Legally, you must do all in your power to cast a valid, formal vote.
You are required to attend a polling station on poll day (get your name ticked off the register) and are required to legally dispose of your voting slip. There is no law requiring me to fill in the boxes correctly and place the voting slips in the correct box.
Will you be prosecuting for voting informally? Definitely not, since there's no way they can know.
I have walked into a polling station, grabbed my forms and had my name ticked off the register, and immediately walked out, dumping my forms in the bin (torn in half several times to prevent retrieval and use) as I go. I have done this in two seperate elections so far, and have been on the electoral role for 14 years. The bin sat right in front of the electoral officer who *could* have me charged if I broke any electoral laws (interfering with someone elses vote say?). They *can't* not know about that (especially sine I go out of my way to make sure they do), and they also can't charge me with any offence, because I did indeed "legally dispose of my voting slips".
And for the record, I'm not an idiot who doesn't give a shit about who wins the election (its never the voters, thats for sure), I'm just someone who refuses to vote if there is no decent candidate, one who prays for a day when the informal vote is counted and considered a vote of no-confidence in all parties involved.
Gnome doesn't have this problem (and niether does KDE).
And neither does Windows XP if you set it up not to. This option (renaming a file by the given method) is only available if you set folder options to single-click-select, double-click-open. If you use mouse-over-select, single-click-open, then the right mouse button context menu is the only way to rename the file (ignoring the main file menu here).
I set every XP computer up this way, and advise people that a left click opens the file, a right click gives them a menu with options.
It means if Napster goes away and you lose your file, you're screwed. You can't get it again even though you paid for it.
If that happens then your screwed anyway, even if Napster are still around and turning a healthy profit, something I'd personally like to see. Read the licence agreement.
I quote: "If you have Purchased Tracks, it is your responsibility not to lose, destroy or damage them. Napster shall have no liability to you in the event of any such loss, destruction, or damage."
But since CD burners are mainstream now, and your allowed to burn each track to a CD up to five times, it's not too much to ask someone to take responsibility for looking after what they buy.
Remember that damage claims can start from when we first learn that we are infringing.
But nobody really knows if there is infringing code in linux until the courts have decided that this is indeed the case. The only opinion that really matters here is the one the courts reach.
Which means that people have from now until such a time that the courts do decide this, assuming that such a conclusion is actually reached, to research the potential infingments and come up with a clean implementation. If such a conclusion is eventually drawn by the courts, the open source community would then be in a position to take immediate affirmative action without any visible delay.
Yes, we know. Thing is, the little Finnish boy who first built that particular toy just so happens to have grown up a lot since then, as has his toy OS. You should see it now.
It is not easy to secure evidence to support a civil action for infringement,
especially an action against pirates or bootleggers, who often dissemble
their operations at the threat of legal action. For this reason, the courts
have developed an interlocutory order that enables a plaintiff to enter and
search the defendant's premises, and seize infringing material. Failure to
comply with the order constitutes contempt of court. The order is known
as an Anton Piller order, after the case in which it was first granted.
...
Anton Piller orders, which are sought in an ex parte application to the
court, are only granted if strict requirements are met. Copyright Agency
Limited (CAL) stated that courts are reluctant to grant Anton Piller orders,
and that they are in any case very expensive to seek. Preparation for an
application for Anton Piller orders may involve surveillance and
investigative and forensic activities. The orders are also very costly to
execute, since an independent team of lawyers must be present.
The key issue here appears to be that copyright infringment is a civil offence and not a criminal one, so police will not involve themselves in search and seizure of evidence. The Anton Piller order allows the search for and seizure of evidence to occur in such cases. But it's not easy to get such an order (and you need to have evidence already) and independant witnesses must be present to ensure the integrity of any evidence found.
There's an absolute gem buried at the bottom of the linked court ruling. It's worth picking your way through the rather poor Italian-to-English translation to find it it.
Specifically, "So all the attempt to bind the purchaser with after-purchase statements are simply ridiculous..."
It would appear from this and the surrounding paragraphs that the Italian courts would take a less than favourable view of the enforcability of shrink-wrap/click-through agreements such as your average EULA.
This in itself brings many problems. Similar to that which has been noted in children of divorced couples. Studies have been done on this and I'd link to them if I could, but not everything gets put on-line.
Children benfit from the singular central role models of two parents of opposite sex. Take away either and replace them with a multitude of 'replacement' role models and the children simply get confused.
Too many role models is just as much a problem as none at all.
"Look at what we do with the air superiority we have now... bomb this shit out of people who can't defend themselves."
Hmmmm, seems to me that is the point of calling it air superiority!
Air superiority generally requires that the enemy has an air force worth speaking of, such that one can compare the effectiveness of each to determine who has the same said superiority.
Afganistan had none.
Iraq had some, or a least what was left over from last time, which wasn't really much. Hell, they didn't even have the weapons of mass political distraction they were supposed to have. And either way, using the principle of first strike as the Americans did to remove what was left before it became a danger really can't count for a demonstration of air superiority.
So, I'm not the only one to notice that at least one of the games on that list was actually given Gamespy's Game Of The Year Award after it was released. Over-rated because..... they themselves over-rated it?
And just how do you think your hated America managed to build such an enormous military structure and put it all over the world?
I'm guessing they paid for it by diverting an obscene amount of money away from important projects like upgrading the countries power grid. Had any power cuts lately?
Except with Linux you don't have to worry about things like this. The code is there to be viewed by a billion eyes.
If I remember correctly, was there not a case where a particular modified compiler was capable of recognising certain source code for what it was, and adding in additional code during the compile. I also seem to remember a program that could output its own source as a partial 'proof of concept'.
No matter how many eye's view a programs code, finding a vulnerability introduced in such a way would not be easy.
Having a program open source would also make this easier to do.
A billion eyes will never find that which they cannot see.
I recently downloaded the 4.2 update to Winroute, a good quality product that is now under the control of Kerio. In the EULA you will find the following.
"The producer or distributor are allowed to check the legality of the software use by technical means."
I'm guessing it phones home. Don't jump up and down over how good Kerio is. They do exactly what the article refers to themselves.
We actually looked at doing that at one stage, but finding people who could paint a white line and outrun a tractor at the same time proved to be too difficult.
We had a US navy warship in port recently on a stop over. there was all sorts of problems with vehicles parked at the port within a given radius. People unable to open car doors with their remotes, alarms going off for no apparent reason, etc...
Any connection with the said warship was of course strenuously denied.
As long as you never (a) reveal information you shouldn't have accessed, nor (b) base a decision on such information, it is not a problem for me.
Reading through the posts here, I find that your opinion on this matter is remarkably common. Now given that the readership of Slashdot is largely made up of the people who might be responsible for implementing and operating the type of database that the article considers, it is disturbing to see that such people thing nothing of the idea of poking around in other peoples confidential information. Especially given that they are likely to have greater access to the same said information than anyone, as well as the ability to cover their tracks. Indeed, they appear to think it is perfectly acceptable. To call it disturbing is an understatement.
No more and no less than in the US. That's why there are regular "trade wars" between US and European industries - you protect yours, we protect ours...
3. Could Slashdot recieve some payola from NYT for the large number of referals it must get to it's registration page.
If Slashdot stopped refering to NYT articles entirely, would NYT benefit from reduced bandwidth costs, or suffer from a reduction in the number of new readers with respect to time. There must be a reasonable number of Slashdotters who have registered with NYT that would not have done so if not for the linkage.
Maybe they should do a partnership deal giving Slashdot subscribers instant access to NYT stories without registering or something.
If you want a "War in Iraq" style game, might I suggest Quest for Saddam. It's a FPS which has been available for several months as a downloadable game. Price is very good.
Slashdot Mirror
Naming a computer OS "windows" is like naming a car brand "Wheels". Get your comparisons right.
Here in Australia, we have a car magazine that goes by the name of Wheels. They *would* fight to preserve their trademark I'm sure.
I think the wheels just fell of your comparison and left you stranded.
Legally, you must do all in your power to cast a valid, formal vote.
You are required to attend a polling station on poll day (get your name ticked off the register) and are required to legally dispose of your voting slip. There is no law requiring me to fill in the boxes correctly and place the voting slips in the correct box.
Will you be prosecuting for voting informally? Definitely not, since there's no way they can know.
I have walked into a polling station, grabbed my forms and had my name ticked off the register, and immediately walked out, dumping my forms in the bin (torn in half several times to prevent retrieval and use) as I go. I have done this in two seperate elections so far, and have been on the electoral role for 14 years. The bin sat right in front of the electoral officer who *could* have me charged if I broke any electoral laws (interfering with someone elses vote say?). They *can't* not know about that (especially sine I go out of my way to make sure they do), and they also can't charge me with any offence, because I did indeed "legally dispose of my voting slips".
And for the record, I'm not an idiot who doesn't give a shit about who wins the election (its never the voters, thats for sure), I'm just someone who refuses to vote if there is no decent candidate, one who prays for a day when the informal vote is counted and considered a vote of no-confidence in all parties involved.
Gnome doesn't have this problem (and niether does KDE).
And neither does Windows XP if you set it up not to. This option (renaming a file by the given method) is only available if you set folder options to single-click-select, double-click-open. If you use mouse-over-select, single-click-open, then the right mouse button context menu is the only way to rename the file (ignoring the main file menu here).
I set every XP computer up this way, and advise people that a left click opens the file, a right click gives them a menu with options.
It means if Napster goes away and you lose your file, you're screwed. You can't get it again even though you paid for it.
If that happens then your screwed anyway, even if Napster are still around and turning a healthy profit, something I'd personally like to see. Read the licence agreement.
I quote: "If you have Purchased Tracks, it is your responsibility not to lose, destroy or damage them. Napster shall have no liability to you in the event of any such loss, destruction, or damage."
But since CD burners are mainstream now, and your allowed to burn each track to a CD up to five times, it's not too much to ask someone to take responsibility for looking after what they buy.
Remember that damage claims can start from when we first learn that we are infringing.
But nobody really knows if there is infringing code in linux until the courts have decided that this is indeed the case. The only opinion that really matters here is the one the courts reach.
Which means that people have from now until such a time that the courts do decide this, assuming that such a conclusion is actually reached, to research the potential infingments and come up with a clean implementation. If such a conclusion is eventually drawn by the courts, the open source community would then be in a position to take immediate affirmative action without any visible delay.
Linux is a toy OS ...
Yes, we know. Thing is, the little Finnish boy who first built that particular toy just so happens to have grown up a lot since then, as has his toy OS. You should see it now.
Since when can someone search another person's property?
...
...
Quoting from this PDF, which is part of a report on enforcement of copyright in Australia by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the Australian Parliament
It is not easy to secure evidence to support a civil action for infringement, especially an action against pirates or bootleggers, who often dissemble their operations at the threat of legal action. For this reason, the courts have developed an interlocutory order that enables a plaintiff to enter and search the defendant's premises, and seize infringing material. Failure to comply with the order constitutes contempt of court. The order is known as an Anton Piller order, after the case in which it was first granted.
Anton Piller orders, which are sought in an ex parte application to the court, are only granted if strict requirements are met. Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) stated that courts are reluctant to grant Anton Piller orders, and that they are in any case very expensive to seek. Preparation for an application for Anton Piller orders may involve surveillance and investigative and forensic activities. The orders are also very costly to execute, since an independent team of lawyers must be present.
The key issue here appears to be that copyright infringment is a civil offence and not a criminal one, so police will not involve themselves in search and seizure of evidence. The Anton Piller order allows the search for and seizure of evidence to occur in such cases. But it's not easy to get such an order (and you need to have evidence already) and independant witnesses must be present to ensure the integrity of any evidence found.
And would email be as useful if you could only get mail from someone who bought into a particular micropayment system?
It would be as long as everybody is buying into the same micropayments system? I can see the advertisments already.
"Micro(soft) Payments. Do you want to stop spam today?"
This is actually a problem with java ...
...
This is NOT possible in Windows NT
Some might argue that this is a problem with Windows, not Java.
There's an absolute gem buried at the bottom of the linked court ruling. It's worth picking your way through the rather poor Italian-to-English translation to find it it.
..."
Specifically, "So all the attempt to bind the purchaser with after-purchase statements are simply ridiculous
It would appear from this and the surrounding paragraphs that the Italian courts would take a less than favourable view of the enforcability of shrink-wrap/click-through agreements such as your average EULA.
This in itself brings many problems. Similar to that which has been noted in children of divorced couples. Studies have been done on this and I'd link to them if I could, but not everything gets put on-line.
Children benfit from the singular central role models of two parents of opposite sex. Take away either and replace them with a multitude of 'replacement' role models and the children simply get confused.
Too many role models is just as much a problem as none at all.
"Look at what we do with the air superiority we have now... bomb this shit out of people who can't defend themselves."
Hmmmm, seems to me that is the point of calling it air superiority!
Air superiority generally requires that the enemy has an air force worth speaking of, such that one can compare the effectiveness of each to determine who has the same said superiority.
Afganistan had none.
Iraq had some, or a least what was left over from last time, which wasn't really much. Hell, they didn't even have the weapons of mass political distraction they were supposed to have. And either way, using the principle of first strike as the Americans did to remove what was left before it became a danger really can't count for a demonstration of air superiority.
More like shooting fish in a barrel.
Yeah, yeah, mod me down -10 unAmerican.
So, I'm not the only one to notice that at least one of the games on that list was actually given Gamespy's Game Of The Year Award after it was released. Over-rated because ..... they themselves over-rated it?
And just how do you think your hated America managed to build such an enormous military structure and put it all over the world?
I'm guessing they paid for it by diverting an obscene amount of money away from important projects like upgrading the countries power grid. Had any power cuts lately?
Except with Linux you don't have to worry about things like this. The code is there to be viewed by a billion eyes.
If I remember correctly, was there not a case where a particular modified compiler was capable of recognising certain source code for what it was, and adding in additional code during the compile. I also seem to remember a program that could output its own source as a partial 'proof of concept'.
No matter how many eye's view a programs code, finding a vulnerability introduced in such a way would not be easy.
Having a program open source would also make this easier to do.
A billion eyes will never find that which they cannot see.
I recently downloaded the 4.2 update to Winroute, a good quality product that is now under the control of Kerio. In the EULA you will find the following.
"The producer or distributor are allowed to check the legality of the software use by technical means."
I'm guessing it phones home. Don't jump up and down over how good Kerio is. They do exactly what the article refers to themselves.
We actually looked at doing that at one stage, but finding people who could paint a white line and outrun a tractor at the same time proved to be too difficult.
We had a US navy warship in port recently on a stop over. there was all sorts of problems with vehicles parked at the port within a given radius. People unable to open car doors with their remotes, alarms going off for no apparent reason, etc ...
Any connection with the said warship was of course strenuously denied.
As long as you never (a) reveal information you shouldn't have accessed, nor (b) base a decision on such information, it is not a problem for me.
Reading through the posts here, I find that your opinion on this matter is remarkably common. Now given that the readership of Slashdot is largely made up of the people who might be responsible for implementing and operating the type of database that the article considers, it is disturbing to see that such people thing nothing of the idea of poking around in other peoples confidential information. Especially given that they are likely to have greater access to the same said information than anyone, as well as the ability to cover their tracks. Indeed, they appear to think it is perfectly acceptable. To call it disturbing is an understatement.
I would have thought that relying on /. for Microsoft update notification would be even worse than using the automatic update system.
If you don't like automatic update, then try registering with Microsofts Security Notification Service.
I wonder how much the FUD from SCO might have contributed to this ...
No more and no less than in the US. That's why there are regular "trade wars" between US and European industries - you protect yours, we protect ours...
...
While the rest of the world suffers for it
What about the third question?
...
3. Could Slashdot recieve some payola from NYT for the large number of referals it must get to it's registration page.
If Slashdot stopped refering to NYT articles entirely, would NYT benefit from reduced bandwidth costs, or suffer from a reduction in the number of new readers with respect to time. There must be a reasonable number of Slashdotters who have registered with NYT that would not have done so if not for the linkage.
Maybe they should do a partnership deal giving Slashdot subscribers instant access to NYT stories without registering or something.
Just tossing ideas around here
One word: prior art. And one link: su(1).
Hey, Menstrual Babe, 'prior art' is two words.
If you want a "War in Iraq" style game, might I suggest Quest for Saddam. It's a FPS which has been available for several months as a downloadable game. Price is very good.