Lots of pessimists here when it comes to Facebook. Can't say I'm not among them, but if people truly believe Facebook is going to crater, then short the hell out of it and make a profit.
If the hardware is the same, and it sounds like it is, then it should be a simple matter to modify the driver inf to support the XBox Kinect vendor/hardware IDs.
The amazing fact and political theory is this: Politicians don't want to look soft on crime, even if that crime is only perceived (since perception is reality in politics). The majority of voters (not people, but people who actually go vote) still disfavor legalization, and it's easier to play to their existing beliefs than to try to change them. And if you buy into the whole "representative democracy" thing, the role of a representative isn't to change public opinion anyway, but to express it as it exists.
I think it's a stupid case anyway. Dodd is acting as a private citizen saying "don't expect contributions if you don't support our [the MPAA's] cause." It's not at all the same as an elected official saying "don't expect me to support your cause if you didn't contribute to my campaign." There's a huge difference there, namely that the latter is criminal, and the former is just... what? Honest? I know I don't plan to vote for anyone who opposes my views (so much as I can help it), let alone donate to their campaigns. Does it warrant an investigation? I don't know the answer to that, but on the face of it, I don't see anything criminal.
Indeed. The Challenger, the USS Thresher, and the USS Forrestall are all used by the military as examples of catastrophic failures due to poor or improper QA, of which tool control is but one facet. I know the military aviation community takes QA *very* seriously, as does the sub community. I've personally performed work on aircraft components and on subs themselves, and there's documentation and inspections out the arse, improper completion of which can have severe consequences. Worst case, negligence leading to an incident like this can be treated as sabotage.
Still, as with any incident of this nature, the mechanic/technician is just the first line of defense. There was also a failure on the part of his supervisor to inspect his work, and ultimately his higher-ups are responsible for ensuring compliance with QA procedures overall.
Ultimately, a lot of potential incidents like this have been prevented by QA, but since there's a cost-benefit trade off with diminishing returns, it won't (and can't) be perfect. Sometimes things slip through the cracks with little or no consequence other than an ass chewing; other times lives are lost. This is about the middle of the dial on the scale of potential consequences.
Yup, and if there are this many misguided comments conflating control signals with data usage on Slashdot, imagine how easily the issue can be spun by carriers to intentionally misrepresent the issue to an ignorant consumer base.
courts have to ability to require you to decrypt data upon request
True, but irrelevant. First, caching aside, how many people store their communications? The courts can't force you to do something you can't do. Second, the endpoints are (currently, typically) not encrypted anyway. Third, under SOPA it's not illegal to access the sites, just for DNS to return their IP and for Google (and who?) to list them in search results.
The biggest hurdle is that Tor sucks and most people won't want to use their bandwidth to act as a router for anonymous traffic.
I do agree with your conclusion though: laws should be the focus.
Not much to attenuate RF in the near-perfect vacuum of most of space.
Except for that pesky inverse square law. At any rate, there are at least 4 reasons no one might be listening:
1) No one there to listen. 2) They don't have the technological capability. 3) They have the capability, but they don't care. 4) They hate our freedom and refuse to listen to our propaganda.
All the pro-piracy advocates say that IP shouldn't try to operate using an artificial-scarcity business model to make it seem like a physical good. Well, without (artificial) scarcity, there is also no logically-consistent argument for sale of "used" IP either.
Yes, but it's the proper fallback position when your primary argument against artificial scarcity falls on deaf ears. You made the case yourself. IF artificial, government-enforced, DRM-managed scarcity exists (and it does), THEN I assert my right of first sale. Whether or not I agree that the initial condition *should* be true doesn't negate the consequence of it being true.
And for what it's worth, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of IP as actual property, though for disambiguation it would be useful if we had a better term for IP that didn't actually include the word property.
Actually, having a "reasonable excuse" (such as research) is a defense to this law, so apparently he couldn't even come up with a good reason for having the files.
There is no reason there is a 300MB tier (was a 200MB tier) and a 3GB (2GB) tier when all the study data is showing most users are consuming 500-1300MB, with an average of 850.
Sure there is: Either the consumer can pay 2/3rds the cost of the 3GB plan and use virtually no data, or else he can pay for more than the 500-1300MB he really needs with the 3GB plan. It's a win-win!
Oh, you were looking at it from the customer's perspective?
I took it last semester and some of the content (as described in the syllabus) was missing because the videos and exercises/exercise testing apps apparently took longer to create than anticipated. They're probably working on filling in this content, along with (as someone above suggested) accessibility features.
I agree it's scummy that they wouldn't just pay the licensing fee, but taking a new photo with the same post-processing effects isn't creating a derivative work. If it is, then where do you draw the line? Photos of sunsets in black and white? Cover shots of naked women with hairs and blemishes removed? It's a bad precedent regardless of the merits of this particular plaintiff's case.
Looks like the citizens of every country are going to have to stay on careful guard these days.
As opposed to what days? The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Curran
Ars had an article about the most recent case, and seems to come to the conclusion that it's stupid to have rules that can't be enforced except by the people who are subject to them, and points out the dichotomy between jurors being required to draw on their life experience without being allowed to do things such as looking up terms they may not understand. Do we want knowledgeable juries, or do we not? (Who lawyers want on juries is another question altogether.)
Anyway, my takeaway was to do as you please, but to keep your mouth shut about it. You can't introduce outside evidence, but you can emphasize points that lawyers may have made that best fit with the law and the facts as you see them. That's the role of the jury after all, and I don't begrudge anyone who takes that role seriously enough to do their own research, whether I agree with their conclusions or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, remarkably similar in the same way that natural heart attacks are remarkably similar to the effects of a massive dose of potassium chloride.
It does. But good luck finding both of those legitimate users.
Lots of pessimists here when it comes to Facebook. Can't say I'm not among them, but if people truly believe Facebook is going to crater, then short the hell out of it and make a profit.
If the hardware is the same, and it sounds like it is, then it should be a simple matter to modify the driver inf to support the XBox Kinect vendor/hardware IDs.
The amazing fact and political theory is this: Politicians don't want to look soft on crime, even if that crime is only perceived (since perception is reality in politics). The majority of voters (not people, but people who actually go vote) still disfavor legalization, and it's easier to play to their existing beliefs than to try to change them. And if you buy into the whole "representative democracy" thing, the role of a representative isn't to change public opinion anyway, but to express it as it exists.
...people who interact with lifelike robots often develop a strange feeling due to something they can't quite name...
Except for the people who get all horny, you mean. Unless that's the strange feeling you were talking about.
I think it's a stupid case anyway. Dodd is acting as a private citizen saying "don't expect contributions if you don't support our [the MPAA's] cause." It's not at all the same as an elected official saying "don't expect me to support your cause if you didn't contribute to my campaign." There's a huge difference there, namely that the latter is criminal, and the former is just... what? Honest? I know I don't plan to vote for anyone who opposes my views (so much as I can help it), let alone donate to their campaigns. Does it warrant an investigation? I don't know the answer to that, but on the face of it, I don't see anything criminal.
That's a joke, right? Hell, the Royal Navy would probably give US commandos a ride out to the platform and a hot meal afterwards.
Kinda[sic] like "Zieg [sic] Heil," hey [sic]?
Yes.
Indeed. The Challenger, the USS Thresher, and the USS Forrestall are all used by the military as examples of catastrophic failures due to poor or improper QA, of which tool control is but one facet. I know the military aviation community takes QA *very* seriously, as does the sub community. I've personally performed work on aircraft components and on subs themselves, and there's documentation and inspections out the arse, improper completion of which can have severe consequences. Worst case, negligence leading to an incident like this can be treated as sabotage.
Still, as with any incident of this nature, the mechanic/technician is just the first line of defense. There was also a failure on the part of his supervisor to inspect his work, and ultimately his higher-ups are responsible for ensuring compliance with QA procedures overall.
Ultimately, a lot of potential incidents like this have been prevented by QA, but since there's a cost-benefit trade off with diminishing returns, it won't (and can't) be perfect. Sometimes things slip through the cracks with little or no consequence other than an ass chewing; other times lives are lost. This is about the middle of the dial on the scale of potential consequences.
Yup, and if there are this many misguided comments conflating control signals with data usage on Slashdot, imagine how easily the issue can be spun by carriers to intentionally misrepresent the issue to an ignorant consumer base.
courts have to ability to require you to decrypt data upon request
True, but irrelevant. First, caching aside, how many people store their communications? The courts can't force you to do something you can't do. Second, the endpoints are (currently, typically) not encrypted anyway. Third, under SOPA it's not illegal to access the sites, just for DNS to return their IP and for Google (and who?) to list them in search results.
The biggest hurdle is that Tor sucks and most people won't want to use their bandwidth to act as a router for anonymous traffic.
I do agree with your conclusion though: laws should be the focus.
Not much to attenuate RF in the near-perfect vacuum of most of space.
Except for that pesky inverse square law. At any rate, there are at least 4 reasons no one might be listening:
1) No one there to listen.
2) They don't have the technological capability.
3) They have the capability, but they don't care.
4) They hate our freedom and refuse to listen to our propaganda.
Apparently the fact that the age of an idea or philosophy does not correlate with its propensity to spark debate.
All the pro-piracy advocates say that IP shouldn't try to operate using an artificial-scarcity business model to make it seem like a physical good. Well, without (artificial) scarcity, there is also no logically-consistent argument for sale of "used" IP either.
Yes, but it's the proper fallback position when your primary argument against artificial scarcity falls on deaf ears. You made the case yourself. IF artificial, government-enforced, DRM-managed scarcity exists (and it does), THEN I assert my right of first sale. Whether or not I agree that the initial condition *should* be true doesn't negate the consequence of it being true.
And for what it's worth, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of IP as actual property, though for disambiguation it would be useful if we had a better term for IP that didn't actually include the word property.
Actually, having a "reasonable excuse" (such as research) is a defense to this law, so apparently he couldn't even come up with a good reason for having the files.
There is no reason there is a 300MB tier (was a 200MB tier) and a 3GB (2GB) tier when all the study data is showing most users are consuming 500-1300MB, with an average of 850.
Sure there is: Either the consumer can pay 2/3rds the cost of the 3GB plan and use virtually no data, or else he can pay for more than the 500-1300MB he really needs with the 3GB plan. It's a win-win!
Oh, you were looking at it from the customer's perspective?
Best use of "besmirching" in a sentence about toddlers I've seen all week.
possession of knowledge is not and should not be a crime.
Yes it is. Whether it should continue to be a crime or not is up to the people of the UK.
I took it last semester and some of the content (as described in the syllabus) was missing because the videos and exercises/exercise testing apps apparently took longer to create than anticipated. They're probably working on filling in this content, along with (as someone above suggested) accessibility features.
I agree it's scummy that they wouldn't just pay the licensing fee, but taking a new photo with the same post-processing effects isn't creating a derivative work. If it is, then where do you draw the line? Photos of sunsets in black and white? Cover shots of naked women with hairs and blemishes removed? It's a bad precedent regardless of the merits of this particular plaintiff's case.
No, this is about righteous indignation. If this was a little company remaking a program sold by a big company, everybody here would be supporting it.
Looks like the citizens of every country are going to have to stay on careful guard these days.
As opposed to what days? The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Curran
Ars had an article about the most recent case, and seems to come to the conclusion that it's stupid to have rules that can't be enforced except by the people who are subject to them, and points out the dichotomy between jurors being required to draw on their life experience without being allowed to do things such as looking up terms they may not understand. Do we want knowledgeable juries, or do we not? (Who lawyers want on juries is another question altogether.)
Anyway, my takeaway was to do as you please, but to keep your mouth shut about it. You can't introduce outside evidence, but you can emphasize points that lawyers may have made that best fit with the law and the facts as you see them. That's the role of the jury after all, and I don't begrudge anyone who takes that role seriously enough to do their own research, whether I agree with their conclusions or not.
There are two types of people: People agreeing with the upmod of your comment, and people getting laid.