...and how many released without charge?
How many are going to go on trial, and how many might be convicted?
From the mouth of the Home Office themselves: Between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2004, were 701 arrests in the UK under the Terrorism Act.
But only 119 of these had faced charges under this legislation, with 45 of them also being charged for other offences.
A further 135 people were charged under other legislation - including terrorist offences covered in other criminal law, such as the use of explosives.
Only 17 have been convicted of offences under the Act.
I'm not sure, either. I got interested in this when I had about 20 gigs of badly-tagged MP3s (don't ask!) and wanted them neatly imported into iTunes. It worked amazingly well: it tags everything it's confident about, and for anything it's unsure about presents options so you can choose. If it has no idea, you can manually tag and submit the result for future people's reference.
I *think* what's going on is that Musicbrainz are using a commercial fingerprinting service, in the same way that Shazam! do. I seem to remember it's a blackbox fingerprinter and their code just plugs in data at one end and retrieves the tags from the other...
1) It doesn't have to be particularly accurate, and false positives don't matter either. If they're not sure, Myspace will block it.
2) 15-20 secs *is* enough to identify stuff. I have no relation to this company, but as I said, in the UK there's a service called http://www.shazam.com/music/portal that does exactly this - hear a song in a club or on the radio, ring a premium rate number on your mobile, hold the phone up so it can hear the song, and 20 secs later it will cut off: 10 seconds later you'll have a text message with the track name, artist and a link to where you can buy it. It's a waste of money, but it *does* work, I've done it. If you're in the UK, you can try it now at a price...
is http://musicbrainz.org/. It's an open source music fingerprinting project that can, for example, take a hard disk full of untagged MP3s, and tag them all up fairly accurately. It's free, and it works. I *think* it uses the same engine as the UK Shazam! mobile phone service where you could ring a premium rate phone number in a club, hold your mobile up near the speaker for 15 seconds, and it'd text you back the track/artist details seconds later.
Presumably it'd be trivial for Myspace to run this in the background on the boxes where they keep user audio content...
"I pay the band to perform live for me -- their current action is worth my money. Recording their music on a CD is a great way for them to advertise their abilities to get me to come to their live show, but the CD is worthless"
Huh? Come again?
So a band's allowed to charge me for a live performance, but them putting in the effort to entertain me in my own home by listening to their CD is worthless? I don't know what planet you're on, but if someone called my CD collection "worthless" I'd be quite annoyed. I'm happy to support bands via their recordings and love the ability to listen to them at their best in the comfort of my home or car.
Note that I'm all in favour of fair use, but also in favour of a fair deal between me and my favourite musicians.
"But we have a system for enforcing such agreements: contract law. I think the difficulty here is you think you're buying the rights to whatever "non-distributive" rights on the music"
This is *exactly* the nub of the issue. Some people think when they buy a CD, they're buying a physical artifact and can do what they like with it. Some people think when they buy a CD they're agreeing to a EULA-style agreement and the music in question happens to come on a physical CD.
In contract law, currently the latter appears to be considered law in the UK (albeit unenforced in the main), and this thinktank seeks to change it.
If CDs came with a massive (and probably illegal, certainly controversial!) EULA shinkwrap licence then it'd probably do two things: 1) clarify the record label's position on this argument, and 2) hopefully wake up a lot of consumers who would realise what a stupid situation we're in...
"We still have Habeus corpus, even for "enemy combatants" and foreigners"
Unless those 'enemy combatants' happened to have been seized by the US, and the UK government declined to take them back as it was not in their interest...
Olive oil mixes work, but they *will* go off eventually as bacteria breed in it. When this happens, shaving with it isn't a great idea as it'll smell and possibly infect you if you scrape yourself.
It's exactly what we use. It's not the only enterprise grade whole disk encryption out there, but it's a good one. For enterprise use it's GOT to provide some central mechanism for key recovery as you can't afford to run something that locks users out forever from their machine if they forget the key, it's just not practical.
Pointsec has a bit of an overhead, it slows down older laptops but doesn't hurt reasonable spec ones too much...
um, use their uk address? use their IP address instead?
doesn't matter if it's legal or not...
on
Donating Software?
·
· Score: 1
...what's important is that MS can afford better lawyers than you can.
My favourite IT surplus seller was put out of business after MS threatened them with a long, drawn-out legal battle over the legality of reselling OEM software.
Apple contract out manufacturing to an external contractor. They will specify everything: allowable percentage of defects, the finish on the plastics, quality control levels, acceptable losses in production etc. In essence, the level of quality of manufacture is specified, and the contractor will quote a price that reflects this. The contract between Apple and the manufacturers should (and almost certainly does, but we'll never see it as it'll be under an NDA) also specify what the disks used in the ipods should contain - viz, the "OS" for the ipod in the form of the data Apple supply as the load - and bugger-all else.
This would seem to be a clear cut case of contractor negligence.
I cannot imagine how lax a manufacturer's process must be if they can allow stuff like this to happen. It's so 90s. When was the last time a gold master of a major application or OS came with a malicious payload included? It doesn't happen very often for big companies.
Note that I am aware that it happens sometimes and am not looking for a slashdotter to prove me wrong for points!
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may
have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal
law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
() The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(x) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been
shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house
down!
Agreed. However, at most big companies, if you have an employee name, location, IT helpdesk number and maybe extension number of an individual, then you can get a password reset for that individual and away you go.
Social engineering's easy - if you work for a large company then think how easy it would be for a random individual to get a logon ID and password for the systems you run...
no, this is Blair's Britain. Everyone arrested and charged on dubious grounds that somehow involve a computer will have anonymous sources dropping hints about child pr0n.
Mud sticks, and people don't worry very long about the infringements of human rights for those they see as "dodgy".
...it's probably aimed to state that they will ignore the consensus for the non-militarisation of space.
For example, it would be very easy for the US to put into orbit "satellite killer" satellites. hell, a bag of ballbearings pushed in the approx direction would take out quite a few as they're all in a similar orbit to remain geosynchronous, aren't they?
This is currently considered too provocative to attempt, but it's very tempting for a superpower to do this as it would leave them with control of the only functioning spy and communication satellites...
Let's put this more simply. A hardware shop, called Spamhaus, sells hammers.
You sign up for a service, which has small print stating that in cases of extreme stupidity, they will hit customers who abuse their services with said hammers.
You then blame Spamhaus for getting hit with a hammer.
if you mean principles like "people like light and space", then I guess so. If you mean principles like "pointy-leaved plants radiate bad chi", or "hang a windchime in *this* corner will improve your finances", then no.
"Feng Shui" actually translates as "the ancient eastern art of taking the piss out of Westerners".
Whereas grid.org is part-sponsored by them, presumably because of interest in smallpox and other bioweapons...Not saying grid.org's evil, just something to bear in mind...
steal phone, remove sim card and replace with your own. Text messages are sent to the phone number, which is defined by the sim, not the handset.
Unless this is a feature that works via IMEI number and uses some specialist software at the service provider's end...
I have never ever come across a phone that can only pair with one device.
I have come across lots of devices that can only pair with one phone, though.
I am loving this and the parent comment. Suspect if I started pointing this out to our auditors that we'd lose our licence to operate, but it's very tempting...!
Slashdot Mirror
How many are going to go on trial, and how many might be convicted? From the mouth of the Home Office themselves:
Between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2004, were 701 arrests in the UK under the Terrorism Act.
But only 119 of these had faced charges under this legislation, with 45 of them also being charged for other offences.
A further 135 people were charged under other legislation - including terrorist offences covered in other criminal law, such as the use of explosives.
Only 17 have been convicted of offences under the Act.
Some interesting counterpoint reading at http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_ uk_terror_p.html from Craig Murray, Britain's Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan...
I'm not sure, either. I got interested in this when I had about 20 gigs of badly-tagged MP3s (don't ask!) and wanted them neatly imported into iTunes. It worked amazingly well: it tags everything it's confident about, and for anything it's unsure about presents options so you can choose. If it has no idea, you can manually tag and submit the result for future people's reference.
I *think* what's going on is that Musicbrainz are using a commercial fingerprinting service, in the same way that Shazam! do. I seem to remember it's a blackbox fingerprinter and their code just plugs in data at one end and retrieves the tags from the other...
1) It doesn't have to be particularly accurate, and false positives don't matter either. If they're not sure, Myspace will block it.
2) 15-20 secs *is* enough to identify stuff. I have no relation to this company, but as I said, in the UK there's a service called http://www.shazam.com/music/portal that does exactly this - hear a song in a club or on the radio, ring a premium rate number on your mobile, hold the phone up so it can hear the song, and 20 secs later it will cut off: 10 seconds later you'll have a text message with the track name, artist and a link to where you can buy it. It's a waste of money, but it *does* work, I've done it. If you're in the UK, you can try it now at a price...
is http://musicbrainz.org/. It's an open source music fingerprinting project that can, for example, take a hard disk full of untagged MP3s, and tag them all up fairly accurately. It's free, and it works. I *think* it uses the same engine as the UK Shazam! mobile phone service where you could ring a premium rate phone number in a club, hold your mobile up near the speaker for 15 seconds, and it'd text you back the track/artist details seconds later.
Presumably it'd be trivial for Myspace to run this in the background on the boxes where they keep user audio content...
Huh? Come again?
So a band's allowed to charge me for a live performance, but them putting in the effort to entertain me in my own home by listening to their CD is worthless? I don't know what planet you're on, but if someone called my CD collection "worthless" I'd be quite annoyed. I'm happy to support bands via their recordings and love the ability to listen to them at their best in the comfort of my home or car.
Note that I'm all in favour of fair use, but also in favour of a fair deal between me and my favourite musicians.
This is *exactly* the nub of the issue. Some people think when they buy a CD, they're buying a physical artifact and can do what they like with it. Some people think when they buy a CD they're agreeing to a EULA-style agreement and the music in question happens to come on a physical CD.
In contract law, currently the latter appears to be considered law in the UK (albeit unenforced in the main), and this thinktank seeks to change it.
If CDs came with a massive (and probably illegal, certainly controversial!) EULA shinkwrap licence then it'd probably do two things: 1) clarify the record label's position on this argument, and 2) hopefully wake up a lot of consumers who would realise what a stupid situation we're in...
"We still have Habeus corpus, even for "enemy combatants" and foreigners"
Unless those 'enemy combatants' happened to have been seized by the US, and the UK government declined to take them back as it was not in their interest...
Olive oil mixes work, but they *will* go off eventually as bacteria breed in it. When this happens, shaving with it isn't a great idea as it'll smell and possibly infect you if you scrape yourself.
how can anyone this stupid operate a computer? i don't understand...
It's exactly what we use. It's not the only enterprise grade whole disk encryption out there, but it's a good one. For enterprise use it's GOT to provide some central mechanism for key recovery as you can't afford to run something that locks users out forever from their machine if they forget the key, it's just not practical. Pointsec has a bit of an overhead, it slows down older laptops but doesn't hurt reasonable spec ones too much...
um, use their uk address? use their IP address instead?
...what's important is that MS can afford better lawyers than you can.
My favourite IT surplus seller was put out of business after MS threatened them with a long, drawn-out legal battle over the legality of reselling OEM software.
Apple contract out manufacturing to an external contractor. They will specify everything: allowable percentage of defects, the finish on the plastics, quality control levels, acceptable losses in production etc. In essence, the level of quality of manufacture is specified, and the contractor will quote a price that reflects this.
The contract between Apple and the manufacturers should (and almost certainly does, but we'll never see it as it'll be under an NDA) also specify what the disks used in the ipods should contain - viz, the "OS" for the ipod in the form of the data Apple supply as the load - and bugger-all else.
This would seem to be a clear cut case of contractor negligence.
I cannot imagine how lax a manufacturer's process must be if they can allow stuff like this to happen. It's so 90s. When was the last time a gold master of a major application or OS came with a malicious payload included? It doesn't happen very often for big companies.
Note that I am aware that it happens sometimes and am not looking for a slashdotter to prove me wrong for points!
"BANG!" goes the ClueHammer
Your company advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
() The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(x) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
...and you need some clue how running a profitable and functional ISP works...
Agreed. However, at most big companies, if you have an employee name, location, IT helpdesk number and maybe extension number of an individual, then you can get a password reset for that individual and away you go.
Social engineering's easy - if you work for a large company then think how easy it would be for a random individual to get a logon ID and password for the systems you run...
no, this is Blair's Britain. Everyone arrested and charged on dubious grounds that somehow involve a computer will have anonymous sources dropping hints about child pr0n.
Mud sticks, and people don't worry very long about the infringements of human rights for those they see as "dodgy".
...it's probably aimed to state that they will ignore the consensus for the non-militarisation of space.
For example, it would be very easy for the US to put into orbit "satellite killer" satellites. hell, a bag of ballbearings pushed in the approx direction would take out quite a few as they're all in a similar orbit to remain geosynchronous, aren't they?
This is currently considered too provocative to attempt, but it's very tempting for a superpower to do this as it would leave them with control of the only functioning spy and communication satellites...
Let's put this more simply. A hardware shop, called Spamhaus, sells hammers.
You sign up for a service, which has small print stating that in cases of extreme stupidity, they will hit customers who abuse their services with said hammers.
You then blame Spamhaus for getting hit with a hammer.
if you mean principles like "people like light and space", then I guess so. If you mean principles like "pointy-leaved plants radiate bad chi", or "hang a windchime in *this* corner will improve your finances", then no.
"Feng Shui" actually translates as "the ancient eastern art of taking the piss out of Westerners".
Whereas grid.org is part-sponsored by them, presumably because of interest in smallpox and other bioweapons...Not saying grid.org's evil, just something to bear in mind...
steal phone, remove sim card and replace with your own. Text messages are sent to the phone number, which is defined by the sim, not the handset.
Unless this is a feature that works via IMEI number and uses some specialist software at the service provider's end...
I have never ever come across a phone that can only pair with one device.
I have come across lots of devices that can only pair with one phone, though.
I am loving this and the parent comment. Suspect if I started pointing this out to our auditors that we'd lose our licence to operate, but it's very tempting...!