Yup, those are the ones. If Federal copyright law is going to assert that you have a right to repair then doesn't that supersede those agreements?
From the first one you linked:
The agreement will not allow farmers to buy repair parts, break firmware DRM, or otherwise alter software for the purposes of repair.
Although it's weird how TFA says:
Previously, it was legal to hack tractor firmware for the purposes of repair;
And if the original specifications include a bug in the software, isn't fixing it an upgrade?
A bug in the software isn't fundamental to the advertised value of the good. A tractor isn't advertised as, "60 HP diesel with bugs in the onboard software!".
Wasn't there an article about right to repair laws in California that passed recently but were pretty pathetic and written in favor of manufacturers? Is that whole issue moot now?
Amazon shows up on the scene selling nothing but books and many brick and mortar book business struggle to compete. Next, Amazon moves into almost all other types of consumer goods and more brick and mortar stores struggle to compete including some big ones. Now, Amazon is moving more and more towards a brick and mortar presence. The next step is going to be something ridiculous and hilarious, like, they buy up all of the closed Toy R' Us' out there and establish an immediate presence in all 50 states and in some sort of queer circular loop of cosmic irony, all the Prime members start driving to that store to buy shit because it beats waiting one or two days to get it shipped.
Seems like every time I see the Senate doing something rational regarding tech, the internet, net neutrality, etc., Ron Wyden is involved or leading the charge. I appreciate his track record on this kind of thing. I think he should be honored as a defacto Slashdotter.
The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[25][26] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘...none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" – in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.[27]
Not sure if you're trolling, unaware or making some sort of pedantic argument. Key stretching and adaptive hashing are considered best practice and here's a couple references to read up on including some from TFA. These solutions will partially mitigate the impact of weak passwords.
It's weird, I mean, it's like 3 lines of C# (and probably many other languages) to convert a string to a secure Pbkdf2 hash. Add some bounds checking and other DB nonsense (for a whole separate DB column for the password parts presumably?) and their approach is even more complex to implement. I'm sure someone could do it all in one line, the point is it's not hard to do it right, it's not like they saved hundreds of man-hours. It's like no one even cared.
To be clear, buying or owning bitcoins doesn't require you to possess the entire blockchain, right? You only have a key to a wallet so the hundreds of millions of people involved in bitcoin probably aren't affected although the various miners and ledger guys (I don't know the terms) are the only ones who should be worried.
p.s. I don't own any bitcoins so please correct me
Parent censored by the very people who claim to vehemently support free speech, because they found the content disagreeable. An act as telling as expected.
Morons, have you ever heard of an "own goal"?
1) Anyone who has posted in this thread is unable to moderate so your assertion that Parent was "censored by the very people who claim to vehemently support free speech" can't be entirely true.
2) You assume the motivation for the moderation is opinionated and not based on some other criteria (e.g. unnecessary personal attacks during civil discourse)
3) You use similar name-calling, unfortunately debasing an otherwise potentially meaningful argument.
4) Slashdot.org did not delete the post or take any automated or official action, rather, a random selection of Parent's peers "down voted" the post. Likewise, down votes of videos on YouTube does not constitute censoring by YouTube. While institutions such as the Federal Government and YouTube should not be in the business of deciding what is appropriate speech, ones peers are allowed to pass judgement.
It is unfortunate that you and Parent were not able to frame your arguments in a more civil manner as they would have been interesting points to discuss.
And yet, you should never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
You're right, don't argue with an idiot, but in this case we're not talking about arguing with the one in the pulpit, we're trying to educate his followers (the viewers on YouTube) and I think that's different in a very meaningful way.
Lauren's supposition that Wikipedia information will simply be ignored and that Youtube should simply censor the videos is based on a dodgy notion that censoring speech we don't like is somehow better than combating it with truths. Yes, they may ignore Wikipedia but not all of them. It may take longer but it's the more righteous path than censoring.
imho
Somehow the rationalization that the internet is simultaneously a vital interstate service that precludes state regulation and a purely market driven business seems like a big business wet dream.
States can regulate and tax most businesses but not *this* business because it's special for "reasons".
Theoretically you could hash files using FileAPI in modern browsers. Alternatively, an offline tool could be used to index your photos on your computer. Both of those scenarios would likely not be accessible via mobile devices although there's nothing preventing the development of a dedicated mobile app that does all of this locally on the device. Open source it so it can audited.
I'm not certain what the exposure is with this approach, in theory someone could abuse the process to claim hashes for other peoples images but I don't think there's any more risk of that with a local process than an online process. Regardless, the idea that you would upload nude images to a third party service like this seems ridiculous. Also, one seventeen year old does it and suddenly the service is in possession of child porn, it's nuts.
and not because we want to shave the whales. It's a regressive tax. Oregon needed more money and they couldn't get it from the rich in the form of income tax so they're getting it from the poor by taxing bikes. The $200 limit is obviously an attempt to blunt the worst effects on the poor (you can get a decent used commuter for under that) but it'll still hurt some.
The left want progressive taxation. This is regressive.
Oregon has one of the most regressive state income taxes in the country so I don't disagree with your feelings on the matter. That said, this tax shouldn't affect the used-bike market? In fact, buying a used bike is the best way to avoid the tax altogether, no?
I think it is a dumb idea to punish folks for buying environmentally means of transportation that also improve personal health, but as long as it really is spent Dollar for Dollar on bike projects it is acceptable. We will see, if the money ends up in the general fund it is more likely to be spent on golf courses for rich people driving around in BMW cabrios.
Here's another way to look at it, the tax is an incentive to buying a used bike (only new purchases are taxed, right?). Buying used is typically more green than buying new (why manufacture a new bike when an old one is just as good?) so a truly environmentally conscious buyer shouldn't be negatively impacted at all!
(strained logic that legislators wouldn't have been clever enough to employ but it is kind of true)
You raise an interesting point regarding sales taxes but there's an important nuance you've left out. If an Oregonian buys a $200 bicycle, they paid around $19.80 in state income taxes on that $200 that Washington residents didn't have to pay. In other words, it takes about $220 of pre-state-tax income to buy a $200 bicycle, WA residents come out $3 ahead.
If you bought a million bicycles, that'd be $3M of taxation, it adds up fast!
Given the aforementioned lack of standardization in clothing size means you have to order extras. A few t-shirts, a few button-up shirts, a few shorts and a couple pants for the new summer season. Keep the two or three that actually fit and are pleasing and return the rest. This is common practice when purchasing clothing online which is why you see a $100 Billion dollar company catering to that shopping model.
Can identify which mental illness is suggested by this behavior and why Amazon is coddling these mentally ill individuals?
Slashdot Mirror
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Yup, those are the ones. If Federal copyright law is going to assert that you have a right to repair then doesn't that supersede those agreements? From the first one you linked:
The agreement will not allow farmers to buy repair parts, break firmware DRM, or otherwise alter software for the purposes of repair.
Although it's weird how TFA says:
Previously, it was legal to hack tractor firmware for the purposes of repair;
When the linked articles above suggest otherwise.
Notice the phrase "original specifications".
And if the original specifications include a bug in the software, isn't fixing it an upgrade?
A bug in the software isn't fundamental to the advertised value of the good. A tractor isn't advertised as, "60 HP diesel with bugs in the onboard software!".
Wasn't there an article about right to repair laws in California that passed recently but were pretty pathetic and written in favor of manufacturers? Is that whole issue moot now?
Amazon shows up on the scene selling nothing but books and many brick and mortar book business struggle to compete. Next, Amazon moves into almost all other types of consumer goods and more brick and mortar stores struggle to compete including some big ones. Now, Amazon is moving more and more towards a brick and mortar presence. The next step is going to be something ridiculous and hilarious, like, they buy up all of the closed Toy R' Us' out there and establish an immediate presence in all 50 states and in some sort of queer circular loop of cosmic irony, all the Prime members start driving to that store to buy shit because it beats waiting one or two days to get it shipped.
Seems like every time I see the Senate doing something rational regarding tech, the internet, net neutrality, etc., Ron Wyden is involved or leading the charge. I appreciate his track record on this kind of thing. I think he should be honored as a defacto Slashdotter.
Now we get to see stupid articles about the Apple v Motorola lawsuit for the next 5 years.. uggghhh
The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[25][26] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘...none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" – in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If anyone wants more information on the case he's citing, it's well documented on wikipedia.
Let's fire the guy that can live a thousand lifetimes with the money he's got, that'll show'em! Congrats to Zuckerberg for taking one for the team.
It should require more than a trite mea culpa and a retirement of decadence and luxury to get the heat off them.
Quick bit of research suggests it breaks down into terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. http://science.sciencemag.org/.... The former is a precursor to the production of fresh PET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So what?
Not sure if you're trolling, unaware or making some sort of pedantic argument. Key stretching and adaptive hashing are considered best practice and here's a couple references to read up on including some from TFA. These solutions will partially mitigate the impact of weak passwords.
http://plaintextoffenders.com/...
https://codahale.com/how-to-sa...
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...
Well in this case Pbkdf2 would provide at least 10,000 to 50,000 times more protection than their approach for the same password.
It's weird, I mean, it's like 3 lines of C# (and probably many other languages) to convert a string to a secure Pbkdf2 hash. Add some bounds checking and other DB nonsense (for a whole separate DB column for the password parts presumably?) and their approach is even more complex to implement. I'm sure someone could do it all in one line, the point is it's not hard to do it right, it's not like they saved hundreds of man-hours. It's like no one even cared.
To be clear, buying or owning bitcoins doesn't require you to possess the entire blockchain, right? You only have a key to a wallet so the hundreds of millions of people involved in bitcoin probably aren't affected although the various miners and ledger guys (I don't know the terms) are the only ones who should be worried.
p.s. I don't own any bitcoins so please correct me
Parent censored by the very people who claim to vehemently support free speech, because they found the content disagreeable. An act as telling as expected.
Morons, have you ever heard of an "own goal"?
1) Anyone who has posted in this thread is unable to moderate so your assertion that Parent was "censored by the very people who claim to vehemently support free speech" can't be entirely true.
2) You assume the motivation for the moderation is opinionated and not based on some other criteria (e.g. unnecessary personal attacks during civil discourse)
3) You use similar name-calling, unfortunately debasing an otherwise potentially meaningful argument.
4) Slashdot.org did not delete the post or take any automated or official action, rather, a random selection of Parent's peers "down voted" the post. Likewise, down votes of videos on YouTube does not constitute censoring by YouTube. While institutions such as the Federal Government and YouTube should not be in the business of deciding what is appropriate speech, ones peers are allowed to pass judgement.
It is unfortunate that you and Parent were not able to frame your arguments in a more civil manner as they would have been interesting points to discuss.
And yet, you should never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
You're right, don't argue with an idiot, but in this case we're not talking about arguing with the one in the pulpit, we're trying to educate his followers (the viewers on YouTube) and I think that's different in a very meaningful way.
Lauren's supposition that Wikipedia information will simply be ignored and that Youtube should simply censor the videos is based on a dodgy notion that censoring speech we don't like is somehow better than combating it with truths. Yes, they may ignore Wikipedia but not all of them. It may take longer but it's the more righteous path than censoring. imho
The RI lawmakers are Idiots.
After all this time, the extraterrestrial life that we found ended up being a proverbial bug on the windshield of the ISS?
Somehow the rationalization that the internet is simultaneously a vital interstate service that precludes state regulation and a purely market driven business seems like a big business wet dream.
States can regulate and tax most businesses but not *this* business because it's special for "reasons".
Exactly how did Kapersky Lab determine this?
By siphoning all the files off his computer, DUH
Theoretically you could hash files using FileAPI in modern browsers. Alternatively, an offline tool could be used to index your photos on your computer. Both of those scenarios would likely not be accessible via mobile devices although there's nothing preventing the development of a dedicated mobile app that does all of this locally on the device. Open source it so it can audited.
I'm not certain what the exposure is with this approach, in theory someone could abuse the process to claim hashes for other peoples images but I don't think there's any more risk of that with a local process than an online process. Regardless, the idea that you would upload nude images to a third party service like this seems ridiculous. Also, one seventeen year old does it and suddenly the service is in possession of child porn, it's nuts.
and not because we want to shave the whales. It's a regressive tax. Oregon needed more money and they couldn't get it from the rich in the form of income tax so they're getting it from the poor by taxing bikes. The $200 limit is obviously an attempt to blunt the worst effects on the poor (you can get a decent used commuter for under that) but it'll still hurt some. The left want progressive taxation. This is regressive.
Oregon has one of the most regressive state income taxes in the country so I don't disagree with your feelings on the matter. That said, this tax shouldn't affect the used-bike market? In fact, buying a used bike is the best way to avoid the tax altogether, no?
I think it is a dumb idea to punish folks for buying environmentally means of transportation that also improve personal health, but as long as it really is spent Dollar for Dollar on bike projects it is acceptable. We will see, if the money ends up in the general fund it is more likely to be spent on golf courses for rich people driving around in BMW cabrios.
Here's another way to look at it, the tax is an incentive to buying a used bike (only new purchases are taxed, right?). Buying used is typically more green than buying new (why manufacture a new bike when an old one is just as good?) so a truly environmentally conscious buyer shouldn't be negatively impacted at all!
(strained logic that legislators wouldn't have been clever enough to employ but it is kind of true)
You raise an interesting point regarding sales taxes but there's an important nuance you've left out. If an Oregonian buys a $200 bicycle, they paid around $19.80 in state income taxes on that $200 that Washington residents didn't have to pay. In other words, it takes about $220 of pre-state-tax income to buy a $200 bicycle, WA residents come out $3 ahead.
If you bought a million bicycles, that'd be $3M of taxation, it adds up fast!
Given the aforementioned lack of standardization in clothing size means you have to order extras. A few t-shirts, a few button-up shirts, a few shorts and a couple pants for the new summer season. Keep the two or three that actually fit and are pleasing and return the rest. This is common practice when purchasing clothing online which is why you see a $100 Billion dollar company catering to that shopping model.
Can identify which mental illness is suggested by this behavior and why Amazon is coddling these mentally ill individuals?