True. Pleasantville, The Truman Show and Harry Potter also got nominations in the past, despite not being science fiction.
And "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" won in 1989. Definitely not SF ('Adventures of Baron Munchusen' would have been closer to the genre).
So, who finally determines what should be included and not? Right now, it's the voters of the WorldCon. Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing in the regs to prohibit a group (admittedly deranged and dangerous) to buy meberships just to award "From Justin to Kelly" a Hugo.
Did you want to settle? Never, never. That's the difference between the way an employee and an owner thinks. They attacked my family's name and came into my community and made us look bad. There was never an instance of me wanting to give in. I would have loved to have fought it. But when (the BSA) went to Congress to get their powers, part of what they got is that I automatically have to pay their legal fees from day one. That's why nobody's ever challenged them--they can't afford it. My attorney said it was going to cost our side a quarter million dollars to fight them, and since you're paying their side, too, figure at least half a million. It's not worth it. You pay the fine and get on with your business. What most people do is get terrified and pay their license and continue to pay their licenses. And they do that no matter what the license program turns into.
Question is, even if you win, do you still have to pay the BSA lawyers?
1) M$ (and the media) hyped this security patch to the hilt, IMHO, because WU was the target. Other worm exploits that have been cited in the news can be prevented by patches that come out a year or two ago. It would be nice to have the other 30 or so patches released this year equally hyped.
2) Re: WU says you're patched but you're not... I'm sorry, but nothing impresses me more than Shavlik's HFNetChkLT for Win2K, NT, and XP. SCan with this and then download the patch from the M$ Security Bulletins through Technet and install manually.
I'm reading this and it appears you were just Joe Peon User. Was the SysAdmin in on all this, or did Upper Management just grab the data and started to make assumptions?
Whether or not this has a direct impact on your case, the security (or lack thereof) of your system is the responsibility of, well, the System Administrator. If s/he has such a weak security system in place, my suspicious would fall upon him/her/it, either for ineffectiveness, or at worst, nefarious purposes (hack and blame the user).
"Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they did not do. The guilty lie because they don't have any other choice."
----- Sinclair, "Babylon 5", 'And the Sky Full of Stars'
The district has not yet written its policy on how the cameras will be used, (Deputy Superintendent Robert) Voles said, but the list of people who can view the tapes is limited.
Only a school principal, vice principal, superintendent, school board member or board attorney can view the recordings, he said. A parent, student or teacher would have to go through court.
So, have a judge friendly with the school system, and you have a way of stonewalling any legitimate counterpoints if Johnny and Susie get into trouble.
We already saw this happen earlier this year, when the RIAA was forced to apologize to a Pennsylvania State University professor for sending him and dozens of other people legal warning saying that they were violating federal copyright law. The RIAA's automated program apparently confused two separate pieces of information--a legal MP3 file and a directory named "usher"--and concluded there was an illegal copy of a song by the musician Usher.
9) "... under penalty of perjury..." - by OWJones In copyright law, 17 USC Section 512(c)(3)(vi) states that all notifications of copyright violations sent to ISPs must contain
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (emphasis mine). Do you know of any cases in which the sender of an invalid takedown notice -- such as the RIAA claiming Penn State University Emeritus Professor Peter Usher's lecture on radio-selected quasars was, in fact, an mp3 from the musician Usher -- has been successfully charged with perjury? Or do you allow copyright holders some "fudge factor" with the perjury aspect, since
1. It was an mp3. 2. It did have the name of an RIAA-represented artist in the title, and 3. It was at a university. If copyright holders are allowed leeway, can we expect to see similarly loose definitions of perjury creep into the legal system? If the police are looking for a "Caucasian male, age 50-60, bald, 200-225 pounds," can I testify in a court of law that the 18 year-old caucasian male with a ponytail, weighing 140-150 pounds, is in fact the suspect since he is, after all, a caucasian male? I realize that's more than one question and that they're slightly loaded, but I'd appreciate any comments on how seriously the DoJ takes the perjury clause of the takedown notices.
O'Leary: Your question raises an important point. We feel strongly that everyone should comply with the requirements of all laws. Legal process under the DMCA or any other provision of law should be undertaken with the utmost care and good faith. Failure to do so undermines the credibility and effectiveness of our legal system.
Having said that, it appears your interpretation of the language in 512 (c)(3)(vi) is in error. The phrase "under penalty of perjury," applies to the representation that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. It does not apply to the accuracy of the information about the alleged infringement. Quoting federal district Judge Bates in Verizon v. RIAA, The DMCA also requires a person seeking a subpoena to state, under penalty of perjury, that he is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, 257 F. Supp.2d 244, at 262. In other words, the perjury clause may be violated if you seek a DMCA subpoena without the authorization of the copyright owner.
We are unaware of any prosecutions for violating this provision of the DMCA at this time.
The public school system can be as fascist as the educators wish and the administration will allow....
If *they* were doing the recording, and were using it for purposes of review and resolving incidents between teachers and students, they could not avoid reviewing it. They couldn't just wish it away if they were making a policy of using the audiovideo. I mean, it's not that the principal or vice-principal were real assholes -- THEY would have removed any detention time and removed it from my record. If they would have been able to listen to the tape. But they couldn't -- the teachers evidently demanded this, either informally or via union, I don't know.
Even if they had the aforementioned and debated school videotapes in your school, what do you think the chances are that the teacher would have allowed it to be used by you against her? And still, you would have been up shit's creek.
I feel for you, your little brother, and whatever students are caught in your school system. And I feel especially sorry for the parents who are both unable and/or unwilling to let this group of unionized miscreants -- so untouchable that Teamsters dare not tread -- rule the educational system.
(Or, in this case, "Cotton, Silk, Low-rider, String, Thong, or Commando?")
And before you mod me down, I just want to see if she handles this without coming across as a glorified asshat of a politician, replying "*snif* I won't even *dig*-nify this with an answer! You should be ah-*shamed* of asking it!" (Yes, I'm looking at you, Newt Gingrich.)
If people can throw their hands in the air and say "The trojan did it", then the law will change to catch the paedophiles who are using it as an excuse.
Then the law will change into the "should have known" -- especially if the trojan uses an exploit that can be deterred by a MS Security Patch.
This might lend some power to the palladium protocol (nothing's impregnable, but the guff is pretty air-tight) - "get rid of all viruses and trojans" - can now be replaced with "protect your children from being brutalized and their pictures sold to sickos all over the world while you rot in jail forever"?
Then the gap between true pedophiles and hapless Dumb Fucks who left their machines vunerable will narrow, so much the Law will not care if you intended or not -- if it's there, it's your fault.
So I put it to you that porn is not for either of these purposes {to mostly to allow the populace to criticize the government and other figures with power as a means of exacting political change (and) to allow one to teach one's beliefs and way of life to other people.}; it is merely for pleasure. It stands, therefore, not as a right, but rather as a privelege awarded by the majority.
So, if it feels good, it's a "privelege"? Shouldn't this be considered under the "scope of privacy" between two consentual adults.
Conversely, if it make you 'feel bad', it's protected? How does one measure 'bad' -- by the majority or by the individual?
The decision falls to the majority. Will more people be unhappy with it than happy? Then it won't be allowed.
We're at break-neck speed down that slope as ideas and concepts are being reclassified "priveleges" rather than rights, which imply that we are nothing more than border-line disobedient kids who need discipline for 'bad thoughts' rather than as adults in a free society.
Furthermore, there is a fallacy in this even for the 'free speech' parameters. Even in mild discourse, there will be disagreements which will make people happy and unhappy. The 1st Amendment specifically protects the speech (especially the political speech) that makes the majority unhappy.
As a lot of people has pointed out already, he currently is in a mental institution, has quit high school and has had his social life destroyed. He is in his right to sue, and deserves a huge compensation.
And just think, if he was American, he'd just march to his high school, kill a few kids, be convicted as an adult and sentenced to death, a new wave of hypersensitive administrators would expel kids for having even a Han Solo collectable doll, George Lucus would be the new Face of Evil, and Jon Katz would have a week's worth of/. articles.
Slashdot Mirror
Continuing the bitchfest....
True. Pleasantville, The Truman Show and Harry Potter also got nominations in the past, despite not being science fiction.
And "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" won in 1989. Definitely not SF ('Adventures of Baron Munchusen' would have been closer to the genre).
So, who finally determines what should be included and not? Right now, it's the voters of the WorldCon. Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing in the regs to prohibit a group (admittedly deranged and dangerous) to buy meberships just to award "From Justin to Kelly" a Hugo.
...the Deck is stacked in favor of BSA:
Did you want to settle?
Never, never. That's the difference between the way an employee and an owner thinks. They attacked my family's name and came into my community and made us look bad. There was never an instance of me wanting to give in. I would have loved to have fought it. But when (the BSA) went to Congress to get their powers, part of what they got is that I automatically have to pay their legal fees from day one. That's why nobody's ever challenged them--they can't afford it. My attorney said it was going to cost our side a quarter million dollars to fight them, and since you're paying their side, too, figure at least half a million. It's not worth it. You pay the fine and get on with your business. What most people do is get terrified and pay their license and continue to pay their licenses. And they do that no matter what the license program turns into.
Question is, even if you win, do you still have to pay the BSA lawyers?
Not necessarily true. Visionics failed miserably as we all know and fell flat on their faces.
Ba dum bump.
Thank you, He'll be here all week. Try the veal....
Why do the Ogg people keep coming up with such stupid names? Ogg Theora? It sounds like a female character from a bad Star Trek movie.
Substitute 'recent' for superflous adjective in bold...
I mean seriously, what sounds more professional when you're proposing something to your manager: "We should use Ogg Vorbis!"
'Ogg Vorbis!' sounds like the exclamation of a Medieval SysAdmin from the Canterbury Tales....
Georgy:
Boxer-briefs!
Other candidates seek campaign finances from other politicians. Georgy seems to prefer underwear from members of the Senate.
(This message brought to you by the Coalition of Underpants Gnomes in Support of Russell for Governor. 'The End Result is Always "Profit!"')
1) M$ (and the media) hyped this security patch to the hilt, IMHO, because WU was the target. Other worm exploits that have been cited in the news can be prevented by patches that come out a year or two ago. It would be nice to have the other 30 or so patches released this year equally hyped.
2) Re: WU says you're patched but you're not... I'm sorry, but nothing impresses me more than Shavlik's HFNetChkLT for Win2K, NT, and XP. SCan with this and then download the patch from the M$ Security Bulletins through Technet and install manually.
I'm reading this and it appears you were just Joe Peon User. Was the SysAdmin in on all this, or did Upper Management just grab the data and started to make assumptions?
Whether or not this has a direct impact on your case, the security (or lack thereof) of your system is the responsibility of, well, the System Administrator. If s/he has such a weak security system in place, my suspicious would fall upon him/her/it, either for ineffectiveness, or at worst, nefarious purposes (hack and blame the user).
"Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they did not do. The guilty lie because they don't have any other choice."
----- Sinclair, "Babylon 5", 'And the Sky Full of Stars'
And how do we know this story is true?
:P
Give the reporter a polygraph.
From ABC News:
The district has not yet written its policy on how the cameras will be used, (Deputy Superintendent Robert) Voles said, but the list of people who can view the tapes is limited.
Only a school principal, vice principal, superintendent, school board member or board attorney can view the recordings, he said. A parent, student or teacher would have to go through court.
So, have a judge friendly with the school system, and you have a way of stonewalling any legitimate counterpoints if Johnny and Susie get into trouble.
Mmmmmm.... Chimera Twin.....
Then we should counteract it with an Apple-OS-Based Trojan/Worm to blow up the mothership.
Scientists discover 5,300 year old, mumified, Italian badass.
Next season on NBC:
Law and Order: Special Caveman Unit
Copied on CBS as:
CSI: Bronze Age (starring Denis Leary and Sandra Bullock)
"Has anyone else ran into this with good (or even bad) outcomes?"
/. Interview withMichael O'Leary, Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property at the DoJ:
..." - by OWJones
Here's one example from earlier this month:
RIAA's scare tactics bound to backfire
We already saw this happen earlier this year, when the RIAA was forced to apologize to a Pennsylvania State University professor for sending him and dozens of other people legal warning saying that they were violating federal copyright law. The RIAA's automated program apparently confused two separate pieces of information--a legal MP3 file and a directory named "usher"--and concluded there was an illegal copy of a song by the musician Usher.
Also, from the
9) "... under penalty of perjury
In copyright law, 17 USC Section 512(c)(3)(vi) states that all notifications of copyright violations sent to ISPs must contain
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(emphasis mine).
Do you know of any cases in which the sender of an invalid takedown notice -- such as the RIAA claiming Penn State University Emeritus Professor Peter Usher's lecture on radio-selected quasars was, in fact, an mp3 from the musician Usher -- has been successfully charged with perjury? Or do you allow copyright holders some "fudge factor" with the perjury aspect, since
1. It was an mp3.
2. It did have the name of an RIAA-represented artist in the title, and
3. It was at a university.
If copyright holders are allowed leeway, can we expect to see similarly loose definitions of perjury creep into the legal system? If the police are looking for a "Caucasian male, age 50-60, bald, 200-225 pounds," can I testify in a court of law that the 18 year-old caucasian male with a ponytail, weighing 140-150 pounds, is in fact the suspect since he is, after all, a caucasian male?
I realize that's more than one question and that they're slightly loaded, but I'd appreciate any comments on how seriously the DoJ takes the perjury clause of the takedown notices.
O'Leary:
Your question raises an important point. We feel strongly that everyone should comply with the requirements of all laws. Legal process under the DMCA or any other provision of law should be undertaken with the utmost care and good faith. Failure to do so undermines the credibility and effectiveness of our legal system.
Having said that, it appears your interpretation of the language in 512 (c)(3)(vi) is in error. The phrase "under penalty of perjury," applies to the representation that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. It does not apply to the accuracy of the information about the alleged infringement. Quoting federal district Judge Bates in Verizon v. RIAA, The DMCA also requires a person seeking a subpoena to state, under penalty of perjury, that he is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, 257 F. Supp.2d 244, at 262. In other words, the perjury clause may be violated if you seek a DMCA subpoena without the authorization of the copyright owner.
We are unaware of any prosecutions for violating this provision of the DMCA at this time.
Though MS03-010 is included with Service Pack 4, MS03-026 is required/'can be installed' on either SP3 or SP4.
I withdraw my question for:
Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 or IMAP?""
The public school system can be as fascist as the educators wish and the administration will allow. ...
If *they* were doing the recording, and were using it for purposes of review and resolving incidents between teachers and students, they could not avoid reviewing it. They couldn't just wish it away if they were making a policy of using the audiovideo. I mean, it's not that the principal or vice-principal were real assholes -- THEY would have removed any detention time and removed it from my record. If they would have been able to listen to the tape. But they couldn't -- the teachers evidently demanded this, either informally or via union, I don't know.
Even if they had the aforementioned and debated school videotapes in your school, what do you think the chances are that the teacher would have allowed it to be used by you against her? And still, you would have been up shit's creek.
I feel for you, your little brother, and whatever students are caught in your school system. And I feel especially sorry for the parents who are both unable and/or unwilling to let this group of unionized miscreants -- so untouchable that Teamsters dare not tread -- rule the educational system.
"Boxers or Briefs?"
(Or, in this case, "Cotton, Silk, Low-rider, String, Thong, or Commando?")
And before you mod me down, I just want to see if she handles this without coming across as a glorified asshat of a politician, replying "*snif* I won't even *dig*-nify this with an answer! You should be ah-*shamed* of asking it!" (Yes, I'm looking at you, Newt Gingrich.)
If people can throw their hands in the air and say "The trojan did it", then the law will change to catch the paedophiles who are using it as an excuse.
Then the law will change into the "should have known" -- especially if the trojan uses an exploit that can be deterred by a MS Security Patch.
This might lend some power to the palladium protocol (nothing's impregnable, but the guff is pretty air-tight) - "get rid of all viruses and trojans" - can now be replaced with "protect your children from being brutalized and their pictures sold to sickos all over the world while you rot in jail forever"?
Then the gap between true pedophiles and hapless Dumb Fucks who left their machines vunerable will narrow, so much the Law will not care if you intended or not -- if it's there, it's your fault.
And this is NOT a Good Thing(tm).
One comment's up and already the gotfuturama.com site's down.
It was preempted for a NFL Fantasy Football site.
Oh, and if Bender says 'ass', Katherine Harris appears.
Thanks to this story, all of ./ can be accused of deep linking to terroristic activities. I guess we need to disassociate from changing the government or society....
This device isn't really for spying, it's more to allow parents to spy
on their children,....
Spy well, dear parents, for your children will be the ones taking care of you in your twilight years....
So I put it to you that porn is not for either of these purposes {to mostly to allow the populace to criticize the government and other figures with power as a means of exacting political change (and) to allow one to teach one's beliefs and way of life to other people.}; it is merely for pleasure. It stands, therefore, not as a right, but rather as a privelege awarded by the majority.
So, if it feels good, it's a "privelege"? Shouldn't this be considered under the "scope of privacy" between two consentual adults.
Conversely, if it make you 'feel bad', it's protected? How does one measure 'bad' -- by the majority or by the individual?
The decision falls to the majority. Will more people be unhappy with it than happy? Then it won't be allowed.
We're at break-neck speed down that slope as ideas and concepts are being reclassified "priveleges" rather than rights, which imply that we are nothing more than border-line disobedient kids who need discipline for 'bad thoughts' rather than as adults in a free society.
Furthermore, there is a fallacy in this even for the 'free speech' parameters. Even in mild discourse, there will be disagreements which will make people happy and unhappy. The 1st Amendment specifically protects the speech (especially the political speech) that makes the majority unhappy.
Voting via absentee ballot. At least there is a greater chance of my vote not being screwed up or changed.
You're not living in Florida, by chance....?
As a lot of people has pointed out already, he currently is in a mental institution, has quit high school and has had his social life destroyed. He is in his right to sue, and deserves a huge compensation.
/. articles.
And just think, if he was American, he'd just march to his high school, kill a few kids, be convicted as an adult and sentenced to death, a new wave of hypersensitive administrators would expel kids for having even a Han Solo collectable doll, George Lucus would be the new Face of Evil, and Jon Katz would have a week's worth of