You're right that job security IS a line item on a paycheck. Much as IT folks don't want to hear it, I minimized the cost of my job security line item by getting myself a union card.
After I saw my assistant (and others) get summarily laid off with no benefits, I joined in union organizing efforts. Our office successfully negotiated a union contract. For 1.15% of my gross pay (about the first five minutes of every work day) I can't be laid off unless the organization opens their financials and proves a financial need, and if I'm fired unjustly, I have recourse.
I realize this situation doesn't apply to everyone - I work for an organization where there have been three rounds of financially unnecessary layoffs in the past six years. Still, for me, 1.15% buys job security, no cuts to my benefits, and a guaranteed cost-of-living increase. I may change my mind this winter when we need to negotiate a second contract, but for the last 2.5 years being a unionized IT worker's been quite good for me.
Do you (or anyone) have any suggestions for a book that teaches beginning concepts, as you say?
This isn't idle for me - I want to contribute to a particular open source project (via programming; I currently do testing/documentation/etc.). While I work in IT, my background isn't in IT, and my programming education stopped at CS102, many years ago. I've taught myself plenty of BAD programming in PHP etc., but I'd like someone to suggest a book that teaches "good programming".
To put it best, I learned my programming habits in C64 Basic 22 years ago...I need some help.
This is a semantic argument. Did we militarily occupy Iran? Guess not, though Allied forces did in WW2. That's 65 years ago though. However, here's a Wikipedia link for you: Operation Ajax.
It's easy to attack the GP post for sloppy wording, but the idea that Iranians and the neighboring countries don't like the U.S. because we "spread freedom" would be funny if it didn't kill so many people.
As for the other countries named...well, the idea that we didn't occupy Iraq is laughable. I'll leave the history of U.S. involvement in the last country named (Saudi Arabia) to you, but here's a starter question for you: What does the relationship between noted freedom spreaders Prince Abdullah and George W. Bush look like?
James Kopp, a domestic terrorist, used this method (with Yahoo). He's best known as the assassin of Buffalo abortion provider Dr. Bernard Slepian. After moving to France, he created draft messages on Yahoo, which were read by his NYC-based support person.
It's my understanding that this is what led to his arrest, although I couldn't tell you more detailed info than appeared in the mainstream press.
The affidavit released in connection with the December 7th arrest of alleged Earth Liberation Front members states that they communicated by means of code messages on a website. As far as the affidavit states, the communication was never discovered.
It happens. When doing a round of layoffs, I was once instructed (2002) by HR to select only middle-aged white males, because "they can't sue." Back in 1998, when doing a lot of hiring, I was instructed to "prefer" minorities when evaluating candidates to increase our diversity. If you think discrimination against non-minorities does not ever happen, you should get out more.
I've seen the latter situation occur as well. Like many, I believe affirmative action is largely a failure, but I believe that's the case because it is usually designed and overseen by white guys.
Almost everywhere I've worked, I've seen blatantly racist and sexist hiring practices - including my current workplace, which ironically is a civil rights-oriented non-profit law organization. Affirmative action is just telling racists to fix the problem themselves. For a variety of reasons, that's ineffective. So I find myself in the position of being told to, say, prefer a Latino job candidate because my company has a history of discrimination.
Your argument is good by Slashdot standards, so I'd like to engage you for a minute.
Let's take as given that the principle of copyright is sound. Generally speaking, I agree. However, if we accept the idea of copyright, particularly as a social contract, what recourse do you suggest when one side breaks their part of the social contract?
You seem to be suggesting that it'd be OK to circumvent DRM on works that would be out of copyright, but not those that are newer and should expect the protection of copyright.
The original "now it's ON" poster is saying that he feels that it's acceptable, in light of big media's violation of the social contract, to retaliate. How do you feel about that idea? Is it ever OK to break your side of the social contract?
Specifically, I wonder if you see a difference between a) breaking a DRM-breaking researcher (ala DVD Jon) and b) sharing RIAA content with the intention of financially harming the RIAA. Say, in retaliation for putting folks like 2600 magazine to legal expense for linking to DeCSS.
OK, IANAL, but I am a legal services worker who has spent most of my alleged career in the field of public interest law.
It appears that a law firm, which is meeting its NYS Bar Association public interest requirement, is doing this work pro bono, and that they're coordinating through the EFF (see here). The EFF is a public interest law organization, like my employer. We actively seek out sympathetic clients - of those 14,800 sued, the EFF got to choose which client stood the best chance of winning.
Sure, it's cynical and jaded, but if you spend any time in this field, you know that "criminal justice" is pretty much a joke. Stereotypes about your client DO hurt your case. Similarly, they can help your case - picking this client as the test case DOES make the RIAA seem like the big bad corp, as you said.
However, there's also a non-jaded reason to hand-pick the best client. A court case can be won or lost on any number of grounds, some of them quite technical. Anyone who's ever had a speeding ticket thrown out because the cop didn't show up for court has experienced that. By cherry-picking your client, you stand a better chance of the case being decided on the point of law that YOU are contesting. The RIAA would much rather their shady practices weren't challenged, instead winning on a technicality - their PR department can spin that however they like.
People like Brown (of Brown v. Board of Ed) or Jane Roe (of Roe v. Wade) weren't folks who happened to be affected by a law. They were folks who were willing and able to be good test cases.
Personally, I think it's sad that the system HAS to work this way, but since it does, I'm inclined to forgive organizations who cherry-pick.
- Real-time chat, like ICQ was (is?) able to do. Your words appear as you type each letter, not when you hit enter. I normally prefer IM-style chat, but sometimes I prefer to convey meaning that's only possible in real-time.
- Often, when IMing, I'll be typing something, but then my friend write something that I should respond immediately to. So I end up deleting (cutting) what I was typing, putting in a response, and then pasting my original sentence. Why not have the option of two input windows, either of which will send to the other user? I've wondered if a Gaim plugin would make this possible.
This is actually incorrect. From Robert Hinckley, a former corporate lawyer with 23 years of experience:
"In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....
Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders."
Google has some interesting provisions in their corporate charter that make it difficult to go against the wishes of the founders, but Google as a corporate entity is unique. They're a really good example of what an alternative to the current system could look like. Or at least they're moving in the right direction.
There are other remedies, such as filing suits for false arrest and malicious prosecution, but these carry very high burdens of proof, and are often not successful.
Having been wrongfully jailed for a brief time (only days), I can say that none of this really covers what's necessary. In addition to the expenses associated with imprisonment (lost wages, therapy, etc.), there's also the fact that there's pretty much no way to punish those responsible. Were you brutalized by the police or jailers? Physically coerced into making a confession? I would place bets that the police, prosecutors, and corrections officers will receive little or no punishment. Sadly, the problem goes right to the top - if they were to punish those who gave the orders, several police chiefs, former chiefs, and head wardens in major cities would be in jail.
A friend of mine who was falsely imprisoned for 9 days in Philadelphia still has emotional scars five years later. She won't call the police for anything.
Sorry for ranting - folks are regularly exonerated after years and years of imprisonment, but very few people seem interested in tackling the root of the problem. It's just one of my buttons that gets pressed.
Hmmm...I was once told that 90% of most projects are done in 10% of the time, and the other 90% of the time you'll be making up that other 10%.
I really don't envision a tool would need to handle every last program on the horizon - getting networking, Web, and e-mail would be pretty good in and of itself. Firefox does a damn good IE conversion already - POP/SMTP settings and IP address etc. would take an hour to script. Converting my MP3 settings is hardly essential, but take away my Internet bookmarks and I'm helpless.
The "get people to switch from Windows" debate is raging again here - it reminded me that I wanted to know if there was a Linux-to-Windows conversion tool to ease the process. If not, let me say what I'm thinking.
I'd like a Windows executable that will scan my system, identify settings (TCP/IP settings, SMTP settings, dialup/VPN, background desktop image, you name it), and burn a CD of my settings. Then, I want a Linux executable that will read those settings, and set me up in Linux as close as possible to Windows.
This tool should ideally also work Windows-to-Windows for moving to a new computer. Ideally it should have a plugin architecture so folks can write add-ons. The XMMS folks can write a plugin to suck in my Winamp settings and so on. Done correctly, this tool could even analyze my installed programs and suggest what programs I'm going to need. "I see you have Yahoo Messenger - you'll want to get Yahoo Messenger for Linux or Gaim. Once it's installed, I'll pre-populate your settings."
Throw it all on a live CD and you have a great way to convince folks that switching to Linux is easy.
I'm not a developer, but I'm a Windows power user (the key demographic, yes?) who'd be happy to be on a team of folks interested in this.
Ummm...whoa. Even if this isn't today's announcement, I think you're onto a genuinely brilliant idea.
I might not have thought so a few years ago, but watching the numbers of people on the NYC subways watching movies, or even just playing games on their PSP makes me think that a video iPod that syncs to a PC/Mac and/or to a DVR is ingenious.
I find it amusing that Ross is so afraid of going back to the dangerous IP hinterlands of...1998! Cue the spooky theremin sounds!
I find it amusing that his line is, "Hollywood was going to find a way to bring you online movies, but not now that you're attacking our precious DMCA!" I saw folks downloading movies in 1998 (remember, the dark ages!). I think we'll do just fine without them. After all, the p2p community was willing to figure this out back when the reward was an MPEG-2 of Titanic.
I'm not saying that this guy shouldn't have a platform from which to express his views - I'm sure the BSA/MPAA paid good money to see it happen. It's just a shame that to hear this shill, we're boosting the value of CNet by giving them our pageviews.
Not only would I mod you up if I could, but that hero of modern industry Adam Smith would too!
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all." --Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations"
Here is an example of what's supposed to happen to your fingerprints. I live in NY, where state law states that fingerprint records shouldn't be kept for those not convicted of a misdemeanor or felony.
Now, there's plenty of reasons why I don't want my DNA recorded in a central database. They include: - Police suppression of political activists, even those engaging in completely legal actions, is distressingly common. Google "surveillance colorado quakers" for an example. Wouldn't it be convenient if they could take a swab and know the identity of everyone who showed up at a meeting?
- It is notoriously easy for a P.I. to get a fingerprint search run. What if I'm organizing a boycott that's causing trouble for, say, Coca-Cola? Do I want them to have access to the power of the state? They have it in Colombia, and look what happened there.
It's not just the leftists who need to be concerned - by making these searches possible, you're enabling the work of anyone who can pay $500 to a P.I.. That includes the mob, abusive spouses, anyone.
Like you, I've been arrested - fortunately, my fingerprints have been destroyed each time. Thank goodness for that. Sadly, none of my examples (except the mob) are abstract cases to me and those I care about.
Notice how the wording says that no SECURITY patches are coming out this month due to their "strict focus on quality"? Notice that there's still a high=priority non-security patch coming out.
I looked for examples of what this covered on my WSUS server, and found that this generally means, "Some patch or service pack or program isn't going to install/run unless you install this 'non-security patch'."
KB885523: "This update resolves a compatibility issue with a non-Microsoft software application installed on your computer [excellent weasel words again there]. This application prevents successful installation of Windows XP Service Packs, critical security updates, and other system file updates. This update should be applied to your system to enable safe installation of these updates now and in the future."
A spot check of other "non-security updates" indicates that it's pretty common for them to resolve bugs that make installing patches impossible.
I can't complain too much though - like many others, I'd be out of business if they got their act together.
The quote on the front page comes from the CNN/Money Krysten Crawford article, and is partially fabricated.
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
The words, "using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses" are not part of the ruling, and as many others have pointed out here, it's actually fairly misleading. I won't speculate on Ms. Crawford's motivations for the misquote, other than that she's probably just a confused journalist who thinks it's OK to bend ethical rules to get a story out.
I just finished reading the majority ruling, and came back to Slashdot to see whether folks recognized that the ruling wasn't that bad. I'm happy to see that most of the high-rated posts recognize that this ruling is about inducing illegal activity, not about creating software that has a potential illegal use. They took pains to keep the Sony Betamax ruling intact.
Three more good points on that: - The SCOTUS specifically declined to say that the 10% of legit use was insufficient to prove a lack of legitimate usage.
- Lower courts are prohibited from determining that software creators are liable SOLELY based on the design of the software. I think this is good for software that includes IP blockers. This ruling says it only becomes illegal when you name it "RIAA blocker".
- Footnote 12 - "a court would be unable to find...liability merely based on a failure to take...steps to prevent infringement [by end users]." Meaning P2P devs can't get sued because they refuse to put in "features" to detect illegal downloads.
All in all, not too bad. Could've been much worse. I'm guessing that some of the concurring opinions might be worse, but I can live with that.
Could you go into detail about how you feel Spitzer is effectively writing or rewriting laws?
Maybe I don't have all the facts, but all I see is that Spitzer makes choices as to which laws he'll enforce more vigorously than others. I'm not saying that's right either, but since it's unavoidable under the current system, it's far more forgivable than what you're suggesting he does.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that job security IS a line item on a paycheck. Much as IT folks don't want to hear it, I minimized the cost of my job security line item by getting myself a union card.
After I saw my assistant (and others) get summarily laid off with no benefits, I joined in union organizing efforts. Our office successfully negotiated a union contract. For 1.15% of my gross pay (about the first five minutes of every work day) I can't be laid off unless the organization opens their financials and proves a financial need, and if I'm fired unjustly, I have recourse.
I realize this situation doesn't apply to everyone - I work for an organization where there have been three rounds of financially unnecessary layoffs in the past six years. Still, for me, 1.15% buys job security, no cuts to my benefits, and a guaranteed cost-of-living increase. I may change my mind this winter when we need to negotiate a second contract, but for the last 2.5 years being a unionized IT worker's been quite good for me.
Do you (or anyone) have any suggestions for a book that teaches beginning concepts, as you say?
This isn't idle for me - I want to contribute to a particular open source project (via programming; I currently do testing/documentation/etc.). While I work in IT, my background isn't in IT, and my programming education stopped at CS102, many years ago. I've taught myself plenty of BAD programming in PHP etc., but I'd like someone to suggest a book that teaches "good programming".
To put it best, I learned my programming habits in C64 Basic 22 years ago...I need some help.
I'm so being trolled, but...
This is a semantic argument. Did we militarily occupy Iran? Guess not, though Allied forces did in WW2. That's 65 years ago though. However, here's a Wikipedia link for you: Operation Ajax.
It's easy to attack the GP post for sloppy wording, but the idea that Iranians and the neighboring countries don't like the U.S. because we "spread freedom" would be funny if it didn't kill so many people.
As for the other countries named...well, the idea that we didn't occupy Iraq is laughable. I'll leave the history of U.S. involvement in the last country named (Saudi Arabia) to you, but here's a starter question for you: What does the relationship between noted freedom spreaders Prince Abdullah and George W. Bush look like?
I had a very similar thought to this, but yours is much funnier. I'd give you some karma if I had any.
James Kopp, a domestic terrorist, used this method (with Yahoo). He's best known as the assassin of Buffalo abortion provider Dr. Bernard Slepian. After moving to France, he created draft messages on Yahoo, which were read by his NYC-based support person.
It's my understanding that this is what led to his arrest, although I couldn't tell you more detailed info than appeared in the mainstream press.
The affidavit released in connection with the December 7th arrest of alleged Earth Liberation Front members states that they communicated by means of code messages on a website. As far as the affidavit states, the communication was never discovered.
It happens. When doing a round of layoffs, I was once instructed (2002) by HR to select only middle-aged white males, because "they can't sue." Back in 1998, when doing a lot of hiring, I was instructed to "prefer" minorities when evaluating candidates to increase our diversity. If you think discrimination against non-minorities does not ever happen, you should get out more.
I've seen the latter situation occur as well. Like many, I believe affirmative action is largely a failure, but I believe that's the case because it is usually designed and overseen by white guys.
Almost everywhere I've worked, I've seen blatantly racist and sexist hiring practices - including my current workplace, which ironically is a civil rights-oriented non-profit law organization. Affirmative action is just telling racists to fix the problem themselves. For a variety of reasons, that's ineffective. So I find myself in the position of being told to, say, prefer a Latino job candidate because my company has a history of discrimination.
Excellent! I can't haxxor these to get root access!
Your argument is good by Slashdot standards, so I'd like to engage you for a minute.
Let's take as given that the principle of copyright is sound. Generally speaking, I agree. However, if we accept the idea of copyright, particularly as a social contract, what recourse do you suggest when one side breaks their part of the social contract?
You seem to be suggesting that it'd be OK to circumvent DRM on works that would be out of copyright, but not those that are newer and should expect the protection of copyright.
The original "now it's ON" poster is saying that he feels that it's acceptable, in light of big media's violation of the social contract, to retaliate. How do you feel about that idea? Is it ever OK to break your side of the social contract?
Specifically, I wonder if you see a difference between a) breaking a DRM-breaking researcher (ala DVD Jon) and b) sharing RIAA content with the intention of financially harming the RIAA. Say, in retaliation for putting folks like 2600 magazine to legal expense for linking to DeCSS.
OK, IANAL, but I am a legal services worker who has spent most of my alleged career in the field of public interest law.
It appears that a law firm, which is meeting its NYS Bar Association public interest requirement, is doing this work pro bono, and that they're coordinating through the EFF (see here). The EFF is a public interest law organization, like my employer. We actively seek out sympathetic clients - of those 14,800 sued, the EFF got to choose which client stood the best chance of winning.
Sure, it's cynical and jaded, but if you spend any time in this field, you know that "criminal justice" is pretty much a joke. Stereotypes about your client DO hurt your case. Similarly, they can help your case - picking this client as the test case DOES make the RIAA seem like the big bad corp, as you said.
However, there's also a non-jaded reason to hand-pick the best client. A court case can be won or lost on any number of grounds, some of them quite technical. Anyone who's ever had a speeding ticket thrown out because the cop didn't show up for court has experienced that. By cherry-picking your client, you stand a better chance of the case being decided on the point of law that YOU are contesting. The RIAA would much rather their shady practices weren't challenged, instead winning on a technicality - their PR department can spin that however they like.
People like Brown (of Brown v. Board of Ed) or Jane Roe (of Roe v. Wade) weren't folks who happened to be affected by a law. They were folks who were willing and able to be good test cases.
Personally, I think it's sad that the system HAS to work this way, but since it does, I'm inclined to forgive organizations who cherry-pick.
- Real-time chat, like ICQ was (is?) able to do. Your words appear as you type each letter, not when you hit enter. I normally prefer IM-style chat, but sometimes I prefer to convey meaning that's only possible in real-time.
- Often, when IMing, I'll be typing something, but then my friend write something that I should respond immediately to. So I end up deleting (cutting) what I was typing, putting in a response, and then pasting my original sentence. Why not have the option of two input windows, either of which will send to the other user? I've wondered if a Gaim plugin would make this possible.
This is actually incorrect. From Robert Hinckley, a former corporate lawyer with 23 years of experience:
...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....
"In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:
Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders."
The full article is available here: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm
Google has some interesting provisions in their corporate charter that make it difficult to go against the wishes of the founders, but Google as a corporate entity is unique. They're a really good example of what an alternative to the current system could look like. Or at least they're moving in the right direction.
This is incorrect - wrongful imprisonment compensation is by state. There's a chart available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/burd en/etc/chart.html. It doesn't include federal payouts, which there is a bill under consideration for up to $50,000 a year.
There are other remedies, such as filing suits for false arrest and malicious prosecution, but these carry very high burdens of proof, and are often not successful.
Having been wrongfully jailed for a brief time (only days), I can say that none of this really covers what's necessary. In addition to the expenses associated with imprisonment (lost wages, therapy, etc.), there's also the fact that there's pretty much no way to punish those responsible. Were you brutalized by the police or jailers? Physically coerced into making a confession? I would place bets that the police, prosecutors, and corrections officers will receive little or no punishment. Sadly, the problem goes right to the top - if they were to punish those who gave the orders, several police chiefs, former chiefs, and head wardens in major cities would be in jail.
A friend of mine who was falsely imprisoned for 9 days in Philadelphia still has emotional scars five years later. She won't call the police for anything.
Sorry for ranting - folks are regularly exonerated after years and years of imprisonment, but very few people seem interested in tackling the root of the problem. It's just one of my buttons that gets pressed.
Hmmm...I was once told that 90% of most projects are done in 10% of the time, and the other 90% of the time you'll be making up that other 10%.
I really don't envision a tool would need to handle every last program on the horizon - getting networking, Web, and e-mail would be pretty good in and of itself. Firefox does a damn good IE conversion already - POP/SMTP settings and IP address etc. would take an hour to script. Converting my MP3 settings is hardly essential, but take away my Internet bookmarks and I'm helpless.
The "get people to switch from Windows" debate is raging again here - it reminded me that I wanted to know if there was a Linux-to-Windows conversion tool to ease the process. If not, let me say what I'm thinking.
I'd like a Windows executable that will scan my system, identify settings (TCP/IP settings, SMTP settings, dialup/VPN, background desktop image, you name it), and burn a CD of my settings. Then, I want a Linux executable that will read those settings, and set me up in Linux as close as possible to Windows.
This tool should ideally also work Windows-to-Windows for moving to a new computer. Ideally it should have a plugin architecture so folks can write add-ons. The XMMS folks can write a plugin to suck in my Winamp settings and so on. Done correctly, this tool could even analyze my installed programs and suggest what programs I'm going to need. "I see you have Yahoo Messenger - you'll want to get Yahoo Messenger for Linux or Gaim. Once it's installed, I'll pre-populate your settings."
Throw it all on a live CD and you have a great way to convince folks that switching to Linux is easy.
I'm not a developer, but I'm a Windows power user (the key demographic, yes?) who'd be happy to be on a team of folks interested in this.
> Percentage of summer of code participants getting laid: 0%
Well, now we all know what us non-programmers can do to help out the F/OSS movement!
Thank you for the reply...but what about raising the maximum score on the "propose interview questions" stories to 10, 20, or infinity?
This doesn't mean you have to pass on the highest-rated questions, but it's been a long time since the +5 meant much on these stories.
Ummm...whoa. Even if this isn't today's announcement, I think you're onto a genuinely brilliant idea.
I might not have thought so a few years ago, but watching the numbers of people on the NYC subways watching movies, or even just playing games on their PSP makes me think that a video iPod that syncs to a PC/Mac and/or to a DVR is ingenious.
I find it amusing that Ross is so afraid of going back to the dangerous IP hinterlands of...1998! Cue the spooky theremin sounds!
I find it amusing that his line is, "Hollywood was going to find a way to bring you online movies, but not now that you're attacking our precious DMCA!" I saw folks downloading movies in 1998 (remember, the dark ages!). I think we'll do just fine without them. After all, the p2p community was willing to figure this out back when the reward was an MPEG-2 of Titanic.
I'm not saying that this guy shouldn't have a platform from which to express his views - I'm sure the BSA/MPAA paid good money to see it happen. It's just a shame that to hear this shill, we're boosting the value of CNet by giving them our pageviews.
Not only would I mod you up if I could, but that hero of modern industry Adam Smith would too!
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all."
--Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations"
Here is an example of what's supposed to happen to your fingerprints. I live in NY, where state law states that fingerprint records shouldn't be kept for those not convicted of a misdemeanor or felony.
Now, there's plenty of reasons why I don't want my DNA recorded in a central database. They include:
- Police suppression of political activists, even those engaging in completely legal actions, is distressingly common. Google "surveillance colorado quakers" for an example. Wouldn't it be convenient if they could take a swab and know the identity of everyone who showed up at a meeting?
- It is notoriously easy for a P.I. to get a fingerprint search run. What if I'm organizing a boycott that's causing trouble for, say, Coca-Cola? Do I want them to have access to the power of the state? They have it in Colombia, and look what happened there.
It's not just the leftists who need to be concerned - by making these searches possible, you're enabling the work of anyone who can pay $500 to a P.I.. That includes the mob, abusive spouses, anyone.
Like you, I've been arrested - fortunately, my fingerprints have been destroyed each time. Thank goodness for that. Sadly, none of my examples (except the mob) are abstract cases to me and those I care about.
Notice how the wording says that no SECURITY patches are coming out this month due to their "strict focus on quality"? Notice that there's still a high=priority non-security patch coming out.
I looked for examples of what this covered on my WSUS server, and found that this generally means, "Some patch or service pack or program isn't going to install/run unless you install this 'non-security patch'."
KB885523: "This update resolves a compatibility issue with a non-Microsoft software application installed on your computer [excellent weasel words again there]. This application prevents successful installation of Windows XP Service Packs, critical security updates, and other system file updates. This update should be applied to your system to enable safe installation of these updates now and in the future."
A spot check of other "non-security updates" indicates that it's pretty common for them to resolve bugs that make installing patches impossible.
I can't complain too much though - like many others, I'd be out of business if they got their act together.
The quote on the front page comes from the CNN/Money Krysten Crawford article, and is partially fabricated.
... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright
The words, "using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses" are not part of the ruling, and as many others have pointed out here, it's actually fairly misleading. I won't speculate on Ms. Crawford's motivations for the misquote, other than that she's probably just a confused journalist who thinks it's OK to bend ethical rules to get a story out.
I just finished reading the majority ruling, and came back to Slashdot to see whether folks recognized that the ruling wasn't that bad. I'm happy to see that most of the high-rated posts recognize that this ruling is about inducing illegal activity, not about creating software that has a potential illegal use. They took pains to keep the Sony Betamax ruling intact.
Three more good points on that:
- The SCOTUS specifically declined to say that the 10% of legit use was insufficient to prove a lack of legitimate usage.
- Lower courts are prohibited from determining that software creators are liable SOLELY based on the design of the software. I think this is good for software that includes IP blockers. This ruling says it only becomes illegal when you name it "RIAA blocker".
- Footnote 12 - "a court would be unable to find...liability merely based on a failure to take...steps to prevent infringement [by end users]." Meaning P2P devs can't get sued because they refuse to put in "features" to detect illegal downloads.
All in all, not too bad. Could've been much worse. I'm guessing that some of the concurring opinions might be worse, but I can live with that.
Could you go into detail about how you feel Spitzer is effectively writing or rewriting laws?
Maybe I don't have all the facts, but all I see is that Spitzer makes choices as to which laws he'll enforce more vigorously than others. I'm not saying that's right either, but since it's unavoidable under the current system, it's far more forgivable than what you're suggesting he does.
If he's the world's biggest hacker, how come he isn't famous...oh. OH. OK, nevermind.