Exactly, ProCD is largely unrelated to the real issue of EULAs, but is unfortunately seen as a precedent.
Can you point any cases where EULAs were supported despite the argument that the action was under duress? I wonder if you'd have more luck suing the company for intentionally failing to provide a working product than in getting out of the EULA after the fact?
Yeah, I forgot to calloc the string, or specifically null the last byte.
But that's my point. C has too many gotchas like that where the standard library is nearly unusable - scanf is bad, gets is bad, printf with user-controllable strings isn't safe, etc.
Same with C++. Use strings to avoid these problems, but which string library. Which smart pointers? Which resizable array, or associate array library?
Thankfully it's been too many years for me to be more specific.
I didn't mean that a 18x15 relationship was rape, the opportunistic rape comment was about most child molesters not needing children, anyone helpless would do, but kids are easy.
My comment about the pedophile label isn't that it's right, or to imply that 18v15 is rape, it was merely to say that "The News" prefers the term over more accurate descriptions because it's short and catchy. (Like AIDS.)
I certainly don't think minor statutory rape is rape, I especially don't think it's pedophilia.
This isn't CSI, you'd have to pay for those tests...
Notarizing is a good idea, but you'd want to make sure they were notarizing that the site appeared to be offering photos under a CC license, not that you merely had a print-out purporting to be of that website.
Why do I say so? Because I'm obviously smarter than you. Able to connect two related ideas. The USA used to be the country that didn't torture people, now they outsource torture as routine policy. That's pretty much a direct sell-out on the key values being an American used to stand for. If you can't get from there to traitor you need help.
If you don't think it's traitorous, let me phone in a tip about you. See if water-boarding will change your mind.
A something which isn't anything but has the metaphysical properties of something, can spontaneously appear, but some a something which isn't a nothing can't spontaneously appear... Heady stuff there.
As compelling as your argument is, it's lacking any testable predictions which keep it from being a theory.
No, he was attempting proof by precedent. This is law, that's how it works.
Retail sales do not bind people to post-sale contracts. Every so often some lobby group claims that their product is different. In the early 1900s it was book publishers. They were specifically ruled against with the 'doctrine of first sale'. The courts specifically stated that the seller loses all rights to the item they sell. First sale
It's illegal to sell a product, knowing that you intend to render it inoperative, or not allow it to work. Fraud, etc. Software makers obviously intended their product to be used, and as such, had to implicitly agree to having it used, despite the fact that ephemeral copies were made.
Nevertheless, against all reason, lobbyists insisted that running a program involved making unauthorized duplication of the program and thus running software, whoever owned that copy, still required a license.
So copyright law was amended, yet again, to specifically allow what was already obvious.
So, twice lobbyists have tried to use copyright to control use or resale of their products. Twice they've been shot down, with explicit laws banning those practices.
So yeah, to me it looks like Microsoft, Adobe, etc, are just trying to trick of lying and hoping nobody checks.
The producer cedes all rights, you own your copy, and have the legal right to duplicate it as necessary to use it.
What in there requires a contract/license? Nothing.
Further, because EULAs are a contract under duress (you must 'agree' to use the software you bought) they aren't binding, even if they offer additional consideration and go beyond offering simple access to the software.
Please offer some evidence that EULAs are binding. Enron made a lot of claims, Microsoft makes a lot of claims...
You know, most autistic children have mothers, the majority of whom were even pregnant in the past. With them... It's not unreasonable to ask about the possibility of damage before birth.
If DES (Diethylstilbestrol) was a preservative it would surely would have worse effects on a child when given to their pregnant mother, than to the child themselves years later.
The mercury link is pretty tenuous, especially at those amounts, but the question is still reasonable.
A tautology is an empty, yet true, statement. Yes.
Call 'happened spontaneously' whatever you will. You hypothesize the existence of two entities, the universe and its creator. Its creator then, in your scenario, must have appeared spontaneously, or you need a creator creator.
I'm not saying I know how the universe created. I'm saying that your claims appear less likely because they require the existence of an explicit creator and don't actually answer and chicken/egg questions.
The universe obviously exists. Barring that I can't "prove" that I exist, to myself, there is ample proof for the universe.
It's obviously here. We'd both agree, I think.
You claim to know details about its creation (that it required a creator) and as such, I think the burden of proof is on you to support this.
My theory wins, because my theory is that complex untestable theories with no explanatory power are wrong, by default. Invalid at any rate, and wrong by extension. My theory can be easily proved. Untestable theories aren't theories, neither are ones that fail to make any predictions. This is the tautology. What you're hypothesizing about universal creation isn't a theory, and is thus isn't a valid theory.
You're trying to claim knowledge of something, I'm merely trying to show that you aren't right by intent - you may by fluke be right, but it would be impossible for you to know this and thus, that your claims are "wrong".
If I flip a coin, look at it, and tell you it landed the other way, that's a lie. If I flip it, pretend to look, and tell you something random it's still a lie. It doesn't cease to be a lie when the coin is revealed and matches my words, because the lie was in making a statement which purported not just to coincidentally match fact, but that you verify it thusly. If you are unable to verify it you can't tell it as a truth.
Religious theories on the creation of the universe keep retreating, like Mose's exploits, until they could mean anything. 'God of the cracks.' They either claim nothing testable, or when proven false are claimed to have been metaphorical or exaggerated in translation.
The only ones that are testable have been proven wrong. Stars aren't dots on giant glass spheres, it's not turtles all the way down, the Earth revolves around the Sun, etc.
The instant you actually get nailed down on a specific, it's no longer religion. It's a simple matter of fact that can be checked and proven. This is why no serious believer will ever get nailed down making specific claims.
Religion is the unknowable, it can never masquerade as science. Science is about examining things, religion is about imagining things.
You have just as much evidence (re: none) about the beginning of the universe as any person in known existence does. So i fail to see how your theory should somehow be the winner. I'd be lying if I told you how the universe started, or even claimed to have a good idea. I have the same evidence you do. Thus you'd be lying if you claimed to know anything...
My theory is that anyone who claims to know the unknowable is wrong, where we mean wrong to apply despite there being a random chance of them actually being right.
Unknowable makes it a tautology. Anyone who claims to know it is proposing a paradox. They're lying.
Religious arguments are by definition over unknowable things, because if they made real testable predictive claims they'd be called science and supported or rejected based on evidence.
Religion = Unknowable = Impossible to be right about = Anyone claiming to be right is a liar or wrong
Printing the page would work - not rock-solid, but if you have a history of doing this diligently and can show proof it'd go a long way. Like an inventor keeping a dated workbook. Sure, you *could* have rewritten the entire logbook to make changes, but it's less likely. No legal weight so to speak, but every bit of supporting evidence helps. This only applies though if it'd be hard to fake - leaving blank pages for this purpose would spoil it.
Mailing it to yourself is 100% useless. Nothing stops you from mailing unsealed envelopes and filling them later, so nobody trusts this.
How are they trying to simplify copyright? The statutes are the same length as they were before... (Well, longer thanks to the DMCA and other crap.)
What they're trying to do is standardize the process by which you make clear to everyone visiting your website which of your works you are granting them permission to use.
Of course people can vanish making this hard to prove, but meatspace photographers and clients have been dealing with this for years. Keep good records. You'd need to show document when you bought rights to a photo or that photographer could sue you, pretending the sale never happened. If you do this properly you can't be hit for willful violation. If you're afraid of this, hire a notary to verify that the site appears to be offering a valid CC license for the photos. Take a photo of the website on the monitor - if you do this in regular fashion it'd be pretty good evidence of your intent at least.
If I stole a car and sold it to you, you'd be charged with receiving stolen goods if you appeared to have looked the other way. If I faked the papers and you acted honestly and with due diligence, you wouldn't be liable to any criminal prosecution or extended damages in a civil suit.
There's no extra difficulty. If I *sell* you an exclusive license to reproduce one of my photos you'd still need specific model releases to use them in advertising. The CC is just like this, but without the selling step.
There *needs* to be a model release for all advertising images of (living, identifiable) people.
Regardless of where you got the image. You can take it yourself, buy it, download it from flickr under a CC license, or download it without permission, the model still has the same rights.
I could sell you a hammer, give it to you, or you could make it on your own, but you're still not allowed to kill someone with it.
Basically, no model release is required for editorial use (news) but one is required for advertising usage.
Taking a picture for the purpose of showing what was happening is fine regardless of the wishes of those in the photo.
You're totally right about the CC though - it lets you copy the photo which you otherwise would not have been allowed to do. It doesn't legalize all uses of that photo - but it removes copyright concerns.
In other words if you download porn you may be criminally charged, but if it was CC licensed the distributor could not sue for damages.
If you download a CC photo of a person it's not a copyright violation, but using that photo in a advert for herpes medication could result in a civil suit unless they specifically agreed to release their rights in that area.
Or, have your laptop setup to dual boot. Configure it to go to your decoy OS immediately unless you hold down a key during boot.
Pick an innocuous decoy like Vista that's common, and unable to see/read ext2 or reiserfs partitions. Do just enough browsing in it to make it look lived in, all at disney and fox-news.
Do your real work in the other OS, storing the files on a partition Windows can't read, if not properly encrypted in a deniable partition ala TrueCrypt.
But pedophilia isn't the right term for 98% of the child molesters. They aren't clinically pedos, they're opportunistic rapists who simply have access to children. Pedophile just sounds better for the news than "Guy who had sex with and took pictures of a hot chick who lied about her age and is only 16."
This doesn't stop anyone from using the terms incorrectly though, and labeling underage people who send pics of themselves to their underage partners the same as serious child rapists. This is wrong and harmful not just to them, but to the real child-victims of non-pedo molesters who just aren't as newsworthy.
We (the USA/etc) are on a witch-hunt to remove any pictures of the naked skin of a young human, but seem to give very little attention to actual cases of kiddy diddling.
A father would get a far greater criminal sentence for taking a nude picture of his daughter (non erotic) and labelling it "Isn't she pretty?" than if he was caught repeatedly having sex with her. In the latter case he might not even lose custody. Weird isn't it?
And of course places like Second Life are having a fit trying to figure out how to catch people who have virtual sex with short avatars... (Won't you please think of the virtual children!) This couldn't conceivably affect a real child, but people (err, scum sucking pedos) are getting reported for a crime more serious (in our legal climate) than gang-rape and murder of a real person.
You're a victim of propaganda. The net just isn't full of kiddy-porn. Millions of people rape children yes, but this imagined industry cranking out underage porn DOES NOT EXIST.
If there really was kiddy-porn out there (more than vanishingly little) you'd see evidence. Police could display blacked-out thumbnails of the shots to prove their existence but they don't because there's hardly anything worth arresting anyone for, let alone going on a globe-spanning witch-hunt.
Sure, some people take sick pics of their kids, and some people do share these for a while, but the victimization in the first place is the real crime and it happens even to children whose parents don't own a camera!
Yes, this molestation needs to stop. But going after people downloading JPGs isn't going to keep a molester from molesting a kid. The scare over harmless pictures hides the real issue of widespread abuse. Now people froth at the mouth over a picture an underage girl took for her boyfriend, but actual molesters are often left with their children to offend again. The girl is on a sex-offender list for a photo, but many child rapists are ignored because there's no 'porn' in their actions.
So yes, pedophilia is dangerous - dangerously used as a political weapon. Many molesters aren't even pedos, they just molest kids because they're easy targets but they'd molest an older target if given the same chance (helplessness). To jump up and down on the pedo-wagon just serves to blur the real issues.
Not to mention, ruining the lives of those it touches. One under-age boy was arrested for possessing of CP, despite the girls being his own age. That's nuts! If he'd touched that girl it'd have been legal sex, but because he possessed a photo of her it was one of the worst crimes imaginable... Funny that.
Nonsense. A judgment that a country can infringe on human rights is a bad one. Anyone who makes that judgment, or follows it, is a bad person.
It's really that simple. They're human rights. Foreigners are human, so they have human rights.
If the SC says that when the US constitution forbids the federal government a power, that it doesn't apply if the target if a foreigner, they're both right because they make the law and thoroughly wrong because they intentionally perverted the original meaning.
The constitution applies to the government, it limits what the government can do. Of course it applies regardless of who the government is dealing with. By making these constitutionally diminishing decisions the SC is removing its moral authority.
It says loads about you that you're willing to grasp at technicalities instead of admit that a corrupt decision is corrupt. Technically Saddam Hussein was 100% legal in all his action in Iraq but obviously he was a murdering swine. Technically the SC can say whatever they want, and technically they can do so for almost any reason, but that doesn't make them or their reasons less odious.
People who support the constitutional lies required to let Guantanamo happen are traitors. Call it what you will, but selling out your country is pretty rotten.
Pardon the other post - I forgot code with gt/lt symbols doesn't paste well...
You are right, but if you have to calculate buffer size manually
C: buf_size = header_len + packetlen + sizelen + crclen + paddinglen my_buf = malloc(buf_size) if (null == my_buf)...// barf if my_buf is null memcpy(in_buf,my_buf,buf_size)
there's simply a lot more to code than in Ruby. While in theory you can make it as safe, in practice you've simply got 8+ times as much code, checking it for correctness takes a lot longer.
Similarly, in languages like Ruby you can iterate through a collection without loop variables, without writing yet another for loop.
Ruby: foo = "test string" foo.each_character {|c|... c }
This savings is exaggerated if you write more complex code: a = [] 10.times { a << (rand * 100).to_i } puts a.collect {|n| n * 3 }.collect {|n| n = ('1' + n.to_s).to_i }.sort_by {|n| n % 5 }.inspect
No buffer checking needed - if it fails to allocate it'll die cleanly at least. Or you can catch the exception and do whatever you want.
There's no need to write in C unless you need its features. There's just too much code, and with that code, more chance of errors - not to mention that it's harder code...
When testing a buffer, throwing something a bit longer at it is good. I tend to just copy a whole slashdot discussion or something else huge and try to paste it into every control I can. That catches the programmers who just allocate large static buffers.
Programmer: "You can't send back a 200k web request! That form only allowed 300 characters." Me: "Yes, until I used the Firefox DOM viewer to change it - just like a hacker would. Verify your input!"
You are right, but if you have to calculate buffer size manually
buf_size = header_len + packetlen + sizelen + crclen + paddinglen my_buf = malloc(buf_size)// barf if my_buf is null memcpy(in_buf,my_buf,buf_size)
there's simply a lot more to code than in Ruby. While in theory you can make it as safe, in practice you've simply got 8+ times as much code, checking it for correctness takes a lot longer.
Similarly, in languages like Ruby you can iterate through a collection without loop variables, without writing yet another for loop.
No buffer checking needed - if it fails to allocate it'll die cleanly at least. Or you can catch the exception and do whatever you want.
There's no need to write in C unless you need its features. There's just too much code, and with that code, more chance of errors - not to mention that it's harder code...
When testing a buffer, throwing something a bit longer at it is good. I tend to just copy a whole slashdot discussion or something else huge and try to paste it into every control I can. That catches the programmers who just allocate large static buffers.
Programmer: "You can't send back a 200k web request! That form only allowed 300 characters." Me: "Yes, until I used the Firefox DOM viewer to change it - just like a hacker would. Verify your input!"
While FOSS is nice because nobody is lying about what your rights are, in reality, there is no valid law that would forbid you from reverse engineering.
When you buy Windows or a computer with Windows, at a retail store, there's no license attached to it. What looks like a sale is. Sales can *NOT* be encumbered by post-sale contracts. Therefore, Windows, which is sold, isn't licensed.
There's only a license if you're negotiating a volume license with MS directly. In that case they could ask for your first-born, NDAs, etc... good reason to not deal with them directly.
If down is the directions things fall when dropped, then anything dropped falls down. Can't be wrong, it's a tautology.
Your waffling about Moses is exactly what I mean. It could mean anything, and as such is opinion, or at least not a real theory.
Whenever a factual claim is made it can easily be examined and be shown to be incorrect.
Now, it sounds like you read about fallacies and got a little confused. I don't have to prove that your claim could NEVER be. Nope. I only have to show that the evidence you provide is unconvincing. At that it's at exactly the same level as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, etc. The burden of proof is with the person making the outrageous claim. The universe could have spontaneously happened, or god could have spontaneously happened and then created the universe. Your way requires an extra step, and one that doesn't help explain anything, and as such is an outrageous claim.
Nobody here is arguing that at one level we can't even "prove" that we exist. Yes, that is one meaning of the word. But I'm using it in the context where things can be proved. Those other dictionary definitions that only deal with a preponderance of evidence, not mathematical certainty.
I can prove that you are wrong by showing that even if 2+2=4, coca cola has nothing to do with it and you were merely right by coincidence. That's still proof that you and your claim are incorrect (that 2+2=4 is right, but that it does so BECAUSE of coke is not.) Similarly a homeopath might occasionally recommend the correct treatment (when the correct treatment is water) but not because of skill. You could prove that they were wrong in their treatment as long as they didn't perform correctly because of skill.
If you wish to be excrutiatingly pedantic and use only the scientific meaning of proof, then I can't prove you wrong, but only because you can't make any testable claims. You're just as 'right' as the FSM people, and scientologists, which is to say not at all.
So, I can show all of your claims to be wrong, and how you're incapable of making actual meaningful claims. You can call this whatever you want, but you're as likely to be eaten by the Loch Ness monster (while safe at home in your own bed) as to be meaningfully right.
I'm not surprised you've had this discussion. It's a pretty obvious issue. Jesus was either right, or wrong.
I've never seen any evidence for his side, except the bible in a circular fashion, so I'm going to go with wrong.
If he's wrong, he's either intentionally wrong, or unintentionally. If intentionally, we call it lying.
If unintentionally, he's either uninformed, or informed but of faulty judgement.
If he's uninformed we can call him ignorant instead of stupid, except in that it seems there'd be easy tests for self-godhood and it seems a bit stupid to not verify this sort of thing.
Which leaves him being wrong because he misinterprets the evidence. This again could be ignorance (statistical misunderstanding, etc), stupidity/retardation, or insanity.
One of the common symptoms of schizophrenia is delusions of godhood...
So right, or wrong. Wrong intentionally (lying), or unintentionally (crazy or ignorant). What other options are there?
I don't understand your last point. Is it that people were easier to dupe back then, or Jesus had less knowledge of schizophrenia and thus was less likely to consider that he wasn't god, or what? I totally agree about charlatans, then and now.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, ProCD is largely unrelated to the real issue of EULAs, but is unfortunately seen as a precedent.
Can you point any cases where EULAs were supported despite the argument that the action was under duress? I wonder if you'd have more luck suing the company for intentionally failing to provide a working product than in getting out of the EULA after the fact?
Yeah, I forgot to calloc the string, or specifically null the last byte.
But that's my point. C has too many gotchas like that where the standard library is nearly unusable - scanf is bad, gets is bad, printf with user-controllable strings isn't safe, etc.
Same with C++. Use strings to avoid these problems, but which string library. Which smart pointers? Which resizable array, or associate array library?
Thankfully it's been too many years for me to be more specific.
I didn't mean that a 18x15 relationship was rape, the opportunistic rape comment was about most child molesters not needing children, anyone helpless would do, but kids are easy.
My comment about the pedophile label isn't that it's right, or to imply that 18v15 is rape, it was merely to say that "The News" prefers the term over more accurate descriptions because it's short and catchy. (Like AIDS.)
I certainly don't think minor statutory rape is rape, I especially don't think it's pedophilia.
This isn't CSI, you'd have to pay for those tests...
Notarizing is a good idea, but you'd want to make sure they were notarizing that the site appeared to be offering photos under a CC license, not that you merely had a print-out purporting to be of that website.
Why do I say so? Because I'm obviously smarter than you. Able to connect two related ideas. The USA used to be the country that didn't torture people, now they outsource torture as routine policy. That's pretty much a direct sell-out on the key values being an American used to stand for. If you can't get from there to traitor you need help.
If you don't think it's traitorous, let me phone in a tip about you. See if water-boarding will change your mind.
A something which isn't anything but has the metaphysical properties of something, can spontaneously appear, but some a something which isn't a nothing can't spontaneously appear... Heady stuff there.
As compelling as your argument is, it's lacking any testable predictions which keep it from being a theory.
No, he was attempting proof by precedent. This is law, that's how it works.
Retail sales do not bind people to post-sale contracts. Every so often some lobby group claims that their product is different. In the early 1900s it was book publishers. They were specifically ruled against with the 'doctrine of first sale'. The courts specifically stated that the seller loses all rights to the item they sell. First sale
It's illegal to sell a product, knowing that you intend to render it inoperative, or not allow it to work. Fraud, etc. Software makers obviously intended their product to be used, and as such, had to implicitly agree to having it used, despite the fact that ephemeral copies were made.
Nevertheless, against all reason, lobbyists insisted that running a program involved making unauthorized duplication of the program and thus running software, whoever owned that copy, still required a license.
So copyright law was amended, yet again, to specifically allow what was already obvious.
So, twice lobbyists have tried to use copyright to control use or resale of their products. Twice they've been shot down, with explicit laws banning those practices.
So yeah, to me it looks like Microsoft, Adobe, etc, are just trying to trick of lying and hoping nobody checks.
The producer cedes all rights, you own your copy, and have the legal right to duplicate it as necessary to use it.
What in there requires a contract/license? Nothing.
Further, because EULAs are a contract under duress (you must 'agree' to use the software you bought) they aren't binding, even if they offer additional consideration and go beyond offering simple access to the software.
Please offer some evidence that EULAs are binding. Enron made a lot of claims, Microsoft makes a lot of claims...
I thought that you'd notice the clues that it was psuedo-code, such as "... // barf if my_buf is null"
But why, specifically, is that code so bad?
You know, most autistic children have mothers, the majority of whom were even pregnant in the past. With them... It's not unreasonable to ask about the possibility of damage before birth.
If DES (Diethylstilbestrol) was a preservative it would surely would have worse effects on a child when given to their pregnant mother, than to the child themselves years later.
The mercury link is pretty tenuous, especially at those amounts, but the question is still reasonable.
Call 'happened spontaneously' whatever you will. You hypothesize the existence of two entities, the universe and its creator. Its creator then, in your scenario, must have appeared spontaneously, or you need a creator creator.
I'm not saying I know how the universe created. I'm saying that your claims appear less likely because they require the existence of an explicit creator and don't actually answer and chicken/egg questions.
The universe obviously exists. Barring that I can't "prove" that I exist, to myself, there is ample proof for the universe.
It's obviously here. We'd both agree, I think.
You claim to know details about its creation (that it required a creator) and as such, I think the burden of proof is on you to support this.
My theory wins, because my theory is that complex untestable theories with no explanatory power are wrong, by default. Invalid at any rate, and wrong by extension. My theory can be easily proved. Untestable theories aren't theories, neither are ones that fail to make any predictions. This is the tautology. What you're hypothesizing about universal creation isn't a theory, and is thus isn't a valid theory.
You're trying to claim knowledge of something, I'm merely trying to show that you aren't right by intent - you may by fluke be right, but it would be impossible for you to know this and thus, that your claims are "wrong".
If I flip a coin, look at it, and tell you it landed the other way, that's a lie. If I flip it, pretend to look, and tell you something random it's still a lie. It doesn't cease to be a lie when the coin is revealed and matches my words, because the lie was in making a statement which purported not just to coincidentally match fact, but that you verify it thusly. If you are unable to verify it you can't tell it as a truth.
Religious theories on the creation of the universe keep retreating, like Mose's exploits, until they could mean anything. 'God of the cracks.' They either claim nothing testable, or when proven false are claimed to have been metaphorical or exaggerated in translation.
The only ones that are testable have been proven wrong. Stars aren't dots on giant glass spheres, it's not turtles all the way down, the Earth revolves around the Sun, etc.
The instant you actually get nailed down on a specific, it's no longer religion. It's a simple matter of fact that can be checked and proven. This is why no serious believer will ever get nailed down making specific claims.
Religion is the unknowable, it can never masquerade as science. Science is about examining things, religion is about imagining things. You have just as much evidence (re: none) about the beginning of the universe as any person in known existence does. So i fail to see how your theory should somehow be the winner. I'd be lying if I told you how the universe started, or even claimed to have a good idea. I have the same evidence you do. Thus you'd be lying if you claimed to know anything...
My theory is that anyone who claims to know the unknowable is wrong, where we mean wrong to apply despite there being a random chance of them actually being right.
Unknowable makes it a tautology. Anyone who claims to know it is proposing a paradox. They're lying.
Religious arguments are by definition over unknowable things, because if they made real testable predictive claims they'd be called science and supported or rejected based on evidence.
Religion = Unknowable = Impossible to be right about = Anyone claiming to be right is a liar or wrong
Not that a disassembly we couldn't link to the specific executable would be much good anyways. (Without the same tools)
I'll wait for the perl one-liners.
Printing the page would work - not rock-solid, but if you have a history of doing this diligently and can show proof it'd go a long way. Like an inventor keeping a dated workbook. Sure, you *could* have rewritten the entire logbook to make changes, but it's less likely. No legal weight so to speak, but every bit of supporting evidence helps. This only applies though if it'd be hard to fake - leaving blank pages for this purpose would spoil it.
Mailing it to yourself is 100% useless. Nothing stops you from mailing unsealed envelopes and filling them later, so nobody trusts this.
How are they trying to simplify copyright? The statutes are the same length as they were before... (Well, longer thanks to the DMCA and other crap.)
What they're trying to do is standardize the process by which you make clear to everyone visiting your website which of your works you are granting them permission to use.
Of course people can vanish making this hard to prove, but meatspace photographers and clients have been dealing with this for years. Keep good records. You'd need to show document when you bought rights to a photo or that photographer could sue you, pretending the sale never happened. If you do this properly you can't be hit for willful violation. If you're afraid of this, hire a notary to verify that the site appears to be offering a valid CC license for the photos. Take a photo of the website on the monitor - if you do this in regular fashion it'd be pretty good evidence of your intent at least.
If I stole a car and sold it to you, you'd be charged with receiving stolen goods if you appeared to have looked the other way. If I faked the papers and you acted honestly and with due diligence, you wouldn't be liable to any criminal prosecution or extended damages in a civil suit.
Photos are the same.
It's editorial use vs advertising use, roughly.
A commercial entity can publish a photo without model release if it's used to illustrate something that happened. Documentary usage.
Advertising use, because it purports to show the model endorsing a product/etc, is limited even non-commercially.
There's no extra difficulty. If I *sell* you an exclusive license to reproduce one of my photos you'd still need specific model releases to use them in advertising. The CC is just like this, but without the selling step.
There *needs* to be a model release for all advertising images of (living, identifiable) people.
Regardless of where you got the image. You can take it yourself, buy it, download it from flickr under a CC license, or download it without permission, the model still has the same rights.
I could sell you a hammer, give it to you, or you could make it on your own, but you're still not allowed to kill someone with it.
Basically, no model release is required for editorial use (news) but one is required for advertising usage.
Taking a picture for the purpose of showing what was happening is fine regardless of the wishes of those in the photo.
You're totally right about the CC though - it lets you copy the photo which you otherwise would not have been allowed to do. It doesn't legalize all uses of that photo - but it removes copyright concerns.
In other words if you download porn you may be criminally charged, but if it was CC licensed the distributor could not sue for damages.
If you download a CC photo of a person it's not a copyright violation, but using that photo in a advert for herpes medication could result in a civil suit unless they specifically agreed to release their rights in that area.
Or, have your laptop setup to dual boot. Configure it to go to your decoy OS immediately unless you hold down a key during boot.
Pick an innocuous decoy like Vista that's common, and unable to see/read ext2 or reiserfs partitions. Do just enough browsing in it to make it look lived in, all at disney and fox-news.
Do your real work in the other OS, storing the files on a partition Windows can't read, if not properly encrypted in a deniable partition ala TrueCrypt.
But pedophilia isn't the right term for 98% of the child molesters. They aren't clinically pedos, they're opportunistic rapists who simply have access to children. Pedophile just sounds better for the news than "Guy who had sex with and took pictures of a hot chick who lied about her age and is only 16."
This doesn't stop anyone from using the terms incorrectly though, and labeling underage people who send pics of themselves to their underage partners the same as serious child rapists. This is wrong and harmful not just to them, but to the real child-victims of non-pedo molesters who just aren't as newsworthy.
We (the USA/etc) are on a witch-hunt to remove any pictures of the naked skin of a young human, but seem to give very little attention to actual cases of kiddy diddling.
A father would get a far greater criminal sentence for taking a nude picture of his daughter (non erotic) and labelling it "Isn't she pretty?" than if he was caught repeatedly having sex with her. In the latter case he might not even lose custody. Weird isn't it?
And of course places like Second Life are having a fit trying to figure out how to catch people who have virtual sex with short avatars... (Won't you please think of the virtual children!) This couldn't conceivably affect a real child, but people (err, scum sucking pedos) are getting reported for a crime more serious (in our legal climate) than gang-rape and murder of a real person.
You're a victim of propaganda. The net just isn't full of kiddy-porn. Millions of people rape children yes, but this imagined industry cranking out underage porn DOES NOT EXIST.
If there really was kiddy-porn out there (more than vanishingly little) you'd see evidence. Police could display blacked-out thumbnails of the shots to prove their existence but they don't because there's hardly anything worth arresting anyone for, let alone going on a globe-spanning witch-hunt.
Sure, some people take sick pics of their kids, and some people do share these for a while, but the victimization in the first place is the real crime and it happens even to children whose parents don't own a camera!
Yes, this molestation needs to stop. But going after people downloading JPGs isn't going to keep a molester from molesting a kid. The scare over harmless pictures hides the real issue of widespread abuse. Now people froth at the mouth over a picture an underage girl took for her boyfriend, but actual molesters are often left with their children to offend again. The girl is on a sex-offender list for a photo, but many child rapists are ignored because there's no 'porn' in their actions.
So yes, pedophilia is dangerous - dangerously used as a political weapon. Many molesters aren't even pedos, they just molest kids because they're easy targets but they'd molest an older target if given the same chance (helplessness). To jump up and down on the pedo-wagon just serves to blur the real issues.
Not to mention, ruining the lives of those it touches. One under-age boy was arrested for possessing of CP, despite the girls being his own age. That's nuts! If he'd touched that girl it'd have been legal sex, but because he possessed a photo of her it was one of the worst crimes imaginable... Funny that.
Nonsense. A judgment that a country can infringe on human rights is a bad one. Anyone who makes that judgment, or follows it, is a bad person.
It's really that simple. They're human rights. Foreigners are human, so they have human rights.
If the SC says that when the US constitution forbids the federal government a power, that it doesn't apply if the target if a foreigner, they're both right because they make the law and thoroughly wrong because they intentionally perverted the original meaning.
The constitution applies to the government, it limits what the government can do. Of course it applies regardless of who the government is dealing with. By making these constitutionally diminishing decisions the SC is removing its moral authority.
It says loads about you that you're willing to grasp at technicalities instead of admit that a corrupt decision is corrupt. Technically Saddam Hussein was 100% legal in all his action in Iraq but obviously he was a murdering swine. Technically the SC can say whatever they want, and technically they can do so for almost any reason, but that doesn't make them or their reasons less odious.
People who support the constitutional lies required to let Guantanamo happen are traitors. Call it what you will, but selling out your country is pretty rotten.
Pardon the other post - I forgot code with gt/lt symbols doesn't paste well...
... // barf if my_buf is null
... foo[i] }
... c }
You are right, but if you have to calculate buffer size manually
C:
buf_size = header_len + packetlen + sizelen + crclen + paddinglen
my_buf = malloc(buf_size)
if (null == my_buf)
memcpy(in_buf,my_buf,buf_size)
there's simply a lot more to code than in Ruby. While in theory you can make it as safe, in practice you've simply got 8+ times as much code, checking it for correctness takes a lot longer.
Similarly, in languages like Ruby you can iterate through a collection without loop variables, without writing yet another for loop.
C:
char foo[20] = "test string"
for (i=0;i < strlen(foo);i++) {
Ruby:
foo = "test string"
foo.each_character {|c|
This savings is exaggerated if you write more complex code:
a = []
10.times { a << (rand * 100).to_i }
puts a.collect {|n| n * 3 }.collect {|n| n = ('1' + n.to_s).to_i }.sort_by {|n| n % 5 }.inspect
prints: [1105, 190, 1195, 1120, 1135, 166, 187, 163, 1168, 1183]
No buffer checking needed - if it fails to allocate it'll die cleanly at least. Or you can catch the exception and do whatever you want.
There's no need to write in C unless you need its features. There's just too much code, and with that code, more chance of errors - not to mention that it's harder code...
When testing a buffer, throwing something a bit longer at it is good. I tend to just copy a whole slashdot discussion or something else huge and try to paste it into every control I can. That catches the programmers who just allocate large static buffers.
Programmer: "You can't send back a 200k web request! That form only allowed 300 characters."
Me: "Yes, until I used the Firefox DOM viewer to change it - just like a hacker would. Verify your input!"
You are right, but if you have to calculate buffer size manually
// barf if my_buf is null
buf_size = header_len + packetlen + sizelen + crclen + paddinglen
my_buf = malloc(buf_size)
memcpy(in_buf,my_buf,buf_size)
there's simply a lot more to code than in Ruby. While in theory you can make it as safe, in practice you've simply got 8+ times as much code, checking it for correctness takes a lot longer.
Similarly, in languages like Ruby you can iterate through a collection without loop variables, without writing yet another for loop.
C:
char foo[20] = "test string"
for (i=0;i [1105, 190, 1195, 1120, 1135, 166, 187, 163, 1168, 1183]
No buffer checking needed - if it fails to allocate it'll die cleanly at least. Or you can catch the exception and do whatever you want.
There's no need to write in C unless you need its features. There's just too much code, and with that code, more chance of errors - not to mention that it's harder code...
When testing a buffer, throwing something a bit longer at it is good. I tend to just copy a whole slashdot discussion or something else huge and try to paste it into every control I can. That catches the programmers who just allocate large static buffers.
Programmer: "You can't send back a 200k web request! That form only allowed 300 characters."
Me: "Yes, until I used the Firefox DOM viewer to change it - just like a hacker would. Verify your input!"
While FOSS is nice because nobody is lying about what your rights are, in reality, there is no valid law that would forbid you from reverse engineering.
When you buy Windows or a computer with Windows, at a retail store, there's no license attached to it. What looks like a sale is. Sales can *NOT* be encumbered by post-sale contracts. Therefore, Windows, which is sold, isn't licensed.
There's only a license if you're negotiating a volume license with MS directly. In that case they could ask for your first-born, NDAs, etc... good reason to not deal with them directly.
If down is the directions things fall when dropped, then anything dropped falls down. Can't be wrong, it's a tautology.
Your waffling about Moses is exactly what I mean. It could mean anything, and as such is opinion, or at least not a real theory.
Whenever a factual claim is made it can easily be examined and be shown to be incorrect.
Now, it sounds like you read about fallacies and got a little confused. I don't have to prove that your claim could NEVER be. Nope. I only have to show that the evidence you provide is unconvincing. At that it's at exactly the same level as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, etc. The burden of proof is with the person making the outrageous claim. The universe could have spontaneously happened, or god could have spontaneously happened and then created the universe. Your way requires an extra step, and one that doesn't help explain anything, and as such is an outrageous claim.
Nobody here is arguing that at one level we can't even "prove" that we exist. Yes, that is one meaning of the word. But I'm using it in the context where things can be proved. Those other dictionary definitions that only deal with a preponderance of evidence, not mathematical certainty.
I can prove that you are wrong by showing that even if 2+2=4, coca cola has nothing to do with it and you were merely right by coincidence. That's still proof that you and your claim are incorrect (that 2+2=4 is right, but that it does so BECAUSE of coke is not.) Similarly a homeopath might occasionally recommend the correct treatment (when the correct treatment is water) but not because of skill. You could prove that they were wrong in their treatment as long as they didn't perform correctly because of skill.
If you wish to be excrutiatingly pedantic and use only the scientific meaning of proof, then I can't prove you wrong, but only because you can't make any testable claims. You're just as 'right' as the FSM people, and scientologists, which is to say not at all.
So, I can show all of your claims to be wrong, and how you're incapable of making actual meaningful claims. You can call this whatever you want, but you're as likely to be eaten by the Loch Ness monster (while safe at home in your own bed) as to be meaningfully right.
I'm not surprised you've had this discussion. It's a pretty obvious issue. Jesus was either right, or wrong.
I've never seen any evidence for his side, except the bible in a circular fashion, so I'm going to go with wrong.
If he's wrong, he's either intentionally wrong, or unintentionally. If intentionally, we call it lying.
If unintentionally, he's either uninformed, or informed but of faulty judgement.
If he's uninformed we can call him ignorant instead of stupid, except in that it seems there'd be easy tests for self-godhood and it seems a bit stupid to not verify this sort of thing.
Which leaves him being wrong because he misinterprets the evidence. This again could be ignorance (statistical misunderstanding, etc), stupidity/retardation, or insanity.
One of the common symptoms of schizophrenia is delusions of godhood...
So right, or wrong. Wrong intentionally (lying), or unintentionally (crazy or ignorant). What other options are there?
I don't understand your last point. Is it that people were easier to dupe back then, or Jesus had less knowledge of schizophrenia and thus was less likely to consider that he wasn't god, or what? I totally agree about charlatans, then and now.