You'd think the whole bitkeeper fiasco would have thought him the importance of free software but apparently it didn't.
Linus just seems to have a different philosophy. He doesn't seem to care too much about the whole political aspect of free software He just sees the GPL as a way to encourage people to share and improve the software. GPL3 actually adds more restrictions on sharing the software.
It seems likely that even if they aren't all that specific, Microsoft could probably argue that the vouchers only applied to versions available at the time they were issued.
It would seem a remarkably bizarre interpretation of contract law if you could make an offer that a third party contract change could result in a long term commitment to others. More likely would be MS would be obliged to give something of equivalent value. Microsoft has some good lawyers. I expect they could probably offer Windows Vista as an alternative.
They were regularly banning modded XBoxes. A friend of mine bought himself a second machine for online play which would have been nice for Microsoft if it wasn't for the huge loss they were making on every console at the time.
VW own the trademark on the design of the Beetle. This might, but probably doesn't allow them control over whether that image is used in a movie. But they could still sue, and it would still cost the studio a good deal of oney defending it.
That would require quite a bit of disk space. For context, Google is estimated to have somewhere around 2-20 petabytes of storage, so we're lookign at tens of thousands of Googles.
The theoretical maximum data density of a hard disk is apparently 1TB/square inch, so we're looking at 262 million square inches. So that's 112 square feet of disc space. I guess you could fit all this data into a server rack with future techoology.
AFAIK, there's only one use for it: comparing prints on a crime scene and finding who they belong to.
What is it about a crime scene that makes fingerprints work there and not other places?
Are you telling me that's a bad thing?
Yup.
Are you suggesting any other uses for it?
Yup.
I shouldn't be a suspect until there's at least some evidence associating me with a crime. If they want to check my fingerprints then that presumes I start of as a potential suspect. I find this concept unsettling in and of itself.
If they don't eliminate me, then I remain a suspect. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why my fingerprints could be near a crime scene. If they see a match, they'll bring me in and expect me to prove my innocence.
They let her go but everyone was thinking "what is she trying to hide?"
Wow. She was lucky to get out of there at the start. I bet she'd have hated to find out she was working for a company staffed entirely by judgemental jerks after she'd been there long enough to find out.
So if it was me, I'd find out why they're so insistent that I give them my fingerprints. If it's just company policy rather than a legal requirement I'll turn them down and work for a company that doesn't assume that I'm going to committ a crime. Same goes for any other samples.
Of course some people might go for a less serious response, and simply ask that their immediate manager and the company directors provide the same samples that they ask for.
I have to wonder why people are so desperate for a job that they submit to this humiliation.
The reasonably simple filter (no OCR or anything) built into thunderbird seems to get pretty good results with image spam. The devious techniques they use to obfuscate clearly aren't worth the time or effort.
And this assumes that once they get through any filters the recipient actually wants to read it. I'd have thought that the bulk of content based filtering happens at the email client. Anyone who'd set that up obviously isn't going to pay attention to spam and will just delete it anyway.
Just because you post (submit) something on a web site owned and operated by someone else, that doesn't give you the "right" to force them to publish it or keep serving it up. You're not entitled to that.
No, but basic decency requires that they act reasonably and consistently.
If I submit a "letter to the editor" to my local newspaper, I don't have the "right" to force the newspaper to publish my letter. Whether they publish it or not is up to them, not me, because they own the publication. They are not violating my free speech rights if they refuse to publish my letter, because I am free to publish it myself or to utilize some other forum.
Well, clearly, they only have a limitted amount of space. It's quite unreasonable to expoect them to publish every letter that they receive.
It's no different with the web. Really. If I post something on Slashdot or Digg or whatever, and they decide to take it down, that's their right as "publishers"
If they did that, they would be quite widely criticised and pressured to reverse their decision. And quite rightly so.
Everyone has the legal right to be a jerk. This applies to people and companies. We don't rely on the law to deal with this. We rely on other forms of social pressure.
Well, personally I have a bit of a problem with pirates copying and selling mainstream movies as well. I think it makes a big difference whether you're sharing out of the goodness of your heart, or making copies for a profit.
Presumably, if you could emulate the (2, 5) machine, then this would count as proof, but that can't be the only way to do it, because iteratively we'd need something that can be defined as turing complete to end a chain of emulations. What does Turing complete actually mean? Are there some specific tests?
13 years isn't a huge amount of time but enough for something completely new to come along.
I think there will be practical electric cars. No drivetrain to speak of. Hub mounted motors. And no batteries. Some sort of fuel cell probably. No way anyone wants to spend hours recharging. Filling up at the pump is too convenient.
Thanks, Slashdot, for the interpretation. Not sure I agree with it, but I'm really not quite sure what he's saying. It seems a bit of a ramble on standards and free software being commercial and various other stuff. Maybe there's a few cat anecdotes in the full transcript.
Satnav is great for fine detail. Driving within a city, or taking a detour, the device knows exactly where to go, and if you don't have a human navigator, dealing with a dozen instructions from the major road to your final destination - down the road, second left, third on the right 2nd exit... is not easy. But if you don't double check the satnav is taking you where you want to go you will very likely come unstuck.
Generally, yes. In this case, most probably. It all depends on the nature of the use, including length, effect on the marketability of the original, and the nature of the use.
So if these 10 seconds happened to be the most amazing trick ever and would be the sole reason that people would buy his videos, and you used only those 10 seconds without any commentary at all, then there's a possibility it wouldn;t be fair use.
You don't have to convince the police of your innocence. I mean it's pretty obvious that she was trying to use fake ID to get served underage in a bar. You just need to convince them (and possibly the DA) that there is a low chance that they'll make the charges stick. They tend not to bring cases to court if they're going to lose. So, what evidence are the police going to use? The testimony of a bartender, a piece of physical evidence that has been in the possession of the same bartender, a bunch of people that would be way too much hassle to track down over a trivial offence like this and were probably concerned with serving other customers or enjoying their beer, a takedown notice that could easily have been faked, or even if it wasn't only proves that she claims ownership of a photo. She might commit perjury. There's absolutely nothing they could do to prove she wasn't teling the truth.
But the bartender did not distribute the forged document. She distributed a picture of it. If it is a technical crime please present some laws as saying such.
Well, most statutes have language along the lines of "similar to or in the likeness of" a government ID. It's a stretch, but this is why usually if you see a photo of an ID card it will have "SAMPLE" or something written across it.
Given that she is admitting she took the photo, that she was in the bar with that faked ID and that she is under the age of 21 it's not going to be all that hard for anyone to convict her of creating, owning and using fake id which is pretty much bound to have much more severe penalties than a rather dubious case of copyright infringement.
Where's she admitting to all of that?
As far as I can see, she may well be claiming that somebody took a photo of her (possibly from a legitimate ID) and used it to make a fake ID with her name on it. She claims ownership of the photo that someone stole and to add insult to injury some barmaid decided to post it online.
How are you going to prove that she was there and not just someone who looked like her?
She can lie to the police. But the police will not testify to what she had said because of hearsay.
They have no evidence. They don't know if she's going to tell the truth in court. prosecutor will look at the evidence, realise the only evidence is a single witness, who seems to bear a grudge, a DMCA takedown notice that may or may not have been sent by the defendant, and a fake ID that is in the possession of the witness who seems to have a grudgeand a perfectly plausible story that Ashley told to the police that she might use in court. Hell, it may even not have been her who used the ID. Discredit the only witness and cast doubt on the sender of the takedown notice and where's the evidence? It wouldn't get to court.
What technical breach of the law is that? Theft?
Distribution of forged documents must be a crime. Only a technically a crime, and for various reasons, nobody would prosecute, but there is a violation there.
It's pretty strong evidence. Ashley denying she didn't use the ID would mean she perjured herself in a court of law.
She doesn't need to make any claims about whether she used it. She can take the fifth and just discredit the bartender. But that would suggest it got that far. She can lie to the police all she wants,
It doesn't matter if the ID was her property. You are allowed to take pictures of other people's property and post them on your website if you wish.
I should have been more clear there. I meant that she may be technically in breach of the law by posting forged documents. The copyright violation thing isn't going to get Ashley anywhere - there are way too many defences.
A bartender is an law enforcement officer in a way. They are licensed by the state to serve alcohol. In granting the license, the bartender has to enforce certain rules, including not over serving, not serving to underaged persons, preventing patrons from leaving the establishment in cars while intoxicated etc....
But their powers are limited. It may not include collection of evidence.
Businesses are not public property, they are private establishments that let you come in and shop.
They are private property but they're still public places. They are genreally open to the public so many laws apply that don's apply to a private residence.
Putting up a display of 'Bad Renters' is only libel if it's not true. If it wasn't true, then it probably wouldn't have been put up there in the first place. It might be in bad taste, but it's certainly not illegal or amoral.
It is amoral. People may well have a valid reason for not returning the tape on time. It may well be not true. They may make a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think the whole bitkeeper fiasco would have thought him the importance of free software but apparently it didn't.
Linus just seems to have a different philosophy. He doesn't seem to care too much about the whole political aspect of free software He just sees the GPL as a way to encourage people to share and improve the software. GPL3 actually adds more restrictions on sharing the software.
It seems likely that even if they aren't all that specific, Microsoft could probably argue that the vouchers only applied to versions available at the time they were issued.
It would seem a remarkably bizarre interpretation of contract law if you could make an offer that a third party contract change could result in a long term commitment to others. More likely would be MS would be obliged to give something of equivalent value. Microsoft has some good lawyers. I expect they could probably offer Windows Vista as an alternative.
They were regularly banning modded XBoxes. A friend of mine bought himself a second machine for online play which would have been nice for Microsoft if it wasn't for the huge loss they were making on every console at the time.
That could be placeholder footage. These days the special effects are constantly being worked on quite late into production.
VW own the trademark on the design of the Beetle. This might, but probably doesn't allow them control over whether that image is used in a movie. But they could still sue, and it would still cost the studio a good deal of oney defending it.
That would require quite a bit of disk space. For context, Google is estimated to have somewhere around 2-20 petabytes of storage, so we're lookign at tens of thousands of Googles.
The theoretical maximum data density of a hard disk is apparently 1TB/square inch, so we're looking at 262 million square inches. So that's 112 square feet of disc space. I guess you could fit all this data into a server rack with future techoology.
you did deprive them - of money.
I do that if I don't buy it. I do that to a shop if I buy from their competitor.
Copyright infringement may be wrong but it isn't stealing.
AFAIK, there's only one use for it: comparing prints on a crime scene and finding who they belong to. What is it about a crime scene that makes fingerprints work there and not other places?
Are you telling me that's a bad thing?
Yup.
Are you suggesting any other uses for it?
Yup.
I shouldn't be a suspect until there's at least some evidence associating me with a crime. If they want to check my fingerprints then that presumes I start of as a potential suspect. I find this concept unsettling in and of itself.
If they don't eliminate me, then I remain a suspect. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why my fingerprints could be near a crime scene. If they see a match, they'll bring me in and expect me to prove my innocence.
They let her go but everyone was thinking "what is she trying to hide?"
Wow. She was lucky to get out of there at the start. I bet she'd have hated to find out she was working for a company staffed entirely by judgemental jerks after she'd been there long enough to find out.
So if it was me, I'd find out why they're so insistent that I give them my fingerprints. If it's just company policy rather than a legal requirement I'll turn them down and work for a company that doesn't assume that I'm going to committ a crime. Same goes for any other samples.
Of course some people might go for a less serious response, and simply ask that their immediate manager and the company directors provide the same samples that they ask for.
I have to wonder why people are so desperate for a job that they submit to this humiliation.
The reasonably simple filter (no OCR or anything) built into thunderbird seems to get pretty good results with image spam. The devious techniques they use to obfuscate clearly aren't worth the time or effort.
And this assumes that once they get through any filters the recipient actually wants to read it. I'd have thought that the bulk of content based filtering happens at the email client. Anyone who'd set that up obviously isn't going to pay attention to spam and will just delete it anyway.
Just because you post (submit) something on a web site owned and operated by someone else, that doesn't give you the "right" to force them to publish it or keep serving it up. You're not entitled to that.
No, but basic decency requires that they act reasonably and consistently.
If I submit a "letter to the editor" to my local newspaper, I don't have the "right" to force the newspaper to publish my letter. Whether they publish it or not is up to them, not me, because they own the publication. They are not violating my free speech rights if they refuse to publish my letter, because I am free to publish it myself or to utilize some other forum.
Well, clearly, they only have a limitted amount of space. It's quite unreasonable to expoect them to publish every letter that they receive.
It's no different with the web. Really. If I post something on Slashdot or Digg or whatever, and they decide to take it down, that's their right as "publishers"
If they did that, they would be quite widely criticised and pressured to reverse their decision. And quite rightly so.
Everyone has the legal right to be a jerk. This applies to people and companies. We don't rely on the law to deal with this. We rely on other forms of social pressure.
Well, personally I have a bit of a problem with pirates copying and selling mainstream movies as well. I think it makes a big difference whether you're sharing out of the goodness of your heart, or making copies for a profit.
Presumably, if you could emulate the (2, 5) machine, then this would count as proof, but that can't be the only way to do it, because iteratively we'd need something that can be defined as turing complete to end a chain of emulations. What does Turing complete actually mean? Are there some specific tests?
13 years isn't a huge amount of time but enough for something completely new to come along.
I think there will be practical electric cars. No drivetrain to speak of. Hub mounted motors. And no batteries. Some sort of fuel cell probably. No way anyone wants to spend hours recharging. Filling up at the pump is too convenient.
Thanks, Slashdot, for the interpretation. Not sure I agree with it, but I'm really not quite sure what he's saying. It seems a bit of a ramble on standards and free software being commercial and various other stuff. Maybe there's a few cat anecdotes in the full transcript.
Satnav is great for fine detail. Driving within a city, or taking a detour, the device knows exactly where to go, and if you don't have a human navigator, dealing with a dozen instructions from the major road to your final destination - down the road, second left, third on the right 2nd exit... is not easy. But if you don't double check the satnav is taking you where you want to go you will very likely come unstuck.
Lol! They might be. It would be a slightly tougher fair use argument than an equivalent length segment where the guy calls to fix the refrigerator.
Generally, yes. In this case, most probably. It all depends on the nature of the use, including length, effect on the marketability of the original, and the nature of the use.
So if these 10 seconds happened to be the most amazing trick ever and would be the sole reason that people would buy his videos, and you used only those 10 seconds without any commentary at all, then there's a possibility it wouldn;t be fair use.
She's playing with fire, that's for sure. While I still don't think they could secure a conviction, if they did, it could ruin her life.
You don't have to convince the police of your innocence. I mean it's pretty obvious that she was trying to use fake ID to get served underage in a bar. You just need to convince them (and possibly the DA) that there is a low chance that they'll make the charges stick. They tend not to bring cases to court if they're going to lose. So, what evidence are the police going to use? The testimony of a bartender, a piece of physical evidence that has been in the possession of the same bartender, a bunch of people that would be way too much hassle to track down over a trivial offence like this and were probably concerned with serving other customers or enjoying their beer, a takedown notice that could easily have been faked, or even if it wasn't only proves that she claims ownership of a photo. She might commit perjury. There's absolutely nothing they could do to prove she wasn't teling the truth.
But the bartender did not distribute the forged document. She distributed a picture of it. If it is a technical crime please present some laws as saying such.
Well, most statutes have language along the lines of "similar to or in the likeness of" a government ID. It's a stretch, but this is why usually if you see a photo of an ID card it will have "SAMPLE" or something written across it.
Given that she is admitting she took the photo, that she was in the bar with that faked ID and that she is under the age of 21 it's not going to be all that hard for anyone to convict her of creating, owning and using fake id which is pretty much bound to have much more severe penalties than a rather dubious case of copyright infringement.
Where's she admitting to all of that?
As far as I can see, she may well be claiming that somebody took a photo of her (possibly from a legitimate ID) and used it to make a fake ID with her name on it. She claims ownership of the photo that someone stole and to add insult to injury some barmaid decided to post it online.
How are you going to prove that she was there and not just someone who looked like her?
She can lie to the police. But the police will not testify to what she had said because of hearsay.
They have no evidence. They don't know if she's going to tell the truth in court. prosecutor will look at the evidence, realise the only evidence is a single witness, who seems to bear a grudge, a DMCA takedown notice that may or may not have been sent by the defendant, and a fake ID that is in the possession of the witness who seems to have a grudgeand a perfectly plausible story that Ashley told to the police that she might use in court. Hell, it may even not have been her who used the ID. Discredit the only witness and cast doubt on the sender of the takedown notice and where's the evidence? It wouldn't get to court.
What technical breach of the law is that? Theft?
Distribution of forged documents must be a crime. Only a technically a crime, and for various reasons, nobody would prosecute, but there is a violation there.
It's pretty strong evidence. Ashley denying she didn't use the ID would mean she perjured herself in a court of law.
She doesn't need to make any claims about whether she used it. She can take the fifth and just discredit the bartender. But that would suggest it got that far. She can lie to the police all she wants,
It doesn't matter if the ID was her property. You are allowed to take pictures of other people's property and post them on your website if you wish.
I should have been more clear there. I meant that she may be technically in breach of the law by posting forged documents. The copyright violation thing isn't going to get Ashley anywhere - there are way too many defences.
A bartender is an law enforcement officer in a way. They are licensed by the state to serve alcohol. In granting the license, the bartender has to enforce certain rules, including not over serving, not serving to underaged persons, preventing patrons from leaving the establishment in cars while intoxicated etc....
But their powers are limited. It may not include collection of evidence.
Businesses are not public property, they are private establishments that let you come in and shop.
They are private property but they're still public places. They are genreally open to the public so many laws apply that don's apply to a private residence.
Putting up a display of 'Bad Renters' is only libel if it's not true. If it wasn't true, then it probably wouldn't have been put up there in the first place. It might be in bad taste, but it's certainly not illegal or amoral.
It is amoral. People may well have a valid reason for not returning the tape on time. It may well be not true. They may make a mistake.