Let's assume that by "police" you actually mean "FBI" as copyright infringement is enforced at the federal and not local level. You would be very hardpressed to prove that a filename was chosen for the stated purpose of obstructing justice.
Next, copyright infringement at this (minor) level may not be an indictable offense. I'd have to look into it more but I do not know of a single case as of yet that has been tried by a jury. Also, you forget that Freedom of Speech protections prevent such a silly notion in the first place. It is not obstruction of the law.
Your "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" example is not very relevant. First of all, you are describing a scenario that has a direct and immediate effect on those around you. This is an active action. Naming a file "Brittany Spears" for your stated purpose of distraction is a passive action and has no direct or immediate effect.
Your rape scenario requires people to be actively and unintentionally engaged within your immediate environment. Your obstruction scenario requires people to intentionally enter into your immediate environment.
More importantly, shouting "rape" or "fire" in a crowd, while still protected by Freedom of Speech, poses a real and immediate danger to those in a crowd. Not because of inconveniencing them but because of their possible reaction to a call of danger. There is no such possible reaction to the naming of a file. This is a passive action that does not press upon an unintentional observer that an immediate, life-threatening call to action is required. Thus, there is no potential for harm posed to those around you.
The offense of shouting "fire" or "rape" has been addressed by the courts time and again (look it up) and it does not apply to the filenaming scenario.
Put quite simply, freedom of speech provides you with the freedom to lie provided your action does not bring harm to another individual or yourself.
>>Then you get criminally charged with obstruction of justice, for faking a crime with the intent to make it harder for authorities to weed out the real violators.
You forgot to add the IANAL tag at the end of your statement. I say this because you obviously are not one and have no conception of jurisprudence.
The parent poster sets up a file server and names a file "Brittany Spears". You claim that he is obstructing justice and faking a crime. You then go on to say that he is making "it harder for authorities". As happens all to often, you have confused the RIAA with a law enforcement agency. They are not. They are a lobbyist group and while they can buy judges, they are not ones themselves. This is an important distinction that you would do very well to remember the next time you post so blithely.
Next, you claim that he is "faking a crime." Interesting. I'm curious as to what crime you think he is "faking." Copyright infringement? Filenames are arbitrary and not subject to copyright law. Proffering copyrighted product without due compensation to that product's rightful owner? The parent said that it wasn't Brittany Spears' music. Fraud? What was he alleged to have attempted to gain (an integral key to the crime of fraud)?
For someone who claims to be a "Wordsmith", you demonstrate little understanding of the words that you actually use.
>>In the case of opera, most phishing sites dont work.:) Sadly, neither do most legitimate online banking sites.:(
My bank works just fine with Opera and has since v6, when they introduced the service. Granted, I don't have an animated paper clip to help me along with the arduous task of checking my balance, but that's the sacrifice that I am willing to make for a browser that works.
In Opera's defence, making a product that adheres to Web standards and doesn't encourage the continuing bifurcation and blatent disregard for standards that Microsoft's Internet Explore-Embrace-Extend-er does, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The only sites that I have had any problems with are those that require ActiveX controls (which, I'm relieved to see, are becoming fewer) and extended JScript commands that are used to manage some dynamic menu effects which are mostly useless to begin with. If my dynamic menu scripts can work in all browsers, there's no reason why others can't, too. Well, other than ignorance and laziness...
Although Barrie popularized the name "Wendy" when his book was published in 1904, it had existed far far long before that. A little googling brings up some interesting history.
And yet, just like every year, here you are again, publicly announcing your lack of a sense of humor and blathering on about how rediculous and offensive it is for an ultra-conservative, serious news site like Slashdot to take a break one day out of the year and have a little fun with itself and exclaiming your outrage at the blatent insensitivity demonstrated here and how they don't have April Fools in New Guinea and MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
Laugh at yourself a little today. The rest of the world is.
After shelling out $20 for the DVD, the popcorn set me back $3, after buring the first batch. Blew $2 on the soda after the damned cat knocked over the bottle, 30 minutes to mop the floor, $10 for a new mop and a bottle of mop-n-slop, another 45 minutes bathing the cat, 20 minutes spent after the bath trying to get the bleeding to stop, my freakin' kid wouldn't stop climbing all over me to get to the popcorn, then went into a sugar-induced hyperactivity fit from all of the sugar in the soda which only served to piss off a very wet cat who was happily content rubbing herself against the couch in a vain attempt to dry off, and having to deal with a phone call from my father who was thrilled to have passed his first prostate exam and all of this just to labor through yet another rousing viewing of the Secret Neighborhood of the Ya-Ya Magnolias that my wife made me sit through. Again.
Yeah, watching the movie at home is so much better. =)
This is true, but those laws primarily go into effect after the fraud has been committed. What they are going after here is not the fraudulent act itself but the attempt. Sort of like assault and battery. Assault is the threat, battery is the action. Battery carries the heavier charge.
Currently, other than possibly copyright violations, there is nothing truly illegal about setting up a phishing site. Yes, you have intent, but that is very difficult to prove. To make a case really worthwhile to go after, you have to have the theft.
This bill (which I admittedly have not read yet) would seek to make the attempt illegal and easier to prosecute. Like CAN-SPAN, it will be very difficult to enforce, but the good effort is there at least.
Jakob Nielsen's site was wonderful back in 1994 when it was relevant. Looking at it now makes my eyes water. Any website that makes me push my chair back four feet from my desk just so I can get a single sentence into my visual frame at once is not to be considered an authority in my book. It's very difficult to follow the design advice of someone who doesn't follow it themself. It's time that Nielsen learned a few things about layout, color scheme's, and presentation. Like most critics, he (self-admittedly) lacks the talent to create, so he complains instead.
I'm sure you're a wonderful person, nicke999, but in my personal experience, anyone that I have ever met that recommended Nielsen's site was either inexperienced or trying to be elitest.
The device is passive but is self-aware as to its location. They could easily configure it so that each device contains an RFID tag that communicates statistics to the pump (ala Exxon/Mobil's SpeedPass). The travel data could also be stored in the car's black box (all have them since 1996).
To echo some previous posts, I can also definately see this as a means for traffic enforcement. It's a trivial thing for a GPS unit to track your speed.
What I find asinine is the duality in California's attitude towards energy conservation. They want everyone to conserve (turn down your A/C, use less water, drive fuel-efficient cars) but penalize you when you do. Here's an idea to raise some cash - cut the graft rampant in the administration.
This unfairly favors out-of-state drivers, too, who will not be subjected to the tax, as they wouldn't have the GPS monitor in their car. What's the state going to do - hand them out at the border?
The danger of this, of course, is that this will catch on in other states. That would take care of the pesky out-of-state driver and would be a boon for the state governments as they create even more wasteful departments and committees while they try to figure out who owes what for driving where.
The end result of this will be the general perception that, gallon for gallon, fuel-efficient cars are taxed more than standard cars.
Introducing the 2006 Chrysler Harrison-Bergeron.....
I think you might be misunderstanding what JNI is. Each Java runtime provides its own implementation to the native underlying system libraries. Java does not communicate through JNI for I/O of any kind.
JNI itself is a generic abstraction layer to the underlying operating system. It provides a mechanism whereby dynamic libraries not directly supported by the runtime engine can still be accessed by a Java application.
Threading, sockets and GUI are implemented via the native system libraries. AWT used to be very slow (as opposed to just being merely slow today) due to its own multi-layed abstraction. But at no time was JNI the conduit for these systems.
Java *is* a mature language celebrating its 10th year in 2005. J2EE, as the sum of its collective parts (EJB, Servlets, JSP, RMI) has been around for 7 years. By industry standards, these are "old-timers".
Java is memory "conservative" (on a server), requiring far less RAM than the.NET platform. Depending on the application server that you implement, you will find varying degrees of performance. Try not to give in to the uninformed mindset that the Java runtime included with the SDK in 1996 was the end-all be-all of Java compilers. That FUD went out of style a long time ago along with bell bottoms, the Dodo and civil liberties.
Java *is* platform-independent. My firm has developed applications running on various different *nix and Windows platforms that have been in production for over 4 years. Any platform-dependent implementation (e.g. via JNI) should be abstracted far enough away from the core application that, in the rare case that it is required, it can be easily replaced. To not design your application in such a manner is foolish and irresponsible.
Business has been very successful on the Java platform for years and much ealier than.NET and ASP.
Or are you suggesting that everything would be better off if it were just writtin in Perl?
RTFM. Other people were laughing. Only the lawyer on the line complained.
If you had read the article, you would also have noticed that the persons arrested were not mere average joes. They are members of a legal reform group that looks out for cases such as this one.
They were silenced for their views that were contradictory to the court.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's assume that by "police" you actually mean "FBI" as copyright infringement is enforced at the federal and not local level. You would be very hardpressed to prove that a filename was chosen for the stated purpose of obstructing justice.
Next, copyright infringement at this (minor) level may not be an indictable offense. I'd have to look into it more but I do not know of a single case as of yet that has been tried by a jury. Also, you forget that Freedom of Speech protections prevent such a silly notion in the first place. It is not obstruction of the law.
Your "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" example is not very relevant. First of all, you are describing a scenario that has a direct and immediate effect on those around you. This is an active action. Naming a file "Brittany Spears" for your stated purpose of distraction is a passive action and has no direct or immediate effect.
Your rape scenario requires people to be actively and unintentionally engaged within your immediate environment. Your obstruction scenario requires people to intentionally enter into your immediate environment.
More importantly, shouting "rape" or "fire" in a crowd, while still protected by Freedom of Speech, poses a real and immediate danger to those in a crowd. Not because of inconveniencing them but because of their possible reaction to a call of danger. There is no such possible reaction to the naming of a file. This is a passive action that does not press upon an unintentional observer that an immediate, life-threatening call to action is required. Thus, there is no potential for harm posed to those around you.
The offense of shouting "fire" or "rape" has been addressed by the courts time and again (look it up) and it does not apply to the filenaming scenario.
Put quite simply, freedom of speech provides you with the freedom to lie provided your action does not bring harm to another individual or yourself.
>>Then you get criminally charged with obstruction of justice, for faking a crime with the intent to make it harder for authorities to weed out the real violators.
You forgot to add the IANAL tag at the end of your statement. I say this because you obviously are not one and have no conception of jurisprudence.
The parent poster sets up a file server and names a file "Brittany Spears". You claim that he is obstructing justice and faking a crime. You then go on to say that he is making "it harder for authorities". As happens all to often, you have confused the RIAA with a law enforcement agency. They are not. They are a lobbyist group and while they can buy judges, they are not ones themselves. This is an important distinction that you would do very well to remember the next time you post so blithely.
Next, you claim that he is "faking a crime." Interesting. I'm curious as to what crime you think he is "faking." Copyright infringement? Filenames are arbitrary and not subject to copyright law. Proffering copyrighted product without due compensation to that product's rightful owner? The parent said that it wasn't Brittany Spears' music. Fraud? What was he alleged to have attempted to gain (an integral key to the crime of fraud)?
For someone who claims to be a "Wordsmith", you demonstrate little understanding of the words that you actually use.
>>Nice to know that India would extradite spammers since that offense seems to have a 9 year prison sentence
Making it even easier to get into the US than an H1-B.
>>In the case of opera, most phishing sites dont work. :) Sadly, neither do most legitimate online banking sites. :(
My bank works just fine with Opera and has since v6, when they introduced the service. Granted, I don't have an animated paper clip to help me along with the arduous task of checking my balance, but that's the sacrifice that I am willing to make for a browser that works.
In Opera's defence, making a product that adheres to Web standards and doesn't encourage the continuing bifurcation and blatent disregard for standards that Microsoft's Internet Explore-Embrace-Extend-er does, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The only sites that I have had any problems with are those that require ActiveX controls (which, I'm relieved to see, are becoming fewer) and extended JScript commands that are used to manage some dynamic menu effects which are mostly useless to begin with. If my dynamic menu scripts can work in all browsers, there's no reason why others can't, too. Well, other than ignorance and laziness...
I've been using Opera for 6 years now and I'm a little confused.
What is "malware"?
Although Barrie popularized the name "Wendy" when his book was published in 1904, it had existed far far long before that. A little googling brings up some interesting history.
And yet, just like every year, here you are again, publicly announcing your lack of a sense of humor and blathering on about how rediculous and offensive it is for an ultra-conservative, serious news site like Slashdot to take a break one day out of the year and have a little fun with itself and exclaiming your outrage at the blatent insensitivity demonstrated here and how they don't have April Fools in New Guinea and MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
Laugh at yourself a little today. The rest of the world is.
Not to mention what to do when the manufacturer goes out of business. 3DFX anybody?
Man, I *have* to come over to your house!
After shelling out $20 for the DVD, the popcorn set me back $3, after buring the first batch. Blew $2 on the soda after the damned cat knocked over the bottle, 30 minutes to mop the floor, $10 for a new mop and a bottle of mop-n-slop, another 45 minutes bathing the cat, 20 minutes spent after the bath trying to get the bleeding to stop, my freakin' kid wouldn't stop climbing all over me to get to the popcorn, then went into a sugar-induced hyperactivity fit from all of the sugar in the soda which only served to piss off a very wet cat who was happily content rubbing herself against the couch in a vain attempt to dry off, and having to deal with a phone call from my father who was thrilled to have passed his first prostate exam and all of this just to labor through yet another rousing viewing of the Secret Neighborhood of the Ya-Ya Magnolias that my wife made me sit through. Again.
Yeah, watching the movie at home is so much better. =)
What nauseates me more than the pops and scratches are the copyright traces...those red lines and dots that pop up all over the place.
I think it was the last Harry Potter. The marks were so noticeable and distracting that I couldn't concentrate on the film itself.
Tell that to Jon Johansen.
When their servers have been recovered from the ashes, you can also find a Ghostbusters flik that they did.
This is true, but those laws primarily go into effect after the fraud has been committed. What they are going after here is not the fraudulent act itself but the attempt. Sort of like assault and battery. Assault is the threat, battery is the action. Battery carries the heavier charge.
Currently, other than possibly copyright violations, there is nothing truly illegal about setting up a phishing site. Yes, you have intent, but that is very difficult to prove. To make a case really worthwhile to go after, you have to have the theft.
This bill (which I admittedly have not read yet) would seek to make the attempt illegal and easier to prosecute. Like CAN-SPAN, it will be very difficult to enforce, but the good effort is there at least.
That's find just as long as I still get to wake up with my kidneys....
Jakob Nielsen's site was wonderful back in 1994 when it was relevant. Looking at it now makes my eyes water. Any website that makes me push my chair back four feet from my desk just so I can get a single sentence into my visual frame at once is not to be considered an authority in my book. It's very difficult to follow the design advice of someone who doesn't follow it themself. It's time that Nielsen learned a few things about layout, color scheme's, and presentation. Like most critics, he (self-admittedly) lacks the talent to create, so he complains instead.
I'm sure you're a wonderful person, nicke999, but in my personal experience, anyone that I have ever met that recommended Nielsen's site was either inexperienced or trying to be elitest.
The device is passive but is self-aware as to its location. They could easily configure it so that each device contains an RFID tag that communicates statistics to the pump (ala Exxon/Mobil's SpeedPass). The travel data could also be stored in the car's black box (all have them since 1996).
To echo some previous posts, I can also definately see this as a means for traffic enforcement. It's a trivial thing for a GPS unit to track your speed.
What I find asinine is the duality in California's attitude towards energy conservation. They want everyone to conserve (turn down your A/C, use less water, drive fuel-efficient cars) but penalize you when you do. Here's an idea to raise some cash - cut the graft rampant in the administration.
This unfairly favors out-of-state drivers, too, who will not be subjected to the tax, as they wouldn't have the GPS monitor in their car. What's the state going to do - hand them out at the border?
The danger of this, of course, is that this will catch on in other states. That would take care of the pesky out-of-state driver and would be a boon for the state governments as they create even more wasteful departments and committees while they try to figure out who owes what for driving where.
The end result of this will be the general perception that, gallon for gallon, fuel-efficient cars are taxed more than standard cars.
Introducing the 2006 Chrysler Harrison-Bergeron.....
void main() {
@@TODO: initSecurity()
startXP();
}
You wouldn't happen to know of a decent Mac-browser emulator would you?
One project that I worked on had us testing against WebTV, for which this tool came in handy.
I think you might be misunderstanding what JNI is. Each Java runtime provides its own implementation to the native underlying system libraries. Java does not communicate through JNI for I/O of any kind.
/ concepts/index.html
JNI itself is a generic abstraction layer to the underlying operating system. It provides a mechanism whereby dynamic libraries not directly supported by the runtime engine can still be accessed by a Java application.
Threading, sockets and GUI are implemented via the native system libraries. AWT used to be very slow (as opposed to just being merely slow today) due to its own multi-layed abstraction. But at no time was JNI the conduit for these systems.
Further reading: http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/native1.1
Ah, deimtee, if only the mod points could go past 5. I'd personally push you up to 11 for that one.
Oooh, lookie! It's a trolling AC. Ok, I'll bite.
.NET platform. Depending on the application server that you implement, you will find varying degrees of performance. Try not to give in to the uninformed mindset that the Java runtime included with the SDK in 1996 was the end-all be-all of Java compilers. That FUD went out of style a long time ago along with bell bottoms, the Dodo and civil liberties.
.NET and ASP.
Java *is* a mature language celebrating its 10th year in 2005. J2EE, as the sum of its collective parts (EJB, Servlets, JSP, RMI) has been around for 7 years. By industry standards, these are "old-timers".
Java is memory "conservative" (on a server), requiring far less RAM than the
Java *is* platform-independent. My firm has developed applications running on various different *nix and Windows platforms that have been in production for over 4 years. Any platform-dependent implementation (e.g. via JNI) should be abstracted far enough away from the core application that, in the rare case that it is required, it can be easily replaced. To not design your application in such a manner is foolish and irresponsible.
Business has been very successful on the Java platform for years and much ealier than
Or are you suggesting that everything would be better off if it were just writtin in Perl?
Silly troll.
RTFM. Other people were laughing. Only the lawyer on the line complained.
If you had read the article, you would also have noticed that the persons arrested were not mere average joes. They are members of a legal reform group that looks out for cases such as this one.
They were silenced for their views that were contradictory to the court.
One word: Patriotism.
"sic" is an editorial note indicating that a misspelling or grammatical error was made intentionally. Invariably, it is within a quoted phrase.
For example:
Wjat [sic] in the nine layers of hell does "sic" mean?
You might as well complain about the logo, too. At 3300 bytes, it could tear down the entire Net! How could Google be so reckless?!!