Yup. Mexican Whooping Llamas are well known for their computer hacking skills and their nunchuku skills. Their magical skills are second only to Ligers.
Good point. The senior military leadership of the DoD is uniformly 4-Star flag officers. And the Director of the NSA is a 3-Star flag officer (Lieutenant General, Vice Admiral). So "Captain" is a serious under-rank, even if you mean the Navy variant (O-6, just below the lowest General/Admiral rank).
Whoa! Was that a low-flying signals intercept I just heard whistling in over my head?
The "verify" part implies a degree of transparency and insight that's rare nowadays. The fact that governments have to write laws that compel breached firms to notify their affected constituents in a reasonably timely and understandable manner is proof that if their reputation and sales are on the line, you'll only learn the absolute minimum dictated with the weight of unavoidable severe consequences. And that is a miserable basis for "verify", which makes "trust" a fool's game.
Well, this just means that the principle works in both directions.
In her paranoid fantasy, the undeserving mob (proletariat?) was trampling the rights of the noble individual industrial innovator, whereas nowadays it's the stinking plutocrat pigopolist that's keeping down the overwhelming number of honest and free-thinking individual.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -- John Galbraith (not Galt)
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
As much as I find undiluted Objectivism distasteful, it's hard to argue with what I see... If you can only control through intimidation, and your charter is to intimidate the "bad guy", you have to make everyone the "bad guy" in order to control everyone.
I have a problem with asserting any "should" as factually correct. At best, it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what "should" really means. At worst, it's intellectually dishonest, cloaking opinions and wishes with the color of unwarranted factual accuracy.
"Should" is wonderful. "Should" gives us direction and energizes us to make changes for the better. But pretending "should" is some kind of natural law is disingenuous and the worst kind of begging the question.
Of course I understand the distinction between the "right-wrong" axis and "legal-illegal" axis. I also understand that only the legal-illegal axis functionally matters in this world. I can understand why it might be different in your fantasy world, though.
I have to assume the nature of Fair Use is by design. There are some guidelines, but in everything else, Congress has apparently decided to let the courts shape Fair Use case-by-case. If someone can persuade Congress to set some boundaries, more power to 'em, but I'm afraid everyone who has Congress' ear on this subject are more inclined to abolish Fair Use or carve it down to nothing by law than to fix reasonable boundaries, so forgive my lack of enthusiasm for that avenue of approach.
Weird. Are you saying that your submission, which was apparently enqueued shortly after the submission by Soulskill, was removed from queue because it was a probable dupe?
Let me reiterate: Are you saying Slashdot editors prevented a dupe?
But we'll never know, will we? As it stands, the settlement is an implicit admission that the new album cover was close enough to the original to be an infringement. If someone really wanted to refute that, the time and place would have been in the course of an actual lawsuit in an actual court, with an actual opinion rendered by an actual judge establishing actual law. Until then, it's just pseudo-legal epeen waving and swarms of 5-year-olds arguing whose untested opinion best represents the "law as it should have been".
Anyone who tried to claim euros are worthless because form 1040 requires dollars would be laughed at.Only a man made of hay would claim that. But, if you have a positive quantity on line 76 of your IRS Form 1040, it doesn't matter if you want to pay your US tax bill with Euros, diamonds, or your left kidney: it won't work. You have to exchange the appropriate amount of whatever you've got into U. S. Dollars.
Same with Bitcoins. And from that limited perspective, Bitcoins are no more immediately valuable than a trunk full of aluminum cans or a suitcase full of Pound notes. You pay your debts to the government in the properly-denoted currency demanded by that government, or you rot in jail.
Well, unless you are arguing that the six-image still photograph gallery embedded in that website was synthesized in some exotic non-photographic fashion, it's probably too late to keep cameras out of the lab.
There is no comparison possible, as there is nothing else that is both tangible and intangible at the same time. The fire caused him a loss of the physical disc, but not his license to listen to it.
I'm pretty sure my State of <unspecified US State> Uniform Driver's license is both tangible (a piece of printed plastic) and intangible (embodiment of my permission to operate a motor vehicle on public roads). And losing my driver's license would eradicate my license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads; just ask the police officer who tickets me for unlicensed driving if I get pulled over for some other infraction but can't produce my license.
The fire caused him a loss of the physical disc, but not his license to listen to it. The only way to replace his lose to buy a whole new set, disc and license. If he had insurance, it paid him for his loss of the physical disc. That does not remove his license to listen to his format-shifted backups.
Sounds nice in principle, but trust me: if you can't prove your license with a tangible artifact, you have no license when the jackbooted thugs kick down your door. Realistically, you are presumed to have no right whatsoever to do the <thing requiring a license> unless you can produce the tangible artifact representing that license. That's the legal stance with publicly-licensed activities (e.g., driving), and it appears to be the legal stance regarding non-publicly licensed activities as well, such as listening to copyrighted music or running copyrighted software.
I'm not saying it's right, fair, or moral; but it's naive to argue that that's not the way it is, since it plainly is so in the eyes of the media companies, and unless you fight back and succeed against them in some legal venue, they win by default (by putting forth an uncontested legal position based on their ownership of copyright).
Now, in this particular case, if you promptly replace the destroyed CDs with brand new copies, using that generous fire insurance payout, you're golden... and I'm sure the *AA will be happy to take your money a second time.
Sure, the gift might be worthless, but I wouldn't think it would be likely to have a large negative value.
I think the EFF would be properly hesitant to accept donations in "Liberty Dollars" or counterfeit US cash.
I suspect that Bitcoin is close to the former in legal status, and some commentators have implied the latter (probably in borderline slander, but whatever). Statute law on alternate currencies seems inconsistent, but the authorities have been energetic applying what law is available to any exchange currency in the borders of the U.S. which might compete with the official currency. The EFF is not in the habit of making itself the guinea pigs of law like this, so avoiding nonstandard currency makes sense. (This is not the EFF's fight; it might help the occasional Don Quixote tilt at the occasional windmill, it's not going to be getting up on Rosinante itself.)
Unless, of course, there's a standing federal law in place which proclaims that it has highest precedence (per the Supremacy Clause), and that smoking is not harmful for all purposes under the law... So, obviously, you can't sue for any damage, because under the controlling law, smoking is incapable of causing damage.
Analogies suck. Nonetheless, in US environmental law, a substance widely held to be a pollutant is not, in legal fact, a pollutant until the EPA blesses it thus. So you can no more sue a utility for CO2 than you can sue them for water vapor or warm air, because in the eyes of the EPA's rules, they're all equally innocuous.
And no, in this case, state case law will never be permitted to trump the Federal government's administrative rule-making ability.
If you want CO2 emissions lowered by law, you have to start at the top: sue the EPA and force them to change their rules. Otherwise, utilities would have to work with a ridiculous and inconsistent mesh of local, county, state, and federal laws, rules, and courtroom findings.
Well, they can always *USE* it... they just can't legally copy it.
And by "copy it", we really mean "distribute it". Yes, AVM can continue to use the Linux kernel on every little widget it uses inside its own facilities and processes. But it can't convey one copy in a product sold to a customer, because redistribution in a product is a form of "copying", and copying triggers the obligation to release source and permit modifications.
Interesting. This is a legal attack on the practical usability of Free Software in commercial products, kind of like how Tivoization was a technical/cryptographic attack. The manufacturer is, in both cases, are saying "Although others own the copyright on some of the components we use, we assert definitive control on the overall package embodied in our device"... and it's just how they end their sentences that differ. In Tivo's case, they end with "and we impose hardware/software signing to prevent you from changing the device", whereas AVM is saying "and we will sue you under our compilation copyright to prevent you from changing the device."
Once upon a time, I thought the anti-Tivoization clause of the GPL v3 was overkill; now I'm not sure it goes far enough in preventing the creation of barb-wired fenced gardens full of frozen GPL software. How useful are your software freedoms if you can't exercise them?
Now Apple Computers, Apple Corp, and assorted apple grower associations can all go to legal war with each over who has the most right to the one, the only, the singular ".apple" vanity TLD.
Protip: Trademarks don't all share the same namespace, and only have to be unique within a general field of commercial endeavor.
I'd vend at least 5,000 quatloos against Bitcoin stories. And I'll toss in 500 Triganic Pu, although I can only pay off in Triganic Ningi*. It'll be up to you to figure out where to put 4,000 triangular rubber coins with a surface area of 20 million square miles each.
*Universe
Monetary Units: None
In fact there are three freely convertible currencies in the Galaxy, but none of them count. The Altarian Dollar has recently collapsed, the Flainian Pobble Bead is only exchangeable for other Flainian Pobble Beads, and the Triganic Pu has its own very special problems. It exchange rate of eight Ningis to one Pu is simple enough, but since Ningi is a triangular rubber coin six thousand eight hundred miles along each side, no one has ever collected enough to own one Pu. Nigis are not negotiable currency, because Galactibanks refuse to deal in fiddling small change. From this basic premise it is very simple to prove that the Galactibanks are also the product of a deranged imagination.
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, article about Universe
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Mexican Whooping Llamas are well known for their computer hacking skills and their nunchuku skills. Their magical skills are second only to Ligers.
Good point. The senior military leadership of the DoD is uniformly 4-Star flag officers. And the Director of the NSA is a 3-Star flag officer (Lieutenant General, Vice Admiral). So "Captain" is a serious under-rank, even if you mean the Navy variant (O-6, just below the lowest General/Admiral rank).
Whoa! Was that a low-flying signals intercept I just heard whistling in over my head?
True. The shoddy Diebold/Premier Election Systems shell game is ample proof of that.
The "verify" part implies a degree of transparency and insight that's rare nowadays. The fact that governments have to write laws that compel breached firms to notify their affected constituents in a reasonably timely and understandable manner is proof that if their reputation and sales are on the line, you'll only learn the absolute minimum dictated with the weight of unavoidable severe consequences. And that is a miserable basis for "verify", which makes "trust" a fool's game.
Well, this just means that the principle works in both directions.
In her paranoid fantasy, the undeserving mob (proletariat?) was trampling the rights of the noble individual industrial innovator, whereas nowadays it's the stinking plutocrat pigopolist that's keeping down the overwhelming number of honest and free-thinking individual.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -- John Galbraith (not Galt)
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
As much as I find undiluted Objectivism distasteful, it's hard to argue with what I see... If you can only control through intimidation, and your charter is to intimidate the "bad guy", you have to make everyone the "bad guy" in order to control everyone.
All sane people use "sudo apt-get" as an apt-get front-end, anyway.
FTFY.
I have a problem with asserting any "should" as factually correct. At best, it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what "should" really means. At worst, it's intellectually dishonest, cloaking opinions and wishes with the color of unwarranted factual accuracy.
"Should" is wonderful. "Should" gives us direction and energizes us to make changes for the better. But pretending "should" is some kind of natural law is disingenuous and the worst kind of begging the question.
That's what I have a problem with.
Of course I understand the distinction between the "right-wrong" axis and "legal-illegal" axis. I also understand that only the legal-illegal axis functionally matters in this world. I can understand why it might be different in your fantasy world, though.
I have to assume the nature of Fair Use is by design. There are some guidelines, but in everything else, Congress has apparently decided to let the courts shape Fair Use case-by-case. If someone can persuade Congress to set some boundaries, more power to 'em, but I'm afraid everyone who has Congress' ear on this subject are more inclined to abolish Fair Use or carve it down to nothing by law than to fix reasonable boundaries, so forgive my lack of enthusiasm for that avenue of approach.
Weird. Are you saying that your submission, which was apparently enqueued shortly after the submission by Soulskill, was removed from queue because it was a probable dupe?
Let me reiterate: Are you saying Slashdot editors prevented a dupe?
"Inconceivable!"
Only on Slashdot can "IMHO" be spelled "factually correct".
Unless you're a sitting Federal judge hearing a case involving copyright limits, your opinion has no bearing whatsoever on factual reality.
Thanks. Happy to help clarify that.
But we'll never know, will we? As it stands, the settlement is an implicit admission that the new album cover was close enough to the original to be an infringement. If someone really wanted to refute that, the time and place would have been in the course of an actual lawsuit in an actual court, with an actual opinion rendered by an actual judge establishing actual law. Until then, it's just pseudo-legal epeen waving and swarms of 5-year-olds arguing whose untested opinion best represents the "law as it should have been".
Cuz nothing says "You're a douchebag" like involuntarily receiving pedo porn in the mail. Lots of it. Ordered on your douchebag credit card.
Enjoy using the speaker phone while trying to make your one phone call, loser.
At what point does the dehumanization of combat come full circle and become robots fighting robots, may the side with the last robot standing win?
I can't tell if this would be Heaven or Hell... because a war with no appreciable human cost becomes the war that never ends.
-- Robert E. Lee
Battle of Fredericksburg (13th December 1862)
Anyone who tried to claim euros are worthless because form 1040 requires dollars would be laughed at.Only a man made of hay would claim that. But, if you have a positive quantity on line 76 of your IRS Form 1040, it doesn't matter if you want to pay your US tax bill with Euros, diamonds, or your left kidney: it won't work. You have to exchange the appropriate amount of whatever you've got into U. S. Dollars.
Same with Bitcoins. And from that limited perspective, Bitcoins are no more immediately valuable than a trunk full of aluminum cans or a suitcase full of Pound notes. You pay your debts to the government in the properly-denoted currency demanded by that government, or you rot in jail.
Well, unless you are arguing that the six-image still photograph gallery embedded in that website was synthesized in some exotic non-photographic fashion, it's probably too late to keep cameras out of the lab.
Richard Stallman, is that you?
There is no comparison possible, as there is nothing else that is both tangible and intangible at the same time. The fire caused him a loss of the physical disc, but not his license to listen to it.
I'm pretty sure my State of <unspecified US State> Uniform Driver's license is both tangible (a piece of printed plastic) and intangible (embodiment of my permission to operate a motor vehicle on public roads). And losing my driver's license would eradicate my license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads; just ask the police officer who tickets me for unlicensed driving if I get pulled over for some other infraction but can't produce my license.
The fire caused him a loss of the physical disc, but not his license to listen to it. The only way to replace his lose to buy a whole new set, disc and license. If he had insurance, it paid him for his loss of the physical disc. That does not remove his license to listen to his format-shifted backups.
Sounds nice in principle, but trust me: if you can't prove your license with a tangible artifact, you have no license when the jackbooted thugs kick down your door. Realistically, you are presumed to have no right whatsoever to do the <thing requiring a license> unless you can produce the tangible artifact representing that license. That's the legal stance with publicly-licensed activities (e.g., driving), and it appears to be the legal stance regarding non-publicly licensed activities as well, such as listening to copyrighted music or running copyrighted software.
I'm not saying it's right, fair, or moral; but it's naive to argue that that's not the way it is, since it plainly is so in the eyes of the media companies, and unless you fight back and succeed against them in some legal venue, they win by default (by putting forth an uncontested legal position based on their ownership of copyright).
Now, in this particular case, if you promptly replace the destroyed CDs with brand new copies, using that generous fire insurance payout, you're golden... and I'm sure the *AA will be happy to take your money a second time.
Sure, the gift might be worthless, but I wouldn't think it would be likely to have a large negative value.
I think the EFF would be properly hesitant to accept donations in "Liberty Dollars" or counterfeit US cash.
I suspect that Bitcoin is close to the former in legal status, and some commentators have implied the latter (probably in borderline slander, but whatever). Statute law on alternate currencies seems inconsistent, but the authorities have been energetic applying what law is available to any exchange currency in the borders of the U.S. which might compete with the official currency. The EFF is not in the habit of making itself the guinea pigs of law like this, so avoiding nonstandard currency makes sense. (This is not the EFF's fight; it might help the occasional Don Quixote tilt at the occasional windmill, it's not going to be getting up on Rosinante itself.)
IANAL. I just google a lot.
Unless, of course, there's a standing federal law in place which proclaims that it has highest precedence (per the Supremacy Clause), and that smoking is not harmful for all purposes under the law... So, obviously, you can't sue for any damage, because under the controlling law, smoking is incapable of causing damage.
Analogies suck. Nonetheless, in US environmental law, a substance widely held to be a pollutant is not, in legal fact, a pollutant until the EPA blesses it thus. So you can no more sue a utility for CO2 than you can sue them for water vapor or warm air, because in the eyes of the EPA's rules, they're all equally innocuous.
And no, in this case, state case law will never be permitted to trump the Federal government's administrative rule-making ability.
If you want CO2 emissions lowered by law, you have to start at the top: sue the EPA and force them to change their rules. Otherwise, utilities would have to work with a ridiculous and inconsistent mesh of local, county, state, and federal laws, rules, and courtroom findings.
Well, they can always *USE* it... they just can't legally copy it.
And by "copy it", we really mean "distribute it". Yes, AVM can continue to use the Linux kernel on every little widget it uses inside its own facilities and processes. But it can't convey one copy in a product sold to a customer, because redistribution in a product is a form of "copying", and copying triggers the obligation to release source and permit modifications.
Interesting. This is a legal attack on the practical usability of Free Software in commercial products, kind of like how Tivoization was a technical/cryptographic attack. The manufacturer is, in both cases, are saying "Although others own the copyright on some of the components we use, we assert definitive control on the overall package embodied in our device"... and it's just how they end their sentences that differ. In Tivo's case, they end with "and we impose hardware/software signing to prevent you from changing the device", whereas AVM is saying "and we will sue you under our compilation copyright to prevent you from changing the device."
Once upon a time, I thought the anti-Tivoization clause of the GPL v3 was overkill; now I'm not sure it goes far enough in preventing the creation of barb-wired fenced gardens full of frozen GPL software. How useful are your software freedoms if you can't exercise them?
"I have altered your reputation. Pay so that I do not alter it again."
Now Apple Computers, Apple Corp, and assorted apple grower associations can all go to legal war with each over who has the most right to the one, the only, the singular ".apple" vanity TLD.
Protip: Trademarks don't all share the same namespace, and only have to be unique within a general field of commercial endeavor.
I'd vend at least 5,000 quatloos against Bitcoin stories. And I'll toss in 500 Triganic Pu, although I can only pay off in Triganic Ningi*. It'll be up to you to figure out where to put 4,000 triangular rubber coins with a surface area of 20 million square miles each.
*Universe
Monetary Units: None
In fact there are three freely convertible currencies in the Galaxy, but none of them count. The Altarian Dollar has recently collapsed, the Flainian Pobble Bead is only exchangeable for other Flainian Pobble Beads, and the Triganic Pu has its own very special problems. It exchange rate of eight Ningis to one Pu is simple enough, but since Ningi is a triangular rubber coin six thousand eight hundred miles along each side, no one has ever collected enough to own one Pu. Nigis are not negotiable currency, because Galactibanks refuse to deal in fiddling small change. From this basic premise it is very simple to prove that the Galactibanks are also the product of a deranged imagination.
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, article about Universe