Now that I have been able to get through and read the article I see that what these guys have done is quite different and much more interesting than what the Slashdot blurb implies.
> This work is a major step toward the > centuries-old problem of showing that there are > infinitely many 'twin primes':
If the goal is indeed to prove that there are an infinite number of twin primes demonstrating the existence of any finite number of them, however large, is no step at all.
Please don't teach children _any_ dialect of Basic. Start them with Logo and then move them up to Python. Ucblogo is free and available for Linux and probably the *BSDs.
By bombarding your mail server with thousands of messages with randomly-generated user names in the hopes that some will just happen to coincide with the user names of real users on that system. Most of the spam I receive these days is of this sort. All of it claims that "bipiu34@my.domain.tld" or some such opted in.
No hassle at all. My filters will classify their HTML-only "challenge" as spam, I will ignore it, and the message won't be delivered. Not my problem. I have no strong need to correspond with people who think that everyone reads their email with a Web browser anyway.
And the use of a "digital image" discriminates against the blind.
> In MI you can create an LLC for a grand total of > 60 bucks.
Some companies will not contract with a corporation that has not existed for some minimum number of years. Others require proof that the corporation have a minimum number of employees and/or a minimum annual revenue.
>...on the 21st of February, I was asked to > provide names and e-mails and/or street addresses > to a company called Schoolmall.
Asked by _who_? Your teacher? If so, tell your parents and tell them to raise holy hell with the school board. If you were approached directly by Schoolmall I suggest that you have your parents contact your state attorney general about taking legal action against them.
> As a general rule, ignorance doesn't stand up in > court. You are expected to be aware of the rules > and regulations surrounding the things you use > and/or do.
You are confounding criminal and civil law.
> I think it's the reasonable expectation that > surprises me the most about the Microsoft thing. > Unless it's stated somewhere in the EULA how > could the people using the software be > reasonably expected to know that it was causing > a patent infringment?
If they can show that a reasonable and prudent person would not have known they become "innocent infringers". As such, they are not liable for damages if they stopped infringing as soon as they were notified.
> I don't know the particulars of the case, having > only glanced briefly at the story once before > but I would imagine that is someone contests it > in court they could be released from having to > pay.
It seems like it is the position of the courts that no prudent person would ever offer anything for sale without first doing an exhaustive patent search.
> The poster already has actual knowledge of the > problem thanks to his/her diligence.
I doubt that the copyright owner can prove that.
> Had the poster simply stumbled on the problem, > it would have to be dealt with.
He should deal with it anyway, but that has nothing to do with my point, which is that anonymous emails are not DMCA takedown notices. No ISP is obligated to investigate allegations contained in anonymous emails. The suggestion that one should respond to such with a reply saying that the sender should follow up with a valid takedown notice via registered mail is excellent. If the reply bounces, tough.
> i.e. non-US. Thus I live in a free country and > have no fear of DMCA
You misunderstand. This particular part of the DMCA requires that copyright owners contact ISPs hosting unauthorized copies and give them a chance to remove the offending material. If the ISP does so the copyright owner may not sue him. In the absence of this law the copyright owner could just up and sue the ISP without warning and have an excellent chance of collecting damages. This may be the case in your country.
> As you know, you are potentially liable for the > copyright offenses of your customers, limited by > the safe harbor exception I can't recall the > details of.
One of the details is that the notice must be in writing.
> Once you've been notified, it may be foolhardy to > ignore the wanring...
He hasn't been notified. An email with no return address is not a legal notice.
> I would strongly suggest you talk to a lawyer on > this for legal advice to can rely on...
But Slashdot also posts your comments correcting the crackpottery and errors. "Journalists" only publish corrections under threat of lawsuit. And no one can sue them for mucking up science.
> Ban this, ban that, block this, block that, it > doesn't matter, because people whose primary goal > in life is to make money by annoying the living > shit out of other people will just find ways to > circumvent the latest and greatest > filter/banning/whatever.
Newsguy has effective filters. My newsfeed is completely spam free and has been for years.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that I have been able to get through and read the article I see that what these guys have done is quite different and much more interesting than what the Slashdot blurb implies.
> This work is a major step toward the
> centuries-old problem of showing that there are
> infinitely many 'twin primes':
If the goal is indeed to prove that there are an infinite number of twin primes demonstrating the existence of any finite number of them, however large, is no step at all.
Please don't teach children _any_ dialect of Basic.
Start them with Logo and then move them up to Python. Ucblogo is free and available for Linux and probably the *BSDs.
Both.
> The problem is that you don't own it, but rather
> a very limited license that allows you to use it
> if the owner wants you to.
Bullshit. If I bought it I own it and can rent it or sell it at my pleasure.
> Actually, I live in the state and countrt of
> Sweden, a part of the European Union.
In some European countries (notably Britain) it is illegal to rent or loan copyrighted material unless you are a public library.
> I have no idea how they "found" me,...
By bombarding your mail server with thousands of messages with randomly-generated user names in the hopes that some will just happen to coincide with the user names of real users on that system. Most of the spam I receive these days is of this sort. All of it claims that "bipiu34@my.domain.tld" or some such opted in.
> There are probably others I can't think of.
Mail from anyone who does not read their email with a Web browser, and mail from blind people.
No hassle at all. My filters will classify their HTML-only "challenge" as spam, I will ignore it, and the message won't be delivered. Not my problem. I have no strong need to correspond with people who think that everyone reads their email with a Web browser anyway.
And the use of a "digital image" discriminates against the blind.
> In MI you can create an LLC for a grand total of
> 60 bucks.
Some companies will not contract with a corporation that has not existed for some minimum number of years. Others require proof that the corporation have a minimum number of employees and/or a minimum annual revenue.
> Since there isn't political oppression in most
> nations with unencumbered internet access,
There is political oppression _everywhere_.
> ...on the 21st of February, I was asked to
> provide names and e-mails and/or street addresses > to a company called Schoolmall.
Asked by _who_? Your teacher? If so, tell your parents and tell them to raise holy hell with the school board. If you were approached directly by Schoolmall I suggest that you have your parents contact your state attorney general about taking legal action against them.
Swapping cells is useless. You need to be able to refill them in place.
> As a general rule, ignorance doesn't stand up in
> court. You are expected to be aware of the rules
> and regulations surrounding the things you use
> and/or do.
You are confounding criminal and civil law.
> I think it's the reasonable expectation that
> surprises me the most about the Microsoft thing.
> Unless it's stated somewhere in the EULA how
> could the people using the software be
> reasonably expected to know that it was causing > a patent infringment?
If they can show that a reasonable and prudent person would not have known they become "innocent infringers". As such, they are not liable for damages if they stopped infringing as soon as they were notified.
> I don't know the particulars of the case, having
> only glanced briefly at the story once before
> but I would imagine that is someone contests it
> in court they could be released from having to
> pay.
It seems like it is the position of the courts that no prudent person would ever offer anything for sale without first doing an exhaustive patent search.
They've had such a levy on blank CDRs for years.
> You confuse legal notification with knowledge.
No I don't.
> The poster already has actual knowledge of the
> problem thanks to his/her diligence.
I doubt that the copyright owner can prove that.
> Had the poster simply stumbled on the problem,
> it would have to be dealt with.
He should deal with it anyway, but that has nothing to do with my point, which is that anonymous emails are not DMCA takedown notices. No ISP is obligated to investigate allegations contained in anonymous emails. The suggestion that one should respond to such with a reply saying that the sender should follow up with a valid takedown notice via registered mail is excellent. If the reply bounces, tough.
> i.e. non-US. Thus I live in a free country and
> have no fear of DMCA
You misunderstand. This particular part of the DMCA requires that copyright owners contact ISPs hosting unauthorized copies and give them a chance to remove the offending material. If the ISP does so the copyright owner may not sue him. In the absence of this law the copyright owner could just up and sue the ISP without warning and have an excellent chance of collecting damages. This may be the case in your country.
> As you know, you are potentially liable for the
> copyright offenses of your customers, limited by
> the safe harbor exception I can't recall the
> details of.
One of the details is that the notice must be in writing.
> Once you've been notified, it may be foolhardy to
> ignore the wanring...
He hasn't been notified. An email with no return address is not a legal notice.
> I would strongly suggest you talk to a lawyer on
> this for legal advice to can rely on...
Yes.
The data may not be encrypted, but it may be sent using spread spectrum, UWB, or something we haven't invented yet.
I repeat: _no_ system should ever have a default password. Either require the user to enter one or generate a unique one for her on the spot.
> A typical example of such a system is an ADSL
> router / firewall. I know several of these whose
> password is left as standard.
Selling such a device with a default password is negligence.
Your ISP's server would already have authenticated, verified, and fetched the messages and put them in your IMAP directory.
But Slashdot also posts your comments correcting the crackpottery and errors. "Journalists" only publish corrections under threat of lawsuit. And no one can sue them for mucking up science.
"Can science journalism be entertaining and responsible?"
Perhaps that should be "Can journalism be responsible?"
> Ban this, ban that, block this, block that, it
> doesn't matter, because people whose primary goal
> in life is to make money by annoying the living
> shit out of other people will just find ways to
> circumvent the latest and greatest
> filter/banning/whatever.
Newsguy has effective filters. My newsfeed is completely spam free and has been for years.