Exploit natural resources. And while a sel-sufficient colony on the moon or in orbit might be pretty hard, I doubt we'd have trouble building one on Mars. Especially if we stopped being pussies and put Project Orion into practice. That would allow us to land basically an aircraft carrier's worth of useful cargo on the surface of Mars pretty easily.
Again, the state should simply tell them either service the _entire_ state, or none of it. There'd be 30 companies vying for the business if Verizon were kicked out.
If you told a company that they have to provide internet access for everyone in Idaho, or none of it, they'd say 'Fine' and go service a state they could make a profit in. You're always going to have to pick some cutoff line short of laying fiber to every last farmhouse. Government subsidies let you pick that cutoff point in favor of more people. You can mandate service all you want, but that doesn't mean such providing such service will be profitable to anyone. The fact is no one is cockblocking your hypothetical other companies. If it were profitable to provide rural service people would do it. Its not typically, so the government subsidizes it in the interest of the public good.
IMHO taxes should never be used to buy infrastructure for private companies, ever. If they won't service a particular area, don't bribe them, tell them to serve the state or don't serve the state. If they won't, revoke their license to do business, kick them out and open the market up for someone that will.
This will result in large portions of the country, particularly rural areas, never getting service at all, because its not likely to ever be profitable. The purpose of government grants and tax breaks is to ensure that the infrastructure reaches everyone who will benefit from it in the coming generation, not just investors who want to benefit from it in the next couple of years. Without government help I'd be surprised if my home in the Kitsap peninsula would be serviced by internet or cable. Hell, I still don't have sewer services.
First off, there is no law 1 and law 2. Its two sections of the same law. Second, the law is the Danish implementation of the EU Copyright Directive which mandates that subscriber countries implement it exactly as its been implemented, i.e. circumvention is illegal EVEN THOUGH it makes some other rights unexercisable. No Danish judge is going to repeal that. Finally, civil disobedience and testing a law are two different things. Civil disobedience can be used to force a test of a law, or to call attention to an unjust law. The latter is what is happening here, but there are any number of asshats here on Slashdot that seem to be implying that because the laws seem to conflict, one of them is going to get struck down. I'm just saying thats not the case. The only thing this guy is doing is making a spectacle of himself, a fine Danish tradition since the time of Hamlet.
Unlike Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which only prohibits circumvention of access control measures, InfoSoc Directive also prohibits circumvention of copy protection measures, making it potentially more restrictive. In both DMCA and InfoSoc Directive, production, distribution etc. of equipment used to circumvent both access and copy-protection is prohibited. Under DMCA, a potential user who wants to avail herself of an alleged fair use privilege to crack copy protection (which is not prohibited) would have to do it herself since no equipment would lawfully be marketed for that purpose. Under InfoSoc Directive, this possibility would not be available since circumvention of copy protection is illegal
Look, if it makes this easier to understand, consider a city ordnance that forbade publishing anything about the mayor of that city within city limits. Would the local newspapers be bound by that ordnance and punishable for breaking it, or would the First Amendment overrule it?
Those are two different bodies of law. This issue is over two sections in the same goddamn law.
But no law may completely infringe upon a right totally.
Yes it can.
Else there is no right.
So?
In point of fact, the article only cites a single law as the point of contention. It says
12.-(1) Anyone is entitled to make or have made, for private purposes, single copies of works which have been made public if this is not done for commercial purposes. Such copies must not be used for any other purpose.
Which is a specific exemption to copyright law as a whole. It means you can use your own xerox machine to make a copy of a book you own if its for your own private use.
75 c. It is not permitted without the consent of the rightholder to make circumvention of effective technological measures
Means its illegal to circumvent copy protection.
The first part protects you from being prosecuted for violating copyright if you make a copy. It doesn't protect you from prosecution for circumventing copy protection.
So your point about exemptions being very specific is valid. The problem is that the issue here is one specific exemption (for private use) and one specific prohibition (circumventing copy protection) in a larger body of law. As I said before, the exemption doesn't override the prohibition. It just means you're only prosecutable under one section of the law instead of two.
You're assuming that the laws have to have some kind of consistency. They don't. There are all kinds of situations where an action is implicitly allowed by one law and explicitly prohibited by another. You can even have situations where an action is explicitly allowed by one and explicitly disallowed by another. Logically you'd think that meant the laws were in conflict. Realistically, unless one is a higher body of law (such as the U.S. constitution vs a state law). Even then its now always clear cut. A state law which prohibits certain kinds of speech may stand in the face of the constitutional right to free speech because its in the service of an overriding concern, like causing a panic in a theater. The law isn't like a computer program. If parts of it conflict it doesn't 'crash'. It just get interpreted by people. Making a spectacle of yourself in order to try to contest some piece of law you feel is unjust is fine, but don't kid yourself that what this guy did wasn't illegal.
Did you mean to reply to the parent of my post? Because you responded to me and basically said the same thing I was saying (prefaced by 'not neccessarily'.
The right to do something does not grant immunity from other laws in any way, even if the lack of such immunity means that for all practical purposes the right cannot be exercised without violating some other law. IANAL, but Jesus, this isn't rocket science. I have the right to travel anywhere I want in the united states, but I don't have the right to drive my car 200 mph on the highway to do so. Even if driving 200 mph were the only possible way of traveling across state borders, that doesn't mean my right to travel grants me immunity to traffic laws.
You're still missing the point. The right to make backups is actually no such thing. Its actually the right not to be prosecuted for violating copyright for making backups. It doesn't confer any other kind of immunity, even if it seems nonsensical. The law isn't required to be rational.
Consider, what if the only way to make a copy of a DVD was to shoot someone. The right to not be prosecuted for copyright violation doesn't mean you're not going to get prosecuted for assault, manslaughter, what have you.
The law in question protecting creation of copies is almost certainly a simple exemption in copyright law. Unless someone can show me the law says something along the lines of 'you cannot be prosecuted for any action taken in the course of making a duplicate for personal purposes' then the laws are not in conflict no matter how much you would like them to be.
Except that as worded in the summary, the laws don't actually conflict. A law that gives you the right to make backups of a medium for private use doesn't necessarily guarantee you that right. A law that prohibits breaking of DRM would still apply. The only thing the other law does is ensure that he can't be prosecuted on two counts (breaking DRM AND duplicating copyrighted materials) instead of one.
Your theory is incompatible with orbital mechanics. The Moon is constantly approaching the Earth because of gravity, but constantly missing because its moving laterally as well. If the Earth and Moon were both simply getting bigger (instead of exerting forces on one another) then there would be no reason for the Moon to follow a curved path. It would appear to either recede, approach, or stay equidistant from Earth, but it would not change position in the sky.
If you want to save locally, you need to click the left button (now labeled "Options",) scroll down to select and click"Send to", scroll down to and click "My photos".
My Samsung phone has an option to change the default destination of pictures. Are you saying yours doesn't?
Gaming uses a tiny fraction of the bandwidth of a broadband pipe. Beyond 1mbps, all broadband is giving you is low latency. There's no reason Halo 3 should be taking up much more bandwidth than say Quake 1, even if you have 32 players.
The problem here is if I'm not redirected to PayPal, I'm offering up my palpal authentication information to a third party in the hope that they're going to use it for the transaction I've authorized and nothing else.
the people collecting signatures are usually the ones with an agenda, and thus the ones most likely to falsify information. As such they are the least appropriate group to be trusted with putting up roadblocks to validation of that information. As its been said before, a petition signature isn't a vote. It's not anonymous and it shouldn't be.
Assuming that comparison of one fingerprint to another is done in constant time, then comparing a fingerprint to a database of them is done in N time, where N is the sample size. That makes comparing all the fingerprints you encounter with the database essentially an N squared operation. Faster computers can't magically handwave away algorithmic complexity.
Really? They fingerprint all international travelers now? I had no idea. Even if that were the case, international travelers is still far too small a subset to be randomly scanning fingerprints on the street.
John Q. Public doesn't have his fingerprints on file if all he has are parking tickets. Further, the larger the total fingerprint database grows, the more computationally intensive scanning random people and trying to match them will become.
You don't understand the concept of 'recession' do you? Or the idea that someone might hate their job more than they love money? Or that someone might want to switch to another company because of a belief in what they do?
If that's what you think, you're not a developer. Writing the initial code to solve the problem is typically about 20% of the total effort of any task, and no interview code I've ever reviewed has been production ready code, or even the kind of code you're write for anything other than a prototype. Development man hours are not fungible or distributable.
Slashdot Mirror
Exploit natural resources. And while a sel-sufficient colony on the moon or in orbit might be pretty hard, I doubt we'd have trouble building one on Mars. Especially if we stopped being pussies and put Project Orion into practice. That would allow us to land basically an aircraft carrier's worth of useful cargo on the surface of Mars pretty easily.
If you told a company that they have to provide internet access for everyone in Idaho, or none of it, they'd say 'Fine' and go service a state they could make a profit in. You're always going to have to pick some cutoff line short of laying fiber to every last farmhouse. Government subsidies let you pick that cutoff point in favor of more people. You can mandate service all you want, but that doesn't mean such providing such service will be profitable to anyone. The fact is no one is cockblocking your hypothetical other companies. If it were profitable to provide rural service people would do it. Its not typically, so the government subsidizes it in the interest of the public good.
This will result in large portions of the country, particularly rural areas, never getting service at all, because its not likely to ever be profitable. The purpose of government grants and tax breaks is to ensure that the infrastructure reaches everyone who will benefit from it in the coming generation, not just investors who want to benefit from it in the next couple of years. Without government help I'd be surprised if my home in the Kitsap peninsula would be serviced by internet or cable. Hell, I still don't have sewer services.
First off, there is no law 1 and law 2. Its two sections of the same law. Second, the law is the Danish implementation of the EU Copyright Directive which mandates that subscriber countries implement it exactly as its been implemented, i.e. circumvention is illegal EVEN THOUGH it makes some other rights unexercisable. No Danish judge is going to repeal that. Finally, civil disobedience and testing a law are two different things. Civil disobedience can be used to force a test of a law, or to call attention to an unjust law. The latter is what is happening here, but there are any number of asshats here on Slashdot that seem to be implying that because the laws seem to conflict, one of them is going to get struck down. I'm just saying thats not the case. The only thing this guy is doing is making a spectacle of himself, a fine Danish tradition since the time of Hamlet.
But Denmark IS in the EU, so why would their copyright law be worded like the Swiss one?
Yes it can.
So?
In point of fact, the article only cites a single law as the point of contention. It says
Which is a specific exemption to copyright law as a whole. It means you can use your own xerox machine to make a copy of a book you own if its for your own private use.
Means its illegal to circumvent copy protection.
The first part protects you from being prosecuted for violating copyright if you make a copy. It doesn't protect you from prosecution for circumventing copy protection.
So your point about exemptions being very specific is valid. The problem is that the issue here is one specific exemption (for private use) and one specific prohibition (circumventing copy protection) in a larger body of law. As I said before, the exemption doesn't override the prohibition. It just means you're only prosecutable under one section of the law instead of two.
You're assuming that the laws have to have some kind of consistency. They don't. There are all kinds of situations where an action is implicitly allowed by one law and explicitly prohibited by another. You can even have situations where an action is explicitly allowed by one and explicitly disallowed by another. Logically you'd think that meant the laws were in conflict. Realistically, unless one is a higher body of law (such as the U.S. constitution vs a state law). Even then its now always clear cut. A state law which prohibits certain kinds of speech may stand in the face of the constitutional right to free speech because its in the service of an overriding concern, like causing a panic in a theater. The law isn't like a computer program. If parts of it conflict it doesn't 'crash'. It just get interpreted by people. Making a spectacle of yourself in order to try to contest some piece of law you feel is unjust is fine, but don't kid yourself that what this guy did wasn't illegal.
Did you mean to reply to the parent of my post? Because you responded to me and basically said the same thing I was saying (prefaced by 'not neccessarily'.
The right to do something does not grant immunity from other laws in any way, even if the lack of such immunity means that for all practical purposes the right cannot be exercised without violating some other law. IANAL, but Jesus, this isn't rocket science. I have the right to travel anywhere I want in the united states, but I don't have the right to drive my car 200 mph on the highway to do so. Even if driving 200 mph were the only possible way of traveling across state borders, that doesn't mean my right to travel grants me immunity to traffic laws.
Consider, what if the only way to make a copy of a DVD was to shoot someone. The right to not be prosecuted for copyright violation doesn't mean you're not going to get prosecuted for assault, manslaughter, what have you.
The law in question protecting creation of copies is almost certainly a simple exemption in copyright law. Unless someone can show me the law says something along the lines of 'you cannot be prosecuted for any action taken in the course of making a duplicate for personal purposes' then the laws are not in conflict no matter how much you would like them to be.
Except that as worded in the summary, the laws don't actually conflict. A law that gives you the right to make backups of a medium for private use doesn't necessarily guarantee you that right. A law that prohibits breaking of DRM would still apply. The only thing the other law does is ensure that he can't be prosecuted on two counts (breaking DRM AND duplicating copyrighted materials) instead of one.
Your theory is incompatible with orbital mechanics. The Moon is constantly approaching the Earth because of gravity, but constantly missing because its moving laterally as well. If the Earth and Moon were both simply getting bigger (instead of exerting forces on one another) then there would be no reason for the Moon to follow a curved path. It would appear to either recede, approach, or stay equidistant from Earth, but it would not change position in the sky.
My Samsung phone has an option to change the default destination of pictures. Are you saying yours doesn't?
You have a shitty router which is unable to handle the high packet count (which is different than high bandwidth).
Gaming uses a tiny fraction of the bandwidth of a broadband pipe. Beyond 1mbps, all broadband is giving you is low latency. There's no reason Halo 3 should be taking up much more bandwidth than say Quake 1, even if you have 32 players.
The problem here is if I'm not redirected to PayPal, I'm offering up my palpal authentication information to a third party in the hope that they're going to use it for the transaction I've authorized and nothing else.
the people collecting signatures are usually the ones with an agenda, and thus the ones most likely to falsify information. As such they are the least appropriate group to be trusted with putting up roadblocks to validation of that information. As its been said before, a petition signature isn't a vote. It's not anonymous and it shouldn't be.
I have a petition of over 7 billion signatures that disagrees with you. Perhaps this illustrates why petitions, unlike voting, can't be anonymous.
Assuming that comparison of one fingerprint to another is done in constant time, then comparing a fingerprint to a database of them is done in N time, where N is the sample size. That makes comparing all the fingerprints you encounter with the database essentially an N squared operation. Faster computers can't magically handwave away algorithmic complexity.
Really? They fingerprint all international travelers now? I had no idea. Even if that were the case, international travelers is still far too small a subset to be randomly scanning fingerprints on the street.
John Q. Public doesn't have his fingerprints on file if all he has are parking tickets. Further, the larger the total fingerprint database grows, the more computationally intensive scanning random people and trying to match them will become.
You don't understand the concept of 'recession' do you? Or the idea that someone might hate their job more than they love money? Or that someone might want to switch to another company because of a belief in what they do?
If that's what you think, you're not a developer. Writing the initial code to solve the problem is typically about 20% of the total effort of any task, and no interview code I've ever reviewed has been production ready code, or even the kind of code you're write for anything other than a prototype. Development man hours are not fungible or distributable.