Assuming a Platonistic perspective (that there is this "thing" out there called time), then we would never be able to observe time slowing down. The slow down would never affect us in the least. All chemical reactions, all of your neural activity... everything... would slow down at the same rate.
That may have been a badly worded statement, or I'm taking too literal an interpretation of it.
Technically speaking, one wouldn't need to provide google with copies of all infringing video. Youtube could give copyright holders a tool that would create signatures for their media. Then they'd have to give the signatures to Google. If the signature generation algorithm is mildly clever then basic artifacts like frame rate, resolution, and timing should not pose a problem to the detection routine. More cleverness in the algorithm could catch more deliberate circumvention attempts.
FYI... what you believe in is called a liberal democracy, which is what the US is. That is, the majority rules, but the minority is protected by separation of powers and the constitution. Arguably, the patent system can be considered an extension of minority protection -- the minority consisting solely of the entity who came up with the invention.
What you are referring to in your post is a direct democracy, which the US is not.
You're thinking of a "work for hire," which, loosely, is when (1) it can be interpreted that it's part of your job to create X, (2) you make money at your job, and (3) you create X on company time. In that case, your employer owns the IP.
In a university, you are paying them, and that difference is very important. So, there is no automatic assumption of an IP rights transfer.
Works well for passwords, by the way, since it can be extended to many characters. The problem is that you are giving away some information. In this example, where you need 2/3, one may be able to make enough sense of the whole to make the missing pieces irrelevant. In the case of passwords, you wind up having to brute force a lot less.
As several commenters noted, however, There are secret-sharing techniques that do not allow any information to be gleamed from possessing k-1 parts of the secret, where k is the minimum number of parts required to reconstruct the whole.
Might get the first person arrested, but the right to use encryption is a freedom of speech issue, so after the case makes its way up to the SC, the charge will get thrown out.
We have the right to express ourselves, be it in plain or ciphertext.
Of course, Mark Russinovich did (inadvertantly) dissasemble content protected by the EULA.
Yeah, but it's not like there was a file listing that clearly identified which files were covered under the EULA. One can argue that licensors have a duty to identify their intellectual property.
I agree with your statement partially. Obscurity can definitely increase security in some circumstances. I've found the case of externally accessible web-based corporate e-mail to be a good example. Simply changing the web server's listening port number will avoid automated attacks. Someone port scanning your range will find it, but your overall level of security will be greater.
In the case of encryption algorithms, however, the benefit of publishing the algorithm, thereby subjecting it to public review, outweighs keeping it secret.
If you're actually arrested, you have the right to remain silent, and in any case, you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Police cannot even arrest you if you invoke the 5th amendment.
I've discussed this with the attorneys for which I work when we purchased laptops with fingerprint readers. In the example of hard drive locking of Thinkpads, you could be forced to swipe your finger (which unlocks the password which unlocks the hard drive), but you could not be forced to reveal the password. In their opinion, anyway.
Hey... I'm just repeating the words of Justice Stevens: "Money is not speech, it is property." We regulate property a lot more than we regulate speech, and we should.
Here's another pearl of wisdom for you: "When the price of entry to our democracy's discussion starts to approach the average American's annual salary, something is terribly wrong" --Senator Joseph Lieberman
Not as deductable as you might think. The IRS has special rules for dual use items such as cell-phones and laptops (don't know about broadband). Companies that give their employees these items must either have a policy that forbids their personal use, or must enforce recordkeeping of when it's used for personal, when for business.
(I work for a law firm, and have had several conversations regarding these rules.)
during first accessing of a server computer on the network by each user client computer, obtaining customization information from the corresponding user
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but when you access the "server computer" using HTTP for the first time, you're typically given a default page. If you click on a "customize this page" link, then you can customize away. However, that is a different page, and hence, a second access, according to HTTP. Claim 1 wouldn't apply, and so none of the other claims would. (I may be wrong because there are keepalives, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming a Platonistic perspective (that there is this "thing" out there called time), then we would never be able to observe time slowing down. The slow down would never affect us in the least. All chemical reactions, all of your neural activity... everything... would slow down at the same rate. That may have been a badly worded statement, or I'm taking too literal an interpretation of it.
Technically speaking, one wouldn't need to provide google with copies of all infringing video. Youtube could give copyright holders a tool that would create signatures for their media. Then they'd have to give the signatures to Google. If the signature generation algorithm is mildly clever then basic artifacts like frame rate, resolution, and timing should not pose a problem to the detection routine. More cleverness in the algorithm could catch more deliberate circumvention attempts.
FYI... what you believe in is called a liberal democracy, which is what the US is. That is, the majority rules, but the minority is protected by separation of powers and the constitution. Arguably, the patent system can be considered an extension of minority protection -- the minority consisting solely of the entity who came up with the invention.
What you are referring to in your post is a direct democracy, which the US is not.
Source: wikipedia of course.
You're thinking of a "work for hire," which, loosely, is when (1) it can be interpreted that it's part of your job to create X, (2) you make money at your job, and (3) you create X on company time. In that case, your employer owns the IP.
In a university, you are paying them, and that difference is very important. So, there is no automatic assumption of an IP rights transfer.
Works well for passwords, by the way, since it can be extended to many characters. The problem is that you are giving away some information. In this example, where you need 2/3, one may be able to make enough sense of the whole to make the missing pieces irrelevant. In the case of passwords, you wind up having to brute force a lot less.
As several commenters noted, however, There are secret-sharing techniques that do not allow any information to be gleamed from possessing k-1 parts of the secret, where k is the minimum number of parts required to reconstruct the whole.
Might get the first person arrested, but the right to use encryption is a freedom of speech issue, so after the case makes its way up to the SC, the charge will get thrown out.
We have the right to express ourselves, be it in plain or ciphertext.
Of course, Mark Russinovich did (inadvertantly) dissasemble content protected by the EULA.
Yeah, but it's not like there was a file listing that clearly identified which files were covered under the EULA. One can argue that licensors have a duty to identify their intellectual property.
I think you mean "give the source encrypted sensitive phone call." They already have the result of the XOR.
Well said, and I agree.
I agree with your statement partially. Obscurity can definitely increase security in some circumstances. I've found the case of externally accessible web-based corporate e-mail to be a good example. Simply changing the web server's listening port number will avoid automated attacks. Someone port scanning your range will find it, but your overall level of security will be greater. In the case of encryption algorithms, however, the benefit of publishing the algorithm, thereby subjecting it to public review, outweighs keeping it secret.
...do pen testing without approval of the system's owner.
Not a chance.
If you're actually arrested, you have the right to remain silent, and in any case, you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Police cannot even arrest you if you invoke the 5th amendment.
I've discussed this with the attorneys for which I work when we purchased laptops with fingerprint readers. In the example of hard drive locking of Thinkpads, you could be forced to swipe your finger (which unlocks the password which unlocks the hard drive), but you could not be forced to reveal the password. In their opinion, anyway.
Makes perfect sense, actually.
See... each incarnation is actually a different slice of probability-space.
There is no "one" story. There are an infinite number of stories!
... or Slashdot... except maybe the "galore" part.
From The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics:
9. Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you are writing or the system you are designing.
Sometimes, it can be more about the gun than the person pulling the trigger.
Hey... I'm just repeating the words of Justice Stevens: "Money is not speech, it is property." We regulate property a lot more than we regulate speech, and we should.
Here's another pearl of wisdom for you: "When the price of entry to our democracy's discussion starts to approach the average American's annual salary, something is terribly wrong" --Senator Joseph Lieberman
I've said this before, and I'll say it again
Money is not Speech
like i trust links on /.
Not as deductable as you might think. The IRS has special rules for dual use items such as cell-phones and laptops (don't know about broadband). Companies that give their employees these items must either have a policy that forbids their personal use, or must enforce recordkeeping of when it's used for personal, when for business.
(I work for a law firm, and have had several conversations regarding these rules.)
the right to have a ship named after him on Star Trek: Enterprise.
sound like a technical 'zine for animal rights advocates?
Here it is. The appeals court noted that the drafters of the DMCA didn't forseee P2P technology... otherwise, the outcome may have been different.
Don't bother... Just enable Terminal Services on the XP machine. Microsoft own client allows you to print screen.
I tried this with a protected message... it works.
One can adhere to e-mail standards and still require special readers...
The MIME type for these messages is "application/x-microsoft-rpmsg-message".
I did, and I noticed the following in Claim 1:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but when you access the "server computer" using HTTP for the first time, you're typically given a default page. If you click on a "customize this page" link, then you can customize away. However, that is a different page, and hence, a second access, according to HTTP. Claim 1 wouldn't apply, and so none of the other claims would. (I may be wrong because there are keepalives, etc.)