But there's some solace to be found in the fact that the whole point of all this encryption is so that Dotcom can prove in a court of law that there's no way he could have any idea what files were being stored. So why would he cheat and put himself in legal jeopardy?
Not only that, to address a lookup table with 2^65536 elements you'd need an 8K index, or in other words exactly as much storage to store the addresses as the original data.
Nothing's changed and this policy is meaningless until the Cabinet Office releases the guidelines for applying for an exemption.
Every dept purchasing an IT system will trump up some half assed excuse and apply unless there are some serious restrictions imposed by the Cabinet Office.
I learned this working for the uk government - everything we wrote could be released under the FOIA and as a result we were careful about what we wrote. I'm glad I had that experience - I don't put anything in an email (or any other written communication) that I would be bothered by having published on the web, read by MI5 or my employer, or even plastered over the tabloids. It doesn't hamper my ability to discuss things with friends or colleagues it just means I'm a little more aware of what I'm writing and think before I do.
If you work for a publicly funded institution that's the situation you're in and for good reasons. If you don't like it get someone else to pay for your research.
Oh please, Jobs was a salesman and made a mint out of putting standard hardware in a fancy box and selling it at a massive mark-up to fools who didn't know any better.
You say dismissing the claim that Microsoft lead innovation is silly prejudice but when asked for an example of Microsoft innovation the best example you can come up with is squiggly lines under spelling errors?
Making your calling them guilty of a "crime" nothing short of libelous.
It can't be libel to send an individual a letter accusing them of a crime - you'd have to release it to a third party for it too be libelous. That's the nature of libel
How "the vast majority of people" define theft is irrelevant to a court and equally irrelevant to a discussion on the law of copyright. Insisting on your populist definition in these inappropriate contexts makes it look like you are an ignorant fool.
True but easily worked around - the prosecution can only make a point of what you failed to say "under questioning". That doesn't mean when an officer asks you questions on the street - it means when you're in a custody suite being recorded.
If you ask for legal counsel they are not allowed to ask you any questions until you've spoken to a lawyer. If the first thing you do is ask for a lawyer they can't ask you questions and what you DON'T tell them cannot be used against you.
When you do see a lawyer you only have to get them to agree to some vague statement like "should I try not to say more than I have too". Then you can answer any questions with "On legal advice I decline to answer".
What is the prosecutor then going to do:
Prosecutor: "So Mr Sixpack, why did you fail to mention this to the police when you were questioned?"
Mr Sixpack: "My lawyer told me not to say anything".
True to a point. There is criminal copyright infringement if a sufficient financial value is involved. That law was originally meant to deal with (for example) criminals making thousands of copies of cd's to sell in pubs, but unfortunately the wording means it also applies to transferring files to other people (ie bittorrent) if the number of distributed copies can be equated to enough money.
Slashdot Mirror
We won't be walling off parts of the web. It'll be the movie companies walling themselves off . . . as far as I'm concerned, good job too, fuck'em.
I knowingly agreed to ... the law of the country I live in
Really? No one ever asked me, which is why I don't regard the laws of my country as binding on me and make my own decisions about what's moral or not.
But there's some solace to be found in the fact that the whole point of all this encryption is so that Dotcom can prove in a court of law that there's no way he could have any idea what files were being stored. So why would he cheat and put himself in legal jeopardy?
No because they have to return the file encrypted with the users key . . . and they don't have the users key.
Not only that, to address a lookup table with 2^65536 elements you'd need an 8K index, or in other words exactly as much storage to store the addresses as the original data.
You can make nitric acid out of air and water.
Nothing's changed and this policy is meaningless until the Cabinet Office releases the guidelines for applying for an exemption. Every dept purchasing an IT system will trump up some half assed excuse and apply unless there are some serious restrictions imposed by the Cabinet Office.
I learned this working for the uk government - everything we wrote could be released under the FOIA and as a result we were careful about what we wrote. I'm glad I had that experience - I don't put anything in an email (or any other written communication) that I would be bothered by having published on the web, read by MI5 or my employer, or even plastered over the tabloids. It doesn't hamper my ability to discuss things with friends or colleagues it just means I'm a little more aware of what I'm writing and think before I do.
If you work for a publicly funded institution that's the situation you're in and for good reasons. If you don't like it get someone else to pay for your research.
ack, I mean <assert.h>
You shouldn't #define assertion anyway. It's really much better to #include "assert.h".
Oh please, Jobs was a salesman and made a mint out of putting standard hardware in a fancy box and selling it at a massive mark-up to fools who didn't know any better.
Technically under UK law (and probably US law) it's not possible to own a human body - alive or dead, even your own.
You're not convincing me.
What does how innovative Apple is (or isn't) have to do with it.
Microsoft has a long and storied history of leadership in the tech industry, and the company has driven innovation for decades
LMFAO
Making your calling them guilty of a "crime" nothing short of libelous.
It can't be libel to send an individual a letter accusing them of a crime - you'd have to release it to a third party for it too be libelous. That's the nature of libel
If it is electrostatic it is not a direct current (hint: static=not moving, current = moving).
Isn't the point that once an electrostatic charge starts to discharge it is then moving - i.e. DC?
Perhaps he meant de-flowered, which is still fairly surreal.
Wow that's CRAZEEEEE!!!"
I don't understand this can you explain?
One of the few benefits of having a cold is the pleasure of passing it on to cow-orkers, don't take that away from me.
How "the vast majority of people" define theft is irrelevant to a court and equally irrelevant to a discussion on the law of copyright. Insisting on your populist definition in these inappropriate contexts makes it look like you are an ignorant fool.
True but easily worked around - the prosecution can only make a point of what you failed to say "under questioning". That doesn't mean when an officer asks you questions on the street - it means when you're in a custody suite being recorded.
If you ask for legal counsel they are not allowed to ask you any questions until you've spoken to a lawyer. If the first thing you do is ask for a lawyer they can't ask you questions and what you DON'T tell them cannot be used against you.
When you do see a lawyer you only have to get them to agree to some vague statement like "should I try not to say more than I have too". Then you can answer any questions with "On legal advice I decline to answer".
What is the prosecutor then going to do:
Prosecutor: "So Mr Sixpack, why did you fail to mention this to the police when you were questioned?"
Mr Sixpack: "My lawyer told me not to say anything".
Prosecutor: " . . . "
Providing an internet connection which a user then misuses does not make you a criminal. Otherwise ISPs could not function.
True to a point. There is criminal copyright infringement if a sufficient financial value is involved. That law was originally meant to deal with (for example) criminals making thousands of copies of cd's to sell in pubs, but unfortunately the wording means it also applies to transferring files to other people (ie bittorrent) if the number of distributed copies can be equated to enough money.