It's in the implementation details. You can't possibly track the homeless without forcing the homeless to provide information and forcing the caretakers to collect that information. That's where the breech of civil liberties comes into place.
Honestly... I don't see the harm. They already track what I do based on my social security number, why should the homeless expect more privacy then I?
Because providing information allowing yourself to be tracked should be voluntary, not mandatory.
Anyone born in the United States is a legal citizen of the US, regardless of whether or not they have a social security number. See the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't believe me.
I think he made that assumption because it is the clearly logical one to make; i.e. why would they be homeless if they were motivated AND involved in society?
My other post listed just three possibilities: natural disasters, spousal abuse, and drug/alcohol addiction. Not all homeless people are unemployed.
perhaps I assume they're unmotivated and not involved in society because they're homeless, not working or putting any money into the economy
Why do you assume they're nont working or putting any money into the economy? Maybe they just survived a tornado and their insurance didn't cover the damage. Maybe they just escaped from an abusive spouse. Maybe they just pour all of their hard-earned pay into their drug or alcohol addiction.
Maybe they don't have a job, but maybe they do. Maybe they don't have social contacts, but maybe they do. Maybe they don't put money into the economy, but maybe they do.
And how long before they start tracking everyone in this way?
What a naiive question. The reason they need to start tracking the homeless and not "the rest of us" is because they already are tracking "the rest of us." Try to buy a home or even rent an apartment without some sort of government ID. Hell, you can't even get electricity where I live without giving the electric company your social security number.
I'd imagine a large percentage of homeless people don't. What if they lie about the information they give? Is it going to be mandatory to show some kind of ID?
Maybe in the next three decades, but right now flywheels cost $15,000 to store 2 kilowatt hours. Meanwhile, a $2,000 lead-acid battery pack stores 12 to 15 kilowatt hours.
Flywheels are more environmentaly friendly than a bank of batteries and less hazardous than storing volatile gasses.
Yeah, and biking to work is more environmentally friendly than driving, but that's not enough of a reason to switch.
Actually I think the best part of such a distributed power network would be the opportunity for anonymous e-cash. Want to anonymous pay someone across the country $10 without involving a central banking agency? Just send them $10 in power.
You can do this now, with a big battery (or store the energy by pumping water up a slope, heating up a rock, or however you like to store your energy)
Sure, but you'd need a really big and expensive battery (or a really large tower) to store enough energy to power things for even just a day. I was under the impression that hydrogen was a much more compact storage solution, and that in "the next three decades" it is expected to become inexpensive as well.
why not just give HUGE taxbreaks on home generators, to allow people to overbackup their houses, so that the overflow can be pumped into the net?
After the embarassment of last week's blaster worm, Microsoft is weighing the possibility of automatic update.
You've got to be kidding. So now instead of a worm relying on making incoming connections to an open port on a computer not behind a firewall we're going to make outgoing connections and just trust that no one managed to steal Microsoft's private key which will surely be available to hundreds of employees?
Yeah, awesome find. Or maybe he just read the article:).
Re:Why I think the ACLU is a good thing.
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 1
When it comes down to it, the main job of congress is to take away liberty by passing laws.
No, the main job of congress is to protect liberty by passing laws. Taking away liberty is just what many of them happen to do.
What I'd like to know is why every American doesn't support the ACLU.
Some people disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of certain parts of the Constitution. Others just disagree with some parts of the Constitution itself which the ACLU is defending.
I can't think of a good reason why you would hate an orginization who's sole purpose is to defend freedom from those who would take it away from us.
A good reason is because you believe that organization is not following that purpose very well.
Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 1
CDA sounds like a great idea - protect kids from online porn. Unfortunately, it doesn't work - there's plenty of online porn that kids can access. Worse, it actually protects kids from information that they might need - if you're 15, and wondering if having sex with your boyfriend can get you pregnant the first time, now you can't get information about it.
Huh? In the time between when the CDA was passed and the time it was declared unconstitutional, 15 year olds were still able to get information about whether or not a female having sex with her boyfriend for the first time can get pregnant. Same thing with the risks from AIDS and how to fight them.
A relative was one of the last people at her CO to switch over to touch tone. The phone comapny was practically begging her to switch over to touch tone so that they could get rid of the old equipment.
She should have agreed as long as the phone companies paid a $50 "touch tone switchover fee."
Not exactly. "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
Also, "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." But if the patch is copyrighted, and the resulting work is not freely distributable, then you can't license the derivative work under the GPL.
It is an interesting question, is a patch a derivative work?
I remember reading a Supreme Court case which decided that a derivative work necessarily contains some part of the original work (including theme, storyline, etc. as parts of the original work). I believe this was decided in a court case involving Galoob, but I might have the cases mixed up. I'm too lazy to look it up on google right now.
This is a day old/. thread, so nobody is left reading, but how do you get that by applying a patch you are in violation of copyright?
By applying a patch you are creating a derivative work.
The GPL does not restrict what you, an end-user, do with a piece of GPL code you have on your machine.
The GPL doesn't, but copyright law does. You are not allowed to create derivative works without permission of the copyright holder, and the GPL only gives that permission when you include the source.
You are free to do with it as you wish, create derivative works, etc. as long as you don't distribute them.
Well, there is a huge difference between the GPL and the average EULA: the GPL allows you to do things you wouldn't normally be allowed to do, such as give verbatim copies to your friends.
But so does every EULA. For instance, the Windows EULA allows you to "store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other COMPUTERS over an internal network" if you acquire a separate license for each concurrently used copy.
The other EULAs make up arbitrary restrictions as they feel like, and hope that most will stick in court.
I'm not sure what's arbitrary about their restrictions. Why is the restriction not to reverse engineer arbitrary but the restriction to distribute source code not?
Many of these restrictions take away rights that you would otherwise have (for instance they restrict the way you USE of the software, which expressly permitted by basic copyright law).
As does the GPL. It takes away the right to resell a binary copy without including the source code.
Yes, the terms are on the GPL are "arbitrary", but they can be ignored, in which case you don't get to copy the software, which is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
Same with any EULA. Until you do something which requires a license, why would the license apply? Just because the license says it applies? That's nonsense, and a judge will see it as such.
Considering how careful the FSF has been, even in the way they word things in their writings, I find it almost impossible to believe that a judge wouldn't find that someone violating the GPL is in fact violating copyright law.
Depends on the action. If the action was fair use, or first sale, or some other right which the person already had, then they likely wouldn't be found guilty of copyright infringement. For instance, if I legally acquired RedHat CDs which didn't include source code and resold them, I'd be violating the GPL, but probably wouldn't be found to be violating copyright law.
In general when speaking of such clauses, they are taking a right *away* from you.
No. A contract can't just take rights *away* from you. There must be consideration on both sides. In all binding EULAs you are granted certain rights in exchange for meeting certain conditions. The GPL is no exception.
It seems to me it would be possible to release a proprietary program
which takes a GPL'd source program, patches it and links it with
independent binaries to make a new proprietary program. One could
sell this program which does the patching, and the libraries, and
provide the GPL code under GPL terms while keeping the modifications
proprietary, as long as the modified code is never distributed.
I don't think that would work. By applying the patch you'd be guilty of copyright infringment, therefore by selling the patch you'd be guilty of contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the breech of civil liberties?
It's in the implementation details. You can't possibly track the homeless without forcing the homeless to provide information and forcing the caretakers to collect that information. That's where the breech of civil liberties comes into place.
Honestly... I don't see the harm. They already track what I do based on my social security number, why should the homeless expect more privacy then I?
Because providing information allowing yourself to be tracked should be voluntary, not mandatory.
Anyone born in the United States is a legal citizen of the US, regardless of whether or not they have a social security number. See the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't believe me.
I think he made that assumption because it is the clearly logical one to make; i.e. why would they be homeless if they were motivated AND involved in society?
My other post listed just three possibilities: natural disasters, spousal abuse, and drug/alcohol addiction. Not all homeless people are unemployed.
perhaps I assume they're unmotivated and not involved in society because they're homeless, not working or putting any money into the economy
Why do you assume they're nont working or putting any money into the economy? Maybe they just survived a tornado and their insurance didn't cover the damage. Maybe they just escaped from an abusive spouse. Maybe they just pour all of their hard-earned pay into their drug or alcohol addiction.
Maybe they don't have a job, but maybe they do. Maybe they don't have social contacts, but maybe they do. Maybe they don't put money into the economy, but maybe they do.
And how long before they start tracking everyone in this way?
What a naiive question. The reason they need to start tracking the homeless and not "the rest of us" is because they already are tracking "the rest of us." Try to buy a home or even rent an apartment without some sort of government ID. Hell, you can't even get electricity where I live without giving the electric company your social security number.
We need to help remotivate them, and get them back into society.
Why do you assume they're unmotivated and not already involved in society?
I'd imagine a large percentage of homeless people don't. What if they lie about the information they give? Is it going to be mandatory to show some kind of ID?
Maybe in the next three decades, but right now flywheels cost $15,000 to store 2 kilowatt hours. Meanwhile, a $2,000 lead-acid battery pack stores 12 to 15 kilowatt hours.
Flywheels are more environmentaly friendly than a bank of batteries and less hazardous than storing volatile gasses.
Yeah, and biking to work is more environmentally friendly than driving, but that's not enough of a reason to switch.
Actually I think the best part of such a distributed power network would be the opportunity for anonymous e-cash. Want to anonymous pay someone across the country $10 without involving a central banking agency? Just send them $10 in power.
You can do this now, with a big battery (or store the energy by pumping water up a slope, heating up a rock, or however you like to store your energy)
Sure, but you'd need a really big and expensive battery (or a really large tower) to store enough energy to power things for even just a day. I was under the impression that hydrogen was a much more compact storage solution, and that in "the next three decades" it is expected to become inexpensive as well.
why not just give HUGE taxbreaks on home generators, to allow people to overbackup their houses, so that the overflow can be pumped into the net?
Because huge taxbreaks cost the government money?
I thought these people owned Mars.
After the embarassment of last week's blaster worm, Microsoft is weighing the possibility of automatic update.
You've got to be kidding. So now instead of a worm relying on making incoming connections to an open port on a computer not behind a firewall we're going to make outgoing connections and just trust that no one managed to steal Microsoft's private key which will surely be available to hundreds of employees?
Yeah, that sounds like a solution.
Yeah, awesome find. Or maybe he just read the article :).
When it comes down to it, the main job of congress is to take away liberty by passing laws.
No, the main job of congress is to protect liberty by passing laws. Taking away liberty is just what many of them happen to do.
What I'd like to know is why every American doesn't support the ACLU.
Some people disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of certain parts of the Constitution. Others just disagree with some parts of the Constitution itself which the ACLU is defending.
I can't think of a good reason why you would hate an orginization who's sole purpose is to defend freedom from those who would take it away from us.
A good reason is because you believe that organization is not following that purpose very well.
CDA sounds like a great idea - protect kids from online porn. Unfortunately, it doesn't work - there's plenty of online porn that kids can access. Worse, it actually protects kids from information that they might need - if you're 15, and wondering if having sex with your boyfriend can get you pregnant the first time, now you can't get information about it.
Huh? In the time between when the CDA was passed and the time it was declared unconstitutional, 15 year olds were still able to get information about whether or not a female having sex with her boyfriend for the first time can get pregnant. Same thing with the risks from AIDS and how to fight them.
Extortion and threats of violence are not protected speech, though.
Neither were many of the types of speech which the ACLU defended, before the ACLU defended them.
If your point is that they only support protected speech, you're right.
Actually, you'd be wrong. The ACLU has lost free speech cases in the past. That means they were supporting unprotected speech.
The only thing that makes NAMBLA different is that they're pedophiles.
Isn't that enough of a reason in itself?
BTW, they're also gay.
A relative was one of the last people at her CO to switch over to touch tone. The phone comapny was practically begging her to switch over to touch tone so that they could get rid of the old equipment.
She should have agreed as long as the phone companies paid a $50 "touch tone switchover fee."
Section 2. Full right to modify the program.
Not exactly. "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
Also, "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." But if the patch is copyrighted, and the resulting work is not freely distributable, then you can't license the derivative work under the GPL.
It is an interesting question, is a patch a derivative work?
I remember reading a Supreme Court case which decided that a derivative work necessarily contains some part of the original work (including theme, storyline, etc. as parts of the original work). I believe this was decided in a court case involving Galoob, but I might have the cases mixed up. I'm too lazy to look it up on google right now.
This is a day old /. thread, so nobody is left reading, but how do you get that by applying a patch you are in violation of copyright?
By applying a patch you are creating a derivative work.
The GPL does not restrict what you, an end-user, do with a piece of GPL code you have on your machine.
The GPL doesn't, but copyright law does. You are not allowed to create derivative works without permission of the copyright holder, and the GPL only gives that permission when you include the source.
You are free to do with it as you wish, create derivative works, etc. as long as you don't distribute them.
The GPL does not say that.
Well, there is a huge difference between the GPL and the average EULA: the GPL allows you to do things you wouldn't normally be allowed to do, such as give verbatim copies to your friends.
But so does every EULA. For instance, the Windows EULA allows you to "store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other COMPUTERS over an internal network" if you acquire a separate license for each concurrently used copy.
The other EULAs make up arbitrary restrictions as they feel like, and hope that most will stick in court.
I'm not sure what's arbitrary about their restrictions. Why is the restriction not to reverse engineer arbitrary but the restriction to distribute source code not?
Many of these restrictions take away rights that you would otherwise have (for instance they restrict the way you USE of the software, which expressly permitted by basic copyright law).
As does the GPL. It takes away the right to resell a binary copy without including the source code.
Yes, the terms are on the GPL are "arbitrary", but they can be ignored, in which case you don't get to copy the software, which is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
Same with any EULA. Until you do something which requires a license, why would the license apply? Just because the license says it applies? That's nonsense, and a judge will see it as such.
Considering how careful the FSF has been, even in the way they word things in their writings, I find it almost impossible to believe that a judge wouldn't find that someone violating the GPL is in fact violating copyright law.
Depends on the action. If the action was fair use, or first sale, or some other right which the person already had, then they likely wouldn't be found guilty of copyright infringement. For instance, if I legally acquired RedHat CDs which didn't include source code and resold them, I'd be violating the GPL, but probably wouldn't be found to be violating copyright law.
In general when speaking of such clauses, they are taking a right *away* from you.
No. A contract can't just take rights *away* from you. There must be consideration on both sides. In all binding EULAs you are granted certain rights in exchange for meeting certain conditions. The GPL is no exception.
It seems to me it would be possible to release a proprietary program which takes a GPL'd source program, patches it and links it with independent binaries to make a new proprietary program. One could sell this program which does the patching, and the libraries, and provide the GPL code under GPL terms while keeping the modifications proprietary, as long as the modified code is never distributed.
I don't think that would work. By applying the patch you'd be guilty of copyright infringment, therefore by selling the patch you'd be guilty of contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement.
If I knew that my ISP keeps such logs and is prepared to give them to the authorities, I'd become a former customer in no time
Is that because you'd switch ISPs or because you'd be sent to prison?
But you didn't click there.