A good point. There is no indication this employee was engaged for "a work for hire", so his IP remains his IP even if he gives some of it to the company. When I write a memo for my company, I'm giving them a licence to use/copy it. They do not have any rights to the rest of it unless he has specifically contracted away his right to inventions & copyrights.
There's the rub. Did he consent to the monitoring as a condition of employment? Or subsequntly? Did the Court rule that this was overreaching?
Why so difficult? They run the servers, and presumably keep logs of major activity, especially transfers. Just mine the logs. Someone who accumulates gold and transfers it is suspicious. So is someone who just transfers. Look at ratios and pick off the hogs.
Surely Blizzard can monitor unusual activity and terminate accounts. Farming must be detectible, perhaps by the large amounts of transfers out and very slow character progress. The cost of a terminated account is also fairly high.
I can only assume that whatever it's protestations to the contrary, Blizzard likes farmers. They pay fees, and they attract players to want to pass others (even if they cheat). They might even farm themselves! The dire pronouncements and trophy busts are to quieten the rule-abiding masses.
While everyone pratles about punishment, I wonder what crime has been comitted here. Certainly no theft or targetted damage. It's more like mischief -- the worm went wherever it could without the writer's intervention.
OK, you could say the writer wished to cause harm irrespective of target. Like dumping nails on a road. But then you get into a slippery slope of criminal intent. He caused harm. What about all those who spread their worm through their unpatched systems? What about those who had been warned and still left their systems unpatched? What about those who might have willfully removed patches?
Freezing/melting _is_ an interesting question. Why the h3ll does it happen so suddenly when the energy distribution of the molecules has hardly shifted at all? Then there are the known but puzzling phenomena of subcooling and superheating.
I must strongly disagree with ESR. Even with the AT&T lawsuit, BSD had an enormous headstart on Linux in the early 1990s. A massive codebase, and plenty of diverse projects one of which could easily have adopted Linus social model had it been workable (enough developers).
The problem was the Linus attracted developers and *BSD did not. I can only infer that the developers liked the GPL and were more willing to contribute when their code wasn't going to be taken commercial/private by the likes of Microsoft & Apple. There may also be some subtle fork-healing property of the GPL. But it was essential.
Look, Intel & AMD are both big boys. The legal costs of a few dozen million$ is not going to break either one of them. Let'em fight and see how the dust settles.
There have been rumors of Intel strongarming tactics for years. Let's settle those once and for all. Would you rather the FTC investigate? I think civil discovery will be far more effective.
I do hope AMD takes the high road and declines to settle under secrecy.
Wonderful. That bnrains are not fast or pmassively parallel digital computers, but mroe like analog computers (if anyone remeembers). Then each will complement the other and competition is not inevitable.
AFAIK phone systems were not built using taxpayer money.
I also see this ruling differently. Both as limiting and levelling the playing field. There is effectively no requirement the RBC telcos share DSL with CLECs. I looked into it, and what requirement there is is priced exorbitantly in many states. De facto, none. So why impose one on cable when it will be bypassed similarly?
What do you know? Do you know that they haven't struck some kind of deal with the software vendors?
Since I doubt the amount rises to the level of criminal copyright infringement, your burden in upholding the law is less.
I would send a nicely worded email to your boss (&whoever else relevant) stating you will be glad to install the software, but the company needs to make sure it has correct licences. You also need a series of activation keys because otherwise "false" alarm bells may be ringing at MS. And print & keep emails offsite.
Do not assume that people want everything they try to succeed. Many times failure is more desired. In this case, the LAT managers can say: Community input? We tried it, and it doesn't work.
Nevermind that it was badly done, the message is it can't work. People often blind themselves.
Even if he hadn't paid, he's a marketting prospect with a good chance of being enticed into being a paying customer. He has economic value. However, the law does not [yet] punish potentialities.
The legislation merely states possession is wrong. Why is for the legislators to determine. In this case, they assume [probably correctly] that everyone who seeks out such images is in some way contributing to their fabrication.
20 years isn't for looking at photos or immoral thought, it is for contributing to the abuse of children. Extraterritoriality be damned! Or is it? Has the SCOTUS ruled on the virtual kiddie pr0n appeal?
A deliberate viewer would get what any pr0n consumer would -- some sort of amusement or arousal.
It is not the Spanish Inquisition because there is no deliberate torture, murder or theft of estate. It most certainly _is_ a persecution or witchhunt, driven by paranoia about paedophilia. That paranoia may be fueled by desires people recognize in themselves and repress.
Perhaps, but kiddie pr0n is considered so heinous that people want to go further to squash it. The theory is that anyone who traded with those who took/sold the images is encouraging them. And obviously gets something or they wouldn't do it.
This may be overreaching, guilt-by-association or a violation of the freedom of association. But there it is.
Not quite, because free samples are given out by the image owner, while P2P happens contrary to the content owner's will. But it may still increase legit sales even if the content owner is too stupid to recognize free and effective marketing.
One small tidbit -- the article mentions that the accused viewed 450 images in 4 hours. That's a lot of hard surfing even for broadband 30sec/ea. Were these thumbnails?
While I generally agree on victimless crimes inevitably corrupting the legal system, there _is_ a clear victim here -- the pr0n subject. And a direct causal link to the viewer. the viewer represents a valuable resource -- a potential customer. They might be enticed by free samples.
This goes to an underconsidered area of the law -- establishing intent. For many laws, the forbidden act alone (actus reus) is not enough to convict. Proving a guilty intent (mens rea) is also necessary. However, some offenses do not require mens rea.
In this case, if possession of kiddie pr0n requires mens rea, then the lawyer has a good argument. Most lusers do not know that the browser has caches and so did not know they possessed the offending material. The/. '1337 couldn't get off that easily:)
The prosecution can easily prove they viewed pr0n, but that may not be illegal. To posess something requires an act of knowingly taking possession. IANAL.
... the Watched, of course! Ruel enforcement isn't a heirarchy but a loop.
Blocklists are made by people for others to use if they see fit. When they become unusable, they're no longer used. Personally, I use none. The cost to me of one false positive is greater than 1000 spams that leak through. No list is that good.
This law _looks_ innocuous, opt-in and all. It is not mostly because it authorizes and requires the UT AG to prepare a blacklist. Ostensibly to reduce the burden on ISPs.
This list then has the force of law and is presumed "obscene". It can be used in all sorts of other ways -- like public schools and libraries. Ther no mention of appeal process, or how community standards get involved.
Only at the end of the article does the author _begin_ to approach the question of high software cost. But it's real and significant:
I've seen $180 PCs (Fry's Great Quality) with Linux or $270 with MS-WinXP. Obviously MS-WinXP after all mfr discounts ends up costing $90 at retail.
Where OS licencing costs are important, Linux has a huge advantage. Nevermind the slightly different look-and-feel of Linux GUI apps -- if an untrained user can surf the web, run email and maybe wordprocess, s/he's happy. If it's more stable and requires less maintenance then they don't need MSCEs. But pretty soon they'll be looking for software like TurboTax. And if there are enough of them, the sw vendors won't want to lose sales. Voila--Linux World Domination [SM]
.. if it were John Kerry, Hilary Clinton or Janet Reno asking for these powers? Bush has nothing to do with it. The police always want more powers to do their job more effectively. In their microcosm, they're entirely right. Human rights impede policing, at least in the short run. However, police efficiency is not the only priority our society has.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch for a pattern of skewed/excessive trades and unusual play activity (insufficient advance/conflict).
There's the rub. Did he consent to the monitoring as a condition of employment? Or subsequntly? Did the Court rule that this was overreaching?
I can only assume that whatever it's protestations to the contrary, Blizzard likes farmers. They pay fees, and they attract players to want to pass others (even if they cheat). They might even farm themselves! The dire pronouncements and trophy busts are to quieten the rule-abiding masses.
OK, you could say the writer wished to cause harm irrespective of target. Like dumping nails on a road. But then you get into a slippery slope of criminal intent. He caused harm. What about all those who spread their worm through their unpatched systems? What about those who had been warned and still left their systems unpatched? What about those who might have willfully removed patches?
The problem was the Linus attracted developers and *BSD did not. I can only infer that the developers liked the GPL and were more willing to contribute when their code wasn't going to be taken commercial/private by the likes of Microsoft & Apple. There may also be some subtle fork-healing property of the GPL. But it was essential.
There have been rumors of Intel strongarming tactics for years. Let's settle those once and for all. Would you rather the FTC investigate? I think civil discovery will be far more effective.
I do hope AMD takes the high road and declines to settle under secrecy.
I also see this ruling differently. Both as limiting and levelling the playing field. There is effectively no requirement the RBC telcos share DSL with CLECs. I looked into it, and what requirement there is is priced exorbitantly in many states. De facto, none. So why impose one on cable when it will be bypassed similarly?
I would send a nicely worded email to your boss (&whoever else relevant) stating you will be glad to install the software, but the company needs to make sure it has correct licences. You also need a series of activation keys because otherwise "false" alarm bells may be ringing at MS. And print & keep emails offsite.
Nevermind that it was badly done, the message is it can't work. People often blind themselves.
The legislation merely states possession is wrong. Why is for the legislators to determine. In this case, they assume [probably correctly] that everyone who seeks out such images is in some way contributing to their fabrication.
It is not the Spanish Inquisition because there is no deliberate torture, murder or theft of estate. It most certainly _is_ a persecution or witchhunt, driven by paranoia about paedophilia. That paranoia may be fueled by desires people recognize in themselves and repress.
This may be overreaching, guilt-by-association or a violation of the freedom of association. But there it is.
In this case, if possession of kiddie pr0n requires mens rea, then the lawyer has a good argument. Most lusers do not know that the browser has caches and so did not know they possessed the offending material. The /. '1337 couldn't get off that easily :)
The prosecution can easily prove they viewed pr0n, but that may not be illegal. To posess something requires an act of knowingly taking possession. IANAL.
Blocklists are made by people for others to use if they see fit. When they become unusable, they're no longer used. Personally, I use none. The cost to me of one false positive is greater than 1000 spams that leak through. No list is that good.
Dvorak has been debunked, and if anything, QWERTY is probably better for me as a left-hander.
This list then has the force of law and is presumed "obscene". It can be used in all sorts of other ways -- like public schools and libraries. Ther no mention of appeal process, or how community standards get involved.
I've seen $180 PCs (Fry's Great Quality) with Linux or $270 with MS-WinXP. Obviously MS-WinXP after all mfr discounts ends up costing $90 at retail.
Where OS licencing costs are important, Linux has a huge advantage. Nevermind the slightly different look-and-feel of Linux GUI apps -- if an untrained user can surf the web, run email and maybe wordprocess, s/he's happy. If it's more stable and requires less maintenance then they don't need MSCEs. But pretty soon they'll be looking for software like TurboTax. And if there are enough of them, the sw vendors won't want to lose sales. Voila--Linux World Domination [SM]