let alone possible implications for combating spam, this is a good ruling for our safety. there should be some liability for someone looking to obtain information like someone's SSN. I guess if any wackjob with a grudge can buy a social security number and mom's maiden name, it's good that they hold some liability for the actions they take with that information....it still doesn't make me feel that much better that any wackjob with a grudge can buy someone's SSN, though.
a quick google search returns no fewer than 6 people with my exact first and last names. while my first name is terribly common (Jessica), my last name isn't. they're geographically all over the place, and I'm not sure any of them are actually related to me. although there is this one girl in Kentucky with my name that did used to get my Nintendo Powers back in the day:D
really, I had a point. basically that any one of these people could have gotten to my.name before me. names are a limited commodity, and for those with with accidentally common names the other TLD's are more viable choices.
it can't really teach social engineering. it's like acting or writing or any other talent: it's innate. we can all pick up a trick or two here and there, but it's not going to turn a Baldwin into a DeNiro, if you know what I mean.
what would really bother me about the loss of rights over my own work wouldn't be so much the money, but the loss of control over the work. if I wrote a book and someone wanted to make a movie based on the book without any credit or input from me, they could. that would bother me. I know the current system doesn't protect entirely against this sort of thing, but any system replacing copyrights must take that into account. not everything is about money (just most things).
wow. talk about futile causes...no one's going to defend the distinction between those who are attracted to children sexually (pedophile) and those who act on the attraction (child molester). definetly a moot point.
I wasn't sure about the Ben Hur case, so I looked it up (the article I was reading is actually the first chapter of a book called Script Girls: Women Screenwriters in Hollywood, and touches on the copyright issue very briefly). Lew Wallace, the author of Ben Hur was an American, he apparently fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. The case I mentioned is Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros (1911), and was taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was decided that current copyright laws also extended to motion pictures. here's the text of the ruling of the case.
the entertainment industry complains...
on
When Elephants Dance
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
but they did it too. I was reading an article for my silent film class at lunch today, and it described a court case where for the first time filmmakers were forced to pay an author of a book for putting it on screen (apparently a film company had made an adaptation of 'Ben Hur' without crediting or paying the author of the book). This quote from the article struck me: "There was no copyright law to protect authors and I could, and did, infringe on everything", that was Gene Gauntier, who wrote the unauthorized adaptation of Ben Hur. talk about the pot calling the kettle black in this whole distribution-of-content mess. as soon as the technology shows up, people will infringe on copyrights. it happened in 1912, and it'll happen now.
I should have said 'fight back, on your own'.
I used to think I could do this, but I slipped into the worst 4 years of my life.
for the record: Rapid Cycling Bi-Polar
thumbs up for that! my younger brother is also rapid cycling bipolar, and after I got out of the movie I thought "I hope that kid never sees this one." We've had plenty of problems getting him to take his meds, and it doesn't take much convincing to make him think he can go without them. Sure, fighting back is definetly part of it, as is taking the drugs carefully. The movie made it seem like Nash gave up on the meds and just decided to go it on his own, which just isn't practical. It's really a rather irresponsible portrayal of that facet of mental illness.
those washington post articles have been wonky lately. I'm just waiting for China's official statement on the whole situation to appear in this week's national enquirer...
maybe Oracle's ad people should take out a full-page ad in some newspapers with an open letter beginning "dear users: you could be worse off. a LOT worse off." at least the public pissing match between Oracle and Microsoft would be highly entertaining.
in the meantime, Oracle needs to smack their ad people upside their heads. *nothing* is unbreakable; that's the "Titanic lesson" that was mentioned earlier in the comments. there's always an iceberg.
laughs for days...
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 3, Funny
The Bert hidden in the poster was a covert infidel detection mechanism...anyone that saw it and started laughing is obviously a spy...
This makes me wonder if the poster-maker is related to the guy who set himself on fire while burning the American flag.
To be frank, I'd rather die of second hand smoke than in a collapsing building due to a terrorist attack. No one's seriously proposing outlawing privacy outright, and if they are, they'll rethink it when the possibility of an intercepted phone call being leaked to the press arises. (No politician wants to be the next Gary Condit.)
(810) is a metro Detroit area code. Unless her husband had one hell of a commute to Colorado or she moved, that's just a random number. Besides, even if that is her real phone number, why flood her with calls? Do you really think what we have to say defending the FPS genre will make any difference? Besides, grieving family members sometimes have a need to do *something*, anything to try and stop a death like that from happening again. This reminds me of the mother who sued the creators of South Park and Comedy Central after her child committed suicide, saying Kenny's deaths made him think he would come back to life. The suit was absurd and was eventually dismissed (as I hope this one will be...the least of its effects if they win will be a horrid precedent), but the mother's email address was posted on a South Park fansite and she recieved a lot of irate (and quite a few intelligent, well thought out) replies. Her response was that she needed to do something to kind of "avenge" the death of her child. She did it in a misguided way (IMO she and everyone else would have been better served if she had put her efforts into getting childhood depression recognized), but she felt she needed to do something. I think this case is being brought to court for many of the same reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
let alone possible implications for combating spam, this is a good ruling for our safety. there should be some liability for someone looking to obtain information like someone's SSN. I guess if any wackjob with a grudge can buy a social security number and mom's maiden name, it's good that they hold some liability for the actions they take with that information. ...it still doesn't make me feel that much better that any wackjob with a grudge can buy someone's SSN, though.
a quick google search returns no fewer than 6 people with my exact first and last names. while my first name is terribly common (Jessica), my last name isn't. they're geographically all over the place, and I'm not sure any of them are actually related to me. although there is this one girl in Kentucky with my name that did used to get my Nintendo Powers back in the day :D
.name before me. names are a limited commodity, and for those with with accidentally common names the other TLD's are more viable choices.
really, I had a point. basically that any one of these people could have gotten to my
of course, it really doesn't matter how many ST fans beget little Trekkers if the new stuff coming out sucks
it can't really teach social engineering. it's like acting or writing or any other talent: it's innate. we can all pick up a trick or two here and there, but it's not going to turn a Baldwin into a DeNiro, if you know what I mean.
what, really? I go to Michigan State and have never heard this.
what would really bother me about the loss of rights over my own work wouldn't be so much the money, but the loss of control over the work. if I wrote a book and someone wanted to make a movie based on the book without any credit or input from me, they could. that would bother me. I know the current system doesn't protect entirely against this sort of thing, but any system replacing copyrights must take that into account. not everything is about money (just most things).
werd.
wow. talk about futile causes...no one's going to defend the distinction between those who are attracted to children sexually (pedophile) and those who act on the attraction (child molester). definetly a moot point.
Crack(TM). it's what's for dinner.
I wasn't sure about the Ben Hur case, so I looked it up (the article I was reading is actually the first chapter of a book called Script Girls: Women Screenwriters in Hollywood, and touches on the copyright issue very briefly). Lew Wallace, the author of Ben Hur was an American, he apparently fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. The case I mentioned is Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros (1911), and was taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was decided that current copyright laws also extended to motion pictures. here's the text of the ruling of the case.
but they did it too. I was reading an article for my silent film class at lunch today, and it described a court case where for the first time filmmakers were forced to pay an author of a book for putting it on screen (apparently a film company had made an adaptation of 'Ben Hur' without crediting or paying the author of the book). This quote from the article struck me: "There was no copyright law to protect authors and I could, and did, infringe on everything", that was Gene Gauntier, who wrote the unauthorized adaptation of Ben Hur. talk about the pot calling the kettle black in this whole distribution-of-content mess. as soon as the technology shows up, people will infringe on copyrights. it happened in 1912, and it'll happen now.
thumbs up for that! my younger brother is also rapid cycling bipolar, and after I got out of the movie I thought "I hope that kid never sees this one." We've had plenty of problems getting him to take his meds, and it doesn't take much convincing to make him think he can go without them. Sure, fighting back is definetly part of it, as is taking the drugs carefully. The movie made it seem like Nash gave up on the meds and just decided to go it on his own, which just isn't practical. It's really a rather irresponsible portrayal of that facet of mental illness.
Girl geeks.
We just don't like other women
we don't? crap. so I guess I'm a lousy girl geek. such is life.
those washington post articles have been wonky lately. I'm just waiting for China's official statement on the whole situation to appear in this week's national enquirer...
maybe Oracle's ad people should take out a full-page ad in some newspapers with an open letter beginning "dear users: you could be worse off. a LOT worse off." at least the public pissing match between Oracle and Microsoft would be highly entertaining.
in the meantime, Oracle needs to smack their ad people upside their heads. *nothing* is unbreakable; that's the "Titanic lesson" that was mentioned earlier in the comments. there's always an iceberg.
The Bert hidden in the poster was a covert infidel detection mechanism...anyone that saw it and started laughing is obviously a spy...
This makes me wonder if the poster-maker is related to the guy who set himself on fire while burning the American flag.
To be frank, I'd rather die of second hand smoke than in a collapsing building due to a terrorist attack. No one's seriously proposing outlawing privacy outright, and if they are, they'll rethink it when the possibility of an intercepted phone call being leaked to the press arises. (No politician wants to be the next Gary Condit.)
(810) is a metro Detroit area code. Unless her husband had one hell of a commute to Colorado or she moved, that's just a random number. Besides, even if that is her real phone number, why flood her with calls? Do you really think what we have to say defending the FPS genre will make any difference? Besides, grieving family members sometimes have a need to do *something*, anything to try and stop a death like that from happening again. This reminds me of the mother who sued the creators of South Park and Comedy Central after her child committed suicide, saying Kenny's deaths made him think he would come back to life. The suit was absurd and was eventually dismissed (as I hope this one will be...the least of its effects if they win will be a horrid precedent), but the mother's email address was posted on a South Park fansite and she recieved a lot of irate (and quite a few intelligent, well thought out) replies. Her response was that she needed to do something to kind of "avenge" the death of her child. She did it in a misguided way (IMO she and everyone else would have been better served if she had put her efforts into getting childhood depression recognized), but she felt she needed to do something. I think this case is being brought to court for many of the same reasons.