In principle, yes, but I thought one of the strikes against them was that they didn't actually own the copyrights to anything they were suing over. They had the "right to sue" only, but the judges rules that you can't transfer only the "right to sue" of a copyright. It has to be the whole thing. If they don't actually own the copyrights, they don't have to forfeit anything.
My impression was that they went back and got actual copyright transfers late in the game, after suffering several losses on this account.
Err. The practice of having your car drive itself around to avoid tickets should be banned, for reasons that are so obvious I can't believe you're objecting. Downtown parking costs money for reasons that are good policy -- discouraging congestion, ensuring that others get access to scarce resources, and the like. Circumventing those policies defeats their purpose, and makes life worse for everyone else sharing the same resources (living and working in the same high-density area).
Here's a hint: The "tragedy of the commons" is something to be avoided, not encouraged.
Then, when they ask why nobody is reporting on crimes, we can reply "because then you fuckers ruin our lives!!"
Not reporting a crime can be illegal too. I have a friend who got 6 months for merely firing a client who was engaged in illegal activities rather than turning her in.
Spend that money on nicotine gum/patches so you'll live to see your daughter grow up.
He could be luckier(?) than that -- my maternal grandparents survived to see their daughter grow up, and raised her son (myself) while she worked... then both died of smoking-related illnesses (emphysema and lung cancer, respectively) within months of each other when I was 4 or so years old.
My grandmother quit cold turkey as soon as her daughter became pregnant -- "a grandmother shouldn't smoke" -- but it simply turned out to be too late; my grandfather, by contrast, simply couldn't kick the habit.
But... yes. Consider your suggestion seconded. Losing a parent, or a grandparent, to a preventable illness... it's not a lot of fun.
And we think batteries are the answer. We'll look back on this era and either laugh or cry. Or both.
Or, at that point in the future, we'll actually have decent batteries (supercapacitors, whatever); my money's on that one.
Granted, though, that while current-gen batteries are great for LEVs (my last electric bicycle had 100mi range with both batteries charged), the case for heavier vehicles isn't so strong. Yet.
To be able to track your every movement and make you a prisoner in your own possessions, while giving the illusion that you're even more free than before since you don't have to pay attention to the road and things like personal responsibility.
Whereas you'd prefer to limit peoples' freedoms to create, sell, lease or purchase autonomous transportation devices if the technology could be abused to reduce their privacy? *sigh*.
More to the point: Given how many people commit vehicular manslaughter exercising that particular aspect of their "personal responsibility", we'd be better off without it. (Me? I get around be bike. Bystanders being killed by negligent cyclists is a thing that happens, but it's a tiny, tiny number).
[W]hen you break a CFL, there's hardly any more mercury in there and we practically have to bring in the hazmat team according to the federal government.
If you read that story closely --
${PERSON} calls local office to ask how to dispose of a broken CFL, and gets ${FLUNKY} who doesn't know how to deal with very small spills and covers her rear by suggesting a full cleanup. ${PERSON} is shocked to hear that CFLs are so dangerous, goes to local media; same government office has saner minds get back to ${PERSON} and specify that no, they don't actually need to have that tiny amount of mercury cleaned up, but at this point they don't believe anything that was said to them...
Short form: It's a sad little story, but it says basically nothing about actual best practices.
Other people pay income taxes and those taxes as well. The fact remains that close to half of our population pays no income taxes after refunds.
To quote you... so what?
The problem, as I see it, is that "close to half our population" is so poor they don't pay income taxes -- in short, that too much of our middle class has fallen into poverty. If you look at the US's wealth distribution mix, we were at an extremely healthy place in the late 70s and since then it's completely gone to hell -- since 1979 the top 1% have gotten vastly richer (upwards of 120%), the top 20% have gotten somewhat richer (about 25%), and everyone else is poorer -- the bottom 20% by 30%.
You want more people to be a part of the tax base? Let's fix the wealth distribution problem and get back to where we have a healthy and productive middle class.
Certainly there will always be a bottom bracket, but do mind the gap.
Looking at how the wealth concentration ratio matches with middle-class prosperity, and the direction those metrics are going in now, leads to some concerning conclusions.
Once the poor people start doing what the rich people do, they're not so poor anymore. I've watched this play out around me so many times it's nauseating.
Oooh, a just-world theorist.
I've watched an extremely responsible friend lose her job, experience a major medical condition, and have her entire (large) savings evaporate in costs of follow-up care.
I've seen people whose large retirement funds disappeared when the bubble burst, people who had unexpected court cases against them (either criminal or civil), people who developed a disability whose employers found a way to skirt the laws around accommodation (or, in another case, went out of business for unrelated reasons).
Sometimes bad things happen to good people. I'm in a pretty good place myself right now, but "there for but the grace of God go I" is a lesson it's far too easy to learn the hard way.
Except it would be populated by folks who just want to live on welfare because working is hard
Perhaps you don't remember back when Clinton instated a 2-year limit on the amount of time people could spend on welfare without working, and a 5-year lifetime cap?
...afraid to fix the fucked-up tax code where 46% pay no income tax at all.
Riddle me this, Batman:
What percentage of the total pie of income does that 46% who pay no taxes make?
Answer that, and you'll understand why the people who aren't so upset about that particular factoid see you as the one seeing a distorted world through a "political lens". (As it happens -- the Tax Policy Center, who made the 46% estimate, has a much more level-headed assessment).
Yeah, actually I did. I said "I'll beg _that_ question" (emphasis added) as to "The police _need_ to have encrypted communication." I didn't ask for why that is, did not address whether it's true or not, and proceeded further. That's begging the question.
You argued that the proposed approach would imply a double standard, thus making an implied argument (to a reader who believes double standards to be a Bad Thing) against said proposal.
Given as begging a question is unhelpful and a fallacy, I'd think you'd be grateful for the argument that you did something more helpful, even when mislabeled.
You neither "beggered" the question (by asking it in a way that suggested an answer, thus depriving it of value -- the traditional definition) nor "raised" the question (which "beg the question" is often misused to mean). WTF?
Wouldn't they be able to see that the volume size isn't the same as the size of the disk and ask where the rest of the space is?
No.
If you put in both decoy and non-decoy passwords, it can see the bitmap to know where the non-decoy data is and avoid overwriting it.
If you put in only the decoy password, the non-decoy data is considered free space and available to override. (Obviously, this is something you do only under duress).
Only if they're incompetent. Improperly secured corporate VoIP servers aren't so hard to find, and once you've got one, you can either use their credentials for their upstream connectivity, leverage their own POTS connection if they have a PRI, or...well, otherwise, world's your oyster.
Yes, if they dialed in via end-to-end POTS (especially if the dial-in number was toll-free) the endpoint has your ANI (which, unlike CID, isn't spoofable)... but that would just be stupid.
You're entirely right that a successful targeted attack (unlike the everyday automated ones) is likely to involve social engineering. Question is -- once an attacker is in, and has achieved the objectives they targeted through their social engineering efforts, how far can they continue to penetrate?
Defense-in-depth gives you better chances of being able to prevent an attacker from reaching targets of opportunity. It's not prevention (against the determined and resourceful -- and being able to successfully deter those who are neither is an important goal), but rather containment... but containment is important too.
Moreover, a great many attacks are insiders at work; a "hard inner core" makes pulling off an insider attack without leaving traces (forcing someone to steal credentials from a coworker, for instance, gives them that much more opportunity to slip up) that much harder. Sure, the attack may still happen, but being able to audit the Kerberos logs and determine that server ${A} originally granted a ticket for user ${B} on workstation ${C} which was used to authenticate to service ${D}... well, that auditing makes the forensics that much easier.
Sure -- I'm not really taking a strong position on whether this is fair use one way or the other (and the contrary arguments are reasonably compelling as well -- particularly if there's a pricing structure established for reuse of clips like this, which would directly address the diminution-of-value argument), just stating that the parent tried to draw a bright line where one didn't properly exist.
The character of the use (as in the distinction between unmodified copying and preparation of derived works) is one of the factors which a judge weighs in determining whether something is fair use, but it's not the only one -- and by no means whatsoever are derived works guaranteed to be fair use. It's a fuzzy line, not a solid definition with clear boundaries.
Completely unmodified reuse, but of a short clip only, with zero diminution in commercial value, for educational purposes only, of a work of historic nature (yes, "nature of the copied work" is one of the factors)? Certainly, a reasonable judge could find it to be fair use.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, he's to blame; nobody doubts that -- but some of us care more about fixing things than we do about placing blame.
My impression was that they went back and got actual copyright transfers late in the game, after suffering several losses on this account.
Err. The practice of having your car drive itself around to avoid tickets should be banned, for reasons that are so obvious I can't believe you're objecting. Downtown parking costs money for reasons that are good policy -- discouraging congestion, ensuring that others get access to scarce resources, and the like. Circumventing those policies defeats their purpose, and makes life worse for everyone else sharing the same resources (living and working in the same high-density area).
Here's a hint: The "tragedy of the commons" is something to be avoided, not encouraged.
Not reporting a crime can be illegal too. I have a friend who got 6 months for merely firing a client who was engaged in illegal activities rather than turning her in.
He could be luckier(?) than that -- my maternal grandparents survived to see their daughter grow up, and raised her son (myself) while she worked... then both died of smoking-related illnesses (emphysema and lung cancer, respectively) within months of each other when I was 4 or so years old.
My grandmother quit cold turkey as soon as her daughter became pregnant -- "a grandmother shouldn't smoke" -- but it simply turned out to be too late; my grandfather, by contrast, simply couldn't kick the habit.
But... yes. Consider your suggestion seconded. Losing a parent, or a grandparent, to a preventable illness... it's not a lot of fun.
Or, at that point in the future, we'll actually have decent batteries (supercapacitors, whatever); my money's on that one.
Granted, though, that while current-gen batteries are great for LEVs (my last electric bicycle had 100mi range with both batteries charged), the case for heavier vehicles isn't so strong. Yet.
Who said I think otherwise? I think you're just trading one set of freedoms for another, and I think it's a damned lousy trade.
Whereas you'd prefer to limit peoples' freedoms to create, sell, lease or purchase autonomous transportation devices if the technology could be abused to reduce their privacy? *sigh*.
More to the point: Given how many people commit vehicular manslaughter exercising that particular aspect of their "personal responsibility", we'd be better off without it. (Me? I get around be bike. Bystanders being killed by negligent cyclists is a thing that happens, but it's a tiny, tiny number).
Sure, but get enough autonomous vehicles on the road, and the drunk driver won't be driving -- they'll be a passenger.
Let's not forget the end goal, here.
If you read that story closely --
${PERSON} calls local office to ask how to dispose of a broken CFL, and gets ${FLUNKY} who doesn't know how to deal with very small spills and covers her rear by suggesting a full cleanup. ${PERSON} is shocked to hear that CFLs are so dangerous, goes to local media; same government office has saner minds get back to ${PERSON} and specify that no, they don't actually need to have that tiny amount of mercury cleaned up, but at this point they don't believe anything that was said to them...
Short form: It's a sad little story, but it says basically nothing about actual best practices.
CyanogenMod does this (allowing specific permissions to be rescinded).
To quote you... so what?
The problem, as I see it, is that "close to half our population" is so poor they don't pay income taxes -- in short, that too much of our middle class has fallen into poverty. If you look at the US's wealth distribution mix, we were at an extremely healthy place in the late 70s and since then it's completely gone to hell -- since 1979 the top 1% have gotten vastly richer (upwards of 120%), the top 20% have gotten somewhat richer (about 25%), and everyone else is poorer -- the bottom 20% by 30%.
You want more people to be a part of the tax base? Let's fix the wealth distribution problem and get back to where we have a healthy and productive middle class.
Certainly there will always be a bottom bracket, but do mind the gap.
Looking at how the wealth concentration ratio matches with middle-class prosperity, and the direction those metrics are going in now, leads to some concerning conclusions.
Oooh, a just-world theorist.
I've watched an extremely responsible friend lose her job, experience a major medical condition, and have her entire (large) savings evaporate in costs of follow-up care.
I've seen people whose large retirement funds disappeared when the bubble burst, people who had unexpected court cases against them (either criminal or civil), people who developed a disability whose employers found a way to skirt the laws around accommodation (or, in another case, went out of business for unrelated reasons).
Sometimes bad things happen to good people. I'm in a pretty good place myself right now, but "there for but the grace of God go I" is a lesson it's far too easy to learn the hard way.
Perhaps you don't remember back when Clinton instated a 2-year limit on the amount of time people could spend on welfare without working, and a 5-year lifetime cap?
Blugh. Not the same thing at all, as the TPC paper explains.
Riddle me this, Batman:
What percentage of the total pie of income does that 46% who pay no taxes make?
Answer that, and you'll understand why the people who aren't so upset about that particular factoid see you as the one seeing a distorted world through a "political lens". (As it happens -- the Tax Policy Center, who made the 46% estimate, has a much more level-headed assessment).
You argued that the proposed approach would imply a double standard, thus making an implied argument (to a reader who believes double standards to be a Bad Thing) against said proposal.
Given as begging a question is unhelpful and a fallacy, I'd think you'd be grateful for the argument that you did something more helpful, even when mislabeled.
You neither "beggered" the question (by asking it in a way that suggested an answer, thus depriving it of value -- the traditional definition) nor "raised" the question (which "beg the question" is often misused to mean). WTF?
No.
If you put in both decoy and non-decoy passwords, it can see the bitmap to know where the non-decoy data is and avoid overwriting it.
If you put in only the decoy password, the non-decoy data is considered free space and available to override. (Obviously, this is something you do only under duress).
Only if they're incompetent. Improperly secured corporate VoIP servers aren't so hard to find, and once you've got one, you can either use their credentials for their upstream connectivity, leverage their own POTS connection if they have a PRI, or ...well, otherwise, world's your oyster.
Yes, if they dialed in via end-to-end POTS (especially if the dial-in number was toll-free) the endpoint has your ANI (which, unlike CID, isn't spoofable)... but that would just be stupid.
Let me be a little more specific --
You're entirely right that a successful targeted attack (unlike the everyday automated ones) is likely to involve social engineering. Question is -- once an attacker is in, and has achieved the objectives they targeted through their social engineering efforts, how far can they continue to penetrate?
Defense-in-depth gives you better chances of being able to prevent an attacker from reaching targets of opportunity. It's not prevention (against the determined and resourceful -- and being able to successfully deter those who are neither is an important goal), but rather containment... but containment is important too.
Moreover, a great many attacks are insiders at work; a "hard inner core" makes pulling off an insider attack without leaving traces (forcing someone to steal credentials from a coworker, for instance, gives them that much more opportunity to slip up) that much harder. Sure, the attack may still happen, but being able to audit the Kerberos logs and determine that server ${A} originally granted a ticket for user ${B} on workstation ${C} which was used to authenticate to service ${D}... well, that auditing makes the forensics that much easier.
Sure -- I'm not really taking a strong position on whether this is fair use one way or the other (and the contrary arguments are reasonably compelling as well -- particularly if there's a pricing structure established for reuse of clips like this, which would directly address the diminution-of-value argument), just stating that the parent tried to draw a bright line where one didn't properly exist.
The character of the use (as in the distinction between unmodified copying and preparation of derived works) is one of the factors which a judge weighs in determining whether something is fair use, but it's not the only one -- and by no means whatsoever are derived works guaranteed to be fair use. It's a fuzzy line, not a solid definition with clear boundaries.
Completely unmodified reuse, but of a short clip only, with zero diminution in commercial value, for educational purposes only, of a work of historic nature (yes, "nature of the copied work" is one of the factors)? Certainly, a reasonable judge could find it to be fair use.