That's an interesting choice of words, "toggle". Pull up a Google image search for "toggle". For "toggle", you get a bunch of levers of various kinds, and some jackets.
> There is a difference. A lever says apply force at this vector and this physical object will produce X result.
The lever itself doesn't "say" anything, nor does it care about any result. As the Google result indicates, a lever is something that toggles - a toggle switch is a switch with a lever.
> An X86 instruction, which is just an abstraction of machine code, simply toggles 0 and 1s and is completely generic.
Yes, it "simply toggles". Exactly the same thing a lever does. Just as a lever is a lever and doesn't care what other parts are around it, the same with the instruction. They have precisely the same attributes. Interesting, isn't it.
All programs eventually get turned into math by the compiler or interpreter, yes. Just as your post got turned into binary bits. There are underlying mathematical principles used by the computer to execute the program, yes.
Similarly, a painted portrait is a representation if the physics of light, expressed using chemistry, pigments. The essence of potraiture is neither physics nor chemistry.
> I see no reason whatsoever for software to be patentable > when it is much better described and protected by copyright law.
I agree, in the same way that wood should not be patentable. Also, gears aren't currently patentable, nor levers or wheels. New inventions built using gears are patentable. New inventions built using wheels are patentable. New inventions built using software are no different.
I don't care if an invention is made of wood, steel, stone, or iron oxide on a hard drive. It's not what I thing is made of that matters, I don't think.
> Heck all copyright terms should be reduced but for software it becomes really ridiculous.
Agreed, due to the accelerated advancement of technology. 10-15 years after a patent issues, maybe 20 years after issue for copyright would be more reasonable. A problem is that the patent office is a federal agency and as such takes several years to finally issue a patent. That makes shorter terms a problem - by the time the patent is issued the invention may well be five years old.
> First, people you confuse the claim that math isn't supposed to be patentable with the claim that math isn't patentable. > You're mixing up the status quo with how the world should be. > It's circular reasoning, like saying that the most stupid laws [dumblaws.com] are alright, because they are laws.
I didn't say any law is alright. I said "here is the law", and quoted what the law is. The claim I responded to was "math isn't patentable". That's just plain false, period. Had the claim been "in my opinion, the law should be that anything which can be mathematically described ought not be patentable", that would be a different discussion.
PS - dumblaws.com is about 50% BS, 50% somewhat accurate. Be sure to check on their claims before you believe any of them. The ones that cite the law frequently distort the meaning significantly and the ones with no cites are mostly urban legends with little to no basis in reality.
> Second, you either misunderstand or ignore the formal theory behind the claim that software should not be patentable, because it is math.
The theory that you presented is that mathematical work shouldn't be patentable because mathematical work shouldn't be patentable, and software gets converted into math. That's not even circular reasoning - that reasoning never leaves the starting line.
"Division isn't patentable. eBay's feedback system is."
> No sane system would allow such a patent. Only in the US.
"No sane system" is your opinion and that's fine. "Only in the US" is a mistatement of fact. That's not true.
> Again it breaks down into two parts: the mathematical algorithms used and the software written to implement those algorithms. > Neither should be patentable.
Okay.
> The math cannot be protected, but your actual bytecode implementation of that math can be copyrighted.
Sorry, it can. The law is that new machines can be patented and it doesn't matter if the multiplication operation is done by a lever, a gear, on an X86 instruction. You may think it SHOULD not be protectable, but in fact is IS protectable. Why is this important? Because if you seek to change the law, it's very helpful to know what the law is that you're wanting to change. Even better is to know WHY the law is what it is, so you know what traps you may fall into by changing it.
> To give another absurd example, if my house did in fact cost $150,000 and I then (stupidly) put in a $3m gold and diamond light fitting (that weights 1kg) then is my house comprised mostly of light fittings?
You've demonstrated that absurd calculations give absurd results, that "garbage in, garbage out". If I were a hippopotamus, I'd need a much larger keyboard. Since I'm not a hippopotamus, is it in some way useful to discuss that?
For an average $150,000 house, what would be your rough estimate for "light fixtures make up about ___% of the house"? I think you'd agree, light fixtures are less than 1% of the typical house. Whether you measure by cost, weight, labor required, market value or whatever, the answer is the same magnitude. For actual projects in the real world, there are several relevant measures, and they generally end up with similar answers.
I guess the humor of "you're right, fool" didn't quite work in this format. Sorry for "insult", it wasn't meant as an insult. It was intended as a humorous introduction to the idea that while what you said is technically true, we would be missing of essence of the thing if we focused on it's underlying mechanics.
> If my house cost $10 in bricks and mortar and $200,000 for light fittings.
If you made any sense we could have a conversation. If you have a $150,000 house, you have about about $500 of light fixtures. Your house is less than 1% light fixtures.
Pro tip for thinking clearly and learning new things: When you find yourself stringing together completely non-sensical groups of words to try to support a position, celebrate. That position may be mistaken, meaning a chance to grow. Yay!
> Sorry, but ALL software is an expression of math.
Thinking about that for a minute, seems that statement his true, and almost meaningless such that it's misleading. Lara Croft is of course software, and pure art. No mathematicians were harmed in the making of this character. Music - rhythm, tone, and harmony is math. Although harmony is a mathematical phenomenon, you would be fooling yourself, and doing yourself a disservice, to say "eh, music is just math."
Gears and levers are an expression of division - arithmetic. Yes, E = MC2 and all of the universe is an expression of math. This is true. Once you decide that everything is math, though, the word "math" is a synonym for "anything"; the word loses it's meaning.
In order to discuss, and to think, meaningfully, we need words to have meaning. "Everything and anything is an expression of math", while technically true, leaves us unable to say anything useful about math. A useful definition, one that allows us to discuss and think clearly, is one where "math" refers to the work on mathematicians and engineers, distinct from the work if painters and composers. Harmony is a hidden expression of math, but Concerto #5 is art, not math. So it is with Lara Croft - art, not math, for any useful meaning of the word.
I'm thinking from the perspective of a creator or consumer of a game. Over 90 percent of the budget will grow into art versus the math for collision detection and such. The buyer / player chooses a game primarily based on it's characters, graphics, and storyline, all artistic elements. I'd bet more than 90% of players have commented on a games graphics and fewer than 5% have said somethingl like "wow this game has awesome physics stimulation".
Byte size isn't very meaningful, of course. By that measure, games would be 99.5% artistic media. Size wise, a picture truly is worth 1000 words.
Games are art, and are software. Most games are 95% art, 5% math, and 100% software. Math CAN be done as software, but so can art and many other non-math things. Some software is math. A LOT of software has little to do with math.
> math isn't supposed to be patentable.
That's a common misconception, started and encouraged by people with a particular agenda. The rule in the US is:
The LAWS of nature, including mathematics, are not patentable.
Note that it's the basic laws that aren't patentable. Things that USE those laws are.
Gravity isn't patentable. An elevator is. Momentum isn't patentable. A brake system is. Division isn't patentable. eBay's feedback system is. Light reflection isn't patentable. The way Blender simulates reflection is, if it's novel.
Corning, who make Gorilla Glass, do have some other awesome glass products awaiting the right application, including rolls of flexible glass sheets. I hope they are looking at this application.
It sounds like you saw my correction. I typed 3DES when I meant DES, so I'll reply to your comments DES.
> DES doesn't go back nearly as far as 1972. (nor does DES for that matter)
Below is the official NIST paper describing DES. You'll note that after a four year approval process, DES officially became a government standard in 1977. As described in the paper, IBM was using it by 1974 after it was developed in the years prior.
You could reasonably choose any year between 1972-1977 as the beginning of DES usage, so you're mistaken about "not nearly as far back as 1972, sorry.
> rather a large number of milliseconds
Try cracking a password database sometime. I do this stuff for a living. The larger the database, the faster you'll get working passwords, so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and use a fairly small database of only 1,000 accounts as an example. We'll also be generous to you and not use a rainbow table. With a small (difficult) database like that, you can expect to get maybe 12 passwords in the first second or two. In the first ten minutes, probably 250 working accounts.
A 100X larger database will yield roughly 100X as many passwords per time - around 1,000 working accounts in the first few seconds, or 2-3ms per account at first.
If we want to go fast, we use a rainbow table. Standard DES password hashing ala crypt() collides at about 1:1000 since it uses only the first eight characters. On modern PCs with GBs of RAM, we can use in-memory tables and crack millions per second. No need for that, though, I don't mind waiting several milliseconds.
I'm almost offended by your post. Almost, but you did say "so called experts" in one sentence. The linked XKCD comic is right on the money, and experts know that.
Computer geeks and code monkeys are not computer security experts. Security experts know what what entropy is and know that password entropy comes primarily from length.
"Computer geeks" ala Kim Komando (and many people on Slashdot) go around telling people to use strange mixed case, numbers, punctuation, etc. Code monkeys design login systems that require at least one upper case letter, one lower case, some numbers, some punctuation - and it has to be 6 - 8 characters.
Computer security experts know that 6 -8 characters guarantees weakness, and punctuation increases tech support calls far more than in increases security. (Such requirements often actually DECREASE security by making resets so routine). Experts have known for a long time that the thing to drill into people's heads is "Use LONG passwords! Make it a sentence or phrase. Make it LONG".
The one problem is that a TON of web applications have been authored by coders with almost zero security training. They make an effort to do it right. The encrypt passwords using crypt(). Crypt defaults to a 1972 algorithm that throws away everything but the first eight characters. That thoroughly screws up security.
Indeed very few programmers are trained in security. Probably a minority have any security training to speak of and darn few are trained to design a security system. Yet, most companies don't hire a security professional, or even bring one in for a consultation. Security is my field. When another division was designing a single-sign-on system, they had me spend an hour with them to avoid the top 10 most common problems. Before bringing me in, they had already planned falling prey to at least two of those "obvious" problems. An hour with a security professional can make all the difference.
XKCD showed why it's not at all safe in this instance. Here's the table:
email cryptw hint ac@slash.com 737462 first apostle dumb@adobe.com 737462 hot neighbor
From the encrypted password, we see that these two users have the same password. Now look at the password hints. What do you suppose is the password they BOTH used?
Of the 12,000 or so sites I've seen, well over 90% do it wrong. I'd estimate 95%. Many store passwords in plain text. Most use 3DES, which was reasonably secure in 1972. Today, 3DES is cracked in milliseconds. Sometimes we see an unsalted hash, including MD5.
A few have used MySQL's PASSWORD() and the phpass gimmick scheme which are reasonably secure but non-portable.
I consider "doing it right" to be a salted hash. For new software, bcrypt / blowfish or a SHA primitive. Preferably, SHA-256 or SHA-512 via crypt($5$salt$, password) for portability and consistency. For existing code, I consider SALTED MD5 to be acceptable, but the length of the input should certainly be validated.
According to Adobe, until a year ago, they were doing it wrong, using the wrong encryption in the wrong way. The bad guys got a year-old backup, so it was encrypted using the old (wrong) method.
Since the old backup is done wrong, that tells us only that the primary USED TO be done wrong, which is exactly what Adobe is saying. It tells us nothing about the current database.
The administration added that publishing classified documents is a crime in Brazil,
and that those responsible "will be prosecuted according to the law."
> There's probably also a constitutional argument to be made in the case of the IIRIRA. Practically every policy the Federal > Government tries to force on the states now is an unconstitutional overreach of their explicitly enumerated powers.
Most are unconstitutional overreach. The Constitution grants only ~18 powers to the federal government. Regulating immigration happens to be one thing the federal government can and arguably must do. (Consider the effect of article IV otherwise).
One of the enumerated powers is "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization". Naturalization means:
1) to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen. [such as a driver's license] 2) to introduce or adopt (foreign practices, words, etc.) into a country or into general use
He boo y trapped the system,locked out other authorized users, etc. The judge or jury would look at that and determine that either:a) he'slying or b) forgetting wouldn't be a problem if he hadn't set bobby traps etc., and locking out other users was an intentional criminal act.
It's interesting to me how often people say "just claim that [transparent bullshit]. 99% of the time, judges aren't stupid. Their law degree indicates they have above average intelligence, but sometimes people assume judges must be drooling morons.
Granted, occasionally there are rulings that seem pretty dumb, but even those are normally much less dumb than the headlines make them out to be.
> and not the complete idiots of the company for leaving there passwords with one person, and not having a way to access by way of a default password. his lawyer must have been an idiot as well if he didn't make that argument.
"The victim was stupid" isn't an excuse. If it were, we could legally do anything we want to you.
In fact, it's generally considered an aggravating factor to victimize the mentally challenged because we have a duty to look out for those who are defenseless.
The person filing the request must specify which record they want. So "Where is Elvis hiding" isn't a FOI request. "Please provide the arrest report for when Elvis Presley was arrested on Oct. 18, 1956" is a FOI request.
I just skimmed New York's statue is similar. New York just ignores the law http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp . They don't follow laws, they don't try to change laws that they think should be changed, they just ignore them. The majority of New York voters support ignoring the law.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an interesting choice of words, "toggle". Pull up a Google image search for "toggle".
For "toggle", you get a bunch of levers of various kinds, and some jackets.
> There is a difference. A lever says apply force at this vector and this physical object will produce X result.
The lever itself doesn't "say" anything, nor does it care about any result. As the Google result indicates, a lever is something that toggles -
a toggle switch is a switch with a lever.
> An X86 instruction, which is just an abstraction of machine code, simply toggles 0 and 1s and is completely generic.
Yes, it "simply toggles". Exactly the same thing a lever does. Just as a lever is a lever and doesn't care what other parts are
around it, the same with the instruction. They have precisely the same attributes. Interesting, isn't it.
Secure and online: http://a.fsdn.com/sd/logo_w_l.png
All programs eventually get turned into math by the compiler or interpreter, yes. Just as your post got turned into binary bits. There are underlying mathematical principles used by the computer to execute the program, yes.
Similarly, a painted portrait is a representation if the physics of light, expressed using chemistry, pigments. The essence of potraiture is neither physics nor chemistry.
> I see no reason whatsoever for software to be patentable
> when it is much better described and protected by copyright law.
I agree, in the same way that wood should not be patentable. Also, gears aren't currently patentable, nor levers or wheels. New inventions built using gears are patentable. New inventions built using wheels are patentable. New inventions built using software are no different.
I don't care if an invention is made of wood, steel, stone, or iron oxide on a hard drive. It's not what I thing is made of that matters, I don't think.
> Heck all copyright terms should be reduced but for software it becomes really ridiculous.
Agreed, due to the accelerated advancement of technology. 10-15 years after a patent issues, maybe 20 years after issue for copyright would be more reasonable. A problem is that the patent office is a federal agency and as such takes several years to finally issue a patent. That makes shorter terms a problem - by the time the patent is issued the invention may well be five years old.
> First, people you confuse the claim that math isn't supposed to be patentable with the claim that math isn't patentable.
> You're mixing up the status quo with how the world should be.
> It's circular reasoning, like saying that the most stupid laws [dumblaws.com] are alright, because they are laws.
I didn't say any law is alright. I said "here is the law", and quoted what the law is. The claim I responded to was "math isn't patentable". That's just plain false, period. Had the claim been "in my opinion, the law should be that anything which can be mathematically described ought not be patentable", that would be a different discussion.
PS - dumblaws.com is about 50% BS, 50% somewhat accurate. Be sure to check on their claims before you believe any of them. The ones that cite the law frequently distort the meaning significantly and the ones with no cites are mostly urban legends with little to no basis in reality.
> Second, you either misunderstand or ignore the formal theory behind the claim that software should not be patentable, because it is math.
The theory that you presented is that mathematical work shouldn't be patentable because mathematical work shouldn't be patentable, and software gets converted into math. That's not even circular reasoning - that reasoning never leaves the starting line.
"Division isn't patentable. eBay's feedback system is."
> No sane system would allow such a patent. Only in the US.
"No sane system" is your opinion and that's fine. "Only in the US" is a mistatement of fact. That's not true.
> Again it breaks down into two parts: the mathematical algorithms used and the software written to implement those algorithms.
> Neither should be patentable.
Okay.
> The math cannot be protected, but your actual bytecode implementation of that math can be copyrighted.
Sorry, it can. The law is that new machines can be patented and it doesn't matter if the multiplication operation is done by a lever, a gear, on an X86 instruction. You may think it SHOULD not be protectable, but in fact is IS protectable. Why is this important? Because if you seek to change the law, it's very helpful to know what the law is that you're wanting to change. Even better is to know WHY the law is what it is, so you know what traps you may fall into by changing it.
> To give another absurd example, if my house did in fact cost $150,000 and I then (stupidly) put in a $3m gold and diamond light fitting (that weights 1kg) then is my house comprised mostly of light fittings?
You've demonstrated that absurd calculations give absurd results, that "garbage in, garbage out".
If I were a hippopotamus, I'd need a much larger keyboard. Since I'm not a hippopotamus, is it in some way useful to discuss that?
For an average $150,000 house, what would be your rough estimate for "light fixtures make up about ___% of the house"? I think you'd agree, light fixtures are less than 1% of the typical house. Whether you measure by cost, weight, labor required, market value or whatever, the answer is the same magnitude. For actual projects in the real world, there are several relevant measures, and they generally end up with similar answers.
I guess the humor of "you're right, fool" didn't quite work in this format. Sorry for "insult", it wasn't meant as an insult. It was intended as a humorous introduction to the idea that while what you said is technically true, we would be missing of essence of the thing if we focused on it's underlying mechanics.
> If my house cost $10 in bricks and mortar and $200,000 for light fittings.
If you made any sense we could have a conversation.
If you have a $150,000 house, you have about about $500 of light fixtures. Your house is less than 1% light fixtures.
Pro tip for thinking clearly and learning new things:
When you find yourself stringing together completely non-sensical groups of words to try to support a position, celebrate. That position may be mistaken, meaning a chance to grow. Yay!
> Sorry, but ALL software is an expression of math.
Thinking about that for a minute, seems that statement his true, and almost meaningless such that it's misleading. Lara Croft is of course software, and pure art. No mathematicians were harmed in the making of this character. Music - rhythm, tone, and harmony is math. Although harmony is a mathematical phenomenon, you would be fooling yourself, and doing yourself a disservice, to say "eh, music is just math."
Gears and levers are an expression of division - arithmetic. Yes, E = MC2 and all of the universe is an expression of math. This is true. Once you decide that everything is math, though, the word "math" is a synonym for "anything"; the word loses it's meaning.
In order to discuss, and to think, meaningfully, we need words to have meaning. "Everything and anything is an expression of math", while technically true, leaves us unable to say anything useful about math. A useful definition, one that allows us to discuss and think clearly, is one where "math" refers to the work on mathematicians and engineers, distinct from the work if painters and composers. Harmony is a hidden expression of math, but Concerto #5 is art, not math. So it is with Lara Croft - art, not math, for any useful meaning of the word.
I'm thinking from the perspective of a creator or consumer of a game. Over 90 percent of the budget will grow into art versus the math for collision detection and such. The buyer / player chooses a game primarily based on it's characters, graphics, and storyline, all artistic elements. I'd bet more than 90% of players have commented on a games graphics and fewer than 5% have said somethingl like "wow this game has awesome physics stimulation".
Byte size isn't very meaningful, of course. By that measure, games would be 99.5% artistic media. Size wise, a picture truly is worth 1000 words.
> software is math
Games are art, and are software.
Most games are 95% art, 5% math, and 100% software.
Math CAN be done as software, but so can art and many other non-math things. Some software is math. A LOT of software has little to do with math.
> math isn't supposed to be patentable.
That's a common misconception, started and encouraged by people with a particular agenda. The rule in the US is:
The LAWS of nature, including mathematics, are not patentable.
Note that it's the basic laws that aren't patentable. Things that USE those laws are.
Gravity isn't patentable. An elevator is.
Momentum isn't patentable. A brake system is.
Division isn't patentable. eBay's feedback system is.
Light reflection isn't patentable. The way Blender simulates reflection is, if it's novel.
Corning, who make Gorilla Glass, do have some other awesome glass products awaiting the right application, including rolls of flexible glass sheets.
I hope they are looking at this application.
It sounds like you saw my correction. I typed 3DES when I meant DES, so I'll reply to your comments DES.
> DES doesn't go back nearly as far as 1972. (nor does DES for that matter)
Below is the official NIST paper describing DES. You'll note that after a four year approval process, DES officially became a government standard in 1977. As described in the paper, IBM was using it by 1974 after it was developed in the years prior.
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/250-253.pdf
You could reasonably choose any year between 1972-1977 as the beginning of DES usage, so you're mistaken about "not nearly as far back as 1972, sorry.
> rather a large number of milliseconds
Try cracking a password database sometime. I do this stuff for a living. The larger the database, the faster you'll get working passwords, so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and use a fairly small database of only 1,000 accounts as an example. We'll also be generous to you and not use a rainbow table. With a small (difficult) database like that, you can expect to get maybe 12 passwords in the first second or two. In the first ten minutes, probably 250 working accounts.
A 100X larger database will yield roughly 100X as many passwords per time - around 1,000 working accounts in the first few seconds, or 2-3ms per account at first.
If we want to go fast, we use a rainbow table. Standard DES password hashing ala crypt() collides at about 1:1000 since it uses only the first eight characters. On modern PCs with GBs of RAM, we can use in-memory tables and crack millions per second. No need for that, though, I don't mind waiting several milliseconds.
I'm almost offended by your post. Almost, but you did say "so called experts" in one sentence. The linked XKCD comic is right on the money, and experts know that.
Computer geeks and code monkeys are not computer security experts. Security experts know what what entropy is and know that password entropy comes primarily from length.
"Computer geeks" ala Kim Komando (and many people on Slashdot) go around telling people to use strange mixed case, numbers, punctuation, etc. Code monkeys design login systems that require at least one upper case letter, one lower case, some numbers, some punctuation - and it has to be 6 - 8 characters.
Computer security experts know that 6 -8 characters guarantees weakness, and punctuation increases tech support calls far more than in increases security. (Such requirements often actually DECREASE security by making resets so routine). Experts have known for a long time that the thing to drill into people's heads is "Use LONG passwords! Make it a sentence or phrase. Make it LONG".
The one problem is that a TON of web applications have been authored by coders with almost zero security training. They make an effort to do it right. The encrypt passwords using crypt(). Crypt defaults to a 1972 algorithm that throws away everything but the first eight characters. That thoroughly screws up security.
Indeed very few programmers are trained in security. Probably a minority have any security training to speak of and darn few are trained to design a security system. Yet, most companies don't hire a security professional, or even bring one in for a consultation. Security is my field. When another division was designing a single-sign-on system, they had me spend an hour with them to avoid the top 10 most common problems. Before bringing me in, they had already planned falling prey to at least two of those "obvious" problems. An hour with a security professional can make all the difference.
Thank you for the correction.
I meant DES, not 3DES. Most use crypt(random), htpasswd, or compatible.
* Not to be confused with crypt($5$salt$), which is secure SHA-256.
XKCD showed why it's not at all safe in this instance. Here's the table:
email cryptw hint
ac@slash.com 737462 first apostle
dumb@adobe.com 737462 hot neighbor
From the encrypted password, we see that these two users have the same password. Now look at the password hints. What do you suppose is the password they BOTH used?
Of the 12,000 or so sites I've seen, well over 90% do it wrong. I'd estimate 95%. Many store passwords in plain text.
Most use 3DES, which was reasonably secure in 1972. Today, 3DES is cracked in milliseconds.
Sometimes we see an unsalted hash, including MD5.
A few have used MySQL's PASSWORD() and the phpass gimmick scheme which are reasonably secure but non-portable.
I consider "doing it right" to be a salted hash. For new software, bcrypt / blowfish or a SHA primitive.
Preferably, SHA-256 or SHA-512 via crypt($5$salt$, password) for portability and consistency.
For existing code, I consider SALTED MD5 to be acceptable, but the length of the input should certainly be validated.
According to Adobe, until a year ago, they were doing it wrong, using the wrong encryption in the wrong way.
The bad guys got a year-old backup, so it was encrypted using the old (wrong) method.
Since the old backup is done wrong, that tells us only that the primary USED TO be done wrong, which is exactly what Adobe is saying. It tells us nothing about the current database.
TFA says:
The administration added that publishing classified documents is a crime in Brazil,
and that those responsible "will be prosecuted according to the law."
> There's probably also a constitutional argument to be made in the case of the IIRIRA. Practically every policy the Federal
> Government tries to force on the states now is an unconstitutional overreach of their explicitly enumerated powers.
Most are unconstitutional overreach. The Constitution grants only ~18 powers to the federal government.
Regulating immigration happens to be one thing the federal government can and arguably must do. (Consider the effect of article IV otherwise).
One of the enumerated powers is "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization". Naturalization means:
1) to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen. [such as a driver's license]
2) to introduce or adopt (foreign practices, words, etc.) into a country or into general use
He boo y trapped the system,locked out other authorized users, etc. :a) he'slying or
The judge or jury would look at that and determine that either
b) forgetting wouldn't be a problem if he hadn't set bobby traps etc., and locking out other users was an intentional criminal act.
It's interesting to me how often people say "just claim that [transparent bullshit]. 99% of the time, judges aren't stupid. Their law degree indicates they have above average intelligence, but sometimes people assume judges must be drooling morons.
Granted, occasionally there are rulings that seem pretty dumb, but even those are normally much less dumb than the headlines make them out to be.
> and not the complete idiots of the company for leaving there passwords with one person, and not having a way to access by way of a default password. his lawyer must have been an idiot as well if he didn't make that argument.
"The victim was stupid" isn't an excuse. If it were, we could legally do anything we want to you.
In fact, it's generally considered an aggravating factor to victimize the mentally challenged because we have a duty to look out for those who are defenseless.
The person filing the request must specify which record they want. So "Where is Elvis hiding" isn't a FOI request.
"Please provide the arrest report for when Elvis Presley was arrested on Oct. 18, 1956" is a FOI request.
I just skimmed New York's statue is similar. New York just ignores the law http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp .
They don't follow laws, they don't try to change laws that they think should be changed, they just ignore them.
The majority of New York voters support ignoring the law.