How can the simple act of looking at pictures be illegal?
How can anyone who saves images of child porn be criminals, if they didn't have anything to do with creating the images in the first place?
He was not charged with looking at a picture but with possession of child porn. Child porn is illegal and most laws state "creation, distribution, and/or possession" to attack both the supply and the demand for child porn.
Think of how the billions of people that saw the images of the World Trade Center coming down. Are they all terrorists? What about the people who saved those images on video tape, are they criminals?
This is a non-arguement. Witnessing an illegal act is not inherently illegal and does not make one a criminal. Nor does video taping an illegal act, unless one is party to the illegal act. Possession of a video tape or picture of an illegal act is not illegal UNLESS the law says that possession of that video tape or picture is unlawful. See above about laws pertaining to possession of child porn.
In order to indict someone who has child porn images, the cops must at least prove that the person knowingly bought those images from the criminals who made the pictures in the first place. What happened to the basic principle that it's the state's duty to prove criminal intention, not the accused person's duty to prove innocence?
Actually, no. Mear possession of an item can be a crime. It then becomes a matter for the jury to decide if the person was unwittingly in possesion of said item. The prosecution argues that the defendant knew possession of the images illegal, and he came into possession when he viewed the images. The defense argues he did not intend to possess the images, mearly to view them. The jury sided with the prosecution deciding that reguardless of his intent on possession, he did in fact come into possession of items it is unlawful to possess.
The defense is now appealing the verdict stating that the defendant unknowingly came into possession and that should be a mitigating factor. And thus the legal system grinds on.
Why aren't they going after the damn website his browser was at?
Probably jurisdiction. If the website in question does not reside in GA or the US then there is little that can be done besides telling law enforcement in that particular country.
Another funny thing is, why did they make a "copy" of the hard drive?
By making a copy of the hard drive they can say that the original information is intact while basically ripping the data to shreds on the copy looking for deleted and hidden files. Also, there is no worry they may accidently erase or destroy evidence will working with the data.
Why do you need to study porn for more than 2 seconds?
They studied the drive looking for more evidence. Once they have access, they want to get as much evidence as possible, so the try to decrypt files, locate deleted files, etc.
I hold the patent on aggregate matter, which you infringe on with your planets and moons and such. Cease and hand over you patents or I will sue you and revoke your right to exsist!
Well, I have to qualify this by saying I don't know that much about the whole thing, but:
If one can use Borland tools with WineLib to generate code that runs on Linux from within Windows, then Borland could include WineLib with it's compilers FOR FREE and include some documentaion on how to cross compile for X on linux and advertise how much better their compilers are than their rivals because of it.
Or better yet, go to Borland and ask the following in order:
This is our code. Is it so close to your code that it infringes on your patent? If not, the would you sign this paper saying so?
If yes, Can we have a free license?
If not, how much will a license for your patent cost us?
And work from there. For all anyone knows, Borland may just GIVE a license to winelib for free if they think they can get more people to use their products. Granted, they may (will probably) say "No, you have to pay us X." but it can't hurt to ask, and will at least give a solution to the problem.
Actually, one would think that the power converter would be built in to:
the LED "bulb" if one were to use legacy lamps
the lamp made for LEDs
Another point: With DC, there are issues with high power devices and circuits involving heat and current carrying capacity of wiring.
As for a single 120VAC - 12VDC converter for a room, you can purchase high amp converters and do just that. Granted, it may not be cheap and there will be a large number of devices that use other than 12VDC which will still require engery-wasting power converters, but it can be done.
Someone speaks the truth! Now, can we get on with life? And if you want to make a serious dent in MS Windows, let's develop a better OS targeted directly for the desktop user. That is if someone hasn't beaten us too it.
I will admit that there are some problems with my analogy. But, no analogy is perfect. I was just trying to provided a better analogy in the frame work presented. I have been trying to come up with better one, but I have had little luck with it. I was thinking about possibly using say, bus passes or some other re-usable commodity, but you run into the problem of subscription.
That said, I can answer some of your critisms.
While a song is not "used up", the fact is one tends to acquire a particular song once, just as one tends to purchase a meal once. That is where the comparison lies. Not a perfect comparison, but there is rarely a perfect analogy or comparison.
"Free media" is not free. As you pointed out Advertisers pay for the media. You and I pay for the media with our attention to the ads and purchasing the products advertised, allowing the advertisers to pay for the ads which pay for the rest of the content. The content is paid for by a third party and not the producers of the content. This does not happen with P2P. There are no ads in MP3 or Ogg files that compensated to producers and distributors of the music content of those files.
The major lables pay for the production of the music, production of the CDs, advertising for the artists, distribution of the CDs, etc. In this sense they play the part of the advertisers. They pay for the delivery of the content of media.
I do not doubt that people will continue to make music. You refer to artists making, producing, and distributing their own music. In this sense, the artist takes the place of major labels. Will file sharing hurt independant artists? Maybe, maybe not.
It could be that it only hurts the artist only after the artist reaches a certain level of popularity or exposure. One could suppose this point would be reached where uncompensated distribution exceeds compensated distribution without a corresponding increase in compensation through other venues.
The problem lies in the nature of digitized music. Digitized music is fairly unique in that one can cheaply and easily give away copies of the product without loss of use of the original and without significant added cost.
The end result of this may be a redistribution of wealth from a few artists and the major labels to ALL artists in varying degrees. The effect of this is what? Will it happen? Who knows?
But, there is one thing you can be sure will happen. Those who have the wealth will resist its redistribution and anything that may cause said redistribution.
I just tried to give a better point of referrence and understanding.
Your example is flawed when applied to this subject. Specifically, it is too simple and does not represent the dynamics at hand.
A better representation would be as follows:
You and a friend go to a restaurant that charges $10.00 per all you can eat platter and an ala carte menu. You can:
both spend $10 and get whatever comes in a particular platter, whether you wanted it all or not.
both spend whatever it takes to get what you want off the ala carte menu.
one spends a couple of bucks for an appetizer and the other gets a platter and secretly share food.
go hungry.
This compares (not perfectly, but better) to the music industry as:
Buy music in CDs, etc
Listen to and record the radio, pay for downloads, etc
Download music in violation of the copyright
Not listen to music
Now, we bring in a new idea. All you can eat buffet for $5.00. This would equate to distribution by download. Lower price and higher margin due to lower overhead (maybe) but, also greater chance of someone getting something for nothing.
The big difference is the restaurant can enforce a "no sharing" policy for the buffet, but music producers can't. The question is: will people buy something if they can get it from a friend for free? If most people go for the free ride, then there is no profit. If the music producers don't make any money, they soon will not produce any music, just like a restaurant going out of business.
New technologies that make distribution more efficient, that open larger markets, and that increase competition can cause a redistribution, as well as the creation of, wealth.
The real question is: how viable is a business who's product can be duplicated and given away so easily using this distribution method? Will people kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
There is some good info in this article, if one read the article with a critical eye. If one approach the article from the point of view of a salesman, one garners useful information and strageties for presenting Linux-based solutions. The following quotes from the article demonstrate my point.
But, in the midsized companies, adding Linux would create a multiplatform company where a Microsoft-only shop existed previously. Koelsch said adding Linux at these companies could result in significant new expenses. These include additional staff needed to support the new Linux systems.
Linux is free, but the support for it is not," Koelsch told me, adding that "unless there is a compelling reason" mid-sized shops are better off with Microsoft solutions, despite any shortcomings.
This shows what some of the major objections are at mid-sized companies. One can improve the chances of adoption by mid-sized companies by showing how current employees can manage Linux systems, how Linux can be used to lower costs in both near and long term, how Linux can increase security and functionality.
The statement about support not being free is an important one. It shows concern for on-going cost containment. It should be easy to show how low-maintance Linux systems improve cost-containment. Also, one can show how training current employees can increase retention, improve morale, and lower TCO.
In small business, IT support may be provided by a very small internal staff or by an outside contractor able to use Linux as a money-saver for clients.
I know a number of small businesses--some very small--where an outside contractor installed a Linux mail server, for example, as an inexpensive way to meet a customer requirement. This is especially the case where customers don't need the calendar and address book functionality offered by Microsoft Exchange.
Here, again, we see a good example of where management's mind is. Many see that Linux can be a money-saver, and can be used in place of MS solutions in certain situations. It also shows that what management wants is calendar and address book solutions. Show how these can be provided on Linux and one can negate that argument. If this feature is not available (I do believe there is a solution out there), it sounds like a good product and a way to increase Linux adoption.
Articles, even articles that bash Linux, can be used to see what things can be done to improve Linux and OSS adoption. They show misconceptions, desired functionality, and objections that need over-coming, sometimes just by sheading a little light and knowledge.
Actually you are the idiot, and an ass as well. Your loud pipes do not allow people to hear you are coming. In fact, all those pipes do is annoy people at stop lights. Once upon a time, before well insulated, air conditioned cars, you may have been right. But, with the way cars are now, and the laws of physics, the only people who hear you coming are people with their windows down.
And, just so you know, Harley Davidson does not recommend using straight pipes. It lowers the performance characteristics of the bikes.
The thing I find interesting is that everyone seems to be equating traveling on commercial aircraft with traveling. This is not the case. He can go anywhere in the US, except Hawaii, without boarding a plane.
Just because he refuses to provide ID to fly does not mean he is trapped anywhere or under "regional arrest". He is perfectly free to drive, ride a bus, ride a horse, walk, take a boat, and probably take a train, or a combination thereof. All it takes is time and/or money, which he has in abundance.
Re:I Love the GPL - because I love business
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
Interestingly enough, you don't address the parent posters original concerns. You, in fact, misinterpret his entire post and make arguements that are completely off-point.
First off, companies are about people, it is colsed licenses that seperate companies from people. If I am in a business and I run Linux, I can share it everywhere, at home, at work, with friends, try doing that with a closed sorce product.
Yes, but the parent states
The problem with the GPL mindset is that it looks at the world as if there are two different groups: big companies and "the people".
Which says the GPL mindset is exactly opposite of what you stated. You talk about running Linux and sharing it. How does that address this
Let's say I'm making a game, and I want to use some standard but rather complicated file format for my models. Now let's assume that there's a premade library that will allow me to easily support the format. Oh joy! Except it uses GPL. Now, I don't want to have to release my code, there's enough theft of ideas in indie gaming as it is. So, I can't really use the library. Neither can a big studio like EA games. Now, who gets hurt more? It's not a problem for EA; they just have one of their coders stay late(er) and the job is done. Or they can pay a third party. But a small developer is probably stretched as it is, and now has to spend even more time reinventing the wheel.
Answer: it doesn't.
Second off, right now, this very day - I can open a business and roll my own operating system for a few $1000 dollars of work. It can be a ksiok, it can be a platform that runs some special hardware, whatever - the point is that power enables 1000's of small businesses that would likely have had to spend millions otherwise - the GPL is anything but anti-business.
The last I saw, rolling ones own meant "to make ones own". I doubt you could make your own O/S for a that litte work. Now, you might be able to make a distro for that. But,it is not the same thing. You are not making anything. You are mearly taking the work of others and putting it together. The people who did the actual work get exactly nothing from you. Granted, thousands of business can be started cheaply using (f/F)ree software, but I am willing to bet that none of them will be successful software companies releasing software under the GPL.
I have been working in IT for the last 10 years with experience as a net admin and unix sysadmin. I have experience with HTML, XML, SGML, PERL and C. I have wired networks and built servers from the ground up. I can fix just about anything.
And, I can't find an IT job in Tampa that isn't tech support at $10.00/hr.
It seems everyone wants 5- 10 years experience in their exact set up, and advanced degrees. I was told at a job interview that I was competing for a $30K/yr job against people with MSCS degrees.
I am working at a factory to make ends meet while trying to either hire on in an appropriate position or get my own company going.
We even have a glut of computer service startups. I have seen places cut their hourly rate in half to try to keep customers.
I don't know what I am going to do, but I may end up leaving the IT field completely. It is getting to be not worth the effort anymore.
I live in Tampa and read the law. This is what I found to be important:
(3) "Communications services" means the transmission, conveyance, or routing... The term does not include:
(a) Information services.
...
(h) Internet access service, electronic mail service, electronic bulletin board service, or similar on-line computer services.
And
(7) "Information service" means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, using, or making available information via communications services, including, but not limited to, electronic publishing, web-hosting service, and end-user 900 number service.
And
(16) "Substitute communications system" means any telephone system, or other system capable of providing communications services, which a person purchases, installs, rents, or leases for his or her own use to provide himself or herself with services used as a substitute for any switched service or dedicated facility by which a dealer of communications services provides a communication path.
IANAL, but the way I read this, computer networks can not be "Substitute communications system" because "communications services" does not include "Information services", "Internet access service", "similar on-line computer services".
This is just another instance of government officials not understanding the technology they are trying to tax, regulate, and legislate.
This ain't rocket surgery. It is painfully dull, boring and potentially stupidly lucrative.
This and the fact that most geeks do not need the software is why it will not be written anytime soon. No one wants to do the boring drudge work involved to make it usable. Just look that the ever-increasing number of half-finished OSS projects for proof. Onces the sexy code is written, development slows, documentation is neglected, and developers move on to the Next Big Thing.
Slashdot Mirror
He was not charged with looking at a picture but with possession of child porn. Child porn is illegal and most laws state "creation, distribution, and/or possession" to attack both the supply and the demand for child porn.
This is a non-arguement. Witnessing an illegal act is not inherently illegal and does not make one a criminal. Nor does video taping an illegal act, unless one is party to the illegal act. Possession of a video tape or picture of an illegal act is not illegal UNLESS the law says that possession of that video tape or picture is unlawful. See above about laws pertaining to possession of child porn.
Actually, no. Mear possession of an item can be a crime. It then becomes a matter for the jury to decide if the person was unwittingly in possesion of said item. The prosecution argues that the defendant knew possession of the images illegal, and he came into possession when he viewed the images. The defense argues he did not intend to possess the images, mearly to view them. The jury sided with the prosecution deciding that reguardless of his intent on possession, he did in fact come into possession of items it is unlawful to possess.
The defense is now appealing the verdict stating that the defendant unknowingly came into possession and that should be a mitigating factor. And thus the legal system grinds on.
I hold the patent on aggregate matter, which you infringe on with your planets and moons and such. Cease and hand over you patents or I will sue you and revoke your right to exsist!
Bwahahahaha!
Well, I have to qualify this by saying I don't know that much about the whole thing, but:
If one can use Borland tools with WineLib to generate code that runs on Linux from within Windows, then Borland could include WineLib with it's compilers FOR FREE and include some documentaion on how to cross compile for X on linux and advertise how much better their compilers are than their rivals because of it.
And work from there. For all anyone knows, Borland may just GIVE a license to winelib for free if they think they can get more people to use their products. Granted, they may (will probably) say "No, you have to pay us X." but it can't hurt to ask, and will at least give a solution to the problem.
- the LED "bulb" if one were to use legacy lamps
- the lamp made for LEDs
Another point: With DC, there are issues with high power devices and circuits involving heat and current carrying capacity of wiring.As for a single 120VAC - 12VDC converter for a room, you can purchase high amp converters and do just that. Granted, it may not be cheap and there will be a large number of devices that use other than 12VDC which will still require engery-wasting power converters, but it can be done.
Someone speaks the truth! Now, can we get on with life? And if you want to make a serious dent in MS Windows, let's develop a better OS targeted directly for the desktop user. That is if someone hasn't beaten us too it.
Actually, yes, you have missed something.
The reason for the reverse engineering.
(1)MS files and programs are being reverse engineered to provide for interoperability.
(2)The reverse engineering of BitKeeper appears to be solely motivated to replace BitKeeper.
An example of 1 would be to reverse engineer Outlook to allow your currently exsisting email/groupware solution to work with Outlook.
An example of 2 would be reverse engineering Outlook to write something to compete with and/or replace MSExchange.
There is a subtle but important difference and it if you can't see it, I feel sorry for you.
I will admit that there are some problems with my analogy. But, no analogy is perfect. I was just trying to provided a better analogy in the frame work presented. I have been trying to come up with better one, but I have had little luck with it. I was thinking about possibly using say, bus passes or some other re-usable commodity, but you run into the problem of subscription.
That said, I can answer some of your critisms.
While a song is not "used up", the fact is one tends to acquire a particular song once, just as one tends to purchase a meal once. That is where the comparison lies. Not a perfect comparison, but there is rarely a perfect analogy or comparison.
"Free media" is not free. As you pointed out Advertisers pay for the media. You and I pay for the media with our attention to the ads and purchasing the products advertised, allowing the advertisers to pay for the ads which pay for the rest of the content. The content is paid for by a third party and not the producers of the content. This does not happen with P2P. There are no ads in MP3 or Ogg files that compensated to producers and distributors of the music content of those files.
The major lables pay for the production of the music, production of the CDs, advertising for the artists, distribution of the CDs, etc. In this sense they play the part of the advertisers. They pay for the delivery of the content of media.
I do not doubt that people will continue to make music. You refer to artists making, producing, and distributing their own music. In this sense, the artist takes the place of major labels. Will file sharing hurt independant artists? Maybe, maybe not.
It could be that it only hurts the artist only after the artist reaches a certain level of popularity or exposure. One could suppose this point would be reached where uncompensated distribution exceeds compensated distribution without a corresponding increase in compensation through other venues.
The problem lies in the nature of digitized music. Digitized music is fairly unique in that one can cheaply and easily give away copies of the product without loss of use of the original and without significant added cost.
The end result of this may be a redistribution of wealth from a few artists and the major labels to ALL artists in varying degrees. The effect of this is what? Will it happen? Who knows?
But, there is one thing you can be sure will happen. Those who have the wealth will resist its redistribution and anything that may cause said redistribution.
I just tried to give a better point of referrence and understanding.
You and a friend go to a restaurant that charges $10.00 per all you can eat platter and an ala carte menu. You can:
- both spend $10 and get whatever comes in a particular platter, whether you wanted it all or not.
- both spend whatever it takes to get what you want off the ala carte menu.
- one spends a couple of bucks for an appetizer and the other gets a platter and secretly share food.
- go hungry.
This compares (not perfectly, but better) to the music industry as:- Buy music in CDs, etc
- Listen to and record the radio, pay for downloads, etc
- Download music in violation of the copyright
- Not listen to music
Now, we bring in a new idea. All you can eat buffet for $5.00. This would equate to distribution by download. Lower price and higher margin due to lower overhead (maybe) but, also greater chance of someone getting something for nothing.The big difference is the restaurant can enforce a "no sharing" policy for the buffet, but music producers can't. The question is: will people buy something if they can get it from a friend for free? If most people go for the free ride, then there is no profit. If the music producers don't make any money, they soon will not produce any music, just like a restaurant going out of business.
New technologies that make distribution more efficient, that open larger markets, and that increase competition can cause a redistribution, as well as the creation of, wealth.
The real question is: how viable is a business who's product can be duplicated and given away so easily using this distribution method? Will people kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
The statement about support not being free is an important one. It shows concern for on-going cost containment. It should be easy to show how low-maintance Linux systems improve cost-containment. Also, one can show how training current employees can increase retention, improve morale, and lower TCO.
Here, again, we see a good example of where management's mind is. Many see that Linux can be a money-saver, and can be used in place of MS solutions in certain situations. It also shows that what management wants is calendar and address book solutions. Show how these can be provided on Linux and one can negate that argument. If this feature is not available (I do believe there is a solution out there), it sounds like a good product and a way to increase Linux adoption.Articles, even articles that bash Linux, can be used to see what things can be done to improve Linux and OSS adoption. They show misconceptions, desired functionality, and objections that need over-coming, sometimes just by sheading a little light and knowledge.
Declaration of Independance: Not a document of the United States of America.
Check the dates and you will see that the DoI was written over 5 years BEFORE there was an United States of America.
As I said before, No, they don't. Get a clue and do some research.
Actually you are the idiot, and an ass as well. Your loud pipes do not allow people to hear you are coming. In fact, all those pipes do is annoy people at stop lights. Once upon a time, before well insulated, air conditioned cars, you may have been right. But, with the way cars are now, and the laws of physics, the only people who hear you coming are people with their windows down.
And, just so you know, Harley Davidson does not recommend using straight pipes. It lowers the performance characteristics of the bikes.
You would censor the boss for expressing his opinion of disloyal employees.
Also, the boss could say that he fired the employee for the employees own good, after all the employee was obviously unhappy.
Or, the safety of himself and/or other employees, because blogger is obviously disgruntled.
Or, for presenting a bad face for the company, which is against company policy in many companies.
The thing I find interesting is that everyone seems to be equating traveling on commercial aircraft with traveling. This is not the case. He can go anywhere in the US, except Hawaii, without boarding a plane.
Just because he refuses to provide ID to fly does not mean he is trapped anywhere or under "regional arrest". He is perfectly free to drive, ride a bus, ride a horse, walk, take a boat, and probably take a train, or a combination thereof. All it takes is time and/or money, which he has in abundance.
But, you forgot about all the other dolts out there who are willing to pay for virtual realestate so they can have virtual mansions.
Think about all the money he can make of those dolts. It's brilliant... or idiotic... one of the two.
I work as a sign fabricator, when not doing computer related stuff.
Of course, I haven't been doing alot of computer work lately.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have been looking for a job for over a year.
I have been working in IT for the last 10 years with experience as a net admin and unix sysadmin. I have experience with HTML, XML, SGML, PERL and C. I have wired networks and built servers from the ground up. I can fix just about anything.
And, I can't find an IT job in Tampa that isn't tech support at $10.00/hr.
It seems everyone wants 5- 10 years experience in their exact set up, and advanced degrees. I was told at a job interview that I was competing for a $30K/yr job against people with MSCS degrees.
I am working at a factory to make ends meet while trying to either hire on in an appropriate position or get my own company going.
We even have a glut of computer service startups. I have seen places cut their hourly rate in half to try to keep customers.
I don't know what I am going to do, but I may end up leaving the IT field completely. It is getting to be not worth the effort anymore.
Can I work for you? Please? PLEASE?!?
My resume is on the web
And
And
IANAL, but the way I read this, computer networks can not be "Substitute communications system" because "communications services" does not include "Information services", "Internet access service", "similar on-line computer services".
This is just another instance of government officials not understanding the technology they are trying to tax, regulate, and legislate.
This and the fact that most geeks do not need the software is why it will not be written anytime soon. No one wants to do the boring drudge work involved to make it usable. Just look that the ever-increasing number of half-finished OSS projects for proof. Onces the sexy code is written, development slows, documentation is neglected, and developers move on to the Next Big Thing.
Maybe, then again, maybe he wouldn't. It would depend on the laws where the individual sent the email to and from and the content of the email.
Remember, the law is a funny thing, and different laws cover business and advertising than cover personal and threatening communication.