do not see that having your car show up as two to four off-white pixels in a satellite image of the Wal-Mart parking lot is any cause for alarm whatsoever
WHAT? That means someone stole my car! And painted it white!
Be careful, you're on the edge of invoking Godwin's law. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd hate for a perfectly good statement to be nullified from simple misphrasing.
Aside from that they were both ruthless regimes with a distinct lack of humanity and decency, the East German government under Honecker and the Nazis had nothing in common. Invoking East Germany does not invoke Godwin's law.
And I am one of the later. If you don't like it, stand up against it. Don't just make a little noise. Make a lot. If you do this, you may find yourself with a good number of followers, and you yourself may find yourself participating in government.
Living in a government prison doesn't equate to participating in government.
I hate to break this to every obnoxiously arrogant jackass on this site that thinks because they know how to fix their car or their radio or whatever else that they are somehow some elevated and enlightened individual that can look down their noses at others but here's a fucking news flash: there are tons of interesting and important subjects, disciplines and things that most people--even intelligent and well educated people--don't give two shits about and never want to have to deal with. Not ever.
At the risk of being an obnoxiously arrogant jackass (hey, I use Macs, which puts me at least halfway there anyway), but I've found that people who do at least know something about how their car or their radio or some other thing they use regularly works tend to be more intelligent and better-educated than those who have no clue about anything.
And yes, given the courts' rulings on "obviousness" that a patent examiner is required to follow, an uneducated jury often is in a better position to evaluate the legitimacy of a patent. You can give them 80 instructions on exactly how they're to evaluate the word "obvious" when patent's legitimacy but at the end of the day they already know what obvious means and will look for ways to disregard contrary instructions.
Problem is, they do the same thing with infringement. And unlike prior art and obviousness, infringement is usually determined by the court. So you get
Company 1: Produces product which does X with features A, B, and C Company 2: Files a patent for product doing X with features A, B, and C. App is denied, so Company 2 modifies the patent adding feature D. Company 3: Produces product which does X with features A, B, C, and E. Company 2 sues.
Company 3 points out it isn't using feature D. Court says "close enough" and company 2 wins, having effectively patented the prior art.
And now this... And if you scroll up only a few comments to this one, you find that Tandberg has proof that they had this code in their private repository more than six months prior to the x264 commit, so again, you're wrong.
I claim 1. A method of obtaining patents comprising of a first step of examining publicly available code repositories for patentable innovation, a second step of rewriting said code, removing any identifying information, a third step of inserting the rewritten code into a private repository with a date stamp prior to that of the date of insertion of the original code into the public repository, and a fourth step of applying for a patent based on the date stamp.
2. The method of claim 1, where the prior date stamp pre-dates earlier public commits to the same case by the same author.
3. The method of claim 1, where the prior date stamp is between six months and one year prior to the present day....
Good advice for capable people. For the 90% that are barely sentient drones that thank God when nobody notices that they just shit out some code that sort of works if you don't poke at it, those processes are critical.
Problem is, by having these processes and actually insisting on adherence to them, you ensure that the other 10% won't work for you for long, because there's so little no overlap between people who are competent and people who can stand dealing with "process".
The difference between Anonymous and The **AA's is that the **AA's (mostly) work within the framework of the law. Anonymous works almost entirely outside the law.
It's a lot easier to operate within the framework of the law when you built that framework.
And yes, people have been sued for millions of dollars, but nobody is ever going to pay that.. In most cases, they will simply file bankruptcy and be done with it. It's *NOT* a life threatening situation.
Yeah, "simply" file bankruptcy. That is, they'll simply have to lose everything they have and have their credit ruined for 10 years. No reason anyone should object to that, after all, it probably won't kill them.
Anonymous is a problem because it believes itself to be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner. It has no oversight, and there are no checks and balances. It can, and will, do whatever it wants.. and that is a recipe for terrorism.
The RIAA is a problem because they own the laws. The judges, juries, and executioners thus do their bidding. They have evaded all oversight and there is no effective check on their power. They can and do whatever they want, and they are, if not actual terrorists, at least extortionists.
Not to get all godwin or anything, but i'm sure Nazi's thought the ends justified the means as well.
The Nazis ends were evil as well as their means.
Anonymous's major problem is that it feels it is justified in deciding what's right and wrong.
Every moral entity decides what's right and wrong. There's no way around it; if there is an objective morality, it's not directly accessible. You can delegate your decision making to some authority, and claim that following the dictates of authority is right while violating it is wrong, but that's making a moral choice as well.
Radical behavior is a last resort. It's not like someone is imprisoning anyone for file sharing, but Anonymous seems to be acting like it's a life or death situation.
People HAVE been imprisoned for violating the DMCA.
And that "last resort" became the only remaining one somewhere around the time of Eldred v. Ashcroft and Grokster.
It's simply playground logic that's being addresses here. So and so pissed you off, so you want to club him or rat to the teacher to get them to club him.
If you want to reduce it to playground logic, "so and so" beats you up for your pocket change. The teachers take his side. He's been taking more and more of late. You have a chance to throw sand in his face. Do you take it? He'll still take your pocket change, so it won't improve your situation any.
Legal means have been exhausted. The pro-copyright side holds the upper hand. The unlawful means won't succeed either, but pissing off one's oppressors is a good thing in itself.
I agree that copyright law needs revising, but I have yet to see someone suggest a decent alternative that benefits both the consumer AND the producer of the consumed good.
That's because no such proposal can do so. It's not zero sum, but the producers have to give somewhat for consumers to get anything. Instead, they've been squeezing the last drops out of the consumer.
Remember, despite all their flaws, the copyright laws we have today did and still do serve a purpose.
Sure. Whether it's a purpose which needs serving is a different matter.
They keep people from stealing ideas.
Really? Because US copyright law explicitly disclaims coverage of ideas.
They work wonderfully for solid non-digital things, like the thousands of goods we buy in stores
No, they don't. Mostly they don't apply, and where they apply, they are broken.
According to TFA, these ships should be producing "500 times the total pollution of the world's vehicles". But yet, they are only "responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions". From those 2 numbers, either cars are not the problem everybody says they are or these numbers are WAY off.
It just says that CO2 emissions are not proportional to traditional pollution emissions. Not surprising; there's lots of things you can do to reduce NOx, SOx, HC, and particulate emissions, but not much you can do to reduce CO2 emissions assuming you're burning hydrocarbons.
Look, kids, it's just like/.'s view of musicians and the RIAA: the world doesn't owe you a living working in IT just because you want it. I hire the best I can get and if some non-American is better than you, I'm going to get them a visa and hire him/her without batting an eyelash.
It's not the ones who are the best who are the problem. Maybe 1% of the H-1Bs are among the best. The other 99% are code monkeys who went to the local equivalent of a tech school, know barely enough Java or whatever to get by, and have resumes "enhanced" by agencies who specialize in such things (because their qualifications are foreign, they are unlikely to be verified by a US company). This has all sorts of bad effects, including cutting off the bottom rungs of the ladder for American grads. Why hire an unproven new grad from a non-top-10 school when for the same price or cheaper, you can get an H-1B with "5 years experience" in anything you like?
Start with it being a non-bootable secondary drive, then low level format it, partition it, high level partition it, wipe it overwriting everything, than I might trust it.
It hasn't been possible to low-level format a drive in the field for years.
Gosh, it is amusing to see the reaction of Americans who just recently voted the teabaggers into power. So Obama didn't fix the entire country in two years partly because he was constantly opposed and any attempt to lessen the "security" would have made it even worse and increased the calls that Obama is in bed with the terrorists and a Muslim.
Sure, it's the Tea Party's fault that Obama has not only continued but expanded the Bush abuses of power. Give it a rest; Obama's in charge and it's not like he made attempts to make things better that were stymied.
A "lot" of slashdotters rage about it all, but fail to translate it to the average person.
As you've noted, the average person doesn't give a shit. You can't make him give a shit. The age of freedom is over, as freedom has neither champion nor constituency.
And I am fairly certain more then half of those raging against this, voted for parties that support it because they are afraid a single penny of their income might go to another human being in need.
The only people who didn't vote for parties that support this shit are those who didn't vote and those who voted for certain third parties -- in which are included at least one you'd denigrate for stingyness. The Democrats and Republicans BOTH support it. You're living in a fantasy world trying to pin it all on those stingy bastard teabagging types.
This hacker guy lived in a dream world. Thinking he can carry encrypted data without hassle because nobody is smart enough to crack it. HAHA. Well, he found out. Welcome to reality. Why on earth would you even carry a laptop through airport security?
This is Moxie Marlinspike. He probably has been expecting this for some time, and wanted the publicity.
True, but irrelevant. Climbing on the roof is still better for the individual at the expense of the system.
Err, no. It's better for the individual, possibly at the expense of some other individual (if the system is running at capacity), but it's not bad for the system at all.
...that is, I've seen this bull before. At least twice, previously phrased as an "internet kill switch". Unfortunately, the problem with bad ideas is they're almost certainly to eventually become law.
Boosting an individual's signal may be temporarily good for that individual, but bad for the system.
If the booster behaves the same as any other cellular device -- that is, has the same maximum power and adaptive power characteristics -- then from the system's point of view it's the same as if someone climbed up on their roof with such a device. A booster can have more power than a handheld cellphone (because FCC human exposure limits for handheld phones are less than the limits for cellular devices in general), but not all cellular devices are handheld cellphones.
Of course the First Amendment isn't meant as a shield for those who steal. That's what the FOURTH amendment is for, with those pesky search and seizure provisions. The First Amendment is meant as a shield for those who infringe copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
WHAT? That means someone stole my car! And painted it white!
Aside from that they were both ruthless regimes with a distinct lack of humanity and decency, the East German government under Honecker and the Nazis had nothing in common. Invoking East Germany does not invoke Godwin's law.
Living in a government prison doesn't equate to participating in government.
At the risk of being an obnoxiously arrogant jackass (hey, I use Macs, which puts me at least halfway there anyway), but I've found that people who do at least know something about how their car or their radio or some other thing they use regularly works tend to be more intelligent and better-educated than those who have no clue about anything.
A heap checker in 2001 wasn't groundbreaking either. Purify (now owned by IBM) has been around since the early 1990s.
Problem is, they do the same thing with infringement. And unlike prior art and obviousness, infringement is usually determined by the court. So you get
Company 1: Produces product which does X with features A, B, and C
Company 2: Files a patent for product doing X with features A, B, and C. App is denied, so Company 2 modifies the patent adding feature D.
Company 3: Produces product which does X with features A, B, C, and E.
Company 2 sues.
Company 3 points out it isn't using feature D. Court says "close enough" and company 2 wins, having effectively patented the prior art.
I claim
1. A method of obtaining patents comprising of a first step of examining publicly available code repositories for patentable innovation, a second step of rewriting said code, removing any identifying information, a third step of inserting the rewritten code into a private repository with a date stamp prior to that of the date of insertion of the original code into the public repository, and a fourth step of applying for a patent based on the date stamp.
2. The method of claim 1, where the prior date stamp pre-dates earlier public commits to the same case by the same author.
3. The method of claim 1, where the prior date stamp is between six months and one year prior to the present day. ...
Problem is, by having these processes and actually insisting on adherence to them, you ensure that the other 10% won't work for you for long, because there's so little no overlap between people who are competent and people who can stand dealing with "process".
It's a lot easier to operate within the framework of the law when you built that framework.
Yeah, "simply" file bankruptcy. That is, they'll simply have to lose everything they have and have their credit ruined for 10 years. No reason anyone should object to that, after all, it probably won't kill them.
The Nazis ends were evil as well as their means.
Every moral entity decides what's right and wrong. There's no way around it; if there is an objective morality, it's not directly accessible. You can delegate your decision making to some authority, and claim that following the dictates of authority is right while violating it is wrong, but that's making a moral choice as well.
People HAVE been imprisoned for violating the DMCA.
And that "last resort" became the only remaining one somewhere around the time of Eldred v. Ashcroft and Grokster.
If you want to reduce it to playground logic, "so and so" beats you up for your pocket change. The teachers take his side. He's been taking more and more of late. You have a chance to throw sand in his face. Do you take it? He'll still take your pocket change, so it won't improve your situation any.
Given the choice between that and "Please sir, may I have another?", yes.
Note that I'm referring to pissing off one's oppressors as a _moral_ good. As a practical matter, kneeling at the zipper is safer.
Legal means have been exhausted. The pro-copyright side holds the upper hand. The unlawful means won't succeed either, but pissing off one's oppressors is a good thing in itself.
That's because no such proposal can do so. It's not zero sum, but the producers have to give somewhat for consumers to get anything. Instead, they've been squeezing the last drops out of the consumer.
Sure. Whether it's a purpose which needs serving is a different matter.
Really? Because US copyright law explicitly disclaims coverage of ideas.
No, they don't. Mostly they don't apply, and where they apply, they are broken.
It just says that CO2 emissions are not proportional to traditional pollution emissions. Not surprising; there's lots of things you can do to reduce NOx, SOx, HC, and particulate emissions, but not much you can do to reduce CO2 emissions assuming you're burning hydrocarbons.
It's not the ones who are the best who are the problem. Maybe 1% of the H-1Bs are among the best. The other 99% are code monkeys who went to the local equivalent of a tech school, know barely enough Java or whatever to get by, and have resumes "enhanced" by agencies who specialize in such things (because their qualifications are foreign, they are unlikely to be verified by a US company). This has all sorts of bad effects, including cutting off the bottom rungs of the ladder for American grads. Why hire an unproven new grad from a non-top-10 school when for the same price or cheaper, you can get an H-1B with "5 years experience" in anything you like?
Cornell, Princeton, Columbia, Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, and Brown are all top 20 for Comp Sci.
Start with it being a non-bootable secondary drive, then low level format it, partition it, high level partition it, wipe it overwriting everything, than I might trust it.
It hasn't been possible to low-level format a drive in the field for years.
Sure, it's the Tea Party's fault that Obama has not only continued but expanded the Bush abuses of power. Give it a rest; Obama's in charge and it's not like he made attempts to make things better that were stymied.
As you've noted, the average person doesn't give a shit. You can't make him give a shit. The age of freedom is over, as freedom has neither champion nor constituency.
The only people who didn't vote for parties that support this shit are those who didn't vote and those who voted for certain third parties -- in which are included at least one you'd denigrate for stingyness. The Democrats and Republicans BOTH support it. You're living in a fantasy world trying to pin it all on those stingy bastard teabagging types.
This is Moxie Marlinspike. He probably has been expecting this for some time, and wanted the publicity.
Err, no. It's better for the individual, possibly at the expense of some other individual (if the system is running at capacity), but it's not bad for the system at all.
...that is, I've seen this bull before. At least twice, previously phrased as an "internet kill switch". Unfortunately, the problem with bad ideas is they're almost certainly to eventually become law.
Who do you think is paying the bills?
If the booster behaves the same as any other cellular device -- that is, has the same maximum power and adaptive power characteristics -- then from the system's point of view it's the same as if someone climbed up on their roof with such a device. A booster can have more power than a handheld cellphone (because FCC human exposure limits for handheld phones are less than the limits for cellular devices in general), but not all cellular devices are handheld cellphones.
Of course the First Amendment isn't meant as a shield for those who steal. That's what the FOURTH amendment is for, with those pesky search and seizure provisions. The First Amendment is meant as a shield for those who infringe copyright.
Compared to the tricks bacteria pull off to get past your immune system, a little Sudoku is child's play.