You're missing the point entirely. The specific statistics or their validity aren't important.
The point is that an individual shouldn't be judged by what a group does, whether or not the perceptions about a group are correct. You'll never see 200 people being the defendant in a suit; their guilt or innocence is determined individually. --
Oh goodie, you know the number of the law that I used in my example.
My point is... that the argument that these actions are legitimate is correct-- to an extent (so it's a bit seductive). If this sort of action becomes institutionalized, then it's a problem. @Home is NOT someone who's renting out a spare bedroom.
And with regard to religion, race, sex,... these sorts of rulings begin to establish a legal pattern that it's acceptable to be put a whole group of people out just because some of the people that hang out near them(logical proximity, as in similar skin color, sex,...) do illegal things. I don't believe this sort of collateral damage is acceptable on a widespread basis. --
Some of the content is copyrighted, not necessarily all of it. Same idea... just like whites, there are some blacks who do illegal things and there are some who don't. Generalizing to a group who aren't all conclusively involved in an illegal activity is wrong.
Furthermore, upon deeper examination, this case is almost the complete opposite-- these actions won't have any effect on the white hats or the black hats. The legitimate activity won't be hurt because they can just be moved to another channel, but also similarly for the illegitimate transfers.
So in my book, it's doubly bad. The intent is horrible, and the outcome doesn't at all match the intent. --
And it's completely within an apartment manager's rights to only rent to white people, because scientifically statistically speaking, black people are more likely to invite trouble.
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? --
We believe that with this information, ALS Scan substantially complied with the notification requirement of providing a
representative list of infringing material as well as information reasonably sufficient to enable RemarQ to locate the infringing material.
This boggles me. I'd thought that the DMCA requires specific examples, or at least that's how most cases have gone so far. Mandating "remove all files that look like this" seems a bit vague, and sorta scary if upheld.
DMCA rulings worry me because they really seem like carpet-bombing. The judge decides that it's okay that there's some collateral damage. --
Although the raw data is user submitted, the storage, retrieval, categorization, and organization of the database, the access interface, and the matching and filtering methods are absolutely proprietary, and we will do what is necessary to defend this intellectual property.
Meaning... as long as we don't copy their code (and maybe look&feel or business process) used for storing, retrieving, categorizing, etc... we should be fine? --
In case you're wondering, yes, we know that chatting over Freenet is a fairly insane idea due to the lag. We're going to do it anyway because we are in fact insane.
I don't see the problem with this. Well, there's the ever-present plans of MS to take over the world, but that's nothing new.
What microsoft has always been good for is successfully implementing the grandiose ideas that nobody else could. Do you remember the Windows 3.1 days? If you had a new graphics card or new printer, what was the only thing that could talk to it? That's right, MS Windows. And MS shared the love by allowing any program running within it to talk to those devices as well.
And now there's network computing, with its related monstrosities, central directory and PKI infrastructure. Many big heads have tried to tackle these; none has come close to success. These are ideas that would expand the usefulness of computers beyond belief, but they can only be pulled off if there's a strong center to hold everything together.
In case you're worrying that "center" means monopoly, think again. The center is shrinking! MS is no longer trying to have a stranglehold on the Apps or the OS, just the authentication and the basic protocol which can be run on any hardware. We should rejoice!
Unlike visa or doubleclick, they're not trying to put themselves in a position to snoop on you. They're trying to give us something that no one else can. --
Or... instead of counting the number of records sold per year, count the percentage of records sold that year.
It looks like he's trying to unbias the data in a similar way that a loaf of bread in 1950 costs $0.10, but costs $1.50 in 2000. Replace GDP with percentage, and voila. --
There are many more limits to what you can't say with your mouth, besides just slander or libel. This is a partial list of federal laws in which it was found that another legal consideration is of higher importance than the first ammendment. There are 17 listed here, but the research wasn't thorough.
And there are undoubtedly many state laws in which the 1st ammendment wasn't the highest priority. --
I don't think the link is incorrect... I got it eventually, but I had to screw around a bit to get it to work... I went to the home page, then reviews, then LED #2. Rediculous.
He has this whole long review with "scientific" pictures, to get to this conclusion:
There is a very,
very big difference in brightness between one LED and 14!
You just have to wonder if they'll convince business customers that storing all their employee's info in a central DB is a good idea.
No shit. I work at a Fortune-100 company that has very stringent rules about leaving department phone lists laying around for the maintainance people to see, because the recruiting wolves will snap 'em up from afar. Apparently, a full company phonebook will go for at least $100 each, and a manager was caught trying to smuggle out a large box of them.
Given this level of attention, I would think that there would be many concents about a concerted effort to catalouge all people connecting from wwwproxy.bigcompany.com. --
The fundamental disconnect in the MPAA's minds is that in the real world, the Description(#1), the Implementation(#2), and the Application(#3) are all obviously separate. But in the digital world, one leads to another so quickly that they're almost indistinguishable. But by confusing the analogies between digital and real, they don't allow themselves to see the full repercussions of their law.
If a scientist turns the Description of an atomic bomb into an Implementation in order to test theory, the Implementation stays with him and can be easily guarded. Furthermore, the Implementation can only be Applied once, and it takes care and technical understanding to Apply it.
But on the internet, one scientist's Implementation is easily copied to everyone, and an evil person can Apply it to many targets in an automated fashion with almost no technical knowledge.
Thus, the Description quickly leads to multiple Application, so the Description must be quashed (ala fear of Bugtraq-ML).
2. Does deCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
No.... It is no more "speech" than a key to a library or museum (or a crowbar that could force open their doors) is "speech."
Perhaps this has been covered before, but I sincerely believe they're wrong on this point, and it may be a critical point.
Let me break the crowbar up into three different ideas:
1. A complete description of what a crowbar or key or lockpick is, and how to use it.
2. An actual crowbar/key/lockpick that has been constructed from #1.
3. The act of applying a crowbar to a door, or a lockpick to another's locked door.
MPPA is saying that DeCSS is the same as #2. And that, while #2 hasn't usually been seen as illegal, the ease with which it can be turned into #3 (because it's digital) means it should be illegal.
This is true.
The problem is... not only is DeCSS analogous to #2, but it's also analogous to #1 since the implementation is necessary to be able to describe it, and to talk about it in a defense sort of way. As such, preventing #2 would prevent any discourse about it because #1 isn't allowed unless #2 is.
This is what the court is trying to get at. Is DeCSS #1 and #2? Just #2? Just #1? Neither? If the final answer is "both", then the injunction can't remain. --
Planes can still be hijacked by using older-tech tools which today's scanners don't detect.
Current species are similar. They have defences against current versions of organisms, but may have dropped defences against older forms because the defences weren't being used. This happens in artificial co-evolution experiments as well... if an older organism is introduced to a more evolved and stable environment, the balance can be destroyed and sometimes a species won't be able to defend against its enemy's predecessors.
Certainly organisms becomre more robust over millions or billions of years of evolution, but it's still useful for NASA to keep it in the back of their minds. --
the way they were in IPv4, this is where multicasting comes into play. Addresses in the ff::/8 network are reserved for multicast applications, and there are two special multicast addresses that supersede the broadcast addresses from IPv4. One is the "all routers" multicast address, the others is for "all hosts".
It seems like the "all hosts" "multicast" thing is similar to what today's netbios and dhcp use. Is this incorrect? --
Indeed. It's not an obvious monopoly if no one was FORCED to do something. So it's helpful for monopolies in different fields to cooperate with each other? --
Slashdot Mirror
Supporting evidence here and here.
--
The point is that an individual shouldn't be judged by what a group does, whether or not the perceptions about a group are correct. You'll never see 200 people being the defendant in a suit; their guilt or innocence is determined individually.
--
My point is... that the argument that these actions are legitimate is correct-- to an extent (so it's a bit seductive). If this sort of action becomes institutionalized, then it's a problem. @Home is NOT someone who's renting out a spare bedroom.
And with regard to religion, race, sex,... these sorts of rulings begin to establish a legal pattern that it's acceptable to be put a whole group of people out just because some of the people that hang out near them(logical proximity, as in similar skin color, sex,...) do illegal things. I don't believe this sort of collateral damage is acceptable on a widespread basis.
--
Furthermore, upon deeper examination, this case is almost the complete opposite-- these actions won't have any effect on the white hats or the black hats. The legitimate activity won't be hurt because they can just be moved to another channel, but also similarly for the illegitimate transfers.
So in my book, it's doubly bad. The intent is horrible, and the outcome doesn't at all match the intent.
--
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
--
Same here in Illinois. Note that the announcement says "ASAP".
--
This boggles me. I'd thought that the DMCA requires specific examples, or at least that's how most cases have gone so far. Mandating "remove all files that look like this" seems a bit vague, and sorta scary if upheld.
DMCA rulings worry me because they really seem like carpet-bombing. The judge decides that it's okay that there's some collateral damage.
--
- Although the raw data is user submitted, the storage, retrieval, categorization, and organization of the database, the access interface, and the matching and filtering methods are absolutely proprietary, and we will do what is necessary to defend this intellectual property.
Meaning... as long as we don't copy their code (and maybe look&feel or business process) used for storing, retrieving, categorizing, etc... we should be fine?--
--
What microsoft has always been good for is successfully implementing the grandiose ideas that nobody else could. Do you remember the Windows 3.1 days? If you had a new graphics card or new printer, what was the only thing that could talk to it? That's right, MS Windows. And MS shared the love by allowing any program running within it to talk to those devices as well.
And now there's network computing, with its related monstrosities, central directory and PKI infrastructure. Many big heads have tried to tackle these; none has come close to success. These are ideas that would expand the usefulness of computers beyond belief, but they can only be pulled off if there's a strong center to hold everything together.
In case you're worrying that "center" means monopoly, think again. The center is shrinking! MS is no longer trying to have a stranglehold on the Apps or the OS, just the authentication and the basic protocol which can be run on any hardware. We should rejoice!
Unlike visa or doubleclick, they're not trying to put themselves in a position to snoop on you. They're trying to give us something that no one else can.
--
It looks like he's trying to unbias the data in a similar way that a loaf of bread in 1950 costs $0.10, but costs $1.50 in 2000. Replace GDP with percentage, and voila.
--
For authors, GPL'd code is an exchange.
--
DoCoMo has ~60% market share. While that may be higher than US's telcos, it's nothing like Microsft's.
--
And there are undoubtedly many state laws in which the 1st ammendment wasn't the highest priority.
--
--
That's his first LED flashlight review. It's not quite as rambling and verbose as his second.
--
He has this whole long review with "scientific" pictures, to get to this conclusion:
Say... one is roughly 14 times brighter?
--
No shit. I work at a Fortune-100 company that has very stringent rules about leaving department phone lists laying around for the maintainance people to see, because the recruiting wolves will snap 'em up from afar. Apparently, a full company phonebook will go for at least $100 each, and a manager was caught trying to smuggle out a large box of them.
Given this level of attention, I would think that there would be many concents about a concerted effort to catalouge all people connecting from wwwproxy.bigcompany.com.
--
The fundamental disconnect in the MPAA's minds is that in the real world, the Description(#1), the Implementation(#2), and the Application(#3) are all obviously separate. But in the digital world, one leads to another so quickly that they're almost indistinguishable. But by confusing the analogies between digital and real, they don't allow themselves to see the full repercussions of their law.
If a scientist turns the Description of an atomic bomb into an Implementation in order to test theory, the Implementation stays with him and can be easily guarded. Furthermore, the Implementation can only be Applied once, and it takes care and technical understanding to Apply it.
But on the internet, one scientist's Implementation is easily copied to everyone, and an evil person can Apply it to many targets in an automated fashion with almost no technical knowledge.
Thus, the Description quickly leads to multiple Application, so the Description must be quashed (ala fear of Bugtraq-ML).
Oh wait...
--
No. ... It is no more "speech" than a key to a library or museum (or a crowbar that could force open their doors) is "speech."
Perhaps this has been covered before, but I sincerely believe they're wrong on this point, and it may be a critical point.
Let me break the crowbar up into three different ideas:
- 1. A complete description of what a crowbar or key or lockpick is, and how to use it.
MPPA is saying that DeCSS is the same as #2. And that, while #2 hasn't usually been seen as illegal, the ease with which it can be turned into #3 (because it's digital) means it should be illegal.2. An actual crowbar/key/lockpick that has been constructed from #1.
3. The act of applying a crowbar to a door, or a lockpick to another's locked door.
This is true.
The problem is... not only is DeCSS analogous to #2, but it's also analogous to #1 since the implementation is necessary to be able to describe it, and to talk about it in a defense sort of way. As such, preventing #2 would prevent any discourse about it because #1 isn't allowed unless #2 is.
This is what the court is trying to get at. Is DeCSS #1 and #2? Just #2? Just #1? Neither? If the final answer is "both", then the injunction can't remain.
--
Current species are similar. They have defences against current versions of organisms, but may have dropped defences against older forms because the defences weren't being used. This happens in artificial co-evolution experiments as well... if an older organism is introduced to a more evolved and stable environment, the balance can be destroyed and sometimes a species won't be able to defend against its enemy's predecessors.
Certainly organisms becomre more robust over millions or billions of years of evolution, but it's still useful for NASA to keep it in the back of their minds.
--
tough titty (as the kitty is reputed to have said.)
No, I'm not trying to be funny.
--
So they may become known as the "Red ISP", yet will still bear the name "America"?
--
It seems like the "all hosts" "multicast" thing is similar to what today's netbios and dhcp use. Is this incorrect?
--
Indeed. It's not an obvious monopoly if no one was FORCED to do something. So it's helpful for monopolies in different fields to cooperate with each other?
--