So, you're not allowed to film in a war zone then?
That's just an elementary safety precaution, which follows from the other rules. War zones are rather dangerous for cameramen, especially if you're trying to shoot your own script instead of following along with friendly troops.
Since Dogme doesn't allow construction of sets or otherwise shooting in a faked location, the only way to film a warzone would be to BE in a warzone, which is just too dangerous. In the unlikely event you are actually brave enough to film there, then of course it's not superficial.
Likewise, actions can only be shown if the actors do them, so a Dogme 95 murder scene would be an illegal "snuff" film...
Non-trivial software will require support (either to install, or to tailor to your companies specific requirements) until we invent Strong AI
All software may require support, but well-designed software will not place such a demand on the support-provider that only the original programmers can fulfill it. Therefore, the underlying business plan ("give out software for Free and charge for support") doesn't work for very long, because companies which don't have to subsidize development can always undercut you.
Even then, Redhat to a *huge* amount of development, especially on GCC.
Redhat has not earned real profit from those investments. Rationally self-interested corporations will hang back from making similar investments in the future.
But you're right that previously copyright relied only on date of creation and now it is defined by the death of the author.
Well, it wasn't the Sonny Bono act that made it this way. Copyright had been relative to author-death since at least the prior copyright extension act, which was in the 1970s. And it might've been earlier still.
Which is a remarkably stupid determining factor.
It is quite unfair to discriminate against someone by his age or infirmity- there is no reason a book written at 22 should give you more money than writing the same one at 75, just because the mean life expectancy is only 76.
but how this would have any effect at all for Linux.
The effect will be small, but positive. Open Source developers who are interested in doing low-level CPU-specific optimizations can now aim only at Intel-style CPUs (which are quite similar to AMDs), instead of the drastically different IBM PowerPC chips. A Mac coder optimizing Apache, for example, will be more likely to improve the Linux speed too as a side effect.
So all in all, effect on x86 Linux = moderately better software.
Since Apple will release the core OS (Darwin) Open Source, it is trivial to get the core OS to run o
No, they don't. The "core OS" is much more than just Darwin. Quartz and Aqua are so important to the execution of any major "Mac application" that they too must be considered as part of the core. And obviously, they are not nearly Open Source.
If you didn't need the Graphics and UI stuff, you'd probably be better off running your applications on BSD or Linux, forgetting OS X.
Everyone did get the same extensions... in the United States.
Nope. It was unfair to some copyright-holders. If the copyright on a work had already expired, it wasn't extended.
Suppose you have two authors, who died in either 1947 or 1949. Prior to the act, both of those copyrights would be gone today. After the act, the 1947 book is public domain, but the other will still be controlled until 2019. From the perspective of the inheritors of those estates, the extensions weren't the same at all. (Retroactive extensions would've been the same, and they were quite possible too)
When you buy a game, you could get an extra "LAN party" CD that can be passed around and copied however you want.
Blizzard used to do this, at least in the era of Starcraft. They called it a Spawn install, and it was an installed copy that could only be used in network games against someone running the same CD which made this install.
There can be no excusing pirates. If any piracy is suspected, immediately contact the Coast Guard (or similar maritime enforcement agency in your respective country) and report the perpetrators.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA - Article 101
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).
Remember, kids: Just say NO to violent crimes on or near the ocean!
Self-defence would not be taking the life of someone, even if they die by your defence.
That's the level of logical and linguistic deformity that would in another context raise serious questions about the ability to feed oneself on your own.
So, are you seriously claiming that because some pseudonymous person posts something hysterical on a rag liike/
Are you seriously posting inflammatory responses after only reading a randomly-selected 30% of the words in a post? Because that's about the degree of coherency you're exhibiting here.
The law says copyright violation is illegal. Arguing in court that "not everybody" agrees is no defense.
It seems you are suffering from the weirdly common mental block where you think that every possible crime or illegal action is "theft".
In reality, there are other ways to break the law, and we can call those peoples murders, arsonists, pirates, rapists, violators, or even just "perpetrators".
Criminal copyright infringement meets neither the legal nor English-language definition of "theft".
the subpoena will arrive weeks or months beefore it goes to court.
Of course it will... which means I'm right.
Disobey the subpoena and go to jail.
Get caught disobeying and go to jail. Which means I'm still right.
Why bother with all that just to help thieves?
No thieves are involved in any of the potential offenses being discussed here. However, hypothetically if there were thieves someone, then it would be natural for them to edit the logs themselves, as a defensive measure. You've heard of "self-interest", right?
For a court to rely on the abscense of an entry in somebody's own log to exonerate him, they may as well just accept his verbal protestations of innocence at face value.
It's not hard to search the New York Times or Google yourself.
Correct, a Google search isn't hard, and all the results suggest you are wrong.
It's not hard to search the New York Times or Google yourself.
If it weren't hard, then probably YOU could've found out what the number is.
If the executive order isn't public, then the change is unofficial, and any member of the CIA who attempts an assasination is guilty of MURDER (as is anyone who ordered it, up to and including the President).
Apparently, Rather and his producer actually found a number of credible witnesses that distinctly remember George Bush reporting for duty in Alabama.
True, only considering the fact that zero is "a number".
credible witnesses that distinctly remember George Bush reporting for duty in Alabama.
There was one witness, who was found to have never been in Alabama at the time Bush claimed to have been there, which means he's not "credible" at all.
was mysteriously left out of Rather's piece.
It never happened. If it had happened, there would be a news report as to the claiming of the $12,000 reward for someone who remembered serving with Bush there.
I mean first it's the NSA that concerns itself with electrionic intelligence, not the CIA. The CIA is about human intelligence.
Nope. The NSA is about security, not intel. (See the name? "National Security Agency") Their job is to defend against outside intel organizations.
The CIA is about foreign intel, not specifically human intel. (See the name? "Central Intelligence Agency") In fact, the majority of the CIA's budget goes to electronic or signal intel, not human intelligence, which was a mistake. This misplaced priority exposed them to numerous embarassing failures, from the collapse of the USSR all the way down to the alledged Iraqi WMD.
Nobody has the right to take the life of another human being.
You are a pacifist, believing self-defensive violence is evil? I suppose that's a commendable position, albeitrare.
Nobody has the right to take the life of another human being.
That's odd, because in other posts you professed a belief in a perfect God. But yet you also think that even though He's perfect, he is only allowed to kill one person ever, and not two?
I am defining "murder" as killing of any creature that one does not have the right to kill.
I know you are, which is why I just said so. And that's why, as I've explained twice already, you are making circular definitions that don't actually say anything, and are especially far from any ideal of a "simple consequence of natural law". I'll explain it again, but only once more.
"Right" is an antonym of "wrong", so "have the right" means "it is not wrong". "Wrong" is an antonym of "moral", so "it is not wrong" means "it is moral".
You said "murder of the unborn is immoral", but since you aren't aware of any definiton for "murder" that doesn't depend on the fact that it is "without right", "is wrong", and "is not moral", all you have effectively said is: "an immoral killing is immoral".
That communicates exactly zero information, just as if I said "A blarbygoey file is blarbygoey". It's a truism, and it's worthless.
That all depends on the state in question, in some states an undercover cop is REQUIRED to tell you they are undercover if you ask, so maybe there is a technological way around this.
Oh really? Which state is that? You must mean some foreign nation, because that absolutely isn't true anyplace in the USA.
Putting a file in a publicly accessible directory on a publicly accessible server seems to be fairly simple to understand.
No it isn't. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Many PC operating systems make it excessively easy to network share a directory, without noticing if it's open to just your LAN, or the whole Internet. If it weren't for consumer ISPs intentionally blocking SMB traffic, you'd usually see a new stranger in My Network Neighborhood each time you logged in.
The flip side of purging logs is that you are unable to provide evidence that such-and-such activity did not occur on your servers.
Logs could never do that anyway: "Your honor, this ascii text file which I copied from my hard disk 5 weeks ago contains no mention of the alledged uploads of Nov-04, thereby proving they could not take place. After all, to retroactively modify such a log would require computer science skills far beyond the likes of me, a lowly webmaster"
If they were somehow compelled to keep such logs, what would happen is that all traffic would be passed through an SSL tunnel.
Which becomes further evidence that the gangster terrorists are using military-grade encryption to destroy the economic-foundations of American culture, so Congress will need to bravely outlaw the use of any code lacking an NSA-backdoor for court-approved wiretaps.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're not allowed to film in a war zone then?
That's just an elementary safety precaution, which follows from the other rules. War zones are rather dangerous for cameramen, especially if you're trying to shoot your own script instead of following along with friendly troops.
Since Dogme doesn't allow construction of sets or otherwise shooting in a faked location, the only way to film a warzone would be to BE in a warzone, which is just too dangerous. In the unlikely event you are actually brave enough to film there, then of course it's not superficial.
Likewise, actions can only be shown if the actors do them, so a Dogme 95 murder scene would be an illegal "snuff" film...
Non-trivial software will require support (either to install, or to tailor to your companies specific requirements) until we invent Strong AI
All software may require support, but well-designed software will not place such a demand on the support-provider that only the original programmers can fulfill it. Therefore, the underlying business plan ("give out software for Free and charge for support") doesn't work for very long, because companies which don't have to subsidize development can always undercut you.
Even then, Redhat to a *huge* amount of development, especially on GCC.
Redhat has not earned real profit from those investments. Rationally self-interested corporations will hang back from making similar investments in the future.
But you're right that previously copyright relied only on date of creation and now it is defined by the death of the author.
Well, it wasn't the Sonny Bono act that made it this way. Copyright had been relative to author-death since at least the prior copyright extension act, which was in the 1970s. And it might've been earlier still.
Which is a remarkably stupid determining factor.
It is quite unfair to discriminate against someone by his age or infirmity- there is no reason a book written at 22 should give you more money than writing the same one at 75, just because the mean life expectancy is only 76.
but how this would have any effect at all for Linux.
The effect will be small, but positive. Open Source developers who are interested in doing low-level CPU-specific optimizations can now aim only at Intel-style CPUs (which are quite similar to AMDs), instead of the drastically different IBM PowerPC chips. A Mac coder optimizing Apache, for example, will be more likely to improve the Linux speed too as a side effect.
So all in all, effect on x86 Linux = moderately better software.
So it will be a god send to be able to run WinXP and OSX on a single machine.
Yes, you would find it to be a "god send"... so what? Allowing dual booting of Mac and Win is completely NOT what Apple is doing with this stuff.
Since Apple will release the core OS (Darwin) Open Source, it is trivial to get the core OS to run o
No, they don't. The "core OS" is much more than just Darwin. Quartz and Aqua are so important to the execution of any major "Mac application" that they too must be considered as part of the core. And obviously, they are not nearly Open Source.
If you didn't need the Graphics and UI stuff, you'd probably be better off running your applications on BSD or Linux, forgetting OS X.
Everyone did get the same extensions ... in the United States.
Nope. It was unfair to some copyright-holders. If the copyright on a work had already expired, it wasn't extended.
Suppose you have two authors, who died in either 1947 or 1949. Prior to the act, both of those copyrights would be gone today. After the act, the 1947 book is public domain, but the other will still be controlled until 2019. From the perspective of the inheritors of those estates, the extensions weren't the same at all. (Retroactive extensions would've been the same, and they were quite possible too)
When you buy a game, you could get an extra "LAN party" CD that can be passed around and copied however you want.
Blizzard used to do this, at least in the era of Starcraft. They called it a Spawn install, and it was an installed copy that could only be used in network games against someone running the same CD which made this install.
Piracy is easy to recognize:
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).
Remember, kids: Just say NO to violent crimes on or near the ocean!
Self-defence would not be taking the life of someone, even if they die by your defence.
That's the level of logical and linguistic deformity that would in another context raise serious questions about the ability to feed oneself on your own.
So, are you seriously claiming that because some pseudonymous person posts something hysterical on a rag liike /
Are you seriously posting inflammatory responses after only reading a randomly-selected 30% of the words in a post? Because that's about the degree of coherency you're exhibiting here.
The law says copyright violation is illegal. Arguing in court that "not everybody" agrees is no defense.
It seems you are suffering from the weirdly common mental block where you think that every possible crime or illegal action is "theft".
In reality, there are other ways to break the law, and we can call those peoples murders, arsonists, pirates, rapists, violators, or even just "perpetrators".
Criminal copyright infringement meets neither the legal nor English-language definition of "theft".
the subpoena will arrive weeks or months beefore it goes to court.
Of course it will... which means I'm right.
Disobey the subpoena and go to jail.
Get caught disobeying and go to jail. Which means I'm still right.
Why bother with all that just to help thieves?
No thieves are involved in any of the potential offenses being discussed here. However, hypothetically if there were thieves someone, then it would be natural for them to edit the logs themselves, as a defensive measure. You've heard of "self-interest", right?
For a court to rely on the abscense of an entry in somebody's own log to exonerate him, they may as well just accept his verbal protestations of innocence at face value.
It's not hard to search the New York Times or Google yourself.
Correct, a Google search isn't hard, and all the results suggest you are wrong.
It's not hard to search the New York Times or Google yourself.
If it weren't hard, then probably YOU could've found out what the number is.
If the executive order isn't public, then the change is unofficial, and any member of the CIA who attempts an assasination is guilty of MURDER (as is anyone who ordered it, up to and including the President).
They are directly tasked with assassinations (since presidential directive after 9/11)
Which executive order number is that, specifically? The one you claim supercedes 12333, I mean.
Apparently, Rather and his producer actually found a number of credible witnesses that distinctly remember George Bush reporting for duty in Alabama.
True, only considering the fact that zero is "a number".
credible witnesses that distinctly remember George Bush reporting for duty in Alabama.
There was one witness, who was found to have never been in Alabama at the time Bush claimed to have been there, which means he's not "credible" at all.
was mysteriously left out of Rather's piece.
It never happened. If it had happened, there would be a news report as to the claiming of the $12,000 reward for someone who remembered serving with Bush there.
I mean first it's the NSA that concerns itself with electrionic intelligence, not the CIA. The CIA is about human intelligence.
Nope. The NSA is about security, not intel. (See the name? "National Security Agency") Their job is to defend against outside intel organizations.
The CIA is about foreign intel, not specifically human intel. (See the name? "Central Intelligence Agency") In fact, the majority of the CIA's budget goes to electronic or signal intel, not human intelligence, which was a mistake. This misplaced priority exposed them to numerous embarassing failures, from the collapse of the USSR all the way down to the alledged Iraqi WMD.
No one's anymore concerned
No. That is exactly what mindstrm was talking about when he asked the question. Obviously, he is concerned, or he wouldn't have asked!
In all likelihood, you or your organization would be served with a subpoena blocking deletion or editing of evidence such as logs.
Right. Subpoenas magically arrive milliseconds after the offense is committed. You have literally NO TIME to edit them beforehand.
And of course, once the subpoena is there, it is impossible to disobey it.
Nobody has the right to take the life of another human being.
You are a pacifist, believing self-defensive violence is evil? I suppose that's a commendable position, albeit rare.
Nobody has the right to take the life of another human being.
That's odd, because in other posts you professed a belief in a perfect God. But yet you also think that even though He's perfect, he is only allowed to kill one person ever, and not two?
I am defining "murder" as killing of any creature that one does not have the right to kill.
I know you are, which is why I just said so. And that's why, as I've explained twice already, you are making circular definitions that don't actually say anything, and are especially far from any ideal of a "simple consequence of natural law". I'll explain it again, but only once more.
"Right" is an antonym of "wrong", so "have the right" means "it is not wrong". "Wrong" is an antonym of "moral", so "it is not wrong" means "it is moral".
You said "murder of the unborn is immoral", but since you aren't aware of any definiton for "murder" that doesn't depend on the fact that it is "without right", "is wrong", and "is not moral", all you have effectively said is: "an immoral killing is immoral".
That communicates exactly zero information, just as if I said "A blarbygoey file is blarbygoey". It's a truism, and it's worthless.
That all depends on the state in question, in some states an undercover cop is REQUIRED to tell you they are undercover if you ask, so maybe there is a technological way around this.
Oh really? Which state is that? You must mean some foreign nation, because that absolutely isn't true anyplace in the USA.
Putting a file in a publicly accessible directory on a publicly accessible server seems to be fairly simple to understand.
No it isn't. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Many PC operating systems make it excessively easy to network share a directory, without noticing if it's open to just your LAN, or the whole Internet. If it weren't for consumer ISPs intentionally blocking SMB traffic, you'd usually see a new stranger in My Network Neighborhood each time you logged in.
The flip side of purging logs is that you are unable to provide evidence that such-and-such activity did not occur on your servers.
Logs could never do that anyway:
"Your honor, this ascii text file which I copied from my hard disk 5 weeks ago contains no mention of the alledged uploads of Nov-04, thereby proving they could not take place. After all, to retroactively modify such a log would require computer science skills far beyond the likes of me, a lowly webmaster"
If they were somehow compelled to keep such logs, what would happen is that all traffic would be passed through an SSL tunnel.
Which becomes further evidence that the gangster terrorists are using military-grade encryption to destroy the economic-foundations of American culture, so Congress will need to bravely outlaw the use of any code lacking an NSA-backdoor for court-approved wiretaps.