Well, in fact, it probably is: it's only "criminal" to distribute tools to help other people "break laws".
Which this decision makes clear you are *not* doing by jailbreaking. Since *me jailbreaking my phone* is no longer a "crime", then you're not contributing to one by publishing such tools.
The 5th Circuit ruled the other day that "circumvention" isn't a "crime" *if you're doing it in order to exercise rights you already have -- like watching a movie you bought, or sharing a clip of it with your students as Fair Use...
or doing a Downfall parody, presumably.
Even *more* to the point; this means that jailbreaking your iPhone isn't "a crime"... but it does *not* mean Apple's forced to support you now, when they would have cut you off before.
is that Verizon will be the first one out of the gate with Block C 700MHz LTE service -- which will put them on the spot: they are *required by the terms of the license* -- thanks, Google -- to allow any device that meets their published tech specs to connect to that network.
So if the do this to their handsets for LTE700, then they'll just lose sales *directly*.
Fun to watch massive corporations try to turn on a dime.
People who buy things over the net from out of state are *already* subject to sales tax.
At least in Florida, where we call it "Use tax", and you're required to pay it yourself at the end of the year on everything you bought and didn't pay retail sales tax on.
it's just that a) nobody really does it, and b) there are too many people for the state to crack down on it. So they're going to (probably unconstitutionally) attack it from the seller end.
Sellers *hate* the idea: do you *know* how many sales taxing jurisdictions there are in the US? *Multiple* entire companies make a living keeping track of that.
an open platform, for the same reason we don't want daytraders on Wall Street, or intra-day trading at all, really. It's really nasty positive feedback, and has the bad effects positive feedback always has.
Whatever you think of Congress, it's a pretty handy damping loop to keep the Peepul from trashing the Constitution, and hence, the country.
I would speculate that if these two things don't work, we'll send in the Navy. I'm pretty sure that there's an exploratory minisub that can go down that far without trouble -- Tom Clancy says there is, anyway.:-)
Couple satchel charges, and we're done.
An argument could certainly be made that we should have done that 2 weeks ago... but do you really want to make it *here*?:-)
And, unfortunately, I don't think it's going to work.
Quite apart from the Metcalfe's Law aspect, and the "your social data is already in Facebook, and it's a bitch to get it back out" part, there are fundamental technical reasons why it will be somewhere between difficult and impossible to set up something like Diaspora-silly-asterisk wants to.
The two most prominent are:
Searching -- ever search for something on Gnutellanet, vice, say, the original Napster? Nuff said?
Second, and much more important, there are some things that Facebook can do *because it's a trusted (heh) third-party intermediary*, which an environment like Diaspora posits, you couldn't do... because in a client-server environment: *you can't trust the client*.
Since you can't trust the client, those functions simply cannot be provided by a distributed servent network with no central providers at all.
The most prominent example is probably that when someone asks to become your friend, you can see *who Facebook says* their other friends are, and the user can't forge that cause they don't have control over it.
In the Diaspora model, you either have to take their word for what their client sends you, which could be made up whole cloth, or query the entire network "who is a friend of X", and--as Blake Shelton says of Ol' Red--wait.
Some of these problems may be soluble by clever implementation of crypto authentication, but some of them seem to me to be fundamental design blocks.
Slashdot Mirror
Do Not Stare At Laser With Remaining Eye.
"AK Senator Ted Stevens dies in a plane crash; Internet goes back to being made up of routers and fiber."
... only worth as much as you are able to pay your lawyer.
There; FTFY.
I thought information wanted to be $6.98
I concur; I think the OP overreacted here...
and Boing Boing's response (they've taken the pic down) shows pretty clearly that they do too.
Oh, good; I have an excuse.
Someone buy my car?
A friend of mine is a paralegal with way too little to do; I'll ask her to Shepardize 17USC1201 tomorrow, and see what she finds.
Did they *really*? Wow; I didn't actually expect Apple to be that cool, anymore.
Well, in fact, it probably is: it's only "criminal" to distribute tools to help other people "break laws".
Which this decision makes clear you are *not* doing by jailbreaking. Since *me jailbreaking my phone* is no longer a "crime", then you're not contributing to one by publishing such tools.
QED.
I believe this wlil cover the AACP and HDCP issues mentioned above.
The 5th Circuit ruled the other day that "circumvention" isn't a "crime" *if you're doing it in order to exercise rights you already have -- like watching a movie you bought, or sharing a clip of it with your students as Fair Use...
or doing a Downfall parody, presumably.
Even *more* to the point; this means that jailbreaking your iPhone isn't "a crime"... but it does *not* mean Apple's forced to support you now, when they would have cut you off before.
is that Verizon will be the first one out of the gate with Block C 700MHz LTE service -- which will put them on the spot: they are *required by the terms of the license* -- thanks, Google -- to allow any device that meets their published tech specs to connect to that network.
So if the do this to their handsets for LTE700, then they'll just lose sales *directly*.
Fun to watch massive corporations try to turn on a dime.
Microsoft couldn't do it.
Betcha Verizon can't either.
The Droid X is a new model of Android phone.
An eFuse is a, well, a *fuse*, dumbass; it *blows* when it's told to, and -- like all fuses -- it cannot then be reset.
If You Didn't Get It, It Wasn't For You.
And this is pretty E-vil on Moto's part.
People who buy things over the net from out of state are *already* subject to sales tax.
At least in Florida, where we call it "Use tax", and you're required to pay it yourself at the end of the year on everything you bought and didn't pay retail sales tax on.
it's just that a) nobody really does it, and b) there are too many people for the state to crack down on it. So they're going to (probably unconstitutionally) attack it from the seller end.
Sellers *hate* the idea: do you *know* how many sales taxing jurisdictions there are in the US? *Multiple* entire companies make a living keeping track of that.
I found the piece very interesting.
Though my inability to post this comment appears to have outlived the slashdotting of the site.
That Castrol commercial with 50 engines running on engine stands with no oil in them?
an open platform, for the same reason we don't want daytraders on Wall Street, or intra-day trading at all, really. It's really nasty positive feedback, and has the bad effects positive feedback always has.
Whatever you think of Congress, it's a pretty handy damping loop to keep the Peepul from trashing the Constitution, and hence, the country.
Can I just say that I *love* firefighting work, cause it's the last bastion of objective capability over affirmative action?
That unconscious guy in the burning building doesn't *care* that you're female, and can only drag 150 pounds; he still weighs 200.
And amazingly enough: the exams recognize this.
noting that this factory's staff is over 400k employees -- or roughly the size of Cleveland -- and that this is not really news, and I tend to agree.
I would speculate that if these two things don't work, we'll send in the Navy. I'm pretty sure that there's an exploratory minisub that can go down that far without trouble -- Tom Clancy says there is, anyway. :-)
Couple satchel charges, and we're done.
An argument could certainly be made that we should have done that 2 weeks ago... but do you really want to make it *here*? :-)
And, unfortunately, I don't think it's going to work.
Quite apart from the Metcalfe's Law aspect, and the "your social data is already in Facebook, and it's a bitch to get it back out" part, there are fundamental technical reasons why it will be somewhere between difficult and impossible to set up something like Diaspora-silly-asterisk wants to.
The two most prominent are:
Searching -- ever search for something on Gnutellanet, vice, say, the original Napster? Nuff said?
Second, and much more important, there are some things that Facebook can do *because it's a trusted (heh) third-party intermediary*, which an environment like Diaspora posits, you couldn't do... because in a client-server environment: *you can't trust the client*.
Since you can't trust the client, those functions simply cannot be provided by a distributed servent network with no central providers at all.
The most prominent example is probably that when someone asks to become your friend, you can see *who Facebook says* their other friends are, and the user can't forge that cause they don't have control over it.
In the Diaspora model, you either have to take their word for what their client sends you, which could be made up whole cloth, or query the entire network "who is a friend of X", and--as Blake Shelton says of Ol' Red--wait.
Some of these problems may be soluble by clever implementation of crypto authentication, but some of them seem to me to be fundamental design blocks.
I generally call it a titmouse.
And while none of mine have them, I do have about 6 IBM Model M keyboards; you can have them when you pry them from, etc, etc, yada yada yada.
I had *just* gotten done watching the 'Machete' trailer over at The Superficial(.com)
"Prodigy for Dummies".
Nuff said?
I don't see that this means they're *actually* going to die, however.
That's precisely the difference between implementing them as newsgroups, and as Microsoft-"hosted" fora, in fact.
It will be interesting to see the results.