The last time I checked, the rules were pretty clear: you had to have a net profit in two or three of the past five years, or something like that, in order to claim the activity as a business rather than a hobby.
...is we can look forward to Rudy Giuliani winning the presidency.
I mean she's Director of Communications for the most hated organization in America^W^W on Slashdot, and she was communications director for a Presidential campaign whose main message was "I'm not Bush" -- and couldn't even effectively get that message out. She certainly doesn't appear to be an effective choice.
Defendant: Not guilty, Your Honor, because I wasn't driving the car at the time.
Judge: Then who was?
And it's that scenario which has caused red light cameras to fall afoul of the courts in some states. It violates the presumption of innocence to shift the burden of proof onto the registered owner of the vehicle. It should be up to the state to prove the defendant was driving, not up to the defendant to prove he was not.
I may be a crusty old Luddite, but this is why I do my taxes the old fashioned way -- with TurboTax on my personal machine. (I tried TaxCut the year that Intuit put DRM on, even though I use a Mac, and found it buggy and inferior). I want the data to remain as much under my control as possible. I send it in on paper, too, though that's because I'm too cheap to spend my money to reduce their costs rather than a concern over a compromise of the E-file database.
It's true that the data is still vulnerable at the IRS. But that's a risk I cannot avoid. Web-based tax returns are one that I can.
I've seen something similar to your method used; generated code which ran the steps of decryption for a particular key, rather than using a decryption key which accepted a key.
I scratched my head a while trying to recover the key. Then I thought about writing an emulator to run the function. Then I realized the obvious: I had the function right there. I didn't need to recover the key, or emulate the function. I merely needed to call it and the magic black box would do the decryption for me. Problem solved.
Same with your system. If the Player Key is hidden as code, the cracker extracts the code and uses it directly to decrypt the sectors (or, more likely, an intermediate key).
oh god no. you need to add a ATSC aand QUAM tuner to it as well as a cablecard slot and that alone will triple the price of the damn thing. if you want a tivo then buy a Tivo. if you want a internet TV device then buy this.
ATSC(8VSB) and QAM tuners cost less than $100 retail. I don't know how much CableCard capability would cost to an OEM but I'll bet it's WAY less than $500.
Once they got him in front of a grand jury, the grand jury could ask him anything and he'd be compelled to answer. Without the benefit of a lawyer, either. That's what he was trying to avoid.
Simple. Obey, and lobby to change the laws you don't like afterwards. It's legal, it's safe, and it encourages diversity among the political environment.
And the only party gaining from that approach is the powers that be. Lobbying to change the law is completely ineffective (because the other side has more and better lobbyists), and those who support the law are happy that their coercive laws are being obeyed, and nothing changes. "Obey the law and work to change it" is the RIAAs way of saying "Let them eat cake".
If the law is broken, at least those who got it put in place are denied some of its benefits to them. If it is broken more or less openly, they also lose their appearance of being in control. They are too powerful to be defeated, but by breaking their laws, they can be denied total victory.
Yes, but if that counted then the PSTN itself would be prior art. It has been using 8Khz 7 bits per sample over a circuit-switched computer network for a very long time.
Of course, there's no reason that the PSTN itself should not be prior art, but I doubt it would qualify under the ridiculous standards for invalidating patents. To invalidate a patent you have to show that every aspect of the claim was anticipated exactly by the prior art. Unfortunately to be found in violation you need merely come close.
This playground wasn't even there, except on a very small scale, until Vonage -- that's Vonage, not Verizon -- built it. This is a johnny-come-lately to the game suing one of the original entrepreneurs for stealing its idea. It's as if Microsoft sued Apple over a graphical user interface.
Nope, one guy on broadbandreports is reporting that Speakeasy is threatening him for more than 100GB/month. This despite the fact that they sold him 250GB/month Usenet service. Sounds like a fraud case in the making if they press the issue.
Hopefully, your GF will figure out you're full of crap and desert you for a smarter Mac fanb... err, Mac-savvy geek.
For instance, it's certainly not true that "There-was-only-one-brief-run-of-Titanium-Powerboo ks".
And if you care about the distinction between a TiBook and an AlBook, it's odd that you claim she has a 6-month old PowerBook, as there ain't no such animal.
I'm not even going to get into the so-called superiority of Windows NT and 2000... it is to laugh, and I speak as one who used NT and Mac OS at the same time. How did you like NTs USB support, by the way?
And it's not true that "Mac people" displace our hatred of Windows onto the hardware. We can hate crap hardware (the stuff trotted out to show how Macs cost too much) all on its own, thank you very much.
It's not really targeted for ordinary business applications, though I imagine something like SPSS with large datasets would benefit -- except that SPSS looks to be woefully out of date for OS X. Most business applications I can think of which could benefit from the quad core are better off with a server-type machine with the I/O to match the CPU, though.
Does Secure DNS allow multiple keys to be required before a query is trusted? That is, would it be possible with the protocol as defined for a foreign root server (e.g. the servers authoritative for.nl) to sign its responses with its own self-signed or trusted-organization-signed key as well as with the IANA-signed key, and have savvy clients trust such servers only if both keys are present?
I'm surprised the US Government is doing this; I'd have expected them to obtain the key through back channels rather than out-and-out demanding it.
Diesel-electric serial hybrids scale UP very well, but so far they don't scale DOWN to automobile size all that well. To make a serial hybrid, you need an engine big enough to produce enough power to run the car, and an electric motor big enough to produce enough power to run the car.
Not so incredible. Typically, every word in a law is assumed to have meaning. In this case, there's a rich history of "vicarious infringement" case law which Viacom could try to bring to bear to show that Google did in fact financially benefit from the presence of Viacom's copyrighted material. That's all precluded by that word "directly", as "vicarious" and "direct" are essentially opposites in that sense.
True or false: The DMCA imposes a duty for Google to build a system to detect infringement as a condition for taking advantage of its safe harbors.
It doesn't matter whether Google _could_ do it -- of course they could, though they would of course err in both directions. It matters whether or not they are required to do it. And they aren't.
Life isn't like 24- cops don't torture random people until they get confessions out of them.
They do in Philadelphia and New York (remember the plunger incident?)
Furthermore, they usually don't engage in SWAT-style raids of criminals unless they are suspected of something serious- rape, murder, drug dealing, etc.
Or copyright infringement. Why do you think the RIAA has those SWAT-style jackets with RIAA on the back. Or "hacking". Or nothing at all... remember the Steve Jackson Games case?
Well, let's suppose we keep copyright in place. Now some technology comes along which makes infringing copyright trivial and copyright unenforcable. Now we must outlaw that technology or lose copyright. Goodbye, photocopiers and computers... oops.
OK, maybe it's not so bad. Maybe there's some other technology which can make infringing copyright hard again. But that technology can be easily defeated... so we make that illegal. But that law's unenforcable, so we make the tools for doing so illegal. But those tools are nothing but a set of instructions, and are too easily distributed, so we make even talking about where to get them illegal. There's DMCA 1201 and the 2600 ruling, led to directly by the necessity to protect copyright.
You can't have digital copying technology, copyright, and freedom of speech. They aren't compatible.
Slashdot Mirror
...is we can look forward to Rudy Giuliani winning the presidency.
I mean she's Director of Communications for the most hated organization in America^W^W on Slashdot, and she was communications director for a Presidential campaign whose main message was "I'm not Bush" -- and couldn't even effectively get that message out. She certainly doesn't appear to be an effective choice.
Oh well. At least the trains will run on time.
I'd just like to say "How the mighty have fallen".
I may be a crusty old Luddite, but this is why I do my taxes the old fashioned way -- with TurboTax on my personal machine. (I tried TaxCut the year that Intuit put DRM on, even though I use a Mac, and found it buggy and inferior). I want the data to remain as much under my control as possible. I send it in on paper, too, though that's because I'm too cheap to spend my money to reduce their costs rather than a concern over a compromise of the E-file database.
It's true that the data is still vulnerable at the IRS. But that's a risk I cannot avoid. Web-based tax returns are one that I can.
I have mod points. Want my account? Hope you have a brand new 911 turbo in trade.
(oh, wait, I blew it by posting, didn't I? Darn)
I've seen something similar to your method used; generated code which ran the steps of decryption for a particular key, rather than using a decryption key which accepted a key.
I scratched my head a while trying to recover the key. Then I thought about writing an emulator to run the function. Then I realized the obvious: I had the function right there. I didn't need to recover the key, or emulate the function. I merely needed to call it and the magic black box would do the decryption for me. Problem solved.
Same with your system. If the Player Key is hidden as code, the cracker extracts the code and uses it directly to decrypt the sectors (or, more likely, an intermediate key).
Galt's engine worked on ambient static electricity. I'm pretty sure it broke the second law of thermodynamics.
Once they got him in front of a grand jury, the grand jury could ask him anything and he'd be compelled to answer. Without the benefit of a lawyer, either. That's what he was trying to avoid.
If the law is broken, at least those who got it put in place are denied some of its benefits to them. If it is broken more or less openly, they also lose their appearance of being in control. They are too powerful to be defeated, but by breaking their laws, they can be denied total victory.
Yes, but if that counted then the PSTN itself would be prior art. It has been using 8Khz 7 bits per sample over a circuit-switched computer network for a very long time.
Of course, there's no reason that the PSTN itself should not be prior art, but I doubt it would qualify under the ridiculous standards for invalidating patents. To invalidate a patent you have to show that every aspect of the claim was anticipated exactly by the prior art. Unfortunately to be found in violation you need merely come close.
This playground wasn't even there, except on a very small scale, until Vonage -- that's Vonage, not Verizon -- built it. This is a johnny-come-lately to the game suing one of the original entrepreneurs for stealing its idea. It's as if Microsoft sued Apple over a graphical user interface.
If the attack involves popping open the router and attaching wires to the JTAG port, I'm not going to worry about it.
Nope, one guy on broadbandreports is reporting that Speakeasy is threatening him for more than 100GB/month. This despite the fact that they sold him 250GB/month Usenet service. Sounds like a fraud case in the making if they press the issue.
Hopefully, your GF will figure out you're full of crap and desert you for a smarter Mac fanb... err, Mac-savvy geek.
o ks".
For instance, it's certainly not true that "There-was-only-one-brief-run-of-Titanium-Powerbo
And if you care about the distinction between a TiBook and an AlBook, it's odd that you claim she has a 6-month old PowerBook, as there ain't no such animal.
I'm not even going to get into the so-called superiority of Windows NT and 2000... it is to laugh, and I speak as one who used NT and Mac OS at the same time. How did you like NTs USB support, by the way?
And it's not true that "Mac people" displace our hatred of Windows onto the hardware. We can hate crap hardware (the stuff trotted out to show how Macs cost too much) all on its own, thank you very much.
It's not really targeted for ordinary business applications, though I imagine something like SPSS with large datasets would benefit -- except that SPSS looks to be woefully out of date for OS X. Most business applications I can think of which could benefit from the quad core are better off with a server-type machine with the I/O to match the CPU, though.
If you copy a bunch of DVDs from Netflix and put them on your website, you don't qualify for the safe harbor at all; you're a direct infringer.
Does Secure DNS allow multiple keys to be required before a query is trusted? That is, would it be possible with the protocol as defined for a foreign root server (e.g. the servers authoritative for .nl) to sign its responses with its own self-signed or trusted-organization-signed key as well as with the IANA-signed key, and have savvy clients trust such servers only if both keys are present?
I'm surprised the US Government is doing this; I'd have expected them to obtain the key through back channels rather than out-and-out demanding it.
Diesel-electric serial hybrids scale UP very well, but so far they don't scale DOWN to automobile size all that well. To make a serial hybrid, you need an engine big enough to produce enough power to run the car, and an electric motor big enough to produce enough power to run the car.
Not so incredible. Typically, every word in a law is assumed to have meaning. In this case, there's a rich history of "vicarious infringement" case law which Viacom could try to bring to bear to show that Google did in fact financially benefit from the presence of Viacom's copyrighted material. That's all precluded by that word "directly", as "vicarious" and "direct" are essentially opposites in that sense.
True or false: The DMCA imposes a duty for Google to build a system to detect infringement as a condition for taking advantage of its safe harbors.
It doesn't matter whether Google _could_ do it -- of course they could, though they would of course err in both directions. It matters whether or not they are required to do it. And they aren't.
Well, let's suppose we keep copyright in place. Now some technology comes along which makes infringing copyright trivial and copyright unenforcable. Now we must outlaw that technology or lose copyright. Goodbye, photocopiers and computers... oops.
OK, maybe it's not so bad. Maybe there's some other technology which can make infringing copyright hard again. But that technology can be easily defeated... so we make that illegal. But that law's unenforcable, so we make the tools for doing so illegal. But those tools are nothing but a set of instructions, and are too easily distributed, so we make even talking about where to get them illegal. There's DMCA 1201 and the 2600 ruling, led to directly by the necessity to protect copyright.
You can't have digital copying technology, copyright, and freedom of speech. They aren't compatible.