I always think it rather silly to state that a judge declared something illegal. Yes I know that he interprets the law. But all the judge does is look at the law and the case. So all the judge has done is show that the law is stupid. The laws that make this illegal were already around. Don't blame the judge, blame the legislators and push to get the law changed! That's how it's supposed to work. In reality, judges sometimes decide what they want to happen, then look for a way to make the law back them up.
Why the support on Slashdot for anti-spam laws then? If your smtp server accepts my connection and accepts the mail I subsequently send to you through that connection, how is this any different to the arguments posed elsewhere in this thread about public access services and presumed legality? With spam, you don't know what it is until you've accepted it. "Here's a thingie... it might be animportant message from your grandma, or it might be an offer to enlarge you wife's penis. Who knows?" With a DNS request, you know exactly what's being asked for. It isn't like the server says "here's an open port, please don't root me."
I used to be into the Blockbuster thing, but the newer titles were never in stock, and I hated having to wait in line to check in/out movies. Netflix ships them to you and you ship them back. I can send movies back on Wednesday and have new ones by Friday, and I don't have to wait 9-12 months for new releases. Netflix put a serious dent in my Blockbuster patronage, but I still go there every now and then, when I've watched all of my Netflix disks, will have to wait a day or more for new ones to be mailed, and want to kill a couple of hours.
Apple's service, compared to Blockbuster, is:
More convenient; I don't have to drive anywhere to load up iTunes,or take the movies back
Cheaper, by at least a dollar per movie
More complete; the catalog will be much better than Blockbuster's brick-n-mortar
I *do* like Netflix, have used them for years, but this whole "Watch It Now" thing is about as interesting to me as watching grass grow. On someone else's computer...
Most of us are waiting for inexpensive, dual format (Blueray & HD-DVD) players. I'm waiting for something to be included with a new MacBook, and to work with HandBrake. That's the game-winner, for me.
Ray, instead of being modded down for that reply, we should mod you up both for your work in this area and for submitting the article. Because nothing says "thanks for all the hard legal work" like Slashdot Karma.;-)
The merging of Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses for resource files with GPL or MIT style licenses for the code is going to get interesting. Basically, it says "yo can do anything you want with this code, except this part right here, and the whole thing will fail to work without this part right here." At least, that's what I get out of the text...
So how is this a firefox problem? Firefox spawns off another process that has a flaw and it crashes. This process is completely outside of the memory space of firefox at this point. It isn't a Firefox problem. per se. Firefox did nothing but what was asked of it: call this user-specified external program to deal with a piece of data.
Applications should be well-written and behaved, but we expect our OS to compensate for them when they are not. Browsers are evolving, becoming an operating environment unto themselves, and Firefox's competitors have taken a stance similar to the OS makers. Plug-ins should be well-written and behaved, but they'll take steps to minimize the damage caused by the ones that are not.
And that makes it Firefox's problem, because Firefox is lacking a feature that other browsers provide. This kind of plug-in security is becoming a "best practice" of sorts, and Firefox should implement this feature to stay current.
(and for the first time ever, IE just kind of sat off to the side and shrugged it's shoulders in disinterest that it isn't affected). As opposed to all of the times IE just kind of sat off to the side and shrugged it's shoulders in disinterest even though it was affected.
Watching all of this transpire made me incredibly embarrassed of the Java community. (Note: Predictable smart-ass comments can be inserted after the previous sentence.) The hue and cry was simply amazing and, let's face it, immature. "I want Java6 *now* and since it's not there I'm abandoning the Mac as my platform!" When I made the switch to Mac, one of the big selling points was Apple's clear statements that "Java was a first-class citizen," and "the Mac is the best Java development environment available." And for a long while, that was true.
Java 6 was released in 2006. Java 5 is from 2004. People aren't crying "we want Java 6 now," they're saying "we'd like your 'first-class' citizen to be updated to something written in the last three years." I don't think that this is unreasonable.
There aren't "too many variables." There's only one variable that matters: Calories. From an absolute point of view, you're right, but the real story is a lot more complex.
For example, what is the thermic cost of the food you're eating? That is, how many calories are you burning to convert your food into a form your body can use? The thermic cost of sugars - and carbs are sugars - is almost zero. So eating 1,00o calories worth of bread is not the same as eating 1,000 calories worth of protein or fat.
Next, what kind of effect does the food have on appetite? Refined sugar actually increases appetite, while eating fats tends to satiate. That means if you eat 1,000 calories of white bread, you're likely to keep on eating, whereas a meal of protein and fats will tend to leave you feeling full.
Also, what kind of hormonal effect does your food have on you? When you eat carbs, you body dumps insulin into your blood stream, which slows metabolism and promotes the storage of calories. And, if you're eating a lot of carbs, the glycogen stores in you muscles are already full, so that storage of calories tends to be in the form of adipose tissue - fat cells.
Yes, you can get lean on a low-fat, high-carb diet. But it will be a lot harder. And study after study shows this; people on a low-carb diet, like Atkins or even South Beach, tend to lose around twice as much weight as people on a low-fat diet. They also have better compliance, and better long-term success.
And so-called "victimless crimes" like gambling, marijuana, non-martial sex, etc. seem to be a losing enforcement battle too. At some point the governement may focus on real problems like terrorism, crumbling infrastructure, economic inequality and so on. But those things are hard... why try to get elected on a platform of "I'm going to do my best, and a lot of it probably won't work," when you can just run a "hard on crime" platform by demonizing a few minorities?
The whole study is a joke because it assumes that body mass index is a valid measure of obesity, and it isn't. The only real way to tell how fat you are is to measure your body fat percentage, usually with calipers although some new scales claim to be able to do it electrically. They lie. Those scales basically make up a random number and show it on the screen. Calipers are a bit better, if the person knows what they're doing, but DEXA is the gold standard.
It's wrong to teach BMI in schools. It's wrong to use it as a measure. If you want to know fat, break out the calipers. Anything less, is wrong, and anything based on it, is absurd. A more useful measurement is the waist-to-height ratio. If your waist is less than half your height, you're usually doing all right for yourself.
By keeping the source closed, he is in fact assuming all responsibility for the actions of his code. If his code allows something bad to happen, we can say with certainty that it's all his fault. Just like it's Microsoft's fault when you use their closed-source operating system to run bittorrent?
If their records show the game was never played in its original country of purchase, then I think they'd have decent grounds to decline your request. Why? If they offer you a certain service, say the ability to play a certain game or watch a movie, why does it matter to them where you make use of that service? If I buy a bottle of soda, does the store care where I drink it? If I buy a book, does the publisher care where I read it? So why is a video game any different?
What about those that were and are in regions of the world where importing software is allowed like Australia? The problem is that our government was set up to protect private citizens from the government. The corporation, which have powers pretty much on par with the government, wasn't really foreseen, so there's nothing in place to protect us from them.
A while ago, the RIAA and FCC held a press conference about some pending legislation. Someone from the audience asked "what about a public representative," and the RIAA guy said "I represent the public." He honestly couldn't see that there was a difference between his cadre of multi-million dollar companies and John Q Public sitting at home. Until that distinction gets made, and gets encoded into law, we're basically out of luck.
Worse, folks who tried to 'make it right' by buying a local copy have found they're basically SOL. I've been a big fan of the Steam concept since it launched, but this is the sort of thing you need to communicate to your users before you sting them. No, this is the kind of thing they need to not do.
Corporations can outsource their work to whatever foreign nation is cheapest, and thus reap the benefits of this "global economy," but if the consumer tries to gain the same advantage, they get smacked down. That is one-sided and wrong.
The US constitution grants the vast majority of American's rights and freedoms, so when these are attacked the constitution is always cited. I understand why you said this, but it is completely inaccurate. The Constitution grants certain powers to the Federal government, and specifically outlines some things which is it not allowed to do. The rights of the people are, in the minds of the people who founded the American nation, an inherent part of being human. That cannot be given by some document or some government, they simply are. Freedom of speech is a human right, and that right cannot be taken away. The ability to speak can be removed, but not the right.
Your point of view, however, the idea that the only rights we have are those granted to us by the constitution, has become much more common, and it's a big part of why we're in the legal and political mess that we are. The question is no longer "what is the government allowed to do," but "what are the people allowed to do." Our freedom is limited, not the freedom of the government.
This is the very reason some of the founders resisted adding the Bill of Rights to the constitution; they feared that it would become an enumerated list of all of our rights. Indeed, it has; as far as I know, not a single case in all of American legal history has turned on the 9th amendment.
Thomas would like to see the record companies forced to prove their actual damages due to downloading, a figure that Sony-BMG litigation head Jennifer Pariser testified that her company "had not stopped to calculate."
If they include legal fees, and what they spend tracking down file sharers, it just might be more than she has to pay. IANAL, but I was under the impression that "damages" are calculated aside from legal fees, and that legal fees awarded can only be up to the amount the losing party themselves paid. But I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's service, compared to Blockbuster, is:
Steve Jobs just killed Blockbuster.
1. Replace TSA administration wit people who will approve step 2
2. Eliminate the facade that is security the check.
Where I come from (Jamaica) that's simple theft...
Screwing over the customer so you can sell his stuff? Most jurisdictions discourage that
The merging of Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses for resource files with GPL or MIT style licenses for the code is going to get interesting. Basically, it says "yo can do anything you want with this code, except this part right here, and the whole thing will fail to work without this part right here." At least, that's what I get out of the text...
Applications should be well-written and behaved, but we expect our OS to compensate for them when they are not. Browsers are evolving, becoming an operating environment unto themselves, and Firefox's competitors have taken a stance similar to the OS makers. Plug-ins should be well-written and behaved, but they'll take steps to minimize the damage caused by the ones that are not.
And that makes it Firefox's problem, because Firefox is lacking a feature that other browsers provide. This kind of plug-in security is becoming a "best practice" of sorts, and Firefox should implement this feature to stay current.
Java 6 was released in 2006. Java 5 is from 2004. People aren't crying "we want Java 6 now," they're saying "we'd like your 'first-class' citizen to be updated to something written in the last three years." I don't think that this is unreasonable.
Now if we can just get the lawyers for the RIAA, MPAA, and everyone in Washington disbarred, we'll be on to something.
For example, what is the thermic cost of the food you're eating? That is, how many calories are you burning to convert your food into a form your body can use? The thermic cost of sugars - and carbs are sugars - is almost zero. So eating 1,00o calories worth of bread is not the same as eating 1,000 calories worth of protein or fat.
Next, what kind of effect does the food have on appetite? Refined sugar actually increases appetite, while eating fats tends to satiate. That means if you eat 1,000 calories of white bread, you're likely to keep on eating, whereas a meal of protein and fats will tend to leave you feeling full.
Also, what kind of hormonal effect does your food have on you? When you eat carbs, you body dumps insulin into your blood stream, which slows metabolism and promotes the storage of calories. And, if you're eating a lot of carbs, the glycogen stores in you muscles are already full, so that storage of calories tends to be in the form of adipose tissue - fat cells.
Yes, you can get lean on a low-fat, high-carb diet. But it will be a lot harder. And study after study shows this; people on a low-carb diet, like Atkins or even South Beach, tend to lose around twice as much weight as people on a low-fat diet. They also have better compliance, and better long-term success.
A while ago, the RIAA and FCC held a press conference about some pending legislation. Someone from the audience asked "what about a public representative," and the RIAA guy said "I represent the public." He honestly couldn't see that there was a difference between his cadre of multi-million dollar companies and John Q Public sitting at home. Until that distinction gets made, and gets encoded into law, we're basically out of luck.
Corporations can outsource their work to whatever foreign nation is cheapest, and thus reap the benefits of this "global economy," but if the consumer tries to gain the same advantage, they get smacked down. That is one-sided and wrong.
Your point of view, however, the idea that the only rights we have are those granted to us by the constitution, has become much more common, and it's a big part of why we're in the legal and political mess that we are. The question is no longer "what is the government allowed to do," but "what are the people allowed to do." Our freedom is limited, not the freedom of the government.
This is the very reason some of the founders resisted adding the Bill of Rights to the constitution; they feared that it would become an enumerated list of all of our rights. Indeed, it has; as far as I know, not a single case in all of American legal history has turned on the 9th amendment.
If they include legal fees, and what they spend tracking down file sharers, it just might be more than she has to pay. IANAL, but I was under the impression that "damages" are calculated aside from legal fees, and that legal fees awarded can only be up to the amount the losing party themselves paid. But I could be wrong.