Why? So that they can stop the wholesale piracy by an outfit that sells dodgy copies.
They are saying "If you bought Microsoft Windows (TM) in good faith from a supplier, and they turned out to be selling pirated stuff, we will give you a legitimate copy, and probably sue the seller back to the stone age."
Good for Microsoft's business. They remove pirates, and will get more sales (in the future), as fewer people wholesale pirate Windows (TM) for the purpose of selling it.
It's not wire-tapping for the FBI, and it's not wire-tapping for civilians.
Yep, and that's the problem:
Case 1: FBI uses keylogger.
FBI: "It's not federal wiretap, because it intercepts between the keyboard and computer, not across state lines"
Case 2: Man uses keylogger.
FBI: "He violated federal wiretap laws! Arrest and convict him!"
Reminds me of a conversation between Sir Humphrey and Sir Desmond (both of "Yes, Minister")
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely once a Minister has made his decision, that's it, isn't it?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : What on earth gave you that idea?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely a decision is a decision.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Only if it is the decision you want. If not it is just a temporary setback.
I want to know if this decision is a decision, or a temporary setback.
Here you run into the problem of the "Unapplicable Law" (It does have someone's name to it, I just can't remember whose, and I've always heard it called that).
The Unapplicable Law quite clearly states:
Washing your car to make it rain does not work.
Washing your car makes it rain. If you want it to rain (and it looks like it might), you think to yourself "Washing your car makes it rain. I want rain, I think I'll wash my car." The problem with this is the Law knows you think this, and the clouds disperse shortly after the car has been washed.
The worst part about this is when you don't want it to rain. You think to yourself "Washing your car makes it rain. Last time I wanted it to rain, and washed my car, it didn't. If I wash my car now, it wont rain." The problem here is these Laws still know your mind. You don't want rain, therefore if you wash your car, it will rain.
In short: You cannot invoke these types of Laws, they will work against you every time.
Re:Wikipedia answers all but the question asked
on
X10 Hallowe'en Display
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Halloween derives from Hallowe'en.
Hallowe'en derives from Hallow's E'en.
Hallow's E'en derives from Hallow's Even.
Hallow's Even derives from Hallow's Eve.
Hallow's Eve is the day before All Hallow's Day (or All Saint's Day) - the day that celebrates the saints that have no day of their own (eg, Saint Patrick, Saint George, Saint Valentine).
Uhh, this review is not about hacking your GPS unit to run linux, but to talk to your GPS unit using a linux based program (two, actually: Roadmap and GPS Drive), most likely from a laptop (since a desktop will pretty much limit where your GPS can go).
I would agree with not putting Linux on a GPS device, even if it was capable. Embedded systems are fairly hard to hack for a good reason: If you mess it up, it will be a serious problem.
Have the MPAA ever done business with Linux Australia?
Doubtful, but I would need to check.
Is the mail sent of a commercial nature?
"Take this down or we sue." Kinda commercial, if suing people is their business (for the RIAA it seems to be, maybe it is for the MPAA as well).
A far more interesting problem (well, in my opinion, anyway):
TEN TEN FORTY ----- SIXTY
Write it out, right justify it (I can't get/. to do that), try it.
Each letter equals one digit, there are ten different letters. Solve without using a computer. It is possible, and can be considered easy if you can work out how to record what letters can and can't be which digits.
I have nothing against using a program to solve this, but it defeats the purpose (which is to see who can logically solve - not brute force - the puzzle).
How about... when the tag is returned, it is scanned and all data relating to that tag is purged. You may want to take/look at ID when the tag is handed out and returned (so that you can confirm that the same person who checked it out returned it). It's probably also a good idea to ask how long they expect to be out. If they say "a couple of hours" and aren't back after four or five, you can work out roughly where they are, and send a ranger in a jeep (or similar) to see if they need help. (Much cheaper than a helicopter search)
So, in short, the system becomes:
Hiker hires tag (shows id, pays by credit, whatever)
Hiker goes bush (I'm Australian - that means goes out walking in forrest/scrub lands)
Sensor detects where hiker is whenever hiker passes sensor.
Hiker returns, gives back sensor
Hiker is given back deposit
Data for tag is deleted
Data that is retained can be something of the order of "Hiker Joe Bloggs hired a tag at 10:00 on March 5, and returned it 9:00 on March 6" with no record of which tag it was once it was returned. No record is kept of where each tag went after the tag is returned to the base station.
The advantage of this is that while the tag is out, you have a name and tag ID in case anyone calls rescue, but once they are safely back in civilisation, there is no data on where they went or when - only that they went walking, and were smart enough to know that they might get lost, and took precautions against it.
If they get lost, you have a last known time and position - meaning that you can drastically reduce the area that needs to be searched.
...your usage has certain motives, namely to legitimise or at least attempt to obscure the moral wrongs of copyright infringement...
Not really.
Most people will agree that stealing is stealing, and is designed so that the person who is stealing gets something that he or she is not entitled to. Usually, a tangible object, which may be sold, or appreciated for what it is.
Copyright infringement is just that: denying the royalties due to the owner of the copyright. It doesn't matter if you are photocopying/scanning a book, making mp3s from cds to give/sell/keep (from a friend's cd) or plagerising an assignment from a classmate in university. These things are copyright infringement because you are not abiding by the creator's will when it comes to copying them (ie "don't" in most cases).
The last one, copyright stealing, is listed because a troll with no grammer sense seems to be under the impression that 'copyright stealing' is some strange combination of 'copyright infringement' and 'stealing', which as I pointed out in my previous post is difficult to do, as there is no central body that records every piece of copyrighted work, and who the royalties should go to.
Those that don't share your agenda have little reason to adopt a terminology that reflects that agenda.
My agenda (which these terms do actually reflect):
"copyright infringement is a civil crime, not criminal, and as such shouldn't have the emotive words associated with it, which imply that those who infringe copyrights are much the same as thugs who steal VCRs from people's lounge rooms"
In order to explain my position, however, I believe that wholesale copyright infringement for the purposes of gaining money (ie large scale operations and bootleg merchandise) is criminal, but downloading an mp3 is no worse than taping a show on TV, or a song off the radio. Yeah, it's illegal, but nobody cares. You get a crummy copy, and if you like it that much, you can spend the money to get a genuine authorised copy. Personally, I like to have the cd, even if I rip it so that my computer can act like a juke box. And no, I don't use file sharing programs.
Please consider these definitions before flaming and trolling. These are not legal (nor dictionary) definitions, just how I (and I suspect, others) use the terms. YMMV.
1. Stealing: Deprevation of property, usually limited to tangible objects. The intent is to deprive the owner of an object, such that you may use/sell it.
2. Copyright infringement: Obtaining or making a copy of copyrighted material without paying appropriate royalties. Eg downloading copyrighted materials.
3. Copyright stealing: Changing the ownership of the copyright without the permission of the current owner. See #1, Stealing, deprivation of property (in this case, royalties).
Please use your terms correctly. Thankyou for your cooperation
Of all the different kinds of "intellectual property", trade secret is the hardest to protect. The only protection that it really has is an NDA. If it can be reverse engineered (as the DeCSS was), it is no longer secret. There is no recourse for the company/group involved - the person who released the code did not violate an NDA (which is contract law, anyway, not criminal).
Oh, except for that stupid anti-reverse-engineering-clause in the DMCA.
IANAL, YMMV (in your country - check local laws), HAND, yada yada.
So in point 2 would you say that putting LoJack on a car ought to be illegal?
If the car is stolen (software pirated, as analogy) should it not have the ability to tell its owner that it has been stolen and ideally who has stolen it?
You may begin backtracking and handwaving now.
If I install a LoJack on my car, that's my business. If someone else installs a LoJack on my car (so they can track me, or whatever), that is a different issue.
In the first case, I choose to have the information available to whoever it is that collects it (I am not in the USA, and am not sure who collects the info).
In the second case, someone else is getting information that I don't necessarily want being distributed.
As for your comment on point 2:
If you can pirate my car (and leave me with the original), I don't care where you take it (but then, I didn't write it - this is why arguing by analogy is stupid). If you steal my car, I will probably want to know where it is.
Also, you should probably read what you are replying to: ...without the knowledge and consent of the user...
If you install it, it is with both your knowledge and your consent. Now, if you did it to someone else's car, (without their consent) it isn't.
You said plastic money which refers to credit, not to money made of plastic. Might want to check your english usage next time.
Ahhhh, you appear to be speaking American English. Herein lies the problem. If you were speaking English you would not have confused plastic, plastic money and money made out of plastic (Those being Credit Cards, money made of a polymer and money made of a polymer).
Slashdot Mirror
They are saying "If you bought Microsoft Windows (TM) in good faith from a supplier, and they turned out to be selling pirated stuff, we will give you a legitimate copy, and probably sue the seller back to the stone age."
Good for Microsoft's business. They remove pirates, and will get more sales (in the future), as fewer people wholesale pirate Windows (TM) for the purpose of selling it.
Yep, and that's the problem:
Case 1: FBI uses keylogger.
FBI: "It's not federal wiretap, because it intercepts between the keyboard and computer, not across state lines"
Case 2: Man uses keylogger.
FBI: "He violated federal wiretap laws! Arrest and convict him!"
Do we see the problem now?
This thread will now end.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely once a Minister has made his decision, that's it, isn't it?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : What on earth gave you that idea?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely a decision is a decision.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Only if it is the decision you want. If not it is just a temporary setback.
I want to know if this decision is a decision, or a temporary setback.
quote found on imdb's "Yes, Minister" quotes section
Here you run into the problem of the "Unapplicable Law" (It does have someone's name to it, I just can't remember whose, and I've always heard it called that).
The Unapplicable Law quite clearly states:
Washing your car to make it rain does not work.
Washing your car makes it rain. If you want it to rain (and it looks like it might), you think to yourself "Washing your car makes it rain. I want rain, I think I'll wash my car." The problem with this is the Law knows you think this, and the clouds disperse shortly after the car has been washed.
The worst part about this is when you don't want it to rain. You think to yourself "Washing your car makes it rain. Last time I wanted it to rain, and washed my car, it didn't. If I wash my car now, it wont rain." The problem here is these Laws still know your mind. You don't want rain, therefore if you wash your car, it will rain.
In short: You cannot invoke these types of Laws, they will work against you every time.
That's easy. Check the evil bit. Discard all packets that have it set.
Yep. story (IT subdomain removed to preserve eyes)
test
Enjoy.
Hallowe'en derives from Hallow's E'en.
Hallow's E'en derives from Hallow's Even.
Hallow's Even derives from Hallow's Eve.
Hallow's Eve is the day before All Hallow's Day (or All Saint's Day) - the day that celebrates the saints that have no day of their own (eg, Saint Patrick, Saint George, Saint Valentine).
Useless fact #37 for the day. Enjoy.
I guess we will need to wait to see if they are in fact right, or if the 55% (KABOOM, ASH AND LAVA) people got it right.
For those that don't know what I'm talking about: the poll
I would agree with not putting Linux on a GPS device, even if it was capable. Embedded systems are fairly hard to hack for a good reason: If you mess it up, it will be a serious problem.
Doubtful, but I would need to check.
Is the mail sent of a commercial nature?
"Take this down or we sue." Kinda commercial, if suing people is their business (for the RIAA it seems to be, maybe it is for the MPAA as well).
CAN-SPAM?
Apparently they can.
Each letter equals one digit, there are ten different letters. Solve without using a computer. It is possible, and can be considered easy if you can work out how to record what letters can and can't be which digits.
I have nothing against using a program to solve this, but it defeats the purpose (which is to see who can logically solve - not brute force - the puzzle).
How is using a different printer cartridge than the manufacturer supplied one a violation of copyright?
It's digital because it is to do with laptops: computers: digital. What part of this escapes you?
rm: .o: file not found
So, in short, the system becomes:
Hiker hires tag (shows id, pays by credit, whatever)
Hiker goes bush (I'm Australian - that means goes out walking in forrest/scrub lands)
Sensor detects where hiker is whenever hiker passes sensor.
Hiker returns, gives back sensor
Hiker is given back deposit
Data for tag is deleted
Data that is retained can be something of the order of "Hiker Joe Bloggs hired a tag at 10:00 on March 5, and returned it 9:00 on March 6" with no record of which tag it was once it was returned. No record is kept of where each tag went after the tag is returned to the base station.
The advantage of this is that while the tag is out, you have a name and tag ID in case anyone calls rescue, but once they are safely back in civilisation, there is no data on where they went or when - only that they went walking, and were smart enough to know that they might get lost, and took precautions against it.
If they get lost, you have a last known time and position - meaning that you can drastically reduce the area that needs to be searched.
Not really.
Most people will agree that stealing is stealing, and is designed so that the person who is stealing gets something that he or she is not entitled to. Usually, a tangible object, which may be sold, or appreciated for what it is.
Copyright infringement is just that: denying the royalties due to the owner of the copyright. It doesn't matter if you are photocopying/scanning a book, making mp3s from cds to give/sell/keep (from a friend's cd) or plagerising an assignment from a classmate in university. These things are copyright infringement because you are not abiding by the creator's will when it comes to copying them (ie "don't" in most cases).
The last one, copyright stealing, is listed because a troll with no grammer sense seems to be under the impression that 'copyright stealing' is some strange combination of 'copyright infringement' and 'stealing', which as I pointed out in my previous post is difficult to do, as there is no central body that records every piece of copyrighted work, and who the royalties should go to.
Those that don't share your agenda have little reason to adopt a terminology that reflects that agenda.
My agenda (which these terms do actually reflect): "copyright infringement is a civil crime, not criminal, and as such shouldn't have the emotive words associated with it, which imply that those who infringe copyrights are much the same as thugs who steal VCRs from people's lounge rooms"
In order to explain my position, however, I believe that wholesale copyright infringement for the purposes of gaining money (ie large scale operations and bootleg merchandise) is criminal, but downloading an mp3 is no worse than taping a show on TV, or a song off the radio. Yeah, it's illegal, but nobody cares. You get a crummy copy, and if you like it that much, you can spend the money to get a genuine authorised copy. Personally, I like to have the cd, even if I rip it so that my computer can act like a juke box. And no, I don't use file sharing programs.
1. Stealing: Deprevation of property, usually limited to tangible objects. The intent is to deprive the owner of an object, such that you may use/sell it.
2. Copyright infringement: Obtaining or making a copy of copyrighted material without paying appropriate royalties. Eg downloading copyrighted materials.
3. Copyright stealing: Changing the ownership of the copyright without the permission of the current owner. See #1, Stealing, deprivation of property (in this case, royalties).
Please use your terms correctly. Thankyou for your cooperation
(This is a reply to AC, so click "parent" if it makes no sense)
it seems the more money the person makes the dumber they get
Not quite. Here is the explaination (and proof):
Knowledge = Power
Time = Money
Power = Work/Time
Substitute:
Knowledge = Work/Money
Solve for Money:
Money = Work/Knowledge
Therefore:
Money approaches infinity as knowledge approaches zero regardless of work done.
Oh, except for that stupid anti-reverse-engineering-clause in the DMCA.
IANAL, YMMV (in your country - check local laws), HAND, yada yada.
If the car is stolen (software pirated, as analogy) should it not have the ability to tell its owner that it has been stolen and ideally who has stolen it?
You may begin backtracking and handwaving now.
If I install a LoJack on my car, that's my business. If someone else installs a LoJack on my car (so they can track me, or whatever), that is a different issue.
In the first case, I choose to have the information available to whoever it is that collects it (I am not in the USA, and am not sure who collects the info).
In the second case, someone else is getting information that I don't necessarily want being distributed.
As for your comment on point 2:
If you can pirate my car (and leave me with the original), I don't care where you take it (but then, I didn't write it - this is why arguing by analogy is stupid). If you steal my car, I will probably want to know where it is.
Also, you should probably read what you are replying to:
...without the knowledge and consent of the user...
If you install it, it is with both your knowledge and your consent. Now, if you did it to someone else's car, (without their consent) it isn't.
Consider the handwaving complete.
Ahhhh, you appear to be speaking American English. Herein lies the problem. If you were speaking English you would not have confused plastic, plastic money and money made out of plastic (Those being Credit Cards, money made of a polymer and money made of a polymer).
The ideas expressed by this AC are well thought out, and deserve the attention of the slashdot crowd.
Anyone with mod points to burn (and nothing worth modding that hasn't already hit 5), please consider using your points here.
Thank you for you time, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled comments.
You pay for incoming calls?
And I thought the prices here weren't that good...
127.0.0.1
Hack that and take it down. I dare you.
"You know, one day we might make language a complete impediment to understanding" -- Hobbes