Specifically, "Technology allowing the use of barricade-like devices at all exit points of the USP&TO building while simultaneously applying incindiary devices to same structure."
I know you're all thinking it, but I'm filing it, and it'll always be (legally) my idea.
Doesn't the Guide define USP&TO as "a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes?"
The crime of which these folks are accused was committed on US soil; they were arrested on US soil; they are being tried on US soil.
Two out of three ain't bad. Russian programmers wrote a program in Russia. One of them showed up in the US for a conference and got arrested. He hadn't even had time to jaywalk here. What had Skylarov, himself, done in the US to be arrested? That is not a dead issue by a long shot.... these folks are accused of a lot of things, but one man was thrown in jail. What had he done in the US? Once the jury decides if the DMCA is legitimate enough to apply, it needs to remember that it doesn't cover actions in Moscow.
juries in criminal cases are almost always concerned with questions of fact. Did Person X do such-and-such? Did Person X do such-and-such in such-and-such way?
Why, exactly, the jury asked to see a document-- it's not entirely clear which document-- we may never know. They should not, if they've been adequately instructed, have to refer to the law at all.
But isn't it safe to say that a trial jury isn't supposed to be concerned with questions of law and procedure, but rather the facts of the case?
Let's start at the end and work our way back. Trial juries tend to focus on facts rather than law, but every law has its first trial. This is the DMCA's first trial in more ways than one. It is perfectly valid to examine a law that has never been examined. There is no precedent to be guided by here, only a corporate lobby. I'd want to examine the law myself.
I'll tell you why the jury asked to read the actual law: they don't understand it. They understand murder, theft, robbery, even tax evasion. It shouldn't take much in the way of instruction to get a jury up to speed on the differences between murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide and the like. None of these folks, however, have given the DMCA any thought at all, even if they have ever heard of it. It would be irresponsible to not do their utmost to understand the law in question, up to and including reading it.
Only when they understand what the law actually prohibits and accept that it is legitimate can they even begin to wonder if person X violated it in such and such a way. The DMCA doesn't have the thousands of years of precedent that murder statutes have, and it certainly has a questionable moral leg to stand on. Its legitimacy needs to exist in the hearts of the jurors before they can consider giving it its first precedent.
All that, mind you, is before the jury asks itself if it wants Russia applying its domestic laws in, say, Michigan.
If someone steals my stereo and I have concrete proof of who did it and the police refuse to act, I'll probably take matters into my own hands and the only 'charges' that I should be facing afterwards are the ones from the laundromat when I need to get the blood out of my shirt.
And as an added bonus, you know for certain that the cops won't investigate!
Those annoying infomercial companies don't accept COD...
The infomercial audience isn't the most likely group to be certain of having the money on them at any given moment. If you don't have the room on a card, maybe you should put the purchase price toward paying off the card, no? If they don't have the money, the package gets returned- and the seller loses a sale that he thought he had, and has to pay two way shipping to boot.
My company ships UPS a lot, and we'll do COD if you want. We buy things COD if we have to, too. Of course, a company's easier to find than a guy, and less likely to scam on one shipment.
"It's hard to sleep comfortably knowing some asshole has your Mac and is doing god knows what with it."
Was it easier for him to sleep when he thought the cashier's check was good?
When the cashier's check was still "good," it wasn't his computer anymore. When the check turned out to be bad, the computer turned out to have been his all along. And it had been boxnapped (is that an appropriate term for a laptop?). You've got to rescue it!
The dealership that I work at has a site, as does our manufacturer. No, you can't buy anything on either site- ours is very basic, and the manufacturer's will direct you to us. One of the salesmen told me last week that he loved "internet customers," because a lot more of them buy than regular customers.
Like most car salesmen, this one is fucking retarded. His "internet customers" did all their browsing and decision making before they got into his clutches. If we happened to have exactly what they wanted, they bought it. If not, the sales guys never even saw the customer- just one more car that came in, did a brief lap and left without ever getting out. There are three other dealers of the same make within half an hour, and the sales guys are too dumb to see the lost sales through the few easy sales.
In this industry, location and traditional advertising hype get customers because they're almost all sheep. A web site takes the sale out of the salesman's hands and puts it into the informed consumer's. While this is great for the customers, no dealership is about that- it's about milking them. That's one hell of a reason to avoid the web. More customers isn't any help if they demand much higher inventory on hand and you have to give up too much profit on each one.
Conventional bombs are a known threat, so why don't we make sure that the weapons detectors can sniff those out _first_ and _now_, and then once those systems are installed, worry about weapons that these people might, in theory, develop or aquire a few years in the future?
Silly person, it's not about safety. This last year has simply been a power grab by the police while wafing a safety flag in our faces. The only improvement in actual security occurred on flight 93. Taking off our shoes, having our email read and watching cancer patients get dragged off the streets is just our way of lying to ourselves and giving Ashcroft everything he wants.
Not only does the law belong "in your own hands", but that's the only way to get honest justice.
The law used to be in our hands, but since 9/11 we apparently can't be trusted with it anymore. Thank God Ashcroft and Ridge are around to take care of the law for us.
Users are also the readers. Slashdot is already a rapidly changing thing to read. Now you want the posts themselves to change?
Clear mindedness, not preview, is the solution. If you are unable to communicate a clear thought, no crutch will be able to make your thoughts seem clear to me. What you want is a hack to make irrelevant the fact that you cannot be bothered to 1) think things through before saying them and 2) look at your statements after you have made them, yet before making them public.
Yes, fixing things after the fact is easier, more effective, and affords you greater flexibility than thinking things through in the first place. Speaking as a user, however, I can assure you that trying to read Slashdot would be more difficult to read with changing posts than it is now with a widespread lack of clarity.
Remember... the law is not what you think it is, it is what the the law says and how a judge interprets it. The Slashdot community as a whole is very incorrect in its interpretation of "fair use".
And when someone thinks the law is different than you think it is, the two of you can go before a judge and let your lawyers argue your versions. That's why we have judges- to decide which idea of the law should prevail- based on the law in question, applicable constitutions and applicable precedent/common law. Geeks just might get their way some day.
correct me if I am wrong but Prior Art refers to Pantents not copyright.
Yes, but prices that have existed in the past, been published, that you even have reciepts for, can not be considered a "creative work" by a current retailer.
That said, the point is granted that all numbers published by Arthur Andersen and PricewaterhouseCoopers are very creative works.
A lawyer, in essence, is no more than a hired gun skilled in argueing.
A lawyer is the only kind of hired gun with the ability to legalise murder.
Bad laws cause a lot of legal friction. Legal friction is good for lawyers' business. Who spends the most on elections? Even better- who spent the most on the 2000 election? Lawyers are paying for the best government money can buy. For themselves.
...it wasn't Ford's laziness that *causes* the explosions, it is just gross neglect that doesn't stop it from happening. I think publicly saying there is a problem like that is a good idea. Explaining how to exploit the problem and blow the tank up maliciously is exacerbating the problem and making *potential* harm into real harm.
Had I owned a Pinto, I would have been grateful to someone who told me under what circumstances my gas tank would explode. That would have been a more constructive announcement than a simple "Pintos blow up a lot."
To pull from other analogies here, "ACME rent-a-cops tend to sleep on the job" or "the police don't patrol the north end of town much" are similarly informative, accurate and constructive. The code was posted in the context of security, okay?
Re:Reasons for surcharges
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 2
yeah, so instead you pay ludascrisly high property taxes.
Property taxes are how towns raise money. Income and sales taxes are generally just the states. NH taxes as little as it can. Wow- all that and I can spell ludicrous. Not bad.
Re:Reasons for surcharges
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Sales tax is tacked on to every purchase in the US.
*Cough* I live in New Hampshire, you insensitive clod!
The exact number is not all that important, it's more that you can establish that you beat the previous record.
...leading up to a major "loaded dominoes" scandal when Geraldo Rivera proves (on live TV, of course) that they only used 3,500,000.
As an added note, commas can be just as effective as scientific notation. I wouldn't take it much farther, but it takes even less thought to read than exponents.
Wow. Out of the entire Slashdot population, one person said "hey, there's no Backstreet Boy named Jim," and then set out to discover who it was.
And then thought that someone else here needed to know. Listen, Bob- that's not a very good distinction. There's got to be a self help group out there for people like you.
Completely locked I'd imagine that being completely locked would prevent said 'rotating like a pinwheel' effect in high winds.
That'll prevent the airplane motion, but there is nothing powerful enough to make slashdotters understand the real world. Maybe it would spin madly if a tornado parked on it, but this thing is simply a very large weathervane. I like the way they verbed that.
News flash, kids: weathervanes don't spin madly, and this one will take a lot more wind to move than most. WWJD? JWRTFA!
Are you sure? I thought humans were born 200.000 years ago, not 800.000.
And "civilisation" is only about 30,000 years old. Who said we're 10,000 years overdue? The movie ad, er, article said it's tended to happen every 250,000 or so and hasn't happened for 800,000. Must be new math.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you're all thinking it, but I'm filing it, and it'll always be (legally) my idea.
Doesn't the Guide define USP&TO as "a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes?"
Two out of three ain't bad. Russian programmers wrote a program in Russia. One of them showed up in the US for a conference and got arrested. He hadn't even had time to jaywalk here. What had Skylarov, himself, done in the US to be arrested? That is not a dead issue by a long shot. ... these folks are accused of a lot of things, but one man was thrown in jail. What had he done in the US? Once the jury decides if the DMCA is legitimate enough to apply, it needs to remember that it doesn't cover actions in Moscow.
Why, exactly, the jury asked to see a document-- it's not entirely clear which document-- we may never know. They should not, if they've been adequately instructed, have to refer to the law at all.
But isn't it safe to say that a trial jury isn't supposed to be concerned with questions of law and procedure, but rather the facts of the case?
Let's start at the end and work our way back. Trial juries tend to focus on facts rather than law, but every law has its first trial. This is the DMCA's first trial in more ways than one. It is perfectly valid to examine a law that has never been examined. There is no precedent to be guided by here, only a corporate lobby. I'd want to examine the law myself.
I'll tell you why the jury asked to read the actual law: they don't understand it. They understand murder, theft, robbery, even tax evasion. It shouldn't take much in the way of instruction to get a jury up to speed on the differences between murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide and the like. None of these folks, however, have given the DMCA any thought at all, even if they have ever heard of it. It would be irresponsible to not do their utmost to understand the law in question, up to and including reading it.
Only when they understand what the law actually prohibits and accept that it is legitimate can they even begin to wonder if person X violated it in such and such a way. The DMCA doesn't have the thousands of years of precedent that murder statutes have, and it certainly has a questionable moral leg to stand on. Its legitimacy needs to exist in the hearts of the jurors before they can consider giving it its first precedent.
All that, mind you, is before the jury asks itself if it wants Russia applying its domestic laws in, say, Michigan.
And as an added bonus, you know for certain that the cops won't investigate!
The infomercial audience isn't the most likely group to be certain of having the money on them at any given moment. If you don't have the room on a card, maybe you should put the purchase price toward paying off the card, no? If they don't have the money, the package gets returned- and the seller loses a sale that he thought he had, and has to pay two way shipping to boot.
My company ships UPS a lot, and we'll do COD if you want. We buy things COD if we have to, too. Of course, a company's easier to find than a guy, and less likely to scam on one shipment.
Was it easier for him to sleep when he thought the cashier's check was good?
When the cashier's check was still "good," it wasn't his computer anymore. When the check turned out to be bad, the computer turned out to have been his all along. And it had been boxnapped (is that an appropriate term for a laptop?). You've got to rescue it!
Like most car salesmen, this one is fucking retarded. His "internet customers" did all their browsing and decision making before they got into his clutches. If we happened to have exactly what they wanted, they bought it. If not, the sales guys never even saw the customer- just one more car that came in, did a brief lap and left without ever getting out. There are three other dealers of the same make within half an hour, and the sales guys are too dumb to see the lost sales through the few easy sales.
In this industry, location and traditional advertising hype get customers because they're almost all sheep. A web site takes the sale out of the salesman's hands and puts it into the informed consumer's. While this is great for the customers, no dealership is about that- it's about milking them. That's one hell of a reason to avoid the web. More customers isn't any help if they demand much higher inventory on hand and you have to give up too much profit on each one.
Silly person, it's not about safety. This last year has simply been a power grab by the police while wafing a safety flag in our faces. The only improvement in actual security occurred on flight 93. Taking off our shoes, having our email read and watching cancer patients get dragged off the streets is just our way of lying to ourselves and giving Ashcroft everything he wants.
The law used to be in our hands, but since 9/11 we apparently can't be trusted with it anymore. Thank God Ashcroft and Ridge are around to take care of the law for us.
Shoot back (respond in kind).
Clear mindedness, not preview, is the solution. If you are unable to communicate a clear thought, no crutch will be able to make your thoughts seem clear to me. What you want is a hack to make irrelevant the fact that you cannot be bothered to 1) think things through before saying them and 2) look at your statements after you have made them, yet before making them public.
Yes, fixing things after the fact is easier, more effective, and affords you greater flexibility than thinking things through in the first place. Speaking as a user, however, I can assure you that trying to read Slashdot would be more difficult to read with changing posts than it is now with a widespread lack of clarity.
Preview.
And when someone thinks the law is different than you think it is, the two of you can go before a judge and let your lawyers argue your versions. That's why we have judges- to decide which idea of the law should prevail- based on the law in question, applicable constitutions and applicable precedent/common law. Geeks just might get their way some day.
Yes, but prices that have existed in the past, been published, that you even have reciepts for, can not be considered a "creative work" by a current retailer.
That said, the point is granted that all numbers published by Arthur Andersen and PricewaterhouseCoopers are very creative works.
Or sale prices. 'Nuff said.
A lawyer is the only kind of hired gun with the ability to legalise murder.
Bad laws cause a lot of legal friction. Legal friction is good for lawyers' business. Who spends the most on elections? Even better- who spent the most on the 2000 election? Lawyers are paying for the best government money can buy. For themselves.
The next time my distro changes its EULA as a part of a patch, I might think your point of view is less pathetic.
Had I owned a Pinto, I would have been grateful to someone who told me under what circumstances my gas tank would explode. That would have been a more constructive announcement than a simple "Pintos blow up a lot."
To pull from other analogies here, "ACME rent-a-cops tend to sleep on the job" or "the police don't patrol the north end of town much" are similarly informative, accurate and constructive. The code was posted in the context of security, okay?
Property taxes are how towns raise money. Income and sales taxes are generally just the states. NH taxes as little as it can. Wow- all that and I can spell ludicrous. Not bad.
*Cough* I live in New Hampshire, you insensitive clod!
Pendula.
As an added note, commas can be just as effective as scientific notation. I wouldn't take it much farther, but it takes even less thought to read than exponents.
And then thought that someone else here needed to know. Listen, Bob- that's not a very good distinction. There's got to be a self help group out there for people like you.
That'll prevent the airplane motion, but there is nothing powerful enough to make slashdotters understand the real world. Maybe it would spin madly if a tornado parked on it, but this thing is simply a very large weathervane. I like the way they verbed that.
News flash, kids: weathervanes don't spin madly, and this one will take a lot more wind to move than most. WWJD? JWRTFA!
And "civilisation" is only about 30,000 years old. Who said we're 10,000 years overdue? The movie ad, er, article said it's tended to happen every 250,000 or so and hasn't happened for 800,000. Must be new math.