If you want to take the risks, produce your own album. Borrowing someone else's money without providing them with collateral in case you fail is expensive. Go figure.
Re:For those who miss the point
on
HDTV via GNU Radio
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In my world, the phrase 'minimal hardware' does not include a $1300 PCI card...
True, for now, but in theory the price would be able to be brought down to less than the current HDTV tuner cards (and act as an 802.11 card to boot).
When the CIA comes and asks what you've read because they're suspicious of you, we can't tell them because we don't have it...
They'll then ask why we don't have it. We'll tell them because you asked them to be purged. They'll then issue a warrant for your arrest^Windefinate detainment and ask for a list of all other customers whose records are unavailable.
I think something is wrong with a system that gives you more time for installing a program that doesn't do any damage than it does for murdering a person in cold blood.
Of course there is. But you're comparing the maximum sentence of one crime to the actual sentence of another.
First you say: If there was no right to privacy, there would be no logic to the right protecting you from illegal search and seizure and/or self incrimination.
I respond: Wrong. Illegal search almost always involves trespass or trespass to chattel. Illegal seizure involves theft. Self-incrimination involves forcing someone to speak. None of them require a right to privacy.
Wrong, yourself. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Illegal search and seizure are searches and seizures conducted by the government in an illegal manner. It has nothing to do with trespass laws or even jaywalking. It has everything to do with my right to be secure in my person, etc. My right to privacy, if you will. I know there are a lot of people who think that because the word privacy isn't in there, it isn't a right. Fine:
It seems we're talking about two different things here. If there were no right to privacy, there still would be "logic to the right protecting you from illegal search and seizure and/or self incrimination." That's all I'm saying.
The 9th and 10th Amendments certainly state that the lack of the word privacy in the Constitution does not deny its existence. But they don't prove its existence either.
Hell, I agree that there is a right to privacy. I just don't agree that it outweighs the right to free speech.
I think that patents on specific mechanisms are a Good Idea. I think it's nice when somebody who thinks up something clever, and non-obvious, gets rewarded.
If you think it's nice then perhaps you should be the one rewarding them? Personally I think the government needs more of a justification than "it's nice" to force one person to pay another.
I mean, it'd be nice if everyone gave me $100.:)
The only argument I see for patents is that they promote science, and thus benefit everyone in the long run. But I'm not convinced that they actually do this.
Obviously, I'm forgetting about identity theft and fraud - but we need better systems in place to prevent that anyhow.
The systems in place are perfectly fine. If you use my social security number, and a credit card company issues you a credit card, it's the credit card company that loses, not me.
Sure, I might have the incident noted on my report, and from then on have to provide actual photo ID whenever I sign up for anything, but that's the alternative solution anyway!
There is also something called the First Amendment. I'd say that covers giving out someone else's private information just as well as the Second Amendment covers selling a gun.
Forget CSS and the DMCA. Encrypt DVDs using some girl's social security number and most slashdotter's will support laws against spreading the circumvention key.
If there was no right to privacy, there would be no logic to the right protecting you from illegal search and seizure and/or self incrimination.
Wrong. Illegal search almost always involves trespass or trespass to chattel. Illegal seizure involves theft. Self-incrimination involves forcing someone to speak. None of them require a right to privacy.
Privacy IS important and if someone gave out my SSN or unlisted data (I am unlisted), they are culpable in any harm done by giving out that information.
We're going to have a lot of cease and desist orders then. Search google for 539-60-5125.
I would certainly take personal retribution on someone who engaged in this activity (giving out my SSN, etc).
SSNs should be published in the phone book next to people's names. That would solve 100% of the harmful things you can do with them.
We must make no distinction between the spammers who spam us and the ISPs who harbor them. Preemptive strikes must be made upon any ISP responding to spam with a canned e-mail.
Without patents on absurdly clever and innovatie ideas, what motivation would inventors have to invent?
The pursuit of knowledge, grant acquisition, PHD theses, fame, altruism, boredom, accident, etc.
They would invent something and try to sell it to a company, and the company would just design their own.
I don't think that would happen any more than it already does. For any non-trivial invention, having the actual inventor on your payroll is going to help.
Without patents, inventors - especially individuals - get fucked over.
That certainly begs the question.
In a few years, after they reap the benefits of their genius ideas, the patents expire. It's a wonderful system, given that patents aren't handed out like condoms.
That's certainly the argument, but it's one that I challenge.
3) A bunch of OSSers get together and write tax software and give it away for free. Wouldn't that be grand? Unfortunately, AIUI, tax software has to be certified, and certification costs money, so I'm not sure this will ever happen.
It costs 37 cents to file the application, and that's only if you want the software to connect to the IRS modems to e-file. It might not ever happen, but if it doesn't, it's not because of the certification costs.
Help me make the software, here, and I'll gladly get the software certified. I'm already an authorized IRS e-file provider.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to take the risks, produce your own album. Borrowing someone else's money without providing them with collateral in case you fail is expensive. Go figure.
In my world, the phrase 'minimal hardware' does not include a $1300 PCI card...
True, for now, but in theory the price would be able to be brought down to less than the current HDTV tuner cards (and act as an 802.11 card to boot).
When the CIA comes and asks what you've read because they're suspicious of you, we can't tell them because we don't have it...
They'll then ask why we don't have it. We'll tell them because you asked them to be purged. They'll then issue a warrant for your arrest^Windefinate detainment and ask for a list of all other customers whose records are unavailable.
I think something is wrong with a system that gives you more time for installing a program that doesn't do any damage than it does for murdering a person in cold blood.
Of course there is. But you're comparing the maximum sentence of one crime to the actual sentence of another.
stealing 8 million credit cards is a lot more serious than defacing a website for an hour, don't you think?
I assume you mean stealing 8 million credit card numbers. In which case, no, defacing a website causes harm. "Stealing" numbers doesn't hurt anyone.
Actually using those numbers, on the other hand... Well, that's not a computer crime.
s''$/=\2048;while(<>){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*", _)[20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]<<9& (Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))<<17,O=O>>8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O) T ,"\xb\ntd\xbz\x14d")[_/16%8]);EG ^=12*(U-2?0:S&17)),H^=_%64?12:0,@z)[_%8]}(16..271) )[_]^((D>>=8T ,@a}';s/[D-HO-U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb
|256|$b[3];Q=Q>>8^(P=(E=255)
^S*8^S<<6))<<9,_=(map{U=_%16orE^=R^=110&(S=(unq
^=(72,@z=(64,72,
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+q
First you say: If there was no right to privacy, there would be no logic to the right protecting you from illegal search and seizure and/or self incrimination.
I respond: Wrong. Illegal search almost always involves trespass or trespass to chattel. Illegal seizure involves theft. Self-incrimination involves forcing someone to speak. None of them require a right to privacy.
Wrong, yourself. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Illegal search and seizure are searches and seizures conducted by the government in an illegal manner. It has nothing to do with trespass laws or even jaywalking. It has everything to do with my right to be secure in my person, etc. My right to privacy, if you will. I know there are a lot of people who think that because the word privacy isn't in there, it isn't a right. Fine:
It seems we're talking about two different things here. If there were no right to privacy, there still would be "logic to the right protecting you from illegal search and seizure and/or self incrimination." That's all I'm saying.
The 9th and 10th Amendments certainly state that the lack of the word privacy in the Constitution does not deny its existence. But they don't prove its existence either.
Hell, I agree that there is a right to privacy. I just don't agree that it outweighs the right to free speech.
FWIW, I didn't try your number, if its none of my business, why should I. My number IS my business.
That wasn't my number, it was the number of Bill Gates.
I think that patents on specific mechanisms are a Good Idea. I think it's nice when somebody who thinks up something clever, and non-obvious, gets rewarded.
If you think it's nice then perhaps you should be the one rewarding them? Personally I think the government needs more of a justification than "it's nice" to force one person to pay another.
I mean, it'd be nice if everyone gave me $100. :)
The only argument I see for patents is that they promote science, and thus benefit everyone in the long run. But I'm not convinced that they actually do this.
Obviously, I'm forgetting about identity theft and fraud - but we need better systems in place to prevent that anyhow.
The systems in place are perfectly fine. If you use my social security number, and a credit card company issues you a credit card, it's the credit card company that loses, not me.
Sure, I might have the incident noted on my report, and from then on have to provide actual photo ID whenever I sign up for anything, but that's the alternative solution anyway!
When a judge makes a ruling like this, he's not "creating" a new law, but rather interpreting what the current laws say.
Actually, this ruling was based on "the common law of New Hampshire," which is pretty much defined as law which is created by judges.
There is also something called the First Amendment. I'd say that covers giving out someone else's private information just as well as the Second Amendment covers selling a gun.
there are a few more ways to kill a person than with a gun..
Likewise there are a few more ways to kill a person than with a social security number.
Forget CSS and the DMCA. Encrypt DVDs using some girl's social security number and most slashdotter's will support laws against spreading the circumvention key.
A core issue of privacy advocates is that information specific to me is my proprietary information.
Perhaps so, but that certainly wasn't what the court said.
If there was no right to privacy, there would be no logic to the right protecting you from illegal search and seizure and/or self incrimination.
Wrong. Illegal search almost always involves trespass or trespass to chattel. Illegal seizure involves theft. Self-incrimination involves forcing someone to speak. None of them require a right to privacy.
Privacy IS important and if someone gave out my SSN or unlisted data (I am unlisted), they are culpable in any harm done by giving out that information.
We're going to have a lot of cease and desist orders then. Search google for 539-60-5125.
I would certainly take personal retribution on someone who engaged in this activity (giving out my SSN, etc).
SSNs should be published in the phone book next to people's names. That would solve 100% of the harmful things you can do with them.
We must make no distinction between the spammers who spam us and the ISPs who harbor them. Preemptive strikes must be made upon any ISP responding to spam with a canned e-mail.
Without patents on absurdly clever and innovatie ideas, what motivation would inventors have to invent?
The pursuit of knowledge, grant acquisition, PHD theses, fame, altruism, boredom, accident, etc.
They would invent something and try to sell it to a company, and the company would just design their own.
I don't think that would happen any more than it already does. For any non-trivial invention, having the actual inventor on your payroll is going to help.
Without patents, inventors - especially individuals - get fucked over.
That certainly begs the question.
In a few years, after they reap the benefits of their genius ideas, the patents expire. It's a wonderful system, given that patents aren't handed out like condoms.
That's certainly the argument, but it's one that I challenge.
There are zillions of search engines. They're free to use whatever search algorithm they want to.
They're not free to use google's algorithm, because it's patented.
Why does Google's patent keep other people from creating search engines?
It doesn't. It makes it harder for them to create good search engines, though.
There are lots and lots of ridiculous patents. There are also some absurdly clever and innovative ones.
There are absurdly clever and innovative ideas, but those are exactly the ones I don't want patented.
Well, unique and innovative patents aren't bad.
Only having one google when we could have three is bad.
and it looks like the CGI version, NOT the Apache module, correct? Please clarify for the morons in the audience such as myself.
Not only is it only the CGI version, but it's only version 4.3.0 of the CGI version.
The human body has one simple principle on which it's functions improve.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
It's means it is.
And yet, somehow we're supposed to believe that without the patent system that "invention" would have never came to pass?
3) A bunch of OSSers get together and write tax software and give it away for free. Wouldn't that be grand? Unfortunately, AIUI, tax software has to be certified, and certification costs money, so I'm not sure this will ever happen.
It costs 37 cents to file the application, and that's only if you want the software to connect to the IRS modems to e-file. It might not ever happen, but if it doesn't, it's not because of the certification costs.
Help me make the software, here, and I'll gladly get the software certified. I'm already an authorized IRS e-file provider.
All they were doing was trying to allow paying subscribers to decrypt satellite signals using linux.