In every state's wiretap laws (except for one: Illinois), there has to be an expectation of privacy in order for the wiretap laws to apply. If you are on the side of a busy road in broad daylight, you can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
(a) Unlawful acts.- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to:
(1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or
(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle.
And the lawful acts are in (C)(2-4).
You really need to read the entire that entire section of MD code. To be charged and found guilty of a violation of the statute, all of the elements of the crime have be present. You need to know what an "oral communication" is as defined under that law.
(2) (i) "Oral communication" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.
The phrase "..in a private conversation." is key here. You can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the side of a busy interstate in the middle of the day. No expectation of privacy means no law was broken.
I I wonder why the judge hasn't throw the case out of court. Has the ACLU files to have the charge(s) dismissed for lack of elements?
That commercal is so ripe with parody material. 'Shop Steve Jobs' head as Big Brother. Oh even better, Google could do a riff of that 1984 Commercial today for Andriod.
You're right in that Apple is free to moderate their boards however they wish. But you are missing the point. Image is very important to Apple. They are trying to keep "the Image" intact. But ultimately Apple is tarnishing "the Image". They are trying to control information in a very Orwellian way (i.e. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."). And what makes it very damning and hugely ironic, is that Apple is turning into the very thing they fought against in their very first Macintosh Commercial.
Are you kidding? Free Speech means exactly that: free and unfetter communication in whatever form or medium I desire. That includes copying and using other people speech. It's a basic, unalienable right of people in this country. BUT there is also the copyright/patent clause that says creators have a limited time monopoly in their creative works. We have two rights that are diametrically opposed to each other. And we cannot not ignore one nor the other.
What has happened is that through a series of court cases a number of doctrines were established which balanced out Free Speech and Copyright: First Sale Doctrine, Fair Use Doctrine, etc. Eventually these doctrines were codified into law by the Congress. Just where do you think all of those doctrines came from in first place?
That's just ridiculous to mandate this type of thing. But I do see a fatal flaw in their plan. All it takes is some enterprising parent(s) to thwart the plan. Simple encourage every family to not participate. If they schools want students to use Macs, they'll have to pony up a Mac for every single student.
How many students do hey have? 100? 200? 1200? That's a lot of checking laptops in and out everyday. Would be a lot of work for the IT staff.
Say you work for a big company like Google or Goldman Sachs, and their magic secret program uses libraries and other code distributed under the GNU GPL license.
They are under no obligation to publish as they use the code internally and do not distribute anything.
What if an employee leaves the company and takes the code to the magic secret program with him? It uses GNU GPL licensed code, which grants _him_ a license to redistribute it, because he has a copy of the program already.
No. The departed employee doesn't has a right to distribute the derivative code of the orignal GPL'ed code. The employer owns the copyright of the all of the changes from the base GPL code. Only the copyright owner can choose to distribute the code, or not. The employee would be in big trouble. He is guilty of theft (or whatever form of misappropriation) from his employer.
I'm curious how this is legitimately patentable. I can understand patenting an accelerometer, and even understand patenting the software techniques for motion sensing (even if I disagree with software patents), but how exactly do you take two technologies that already exist, tie them together in an ever so slightly different way, and call it patentable?
I haven't read the entire patent myself. But if what you are saying about it is true, then it's a dead duck patent. Using two patented things to together in an obvious way is exactly what KSR Internainal v. Teleflex case the US Supreme Court is about. If this patent is ever challanged in court, it's highly likely to be ruled invalid.
Parent has is exactly right. E-mail is an entirely different realm from a postcard. It doesn't take any extra effort or equipment to read a postcard. Its entirely open for the world to see.
E-mail on the other hand can't be casually read by another person. Can you glance at a mail server and see all of the stored e-mails? Can you sense e-mails with your senses as if transverse a wire, through the air, or as a light impulse over a fiber optic strand? Can you look at my GMail account mail? No? Is it maybe i requires my credentials in order to access my GMail inbox? It takes extra-order effort or access (account permissions) in order to view e-mail. And most (if not all) E-mail service providers have policies in place to prevent employees from read customer's e-mails.And they are laws which penalize people for unauthorized viewing of e-mails. A knowledgeable and reasonable person has an expectation of privacy of their e-mails.
The US NTSB regulations don't allow for a pure drive-by-wire in vehicles. They much still be mechanical linkages for steering and for braking systems. That's we still have steering wheels and no joysticks which controls a hydraulic steering system.
Uh no. Its not like they is one central controllers running the whole show in a car. Cars today are very highly computerized. They have dozens of controllers through out the car or more. Yes each individual controller's flash memory is small. But when taken together you can get a large total.
I doubt the primary motivation is because of a suspected software problem. I'd say the primary motivation is because Toyota is the one (or one of the few) car manufacture that didn't have a brake-override feature in their fly-by-wire vehicles. After all of the publicity about the raw away cars, they are pulling out the stops to prevent it from getting worse.
I think it was Car and Driver who did a test of vehicles which had fly-by-wire throttle systems to see how they handled under runaway conditions. They basically took the cars up to certain speeds (20, 40 and 60 MPH IIRC), kept the throttle depressed, and then tried to stop the car with brakes and emergency breaks. Every vehicle with the brake override system, the engines immediately went down to idle power when the brakes where pressed even with the thottle held down. It was very easy to bring the vehicle to a controlled stop.
The Toyotas w/o the brake override system could be stopped if you were at slow speeds with a lot of effort on the brakes and emergency brake. At higher speeds, the breaks where not enough to stop the vehicle with only the brakes. They also tried turning the vehicles off which would stop the vehicle, but the driver had to manhandle the vehicle w/o benefit of power steering and power brakes.
Side note: The Toyota Prius has a surprising amount of power at full ouput. That's when the gas engine is driving the wheels, teh eletric drive motor is drawing off teh traction battery to drive the wheels, and the gas engine is driving a secondary motor/generator to creating electricity which is feed to the eletric drive motor. The secondary motor/generator is normally used to recharge the traction battery when the car is operating in usual conditions.
I was doing 65-75 MPH up the foothills in Arizona and Southern California. I was outdoing a lot of other vehicles with power engines. My cruise control kept at the set speed and didn't slow down at all. Unfortunately the Prius can only maintain that kind of output as the traction battery charge lasts. And the gas milage really sucks in that mode.
I have an '09 Prius. And I'll be getting that firmware update. It's a feature they should have included in the first place. It's not the best implementation of the brake override I'd like. What I'd really like to have an electrical circuit connection between the brake pedal and the throttle fly-by-wire assembly. When the circuit is tripped, the throttle position output of the assembly drops to 0 regardless of actual pedal position or sensor position. But that would require new hardware.
I'm getting the update because if the engine does start runaway acceleration, the brakes aren't enough to overcome the hybrid system's output. I know the right thing to do would be to put the car into neutral and get it safely off the road. But I don't react well to stressful situations.
DMCA takedown provisions don't say take down the entire site. The DCMA ways to deny access to the contested content. In this case it was ONE file on a very large web site.
They way a take down is supposed to work is this. 1) Copyright holder sends DCMA take down notice to the hosting company. 2) Hosting company to get a legal safe habor must deny access to the material specified in the take down notice. 3) The party that posted the material can file a counter-notice to the service provider. 4) The server provider then must restore access to the contested material within a period of 10-14 business days. 5) During that 10-14 period allowed the copyright to go to a court and request a Temporary Restraining Order to keep the contented material offline. And then file a lawsuit against the party which posted the material online.
The idea is allow the material to removed quickly from the Internet by the copyright holders to theoretically reduced the damage. And the take down period for the copyright holder to get the restaining order to keep the material offline. And the counter-notice is to notify the hosting provide to say "I'm in the right, put that material back up." And the hosting provider is off the hook from any copyright liability.
No matter the nature of the document is was copyrighted material. Even that it galls me to say it, Microsoft didn't do anything wrong legally in this instance. They did everything by the book. I'm amazed at Microsoft pulling back as quickly as they did from it. Even through they didn't have to.
Network Solutions is the villain in this. All they were legally required to do was to stop access to a single file on cryptome.org. They went far beyond what they needed to do. They yanked the entire domain which down the web site, the e-mail and whatever other service(s) that were tied to the cryptome.org domain and sub-domains.
Yes. They were on the hook. But all they had to do was to remove access for the one file. But no the removed the DNS infor for cryptome.org. They breaks a huge swathe of things. At a minimum E-mail, the entire web site. And any other service and sites dependent on that domain or any sub-domain of cryptome.org. It should nothing less then a court order to shutdown a DNS domain. I really host that Network Solutions gets they a$$ets handed to them by Cryptome.
I assumed that Cryptome wasn't hosted at Network Solutions (ugh!). But I still stand by my post. All NetSol has to do was to block access to that one files. They didn't have to remove the entire web site. I guess that speaks to the competence of Network Solutions web hosting.
Its appalling, and an abuse of the DCMA takedown notices in every aspect. The takedown procedures are in place to provide a legal safe harbor for the company hosting the content.. The takedown notice is to allow the contested content to be removed to minimize any damage. The takedown period in which the the content is removed it allow time for the copyright to get to court to get a temporary restraining order to keep the content offline. The Counter-Notice allows the person who put up the content to get it back online if they believe they are in the right.
Network Solutions is NOT the hosting company. It's merely a DNS registrar. NetSol has no legal liability what soever. They went WAY beyond what is legally required. The DCMA required only the contested content be removed in any case. Network Solutions removing access to entire web site is very troubling. And it may even have opened them up to a lawsuit themselves.
That's the one drawback of MMOs to me. The other players who think it's about keeping score and having winners vs losers. Being "in the lead" should be completely irrelevant if the game is designed right. Why should an MMO be a race? My currently and only MMO now is LotRO where enjoying the journey is far more fun than rushing past it all.
STO is going to be like this. The jewels of the game are the Episodic missions. This is where they spent a consider about of time in their story development. They all play like a TV show episode. They are respecful to the ST cannon. And they expand it to the current era of the game very well. And they pull cannon from all of the TV shows and movies.
Because they aren't going to chunk 2 years of development out the door based in a movie that hadn't been out yet. And don't estimate the number of fans of the old school Star Trek. They are legion.
Skills levels don't affect what equipment you can use. It's solely gated based on character level. If you have the Assault skills, it affects any weapon that you use. Hand Phaser, Phase Rifle - Sniper Mk I, Phaser Assult Rifle - Auto Sweep Mk IV, and a Disrupter Bolt Rifle - Pulse Wave Mk VI.
Slashdot Mirror
In every state's wiretap laws (except for one: Illinois), there has to be an expectation of privacy in order for the wiretap laws to apply. If you are on the side of a busy road in broad daylight, you can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Maryland Code, title 10, section 402:
(a) Unlawful acts.- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or (3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle.
And the lawful acts are in (C)(2-4).
You really need to read the entire that entire section of MD code. To be charged and found guilty of a violation of the statute, all of the elements of the crime have be present. You need to know what an "oral communication" is as defined under that law.
(2) (i) "Oral communication" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.
The phrase "..in a private conversation." is key here. You can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the side of a busy interstate in the middle of the day. No expectation of privacy means no law was broken.
I I wonder why the judge hasn't throw the case out of court. Has the ACLU files to have the charge(s) dismissed for lack of elements?
What Macintosh Commercial?
Apple's 1984 Macintosh Commercial
That commercal is so ripe with parody material. 'Shop Steve Jobs' head as Big Brother. Oh even better, Google could do a riff of that 1984 Commercial today for Andriod.
You're right in that Apple is free to moderate their boards however they wish. But you are missing the point. Image is very important to Apple. They are trying to keep "the Image" intact. But ultimately Apple is tarnishing "the Image". They are trying to control information in a very Orwellian way (i.e. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."). And what makes it very damning and hugely ironic, is that Apple is turning into the very thing they fought against in their very first Macintosh Commercial.
Are you kidding? Free Speech means exactly that: free and unfetter communication in whatever form or medium I desire. That includes copying and using other people speech. It's a basic, unalienable right of people in this country. BUT there is also the copyright/patent clause that says creators have a limited time monopoly in their creative works. We have two rights that are diametrically opposed to each other. And we cannot not ignore one nor the other.
What has happened is that through a series of court cases a number of doctrines were established which balanced out Free Speech and Copyright: First Sale Doctrine, Fair Use Doctrine, etc. Eventually these doctrines were codified into law by the Congress. Just where do you think all of those doctrines came from in first place?
That's just ridiculous to mandate this type of thing. But I do see a fatal flaw in their plan. All it takes is some enterprising parent(s) to thwart the plan. Simple encourage every family to not participate. If they schools want students to use Macs, they'll have to pony up a Mac for every single student.
How many students do hey have? 100? 200? 1200? That's a lot of checking laptops in and out everyday. Would be a lot of work for the IT staff.
Say you work for a big company like Google or Goldman Sachs, and their magic secret program uses libraries and other code distributed under the GNU GPL license.
They are under no obligation to publish as they use the code internally and do not distribute anything.
What if an employee leaves the company and takes the code to the magic secret program with him? It uses GNU GPL licensed code, which grants _him_ a license to redistribute it, because he has a copy of the program already.
No. The departed employee doesn't has a right to distribute the derivative code of the orignal GPL'ed code. The employer owns the copyright of the all of the changes from the base GPL code. Only the copyright owner can choose to distribute the code, or not. The employee would be in big trouble. He is guilty of theft (or whatever form of misappropriation) from his employer.
Well fark. I had my options set wrong. First paragraph is supposed to be quoted from the GP. Second paragraph is mine.
I'm curious how this is legitimately patentable. I can understand patenting an accelerometer, and even understand patenting the software techniques for motion sensing (even if I disagree with software patents), but how exactly do you take two technologies that already exist, tie them together in an ever so slightly different way, and call it patentable?
I haven't read the entire patent myself. But if what you are saying about it is true, then it's a dead duck patent. Using two patented things to together in an obvious way is exactly what KSR Internainal v. Teleflex case the US Supreme Court is about. If this patent is ever challanged in court, it's highly likely to be ruled invalid.
Parent has is exactly right. E-mail is an entirely different realm from a postcard. It doesn't take any extra effort or equipment to read a postcard. Its entirely open for the world to see.
E-mail on the other hand can't be casually read by another person. Can you glance at a mail server and see all of the stored e-mails? Can you sense e-mails with your senses as if transverse a wire, through the air, or as a light impulse over a fiber optic strand? Can you look at my GMail account mail? No? Is it maybe i requires my credentials in order to access my GMail inbox? It takes extra-order effort or access (account permissions) in order to view e-mail. And most (if not all) E-mail service providers have policies in place to prevent employees from read customer's e-mails.And they are laws which penalize people for unauthorized viewing of e-mails. A knowledgeable and reasonable person has an expectation of privacy of their e-mails.
The US NTSB regulations don't allow for a pure drive-by-wire in vehicles. They much still be mechanical linkages for steering and for braking systems. That's we still have steering wheels and no joysticks which controls a hydraulic steering system.
Uh no. Its not like they is one central controllers running the whole show in a car. Cars today are very highly computerized. They have dozens of controllers through out the car or more. Yes each individual controller's flash memory is small. But when taken together you can get a large total.
I doubt the primary motivation is because of a suspected software problem. I'd say the primary motivation is because Toyota is the one (or one of the few) car manufacture that didn't have a brake-override feature in their fly-by-wire vehicles. After all of the publicity about the raw away cars, they are pulling out the stops to prevent it from getting worse.
I think it was Car and Driver who did a test of vehicles which had fly-by-wire throttle systems to see how they handled under runaway conditions. They basically took the cars up to certain speeds (20, 40 and 60 MPH IIRC), kept the throttle depressed, and then tried to stop the car with brakes and emergency breaks. Every vehicle with the brake override system, the engines immediately went down to idle power when the brakes where pressed even with the thottle held down. It was very easy to bring the vehicle to a controlled stop.
The Toyotas w/o the brake override system could be stopped if you were at slow speeds with a lot of effort on the brakes and emergency brake. At higher speeds, the breaks where not enough to stop the vehicle with only the brakes. They also tried turning the vehicles off which would stop the vehicle, but the driver had to manhandle the vehicle w/o benefit of power steering and power brakes.
Side note: The Toyota Prius has a surprising amount of power at full ouput. That's when the gas engine is driving the wheels, teh eletric drive motor is drawing off teh traction battery to drive the wheels, and the gas engine is driving a secondary motor/generator to creating electricity which is feed to the eletric drive motor. The secondary motor/generator is normally used to recharge the traction battery when the car is operating in usual conditions.
I was doing 65-75 MPH up the foothills in Arizona and Southern California. I was outdoing a lot of other vehicles with power engines. My cruise control kept at the set speed and didn't slow down at all. Unfortunately the Prius can only maintain that kind of output as the traction battery charge lasts. And the gas milage really sucks in that mode.
I have an '09 Prius. And I'll be getting that firmware update. It's a feature they should have included in the first place. It's not the best implementation of the brake override I'd like. What I'd really like to have an electrical circuit connection between the brake pedal and the throttle fly-by-wire assembly. When the circuit is tripped, the throttle position output of the assembly drops to 0 regardless of actual pedal position or sensor position. But that would require new hardware.
I'm getting the update because if the engine does start runaway acceleration, the brakes aren't enough to overcome the hybrid system's output. I know the right thing to do would be to put the car into neutral and get it safely off the road. But I don't react well to stressful situations.
DMCA takedown provisions don't say take down the entire site. The DCMA ways to deny access to the contested content. In this case it was ONE file on a very large web site.
They way a take down is supposed to work is this.
1) Copyright holder sends DCMA take down notice to the hosting company.
2) Hosting company to get a legal safe habor must deny access to the material specified in the take down notice.
3) The party that posted the material can file a counter-notice to the service provider.
4) The server provider then must restore access to the contested material within a period of 10-14 business days.
5) During that 10-14 period allowed the copyright to go to a court and request a Temporary Restraining Order to keep the contented material offline. And then file a lawsuit against the party which posted the material online.
The idea is allow the material to removed quickly from the Internet by the copyright holders to theoretically reduced the damage. And the take down period for the copyright holder to get the restaining order to keep the material offline. And the counter-notice is to notify the hosting provide to say "I'm in the right, put that material back up." And the hosting provider is off the hook from any copyright liability.
No matter the nature of the document is was copyrighted material. Even that it galls me to say it, Microsoft didn't do anything wrong legally in this instance. They did everything by the book. I'm amazed at Microsoft pulling back as quickly as they did from it. Even through they didn't have to.
Network Solutions is the villain in this. All they were legally required to do was to stop access to a single file on cryptome.org. They went far beyond what they needed to do. They yanked the entire domain which down the web site, the e-mail and whatever other service(s) that were tied to the cryptome.org domain and sub-domains.
Yes. They were on the hook. But all they had to do was to remove access for the one file. But no the removed the DNS infor for cryptome.org. They breaks a huge swathe of things. At a minimum E-mail, the entire web site. And any other service and sites dependent on that domain or any sub-domain of cryptome.org. It should nothing less then a court order to shutdown a DNS domain. I really host that Network Solutions gets they a$$ets handed to them by Cryptome.
I assumed that Cryptome wasn't hosted at Network Solutions (ugh!). But I still stand by my post. All NetSol has to do was to block access to that one files. They didn't have to remove the entire web site. I guess that speaks to the competence of Network Solutions web hosting.
Its appalling, and an abuse of the DCMA takedown notices in every aspect. The takedown procedures are in place to provide a legal safe harbor for the company hosting the content.. The takedown notice is to allow the contested content to be removed to minimize any damage. The takedown period in which the the content is removed it allow time for the copyright to get to court to get a temporary restraining order to keep the content offline. The Counter-Notice allows the person who put up the content to get it back online if they believe they are in the right.
Network Solutions is NOT the hosting company. It's merely a DNS registrar. NetSol has no legal liability what soever. They went WAY beyond what is legally required. The DCMA required only the contested content be removed in any case. Network Solutions removing access to entire web site is very troubling. And it may even have opened them up to a lawsuit themselves.
That's the one drawback of MMOs to me. The other players who think it's about keeping score and having winners vs losers. Being "in the lead" should be completely irrelevant if the game is designed right. Why should an MMO be a race? My currently and only MMO now is LotRO where enjoying the journey is far more fun than rushing past it all.
STO is going to be like this. The jewels of the game are the Episodic missions. This is where they spent a consider about of time in their story development. They all play like a TV show episode. They are respecful to the ST cannon. And they expand it to the current era of the game very well. And they pull cannon from all of the TV shows and movies.
Because they aren't going to chunk 2 years of development out the door based in a movie that hadn't been out yet. And don't estimate the number of fans of the old school Star Trek. They are legion.
Don't go by first impression of the FAQ. There is plenty of combat in the game. Some of the Picard school of Star Trek, say there is too much.
They accidentally let loose they are work on a day 45 Content patch in an interview. So yes. They are working on new content.
Normal Borg are end game opponents.
Skills levels don't affect what equipment you can use. It's solely gated based on character level. If you have the Assault skills, it affects any weapon that you use. Hand Phaser, Phase Rifle - Sniper Mk I, Phaser Assult Rifle - Auto Sweep Mk IV, and a Disrupter Bolt Rifle - Pulse Wave Mk VI.