You don't get my point. If the payment information is worthless to identity thieves because they can't do anything with it, then there'll be no need for putting the burden for ridiculously heightened security on merchants.
Note that if the high schoolers had been wrong, then after taking their claims to the press, they could have been found liable for defamation. While GSK might not sue high school students, they *might* sue an adult who made similar claims.
A better way to go about this is, if you're not an expert in a field but you discover something along these lines while dabbling, find someone who *is* an expert to retest your discovery before you go to the press.
Instead of coming up with all these technological countermeasures, why don't the credit card agencies simply stop offering credit without actually verifying the identity of the credit requestor? Make the data useless by itself, and people will stop trying to obtain it.
Oh, that's right, it's more lucrative to give out credit like candy, and then put responsibility for fraudulent charges on the merchants.
Are you saying that that's what Congress should change the law to? Because that's certainly not the law now, and the courts would be overstepping their bounds to offer Viacom and other holders of copyrights on numerous popular works greater protection than I get for my very few not-so-popular works.
And if Congress were to change the law, what should the cutoff of infringements be? A thousand? A hundred? Viacom would get par value for the infringements against their works if they sued the people who posted those works to YouTube in the first place, the same as I would get for suing someone who posted one of my papers to their website. How many times does my work have to be infringed before I also get the bonus that Viacom demands in their lawsuit?
I'm a slightly published author of a couple of academic papers. Everybody knows that there is infringing content posted by the users of a variety of free web hosts, where the web hosts get revenue from advertising alongside that content. Ergo, according to CubanLogic(tm) 2.0, I should be able to sue Geocities if I discover my papers published there without permission, safe-harbor-be-damned.
Does Firefox load an animated cursor automatically if the web page instructs it to, like IE does? Or does it require some affirmative action (e.g., clicking on a link) to happen?
Isn't the ocean already occupied? Pumping the water inland seems like the better idea, if you can ensure that the salt concentration doesn't get too high.
Credentials shouldn't matter on Wikipedia. People aren't supposed to post original research there, so we shouldn't have to take anybody's word for it that they're more correct than someone else because of their credentials. Cite your sources so that other people can evaluate them, and do a good job of interpreting those sources for the layman when you edit an article, and you're doing your job.
Besides, how many Wikipedians are experts in a field, but never purport publicly to have a particular credential? Are those editors somehow less worthy of editing a technical article because they don't say they're a well-published physicist, even though they actually are? As long as Wikipedia doesn't require everyone to specify their expertise, credentials will be worthless.
Yeah, it was pretty amazing. They mapped out a section of the circuit that the genetic algorithm came up with and found that when analyzed as a logic circuit, a large portion of the configured part of the FPGA should have had no effect on its behavior. When they cropped that section of the circuit out, though, the rest of it mysteriously stopped working.
This was because the configured circuit operated a lot of the transistors in linear (i.e., non-saturated) mode, taking advantage of things like parasitic capacitances and induced currents. No sane human would operate an FPGA in this fashion, but since those little anomalies were present, the GA took advantage of them. That's a recurring theme in GA research: if you are running a GA on a simulation, for example, and you have a bug in your simulation code, it's fairly likely that the GA will find and exploit that bug instead of giving you a normal answer. See Karl Sims's research from 1994 for some amusing examples of this.
Sadly, Xilinx discontinued that particular FPGA line a while back, so if you can't find some old leftovers of that part, you probably won't be able to recreate the experiments yourself (the research was originally done a decade or so ago). This is because that particular device had the advantage of being configurable in a random fashion without risk of burning it out due to things like +V to GND connections. Of course, Xilinx considers their programming interface to be proprietary, so I don't know that you'd be able to recreate that work even if you did manage to find the right part.
Getting into a fight with police just turns law-abiding folks against you, when they otherwise might sympathize with you. It can also get you a nice, juicy felony conviction.
Still, protests on YouTube won't carry the weight that a protest in meatspace will have, either positive or negative, for the reasons you cite. What's more, it becomes easy to discount the magnitude of a viewpoint put forth on YouTube, because there are no warm bodies backing it up. It's hard to argue with a quarter million people marching peacefully in Washington for civil rights, on the other hand.
This lawyer is obviously trying to cram the square peg of the DMCA into his round hole. Does Google know that, in general, some people put content up on their site that they're not supposed to? Sure. Does Google get revenues from advertising? Sure. But Congress already contemplated both of those details when they passed the DMCA.
Google may know that, in principle, some of the videos that people have posted are in violation of copyright law. But they don't know which ones, or who the copyright holder is, until they get a DMCA takedown request. This was an intentional feature of the DMCA, to protect service providers from the actions of their users. The sheer fact that this protection is necessary is a clue to any service provider that some of their users will, in principle, post content that violates copyright law.
And yes, Google gets revenues from advertising. But the DMCA requires that the financial benefit that a service provider gains be a direct benefit from the infringement. Numerous free web hosts (Angelfire, Geocities, etc.) have been foisting ads on the people who view their users' web pages for years, and some of the content on those web pages infringes on copyright. This puts those web hosts in exactly the same position as Google, yet those web hosts have never been sued, because the financial benefit those advertisements provide is indirect to the infringing content posted by their users.
The only thing left that the DMCA requires is that a service provider take down infringing content upon receiving a takedown notice, and Google complies with those notices in a timely fashion. Whether Viacom likes it or not, Google qualifies for the safe harbor provision, and this lawyer guy is full of... hot air.
I don't think that's a very apt analogy (though few analogies ever are apt). Driving a car to and from work is more akin to using Word (or OpenOffice) on your computer. You don't really need to understand the nuts and bolts of how either one works, but you do need to know what the controls do.
Programming in a high-level language is more like doing basic maintenance on said car. You definitely need to know something about how the car works, and the more you know, the more work you can do on that car yourself. Programming in assembly is sort of like taking the engine out and repairing or modding it. You may never need or want to do that, but knowing how an engine works on a detailed level can help you diagnose and remedy things that don't actually require going to those lengths. Similarly, knowing how a microprocessor works can help you understand more about what you're doing when you program in a high-level language.
It also gets you into a mindset where you're thinking about this sort of thing, which is why assembly should still be required teaching in an undergraduate computer science curriculum.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get my point. If the payment information is worthless to identity thieves because they can't do anything with it, then there'll be no need for putting the burden for ridiculously heightened security on merchants.
Note that if the high schoolers had been wrong, then after taking their claims to the press, they could have been found liable for defamation. While GSK might not sue high school students, they *might* sue an adult who made similar claims.
A better way to go about this is, if you're not an expert in a field but you discover something along these lines while dabbling, find someone who *is* an expert to retest your discovery before you go to the press.
Instead of coming up with all these technological countermeasures, why don't the credit card agencies simply stop offering credit without actually verifying the identity of the credit requestor? Make the data useless by itself, and people will stop trying to obtain it.
Oh, that's right, it's more lucrative to give out credit like candy, and then put responsibility for fraudulent charges on the merchants.
I think Viacom beat you to it.
I stayed on Risa, and all I got was this lousy horga'hn!
Are you saying that that's what Congress should change the law to? Because that's certainly not the law now, and the courts would be overstepping their bounds to offer Viacom and other holders of copyrights on numerous popular works greater protection than I get for my very few not-so-popular works.
And if Congress were to change the law, what should the cutoff of infringements be? A thousand? A hundred? Viacom would get par value for the infringements against their works if they sued the people who posted those works to YouTube in the first place, the same as I would get for suing someone who posted one of my papers to their website. How many times does my work have to be infringed before I also get the bonus that Viacom demands in their lawsuit?
Personally, I don't think it's useful when discussing this topic to ponder analogies that aren't under the umbrella of copyright law.
I'm a slightly published author of a couple of academic papers. Everybody knows that there is infringing content posted by the users of a variety of free web hosts, where the web hosts get revenue from advertising alongside that content. Ergo, according to CubanLogic(tm) 2.0, I should be able to sue Geocities if I discover my papers published there without permission, safe-harbor-be-damned.
Just so you know, "fiat" in this sense is not an acronym.
Could this possibly be the first article ever on Slashdot that asks a rhetorical question but doesn't get tagged with "no", "yes", and "maybe"?
Does Firefox load an animated cursor automatically if the web page instructs it to, like IE does? Or does it require some affirmative action (e.g., clicking on a link) to happen?
If they approve .enterprise, they damn well better approve .firefly as well.
Isn't the ocean already occupied? Pumping the water inland seems like the better idea, if you can ensure that the salt concentration doesn't get too high.
Credentials shouldn't matter on Wikipedia. People aren't supposed to post original research there, so we shouldn't have to take anybody's word for it that they're more correct than someone else because of their credentials. Cite your sources so that other people can evaluate them, and do a good job of interpreting those sources for the layman when you edit an article, and you're doing your job.
Besides, how many Wikipedians are experts in a field, but never purport publicly to have a particular credential? Are those editors somehow less worthy of editing a technical article because they don't say they're a well-published physicist, even though they actually are? As long as Wikipedia doesn't require everyone to specify their expertise, credentials will be worthless.
Yeah, it was pretty amazing. They mapped out a section of the circuit that the genetic algorithm came up with and found that when analyzed as a logic circuit, a large portion of the configured part of the FPGA should have had no effect on its behavior. When they cropped that section of the circuit out, though, the rest of it mysteriously stopped working.
This was because the configured circuit operated a lot of the transistors in linear (i.e., non-saturated) mode, taking advantage of things like parasitic capacitances and induced currents. No sane human would operate an FPGA in this fashion, but since those little anomalies were present, the GA took advantage of them. That's a recurring theme in GA research: if you are running a GA on a simulation, for example, and you have a bug in your simulation code, it's fairly likely that the GA will find and exploit that bug instead of giving you a normal answer. See Karl Sims's research from 1994 for some amusing examples of this.
Sadly, Xilinx discontinued that particular FPGA line a while back, so if you can't find some old leftovers of that part, you probably won't be able to recreate the experiments yourself (the research was originally done a decade or so ago). This is because that particular device had the advantage of being configurable in a random fashion without risk of burning it out due to things like +V to GND connections. Of course, Xilinx considers their programming interface to be proprietary, so I don't know that you'd be able to recreate that work even if you did manage to find the right part.
Not really. Changing hotlinked images so that, say, Goatse comes up instead is a time-honored tradition - perhaps even enough to be considered passé.
Getting into a fight with police just turns law-abiding folks against you, when they otherwise might sympathize with you. It can also get you a nice, juicy felony conviction.
Still, protests on YouTube won't carry the weight that a protest in meatspace will have, either positive or negative, for the reasons you cite. What's more, it becomes easy to discount the magnitude of a viewpoint put forth on YouTube, because there are no warm bodies backing it up. It's hard to argue with a quarter million people marching peacefully in Washington for civil rights, on the other hand.
Lift off and nuke the site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Why make billion-dollar laptops, when we can make... million dollar laptops?
Or Myst Online.
This lawyer is obviously trying to cram the square peg of the DMCA into his round hole. Does Google know that, in general, some people put content up on their site that they're not supposed to? Sure. Does Google get revenues from advertising? Sure. But Congress already contemplated both of those details when they passed the DMCA.
Google may know that, in principle, some of the videos that people have posted are in violation of copyright law. But they don't know which ones, or who the copyright holder is, until they get a DMCA takedown request. This was an intentional feature of the DMCA, to protect service providers from the actions of their users. The sheer fact that this protection is necessary is a clue to any service provider that some of their users will, in principle, post content that violates copyright law.
And yes, Google gets revenues from advertising. But the DMCA requires that the financial benefit that a service provider gains be a direct benefit from the infringement. Numerous free web hosts (Angelfire, Geocities, etc.) have been foisting ads on the people who view their users' web pages for years, and some of the content on those web pages infringes on copyright. This puts those web hosts in exactly the same position as Google, yet those web hosts have never been sued, because the financial benefit those advertisements provide is indirect to the infringing content posted by their users.
The only thing left that the DMCA requires is that a service provider take down infringing content upon receiving a takedown notice, and Google complies with those notices in a timely fashion. Whether Viacom likes it or not, Google qualifies for the safe harbor provision, and this lawyer guy is full of... hot air.
Don't forget to include the word "bomb" followed by the name of some randomly chosen landmark several times in each e-mail you send.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/ts_nm/usa_subp rime_detroit_dc
But hey, those KGB and GRU bastards were hired by... the white house
I thought they had already found new employment in their home country.
I don't think that's a very apt analogy (though few analogies ever are apt). Driving a car to and from work is more akin to using Word (or OpenOffice) on your computer. You don't really need to understand the nuts and bolts of how either one works, but you do need to know what the controls do.
Programming in a high-level language is more like doing basic maintenance on said car. You definitely need to know something about how the car works, and the more you know, the more work you can do on that car yourself. Programming in assembly is sort of like taking the engine out and repairing or modding it. You may never need or want to do that, but knowing how an engine works on a detailed level can help you diagnose and remedy things that don't actually require going to those lengths. Similarly, knowing how a microprocessor works can help you understand more about what you're doing when you program in a high-level language.
It also gets you into a mindset where you're thinking about this sort of thing, which is why assembly should still be required teaching in an undergraduate computer science curriculum.