Not really a fair comparison. For a solder with roommates it is right up there with claiming if you found pot in a dorm that everybody in the dorm was in possession.
That's what constructive or presumptive possession is all about. The government has long since learned that in situations where it's difficult to prove any actual crime, it's easy to change the law so the burden is effectively on the defendant.
Ahh, but Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time. He just made the papers claim that the trains were running on time. All the oppression, none of the efficiency.
As far as I know, the trains in Italy still don't run on time...
The summary includes the word "crew". The actual regulations do not. They refer to "an interaction among two or more people" or "an interaction among five or more people". An "interaction" is "conduct involving a communication between two
or more people, whether verbal or otherwise". And a "single site" is "any area within 100 feet of where an activity commences".
And yet I'm not anti-American. On the contrary, I'm very much pro-American - you have no idea how much. I just won't let you get away with saying things that are downright untrue about the historical record.
Like "The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany. "?
That's downright untrue.
if you don't win a war, you will eventually lose it, so it was essential to attack Germany. By the time the US forces arrived, though, the Soviets had already strategically won the European war.
The first part is also untrue -- war can end in a stalemate, with no clear winners or losers. The second is speculation; IMO, without the western front, the Nazis could have held against the Soviets and partitioned Europe between them.
Looks like anti-Americanism is still in fashion at slashdot.
The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany.
Apparently US history classes AREN'T the worst in the world after all.
They took the war to Europe because they had to - the Nazis already had detailed plans for nuclear weapons, and intercontinental delivery systems to hit American cities.
No, not the worst by a long shot. Fear of Nazi nukes had much to do with the US nuclear weapons program, but naught to do with US part in the war in Europe.
There is no Geneva convention forbidding landmines, and none forbidding imprisoning people without trial (in fact, the Geneva Conventions forbid trials of POWs in most circumstances).
There is a treaty forbidding landmines, however, the US is not a signatory to it. The US is certainly in no way obligated to follow a treaty it is not a party to.
On track to a population that is 75% _overweight or obese_, as measured by body mass index. Body mass index is a crap measure. If you're at all muscular and not an endomorph, you're likely to be flirting with "overweight" by BMI, if not over it. There's no doubt that there's an obesity problem in the US, but that 75% is just a scare number, not meaningful at all.
In the case of HFCS, the disaccharide and the mixture pretty much are the same thing. The first step of sucrose metabolism, which occurs in the gut, is to break it down into fructose and glucose, which are then absorbed. This is a very fast process, reflected in the fact that the glycemic indices of sucrose and HFCS are about the same.
The damages theories may be shocking, but I don't see how they could be unconsititutional. Congress undoubtedly has the power to set copyright law, and they've set the statutory damages to "obscene" (partially at the behest of the RIAA, of course). That gives the RIAA the leverage to do everything else.
Let's think about this logically.
RIAA has a right to sue anyone they think has committed copyright infringement against one of their members. This is because there is a _law_ that was passed by _congress_ supported by the _constitution_ that gives them this right. Unless you completely reject our system of government, you can't argue that a company is evil for suing someone who violates their rights in this manner.
If you disagree with the law, then the _logical_ thing would be to argue for or work towards a change to the law, not to vilify the company for asserting their legitimate rights under current law.
Logic can prove anything that's not itself a contradiction, given the proper premises. And there are a large number of unstated premises behind your argument which simply do not hold, among them:
1) That the plaintiff has rights under current law. In some cases the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they own the copyrights they are asserting.
2) That current law is legitimate. It was passed according to legal procedure, but that is not sufficient to make it legitimate.
3) That denying that a law is legitimate is completely rejecting our system of government. In fact, your argument is simply a case of poisoning the well. To assert that a procedurally properly passed law is illegitimate, unjust, or even evil is requires one to argue that the procedure is flawed or incomplete, but it does not require completely rejecting the system the procedure is part of.
4) That arguing for or working towards a change in the law has a reasonable chance to succeed. If there's a logical argument for tilting at windmills, I haven't seen it. Since in the real world, one premise which certainly does hold (by inspection) and will hold for the forseeable future is that the RIAA&Co can effectively control copyright law, this is an exercise in futility, usually suggested by advocates of the status quo in order to waste the energy of those opposed to it.
Franklin and Marshall College Hmm. What's a small college in Lancaster, PA doing on the list, otherwise consisting mostly of large universities? Did some RIAA lawyer get expelled from there?
In VMS, any user with SETPRIV is effectively the superuser. Linux made an attempt at more granular privileges like VMS (capabilities, IIRC), but it turned out badly and the remnants seem to be withering on the vine.
not necessarily. In 2002, there was a zlib vulnerability found (involving memory being freed twice). Windows was not affected since it safeguards against double freeing memory.
When you get signals from 3 satellites you look at the differences in times between them.
Four, actually. You have four unknowns (x,y,z,t). You can do it with 3, normally by assuming an altitude of 0.
Now, the GPS transmits the time in the clear, and it also transmits it encrypted. Currently both streams transmit the same data, so military and civilian units are equally accurate.
However, in time of war intentional error can be introduced into the cleartext time data - making civilian GPS receivers inaccurate. The correct time will be transmitted encrypted, so military units can make use of the accurate time and get full precision.
Currently there are two signals, called IIRC C/A and Y. The satellites transmit on two frequencies. On one frequency they transmit both the C/A (Coarse/Acquisition) and the P(Y) signal, on the other only the P(Y) signal. The P(Y) signal is the encrypted version of the Y signal, which is considerably more precise than the C/A signal. The encryption is called Anti-Spoof (AS), and has been turned on permanently for some time. So military receivers still get more precise positions than civilian. They can also make use of the two different frequencies to better correct for atmospheric conditions, as the effect of the atmosphere is different at different frequencies.
They used to degrade the C/A signal, by adding jitter to the clock and ephemeris data. This was called Selective Availability (SA) but this has been discontinued. AFAIK, by "discontinued" they mean they will not turn it back on again even in time of war. Oddly, it was actually turned OFF during the first Gulf War.
Since London calls its system the "Ring of Steel", New York should come up with a better name -- one which evokes its similarities with the London system, but is sufficiently different to avoid confusion. I suggest "The Iron Curtain".
Big O means upper bound i.e. worst case performance.
Yes and no. Big O means upper bound, but says nothing about which case. It's valid to say, e.g., that bubblesort is O(n) on already sorted data. That is, there exists a constant k such that for all n, the number of comparisons (since that's the typical metric for sorts) made in a run of bubblesort on already sorted data of size n is less than kn.
Typically, these organisations are less evil than RIAA.
ASCAP and BMI? No, they're just less flamboyantly evil. They've been shaking down businesses for having the radio playing or a TV on, or for live performances featuring public domain music (by playing the "arrangements game" -- they claim to own 1536 arrangements of some public domain tune, YOU prove the performance wasn't one of them, and if you can't you're liable for copyright violation unless you buy a license). They've even shaken down the Girl Scouts for campfire songs. And how do they distribute the proceeds? According to a formula known only to themselves, which is said to tilt the scales far more in favor of a few popular songwriters than they are in reality? Sound familiar? The RIAA probably learned the game from these people.
...at least not security as it's usually defined. It's about prevention of modification by the end user or a third party not authorized by the manufacturer.
While the rules require these "security" measures to prevent modification to software designed radios, as far as I can tell (based on several 802.11 devices I've messed with) the only actual "security" measures which have been taken have been to not publish the source. There's not really anything preventing modification of the firmware to operate outside the ISM band or at unpermitted power levels. So I'm not sure exactly what measures the FCC is really requiring, other than that manufacturers don't publish their datasheets.
The difference between theft and infringement is irrelevant to the discussion, because the infringement is just as harmful to the rightful owners of the intellectual property, as the theft is to those of the tangible property.
Obviously false, for the usual reason. The rightholders still retain the right infringed upon, whereas the victim of theft has nothing.
They are equally harmful to the rest of the society too. Because of thieves we must burden ourselves daily with locks, keys, alarms, chains. Similarly, the infringers force us to deal with DRM and other fair-use preventing implementations.
False again. DRM is not required at all. And DRM is used for reasons other than preventing infringement, such as region control, forced ad viewing, product tie-ins, etc.
I don't even see RIAA "shills" as "despicable".
I'm sure that helps you look yourself in the mirror every morning.
To use the same term to describe a "battle" against a non-governmental organization in a fight for entertainment of all things, is, on one hand, a sign of a very substantial quality of life improvement, and, on the other, that of how silly your complaints and cheek-puffing really is
It's not a fight for entertainment. It's a fight over control. They want control of everything -- including personal computers, TV capture cards, and, in one proposal, all analog-to-digital converters -- in order to prevent infringment of their precious copyrights. And they took steps for getting it before Napster, too, so don't try to claim it's just a reaction to infringement.
Until the noble reformists start debating/fighting/condemning the lowly thieves on this and other forums, my mixing them together will remain perfectly fair...
And until the decent defenders of copyright start distinguishing between theft and infringement, my mixing them together with despicable RIAA shills will remain perfectly fair.
The use of the very term is offensive. "Civil disobedience" evokes memories of people like Sakharov and Gandhi. Using it over access to entertainment is a misnomer.
The term comes from an essay by Henry David Thoreau. His crime was nothing larger than failure to pay a tax, one which he could well afford to pay. And in any case, putting a tactic up on a pedestal such that it can only be used for certain _Important_ issues pretty much guarantees that it won't be used.
The RIAA has been delegated the authority to sue on behalf of the copyright holders. If they offer the films for download, and then sue the downloader, and in court claim that while they have the authority to sue, they lack the authority to allow downloads so therefore the downloader is guilty, I think there's legal defenses which apply. Unclean hands, maybe.
(Anyone dare imagine what would happen if Monsanto's "terminator" gene spread to more natural varieties of corn? I mean other than patent violations...)
That particular hybrid would fail to germinate. Which is actually exactly what Monsanto wants to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what constructive or presumptive possession is all about. The government has long since learned that in situations where it's difficult to prove any actual crime, it's easy to change the law so the burden is effectively on the defendant.
Ahh, but Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time. He just made the papers claim that the trains were running on time. All the oppression, none of the efficiency.
As far as I know, the trains in Italy still don't run on time...
The summary includes the word "crew". The actual regulations do not. They refer to "an interaction among two or more people" or "an interaction among five or more people". An "interaction" is "conduct involving a communication between two or more people, whether verbal or otherwise". And a "single site" is "any area within 100 feet of where an activity commences".
Like "The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany. "?
That's downright untrue.
The first part is also untrue -- war can end in a stalemate, with no clear winners or losers. The second is speculation; IMO, without the western front, the Nazis could have held against the Soviets and partitioned Europe between them.There is no Geneva convention forbidding landmines, and none forbidding imprisoning people without trial (in fact, the Geneva Conventions forbid trials of POWs in most circumstances). There is a treaty forbidding landmines, however, the US is not a signatory to it. The US is certainly in no way obligated to follow a treaty it is not a party to.
On track to a population that is 75% _overweight or obese_, as measured by body mass index. Body mass index is a crap measure. If you're at all muscular and not an endomorph, you're likely to be flirting with "overweight" by BMI, if not over it. There's no doubt that there's an obesity problem in the US, but that 75% is just a scare number, not meaningful at all.
In the case of HFCS, the disaccharide and the mixture pretty much are the same thing. The first step of sucrose metabolism, which occurs in the gut, is to break it down into fructose and glucose, which are then absorbed. This is a very fast process, reflected in the fact that the glycemic indices of sucrose and HFCS are about the same.
The damages theories may be shocking, but I don't see how they could be unconsititutional. Congress undoubtedly has the power to set copyright law, and they've set the statutory damages to "obscene" (partially at the behest of the RIAA, of course). That gives the RIAA the leverage to do everything else.
1) That the plaintiff has rights under current law. In some cases the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they own the copyrights they are asserting.
2) That current law is legitimate. It was passed according to legal procedure, but that is not sufficient to make it legitimate.
3) That denying that a law is legitimate is completely rejecting our system of government. In fact, your argument is simply a case of poisoning the well. To assert that a procedurally properly passed law is illegitimate, unjust, or even evil is requires one to argue that the procedure is flawed or incomplete, but it does not require completely rejecting the system the procedure is part of.
4) That arguing for or working towards a change in the law has a reasonable chance to succeed. If there's a logical argument for tilting at windmills, I haven't seen it. Since in the real world, one premise which certainly does hold (by inspection) and will hold for the forseeable future is that the RIAA&Co can effectively control copyright law, this is an exercise in futility, usually suggested by advocates of the status quo in order to waste the energy of those opposed to it.
In VMS, any user with SETPRIV is effectively the superuser. Linux made an attempt at more granular privileges like VMS (capabilities, IIRC), but it turned out badly and the remnants seem to be withering on the vine.
They used to degrade the C/A signal, by adding jitter to the clock and ephemeris data. This was called Selective Availability (SA) but this has been discontinued. AFAIK, by "discontinued" they mean they will not turn it back on again even in time of war. Oddly, it was actually turned OFF during the first Gulf War.
RTFS. The company placing the ads has already settled. This is just a case of going after the deep pockets.
Since London calls its system the "Ring of Steel", New York should come up with a better name -- one which evokes its similarities with the London system, but is sufficiently different to avoid confusion. I suggest "The Iron Curtain".
10 hours of standby time? Try 250 hours of standby time.
...at least not security as it's usually defined. It's about prevention of modification by the end user or a third party not authorized by the manufacturer.
While the rules require these "security" measures to prevent modification to software designed radios, as far as I can tell (based on several 802.11 devices I've messed with) the only actual "security" measures which have been taken have been to not publish the source. There's not really anything preventing modification of the firmware to operate outside the ISM band or at unpermitted power levels. So I'm not sure exactly what measures the FCC is really requiring, other than that manufacturers don't publish their datasheets.
The term comes from an essay by Henry David Thoreau. His crime was nothing larger than failure to pay a tax, one which he could well afford to pay. And in any case, putting a tactic up on a pedestal such that it can only be used for certain _Important_ issues pretty much guarantees that it won't be used.
American prime time shows are typically 26 episodes per year, not 15. Subtract a few for recap episodes, and you're still over 20.
The RIAA has been delegated the authority to sue on behalf of the copyright holders. If they offer the films for download, and then sue the downloader, and in court claim that while they have the authority to sue, they lack the authority to allow downloads so therefore the downloader is guilty, I think there's legal defenses which apply. Unclean hands, maybe.