pi"? Or x-digit number starting at n of pi?
Well, unless you happen to have 1.32 E37 of something laying around the house. Or you were a big math geek. Then it's completely a legitimate use. :)
And we can really, really hope there's a reasonably informed judge should the case every go to trial. Probably 99%+ of internet population would need to look up rather more information than just the key in order to produce a program that would allow an HD-DVD crack. Since the (legal) code doesn't contain a definition of how much (computer) code is or isn't a "part", the legal precedents that this could set would be dramatic.
I would guess (although trying to read the minds of judges is a good way to look silly) that it would hinge on whether or not a piece of code had any use in a non-infringing device.
Eh, I dunno. Slashdot may have lost numbers to Digg, but it seems that many of the non-entertaining trolls have headed over there as well.
Well, I can't really say what the Army teaches, as I never wore a green uniform. All of the OPSEC training I've ever sat through was much more concerned with, as you said later, patrol times & the like. (In my case, port call dates, fuel stops, etc.) And since it's a matter of public record where ships are homeported, it's the simple matter of looking at the big numbers on the side & going to the internet to find out where the USN/USMC/USCG guys you're looking at came from. So there wasn't ever any mention of "don't say where you're from", with the exception of the obvious "don't put your address/telephone on the internet."
Will there be more attacks in the US? Most likely. Will they be going after military family members? Exceptionally unlikely. I'd be more concerned with house burglary... or, hell, lightning strike starting a fire.
This is an excellent point in favor of legalizing drugs. How often is there contaminantion of a batch of Jim Beam that makes people sick or kills them? Has there been any since Prohibition ended? But moonshine during Prohibition was often dangerous - homemade stills were much more likely to leech lead into the final product. Much like the 'but people steal to buy drugs', it's not a good arguement for keeping it illegal.
Now, the driving/walking under the influence arguement is different - I would believe that more people would die that way. But if other recreational drugs were illegal, would alcohol remain as popular? I'm not sure, really. (IIRC, results from Amesterdam seemed to indicate no - roughly the same total number of people would be getting stoned or drunk, it just shifted the share about.)