Of course, the obvious solution is that since they are asking for the documents as they exist in memory, (and no more can be asked to be prepared), they could pull an IBM and hand the court raw core dumps of the whole server taken once every second or as quickly as technically feasible.
Maybe IBM has a fast printer they could lend them so that they can supply the contents of the memory neatly printed (in hex or binary) on fanfold paper.
You hit the nail on the head. As another poster noted, you can't stop this sort of thing. If you have x million guns in circulation and population/y disafffected people, it's going to happen.
It might also help to get rid of so called "gun free zones". These seem to act as a magnet for such shootings, since the shooter knows he or she is virtually certain to face only unarmed potential victims.
What this is instad is the government spotting an opportunity to shove through some more legislation that at any other time would be unpalatable but can be got through on a tide of 'we must do something!' sentiment from Joe Public.
Typically legislation which would have made little difference to whatever the excuse is.
I suggest everyone watches the 3 parter BBC program 'The Power of Nightmares' which while primarily about the West's handling of the rise of Islamic Fundementalism,
As well as the rise of the Neo-Cons and their belief in conspiracy theories (which turned out to be CIA propaganda).
it does show clearly how the governments around the world manipulate public opinion in an alarming way to get to an endpoint they desire.
One problem is that often things like terrorism don't hurt those in charge. You'd need a rule like "if a terrorist incident happens the government official responsible for preventing terrorism is considered to have resigned, together with any applicable chiefs of police".
Those are animals. I am omnivore. Conclusion : bring me the salt, this meat need a bit more taste. Now with a bit more honesty there is also a cultural and taste effect. Rabbit are pet to some people same for horse. I consider both being food.
"Giant rabbits" were originally bred for meat, though some people consider them pets. Similarly cavies are food animals in South America but often kept as pets elsewhere. Pidgeons can also be considered pets, pets or food.
Same for dog. I would have far more difficulty to eat cat, but for the rest.... Please also realize that you thougth to be clever with the dog/cat mention, but you have to understand that even if in some culture those are called pet, in some other culture they might be called food.
IIRC native Australians consider feral cats to be food.
Yes if I am hungry enough (read : starving on the verge of death) then I would eat human meat. I would rather become cannibal than die. Cannibalism might be only for a short period up to the point where I am not in such dire situation anymore. DEATH is for ever.
There is the case of the plane crash survivors which was made into a movie...
Maybe they can't recognize siblings at all. Maybe the genetics are close enough so that the plant can not distinguish its own root from that of its siblings.
Maybe they need to test what happens with genetically identical plants. Many plants propergate asexually and many more can be persuaded to do so by human intervention.
A3. You can do this in any case -- except (maybe, IIRC) if you are distributing your code under the GPL/LGPL.
You can obfuscate any code you writing, regardless of what licence(s) you use for distribution. N.B. Obscucation is likely to make your code much more difficult to debug. The only difference with GPL is that someone else can unofuscate it and distribute that version.
The solution then might be to read each car's odometer periodically and compute a tax based on the miles driven adjusted for the weight of the vehicle. A heavier SUV wears the roads more than a Honda Insight
It's also simpler than GPS ideas and dosn't have the problem of being usable as a tracking system. In plenty of places cars need an annual inspection to check if they are roadworthy already.
So imagine you're a long-haul trucker, traveling thousands of miles on one trip. What do you do? You buy fuel where's cheap, filling both 100-gallon tanks to the top. IOW, you don't buy gas in states where it's expensive, you just drive straight through. What does the state of NC call this? Yep, you guessed it: "fuel tax evasion!" That's right. They even have checkpoints set up on the highways to measure the amount of fuel in a big rig's tanks and THEY FINE THE TRUCKER FOR THE TAXES HE WOULD HAVE PAID if he were stupid enough to buy NC's overpriced fuel
How far will 200 gallons of fuel take you in the average truck in the first place? Also why should truckers want fuel unless their tanks are nearly empty...
There is a system in place, according to TFA. It just costs an unreasonable amount ($2500).
The system which is in place appears to be geared more to businesses selling fuel than individuals. Though it dosn't seem too hard for supermarkets to display two prices on vegetable oil...
Um, so how is a person who runs a flea market booth supposed to tell the difference?
This is retaliation on the flea market booth owner for selling second hand CD-ROMs.
Or possibly "grey imports"...
I suspect they can claim any CD is fake, especially if the same CD creation machines are used by "pirates" and the RIAA sponsor companies.
Which is the easiest way to "pirate" CDs (and DVDs) if you are a major league pirate. No issues with copy protection and all you need do is pay the factory a similar amount of money that they gey paid for "legitimate copies". Manufacturing and transport costs are a small fraction of the final sale price.
So it's wrong for the police to bust people who are counterfeiting AND selling CD's for a profit?
Assuming these people actually are police. By the sound of things the RIAA are trying to impersonate police offices, whilst staying just within the letter of the law.
I don't think many people know that its a canary with a machine gun. And i'm not sure i want that many people knocked off the internet in one swell foop
But would it consider "a canary with a Kalashnikov" to be a valid answer? The problem with word games is that they can have more than one "correct" answer.
I'll also point out that history (some of it very near) is full of manipulation and selective confirmation. And often you just need to choose whose side propaganda you want to listen to.
E.g., if you would have asked German prisoners in '39, they would have told you that they're just fighting against the Polish aggressors. (The Third Reich propaganda massively broadcast news of the polish "aggression" and Germany just protecting its borders.)
It's even closer than that people are being jailed right now for questioning parts of "accepted history" surrounding what actually happened in WWII.
Many of us carry tiny mobile phones that are capable of better quality video. Why is the image data and video data returned by these probes so poor?
There are several reasons. The camera has to be capable of surviving in deep space, the bandwidth is limited, the light level isn't that good and the probe takes several years to get to Jupiter.
In my professional opinion (I.E. 20 minutes in front of Wikipedia on the subject), if you're an Australian, and the MAFIAA demands to see you in court, send them a "gift basket" of some of your local flora and fauna, wink wink, nudge nudge. Maybe a couple of scorpions, a rabid koala bear, and a few dozen blue mountain spiders.
You missed out snakes, Australia has plenty of those. Just toss a few rabbits in to ensure they don't go hungry on the journey.
Not that it matters; the GPL doesn't obligate or restrict you if you don't take advantage of its extra permissions.
It matters because the GPL is not an EULA, it is actually something completly different. With this kind of thing confusing people into thinking that it might be.
Actually I had the understanding that a lot of installer makers force you to have an EULA, so they just put the GPL in them trying to be cutesy.
You mean more clueless. Anyway even if they can't disable that part of the installer what's wrong with "There is no EULA for this software, but the installer can't cope with that, sorry."
GPL v3 appears to disallow the possibility of the developer keeping their own changes to the code private and closed source.
AFAIK V3 dosn't require you to publish your changes any more than V2. All you'd have to do is not distribute the modified version to any third parties.
While this may not pose any problem in a world where developers are paid by the state the way ancient philosophers were given food and shelter so they could think all day long, it's not something most businesses want to touch.
That analogy dosn't really hold. Since for most businesses software is a tool. If anything it's the proprietary software idea which makes little sense.
Because as a developer we can always choose. GPL2, 3, BSD, Mozilla, MIT whatever we want. We are the ones in control. It's the users that can get annoyed when a package they could normally use can't after a license shift.
Except that either version of the GPL is utterly irrelevent to users in the first place. These are not EULA and thus only apply where copyright law requires permission to be given by the copyright holder. Thus it is distributers who may be affected by such changes.
The only way to "protect" our kids is to educate them on the real dangers.
Thing is that these real dangers include "leaders" who have no life outside of politics. A simple metric would be "if it's newsworthy it's unusual" too.
Waiting until they are 18 so they can be allowed to access the web as they want to is a mistake.
On the other hand making 21 the minimum age of driving might not be a bad idea. Cars being many more orders of magnitude more dangerous than computers.
Filtering of the internet, other than porn sites, at school is also a mistake. Let them surf away, but put consequences in place when they mess up.
Though a lot of fuss is made about porn there are other far more troublesome issues, such as bandwidth and disk space hogging games and similar junk.
By the way : Funny. A company can demand all sorts of rights when they sell you a product, but a customer can do no such thing when he buys it.
"You cannot guarantee that this product is fit to actually do what you advertised it for ? Well, I can't guarantee that that money you got from me is actually fit to be used either":-)
Depends where you are in the world. There are plenty of places where goods must be "as described". With an advertisment (even a salesman's comment, if documented/witnessed) being legally considered part of that description.
It appears to me that the researchers are claiming that if privacy information was made more prominent and easily digestible (as it was in their experiment), people would pay more for privacy.
Rather they might pay more for some text on a website saying or not saying certain things... You'd need to carry out more research to see what a company's actual policy on privacy was.
The whole point of incorporation is to shield the owners and the management from legal liability.
Actually the original idea behind a Limited Liability Corporation was only to shield the owners from creditors if the business failed. Their liability being limited to the amount they had invested, worst case senario being that they ended up with a worthless piece of paper. The idea of this protecting the executive is rather more recent.
In most of Europe, companies are bound by laws implementing the EU's Data Protection Directive, which makes it clear that your data is not just another asset of the company which collects it, and that companies can only process it for the purposes for which you gave them the data.
The point is that the data "belongs" to the customer.
In the US, companies howl with outrage at the prospect that they should treat their customers with similar fairness.
The US Government is doing more than "howling" when it comes to this. With their demanding that airlines supply information on passengers travelling to the US.
If copyright law was equally usable by both individuals and corporations then there wouldn't be an issue. Since any company passing on their customer's details would find themselves up of charges of copyright infringement. Which is if anything more draconian in the US than any "data protection" law in the EU.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the obvious solution is that since they are asking for the documents as they exist in memory, (and no more can be asked to be prepared), they could pull an IBM and hand the court raw core dumps of the whole server taken once every second or as quickly as technically feasible.
Maybe IBM has a fast printer they could lend them so that they can supply the contents of the memory neatly printed (in hex or binary) on fanfold paper.
You hit the nail on the head. As another poster noted, you can't stop this sort of thing. If you have x million guns in circulation and population/y disafffected people, it's going to happen.
It might also help to get rid of so called "gun free zones". These seem to act as a magnet for such shootings, since the shooter knows he or she is virtually certain to face only unarmed potential victims.
What this is instad is the government spotting an opportunity to shove through some more legislation that at any other time would be unpalatable but can be got through on a tide of 'we must do something!' sentiment from Joe Public.
Typically legislation which would have made little difference to whatever the excuse is.
I suggest everyone watches the 3 parter BBC program 'The Power of Nightmares' which while primarily about the West's handling of the rise of Islamic Fundementalism,
As well as the rise of the Neo-Cons and their belief in conspiracy theories (which turned out to be CIA propaganda).
it does show clearly how the governments around the world manipulate public opinion in an alarming way to get to an endpoint they desire.
One problem is that often things like terrorism don't hurt those in charge. You'd need a rule like "if a terrorist incident happens the government official responsible for preventing terrorism is considered to have resigned, together with any applicable chiefs of police".
A vegetarian requires only 1/20th of the land space of a meat eater to feed themselves.
But that is likely to be intensivly farmed land, as opposed to land with only needs to grow grass.
5Kg of beef requires the same amount of water to raise as the average family uses in a year.
Are you sure this isn't dairy cattle...
Those are animals. I am omnivore. Conclusion : bring me the salt, this meat need a bit more taste. Now with a bit more honesty there is also a cultural and taste effect. Rabbit are pet to some people same for horse. I consider both being food.
"Giant rabbits" were originally bred for meat, though some people consider them pets. Similarly cavies are food animals in South America but often kept as pets elsewhere. Pidgeons can also be considered pets, pets or food.
Same for dog. I would have far more difficulty to eat cat, but for the rest.... Please also realize that you thougth to be clever with the dog/cat mention, but you have to understand that even if in some culture those are called pet, in some other culture they might be called food.
IIRC native Australians consider feral cats to be food.
Yes if I am hungry enough (read : starving on the verge of death) then I would eat human meat. I would rather become cannibal than die. Cannibalism might be only for a short period up to the point where I am not in such dire situation anymore. DEATH is for ever.
There is the case of the plane crash survivors which was made into a movie...
Maybe they can't recognize siblings at all. Maybe the genetics are close enough so that the plant can not distinguish its own root from that of its siblings.
Maybe they need to test what happens with genetically identical plants. Many plants propergate asexually and many more can be persuaded to do so by human intervention.
A3. You can do this in any case -- except (maybe, IIRC) if you are distributing your code under the GPL/LGPL.
You can obfuscate any code you writing, regardless of what licence(s) you use for distribution. N.B. Obscucation is likely to make your code much more difficult to debug. The only difference with GPL is that someone else can unofuscate it and distribute that version.
The solution then might be to read each car's odometer periodically and compute a tax based on the miles driven adjusted for the weight of the vehicle. A heavier SUV wears the roads more than a Honda Insight
It's also simpler than GPS ideas and dosn't have the problem of being usable as a tracking system. In plenty of places cars need an annual inspection to check if they are roadworthy already.
So imagine you're a long-haul trucker, traveling thousands of miles on one trip. What do you do? You buy fuel where's cheap, filling both 100-gallon tanks to the top. IOW, you don't buy gas in states where it's expensive, you just drive straight through. What does the state of NC call this? Yep, you guessed it: "fuel tax evasion!" That's right. They even have checkpoints set up on the highways to measure the amount of fuel in a big rig's tanks and THEY FINE THE TRUCKER FOR THE TAXES HE WOULD HAVE PAID if he were stupid enough to buy NC's overpriced fuel
How far will 200 gallons of fuel take you in the average truck in the first place? Also why should truckers want fuel unless their tanks are nearly empty...
There is a system in place, according to TFA. It just costs an unreasonable amount ($2500).
The system which is in place appears to be geared more to businesses selling fuel than individuals. Though it dosn't seem too hard for supermarkets to display two prices on vegetable oil...
Um, so how is a person who runs a flea market booth supposed to tell the difference? This is retaliation on the flea market booth owner for selling second hand CD-ROMs.
Or possibly "grey imports"...
I suspect they can claim any CD is fake, especially if the same CD creation machines are used by "pirates" and the RIAA sponsor companies.
Which is the easiest way to "pirate" CDs (and DVDs) if you are a major league pirate. No issues with copy protection and all you need do is pay the factory a similar amount of money that they gey paid for "legitimate copies". Manufacturing and transport costs are a small fraction of the final sale price.
So it's wrong for the police to bust people who are counterfeiting AND selling CD's for a profit?
Assuming these people actually are police. By the sound of things the RIAA are trying to impersonate police offices, whilst staying just within the letter of the law.
I don't think many people know that its a canary with a machine gun. And i'm not sure i want that many people knocked off the internet in one swell foop
But would it consider "a canary with a Kalashnikov" to be a valid answer? The problem with word games is that they can have more than one "correct" answer.
I'll also point out that history (some of it very near) is full of manipulation and selective confirmation. And often you just need to choose whose side propaganda you want to listen to.
E.g., if you would have asked German prisoners in '39, they would have told you that they're just fighting against the Polish aggressors. (The Third Reich propaganda massively broadcast news of the polish "aggression" and Germany just protecting its borders.)
It's even closer than that people are being jailed right now for questioning parts of "accepted history" surrounding what actually happened in WWII.
Many of us carry tiny mobile phones that are capable of better quality video. Why is the image data and video data returned by these probes so poor?
There are several reasons. The camera has to be capable of surviving in deep space, the bandwidth is limited, the light level isn't that good and the probe takes several years to get to Jupiter.
In my professional opinion (I.E. 20 minutes in front of Wikipedia on the subject), if you're an Australian, and the MAFIAA demands to see you in court, send them a "gift basket" of some of your local flora and fauna, wink wink, nudge nudge. Maybe a couple of scorpions, a rabid koala bear, and a few dozen blue mountain spiders.
You missed out snakes, Australia has plenty of those. Just toss a few rabbits in to ensure they don't go hungry on the journey.
Not that it matters; the GPL doesn't obligate or restrict you if you don't take advantage of its extra permissions.
It matters because the GPL is not an EULA, it is actually something completly different. With this kind of thing confusing people into thinking that it might be.
Actually I had the understanding that a lot of installer makers force you to have an EULA, so they just put the GPL in them trying to be cutesy.
You mean more clueless. Anyway even if they can't disable that part of the installer what's wrong with "There is no EULA for this software, but the installer can't cope with that, sorry."
GPL v3 appears to disallow the possibility of the developer keeping their own changes to the code private and closed source.
AFAIK V3 dosn't require you to publish your changes any more than V2. All you'd have to do is not distribute the modified version to any third parties.
While this may not pose any problem in a world where developers are paid by the state the way ancient philosophers were given food and shelter so they could think all day long, it's not something most businesses want to touch.
That analogy dosn't really hold. Since for most businesses software is a tool. If anything it's the proprietary software idea which makes little sense.
Because as a developer we can always choose. GPL2, 3, BSD, Mozilla, MIT whatever we want. We are the ones in control. It's the users that can get annoyed when a package they could normally use can't after a license shift.
Except that either version of the GPL is utterly irrelevent to users in the first place. These are not EULA and thus only apply where copyright law requires permission to be given by the copyright holder. Thus it is distributers who may be affected by such changes.
The only way to "protect" our kids is to educate them on the real dangers.
Thing is that these real dangers include "leaders" who have no life outside of politics. A simple metric would be "if it's newsworthy it's unusual" too.
Waiting until they are 18 so they can be allowed to access the web as they want to is a mistake.
On the other hand making 21 the minimum age of driving might not be a bad idea. Cars being many more orders of magnitude more dangerous than computers.
Filtering of the internet, other than porn sites, at school is also a mistake. Let them surf away, but put consequences in place when they mess up.
Though a lot of fuss is made about porn there are other far more troublesome issues, such as bandwidth and disk space hogging games and similar junk.
By the way : Funny. A company can demand all sorts of rights when they sell you a product, but a customer can do no such thing when he buys it. :-)
"You cannot guarantee that this product is fit to actually do what you advertised it for ? Well, I can't guarantee that that money you got from me is actually fit to be used either"
Depends where you are in the world. There are plenty of places where goods must be "as described". With an advertisment (even a salesman's comment, if documented/witnessed) being legally considered part of that description.
The cynical side of me envisions some PHB calculating the maximum they can get from selling customer data, and whether this exceeds 4%.
If you were really cynical you'd consider that they could both charge and extra 4% and sell the data...
It appears to me that the researchers are claiming that if privacy information was made more prominent and easily digestible (as it was in their experiment), people would pay more for privacy.
Rather they might pay more for some text on a website saying or not saying certain things... You'd need to carry out more research to see what a company's actual policy on privacy was.
The whole point of incorporation is to shield the owners and the management from legal liability.
Actually the original idea behind a Limited Liability Corporation was only to shield the owners from creditors if the business failed. Their liability being limited to the amount they had invested, worst case senario being that they ended up with a worthless piece of paper.
The idea of this protecting the executive is rather more recent.
In most of Europe, companies are bound by laws implementing the EU's Data Protection Directive, which makes it clear that your data is not just another asset of the company which collects it, and that companies can only process it for the purposes for which you gave them the data.
The point is that the data "belongs" to the customer.
In the US, companies howl with outrage at the prospect that they should treat their customers with similar fairness.
The US Government is doing more than "howling" when it comes to this. With their demanding that airlines supply information on passengers travelling to the US.
If copyright law was equally usable by both individuals and corporations then there wouldn't be an issue. Since any company passing on their customer's details would find themselves up of charges of copyright infringement. Which is if anything more draconian in the US than any "data protection" law in the EU.