I don't think the above excerpts are a fair presentation of the judge's ruling. Read the whole thing over at EFF and it makes much more sense.
The ruling spends a lot of time taking the police to task for getting a warrant using probable cause based on previous alleged crimes. The judge explains that those things don't constitute probable cause in this case. I don't think the judge is saying anything about the worthiness of a warrant based on copyright infringement. Rather, if you want to use copyright infringement to get a warrant, you better do so for a crime that has some relation to it.
The text quoted in the summary is merely pointing out the incongruence. Deriving anything from the counterfactual is not possible in my opinion.
This has come up before... When I was at CMU (cmu.edu), Central Michigan University sued for the rights to the acronym and won. That's why you will only find t-shirts, hats, etc. with "Carnegie Mellon" written on them now. We got to keep the domain name as part of the deal.
So, it doesn't surprise me that they have CMU all over their site and whatnot, but whenever I say "CMU" people always know which school I mean:)
That depends, what is the class for? If it's a class teaching how to use C++, then you have a point.
If it's just about any other CS class, however, probably the language you are using doesn't matter so much, but rather what you are using the language to do.
I'm guessing that in this instance, the fact that the professor is using some wacky set of C constructs is not nearly as important as what is actually being taught, e.g. an algorithm. That is, ignore the deprecated stuff because that's not what is important.
Of course, yes, it could just be a really bad professor:)
It's an abstract linear algebra book that does a great job of motivating topics *without* resorting to determinants, which are weird to get your head around.
Anyway, getting through it would give students some good insights into the mathematical process, I think.
Then again, some single cell organisms are pretty smart.
Seriously though, I don't think AI has yet reached the point of being as smart as your typical animal (which means low-level mammal I'm assuming). Not without substantial loans of intelligence on the part of the AI operator/designer.
I follow you if we are talking about the top level domains, but this is for the root zone (i.e. "."), which I don't think has this problem. The root zone servers are controlled by different entities around the world anyway.
I assume Verisign will control the key for.com, and so on.
It's not necessarily unethical, but it adds to the problem of spam.
Every month or so, my network gets hit with hundreds of thousands of bounce messages from around the internet because a spammer is faking from addresses using my domain. Each bounce message comes from completely unrelated places and people. Some are mailbox full messages, some are "Your email contains a virus" messages, some are challenge response type messages like yours.
It's like voting, each person does make a difference:). Someone who thinks, "it's just one account" is one of the 300,000 bounce messages hitting my network in a single day.
I run a tiny network, the problem is much worse for big ones.
If you want to do something heavy handed to stop spam, I would suggest something more like greylisting. Reject (using smtp reject during the smtp conversation, not a bounce email) every email that comes in the first time. Spam sending bots and whatnot will not try again, real mail servers will.
You are right when you say "It wouldn't need to be filtered at all if it hadn't been accepted as legit in the first place." So, you don't accept then bounce, you reject up front with smtp reject.
The head is close enough to the platter that it would hit a piece of dust. In fact, the head is *so* close to the platter, that it would hit a fingerprint on the surface. It floats on a cushion of air created by the high speed of the spinning platter.
Scratching the surface renders that part of the surface unusable, but also creates pieces of shrapnel which cause more problems.
I think it's absolutely incredible that hard drives work at all.
I hear this type of argument from Apple types constantly. I don't mean to pick specifically on you, you're just the last person I saw say this kind of thing.
In any event, I find the argument both disturbing and grating. Typically, Apple does something like censor message boards, cripple applications, or attempt (usually succeeding) undue control over its users in some way. I personally think they border on the software version of fascism.
Then, someone will complain. The complaints, however, are always met by people saying that Apple created the software, hardware, or what have you, therefore they can do whatever they want with it, including restricting your freedoms. You didn't *have* to use the apple product, so you have no right to complain.
Apple not forcing you to use its products does not imply they aren't doing anything wrong. It doesn't mean that restricting freedoms is ok, or that people should not complain when they see freedoms being restricted. Notice, I didn't even say *their* freedoms.
I think the plethora of analogies with politics are obvious, so I won't bother with those.
The points are that Apple does questionable things, which are questionable whether or not any given person buys their products, and that the argument given by the parent and countless others resembles a scary kind of group-think. It's not a good argument, and implies a willingness to be unquestioningly subservient to a force thought superior.
Not that it's really important, but many are saying there is DNS hijacking going on.
It's actually IP hijacking (from what I'm reading on the NANOG list anyway). An ISP in Pakistan is advertising a "more specific route" to Youtube's ip space. So, routers are taking the traffic there instead.
It could easily be accidental, like someone not having the right filter in place to block that advertisement going out to everyone.
I hope they are enjoying all of the extra packets.
The design goal of Gravia is to provide light in a room (600-800 lumens — roughly equal to one 40 watt incandescent lightbulb), over a period of 4 hours, using people to generate power.
Note the parentheses. It really does say the goal is to light a room over a period of 4 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding, this is a terrible (possibly disingenuous) analysis of the ruling. Guaranteed to get people on slashdot talking though.
Please, everyone read the whole thing.
I don't think the above excerpts are a fair presentation of the judge's ruling. Read the whole thing over at EFF and it makes much more sense.
The ruling spends a lot of time taking the police to task for getting a warrant using probable cause based on previous alleged crimes. The judge explains that those things don't constitute probable cause in this case. I don't think the judge is saying anything about the worthiness of a warrant based on copyright infringement. Rather, if you want to use copyright infringement to get a warrant, you better do so for a crime that has some relation to it.
The text quoted in the summary is merely pointing out the incongruence. Deriving anything from the counterfactual is not possible in my opinion.
This has come up before... When I was at CMU (cmu.edu), Central Michigan University sued for the rights to the acronym and won. That's why you will only find t-shirts, hats, etc. with "Carnegie Mellon" written on them now. We got to keep the domain name as part of the deal.
So, it doesn't surprise me that they have CMU all over their site and whatnot, but whenever I say "CMU" people always know which school I mean :)
Now if they can only come around on Warrantless Wiretapping.
You make it sound like we do context switches soley for (and because of) memory protection reasons.
How do you run many programs "at once" on a single CPU without context switches? (or n programs on m<n CPUs, for that matter)
To get rid of context switches, you need to get rid of a lot more than separate address space.
I used to code to Orbital as well; I think I owe my final OS project to Snivilization.
Lately I like Melodium.
Advertisements don't need to inform. Pay attention to the next few car commercials you see and notice how facts about the car are pretty light.
That depends, what is the class for? If it's a class teaching how to use C++, then you have a point.
If it's just about any other CS class, however, probably the language you are using doesn't matter so much, but rather what you are using the language to do.
I'm guessing that in this instance, the fact that the professor is using some wacky set of C constructs is not nearly as important as what is actually being taught, e.g. an algorithm. That is, ignore the deprecated stuff because that's not what is important.
Of course, yes, it could just be a really bad professor :)
I was thinking something similar, but wasn't sure if it would be outside of the scope of what the OP wanted.
In particular, I really like this: Linear Algebra Done Right.
It's an abstract linear algebra book that does a great job of motivating topics *without* resorting to determinants, which are weird to get your head around.
Anyway, getting through it would give students some good insights into the mathematical process, I think.
Then again, some single cell organisms are pretty smart.
Seriously though, I don't think AI has yet reached the point of being as smart as your typical animal (which means low-level mammal I'm assuming). Not without substantial loans of intelligence on the part of the AI operator/designer.
That bit at the end, I think, were the words to an old civil rights anthem. To me it's a nice contrast.
If effect, he was hinting that those slogans are coming true.
Ahh, so you would say they embrace a solution, then extend it to their liking?
Sounds familiar :)
I follow you if we are talking about the top level domains, but this is for the root zone (i.e. "."), which I don't think has this problem. The root zone servers are controlled by different entities around the world anyway.
I assume Verisign will control the key for .com, and so on.
You mean ::1?
Ha! I feel like that is the same guy who wrote a text editor that runs in ring 0 or something and halts multitasking.
Anyone remember that guy? There was a huge usenet fight about it on some linux newsgroup in the 90s.
Anyway, he had exactly the same reasoning style.
One of us is having unusual luck, and I'd prefer to think it's you. ;)
Sorry, it's you. :) Except for some IBM/Hitachi Travelstor laptop drives, I think every HD I've had that went bad was a WD.
In my experience, Maxtor is better since they were acquired by Seagate.
There's a famous person named hobbit.
Careful now. If that's the hobbit it might be, and given the low uid it's quite possible, you should show some respect! :)
In my opinion this is absolutely true. Without jailbreaking, I would still have to pay the annual fee to install my own applications on my own device.
Seems pretty unreasonable to me.
It's been forever in slashdot time, sorry.
It's not necessarily unethical, but it adds to the problem of spam.
Every month or so, my network gets hit with hundreds of thousands of bounce messages from around the internet because a spammer is faking from addresses using my domain. Each bounce message comes from completely unrelated places and people. Some are mailbox full messages, some are "Your email contains a virus" messages, some are challenge response type messages like yours.
It's like voting, each person does make a difference :). Someone who thinks, "it's just one account" is one of the 300,000 bounce messages hitting my network in a single day.
I run a tiny network, the problem is much worse for big ones.
If you want to do something heavy handed to stop spam, I would suggest something more like greylisting. Reject (using smtp reject during the smtp conversation, not a bounce email) every email that comes in the first time. Spam sending bots and whatnot will not try again, real mail servers will.
You are right when you say "It wouldn't need to be filtered at all if it hadn't been accepted as legit in the first place." So, you don't accept then bounce, you reject up front with smtp reject.
Typically, reject is *always* better than bounce.
I'm confused. You start off telling us that you understand that return addresses on spam are fake.
From the rest of your comment, however, it seems you are still using them to send out messages. Please tell me I'm misreading.
Backscatter is a big problem; if you are really doing what it sounds like you are doing, mail server operators and domain owners everywhere hate you.
The head is close enough to the platter that it would hit a piece of dust. In fact, the head is *so* close to the platter, that it would hit a fingerprint on the surface. It floats on a cushion of air created by the high speed of the spinning platter.
Scratching the surface renders that part of the surface unusable, but also creates pieces of shrapnel which cause more problems.
I think it's absolutely incredible that hard drives work at all.
I hear this type of argument from Apple types constantly. I don't mean to pick specifically on you, you're just the last person I saw say this kind of thing.
In any event, I find the argument both disturbing and grating. Typically, Apple does something like censor message boards, cripple applications, or attempt (usually succeeding) undue control over its users in some way. I personally think they border on the software version of fascism.
Then, someone will complain. The complaints, however, are always met by people saying that Apple created the software, hardware, or what have you, therefore they can do whatever they want with it, including restricting your freedoms. You didn't *have* to use the apple product, so you have no right to complain.
Apple not forcing you to use its products does not imply they aren't doing anything wrong. It doesn't mean that restricting freedoms is ok, or that people should not complain when they see freedoms being restricted. Notice, I didn't even say *their* freedoms.
I think the plethora of analogies with politics are obvious, so I won't bother with those.
The points are that Apple does questionable things, which are questionable whether or not any given person buys their products, and that the argument given by the parent and countless others resembles a scary kind of group-think. It's not a good argument, and implies a willingness to be unquestioningly subservient to a force thought superior.
Not that it's really important, but many are saying there is DNS hijacking going on.
It's actually IP hijacking (from what I'm reading on the NANOG list anyway). An ISP in Pakistan is advertising a "more specific route" to Youtube's ip space. So, routers are taking the traffic there instead.
It could easily be accidental, like someone not having the right filter in place to block that advertisement going out to everyone.
I hope they are enjoying all of the extra packets.
I think you have a parse error:
The design goal of Gravia is to provide light in a room (600-800 lumens — roughly equal to one 40 watt incandescent lightbulb), over a period of 4 hours, using people to generate power.
Note the parentheses. It really does say the goal is to light a room over a period of 4 hours.