Another thing (actually falls under one of your catagories) such a virus could do is alter names of contacts. Or change honorifics. Professionals in certain professions get very irate when addressed incorrectly. To the point of losing clients sometimes.
Language is constantly evolving, despite the proliferation of dictionaries and grammer classes. So evolving a new meaning / shade of meaning is appropriate if needed.
In this case, I think they as an indeterminate singular is a pretty good evolution of the language. Not perfect, but pretty good. I already use it this way in some of my writings. Whether it is being used in the singular or plural sense is usually clear on context. It also has the benefit that in situations such as here, where it is not known whether one or more people are involved, then both conditions are covered.
For myself, I used to use "te" for an indeterminate pronoun in personal writings. T is close to the s in she, and te is two letters like he. Not sure why I chose it, just did. Unfortunately, it is a homonym with the tee/tea family, so not perfect either.
...library officials discovered that many patrons logged onto library computers using library cards and passwords of friends or relatives. That realization, coupled with a new library policy that allows parents to install automatic Internet filters on their children's accounts, prompted the search for better computer security...
So there's the problem. Please include your personal counter suggestion with any criticisms.
It is a public library. By walking in from the street I have identified myself as a member of the public. Thus I have a right to use the computers.
If not, that means that nonlocals cannot use the library the same as the locals. This is not how we do things in my local. This to me is wrong. What's next, ids required to use roads paid for by local taxes?
I know this is to combat workarounds to parent's request for filters to apply to their children. So I would expect that anyone with an id showing them to be 18 or above is exempt, I would hope. Further, by using the password, it appears that the library has done what it needs to accomodate the parents. That the children violate this is the children's fault, not the library. As others have said, just lock out each and every account found to have been breached.
For the record, I applaud this library's use of account specific filters. This is a great way to go along with COPA or whatever the current act is called, without bothering those who don't want to be filtered. At least I think the library is to be applauded, understanding that the library doesn't filter adult accounts unless requested.
If this authentication will apply to all patrons including adults, then it is wrong as stated above.
It's pretty clear that they intend to do this with searching. Very soon, Windows will come with a Search icon, which most users will simply use, not knowing or caring whether it has anything to do with google.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think you're likely wrong here. For some users, sure, this may work, but for the most I think it won't.
In my observation, MS won the IE war because the majority of people were too lazy/too unknowledgeable/or unable to get Netscape or whatever. AOL pushed the use of IE, for example. How many of common users' ability was stretched to the limit just getting the computer to hook up to the Internet and work with IE? Nevermind being able to download and install Netscape. Most probably didn't have knowledge or experience of anything other than IE, so why would they even have any reason to look for an alternative?
Sure, they can try the same tactics, but the barriers to alternatives is much lower in the search engine wars than in the browser wars and the knowledge of the alternatives, I think, much higher in the search engine field.
Browser wars:
Knowledge of average user of alternative - likely not high
Cost to try alternative - high (long download times at least on dial up, requires some technical knowledge - to find download page, select correct version, download, and install)
Search engine wars:
Knowledge of average user of alternative - very high
Cost to try alternative - very low - just a link click or entry of a url
Maybe if MS had an icon that would open a window lickety-split (?) allowing a quick typer to be getting search results in less than 2 seconds. Maybe this would be enough to pull the same trick as in the browser wars for many users. Even I would use it on occasion. But still, the cost of conversion is so low that I think they will have to do more to cause problems to the alternatives.
Actually, I think the way it works is that so long as one candidate does not get over 50% of those voting, eleminate the least favorite and vote again. Winner is first candidtate to get 50% + 1 or more of the vote.
It works better than the US system for reasons discussed fully on/. before - voters can vote for the candidate they most want instead of trying to be effective by voting for one of the two most popular candidates just to try and make sure the other doen'st win, as many did in the last presidential election.
But any good laywer could reduce the damages to sale price and a penalty fine.
Not if they ask for statutory damages - $750 minimum up to 150K for willful infringement per work. Think the RIAA will ask for actual damages instead of this? Not likely.
First of all, I feel sorry for you man, hard times.
Re the perp walk, I can say I've seen it and heard about it many times. For myself, I have never had the full treatment - when I was laid off - two times recently - they actually gave me a nice buffer period and let me get my things out after hours without supervision.
Had a girlfriend in college who's rule was always to do something nice when we parted for summer vacations and whatnot - her reason, you always remember what happed last, so make it good.
For those I know who were given the perp treatment, it is very humiliating and they don't forget it.
The Motion Picture Association of America, a trade group that represents major Hollywood
studios, estimates that the U.S. motion picture industry loses more than $3 billion annually
in potential worldwide revenue due to piracy.
Scratches head...
Hey, I can play that game too...
I lose more than $10K every year in potential revenue just because I didn't get that raise...
I lose more than $1M every year in potential revenue because I wasn't selected to be CEO for any of several Fortune 500 companies...
I lose more than $10B every year in potential revenues because BG doen't give me it...
Choose any given licence for your code and you will grant certain rights, lets say A, to those who use your code and you will be denying other rights, say B, similarly. You've just ruled out your using anyone else's code requiring you to license works built on their code such that at least one right in B is included.
The other side, as you said, is that you can choose which software you want to use, but in so doing, you've limited your relicensing terms to those in agreement with the relicense requirements of the original code's license.
It could be worse ...
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Ah, the hazards of being single.
In law school, there is the famous case of 4 guys who were adrift at sea and nearing death from starvation. 3 had wives and families, one was young and just starting his career. The 3 older men decided they'd kill the younger as the younger had the least to lose and they'd eat him. That's what they did. They were rescued the next day.
So this reasoning has been used for worse consequences than your situation
BTW, the 3 were convicted but later released with time served. Apparently, public opinion was that the 3 were reasonable in what they did, as they didn't know they'd be rescued.
I don't blame them. However, it is getting such that if you read the T&C for anything, it is not likely that a rational person would agree to it.
A case in point - I read a recent application for an AmEx card thru Costco. You had to agree that all shopping information could be shared with AmEx and, IIRC, undisclosed third party suppliers or something like that. The thing that got me was that this had no limitation on acceptance. That is, even if you were rejected, you had already agreed for Costco to share your information.
Maybe that is what the incentive prize is for - whether you are accepted or not, AmEx and Costco get something valuable and so do you, so you can't claim no contract if later you want to stop the information sharing.
A word of note - for contracts such as this, you can line out that which you don't like and initial it. So long as the store accepts it, the contract is modified (I guess that the store could argue that the recruiter did not have authorization). With the education level of those doing the recruiting, it is not likely they know the significance of what you are doing. I have never had any such modification rejected yet.
Well, the submission quotes the law as saying "copy". Title 17, which governs copyright also uses the term copy. But in court, copying even part of a copyrighted work violates the right to copy that the copyright owner has. So I imagine a court will use this same reading of copy in the new legislation.
Thus, I guess your idea won't work
When I first began to study copyright, I had a similar idea to your's - have a P2P network where each person shared maybe a fraction of a second of a song. Everyone would download all the different parts and assemble them in their home. My rationale was that if the samples were small enough, each individual act of sharing/copying would not be an infringement. And how short a sample is needed to avoid infringement for copying it? Very small. IIRC, a series of 3 notes was held protectable in a Whitney Houston song - it all depends on whether enough creativity is evident in the sample. But, my idea doesn't work as when enough parts would be assembled, then an infringing copy would exist that you created.
My new idea for copying without violating the copyright laws? Have American Indians do it. Once you got the copy, on whatever media they used, would you be violating copyright law? No, you didn't make the copy, you aren't distributing the copy, you're not importing it, you're not publically displaying or performing it, and you're not creating any derivative work - thus you are ok (for direct infringement).
This works because currently, American Indian tribes (AIT) are exempt from the copyright law (I have case cites for this somewhere). But you can bet your ass that if AITs started blatently violating copyright, that immunity would be lifted pretty fast.
The way to do it, I guess, would be for the AITs to copy things and source them. It would be like a black market, but it wouldn't be as the AIT is not subject to the copyright laws.
I mean, god people, isn't there an exception for well-intentioned congressmen? (well-intentioned -> translation -> bought and paid for by corporations) Somehow, I expect there will be when it happens.
If an officer unlawfully beat someone, do you think the recording would ever be used in that person's favor? Not likely, since it wouldn't be in the police department's best interest to share that information.
That's why I'd like to see a neutral company have control of the cameras, or at least get a feed from them. Further, there should be prohibitions in effect to prevent ex-police from working for them or they from becoming police. Oh, and somehow keep whatever part of government that oversees the company separate from that which oversees the police. You know, to prevent a common boss from forcing the company to cover something up to help the police.
And allow citizens to get access via FOIA or somesuch. Both when they need it for civil suits and just when they want so that the public can verify what is being recorded.
I don't understand the point of this, really. For those who have purchased the properties in which they live, and most celebrities will qualify for this, their addresses are already public domain, not private, so how can it be protected?
If you don't believe this, go to your local courthouse - who has purchased what property and how much they paid for it is a public record and anybody can access it.
"other personal information", depending on what that covers, may be worth protecting.
Personally, I would suggest a privacy amendment to the constitution. Just take a national referendum and protect what the majority wants protected. Oh, and no special provisions for corporations, politicians, law enforcement, or the wealthy - everyone gets treated equally.
While I don't know alot about the setups of the US and prewar Germany (but this is/.), I think there are at least two important differences. Hitler got dictatorial power because he didn't need to get reelected as Chancellor (right?) and the Enabling Act gave him the ability to basicially dictate legislation.
I don't see the Presidency here getting either of those powers. The constitution stands in the way of both.
Although, IIRC the white house had plans on how to suspend the 2004 elections.
I believe he was commenting that combinations on the order of 5 bytes in length do not get copyright protection, thus anybody can "copy" such a combination. He is right that short combinations of words or other things do not get copyright protection when there is not sufficient creativity involved. "Hello, what's up?" can't be copyrighted for this reason.
I think his analogy is inapt though, "Frank" is one word that has been around for, what, 100s? of years (thus no creativity in using it) whereas the CSS code was at least independently created.
IIRC, in a Witney Houston song, a series of three notes was held copyrightable, so I would think that the CSS code at 5 bytes could be copyrightable, depending on how it was created.
Even if it was a threshold issue, in the current state of the US, courts would likely find copyrightability.
Slashdot Mirror
Muahahahaha ... erm ... nevermind (whistles with eyes going side to side).
Another thing (actually falls under one of your catagories) such a virus could do is alter names of contacts. Or change honorifics. Professionals in certain professions get very irate when addressed incorrectly. To the point of losing clients sometimes.
In this case, I think they as an indeterminate singular is a pretty good evolution of the language. Not perfect, but pretty good. I already use it this way in some of my writings. Whether it is being used in the singular or plural sense is usually clear on context. It also has the benefit that in situations such as here, where it is not known whether one or more people are involved, then both conditions are covered.
For myself, I used to use "te" for an indeterminate pronoun in personal writings. T is close to the s in she, and te is two letters like he. Not sure why I chose it, just did. Unfortunately, it is a homonym with the tee/tea family, so not perfect either.
(See the Patriot Act.)
So there's the problem. Please include your personal counter suggestion with any criticisms.
It is a public library. By walking in from the street I have identified myself as a member of the public. Thus I have a right to use the computers.
If not, that means that nonlocals cannot use the library the same as the locals. This is not how we do things in my local. This to me is wrong. What's next, ids required to use roads paid for by local taxes?
I know this is to combat workarounds to parent's request for filters to apply to their children. So I would expect that anyone with an id showing them to be 18 or above is exempt, I would hope. Further, by using the password, it appears that the library has done what it needs to accomodate the parents. That the children violate this is the children's fault, not the library. As others have said, just lock out each and every account found to have been breached.
For the record, I applaud this library's use of account specific filters. This is a great way to go along with COPA or whatever the current act is called, without bothering those who don't want to be filtered. At least I think the library is to be applauded, understanding that the library doesn't filter adult accounts unless requested.
If this authentication will apply to all patrons including adults, then it is wrong as stated above.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think you're likely wrong here. For some users, sure, this may work, but for the most I think it won't.
In my observation, MS won the IE war because the majority of people were too lazy/too unknowledgeable/or unable to get Netscape or whatever. AOL pushed the use of IE, for example. How many of common users' ability was stretched to the limit just getting the computer to hook up to the Internet and work with IE? Nevermind being able to download and install Netscape. Most probably didn't have knowledge or experience of anything other than IE, so why would they even have any reason to look for an alternative?
Sure, they can try the same tactics, but the barriers to alternatives is much lower in the search engine wars than in the browser wars and the knowledge of the alternatives, I think, much higher in the search engine field.
Browser wars:
Knowledge of average user of alternative - likely not high
Cost to try alternative - high (long download times at least on dial up, requires some technical knowledge - to find download page, select correct version, download, and install)
Search engine wars:
Knowledge of average user of alternative - very high
Cost to try alternative - very low - just a link click or entry of a url
Maybe if MS had an icon that would open a window lickety-split (?) allowing a quick typer to be getting search results in less than 2 seconds. Maybe this would be enough to pull the same trick as in the browser wars for many users. Even I would use it on occasion. But still, the cost of conversion is so low that I think they will have to do more to cause problems to the alternatives.
It works better than the US system for reasons discussed fully on /. before - voters can vote for the candidate they most want instead of trying to be effective by voting for one of the two most popular candidates just to try and make sure the other doen'st win, as many did in the last presidential election.
Happened to some people in Brazil, where it is mandatory to vote.
Link not handy.
/been there and done that
//including with the shaving cream trick
Not if they ask for statutory damages - $750 minimum up to 150K for willful infringement per work. Think the RIAA will ask for actual damages instead of this? Not likely.
It's good to be the content owner.
Re the perp walk, I can say I've seen it and heard about it many times. For myself, I have never had the full treatment - when I was laid off - two times recently - they actually gave me a nice buffer period and let me get my things out after hours without supervision.
Had a girlfriend in college who's rule was always to do something nice when we parted for summer vacations and whatnot - her reason, you always remember what happed last, so make it good.
For those I know who were given the perp treatment, it is very humiliating and they don't forget it.
You just watch your mark and when something bad finally happens to them, you can be happy about it.
Scratches head ...
Hey, I can play that game too ...
I lose more than $10K every year in potential revenue just because I didn't get that raise ...
...
...
I lose more than $1M every year in potential revenue because I wasn't selected to be CEO for any of several Fortune 500 companies
I lose more than $10B every year in potential revenues because BG doen't give me it
Choose any given licence for your code and you will grant certain rights, lets say A, to those who use your code and you will be denying other rights, say B, similarly. You've just ruled out your using anyone else's code requiring you to license works built on their code such that at least one right in B is included.
The other side, as you said, is that you can choose which software you want to use, but in so doing, you've limited your relicensing terms to those in agreement with the relicense requirements of the original code's license.
In law school, there is the famous case of 4 guys who were adrift at sea and nearing death from starvation. 3 had wives and families, one was young and just starting his career. The 3 older men decided they'd kill the younger as the younger had the least to lose and they'd eat him. That's what they did. They were rescued the next day.
So this reasoning has been used for worse consequences than your situation
BTW, the 3 were convicted but later released with time served. Apparently, public opinion was that the 3 were reasonable in what they did, as they didn't know they'd be rescued.
A case in point - I read a recent application for an AmEx card thru Costco. You had to agree that all shopping information could be shared with AmEx and, IIRC, undisclosed third party suppliers or something like that. The thing that got me was that this had no limitation on acceptance. That is, even if you were rejected, you had already agreed for Costco to share your information.
Maybe that is what the incentive prize is for - whether you are accepted or not, AmEx and Costco get something valuable and so do you, so you can't claim no contract if later you want to stop the information sharing.
A word of note - for contracts such as this, you can line out that which you don't like and initial it. So long as the store accepts it, the contract is modified (I guess that the store could argue that the recruiter did not have authorization). With the education level of those doing the recruiting, it is not likely they know the significance of what you are doing. I have never had any such modification rejected yet.
Thus, I guess your idea won't work
When I first began to study copyright, I had a similar idea to your's - have a P2P network where each person shared maybe a fraction of a second of a song. Everyone would download all the different parts and assemble them in their home. My rationale was that if the samples were small enough, each individual act of sharing/copying would not be an infringement. And how short a sample is needed to avoid infringement for copying it? Very small. IIRC, a series of 3 notes was held protectable in a Whitney Houston song - it all depends on whether enough creativity is evident in the sample. But, my idea doesn't work as when enough parts would be assembled, then an infringing copy would exist that you created.
My new idea for copying without violating the copyright laws? Have American Indians do it. Once you got the copy, on whatever media they used, would you be violating copyright law? No, you didn't make the copy, you aren't distributing the copy, you're not importing it, you're not publically displaying or performing it, and you're not creating any derivative work - thus you are ok (for direct infringement).
This works because currently, American Indian tribes (AIT) are exempt from the copyright law (I have case cites for this somewhere). But you can bet your ass that if AITs started blatently violating copyright, that immunity would be lifted pretty fast.
The way to do it, I guess, would be for the AITs to copy things and source them. It would be like a black market, but it wouldn't be as the AIT is not subject to the copyright laws.
Or so goes my reasoning.
You know, like when Hatch's site was found to have incorporated copyrighted code without license?
I mean, god people, isn't there an exception for well-intentioned congressmen? (well-intentioned -> translation -> bought and paid for by corporations) Somehow, I expect there will be when it happens.
That's why I'd like to see a neutral company have control of the cameras, or at least get a feed from them. Further, there should be prohibitions in effect to prevent ex-police from working for them or they from becoming police. Oh, and somehow keep whatever part of government that oversees the company separate from that which oversees the police. You know, to prevent a common boss from forcing the company to cover something up to help the police.
And allow citizens to get access via FOIA or somesuch. Both when they need it for civil suits and just when they want so that the public can verify what is being recorded.
Just thought you guys might like to see an alternative way to draw attention to surveillence cameras, the NY camera surveillence players.
If you don't believe this, go to your local courthouse - who has purchased what property and how much they paid for it is a public record and anybody can access it.
"other personal information", depending on what that covers, may be worth protecting.
Personally, I would suggest a privacy amendment to the constitution. Just take a national referendum and protect what the majority wants protected. Oh, and no special provisions for corporations, politicians, law enforcement, or the wealthy - everyone gets treated equally.
1) Create an environment
2) Allow others to do the content creation
3) Sell use of/access to system
4) Profit!
What an amazing business plan. Same one used by Slashdot, Fark, et al.
Just wish I could think of a good one.
I don't see the Presidency here getting either of those powers. The constitution stands in the way of both.
Although, IIRC the white house had plans on how to suspend the 2004 elections.
I think his analogy is inapt though, "Frank" is one word that has been around for, what, 100s? of years (thus no creativity in using it) whereas the CSS code was at least independently created.
IIRC, in a Witney Houston song, a series of three notes was held copyrightable, so I would think that the CSS code at 5 bytes could be copyrightable, depending on how it was created.
Even if it was a threshold issue, in the current state of the US, courts would likely find copyrightability.
Here's a start.