"Microserfs" is probably wrong. "Microsoft agents" is more likely. The "Microsoft software is the target of most viruses because it's ubiquitous" meme popped up all over the place a few years ago; it stinks of a "stealth marketing" campaign, and I suspect it's still going on. Not that I would suggest any upstanding/. member was an MS agent himself, of course.
Of course it won't hold sway. There are too many people with interests in suppressing speech for it to do so. Robert Bork may well get his way where only political advocacy is considered protected.
With computer programs, there simply is not a viable distinction between "function" and "content". The function of a computer program is determined by its content, and to restrict the publication of a program based on its function is to restrict it based on its content. The courts have been relying on this non-distinction in order to avoid strict scrutiny, which would destroy the DMCA as applied to software. But it is still a non-distinction.
As for Bunner, the appeals court had it right: trade secret injunctions applied to third parties _are_ unconstitutional. A trade secret is only viable as long as all parties who know about it have agreed not to speak about it. The UTSA extends the confidentiality of trade secrets to third parties who have never agreed to it, and in doing so violates the First Amendment. I may _waive_ my right to reveal a trade secret, but my doing so does not waive anyone else's right to do so.
But the courts don't care; trade secrets, copyright, the DMCA, etc, all trump free speech. The courts, particularly in Corley but also in Verizon v. RIAA, appear to be LOOKING for reasons to rule against freedom. Any victories for freedom are short lived (like the Bunner appeals court decision), any losses are long-lasting (like Eldred, like Corley, like the Supreme Court decision in Bunner -- even if Bunner wins on the issues of fact, freedom has lost). It doesn't take a lawyer to see which way the tide has turned.
Whining may be the worst, most ineffective form of advocacy. (And I'm no advocate anyway.) But it is no worse than any of the others. At the end of the day, ALL forms of advocacy, aside from those of the RIAA, fail.
It is the difference between discussing the making of a bomb, and the building and use of one. The courts have finally glommed expressly on this distinction -- it is time our community (even our zealotes) acknowledged it.
There is no distinction in software. The same code which describes something can also (when run) do it. That's a problem with the DMCA, and that's a problem with software patents as well. Patents require disclosure of the description but forbid building the device. However, the description plus a general purpose computer IS the device, making that distinction less than useful.
Unfortunately, US courts have seen this problem and are taking the non-free way out, deciding that speech which has functional qualities, whether computer code or bomb-making instructions, is not really protected by the First Amendment. Further, the CA Supreme Court has decided that merely informative speech isn't protected if it's a trade secret. The age of freedom is truly over.
Java bytecode programs are fairly easy to disassemble. I used the old "mocha" decompiler to decompile most of itself (after binary-patching around certain bugs and perhaps intentional blocks to doing so), and it's quite complex. The type information is a huge help, though, so true machine code is more difficult.
Drivers usually aren't very computationally complex; decompiling them might not be all that difficult. The problem is you're still left with code which doesn't do anything obvious, because it's full of magic constants, bit shifts, and memory locations. To figure out what the internal routines do, you either have to trace the logic from the known entry points into the bowels of the driver, or start twiddling bits and see what happens. Sometimes you can guess based on what you know about the device or about similar devices.
For quintenary logic: Yes, no, maybe, "I don't care", and "Can you repeat the question".
Seriously, they're just values. Like 0 and 1 in binary systems, they don't have any inherent meaning.
The basic operations on trinary or quaternary values aren't obvious, the way they are in binary systems; there's too many to implement all of them, even the 1 and 2-operand ones.
The only way we're going to see any progress is if developers of nano-scale materials get things going BEFORE these ethics boards and such get put into place.
Once they are in place, everything will be so tied up in red tape, environmental impact statements, proof of harmlessness against every imagined ill, etc, that nothing new will actually get developed; best to just move onto some new thing the "ethics" people haven't discovered yet.
There's two basic measures for quality of white light. One is "Color temperature", which is how bluish or reddish the light looks. The other is Color Rendition Index, which tells you how true colors appear under the lights. Incandescent lamps have a color temperature of 2700-3000K (yellowish) and a C.R.I of nearly 100 (perfect).
Fluorescent tubes (and most compact fluorescents) tend to have a CRI around 82 (crappy), which is one big reason why people don't like to use them. Many also flicker and buzz and don't like to start in cold weather, but that's another issue.
So what about these LEDs? Just from the way LEDs work, I expect you might be able to get any color temperature you want, but your CRI is definitely going to be crappy. You can't approximate a continuous spectrum well with only a small number of discrete wavelengths, even if the light itself looks "white".
This guy has got to figure out the difference between an "injunction", a "subpoena", and a "summons". A "subpoena" is a demand for information or records. A "summons" is a demand to appear. And an "injunction" is a court order not to do something.
He only talks about having received a "subpoena". But he seems to indicate that he's been required to appear in Federal court (about some unknown matter). And he also seems to think he's been forbidden to use the Internet (which seems highly unlikely; even the RIAA doesn't own enough courts to get an injunction against someone's use of the Internet, _ex parte_)
Hopefully we'll see more information on this. In any case, if this guy has received any of those things, he needs a lawyer.
They got it right. 43 dB to 33dB is a drop to 1/10 of the former sound pressure level. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean it sounds 1/10 as loud. The dBA is roughly (VERY roughly) linear with loudness at ~40dB.
It's essentially all dissipated as heat. Your basic choices are heat, light (which is dissipated as heat when absorbed), and electricity. There's essentially no electricity coming out of the box, nor is there any significant potential built up within the box over time, so it's all being dissipated as heat within a fairly short timeframe.
Businesses being sued on the one hand to do $30 zillion in renovation to accomodate handicapped employees and on the other by the preservation commission not to modify their facade could just buy these and provide them to any handicapped employees during the term of their employment.
1) Many environmental processes are chaotic -- that is, they strongly depend on minor variations in their parameters and
2) We have only a very rough idea of the parameters -- huge new CO2 sinks and sources are discovered often, for instance.
So it doesn't matter how large a supercomputer you build, you're still going to get garbage out. But with a fast supercomputer, it'll be detailed and precise garbage...
is a good offense. What are the chances an identity thief is going to steal another identity thief's identity? Damn small, I'll tell you -- it's like the chance of TWO people bringing a bomb onto a plane (so always bring your own).
It's best to start small, though; identity theft is a tough business. For instance, I steal slashdot identities for their karma bonus.
Technically you're right, but in practice "take it down or be potentially liable for $100,000 or more in 'contributory infringement' penalties" is one of those offers you can't refuse.
Yep, if you could mature spermatocytes in vitro you could split them up after the first division and have a complementary pair (each of which would yield two sperm). Unfortunately (for us mad scientist types) you couldn't do the same with the egg because it doesn't split evenly. You'd have to do some sort of cloning-type thing to save the other half of the genetic material.
The mirror twins could be XY and XX or both XX, assuming normal parents.
There is nothing in the DMCA which requires an ISP to shut off your account in response to one of these letters. There isn't any requirement for a network provider (as opposed to a hosting company) to do anything with these letters at all -- see 17 USC 512(a).
There is a nasty catch in that the DMCA does require a _hosting provider_ to take down files named in a DMCA notification -- and even if you submit a counternotice, the files are still required to be down for a certain time before being brought back up, in order to give time for the notifier to sue. And if the notifier sues, the files have to stay down. It's an automatic and non-appealable restraining order.
Nope. Read the interview with the US Attorney a while back. The "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA notifications only applies to claiming to be the author or agent of the allegedly infringed work. It does not apply to whether or not the file in question actually contains the infringed work.
You've got it backwards. It's exposure to testosterone which makes a (human) fetus male. However IIRC the sex organs form first. So you can have your XY female caused by not responding to testosterone; she can have apparently-normal external sexual characteristics (the testes will remain inside) but she's sterile (no ovaries). She also can't legally compete in the Olympics.
I suppose a mixed-sex-chromosome chimera could come out any way -- two testes, two ovaries, one of each, and with sexual characteristics of either or mixed gender.
The Teddy Ruxpin case twists copyright law so badly out of joint I'd hate to see it cited anywhere else and thus given more value.
1) Teddy Ruxpin isn't an audiovisual work, any more than a player piano or a VCR is. It's an instrument. A Teddy Ruxpin tape might be an embodiment of an audiovisual work (with Teddy as the playing device, substituing for the VCR+TV), but Teddy ain't.
2) A copyright is on one work; creation of a derivative work may infringe that work's copyright but the original copyright doesn't cover those works.
3) The ridiculousness of 3) follows from the ridiculous of 1 and 2. Playing a non-Teddy-related tape in Teddy doesn't create a derivative audiovisual work. It moves a toy bear around. It may move it around in a derivative fashion (if Vector had copied portions of the W.O.W tapes), but otherwise it isn't a derivative work.
4) There's no direct infringement, therefore no contributory infringement, therefore other uses of the Vector tapes are irrelevant.
Are you NUTS? ADMIT to someone in authority that he broke into the system? Whether or not there was an ethical breach (and I'd argue that a live test where one changed some inconsequential information or changed some information then changed it back is NOT unethical), admitting to violating the law is NOT a good thing. Depending on the university's attitude, that could lead to anything from expulsion to a few years in a pound-you-in-the-ass prison.
If you actually did try the exploit on a live system, remember thy Fifth Amendment and keep it holy.
If you absolutely feel the need to confess, do NOT confess to the IT people. They have a duty to the University and to the integrity of their systems, and no duty at all to you. Making an example out of you is a perfect way of covering their embarrasment.
It amazes me that a such a company would have
such lax security as to allow an insider to browse supposedly private data at will.
Uh, yeah, at the risk of -1 redundant, of course an insider will be able to browse private data at will. _Someone_ has to be able to get to the data, unless you're postulating SkyNet.
I suppose this could have been a hack, if this person became employed at the company in order to get the data -- that comes under social engineering hacks (and industrial espionage). But "disgruntled or avaracious insider abuses position of trust" is hardly news.
If history is any guide: They aren't going to take you seriously unless you release a working exploit. If you tell 'em about it they'll just try to silence you with threats -- and then you can't choose anonymous release, because they'll go after you.
If you release the exploit anonymously, you'll get things fixed. If you release it with your name attached, you'll get things fixed and bring a shitstorm down on your head -- your choice if you want the notoriety and its consequences.
Re:This isn't about freedom of speech or linking..
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
18 USC 842 (p)(2)(A) IS a violation of the first amendment. The fig-leaf of "with the intent that..." is a bunch of hooey.
There's something very ironic about Brad Templeton, who once proposed the banning of alt.binaries.pictures.* on copyright grounds, being the head of the EFF, when the greatest threat to "electronic freedom" is copyright.
Brad Templeton in 1993:
Indeed, the binary groups are not all violations, but some binary groups are mostly violations, and groups that are mostly violations must be taken from your system if you want to avoid participation in organized copyright violation.
The FAA air traffic control software is hardly a model for success. How many decades did it take? Most of us don't have the better part of 30 years to develop the software we're writing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Microserfs" is probably wrong. "Microsoft agents" is more likely. The "Microsoft software is the target of most viruses because it's ubiquitous" meme popped up all over the place a few years ago; it stinks of a "stealth marketing" campaign, and I suspect it's still going on. Not that I would suggest any upstanding /. member was an MS agent himself, of course.
Of course it won't hold sway. There are too many people with interests in suppressing speech for it to do so. Robert Bork may well get his way where only political advocacy is considered protected.
With computer programs, there simply is not a viable distinction between "function" and "content". The function of a computer program is determined by its content, and to restrict the publication of a program based on its function is to restrict it based on its content. The courts have been relying on this non-distinction in order to avoid strict scrutiny, which would destroy the DMCA as applied to software. But it is still a non-distinction.
As for Bunner, the appeals court had it right: trade secret injunctions applied to third parties _are_ unconstitutional. A trade secret is only viable as long as all parties who know about it have agreed not to speak about it. The UTSA extends the confidentiality of trade secrets to third parties who have never agreed to it, and in doing so violates the First Amendment. I may _waive_ my right to reveal a trade secret, but my doing so does not waive anyone else's right to do so.
But the courts don't care; trade secrets, copyright, the DMCA, etc, all trump free speech. The courts, particularly in Corley but also in Verizon v. RIAA, appear to be LOOKING for reasons to rule against freedom. Any victories for freedom are short lived (like the Bunner appeals court decision), any losses are long-lasting (like Eldred, like Corley, like the Supreme Court decision in Bunner -- even if Bunner wins on the issues of fact, freedom has lost). It doesn't take a lawyer to see which way the tide has turned.
Whining may be the worst, most ineffective form of advocacy. (And I'm no advocate anyway.) But it is no worse than any of the others. At the end of the day, ALL forms of advocacy, aside from those of the RIAA, fail.
There is no distinction in software. The same code which describes something can also (when run) do it. That's a problem with the DMCA, and that's a problem with software patents as well. Patents require disclosure of the description but forbid building the device. However, the description plus a general purpose computer IS the device, making that distinction less than useful.
Unfortunately, US courts have seen this problem and are taking the non-free way out, deciding that speech which has functional qualities, whether computer code or bomb-making instructions, is not really protected by the First Amendment. Further, the CA Supreme Court has decided that merely informative speech isn't protected if it's a trade secret. The age of freedom is truly over.
Java bytecode programs are fairly easy to disassemble. I used the old "mocha" decompiler to decompile most of itself (after binary-patching around certain bugs and perhaps intentional blocks to doing so), and it's quite complex. The type information is a huge help, though, so true machine code is more difficult.
Drivers usually aren't very computationally complex; decompiling them might not be all that difficult. The problem is you're still left with code which doesn't do anything obvious, because it's full of magic constants, bit shifts, and memory locations. To figure out what the internal routines do, you either have to trace the logic from the known entry points into the bowels of the driver, or start twiddling bits and see what happens. Sometimes you can guess based on what you know about the device or about similar devices.
For quintenary logic: Yes, no, maybe, "I don't care", and "Can you repeat the question". Seriously, they're just values. Like 0 and 1 in binary systems, they don't have any inherent meaning. The basic operations on trinary or quaternary values aren't obvious, the way they are in binary systems; there's too many to implement all of them, even the 1 and 2-operand ones.
The only way we're going to see any progress is if developers of nano-scale materials get things going BEFORE these ethics boards and such get put into place.
Once they are in place, everything will be so tied up in red tape, environmental impact statements, proof of harmlessness against every imagined ill, etc, that nothing new will actually get developed; best to just move onto some new thing the "ethics" people haven't discovered yet.
There's two basic measures for quality of white light. One is "Color temperature", which is how bluish or reddish the light looks. The other is Color Rendition Index, which tells you how true colors appear under the lights. Incandescent lamps have a color temperature of 2700-3000K (yellowish) and a C.R.I of nearly 100 (perfect).
Fluorescent tubes (and most compact fluorescents) tend to have a CRI around 82 (crappy), which is one big reason why people don't like to use them. Many also flicker and buzz and don't like to start in cold weather, but that's another issue.
So what about these LEDs? Just from the way LEDs work, I expect you might be able to get any color temperature you want, but your CRI is definitely going to be crappy. You can't approximate a continuous spectrum well with only a small number of discrete wavelengths, even if the light itself looks "white".
This guy has got to figure out the difference between an "injunction", a "subpoena", and a "summons". A "subpoena" is a demand for information or records. A "summons" is a demand to appear. And an "injunction" is a court order not to do something.
He only talks about having received a "subpoena". But he seems to indicate that he's been required to appear in Federal court (about some unknown matter). And he also seems to think he's been forbidden to use the Internet (which seems highly unlikely; even the RIAA doesn't own enough courts to get an injunction against someone's use of the Internet, _ex parte_)
Hopefully we'll see more information on this. In any case, if this guy has received any of those things, he needs a lawyer.
They got it right. 43 dB to 33dB is a drop to 1/10 of the former sound pressure level. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean it sounds 1/10 as loud. The dBA is roughly (VERY roughly) linear with loudness at ~40dB.
It's essentially all dissipated as heat. Your basic choices are heat, light (which is dissipated as heat when absorbed), and electricity. There's essentially no electricity coming out of the box, nor is there any significant potential built up within the box over time, so it's all being dissipated as heat within a fairly short timeframe.
Businesses being sued on the one hand to do $30 zillion in renovation to accomodate handicapped employees and on the other by the preservation commission not to modify their facade could just buy these and provide them to any handicapped employees during the term of their employment.
The more humorous thing is that
1) Many environmental processes are chaotic -- that is, they strongly depend on minor variations in their parameters and
2) We have only a very rough idea of the parameters -- huge new CO2 sinks and sources are discovered often, for instance.
So it doesn't matter how large a supercomputer you build, you're still going to get garbage out. But with a fast supercomputer, it'll be detailed and precise garbage...
is a good offense. What are the chances an identity thief is going to steal another identity thief's identity? Damn small, I'll tell you -- it's like the chance of TWO people bringing a bomb onto a plane (so always bring your own). It's best to start small, though; identity theft is a tough business. For instance, I steal slashdot identities for their karma bonus.
Technically you're right, but in practice "take it down or be potentially liable for $100,000 or more in 'contributory infringement' penalties" is one of those offers you can't refuse.
Yep, if you could mature spermatocytes in vitro you could split them up after the first division and have a complementary pair (each of which would yield two sperm). Unfortunately (for us mad scientist types) you couldn't do the same with the egg because it doesn't split evenly. You'd have to do some sort of cloning-type thing to save the other half of the genetic material.
The mirror twins could be XY and XX or both XX, assuming normal parents.
There is nothing in the DMCA which requires an ISP to shut off your account in response to one of these letters. There isn't any requirement for a network provider (as opposed to a hosting company) to do anything with these letters at all -- see 17 USC 512(a).
There is a nasty catch in that the DMCA does require a _hosting provider_ to take down files named in a DMCA notification -- and even if you submit a counternotice, the files are still required to be down for a certain time before being brought back up, in order to give time for the notifier to sue. And if the notifier sues, the files have to stay down. It's an automatic and non-appealable restraining order.
Nope. Read the interview with the US Attorney a while back. The "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA notifications only applies to claiming to be the author or agent of the allegedly infringed work. It does not apply to whether or not the file in question actually contains the infringed work.
You've got it backwards. It's exposure to testosterone which makes a (human) fetus male. However IIRC the sex organs form first. So you can have your XY female caused by not responding to testosterone; she can have apparently-normal external sexual characteristics (the testes will remain inside) but she's sterile (no ovaries). She also can't legally compete in the Olympics.
I suppose a mixed-sex-chromosome chimera could come out any way -- two testes, two ovaries, one of each, and with sexual characteristics of either or mixed gender.
The Teddy Ruxpin case twists copyright law so badly out of joint I'd hate to see it cited anywhere else and thus given more value. 1) Teddy Ruxpin isn't an audiovisual work, any more than a player piano or a VCR is. It's an instrument. A Teddy Ruxpin tape might be an embodiment of an audiovisual work (with Teddy as the playing device, substituing for the VCR+TV), but Teddy ain't. 2) A copyright is on one work; creation of a derivative work may infringe that work's copyright but the original copyright doesn't cover those works. 3) The ridiculousness of 3) follows from the ridiculous of 1 and 2. Playing a non-Teddy-related tape in Teddy doesn't create a derivative audiovisual work. It moves a toy bear around. It may move it around in a derivative fashion (if Vector had copied portions of the W.O.W tapes), but otherwise it isn't a derivative work. 4) There's no direct infringement, therefore no contributory infringement, therefore other uses of the Vector tapes are irrelevant.
Are you NUTS? ADMIT to someone in authority that he broke into the system? Whether or not there was an ethical breach (and I'd argue that a live test where one changed some inconsequential information or changed some information then changed it back is NOT unethical), admitting to violating the law is NOT a good thing. Depending on the university's attitude, that could lead to anything from expulsion to a few years in a pound-you-in-the-ass prison.
If you actually did try the exploit on a live system, remember thy Fifth Amendment and keep it holy.
If you absolutely feel the need to confess, do NOT confess to the IT people. They have a duty to the University and to the integrity of their systems, and no duty at all to you. Making an example out of you is a perfect way of covering their embarrasment.
Uh, yeah, at the risk of -1 redundant, of course an insider will be able to browse private data at will. _Someone_ has to be able to get to the data, unless you're postulating SkyNet.
I suppose this could have been a hack, if this person became employed at the company in order to get the data -- that comes under social engineering hacks (and industrial espionage). But "disgruntled or avaracious insider abuses position of trust" is hardly news.
If history is any guide: They aren't going to take you seriously unless you release a working exploit. If you tell 'em about it they'll just try to silence you with threats -- and then you can't choose anonymous release, because they'll go after you.
If you release the exploit anonymously, you'll get things fixed. If you release it with your name attached, you'll get things fixed and bring a shitstorm down on your head -- your choice if you want the notoriety and its consequences.
18 USC 842 (p)(2)(A) IS a violation of the first amendment. The fig-leaf of "with the intent that..." is a bunch of hooey.
There's something very ironic about Brad Templeton, who once proposed the banning of alt.binaries.pictures.* on copyright grounds, being the head of the EFF, when the greatest threat to "electronic freedom" is copyright.
Brad Templeton in 1993:
The FAA air traffic control software is hardly a model for success. How many decades did it take? Most of us don't have the better part of 30 years to develop the software we're writing.