I concur. The signal-to-noise ration of most tutorials on the net is abysmal.
To figure out how to do things, I started piecing together tutorials, to make things just work. To really figure out how to do it right, I started disassembling code from large, popular hacking-targets such as Wordpress.
So just wait until it costs more to live with IPv4 than to migrate to new systems. Then EVERYONE will be working on a solution. True. Now, let us remark upon and observe how some will expand the problem from IPv4 to a problem of piracy, privacy, and net neutrality.
I clicked the link you provided, but can't read through it all. Help out an ADD brother: which party was awarded how much damage? Has it been enforced? Summary: A lawyer working for the Church of Scientology stood on the steps of a courthouse in fancy lawyer gowns and said they were going to commence a criminal contempt proceeding against a Crown (State) attorney. This violated the ethical guidelines of the lawyer, threatened an officer of the State, and impugned the credibility of that officer and of the judicial system itself.
The attorney and CoS were fined $300,000 each, and CoS $500,000 in aggravated damages and $800,000 in punitive damages.
I would presume this has been enforced. The CoS is still operating just down the street from where I work.
As an interesting anecdote regarding the Church of Scientology, there is an interesting Supreme Court of Canada case (Hill v. Scientology) which was the largest punitive damages award ever given out in Canada, and which case now literally defines "punitive damages" in the Canadian legal context.
It does not matter to me that this individual is not an employee, he had benefit of inside information. That should constitute insider trading. An "insider" is created when someone is entrusted with a power to access information (i.e. by being appointed a director, etc.) and that person abuses that trust for their personal benefit.
In this case, the thief was not entrusted with any power to access information, but rather exploited a technological problem in order to access information and used that information for personal benefit. He didn't breach anyone's trust. He's just stealing information.
Both are wrong, but they are different crimes. The difference is semantics.
If he were to say that I told him, them we would have the book thrown at us... but if he cracks a machine then all is OK Negatory - the ruling is that if you do not have insider information and hack into it, you are not in breach of any fiduciary duty, and therefore not subject to the penalties that insider traders are (whom are an especially heinous group of people, and whom we particularly want to deter by excess punishment).
If a mate hacks a machine based on insider information, both the informant and the hacker are breaching a fiduciary duty. They're more likely to get useful information, and more likely to cause serious harm to the financial system. In my opinion, we want to deter hacking based on insider information more than random hacking.
That's not to say the fellow should get to keep the money. That will only serve to encourage random hacking pointedly in the absence of (traceable) insider information. However, trading on insider information should result in more significant consequences.
If they want cheap electricity and cooling, they should build a centre near Churchill falls. It's a naturally cold place, and electricity produced at the massive hydroelectric plant there is presently sold to Hydro-Quebec at an unconscionably reduced rate (i.e. the market value prior to the pre-1970's oil crisis). It's a ripe situation to be taken advantage of by a company that benefits from cheap electricity.
I was given an Xbox 360. It's a wonderful idea, and impossibly poorly implemented. In fact, I'm astonished at how bad it is. Consumer-grade product this is not.
From the shoddy controller (constantly scrolls upwards --- you have to hold the stick "down" to centre it), to the constant lock-ups, to the bugs, impossibly confusing and no-less-than ludicrious interface, jet-engine-like white-noise from the ineffective cooling fans, and incompatibility with standards, I'm bewildered that it ever got made. And apparently this is an improvement over the Xbox.
All that being said, the functionality it purports to provide is stellar in breadth. It's a dedicated video gaming console, a DVD video player, and a method for watching shared videos and music over a network (mind you, you have to purchase 3rd party software, e.g. Connect360, if you're not a Microsoft PC user).
In the Xbox 360, we see Microsoft's strength: They pull a bunch of ideas together and create a feature-overloaded product.
We also see their weaknesses: Deer-in-headlights HORRIFIC implementation; Fundamentally flawed hardware design; A human-computer interface straight from the short-bus; Vendor lock-in and poor standards support (nigh anti-standards).
In all, if I were to spend my own money, I'd get a Nintendo Wii and an Apple TV, and I'd love to forget about being constantly confronted by the weaknesses typical of an Microsoft product.
All this being said, I expect that someone at MS is paying attention- this isn't the free income of a monopoly like their OS and Office software. They're competing, which a great deal of evidence suggests is an entirely new idea to them (is anyone else reminded of a spoiled rich kid who has never been introduced to consequence?), but with time and pressure I'm sure they'll improve. I expect that someday, there may be an Xbox worth spending money on. In my opinion, the Xbox 360 is not it. So I don't believe the Xbox 360 is the direction and future of Microsoft. However, I don't think this is the last word- I think we won't see the real direction and future of Microsoft until they've had their monopolies ripped from their greedy little paws.;o)
Soon, the cost of identity on the internet will be money. The technology circumventing human-being verification is growing faster, and with greater economic motivation, than the technology preventing non-humans from registration. Soon there will be no way to distinguish between a human and computer on an independent web-sites.
Cometh the centralized, homogenized, certified verifying-as-human web-sites (vis-à-vis facebook?).
This concept of intent as part of intentional torts dates back 500 years in the common law; it is hardly novel, predating the United States of America by centuries.
From Trespass to chattels:
A vendor can attempt to dispute a trespass claim on the grounds that the user consented to the terms of the contract. Even if consent was given for certain access, a user may still have a valid trespass to chattels complaint if the vendor has exceeded the contractual terms, if the contract is found to misrepresent the actual functioning of the product, or if the consent has been withdrawn. A vendor can be held liable for "any use exceeding the consent" given." (Restatement (Second) of Torts 256) From Conversion:
... the intent to take or otherwise deal with the property is enough to support the claim, and it doesn't matter whether the defendant knew that the act would constitute interference with the property of another. I can attest to the validity of both (though one must turn to their respective jurisdiction's jurisprudence for particulars), having won a trial in superior court (small claims) on trespass to chattel, and in a court of appeal for a class action on conversion. The good case law has effectively identical fact patterns to what I stated in my last, with the legal conclusion I provided.
I humbly but correctly suggest that your confusing of sophistry for centuries old law is stupidity and ignorance, and your reply obnoxious, unfounded and unsupported. Kindly learn something about your world and then how to contribute to it, or do the rest of the people in your world a favour and just be gone.
I'm confused. Are you saying that Apple intended to break AfterEffects?
The legal notion of intention is a bit more precise and confusing, unfortunately. They do not have to intend to break AfterEffects. They only have to intend to go onto your property (your computer) and do something that you have not authorized them to do. In this case, they intended to install the update, but you did not grant them authority to break AfterEffects. Hence, an "intentional" interference with property.
As an example, when you go to the dentist you authorize them to do a certain procedure (e.g. clean your teeth). If they, without your permission, remove a tooth then the they have stepped beyond their authority and committed a tort of trespass to the person. The dentist intended to remove your tooth, and you gave him some authority, but not the authority to remove the tooth.
In the legal context, "intentional" torts (such as trespass) tends to be the compliment to tort in negligence. Liability in negligence arises when someone does something so poorly as to warrant compensation. For example, in the dentist example, if you did authorize the dentist to remove your tooth, but he improperly used the anesthetic and caused permanent nerve damage and your teeth to fall out, you cannot say he committed a trespass on the person. Rather, as he had full authority to remove the tooth, you must pursue remedy on the grounds that he negligently performed the operation.
Notwithstanding contractual consent by the person installing the program, this sounds like conversion: the unwanted and intentional interference with another's goods. In this case, a Mac owner is 1. unable to use the programs they otherwise would be able to use, having installed the upgrade to Quicktime; and 2. unable to undo the harm caused by the installation of the program without the time intensive and expensive reinstallation of the operating system.
Even though it is technically given by the click-through agreement, I believe consent is tenuous; intentionally and willfully misleading individuals about the value of the upgrade (or tying DRM to the upgrade's necessity, such as the constant bombardment of news that generates fear over security holes) undermines a person's ability to consent - there is a fundamental mistake in the formation of the contract: Quicktime upgrades should not break other software. This is especially true if you are a developer.
One would imagine some legal remedy to this. The facts as I have just read them indicate a behaviour that is grossly unfair to consumers, nigh an appalling disregard for the preferences and rights of ones' own customers.
All that being said, I'm certain this will be remedied soon, or customers will flock to alternatives (or form the incentive for others to create alternatives).
That appears to be a good thing, but I do not think it will necessarily be an easy class to certify. While each jurisdiction with class action legislation has its own version of the following, often with rather concise tests for each element, the general idea is as follows:
A court will certify a class proceeding where there is: 1. An identifiable group 2. With a cause of action that has a triable issue 3. With an appropriate class representative 4. Whom all have common issues 5. and Whose conflict is best resolved by a class action.
In this case, on 1: Is the identifiable group people who have been sued by the RIAA? The more it is a subset of individuals who have not just been sued by the RIAA, but a subset of that group that has suffered other behaviour and that other behaviour is key to the group, the less identifiable the group is (so to speak).
On 2: Is there a cause of action for just being sued by the RIAA? If everything that the plaintiff pleads is true, and this would not give rise to a legal judgment, then the action may be dismissed at certification. This is often just a screener to certification of frivolous claims, and some jurisdictions do not have it.
On 3: Is this lady the best class representative? Can she fund the litigation (in part, though not to the end)? Does she have any interests averse to that of the class?
On 4: If the case requires more details of how the RIAA treated each individual, then there's an argument that the individual issues predominate over the common ones.
The stronger the case that the RIAA bringing a suit against any individual gives rise to legal remedy,the more the RIAA had a documented pattern of behaviour, the better.
On 5: If a class proceeding is not the "best" way to resolve a conflict, sometimes it will not be certified. Alternatives including bringing a test case, individual cases, and alternative dispute resolution.
Again, the tests vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but that's the general framework of the hurdle that the plaintiff will have to get over in order to certify her action as a class action.
The purpose of life is to survive. The purpose of that which makes life possible is to survive. The purpose of life itself is different. Perhaps it is to appreciate that which makes life possible.
Evolution is a word. It refers to an observable phenomenon, and a scientific theory based on predictable consequences (natural selection) that are consistent with our observations of the phenomenon.
It signed agreements with OLPC, so it has a responsibility to live up to that. "Maximising profits for shareholders" does not make it okay to break contracts, lie, cheat or steal, despite what many MBAs seem to think. While the other examples are clearly heinous, there is no law against breaking contracts. However, there are consequences to breaking a contract, notably the obligation to compensate those to whom you had made a promise by one of three ways in the common law: putting them in as good a situation as they were in before the contract was made; putting them in as good a situation as they ought to have been in after the contract had been fully executed; or giving them the benefit the promisor defaulting had received because they breached the contract. The choice of which compensation applies often comes down to economics, for example Posnerian efficiency. However, any promisor has the right to break a contract (the general policy against which is that forcing an individual to complete a contract is in essence slavery). The court of equity speaks otherwise (allowing for 'specific enforcement': forcing the promisor to fulfill their end of the bargain), but is generally only turned to where the common law is unjust.
All that being said, the law is expensive to enforce, and in international bargains it may be different and difficult to find justice because of issues with jurisdiction, enforcement, substantive applicable law, and expense, meaning that breaching a contract amounts to what may be seen as, and is in effect, a form of theft.
What is the light? I don't like it one bit. I'm going back into my cave. There are only shadows there, but I know the shadows. I do not know the light, and I do not like it one bit.
A standard ought to include an open reference implementation. The open implementation need not be the only implementation, but if the only reference implementation is confidential and proprietary, it's not an open standard at all.
Build a partial dyson sphere around a somewhat nearby star, even just a vast network of satellites, and use them to turn the light of the star on and off to send an unmistakable binary message.
I wonder what the reason is that, among the billions of stars we can see in the sky, we haven't observed another civilization doing this already.
Wasn't the woman in charge of copyright reform in the Canadian Government and in a closet relationship with a member of the Canadian Recording Industry Association?
I can't find the reference, now, but thought it relevant. Maybe someone can find it?
I'd go with, as some of the problems in the new trilogy, off the top of my head,
1. the poor personalities and lack of audience empathy with the characters 2. the lack of a plot 3. the over-complicated and pointless background 4. the Jar-Jar binks (and his not dying), 5. the total absence of mystery (esp. about the force) 6. the absence of a jovial Yoda that tested by effect and not speech 7. the high expectations 8. the sell-out to Pepsi and superfluous advertisement of Lucasarts 9. the inconsistencies with the fundamentals of the original (to my mind) 10. the contrast with the originals
All to say, ten faults of many that massacre the stunning simplicity and beauty of the originals. A farm boy relying on his friends who turns his dad from evil and overthrows an overconfident emperor, they are not.
I worked on one of the most high performance disk access applications ever made, and the consensus among those in the know was that software RAID is faster and better than hardware RAID, unintuitive though that may be.
The notion of a dedicated RAID controller being faster is a myth. It's a 166 MHz (or whatever) dedicated processor versus a multi-processor multi-gigahertz set of CPUs?
There are many other advantages to software RAID, and virtually no disadvantages that I can think of. The business exists because it's easy to sell the idea of hardware RAID to non-techies.
Slashdot Mirror
I concur. The signal-to-noise ration of most tutorials on the net is abysmal.
To figure out how to do things, I started piecing together tutorials, to make things just work. To really figure out how to do it right, I started disassembling code from large, popular hacking-targets such as Wordpress.
A lawyer working for the Church of Scientology stood on the steps of a courthouse in fancy lawyer gowns and said they were going to commence a criminal contempt proceeding against a Crown (State) attorney. This violated the ethical guidelines of the lawyer, threatened an officer of the State, and impugned the credibility of that officer and of the judicial system itself.
The attorney and CoS were fined $300,000 each, and CoS $500,000 in aggravated damages and $800,000 in punitive damages.
I would presume this has been enforced. The CoS is still operating just down the street from where I work.
As an interesting anecdote regarding the Church of Scientology, there is an interesting Supreme Court of Canada case (Hill v. Scientology) which was the largest punitive damages award ever given out in Canada, and which case now literally defines "punitive damages" in the Canadian legal context.
In this case, the thief was not entrusted with any power to access information, but rather exploited a technological problem in order to access information and used that information for personal benefit. He didn't breach anyone's trust. He's just stealing information.
Both are wrong, but they are different crimes. The difference is semantics.
If a mate hacks a machine based on insider information, both the informant and the hacker are breaching a fiduciary duty. They're more likely to get useful information, and more likely to cause serious harm to the financial system. In my opinion, we want to deter hacking based on insider information more than random hacking.
That's not to say the fellow should get to keep the money. That will only serve to encourage random hacking pointedly in the absence of (traceable) insider information. However, trading on insider information should result in more significant consequences.
If they want cheap electricity and cooling, they should build a centre near Churchill falls. It's a naturally cold place, and electricity produced at the massive hydroelectric plant there is presently sold to Hydro-Quebec at an unconscionably reduced rate (i.e. the market value prior to the pre-1970's oil crisis). It's a ripe situation to be taken advantage of by a company that benefits from cheap electricity.
I was given an Xbox 360. It's a wonderful idea, and impossibly poorly implemented. In fact, I'm astonished at how bad it is. Consumer-grade product this is not.
;o)
From the shoddy controller (constantly scrolls upwards --- you have to hold the stick "down" to centre it), to the constant lock-ups, to the bugs, impossibly confusing and no-less-than ludicrious interface, jet-engine-like white-noise from the ineffective cooling fans, and incompatibility with standards, I'm bewildered that it ever got made. And apparently this is an improvement over the Xbox.
All that being said, the functionality it purports to provide is stellar in breadth. It's a dedicated video gaming console, a DVD video player, and a method for watching shared videos and music over a network (mind you, you have to purchase 3rd party software, e.g. Connect360, if you're not a Microsoft PC user).
In the Xbox 360, we see Microsoft's strength: They pull a bunch of ideas together and create a feature-overloaded product.
We also see their weaknesses: Deer-in-headlights HORRIFIC implementation; Fundamentally flawed hardware design; A human-computer interface straight from the short-bus; Vendor lock-in and poor standards support (nigh anti-standards).
In all, if I were to spend my own money, I'd get a Nintendo Wii and an Apple TV, and I'd love to forget about being constantly confronted by the weaknesses typical of an Microsoft product.
All this being said, I expect that someone at MS is paying attention- this isn't the free income of a monopoly like their OS and Office software. They're competing, which a great deal of evidence suggests is an entirely new idea to them (is anyone else reminded of a spoiled rich kid who has never been introduced to consequence?), but with time and pressure I'm sure they'll improve. I expect that someday, there may be an Xbox worth spending money on. In my opinion, the Xbox 360 is not it. So I don't believe the Xbox 360 is the direction and future of Microsoft. However, I don't think this is the last word- I think we won't see the real direction and future of Microsoft until they've had their monopolies ripped from their greedy little paws.
Didn't we just conclude that engineers are more likely to be terrorists?
Soon, the cost of identity on the internet will be money. The technology circumventing human-being verification is growing faster, and with greater economic motivation, than the technology preventing non-humans from registration. Soon there will be no way to distinguish between a human and computer on an independent web-sites.
Cometh the centralized, homogenized, certified verifying-as-human web-sites (vis-à-vis facebook?).
From Trespass to chattels: A vendor can attempt to dispute a trespass claim on the grounds that the user consented to the terms of the contract. Even if consent was given for certain access, a user may still have a valid trespass to chattels complaint if the vendor has exceeded the contractual terms, if the contract is found to misrepresent the actual functioning of the product, or if the consent has been withdrawn. A vendor can be held liable for "any use exceeding the consent" given." (Restatement (Second) of Torts 256) From Conversion:
... the intent to take or otherwise deal with the property is enough to support the claim, and it doesn't matter whether the defendant knew that the act would constitute interference with the property of another. I can attest to the validity of both (though one must turn to their respective jurisdiction's jurisprudence for particulars), having won a trial in superior court (small claims) on trespass to chattel, and in a court of appeal for a class action on conversion. The good case law has effectively identical fact patterns to what I stated in my last, with the legal conclusion I provided.I humbly but correctly suggest that your confusing of sophistry for centuries old law is stupidity and ignorance, and your reply obnoxious, unfounded and unsupported. Kindly learn something about your world and then how to contribute to it, or do the rest of the people in your world a favour and just be gone.
I'm confused. Are you saying that Apple intended to break AfterEffects?
The legal notion of intention is a bit more precise and confusing, unfortunately. They do not have to intend to break AfterEffects. They only have to intend to go onto your property (your computer) and do something that you have not authorized them to do. In this case, they intended to install the update, but you did not grant them authority to break AfterEffects. Hence, an "intentional" interference with property.
As an example, when you go to the dentist you authorize them to do a certain procedure (e.g. clean your teeth). If they, without your permission, remove a tooth then the they have stepped beyond their authority and committed a tort of trespass to the person. The dentist intended to remove your tooth, and you gave him some authority, but not the authority to remove the tooth.
In the legal context, "intentional" torts (such as trespass) tends to be the compliment to tort in negligence. Liability in negligence arises when someone does something so poorly as to warrant compensation. For example, in the dentist example, if you did authorize the dentist to remove your tooth, but he improperly used the anesthetic and caused permanent nerve damage and your teeth to fall out, you cannot say he committed a trespass on the person. Rather, as he had full authority to remove the tooth, you must pursue remedy on the grounds that he negligently performed the operation.
I hope that clarifies some.
Notwithstanding contractual consent by the person installing the program, this sounds like conversion: the unwanted and intentional interference with another's goods. In this case, a Mac owner is 1. unable to use the programs they otherwise would be able to use, having installed the upgrade to Quicktime; and 2. unable to undo the harm caused by the installation of the program without the time intensive and expensive reinstallation of the operating system.
Even though it is technically given by the click-through agreement, I believe consent is tenuous; intentionally and willfully misleading individuals about the value of the upgrade (or tying DRM to the upgrade's necessity, such as the constant bombardment of news that generates fear over security holes) undermines a person's ability to consent - there is a fundamental mistake in the formation of the contract: Quicktime upgrades should not break other software. This is especially true if you are a developer.
One would imagine some legal remedy to this. The facts as I have just read them indicate a behaviour that is grossly unfair to consumers, nigh an appalling disregard for the preferences and rights of ones' own customers.
All that being said, I'm certain this will be remedied soon, or customers will flock to alternatives (or form the incentive for others to create alternatives).
That appears to be a good thing, but I do not think it will necessarily be an easy class to certify. While each jurisdiction with class action legislation has its own version of the following, often with rather concise tests for each element, the general idea is as follows:
A court will certify a class proceeding where there is:
1. An identifiable group
2. With a cause of action that has a triable issue
3. With an appropriate class representative
4. Whom all have common issues
5. and Whose conflict is best resolved by a class action.
In this case, on 1:
Is the identifiable group people who have been sued by the RIAA? The more it is a subset of individuals who have not just been sued by the RIAA, but a subset of that group that has suffered other behaviour and that other behaviour is key to the group, the less identifiable the group is (so to speak).
On 2:
Is there a cause of action for just being sued by the RIAA? If everything that the plaintiff pleads is true, and this would not give rise to a legal judgment, then the action may be dismissed at certification. This is often just a screener to certification of frivolous claims, and some jurisdictions do not have it.
On 3:
Is this lady the best class representative? Can she fund the litigation (in part, though not to the end)? Does she have any interests averse to that of the class?
On 4:
If the case requires more details of how the RIAA treated each individual, then there's an argument that the individual issues predominate over the common ones.
The stronger the case that the RIAA bringing a suit against any individual gives rise to legal remedy,the more the RIAA had a documented pattern of behaviour, the better.
On 5:
If a class proceeding is not the "best" way to resolve a conflict, sometimes it will not be certified. Alternatives including bringing a test case, individual cases, and alternative dispute resolution.
Again, the tests vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but that's the general framework of the hurdle that the plaintiff will have to get over in order to certify her action as a class action.
Evolution is a word. It refers to an observable phenomenon, and a scientific theory based on predictable consequences (natural selection) that are consistent with our observations of the phenomenon.
All that being said, the law is expensive to enforce, and in international bargains it may be different and difficult to find justice because of issues with jurisdiction, enforcement, substantive applicable law, and expense, meaning that breaching a contract amounts to what may be seen as, and is in effect, a form of theft.
What is the light? I don't like it one bit. I'm going back into my cave. There are only shadows there, but I know the shadows. I do not know the light, and I do not like it one bit.
A standard ought to include an open reference implementation. The open implementation need not be the only implementation, but if the only reference implementation is confidential and proprietary, it's not an open standard at all.
Build a partial dyson sphere around a somewhat nearby star, even just a vast network of satellites, and use them to turn the light of the star on and off to send an unmistakable binary message.
I wonder what the reason is that, among the billions of stars we can see in the sky, we haven't observed another civilization doing this already.
Apparently it auto-submits to slashdot before it crashes.
Classy.
Wasn't the woman in charge of copyright reform in the Canadian Government and in a closet relationship with a member of the Canadian Recording Industry Association?
I can't find the reference, now, but thought it relevant. Maybe someone can find it?
I'd go with, as some of the problems in the new trilogy, off the top of my head,
1. the poor personalities and lack of audience empathy with the characters
2. the lack of a plot
3. the over-complicated and pointless background
4. the Jar-Jar binks (and his not dying),
5. the total absence of mystery (esp. about the force)
6. the absence of a jovial Yoda that tested by effect and not speech
7. the high expectations
8. the sell-out to Pepsi and superfluous advertisement of Lucasarts
9. the inconsistencies with the fundamentals of the original (to my mind)
10. the contrast with the originals
All to say, ten faults of many that massacre the stunning simplicity and beauty of the originals. A farm boy relying on his friends who turns his dad from evil and overthrows an overconfident emperor, they are not.
I worked on one of the most high performance disk access applications ever made, and the consensus among those in the know was that software RAID is faster and better than hardware RAID, unintuitive though that may be.
The notion of a dedicated RAID controller being faster is a myth. It's a 166 MHz (or whatever) dedicated processor versus a multi-processor multi-gigahertz set of CPUs?
There are many other advantages to software RAID, and virtually no disadvantages that I can think of. The business exists because it's easy to sell the idea of hardware RAID to non-techies.