We do stil have that to a degree, even in most republics. The Koch brothers, for example, have considerable political clout mainly as a result of inherited money. And is was hardly a pure coincidence that George W Bush was in a posiiton follow his father's footsteps to become president.
Why can't we have both? The company allegedly spent $100 million on getting the controllers to feel right. Couldn't they have spend a little on the aesthetics of the device as well?
What does that half-percent mean? It's not like our identity can be expressed as a number. Does it mean that it thinks the user is someone else one time in 200, or that for any person in their 2000 user sample set, they matched with 10 of them (both of which would be useful as long as not the only factor we rely on)? Or something else entirely?
There are two pilots. I may be wrong here, but one of the pilots will presumably have actual flying experience. And even a pilot who has never flown that specfic type of plane before will have plenty of experience flying large planes.
It's not as clear cut as that. The intent of the law is not to criminalise failing to adhere to the T&Cs. A good defence lawyer will argue that access was authorised, and editing was authorised. The specific editing they do is outside of the scope of the law and entirely a matter of contract. A Jury is likely to be pretty reluctant to find guilty in a case that's clearly a contract dispute.
Stealing a television is stealing a television whether there's a contract clause in place or not.
The case law is inconclusive. There has been a case covering this but while the initial finding was a guilty verdict, this was set aside on appeal. I could certainly imagine others agreeing with the judges point "Allowing a conscious violation of website's Terms of Service to be a misdemeanor violation of the CFAA would essentially give a website owner the power to define criminal conduct".
If you use somebody else's access for a system that you have been explicitly barred from though, it's pretty clear cut.
Thing is, when you're told that revenue for that deoartment was $17.27 billion rather than $17.37 billion, and it was all invested in one of the more profitable divisions it doesn't seem all that bad.
Because the purpose of The Pirate Bay, as far as the curt was concerned, was purely to facilitate copyright infringement.
The majority of its results for popular searches result in infringing files.
The majority of its users used it entirely for finding copyright infringing files, which even a fool wouldn't believe were genuinely put there by the rightful owners.
It appeared to have no function other than facilitiating copyright infringement. There ae torrent search engines that manage to avoid most of the infringing file
When asked to remove infringing torents, the site operators replied with rude insulting messages refusing to do so.
It even has a name that is a common term for copyright infringement
Google on the other hand has clear obvious use other than copyright infringement, is mostly used for legitimate purposes, works with copright holders to remove links to infringing material. To find Lady Gaga mp3s on google you need to do a pretty complex search. To find them on the Pirate Bay, you need to seach for "Lady Gaga".
Trouble with Penn And Teller as a source is the show is, well Bullshit!. There's some good stuff but it's extremely biased and each episode clearly has an agenda. Even Penn Jillette has said prettty much as much (Teller was silent on the matter)
RAII? Are you serious? The kernel has pools of cartridges each conataining prefabed blocks of "objects" already initialized and ready to go prior to being needed.
I don't see how this is a problem. You can still do this if your language supports RAII.
It would potentially mean it could be used as evidence against people without a search warrant. It certainly mean it could be used as evidence against AT&T if it showed evidence of a crime since they were the ones who made the mistake.
"I believe that you are deriving an implausibly large amount of information from a small piece of data, and that you are in fact pretty unreliable. I bring up sheep entrails not because I actually have a sheep but as a comparison between your conclusions and that of a soothsayer reading the entrails, and I feel I can use this to mock you in a lightheared way.":P
"Some of us could care less. I am mentioning this because I wish to imply that this fact is in fact surprising. I do so by way of exaggeration, of course, because it's obvious that some people do care. My main point being that on the whole most of us do not. Since I am using this particular rhetoric device, and exaggerating how small the segment who do care is, it shall be obvious to most that I am of the group that could not care less."
This would require the person being sued to counter-sue in court.
Actually no. Perjury is a crime. They'd need to initiate a criminal complaint.
They would need to win a court battle.
Nope. The government prosecutor would have to.
The penalty will need to be severe enough to act as a deterrent. If a DMCA abuse typically brings in $3,000 per person/company and the DMCA abuser sends out a hundred of these, fining them $50,000 is just going to be "cost of doing business"
Perjury is reated incredibly seriously by the courts, and will result in a prison sentence. It would also be seen as a lawyer breaking his obligation to uphold the law and he'd never be able to practice law again.
"It's copyright infringement"
"Right. I'm a sure a lot of people actually give a damn as well"
Is the second person actually claiming to give a damn? I'd interpret that as saying that people other than him might conceivably give a damn but he's not one of them.
Likewise, the commetn from "nurb432" was "And some of us could care less." implying that while some people may care less, he's clearly not one of them. i.e. He couldn't care less.
I'm less sympathetic to commercial infringement, and I guess this is most likely infringing, but I can't help thinking this is pointless.
Lyrics sites can't generate a lot of direct revenue for the music industry through lyric licensing fees. They do generate indirect revenue by people googling for the song they heard a snippet of and then buying an album. Also many of the ads are going to be related to the song (listen to this song on last.fm, buy the ringtone) so it seems odd that they're putting the effort in to stop this.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus the whole wanted in Sweden for rape thing.
We do stil have that to a degree, even in most republics. The Koch brothers, for example, have considerable political clout mainly as a result of inherited money. And is was hardly a pure coincidence that George W Bush was in a posiiton follow his father's footsteps to become president.
Probably cheaper and easier to get an old desktop PC off freecycle.
This is tort law. It's not really intended to change attitudes or behaviours. It's there to provide restitution for the injured party.
I haven't seen one, but I think the PS4 may look better in real life. Those odd angles make it look fatter in photos. It is quite smalland slimmmer than the XBox 360, at least
Why can't we have both? The company allegedly spent $100 million on getting the controllers to feel right. Couldn't they have spend a little on the aesthetics of the device as well?
What does that half-percent mean? It's not like our identity can be expressed as a number. Does it mean that it thinks the user is someone else one time in 200, or that for any person in their 2000 user sample set, they matched with 10 of them (both of which would be useful as long as not the only factor we rely on)? Or something else entirely?
There are two pilots. I may be wrong here, but one of the pilots will presumably have actual flying experience. And even a pilot who has never flown that specfic type of plane before will have plenty of experience flying large planes.
According to slashdot media's T&C's if you are under 18 you need your parent or guardian's permission to access Slashdot.
Would you consider it reasonable to charge a 17 year old with a crime for using Slashdot without parents' permission?
Bear in mind, Slashdot media wouldn't need to be involved. The government could choose to prosecute anyway.
As I mentioned in another comment in this thread US District judge George H. Wu has ruled otherwise. The US government's position is a legal opinion not a ruling.
It's not as clear cut as that. The intent of the law is not to criminalise failing to adhere to the T&Cs. A good defence lawyer will argue that access was authorised, and editing was authorised. The specific editing they do is outside of the scope of the law and entirely a matter of contract. A Jury is likely to be pretty reluctant to find guilty in a case that's clearly a contract dispute.
Stealing a television is stealing a television whether there's a contract clause in place or not.
The case law is inconclusive. There has been a case covering this but while the initial finding was a guilty verdict, this was set aside on appeal. I could certainly imagine others agreeing with the judges point "Allowing a conscious violation of website's Terms of Service to be a misdemeanor violation of the CFAA would essentially give a website owner the power to define criminal conduct".
If you use somebody else's access for a system that you have been explicitly barred from though, it's pretty clear cut.
Slightly risky though. At the moment, this company is just breaching terms and conditions.
If you use stolen accounts, you're well into the territory of criminal hacking (unauthorised acces to computer systems).
Thing is, when you're told that revenue for that deoartment was $17.27 billion rather than $17.37 billion, and it was all invested in one of the more profitable divisions it doesn't seem all that bad.
Google on the other hand has clear obvious use other than copyright infringement, is mostly used for legitimate purposes, works with copright holders to remove links to infringing material. To find Lady Gaga mp3s on google you need to do a pretty complex search. To find them on the Pirate Bay, you need to seach for "Lady Gaga".
Yes, as long as the intent is legitimate and you aren't deliberately doing this in order to facilitate copyright infringement.
This is why Google is legal and The Pirate Bay is not.
Trouble with Penn And Teller as a source is the show is, well Bullshit!. There's some good stuff but it's extremely biased and each episode clearly has an agenda. Even Penn Jillette has said prettty much as much (Teller was silent on the matter)
I don't see how this is a problem. You can still do this if your language supports RAII.
It would potentially mean it could be used as evidence against people without a search warrant. It certainly mean it could be used as evidence against AT&T if it showed evidence of a crime since they were the ones who made the mistake.
No, but the post I replied to didn't mention that. I just wanted to address the points made ratehr than the cnlcusion, which I agree with.
Here is what I interpret from you comment:
:P
"I believe that you are deriving an implausibly large amount of information from a small piece of data, and that you are in fact pretty unreliable. I bring up sheep entrails not because I actually have a sheep but as a comparison between your conclusions and that of a soothsayer reading the entrails, and I feel I can use this to mock you in a lightheared way."
Not quite. It's more along the lines of:
"Some of us could care less. I am mentioning this because I wish to imply that this fact is in fact surprising. I do so by way of exaggeration, of course, because it's obvious that some people do care. My main point being that on the whole most of us do not. Since I am using this particular rhetoric device, and exaggerating how small the segment who do care is, it shall be obvious to most that I am of the group that could not care less."
Actually no. Perjury is a crime. They'd need to initiate a criminal complaint.
Nope. The government prosecutor would have to.
Perjury is reated incredibly seriously by the courts, and will result in a prison sentence. It would also be seen as a lawyer breaking his obligation to uphold the law and he'd never be able to practice law again.
It was a sardonic comment.
"It's copyright infringement"
"Right. I'm a sure a lot of people actually give a damn as well"
Is the second person actually claiming to give a damn? I'd interpret that as saying that people other than him might conceivably give a damn but he's not one of them.
Likewise, the commetn from "nurb432" was "And some of us could care less." implying that while some people may care less, he's clearly not one of them. i.e. He couldn't care less.
Subtext, you see.
Apparently the only claim that the "perjury" part covers is that hey believe they represent the copyright holder.
Also, even if they're lying about this, perjury is a crime that needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I'm less sympathetic to commercial infringement, and I guess this is most likely infringing, but I can't help thinking this is pointless.
Lyrics sites can't generate a lot of direct revenue for the music industry through lyric licensing fees. They do generate indirect revenue by people googling for the song they heard a snippet of and then buying an album. Also many of the ads are going to be related to the song (listen to this song on last.fm, buy the ringtone) so it seems odd that they're putting the effort in to stop this.