And David Koresh called himself God. That doesn't mean that the media should report it that way. That the media doesn't call someone by their chosen label doesn't immediately indicate sensationalism. If they had reported "God having sex with little girls and arming to take on the US military" it would have been more sensational.
No, they shouldn't use that title, because in Standard American English, "God" (with capital) expresses the judeo-christian God.
The title should read: "Self-proclaimed God having sex with little girls and arming to take on the US military." Wow, see? Doesn't that actually *work* and still explain what's going on. Much better than "Koresh having sex...." Because you show that Koresh is proclaiming himself God.
The matter of translating "Allah" to "God" is a stupid one. In America, Allah indicates the Islamic notion of God. You can argue that the Jewish God, the Christian God, and the Islamic God are actually all the same God, but you'd be ignoring fundamental dogmatic beliefs. So, in my book, in English, "Allah" != "God."
There are ways to state things accurately when translating without showing a biased like this where you have the Muslims chanting "There is no god but God." (which to an American sounds weird, and unusual.)
Exactly. I consider myself conservative. But damn, if American ain't conservative enough to make me feel like a lefty sometimes.
In Europe, I'd definitely fall in to the right-wing, but here in the US, I fall oddly either center of the road, or leftish. Which is entirely ridiculous, because I'm FUCKING CONSERVATIVE.
I *don't* think both sides are telling the truth. I thinking both sides are telling the truth that they both want to believe.
Your post exemplifies this perfectly. You *want* to believe that all lefties lie. What a totally ridiculous notion. That's entirely absurd, and I can't believe you hold such an opinion. Are you nuts?
I could call your post a lie. In which case the only thing I know is that righties lie, and lefties likely lie also, but not the whole time.
And who would I believe? My dad who talks about hispanics, blacks, and women in an inflammatory manner, such to the point once that when we went into a car insurance office, and there was a black man there, along with two women, he was like, "Oh shit, they have women and black people working here." WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? What about blacks or women make them incapable of dealing with my car insurance. We haven't even *MET* the people yet, and my dad has already made a judgement call that they're worthless. Me? Yeah, I hate stupid people, and if I get fucked over by a company enough, I'm pissed with it. But not before I even walk into the door and talk to the people.
So, who am I going to trust? My dad who's a bigot, or this left-wing woman who I just happen to not agree with, but she is still at least rational. Hm... You know what? Let's not trust either of them implicitly, and take everything everyone says with a sceptic attitude. That's the only way I can keep it all straight.
I'm not trolling, I'm expressing the point that everyone thinks everyone else is biased, because they disagree.
If you want fair and balanced, you can't just take everything that everyone says nice. You have to accept points that people raise against you as a justification for being against you.
Yes, I'm fucking biased, and yes, I am speaking the truth, in so far as I know it. You're free to disagree (which you apparently do.) Unlike many biased sources of misinformation; I'm willing to listen to the other side, and at least consider that they might be right. Because, guess, what? I'm not perfect.
So go stick your troll allegations up your ass and suck it.
I'm not saying there is never a bias in the media. I'm saying that both liberals and conservatives talk about "The Media" (giving it quotes, and capitals so that you recognize that it's something that doesn't actually exist. It's people making generic comments about ALL media, which never sticks.)
The simple point, is that you can't believe someone who just claims a media bias. Because *everyone* is claiming a general media bias against their point of view.
If you want to speak about liberal bias, then let's take a recent example that many people on Slashdot can relate to. The elections. The media presented a view of the world that had everyone foaming at the mouth to depose Bush, and have him drawn and quartered (I'm exagerating here some.) At the very least, many liberals were absolutely convinced that everyone felt like they did. That Bush was the devil, and ignore various character features of Kerry that many conservatives feel are flaws, particularly his two faced nature. (Say/Do one thing, but actually be believing/doing soething else. Like protesting the war by making it seem like he's throwing his medals back, but actually, they're not his medals. Look, you're either ashamed of it, or you're not. I'd have more respect for him for actually throwing them back, because then at least he had some god damn conviction.)
Then the elections actually come out, and Bush wins the popular vote. Like WTF, right? How could anyone vote for the anti-Christ, right?
Exactly, because of the liberal slant on the views of Bush people couldn't imagine that hey, maybe most of the voting public actually felt that Bush was a better alternative than Kerry, who would have turned Iraq into an anarchical warlordship by just getting our troops back at all costs. Or *maybe* he was just *lying* to you all to play up the anti-Bush vote, and get elected, then do what he knew we had to do. (The guy *was* in the military, I don't think he could be that stupid as to just pull out our troops with nothing place.) The problem is, I just didn't feel liike I could trust him.
Did the media really paint that picture? Not really. Especially not here. Let's go for some more liberal bias that you can relate to. Slashdot. First of all, Slashdot as a community usually takes every chance they have to dump on Bush, Microsoft, SCO, etc etc etc. Even if there's no reasonable point to argue. We just hate them because they have money/power, and we don't. And wow, low and behold, since they're different people, they express/enact a different view from ours.
Funny thing is, this will likely get modded troll or some shit, for expressing a conservative view point, if it does, there's your biased right there.
I grew up in a right-wing home. I know this for certain. Anyways, I was brought up my whole life "knowing" that "The Media" was left-wing biased.
Then one day, I talked to this very left-wing girl, and she was telling me that "The Media" was right-wing biased.
Then it occured to me. If someone is reporting fair and balanced news, then it would come up as middle of the road. And to a right-winger, that looks left-wing, and to a left-winger that lookes right-wing.
After that point, I take claims of bias in "The Media" to be stupid useless political griping. Essentially both sides being upset that the view point isn't theirs.
Well, the issue covers control of the copyright owner to control distribution. Which, if you pass it out to a large enough people, they lose those distribution rights.
Now that I'm thinking about it... if you started running off hundreds of copies of a tape and passing it out to friends who ask for it, then that would, like you say, not be covered by Fair-Use. Of course, if you present it to them in unaltered format, (comercials and all) you could likely reasonably argue that you're not damaging their distribution rights, as you're presenting it to your friends exactly as you got it. Hazy yeah, but if you could argue reasonably that every method that they generate revenue is being maintained, then what would they have to complain about?
Now, let's shift gears from mass distribution, to individualized distribution. Your friend comes by and asks if you recorded the most recent episode of Lost, and if he can borrow it. You give him your recorded of TV onto tape copy. In many ways this should be reasonably covered by the same Fair Use rights the same way that reselling a book is covered by Fair Use.
TiVo has oft been fighting with the networks towards the ability of their users to be able to share content with others. The networks have generally argued that they're generally fine with video sharing, they're just *really* worried about people distributing beyond the distribution patterns. For example, if my friends (in MST) could share shows in real time with me (in PST) then I could watch Lost 1 hour earlier. This is obviously a violation of their distribution rights. If they wanted to, they would have aired Lost here at the same time as everyone else, but they've chosen not to.
Again, it's all about distribution rights. If I'm not stepping on their distribution rights, then it's alright.
For example, I got a copy of Prison Break Ep 1 and 2 (because I missed them), but when I loaded them up, they had blurred out the FOX logo in the lower right hand corner. I was upset, because this is stepping on their distribution rights. If they didn't want the FOX logo there, they would have not put it there in the first place.
I was getting a copy of the shows because I missed them initially on TV. I will be watching the rest of the series on broadcast TV, and if I want to catch up on the first two episodes, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. But I'd rather get a direct copy of the show, exactly what they aired, not some bullcrap where they've edited it just because they have no respect for the people how own the distribution rights.
My friends annoy me too, beccause they'll download the episodes and watch them over the computer rather than watch them on TV at broadcast time. It's like, wtf dude? I mean, I've heard of lazy bastards, but you're actively exerting more energy to get a copy of it online than to just sit down in front of a TV and watch it. *sigh*
I try and respect these sorts of rights of the copyright holders. Naturally, there are some conditions that I have, that hey, I wanna catch up on the series. I shouldn't have to wait for it to come out on DVD to catch up on these episodes that have already aired in my area. But at the same time, if I don't respect their copyrights, then they'll stop making these shows. It's a fine line to tread the path of Fair Use, because it *is* a violation of the copyright owners rights. The matter is just that, in the case of Fair Use, full respect of the copyright owners rights would violate the individual's rights receivinng it. So the question is always, how much should I be allowed to violate their rights to protect my rights. I argue that if you're not damaging in anyway their bottom line, and you're not infringing on their distribution rights (only passing material out where it's already otherwise accessible, not damaging any marks indicating ownership, and not removing any accredidation, like the credits) then it's Fair Use. Of course, if it ever gets to court, the question is if I can convince a jury or judge that this actually is Fair Use.
I sure one can very easily argue that watching a bittorrented version of a previously broadcast TV show is legitimate fair use.
I mean, think about it this way, if you were to record it to a tape, and cut out the commercials. We've already had established court precedent that this is entirely legal.
Next, George asks you, "Hey, Bob, did you record the most recent Survivor? I missed it." You say, "Hells yeah, it's awesome. Here, have my copy/I'll make you a copy." Again, reasonable fair-use. George could have legitimately copied it himself, he's in the same distribution network as you.
Now, replace tape, with DivX. And handing some one a copy with download over Bittorrent.
If you're not selling the tapes, then there can't really be anything wrong with it from a Fair Use point of view. You can always argue that these are things you *could have* recorded yourself.
If you could have legally obtained a copy within Fair Use, then why would it be illegal to obtain it from someone else who obtained it within Fair Use, and is just sharing.
Now, if someone from outside the distribution network gets ahold of it (like say, France doesn't get it until a week after us) I think sharing it with them wouldn't be right. But if you *could have* watched, it and you *could have* recorded it (and even more to the point, if you *did* record it on TiVo) then they can go suck on a Fair Use lemon.
See, I just don't see it like that. China, Germany, and the Arabian coutries have every right as soverign nations to want to block whatever information that they want. Especially in the case of Germany, where they were brought to ruin because some fucktard wackos got to power. You'd be damn skiddish about letting that sort of thing run free ever again, even if it is infringing on individual rights. (Compare to hate speech in the US. We restrict it because it causes serious damage to the social network. In the same way, Germany is blocking neonazi stuff because it is a direct threat upon the safety and security of the country.)
I don't see why everyone thinks that it'd be a *bad* thing to allow countries to do stuff like this. Yeah, Arabia could block out Israeli IPs and DNS entries. Does it impact anyone outside of Arabia? Nope. So, the question is, do Arabian countries have the right to block content within their borders according to their own will.
If you're arguing that Neonazis deserve free speech, then you damn well better be arguing that any individual country should have its own authority to do as it pleases. (Within general limits... like threatening other countries, and acts of war... that stuff is bad whether you're talking about over the internet or not.)
I hate how all these people are complaining that these countries want to restrict their own citizen's rights to information, and that's why we shouldn't pass any countrol over this stuff to them. DAMN STRAIGHT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO. It's not the job of the god damn US to police the world and make sure everyone is playing happy fair. And it's certainly not our right to tell Arabia that they can't block Israeli IPs, or Germany that they can't block neonazi sights, and that China can't restrict their citizens from hearing about freedom and dissonance.
It is *not* the right of the US to tell everyone else how they should behave. That's exactly what people are hating us for. Because we go in and tell them that doing XY is wrong, when it's their goddamn choice.
Then of course, the US gets our panties all up in a bunch when someone else tells us how to do something. Every one defending Gitmo, but saying we had every right to go in and take Saddam down is speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and just needs to shut up.
Pick a consistent, and non-hypocratic opinion, that isn't "The US has the right and responsibility to stick our nose where it damn well doesn't belong."
The way I've understood it, vacuum has a non-zero energy because matter is constantly being spontaneously generated within it in particle, anti-particle pairs, then simply anhilating themselves.
I could be way off base (and if I am, please correct me). Just I "know" that this spontaneous generation happens, and to me it explains why vacuum has non-zero energy.
Especially because in the simplest understanding, it's not really possible for a pure vacuum of nothing to have non-zero energy, since there is no mass there to *have* energy. Of course, the spontaneous generation of particles and conservation of mass and energy even in these situtations should then allow for it.
I doubt though that this amount of spontaneous mass could possibly be our "dark matter", since the fudge factor needed for the dark matter is significantly greater than something that could be spontaneously generated in a vacuum.
It's not really that Luminiferous Aether was constructed to have light fit our data. It was more so, just because we lacked the proper understanding of how exactly light can be a wave in a vaccum. We were operating under the disenlightened (pun intended) notion that a wave can only be through something, and that a wave can't be a particle at the same time, and thus "wave" through "itself". (very simplified explanation, I know how light works, don't try and correct this stuff because it's not spot on.)
But both share very much the idea that we can't explain something, so lets invent something that makes it fit with our current model of thinking. Let's not look for the real problem (that we're misunderstanding things), but rather let's just make shit up.
Personally I've never found the "make shit up" a good scientific practice in any field.
Yeah, usually you use a cross-compiler to target the new OS/arch to make your binaries, then get them somehow onto your filesystem to be used.
Then you get the OS advanced enough that it can actually run GCC itself, then you use the cross-compiler to generate a native-compiler.
Of course, sometimes, for some reason, people have to compile a cross-compiler for an arch that they're not compiling on. They call this a canadian cross-compile. For example, (you build (a PowerPC gcc binary which (cross-compiles for ARM)) on an x86 machine.) parenthesis added to group words meaningfully and avoid confusion in the whole CCC confusion.
Ok, I know you're an AC, but that doesn't mean you get saved from the Grammar Nazis. Like, what really drives me, is that you're "correcting" the originally correct sentence.
Ok, so after you get hit with the 403, you run up the tree until you hit the hostname, hitting 403's all the way.
Either way, it's unreasonable to expect protection against simple non-malicious security examinations.
While, I'll agree that it creeps me out to think someone might come to my door and try opening it, but I don't think it should be illegal for them to try unless they went in.
Is the following situation illegal? You donate money to a company. They don't give you a receipt at the store, and after a reasonable time, you don't get one in the mail. So, you go by their building at some point, and look in the windows, and try the doors and windows to see if they're open. Just to make sure they're on the level.
This would be pretty close to real-world equivalent to the events in this crime.
Honestly, if the above example is illegal, then just looking into the windows is just as illegal, because it shows you had as much intent as just trying the doors, which has as much intent as trying the windows.
If you think it's wrong that he got an access denied trying a directory traversal attack, then let's look at something perhaps all of us tech-suave people have tried: You get linked to a picture by a friend, you like the picture, want to see if there are more so you delete the filename out of the path. BOOM! You're hit with a 403 Access Forbidden. In England under these conditions you just broke the law.
Now, when the police come knocking on the door make sure you tell them exactly what you did, and not try to deny anything about it, because even though you didn't do anything wrong, they're investigating it now, and if you piss them off by lying to them, then they'll get you.
Take for example someone who is involved in a suspected murder. The police find the person who did kill the person under suspicion (no proof yet), and ask him some questions. He lies about where he was at. (A natural tendency of humans to lie to avoid responsibility for an action.) Later after more investigation, it's found that he really did cause the death of the victim. Here's the thing, it was justified. Self defense even. Now, you get before the judge and he says, "Meh, you lied to the cops. It doesn't matter that you were justified. You need to be found guilty because you should have talked to the cops in the first place."
Now, apparently according to claims above, the UK will hold you responsible for not divulging information to the police that provides for your justification or innocence. But in the US, that's bullshit, and it would never fly.
The site looked legit, then when he never recieved a reciept for his payment, or any sort of confirmation, THAT is when he grew worried.
So he checked out the site that took his credit card information, ran two directory traversal attacks, was refused access twice, and then gave up.
This isn't like B&E in order to see if some company collecting donations is on the level. This is like going by late at night, looking into the windows, and trying the doors, and windows; finding them locked. Then walking away.
Yes, and a lot of people think like you. They think, "Because it's Open Source, that makes it better."
No, what makes Free/Open Source better is that it's Free as in Speech. It's a protected right of the people to see all distributed changes. If you legally obtain a binary of the program you have the right to the source code that built that binary.
Yes, I do believe that the Freedom of being able to view the source code is more important than the Freedom of people to use the code. And as the developer, I can choose how I want that freedom given. I can give it as GPL, where everyone gets to see your modifications; I can give it as BSD, where everyone can do whatever they want with it within minor limitations; or I can give it out as Proprietary Software, which is exactly what the Free/Open Software movement says is wrong.
I want you to take a cold hard look at who came up with Free/Open Software. Crazy radicals like RMS, who are totally ideologically bound to the idea of Free/Open Software. They developed it because they want software Free as in Speech.
Now, let's look at the average user, who never looks at the source code for anything, even when it's available. Why do these people use the software? Oh yeah, because it's Free as in Beer, and it's of a quality comparable to any organization that allows it's developers to just hack away on source code.
Generally, Windows:Microsoft Developers:: F/OSS:The World. Just Microsoft Developers have a higher density of programmers, and thus can have the same development with fewer people.
The only thing your post reiterates to me is that Joe User doesn't want my software to be Free, he just doesn't want to pay for it.
The reason for that unstoppability is the lack of an awareness on anyone else's part of the value of an end to end solution where everything works together using the same technology
Riiiight. I work in an almost all MS shop, and if everything suddenly started working seamlessly, I'd have a friggin' heart attack.
You know... if he wanted a real end-to-end solution where everything works together using the same technology, then he should get a Mac, or get some Macs.
MS has a hojillian different ways of doing everything on their OS. You just don't usually see it, because some hacker on campus hides it from you.
OSX is clean and is hardware to library/application integrated. MS is usually just OS to library/application. The arguement for an "end-to-end" solution is like saying it's better to buy your steel from US Steel because they own everything from the mining to the distribution. It's called a vertical monopoly, and it's rarely a good idea.
But you have to prove your invention was prior art by showing that you publicised it. "Prior art", under first-to-invent, means anything that existed before your invention. Under first-to-file, though, it's only what the patentee could have known about.
Actually, this could be a good thing. Situation: Company A invents something then holds onto it, but doesn't file it, and just sits on it (doesn't publish anything about it.), then Company B comes out and invents the same thing, and files for it, and publishs about it.
In first-to-invent, Company A can break Company B's patent, even though they never told anyone about the patent.
In first-to-file, Company A cannot break Company B's patent (though they can potentially continue to use it internally as they have been) because they didn't publish it.
Now, let's look at what patent law should be accomplishing. The idea behind patent law is to make inventions PUBLIC, and in exchange for this, the inventor is given a temporary monopoly to exploit that invention. The net sum is that inventions are not lost. If some company patents something there is no way that that invention can be lost. As such, the goal here is to make inventions PUBLIC, so that everyone can eventually benefit from it.
Thus, first-to-file benefits in the situation. Assuming in all cases that prior art will be protected, and someone can produce a technology, release it free to the public domain, (freely publish, but not patent) and then no one can patent it.
If first-to-file accomplishes those goals better than first-to-invent, then I'm up for it being better. In fact, the GP post satisfies a lot of questions for me.
I'll take that arguement. Good points. I wasn't really arguing so much that patents suck because you can patent something and not make money from it. More so, that patents don't fit what people think they do.
Yeah, boo hoo for the guy who invented something then didn't make any decent money from it before the license expired. It's true that's how the law works. But in some ways, if something like that is going to happen, then people should just release their patent and let the world have it.
I mean, if you were sitting on a way to extract silver out of some crappy mud that no one uses, but not the mud to actually use the extraction process on (and thus get rich) you're probably better off just releasing it, and hope for getting famous instead of rich.
Slashdot Mirror
And David Koresh called himself God. That doesn't mean that the media should report it that way. That the media doesn't call someone by their chosen label doesn't immediately indicate sensationalism. If they had reported "God having sex with little girls and arming to take on the US military" it would have been more sensational.
No, they shouldn't use that title, because in Standard American English, "God" (with capital) expresses the judeo-christian God.
The title should read: "Self-proclaimed God having sex with little girls and arming to take on the US military." Wow, see? Doesn't that actually *work* and still explain what's going on. Much better than "Koresh having sex...." Because you show that Koresh is proclaiming himself God.
The matter of translating "Allah" to "God" is a stupid one. In America, Allah indicates the Islamic notion of God. You can argue that the Jewish God, the Christian God, and the Islamic God are actually all the same God, but you'd be ignoring fundamental dogmatic beliefs. So, in my book, in English, "Allah" != "God."
There are ways to state things accurately when translating without showing a biased like this where you have the Muslims chanting "There is no god but God." (which to an American sounds weird, and unusual.)
Exactly. I consider myself conservative. But damn, if American ain't conservative enough to make me feel like a lefty sometimes.
In Europe, I'd definitely fall in to the right-wing, but here in the US, I fall oddly either center of the road, or leftish. Which is entirely ridiculous, because I'm FUCKING CONSERVATIVE.
I *don't* think both sides are telling the truth. I thinking both sides are telling the truth that they both want to believe.
Your post exemplifies this perfectly. You *want* to believe that all lefties lie. What a totally ridiculous notion. That's entirely absurd, and I can't believe you hold such an opinion. Are you nuts?
I could call your post a lie. In which case the only thing I know is that righties lie, and lefties likely lie also, but not the whole time.
And who would I believe? My dad who talks about hispanics, blacks, and women in an inflammatory manner, such to the point once that when we went into a car insurance office, and there was a black man there, along with two women, he was like, "Oh shit, they have women and black people working here." WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? What about blacks or women make them incapable of dealing with my car insurance. We haven't even *MET* the people yet, and my dad has already made a judgement call that they're worthless. Me? Yeah, I hate stupid people, and if I get fucked over by a company enough, I'm pissed with it. But not before I even walk into the door and talk to the people.
So, who am I going to trust? My dad who's a bigot, or this left-wing woman who I just happen to not agree with, but she is still at least rational. Hm... You know what? Let's not trust either of them implicitly, and take everything everyone says with a sceptic attitude. That's the only way I can keep it all straight.
I'm not trolling, I'm expressing the point that everyone thinks everyone else is biased, because they disagree.
If you want fair and balanced, you can't just take everything that everyone says nice. You have to accept points that people raise against you as a justification for being against you.
Yes, I'm fucking biased, and yes, I am speaking the truth, in so far as I know it. You're free to disagree (which you apparently do.) Unlike many biased sources of misinformation; I'm willing to listen to the other side, and at least consider that they might be right. Because, guess, what? I'm not perfect.
So go stick your troll allegations up your ass and suck it.
I'm not saying there is never a bias in the media. I'm saying that both liberals and conservatives talk about "The Media" (giving it quotes, and capitals so that you recognize that it's something that doesn't actually exist. It's people making generic comments about ALL media, which never sticks.)
The simple point, is that you can't believe someone who just claims a media bias. Because *everyone* is claiming a general media bias against their point of view.
If you want to speak about liberal bias, then let's take a recent example that many people on Slashdot can relate to. The elections. The media presented a view of the world that had everyone foaming at the mouth to depose Bush, and have him drawn and quartered (I'm exagerating here some.) At the very least, many liberals were absolutely convinced that everyone felt like they did. That Bush was the devil, and ignore various character features of Kerry that many conservatives feel are flaws, particularly his two faced nature. (Say/Do one thing, but actually be believing/doing soething else. Like protesting the war by making it seem like he's throwing his medals back, but actually, they're not his medals. Look, you're either ashamed of it, or you're not. I'd have more respect for him for actually throwing them back, because then at least he had some god damn conviction.)
Then the elections actually come out, and Bush wins the popular vote. Like WTF, right? How could anyone vote for the anti-Christ, right?
Exactly, because of the liberal slant on the views of Bush people couldn't imagine that hey, maybe most of the voting public actually felt that Bush was a better alternative than Kerry, who would have turned Iraq into an anarchical warlordship by just getting our troops back at all costs. Or *maybe* he was just *lying* to you all to play up the anti-Bush vote, and get elected, then do what he knew we had to do. (The guy *was* in the military, I don't think he could be that stupid as to just pull out our troops with nothing place.) The problem is, I just didn't feel liike I could trust him.
Did the media really paint that picture? Not really. Especially not here. Let's go for some more liberal bias that you can relate to. Slashdot. First of all, Slashdot as a community usually takes every chance they have to dump on Bush, Microsoft, SCO, etc etc etc. Even if there's no reasonable point to argue. We just hate them because they have money/power, and we don't. And wow, low and behold, since they're different people, they express/enact a different view from ours.
Funny thing is, this will likely get modded troll or some shit, for expressing a conservative view point, if it does, there's your biased right there.
I grew up in a right-wing home. I know this for certain. Anyways, I was brought up my whole life "knowing" that "The Media" was left-wing biased.
Then one day, I talked to this very left-wing girl, and she was telling me that "The Media" was right-wing biased.
Then it occured to me. If someone is reporting fair and balanced news, then it would come up as middle of the road. And to a right-winger, that looks left-wing, and to a left-winger that lookes right-wing.
After that point, I take claims of bias in "The Media" to be stupid useless political griping. Essentially both sides being upset that the view point isn't theirs.
Well, the issue covers control of the copyright owner to control distribution. Which, if you pass it out to a large enough people, they lose those distribution rights.
Now that I'm thinking about it... if you started running off hundreds of copies of a tape and passing it out to friends who ask for it, then that would, like you say, not be covered by Fair-Use. Of course, if you present it to them in unaltered format, (comercials and all) you could likely reasonably argue that you're not damaging their distribution rights, as you're presenting it to your friends exactly as you got it. Hazy yeah, but if you could argue reasonably that every method that they generate revenue is being maintained, then what would they have to complain about?
Now, let's shift gears from mass distribution, to individualized distribution. Your friend comes by and asks if you recorded the most recent episode of Lost, and if he can borrow it. You give him your recorded of TV onto tape copy. In many ways this should be reasonably covered by the same Fair Use rights the same way that reselling a book is covered by Fair Use.
TiVo has oft been fighting with the networks towards the ability of their users to be able to share content with others. The networks have generally argued that they're generally fine with video sharing, they're just *really* worried about people distributing beyond the distribution patterns. For example, if my friends (in MST) could share shows in real time with me (in PST) then I could watch Lost 1 hour earlier. This is obviously a violation of their distribution rights. If they wanted to, they would have aired Lost here at the same time as everyone else, but they've chosen not to.
Again, it's all about distribution rights. If I'm not stepping on their distribution rights, then it's alright.
For example, I got a copy of Prison Break Ep 1 and 2 (because I missed them), but when I loaded them up, they had blurred out the FOX logo in the lower right hand corner. I was upset, because this is stepping on their distribution rights. If they didn't want the FOX logo there, they would have not put it there in the first place.
I was getting a copy of the shows because I missed them initially on TV. I will be watching the rest of the series on broadcast TV, and if I want to catch up on the first two episodes, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. But I'd rather get a direct copy of the show, exactly what they aired, not some bullcrap where they've edited it just because they have no respect for the people how own the distribution rights.
My friends annoy me too, beccause they'll download the episodes and watch them over the computer rather than watch them on TV at broadcast time. It's like, wtf dude? I mean, I've heard of lazy bastards, but you're actively exerting more energy to get a copy of it online than to just sit down in front of a TV and watch it. *sigh*
I try and respect these sorts of rights of the copyright holders. Naturally, there are some conditions that I have, that hey, I wanna catch up on the series. I shouldn't have to wait for it to come out on DVD to catch up on these episodes that have already aired in my area. But at the same time, if I don't respect their copyrights, then they'll stop making these shows. It's a fine line to tread the path of Fair Use, because it *is* a violation of the copyright owners rights. The matter is just that, in the case of Fair Use, full respect of the copyright owners rights would violate the individual's rights receivinng it. So the question is always, how much should I be allowed to violate their rights to protect my rights. I argue that if you're not damaging in anyway their bottom line, and you're not infringing on their distribution rights (only passing material out where it's already otherwise accessible, not damaging any marks indicating ownership, and not removing any accredidation, like the credits) then it's Fair Use. Of course, if it ever gets to court, the question is if I can convince a jury or judge that this actually is Fair Use.
I sure one can very easily argue that watching a bittorrented version of a previously broadcast TV show is legitimate fair use.
I mean, think about it this way, if you were to record it to a tape, and cut out the commercials. We've already had established court precedent that this is entirely legal.
Next, George asks you, "Hey, Bob, did you record the most recent Survivor? I missed it." You say, "Hells yeah, it's awesome. Here, have my copy/I'll make you a copy." Again, reasonable fair-use. George could have legitimately copied it himself, he's in the same distribution network as you.
Now, replace tape, with DivX. And handing some one a copy with download over Bittorrent.
If you're not selling the tapes, then there can't really be anything wrong with it from a Fair Use point of view. You can always argue that these are things you *could have* recorded yourself.
If you could have legally obtained a copy within Fair Use, then why would it be illegal to obtain it from someone else who obtained it within Fair Use, and is just sharing.
Now, if someone from outside the distribution network gets ahold of it (like say, France doesn't get it until a week after us) I think sharing it with them wouldn't be right. But if you *could have* watched, it and you *could have* recorded it (and even more to the point, if you *did* record it on TiVo) then they can go suck on a Fair Use lemon.
crap, we can't even go back 30,000 years and find someone who's more than 7 levels of indirectrion from Keven Bacon.
See, I just don't see it like that. China, Germany, and the Arabian coutries have every right as soverign nations to want to block whatever information that they want. Especially in the case of Germany, where they were brought to ruin because some fucktard wackos got to power. You'd be damn skiddish about letting that sort of thing run free ever again, even if it is infringing on individual rights. (Compare to hate speech in the US. We restrict it because it causes serious damage to the social network. In the same way, Germany is blocking neonazi stuff because it is a direct threat upon the safety and security of the country.)
I don't see why everyone thinks that it'd be a *bad* thing to allow countries to do stuff like this. Yeah, Arabia could block out Israeli IPs and DNS entries. Does it impact anyone outside of Arabia? Nope. So, the question is, do Arabian countries have the right to block content within their borders according to their own will.
If you're arguing that Neonazis deserve free speech, then you damn well better be arguing that any individual country should have its own authority to do as it pleases. (Within general limits... like threatening other countries, and acts of war... that stuff is bad whether you're talking about over the internet or not.)
I hate how all these people are complaining that these countries want to restrict their own citizen's rights to information, and that's why we shouldn't pass any countrol over this stuff to them. DAMN STRAIGHT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO. It's not the job of the god damn US to police the world and make sure everyone is playing happy fair. And it's certainly not our right to tell Arabia that they can't block Israeli IPs, or Germany that they can't block neonazi sights, and that China can't restrict their citizens from hearing about freedom and dissonance.
It is *not* the right of the US to tell everyone else how they should behave. That's exactly what people are hating us for. Because we go in and tell them that doing XY is wrong, when it's their goddamn choice.
Then of course, the US gets our panties all up in a bunch when someone else tells us how to do something. Every one defending Gitmo, but saying we had every right to go in and take Saddam down is speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and just needs to shut up.
Pick a consistent, and non-hypocratic opinion, that isn't "The US has the right and responsibility to stick our nose where it damn well doesn't belong."
The way I've understood it, vacuum has a non-zero energy because matter is constantly being spontaneously generated within it in particle, anti-particle pairs, then simply anhilating themselves.
I could be way off base (and if I am, please correct me). Just I "know" that this spontaneous generation happens, and to me it explains why vacuum has non-zero energy.
Especially because in the simplest understanding, it's not really possible for a pure vacuum of nothing to have non-zero energy, since there is no mass there to *have* energy. Of course, the spontaneous generation of particles and conservation of mass and energy even in these situtations should then allow for it.
I doubt though that this amount of spontaneous mass could possibly be our "dark matter", since the fudge factor needed for the dark matter is significantly greater than something that could be spontaneously generated in a vacuum.
It's not really that Luminiferous Aether was constructed to have light fit our data. It was more so, just because we lacked the proper understanding of how exactly light can be a wave in a vaccum. We were operating under the disenlightened (pun intended) notion that a wave can only be through something, and that a wave can't be a particle at the same time, and thus "wave" through "itself". (very simplified explanation, I know how light works, don't try and correct this stuff because it's not spot on.)
But both share very much the idea that we can't explain something, so lets invent something that makes it fit with our current model of thinking. Let's not look for the real problem (that we're misunderstanding things), but rather let's just make shit up.
Personally I've never found the "make shit up" a good scientific practice in any field.
Well, first, I got the joke... Yeah, I know the correct pronoun of "lawyer" is not usually "it".
But regardless, the original poster was compounding this error by making another error on top of his.
and thanks for ruining my joke, it was a Grammar Nazi post. You don't find them HILARIOUS?!
i'm sysop of debian machines for network services
Now there's a word I've not heard in a while...
"of"
Yeah, usually you use a cross-compiler to target the new OS/arch to make your binaries, then get them somehow onto your filesystem to be used.
Then you get the OS advanced enough that it can actually run GCC itself, then you use the cross-compiler to generate a native-compiler.
Of course, sometimes, for some reason, people have to compile a cross-compiler for an arch that they're not compiling on. They call this a canadian cross-compile. For example, (you build (a PowerPC gcc binary which (cross-compiles for ARM)) on an x86 machine.) parenthesis added to group words meaningfully and avoid confusion in the whole CCC confusion.
The lawyer will want it's money up front!
Ok, I know you're an AC, but that doesn't mean you get saved from the Grammar Nazis. Like, what really drives me, is that you're "correcting" the originally correct sentence.
Like... wtf?
Ok, so after you get hit with the 403, you run up the tree until you hit the hostname, hitting 403's all the way.
Either way, it's unreasonable to expect protection against simple non-malicious security examinations.
While, I'll agree that it creeps me out to think someone might come to my door and try opening it, but I don't think it should be illegal for them to try unless they went in.
Hey, I like Britney Spears.
Well, there are words in the PATRIOT Act that I don't agree with. Like, "the" and "a".
;)
Doesn't make it a good bill
*mostly joking*
Is the following situation illegal? You donate money to a company. They don't give you a receipt at the store, and after a reasonable time, you don't get one in the mail. So, you go by their building at some point, and look in the windows, and try the doors and windows to see if they're open. Just to make sure they're on the level.
This would be pretty close to real-world equivalent to the events in this crime.
Honestly, if the above example is illegal, then just looking into the windows is just as illegal, because it shows you had as much intent as just trying the doors, which has as much intent as trying the windows.
If you think it's wrong that he got an access denied trying a directory traversal attack, then let's look at something perhaps all of us tech-suave people have tried: You get linked to a picture by a friend, you like the picture, want to see if there are more so you delete the filename out of the path. BOOM! You're hit with a 403 Access Forbidden. In England under these conditions you just broke the law.
Now, when the police come knocking on the door make sure you tell them exactly what you did, and not try to deny anything about it, because even though you didn't do anything wrong, they're investigating it now, and if you piss them off by lying to them, then they'll get you.
Take for example someone who is involved in a suspected murder. The police find the person who did kill the person under suspicion (no proof yet), and ask him some questions. He lies about where he was at. (A natural tendency of humans to lie to avoid responsibility for an action.) Later after more investigation, it's found that he really did cause the death of the victim. Here's the thing, it was justified. Self defense even. Now, you get before the judge and he says, "Meh, you lied to the cops. It doesn't matter that you were justified. You need to be found guilty because you should have talked to the cops in the first place."
Now, apparently according to claims above, the UK will hold you responsible for not divulging information to the police that provides for your justification or innocence. But in the US, that's bullshit, and it would never fly.
The site looked legit, then when he never recieved a reciept for his payment, or any sort of confirmation, THAT is when he grew worried.
So he checked out the site that took his credit card information, ran two directory traversal attacks, was refused access twice, and then gave up.
This isn't like B&E in order to see if some company collecting donations is on the level. This is like going by late at night, looking into the windows, and trying the doors, and windows; finding them locked. Then walking away.
Yes, and a lot of people think like you. They think, "Because it's Open Source, that makes it better."
:: F/OSS:The World. Just Microsoft Developers have a higher density of programmers, and thus can have the same development with fewer people.
No, what makes Free/Open Source better is that it's Free as in Speech. It's a protected right of the people to see all distributed changes. If you legally obtain a binary of the program you have the right to the source code that built that binary.
Yes, I do believe that the Freedom of being able to view the source code is more important than the Freedom of people to use the code. And as the developer, I can choose how I want that freedom given. I can give it as GPL, where everyone gets to see your modifications; I can give it as BSD, where everyone can do whatever they want with it within minor limitations; or I can give it out as Proprietary Software, which is exactly what the Free/Open Software movement says is wrong.
I want you to take a cold hard look at who came up with Free/Open Software. Crazy radicals like RMS, who are totally ideologically bound to the idea of Free/Open Software. They developed it because they want software Free as in Speech.
Now, let's look at the average user, who never looks at the source code for anything, even when it's available. Why do these people use the software? Oh yeah, because it's Free as in Beer, and it's of a quality comparable to any organization that allows it's developers to just hack away on source code.
Generally, Windows:Microsoft Developers
The only thing your post reiterates to me is that Joe User doesn't want my software to be Free, he just doesn't want to pay for it.
The reason for that unstoppability is the lack of an awareness on anyone else's part of the value of an end to end solution where everything works together using the same technology
Riiiight. I work in an almost all MS shop, and if everything suddenly started working seamlessly, I'd have a friggin' heart attack.
You know... if he wanted a real end-to-end solution where everything works together using the same technology, then he should get a Mac, or get some Macs.
MS has a hojillian different ways of doing everything on their OS. You just don't usually see it, because some hacker on campus hides it from you.
OSX is clean and is hardware to library/application integrated. MS is usually just OS to library/application. The arguement for an "end-to-end" solution is like saying it's better to buy your steel from US Steel because they own everything from the mining to the distribution. It's called a vertical monopoly, and it's rarely a good idea.
But you have to prove your invention was prior art by showing that you publicised it. "Prior art", under first-to-invent, means anything that existed before your invention. Under first-to-file, though, it's only what the patentee could have known about.
Actually, this could be a good thing. Situation: Company A invents something then holds onto it, but doesn't file it, and just sits on it (doesn't publish anything about it.), then Company B comes out and invents the same thing, and files for it, and publishs about it.
In first-to-invent, Company A can break Company B's patent, even though they never told anyone about the patent.
In first-to-file, Company A cannot break Company B's patent (though they can potentially continue to use it internally as they have been) because they didn't publish it.
Now, let's look at what patent law should be accomplishing. The idea behind patent law is to make inventions PUBLIC, and in exchange for this, the inventor is given a temporary monopoly to exploit that invention. The net sum is that inventions are not lost. If some company patents something there is no way that that invention can be lost. As such, the goal here is to make inventions PUBLIC, so that everyone can eventually benefit from it.
Thus, first-to-file benefits in the situation. Assuming in all cases that prior art will be protected, and someone can produce a technology, release it free to the public domain, (freely publish, but not patent) and then no one can patent it.
If first-to-file accomplishes those goals better than first-to-invent, then I'm up for it being better. In fact, the GP post satisfies a lot of questions for me.
I'll take that arguement. Good points. I wasn't really arguing so much that patents suck because you can patent something and not make money from it. More so, that patents don't fit what people think they do.
Yeah, boo hoo for the guy who invented something then didn't make any decent money from it before the license expired. It's true that's how the law works. But in some ways, if something like that is going to happen, then people should just release their patent and let the world have it.
I mean, if you were sitting on a way to extract silver out of some crappy mud that no one uses, but not the mud to actually use the extraction process on (and thus get rich) you're probably better off just releasing it, and hope for getting famous instead of rich.