Why? Well, the arresting officer's report claimed he was visibly drunk, couldn't stand, was falling over, etc. None of which was corroborated by his own video taping of the event.
Go to court a few times and you'll realize something interesting... for a lot of cases with the same charges, the officer's story is exactly the same, only with a few details changed to make it applicable to the particular defendant. Someone booked for DUI will always be slurring their speech, staggering, have bloodshot eyes, etc. Someone booked for resisting arrest will always have been waving his arms and cursing, etc. This isn't because all the offenses are the same. It's because the officer's testimony has no relation to the truth. He's simply telling the story that gets a conviction.
I worked on such cards many years ago and just doing this would not work. The systems would have a large number of trap codes. For example 5-20 random numbers out of every hundred are removed, or generated using alternate checksums. So generating just a string of sequential numbers would trigger the trap. With the trap activated you could then map it to a bank of numbers to check for and cancel them.
I'm not sure how your "trap" works. Bad guy enters the code through anonymous internet connection. If it's not a trap, he gets stuff. If it is a trap, he gets rejected, but that's all. If you cancel any blocks of numbers, you just piss off legitimate customers.
Anyway, it does work. I had two cards for the company; I noticed the numbers were similar. The company had a way of checking the balance on the cards; I checked some for those in between my two, and some of them worked. The cards had a scratch-off PIN, but the web site let you order without asking for it (!) (I know this because I ordered from my legitimate cards). So, the obvious scam would be get a starting card number on Black Friday, and a couple of days before Christmas, start trying numbers and ordering stuff. Result: a lot of pissed-off people on Christmas when they try to use their cards.
just have a very bank of batteries at the gas station underground that can discharge that fast into the car,
If you're doing it at a dedicated "fueling" station, you don't need the extra batteries. The power companies can deliver the power, just not on residential circuits.
Making a safe and idiot-proof connection to run all that power through is left as an exercise.
I'd be interested to know what algorithm was being used for the keycards. Did Apple use a weak scheme, did someone leak the secret, or (most interestingly) has someone managed to crack a good encryption algorithm.
(Alas, I'd guess it's probably a weak scheme. As recently as two years ago I noticed a bike products retailer was actually using sequential codes for its gift cards)
Do we realise how many times copyright laws are broken in offices today throughout the world? Look around the office. How many photocopies of everthing are there around? Magazines, newspapers, printed copies of web sites.
Never mind the printed ones. The copies in the computer are violations themselves, by a strict reading of copyright law. Copyright (as currently formulated) and computers are quite incompatible, but most of the clash is invisible. Copyright and the Internet (also as currently formulated) are completely incompatible. The few patches on it that don't do more harm than good are woefully inadequate to reconcile them.
The problem with re: Bilksi is that all the patents that are being rejected this way should have been rejected because they are "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art". Bilksi is a copout by the courts that couldn't be bothered to do the right thing by invalidating for obviousness.
As another poster pointed out, you have the order wrong. As a procedural rule, the PTO doesn't even consider the issue of whether or not the patent is novel or non-obvious until it has considered whether the subject matter is patentable in the first place. So if a patent is both not patentable subject matter and has prior art dating back to antiquity, like this one, it will be rejected for not being patentable subject matter and the issues of novelty and obviousness won't even be considered. That's not a cop out; even if there are many reasons to reject a patent application, it makes sense to stop looking after you find the first one.
Legally murky, as software with little or no purpose other than circumventing copy protection, software which is marketed for circumventing copy protection, or primarily designed to break protection would be a violation of US Code Section 1201, which would leave the service provider open for secondary infringement.
(IANAL, but..) Violation of 17 USC 1201(b) isn't copyright infringement (which is defined by 17 USC 501), so the takedown provisions of 17 USC 512 don't apply to it. I don't think there's any case law on secondary violation of 17 USC 1201(b), but with a reading as broad as that in MPAA v. 2600, a provider could be held liable for _direct_ violation for merely hosting a link.
The DMCA takedown rules should require a work to actually be infringing...
They do. Takedowns of encryption tools are a misuse of DMCA 512. But the rules encourage bogus takedowns, and it's not like someone who is flagrantly violating DMCA 1201 is going to write a DMCA 512 counternotice.
UPS's packing algorithms, on the other hand, leave a lot to be desired. Mostly they are optimized to provide the most opportunity for damage. For instance, cheap, heavy items will always be loaded on top of expensive, fragile, light items. Also UPS does its box burst testing in production, giving new meaning to the phrase "drop ship".
Now don't get me wrong, there's plenty of Uranium to go around for quite some time, and with proper breeder-reactors, there's very little waste, but in effect, you're pushing the supply/demand problem down the road a few years.
The second law of thermodynamics says that pushing the problem down the road is the best we can do.
we Americans have just been brainwashed into thinking that diesel==bad.
Comes mainly from getting stuck behind diesel cars in traffic. Not just GM or trucks; the Mercedes 300D was just as offensive, as are the few US diesel Volkswagens.
Evolution or no evolution, I think Dawkins is unlikely to speak at the Vatican any time soon. His being an atheist and an advocate for atheism is the main reason. They'd sooner invite Lucifer; at least he believes in God.
The way I see it (yeah, IANAL) even if I only have a license to use the program on the disc according to certain restrictions, I bought the disc, case, manual, and maybe even a cardboard box from the store when I gave them my credit card. I can re-sell these physical items regardless of whether the license can legally be transferred or not.
There's a contradiction there. If you own the disc, you own a copy of the game. That disc IS, according to US copyright law, a copy of the game. That's part of why the whole "licensed and not sold" thing doesn't hold up to casual inspection.
this sort of move by Amazon will be fought and countered by every one of us in the development and publishing industry every way we can. The prevailing argument seems to be that, since re-selling is legal, you should be able to do it completely unregulated, regardless of the damage it does to the industries that provide you that content. So, if 10,000 copies of a game sell, but they go through a million hands due to rampant resales that the publishers/developers never see a cent of, well, there goes another dev.
Cry me a fucking river. What's so special about games that the developer should be compensated for each sale rather than just the first, as with every other item from cars to computers to houses? That sort of bitching didn't gain much sympathy for the RIAA and it sure as hell won't get any for you.
If it's not an emergency, I won't sign such a form, and if the doc doesn't like it, there's others. If it IS an emergency, I'll sign, write the bad review if I get bad service, and argue about unconscionable terms later.
If the state doctor's association convinces every doctor in the state, or my insurance company convinces all its member doctors, to require such a form, I'll post the bad reviews under a pseudonym. If they're going to collude, I'm going to cheat.
You're right. A settlement with Microsoft where TomTom licensed the patents in question wouldn't trigger any GPL violations, provided TomTom remained free to distribute source to anyone who bought a TomTom, and grant a license (a _copyright_ license) to redistribute source and binary to anyone who bought a TomTom. Microsoft could continue to go after the redistributors, but as long as they didn't require TomTom to do so, TomTom would not have violated the GPL.
If the code was GPL V3, then licensing with Microsoft would trigger a violation, but not GPL V2.
Seems to me that the trick is separating two effects
1) Fish which are larger because they are older are removed from the population, leaving the population on average smaller but not necessarily changing the genetic makeup.
2) Fish with genes which make them larger are removed from the population, leaving the population on average smaller, and reducing the frequency of "big fish" genes.
Leaving the population alone will eventually reverse the first effect. The second effect, on the other hand, should be permanent unless there is selection pressure for "big fish" genes. However, since the article states that bigger fish produce more offspring, it's rather likely that there is such pressure, so the researcher's results make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Go to court a few times and you'll realize something interesting... for a lot of cases with the same charges, the officer's story is exactly the same, only with a few details changed to make it applicable to the particular defendant. Someone booked for DUI will always be slurring their speech, staggering, have bloodshot eyes, etc. Someone booked for resisting arrest will always have been waving his arms and cursing, etc. This isn't because all the offenses are the same. It's because the officer's testimony has no relation to the truth. He's simply telling the story that gets a conviction.
I'm not sure how your "trap" works. Bad guy enters the code through anonymous internet connection. If it's not a trap, he gets stuff. If it is a trap, he gets rejected, but that's all. If you cancel any blocks of numbers, you just piss off legitimate customers.
Anyway, it does work. I had two cards for the company; I noticed the numbers were similar. The company had a way of checking the balance on the cards; I checked some for those in between my two, and some of them worked. The cards had a scratch-off PIN, but the web site let you order without asking for it (!) (I know this because I ordered from my legitimate cards). So, the obvious scam would be get a starting card number on Black Friday, and a couple of days before Christmas, start trying numbers and ordering stuff. Result: a lot of pissed-off people on Christmas when they try to use their cards.
If you're doing it at a dedicated "fueling" station, you don't need the extra batteries. The power companies can deliver the power, just not on residential circuits.
Making a safe and idiot-proof connection to run all that power through is left as an exercise.
Apparently, despite the upbeat tone, we're supposed to think this battery really sucks.
Yep, especially when you consider another recent study which showed that a child's IQ is inversely correlated with the age of his father.
I'd be interested to know what algorithm was being used for the keycards. Did Apple use a weak scheme, did someone leak the secret, or (most interestingly) has someone managed to crack a good encryption algorithm.
(Alas, I'd guess it's probably a weak scheme. As recently as two years ago I noticed a bike products retailer was actually using sequential codes for its gift cards)
Never mind the printed ones. The copies in the computer are violations themselves, by a strict reading of copyright law. Copyright (as currently formulated) and computers are quite incompatible, but most of the clash is invisible. Copyright and the Internet (also as currently formulated) are completely incompatible. The few patches on it that don't do more harm than good are woefully inadequate to reconcile them.
Because the public has neither choice nor clue.
As another poster pointed out, you have the order wrong. As a procedural rule, the PTO doesn't even consider the issue of whether or not the patent is novel or non-obvious until it has considered whether the subject matter is patentable in the first place. So if a patent is both not patentable subject matter and has prior art dating back to antiquity, like this one, it will be rejected for not being patentable subject matter and the issues of novelty and obviousness won't even be considered. That's not a cop out; even if there are many reasons to reject a patent application, it makes sense to stop looking after you find the first one.
(IANAL, and definitely NAPL)
Old, small USB keys are good for storing small amounts of information for offline backup. Private keys, passwords, tax records, etc.
(IANAL, but..)
Violation of 17 USC 1201(b) isn't copyright infringement (which is defined by 17 USC 501), so the takedown provisions of 17 USC 512 don't apply to it. I don't think there's any case law on secondary violation of 17 USC 1201(b), but with a reading as broad as that in MPAA v. 2600, a provider could be held liable for _direct_ violation for merely hosting a link.
They do. Takedowns of encryption tools are a misuse of DMCA 512. But the rules encourage bogus takedowns, and it's not like someone who is flagrantly violating DMCA 1201 is going to write a DMCA 512 counternotice.
UPS's packing algorithms, on the other hand, leave a lot to be desired. Mostly they are optimized to provide the most opportunity for damage. For instance, cheap, heavy items will always be loaded on top of expensive, fragile, light items. Also UPS does its box burst testing in production, giving new meaning to the phrase "drop ship".
Appropriately, a position known as the advocatus diaboli -- Devil's Advocate.
Putting such Terms of Service on a public RSS feed is like putting a message on a billboard indicating Toyota drivers aren't permitted to read it.
And that works as long as electric cars are rare. As soon as they become popular, they create a peak of their own.
Mostly because it's such a small change from the old image for the brand, the Dolt.
The second law of thermodynamics says that pushing the problem down the road is the best we can do.
Comes mainly from getting stuck behind diesel cars in traffic. Not just GM or trucks; the Mercedes 300D was just as offensive, as are the few US diesel Volkswagens.
Evolution or no evolution, I think Dawkins is unlikely to speak at the Vatican any time soon. His being an atheist and an advocate for atheism is the main reason. They'd sooner invite Lucifer; at least he believes in God.
There's a contradiction there. If you own the disc, you own a copy of the game. That disc IS, according to US copyright law, a copy of the game. That's part of why the whole "licensed and not sold" thing doesn't hold up to casual inspection.
Cry me a fucking river. What's so special about games that the developer should be compensated for each sale rather than just the first, as with every other item from cars to computers to houses? That sort of bitching didn't gain much sympathy for the RIAA and it sure as hell won't get any for you.
If it's not an emergency, I won't sign such a form, and if the doc doesn't like it, there's others. If it IS an emergency, I'll sign, write the bad review if I get bad service, and argue about unconscionable terms later.
If the state doctor's association convinces every doctor in the state, or my insurance company convinces all its member doctors, to require such a form, I'll post the bad reviews under a pseudonym. If they're going to collude, I'm going to cheat.
You're right. A settlement with Microsoft where TomTom licensed the patents in question wouldn't trigger any GPL violations, provided TomTom remained free to distribute source to anyone who bought a TomTom, and grant a license (a _copyright_ license) to redistribute source and binary to anyone who bought a TomTom. Microsoft could continue to go after the redistributors, but as long as they didn't require TomTom to do so, TomTom would not have violated the GPL.
If the code was GPL V3, then licensing with Microsoft would trigger a violation, but not GPL V2.
Seems to me that the trick is separating two effects
1) Fish which are larger because they are older are removed from the population, leaving the population on average smaller but not necessarily changing the genetic makeup.
2) Fish with genes which make them larger are removed from the population, leaving the population on average smaller, and reducing the frequency of "big fish" genes.
Leaving the population alone will eventually reverse the first effect. The second effect, on the other hand, should be permanent unless there is selection pressure for "big fish" genes. However, since the article states that bigger fish produce more offspring, it's rather likely that there is such pressure, so the researcher's results make sense.