And dentists. Not to mention teachers, bus drivers, auto mechanics, policemen and politicians. They're all not afraid of "being caught!"
Maybe they're not afraid because there is nothing illegal about being a hacker, or a dentist, or a cop. It's just that some hackers, and cops, and politicians do illegal things. That makes them criminals, not hackers.
Finally, we would like to remind you that New York State Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-102 [1200.33] and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides for sanctions for litigation undertaken without support in existing law or sufficient evidentiary support.
IANAL, but if the law firm sending me a C&D was from New York, I would find the above very interesting.
this isn't a "news" article, it's an advertisement
No, it's a movie review. Or do you think this is an advertisement too?
If the producers of the film paid OSTG to place the article on Slashdot, then it would be an advertisement. If you have some information that this is what happened, please share it with us. Otherwise, the fact that the DVD was released today makes the review timely and fits my definition of "news for nerds."
Same here. FF2 and I saw no pop-ups, no page redirects either. I looked at other parts of his site with no problems. Good site. He should have put up some Google ads instead.
I would say the liability lays with whomever is profiting from the services charges collected, although I'm sure the law doesn't agree with me. If defrauding the customers was as simple as intercepting the communications between the machine and the banks, the data was obviously not encrypted. Ensuring the security of the customer's information doesn't seem to be high on the service provider's list of priorities.
It's sad. When you pay for a service, like the convenience of getting access to your money when you need it in exchange for a nominal fee, you tend to expect reasonable steps have taken to ensure the security of the interests of all parties involved in the transaction. Sort of like you expect the person serving your food washed his hands before he started work, or the person who replaced your brake pads was qualified to do his job. I guess I'm naive. People howl about government regulations, but what other protection do mere consumers have when faced with such indifference? Litigation, I suppose.
Sorry to rant on here, but it drives me crazy that 9 out of 10 stores and restaurants print my visa number and expiry date on the merchant copy of the receipt (some even obscure the numbers on the customer copy, while printing out the whole number on their copy - brilliant!), and the employees look at me like I just spat at them for inking over the number before I give the receipt back to them. Most don't bother to check my signature against photo ID, and *everyone* want to sign me up for some points/airmiles card so they can sell my name, address and phone number to g*d-knows-who. Not a moment's thought is given to protecting this information, and if we refuse to play ball we are punished by paying higher prices.
Again, I apologize. I've been out interacting with the public today and this sort of thing gets under my skin.
Exactly. Why is it we always see headlines about people "hacking" this and that, but we never read about people responsible for putting our information - not to mention our credit ratings - at risk being hauled in front of a judge to answer for their negligence.
There's no "just show me the code" in a software patent case.
Why not? Patents are publicly disclosed, as is the source code of the linux kernel. It should be pretty straight forward for Microsoft to say this part of the linux kernel violates this patent. Put up or shut up, Ballmer.
Ok, maybe that's a stretch. Do you have an argument against privacy and freedom of speech?
I don't recall arguing in favour of defaming and libeling people; I took issue with his stance that Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard and, therefore, editors and contributors must relinquish their right to anonymity. If someone libels or defames you, it makes no difference whether they do it on Wikipedia, or posting anonymously on Slashdot. If you feel you've been libeled, and suffered some tangible damage, plead your case to a judge and ask him to subpoena the site host for their logs.
Or would you rather have to provide proof of identity every time you post a comment on Slashdot?
This article has the effect of heightening my opinion of Wikipedia's quality.
I agree. Plagiarism is a reality that all publications have to deal with, and Wikipedia's responose seems to be a reasonable one. They have removed the questionable content pending review.
A while back one of my local papers became aware that a columnist was copying material from aonther paper. They fired her and printed an apology to their readers and the publication she stole from, and moved on.
This Daniel Brandt apparently has an axe to grind against Wikipedia because he was unhappy with an article that was written about him. Among other things, he feels people who write and edit articles should make their identites publc, basically so he can sue them if he doesn't like what they write. Reminds me of something else I read here recently.
You may be right. If this is an up-front license arrangement, granting You Tube the use of copyrighted material in exchange for $50,000,000 per media company, and available to all willing to pay similar licensing fees, I don't really see a problem with it.
There was nothing really wrong with Microsoft purchasing licenses from SCO, either. It's just that the money helped fund the cash-poor company's lawsuit against IBM. A cynical person might say Microsoft was taking advantage of an opportunity to hurt a competitor, while putting a stink on Linux. A truly paranoid person might say Microsoft was behind the whole thing.
Give it a couple of weeks. Some right wing, music industry friendly "think tank" will release a report concluding that copying CDs for private use is bad, and 95 years is nowhere near long enough for a copyright term.
You don't have a God-given right to have that band, or that label, sell you something under conditions of you choosing.
True.
And that band, or that label, does not have a "God-given" right to an exclusive monopoly on the distribution of what they are selling. We - our society - grant that right to them. In exchange for granting and enforcing that monopoly, our society requires that its members be able to make fair use of the material in question, and that the monopoly will end after a reasonable period of time.
This is one of the objections to DRM: it allows for neither fair use or the expiration of the monopoly.
From what I've read in this thread - I haven't RTFA - I don't think YouTube is guilty of censorship, but I think you full of it if you think "only the government can censor anything." Any time *anyone* takes steps to prevent someone from speaking, or otherwise expressing an idea, it is censorship. It is the motive that counts. If YouTube pulled a video for fear of beings sued for violating copyright, I don't think anyone could reasonably take issue with it. OTOH, if they pulled a video for no reason other than that someone with the power to do so disagreed with the content of the video, it is censorship.
They may be perfectly within their rights to post or not post content as they see fit, but the rest of us are equally within our rights to point out that they are engaging in censorship.
A Real World example would be a newspaper that solicits letters but only publishes those that reflect their own point of view. Again, they are entitled to print what they choose, but if they want to be seen as a credible news source, they will be brave enough to publish things they don't agree with, confident they can make a case for their own point of view.
Why is it on./ that we have articles like this once a week or so, yet I've never seen a headline like "Why Apple can't complete with Microsoft for Operating System", or "Why Apple will never amount to anything in the corporate environment"?
Maybe a better question would be "why do trolls get modded +3 interesting for whining about articles suggesting Microsoft isn't the shining beacon of success they try to portray themselves as?"
Well, I'm glad you don't think simply grafting a camera on to anything might qualify as novel or non-obvious, as just about everything comes with a camera built-in to it these days. And if you are going to put a camera on something that moves, like a boomerang for example, it just makes sense that you would want to control it "remotely," doesn't it?
Making them work, yes.
As for getting it all to work, so your image isn't just a blur, that would require some signal processing. Probably some piece of clever software that re-orders the frames to correspond with the position of the camera at a given instant. I don't know, didn't read much of the article. But it seems to me that we're back to the issue of software patents. If you are in favour of those, I suppose you could argue this qualifies, provided there is no prior art. This could be prior art, could it not? I found this looking for something my nephew had years ago, a small device with LEDs on it that you spun around on a string. You would see the message in the blur.
Not exactly the same thing, I know. The whole point of the boomerang-camera is that it is difficult to see because it's spinning quickly. Even that idea seems vaguely familiar.
Slashdot Mirror
And dentists. Not to mention teachers, bus drivers, auto mechanics, policemen and politicians. They're all not afraid of "being caught!"
Maybe they're not afraid because there is nothing illegal about being a hacker, or a dentist, or a cop. It's just that some hackers, and cops, and politicians do illegal things. That makes them criminals, not hackers.
From the EFF's response to the Barney lawyers:
IANAL, but if the law firm sending me a C&D was from New York, I would find the above very interesting.
Yup.
Yeah, and - come to think of it - so should Mickey Mouse
Wonder how much longer that will last
No, it's a movie review. Or do you think this is an advertisement too?
If the producers of the film paid OSTG to place the article on Slashdot, then it would be an advertisement. If you have some information that this is what happened, please share it with us. Otherwise, the fact that the DVD was released today makes the review timely and fits my definition of "news for nerds."
Yeah, I can't wait for the Dvorak article about how it's too hard to get CSS to work in Web 3.0
That's just Charles, shrunk down to tampon size for Camilla
Same here. FF2 and I saw no pop-ups, no page redirects either. I looked at other parts of his site with no problems. Good site. He should have put up some Google ads instead.
I would say the liability lays with whomever is profiting from the services charges collected, although I'm sure the law doesn't agree with me. If defrauding the customers was as simple as intercepting the communications between the machine and the banks, the data was obviously not encrypted. Ensuring the security of the customer's information doesn't seem to be high on the service provider's list of priorities.
It's sad. When you pay for a service, like the convenience of getting access to your money when you need it in exchange for a nominal fee, you tend to expect reasonable steps have taken to ensure the security of the interests of all parties involved in the transaction. Sort of like you expect the person serving your food washed his hands before he started work, or the person who replaced your brake pads was qualified to do his job. I guess I'm naive. People howl about government regulations, but what other protection do mere consumers have when faced with such indifference? Litigation, I suppose.
Sorry to rant on here, but it drives me crazy that 9 out of 10 stores and restaurants print my visa number and expiry date on the merchant copy of the receipt (some even obscure the numbers on the customer copy, while printing out the whole number on their copy - brilliant!), and the employees look at me like I just spat at them for inking over the number before I give the receipt back to them. Most don't bother to check my signature against photo ID, and *everyone* want to sign me up for some points/airmiles card so they can sell my name, address and phone number to g*d-knows-who. Not a moment's thought is given to protecting this information, and if we refuse to play ball we are punished by paying higher prices.
Again, I apologize. I've been out interacting with the public today and this sort of thing gets under my skin.
Exactly. Why is it we always see headlines about people "hacking" this and that, but we never read about people responsible for putting our information - not to mention our credit ratings - at risk being hauled in front of a judge to answer for their negligence.
Why not? Patents are publicly disclosed, as is the source code of the linux kernel. It should be pretty straight forward for Microsoft to say this part of the linux kernel violates this patent. Put up or shut up, Ballmer.
They seem to think they are
No it's not. It's hard to imagine someone accusing Wikipedia of libeling them over an article he did like.
Defaming someone by, say, using an out-of-context photo of them on your "anti-Wikipedia" site to sway public opinion. (I wonder if he has the permission of the rights holder of that photo to publish it on his site.)
Ok, maybe that's a stretch. Do you have an argument against privacy and freedom of speech?
I don't recall arguing in favour of defaming and libeling people; I took issue with his stance that Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard and, therefore, editors and contributors must relinquish their right to anonymity. If someone libels or defames you, it makes no difference whether they do it on Wikipedia, or posting anonymously on Slashdot. If you feel you've been libeled, and suffered some tangible damage, plead your case to a judge and ask him to subpoena the site host for their logs.
Or would you rather have to provide proof of identity every time you post a comment on Slashdot?
I agree. Plagiarism is a reality that all publications have to deal with, and Wikipedia's responose seems to be a reasonable one. They have removed the questionable content pending review.
A while back one of my local papers became aware that a columnist was copying material from aonther paper. They fired her and printed an apology to their readers and the publication she stole from, and moved on.
This Daniel Brandt apparently has an axe to grind against Wikipedia because he was unhappy with an article that was written about him. Among other things, he feels people who write and edit articles should make their identites publc, basically so he can sue them if he doesn't like what they write. Reminds me of something else I read here recently.
You may be right. If this is an up-front license arrangement, granting You Tube the use of copyrighted material in exchange for $50,000,000 per media company, and available to all willing to pay similar licensing fees, I don't really see a problem with it.
There was nothing really wrong with Microsoft purchasing licenses from SCO, either. It's just that the money helped fund the cash-poor company's lawsuit against IBM. A cynical person might say Microsoft was taking advantage of an opportunity to hurt a competitor, while putting a stink on Linux. A truly paranoid person might say Microsoft was behind the whole thing.
The article summary was a little off. From Cuban's blog:
I'm not saying either the summary or the blog reflect reality, just that they don't seem to agree.
Oh, you mean like how Microsoft paid "licensing fees" to SCO around the time the lawsuit was filed against IBM?
Give it a couple of weeks. Some right wing, music industry friendly "think tank" will release a report concluding that copying CDs for private use is bad, and 95 years is nowhere near long enough for a copyright term.
True.
And that band, or that label, does not have a "God-given" right to an exclusive monopoly on the distribution of what they are selling. We - our society - grant that right to them. In exchange for granting and enforcing that monopoly, our society requires that its members be able to make fair use of the material in question, and that the monopoly will end after a reasonable period of time.
This is one of the objections to DRM: it allows for neither fair use or the expiration of the monopoly.
"Me fail english? That's unpossible!
From what I've read in this thread - I haven't RTFA - I don't think YouTube is guilty of censorship, but I think you full of it if you think "only the government can censor anything." Any time *anyone* takes steps to prevent someone from speaking, or otherwise expressing an idea, it is censorship. It is the motive that counts. If YouTube pulled a video for fear of beings sued for violating copyright, I don't think anyone could reasonably take issue with it. OTOH, if they pulled a video for no reason other than that someone with the power to do so disagreed with the content of the video, it is censorship.
They may be perfectly within their rights to post or not post content as they see fit, but the rest of us are equally within our rights to point out that they are engaging in censorship.
A Real World example would be a newspaper that solicits letters but only publishes those that reflect their own point of view. Again, they are entitled to print what they choose, but if they want to be seen as a credible news source, they will be brave enough to publish things they don't agree with, confident they can make a case for their own point of view.
How about "Why Microsoft's Zune Scares Apple to the Core" from like two weeks ago?
Maybe a better question would be "why do trolls get modded +3 interesting for whining about articles suggesting Microsoft isn't the shining beacon of success they try to portray themselves as?"
... if they snuck ie 7 in with the "securithy fixes?"
Well, I'm glad you don't think simply grafting a camera on to anything might qualify as novel or non-obvious, as just about everything comes with a camera built-in to it these days. And if you are going to put a camera on something that moves, like a boomerang for example, it just makes sense that you would want to control it "remotely," doesn't it?
As for getting it all to work, so your image isn't just a blur, that would require some signal processing. Probably some piece of clever software that re-orders the frames to correspond with the position of the camera at a given instant. I don't know, didn't read much of the article. But it seems to me that we're back to the issue of software patents. If you are in favour of those, I suppose you could argue this qualifies, provided there is no prior art. This could be prior art, could it not? I found this looking for something my nephew had years ago, a small device with LEDs on it that you spun around on a string. You would see the message in the blur.
Not exactly the same thing, I know. The whole point of the boomerang-camera is that it is difficult to see because it's spinning quickly. Even that idea seems vaguely familiar.