Another way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.
You forgot the part where he did it before he was elected or sworn into office. (Bail out was Oct 2008, Obama became president late Jan 2009)
how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ??
Well, time travel is a very important power to have, as long as it's used wisely. I suggested that he go back and prevent the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, but apparently he can't or doesn't want to. There's an obvious conspiracy here, I suggest you form several websites and newsletters. Leaflets would be a good start.
Wickard v. Filburn dealt with a poorly written law that should have set limits on sales, instead set limits on crop growth, with the intention of setting limits on sales.
If this was today, Filburn would run 2 companies, one would run a livestock farm with a wheat field and the other would grow wheat for market. Heck, he would most likely get a grant too.
Absolutely true. But the thing would sell like hotcakes in a place like NYC, where people walk pretty much everywhere and nearly everyone has a cell phone.
I bet there are more obese people in New York City than there are people in Wyoming
Considering about 11 million people show up to NYC every day, and Wyoming has about 533,000 people in the state, so yes, you are correct. Heck, I bet there are more kids in NYC schools than there are people in Wyoming.
Yes yes, I know, the bot can't enter into a contract. I suggest you patent your contract avoidance system. You just write an app to ignore the agreement and yay! no agreement because the app did it.
Of course your application is downloading and analysing material for your own personal gain. But yes, I believe judges will look favorably on your 'My proxy bot hid it so it doesn't apply to me' legal theory.
No matter what I say from this point, you're going to continue with the idea that you can have a program act on your behalf and avoid agreements, so fine, you keep thinking that, now go post another comment so you can have the last word.
There was a recent court ruling that says terms of service for a website can be enforced.
I asked, does that make robots.txt part of the terms? Can it be added to the terms? If you specifically say 'no bots' in the terms can you sue someone for using a bot?
You responded that bots can't enter into contracts. Well, that's great, except a bot is just an application that a person wrote that follows instructions given to them by that person.
Here's the logic: If the bot is breaking the terms of use of the site, and courts say that terms are enforcable (even if you don't read them), then bot actions are enforcable.
Here's a bot: I have a program that runs on my network, it hides licence agreements during software installation and clicks ok/install. Since I never saw the agreement, I'm not bound by the license? After all, the app did it for me, all I did was set it loose on my personal network. "There might have been an agreement, but I wrote the application to ignore it, not read it, and continue anyway" will not go over well in court.
So if your web server sends information that crashes my browser, will you accept responsibility for that? After all, you're responsible for the actions of the web server you choose to run
Sure. If I deliberately code my web server to overload your computer and crash your browser by deliberately ignoring settings that your browser sent to me via a published protocol that we both agreed on, then yes, I'm responsible for crashing your browser.
Here's a real world example: I run a shop, you visit the shop to get a free flyer. I have a note that says please don't go behind the counter to get or read flyers. You ignore that and go in the back and start looking around. I tell you to stop, but you continue to rummage around looking for flyers. I have you arrested for trespassing.
You visit my server to get a free webpage with a special browser. I have a file called robots.txt and a notice (tos.html) linked to on every page in the site that says, you can request this page, but don't go visiting pages in this directory. You ignore that and go and index all the files, including that 600GB file I had lying around, and you eat up all my bandwidth for the month. I have you arrested for computer trespassing.
You're a user on my site. You annoy everyone on the site and cause people to leave. I tell you to take a hike and ban your account. You sign up for a new account against the terms of service and annoy everyone on the site again. I sue you for disrupting my service and according to precedent that I cited in my original post, you're not only going to lose that case, but there's a good chance you can see some jail time if I convince the DA to press criminal charges.
You do understand that those activities are illegal but requesting information from a webserver is not illegal, right?
You do understand that the website operator/owner can revoke access to any part of the server on a whim. Also, people have been prosecuted for going to URL's they weren't supposed to, even though they were not password protected. Combine all that with the fact that the courts have ruled that the terms of service are enforcable. This means you either respect the wishes of the website operator/owner or you will find yourself with a minimum of a civil suit and possibility of a criminal one, especially if your robot causes even the slightest change in the server's normal operation.
a computer program requesting information from a webserver is capable of entering into a contract on behalf of the computer program's authors based on the contents of the information being returned.
Yeah, like I said, if you write an app for a specific purpose you're responsible for the actions of that app.
Right... because a judge will find that offer, consideration, and acceptance of a contract took place between a webserver and a bot? The court case you cite is irrelevant to an automated program that has no understanding and cannot accept conditions presented online.
Awesome, so anyone can DoS a server, send mass spam or distribute a virus as long as a bot does it, because a judge will rule that the bot acted on its own and wasn't developed or set loose by anyone at all.
If the software wrote itself you might have a point, otherwise the people who wrote it are the ones responsible for how it acts.
So, the terms of use of a website are binding, at least according to this court. If the terms spell out mandatory following of robots.txt, is robots.txt now binding?
It would be nice to know why the poster thinks this feature is important
It would be nice to know, but it's their research project and that's how they want to proceed. So assume the requirements are set in stone and go from there.
1. A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users..
News:
It's user1's birthday today, wish them a happy birthday! Press * to wish them a happy birthday in email! It's user2's birthday tomorrow!
Today in history: etc...
BBS, 1985. You can hide the news in your settings. Did I miss anything?
The system/OS wil be fine without swapping. It's your applications that may suffer.
It depends on what you're doing, if you're reading email all day and have 4GB of RAM, you can turn your pagefile off with no ill effects. My 2GB netbook runs without a pagefile and has a 128MB ramdisk as well. It's optimized for reading email and slashdot and never writing to the (amazingly slow writing) SSD unless absolutely necessary. If I decide to install a word processor, I might be in a little trouble.
So, what happens if I write an encrypted mesh app that destroys geolocation and user identification all at once? Suddenly the Internet is much worse off, but I'll remain anonymous.
I've actually thought a bit about that. The first amendment says 'congress shall' not 'government shall'.
I think the Founding Fathers intentions were that local governments could be more restrictive if they wanted to. I don't agree with it, but that's what I get from reading it.
The point is moot anyway, since all local governments take aid from the federal government and are bound by their rules now.
Perhaps the point is that the kids aren't given a choice?
That's parenting, get over it. Kids aren't born rational. Stop treating them like they have a PhD at age 2.
So first they get indoctrinated into a religion almost from birth, then their parents can exercise their 'right' to pull them out of school and any other situation where they might be exposed to outside thought. By the time that kid moves out of home, they'll most likely no longer be capable of evaluating any information that conflicts with what they were taught. Hopefully they can grow up to completely screw over their children as well.
If you believe children never rebel against their parents, then you have a point.
Perhaps I'm missing the upsides to freedom of religion...
It's the part where you don't get your head chopped off because you don't believe in what the goverment forces you to believe in.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't think the corporations control our government, then you're the one who is a deluded fool
Control? Not yet. Overly influence, yes.
No, we're not a fascist state. Besides, aren't we communist this week?
I forget what I'm supposed to be outraged about, lemme check some blogs, drudge and fark and get back to you.
Because it could lead to the ability to assemble highly complex items from simple particles?
If you know how matter is put together, you're on the path to turning lead into gold.
Another way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.
You forgot the part where he did it before he was elected or sworn into office. (Bail out was Oct 2008, Obama became president late Jan 2009)
how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ??
Well, time travel is a very important power to have, as long as it's used wisely. I suggested that he go back and prevent the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, but apparently he can't or doesn't want to. There's an obvious conspiracy here, I suggest you form several websites and newsletters. Leaflets would be a good start.
Wickard v. Filburn dealt with a poorly written law that should have set limits on sales, instead set limits on crop growth, with the intention of setting limits on sales.
If this was today, Filburn would run 2 companies, one would run a livestock farm with a wheat field and the other would grow wheat for market. Heck, he would most likely get a grant too.
Will you spend 2 minutes to read the fucking article. It gets removed for free after the last payment.
If you're going to comment on something you didn't read at least pretend to know the answers.
Absolutely true. But the thing would sell like hotcakes in a place like NYC, where people walk pretty much everywhere and nearly everyone has a cell phone.
I bet there are more obese people in New York City than there are people in Wyoming
Considering about 11 million people show up to NYC every day, and Wyoming has about 533,000 people in the state, so yes, you are correct. Heck, I bet there are more kids in NYC schools than there are people in Wyoming.
So, what was your point?
Yes yes, I know, the bot can't enter into a contract. I suggest you patent your contract avoidance system. You just write an app to ignore the agreement and yay! no agreement because the app did it.
Of course your application is downloading and analysing material for your own personal gain. But yes, I believe judges will look favorably on your 'My proxy bot hid it so it doesn't apply to me' legal theory.
No matter what I say from this point, you're going to continue with the idea that you can have a program act on your behalf and avoid agreements, so fine, you keep thinking that, now go post another comment so you can have the last word.
Did you skip over my original post?
There was a recent court ruling that says terms of service for a website can be enforced.
I asked, does that make robots.txt part of the terms? Can it be added to the terms? If you specifically say 'no bots' in the terms can you sue someone for using a bot?
You responded that bots can't enter into contracts. Well, that's great, except a bot is just an application that a person wrote that follows instructions given to them by that person.
Here's the logic:
If the bot is breaking the terms of use of the site, and courts say that terms are enforcable (even if you don't read them), then bot actions are enforcable.
Here's a bot:
I have a program that runs on my network, it hides licence agreements during software installation and clicks ok/install. Since I never saw the agreement, I'm not bound by the license? After all, the app did it for me, all I did was set it loose on my personal network. "There might have been an agreement, but I wrote the application to ignore it, not read it, and continue anyway" will not go over well in court.
When HTML5 rolls around, I'll write something to force the browser to ignore anything off domain.
Until then, I have a button that turns flash on when I want it. Very simple, works 100% of the time.
So if your web server sends information that crashes my browser, will you accept responsibility for that? After all, you're responsible for the actions of the web server you choose to run
Sure. If I deliberately code my web server to overload your computer and crash your browser by deliberately ignoring settings that your browser sent to me via a published protocol that we both agreed on, then yes, I'm responsible for crashing your browser.
Here's a real world example: I run a shop, you visit the shop to get a free flyer. I have a note that says please don't go behind the counter to get or read flyers. You ignore that and go in the back and start looking around. I tell you to stop, but you continue to rummage around looking for flyers. I have you arrested for trespassing.
You visit my server to get a free webpage with a special browser. I have a file called robots.txt and a notice (tos.html) linked to on every page in the site that says, you can request this page, but don't go visiting pages in this directory. You ignore that and go and index all the files, including that 600GB file I had lying around, and you eat up all my bandwidth for the month. I have you arrested for computer trespassing.
You're a user on my site. You annoy everyone on the site and cause people to leave. I tell you to take a hike and ban your account. You sign up for a new account against the terms of service and annoy everyone on the site again. I sue you for disrupting my service and according to precedent that I cited in my original post, you're not only going to lose that case, but there's a good chance you can see some jail time if I convince the DA to press criminal charges.
Get it?
There's always Google checkout.
You do understand that those activities are illegal but requesting information from a webserver is not illegal, right?
You do understand that the website operator/owner can revoke access to any part of the server on a whim. Also, people have been prosecuted for going to URL's they weren't supposed to, even though they were not password protected. Combine all that with the fact that the courts have ruled that the terms of service are enforcable. This means you either respect the wishes of the website operator/owner or you will find yourself with a minimum of a civil suit and possibility of a criminal one, especially if your robot causes even the slightest change in the server's normal operation.
a computer program requesting information from a webserver is capable of entering into a contract on behalf of the computer program's authors based on the contents of the information being returned.
Yeah, like I said, if you write an app for a specific purpose you're responsible for the actions of that app.
Right... because a judge will find that offer, consideration, and acceptance of a contract took place between a webserver and a bot? The court case you cite is irrelevant to an automated program that has no understanding and cannot accept conditions presented online.
Awesome, so anyone can DoS a server, send mass spam or distribute a virus as long as a bot does it, because a judge will rule that the bot acted on its own and wasn't developed or set loose by anyone at all.
If the software wrote itself you might have a point, otherwise the people who wrote it are the ones responsible for how it acts.
That's the point I was trying to make. I posted this somewhere else:
http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/01/05/browsewrap-website-terms-and-conditions-enforceable/
So now you can turn around and sue them for crawling your site if you specifically disallow it in the terms and robots.txt.
The results should be interesting to watch.
Ok, here's an argument.
http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/01/05/browsewrap-website-terms-and-conditions-enforceable/
So, the terms of use of a website are binding, at least according to this court. If the terms spell out mandatory following of robots.txt, is robots.txt now binding?
If they are going to extend the DMCA to other countries, then let's extend computer trespassing laws to cover robots.txt violations.
I'm being somewhat serious (but not super-serious). If courts want to hold that a website TOS is binding, then isn't the robots.txt binding as well?
It would be nice to know why the poster thinks this feature is important
It would be nice to know, but it's their research project and that's how they want to proceed. So assume the requirements are set in stone and go from there.
1. A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users..
News:
It's user1's birthday today, wish them a happy birthday! Press * to wish them a happy birthday in email!
It's user2's birthday tomorrow!
Today in history: etc...
BBS, 1985. You can hide the news in your settings. Did I miss anything?
Any drugs, even asprin must be administered by a school nurse. Always.
Especially at home. It's a real drag having to call the school nurse to come over at 8pm when you have a fever.
It remains that HDCP has not been cracked.
Publicly. A while ago someone figured out there was a fundamental weakness in HDCP and didn't publish, but hinted at where to look.
The system/OS wil be fine without swapping. It's your applications that may suffer.
It depends on what you're doing, if you're reading email all day and have 4GB of RAM, you can turn your pagefile off with no ill effects. My 2GB netbook runs without a pagefile and has a 128MB ramdisk as well. It's optimized for reading email and slashdot and never writing to the (amazingly slow writing) SSD unless absolutely necessary. If I decide to install a word processor, I might be in a little trouble.
So, what happens if I write an encrypted mesh app that destroys geolocation and user identification all at once? Suddenly the Internet is much worse off, but I'll remain anonymous.
Think Tor, but more for just wreaking havoc.
I've actually thought a bit about that. The first amendment says 'congress shall' not 'government shall'.
I think the Founding Fathers intentions were that local governments could be more restrictive if they wanted to. I don't agree with it, but that's what I get from reading it.
The point is moot anyway, since all local governments take aid from the federal government and are bound by their rules now.
Perhaps the point is that the kids aren't given a choice?
That's parenting, get over it. Kids aren't born rational. Stop treating them like they have a PhD at age 2.
So first they get indoctrinated into a religion almost from birth, then their parents can exercise their 'right' to pull them out of school and any other situation where they might be exposed to outside thought. By the time that kid moves out of home, they'll most likely no longer be capable of evaluating any information that conflicts with what they were taught. Hopefully they can grow up to completely screw over their children as well.
If you believe children never rebel against their parents, then you have a point.
Perhaps I'm missing the upsides to freedom of religion...
It's the part where you don't get your head chopped off because you don't believe in what the goverment forces you to believe in.