Hopefully this won't be another case of the Obama administration in effect "taking a dive" to move the law in a direction desired by its more radical members.
I could see a lot of people, on different ends of the spectrum, tending to agree that warrantless wiretaps should be unconstitutional. It's hardly a position exclusive to (large portions, but not the entirety of) the left.
There's an on-the-record public interview with Scalia from which the parent took their claim. You could, y'know, fact-check what people say before mocking them.
In some countries this would constitute as entrapment.
Name one.
In every system I'm aware of, it's entrapment only if law enforcement (not some random private party) encourages you to violate a law you wouldn't have broken otherwise (which providing a forum for folks to discuss their violations of the law is not).
It could be just unfortunate she met her killer there and died. Not unusual for a wife to use her husbands laptop. Many couples trust each other with passwords. She might even have asked him to do the search for her.
If you read the fine article -- the cache contained metadata showing the search to be done from his workplace, not their home.
Also, what percentage of Screen Actors Guild members make a living at acting?
A much larger percentage than that of actors as a whole. It used to be possible to buy your way into SAG -- but these days, you only get in my being credited on enough SAG-eligible pictures. Except that the big-budget movies won't bring you on unless you're already in the guild, so you need to fight for every bit piece in a low-budget SAG picture (allowing non-member talent) you can get.
But really... a lot of it varies depending on where you are. There are cities where it's possible to make a living wage (not a good living wage, but to keep the lights on) doing theater, and there are places where industrials and commercials are the only real money to be had... and if you're unlucky enough to be in a "right-to-work" state, it's possible that SAG membership might hurt as much as it helps.
Any Utilikilt other than the "new original" has huge pockets which hang down and to the front. I keep my (2nd-gen) Nexus 7 (the 1st-gen was a little wider, and fit in the pockets but not as easily), cell phone, and external battery in a single side/front pocket.
Eh? Investing makes sense when you want a return more than you care about the means by which it's derived. Crowdsourcing makes sense when you want a product to exist more than you care about a return -- it's useful for projects which simply won't generate a return, where the end result of the project (the product, media, &c being generated) is the goal in and of itself. They're different things, and one can reasonably choose either of them depending on their goals.
I don't know where you get the idea that anyone conflates the two.
Which licenses, precisely, are you describing as "gratuitous"? Consideration is, after all, not a hard thing to find.
In the case of software using copylefted dependencies, the ability to use 3rd-party similarly licensed code is consideration for release the license. In the case of software under more permissive licenses, there's an argument to be made that public assistance in the development of same (bug reports, community support assistance, etc) acts as consideration for the license. If a single peppercorn is sufficient to establish compensation under common law, surely a well-researched bug report is worth more.
You ask for an example of a case when a "gratuitous" license (a term implying that absolutely no consideration is given, which I deny is the case in the situations given here) was not allowed to be withdrawn. Frankly, I'm not familiar with a single instance in which an OSI-approved license has been withdrawn in a US jurisdiction with respect to previously released codebases -- and were this a feasible thing, we'd have seen Oracle, SCO and others doing no end of it (particularly in the time period in which Microsoft was willing to spend money on convincing the world that using open source software in business was high-risk, and certainly had the funds to buy companies which owned copyright to the codebases of major OSS infrastructure, either directly or by proxy).
I'd be curious to hear about a case of revocation of an OSI-approved license being held valid in a US court, should such exist -- and suspect that, if one did make it to appeals, we'd be seeing the OSI and their friends weighing in as amici; it'd certainly be an interesting read.
Good luck remotely erasing the hard drive sitting near (but not presently connected to) my PC... I'll make it easier for you, it's not even in a vault or faraday cage!
Why bother? I'll just wait out the MTBTF; enjoy your head crash (or house fire, or whatever else eventually happens).
Part of what you're paying for with a cloud service (whether in cash or ad-viewing) is geographically distributed redundancy.
Honestly, I do not really see the advantage of things like upstart and systemd. They haven't significantly altered the boot time of systems (well written init based system booted fast anyway) and they've just added layers of complexity.
Please respond to the post I wrote, not the one you think I wrote. I didn't espouse upstart or systemd, both of which are far, far more complex than runit or daemontools (the DJB tool on which it's based).
Also, regarding pidfile based locking: open(..., O_EXCL | O_CREAT) is atomic, which is what you need for a lock.
Sure, it's atomic, but it's not fit-to-purpose.
Okay: You can create a file atomically. Now, what good does that do you if you want to clear the lock when the process holding the lock is dead?
If you're using POSIX advisory locking, you don't do anything: Lock is released the moment the process closes its file handles. Reboot? No locks are held on the way back up. kill -9? No locks held. You don't have to deal with stale locks, because they can't ever happen.
Never mind the concoction that could likely be made with video editing software to help take things out of context!
...which behooves you to have your own, unedited footage with which to set the record straight.
I'm all for a surveillance society, so long as it's equal-opportunity. If only the powerful have access to the footage, that's 1984; if everyone has their own (read: under their ownership, to be released or withheld as they see fit barring court order) record of everything that happens whenever they're in a public space -- ideally a non-repudiable, tamper-evident one (something cryptography makes possible), I'd call that a step towards a utopia.
The SysV init scripts have one huge advantage though: I can read/debug/understand them and all I need to know for that is a bit of sh(1) and coreutils.
This sentence being included in your reply implies -- strongly -- that you didn't follow the link and read the scripts behind it.
Hint: run scripts are far, far simpler and easier-to-read than SysV init scripts. (They also exist on-disk -- in a directory matching/service/${servicename} if you're following DJB's conventions -- so filename matching is absolutely supported).
If you gained something by your race conditions, I'd see it. Using big, overcomplex SysV init scripts adds nothing but bugs.
You think SysV init scripts are in any way, shape or form moderately acceptable?!
I have a very simple refutation to that -- the collection of run scripts behind this link.
Go ahead -- have a look. Keep in mind that systems using those mostly one-line scripts all provide not just startup/shutdown/status, but also the ability to auto-restart on failure and lack the propensity for race conditions that pidfile-based locking almost universally used by SysV scripts is so very, very prone to.
Holding up SysV init scripts as a thing that doesn't have to be changed... it beggars belief.
So hey, I'm shoving this camera in your face so ten years from now you can be turned down for a job because you might do today that can be taken out of context. But why all the hate?
Dunno. Personally, I'm all for personal responsibility -- if I do something in public today that'd get me turned down for a job in ten years, that's 100% my own damned fault.
Ubiquitous cameras help keep honest people honest, and help get people who aren't honest caught. If some asshat runs me off the road on my (very, very well-lit) bicycle, I damned well want there to be a record showing (1) their license plate, and (2) me being my usual, exceedingly law-abiding, conscientious self. If someone breaks into my condo? Record. If someone picks a fight, and I need to show that self-defense was justified? Record. If someone was merely an asshat? Well, that's fair game too.
Keep in mind, too, that if everyone is getting the same kind of record built up about them, then small infractions aren't such a big thing. If everyone is a drunk asshat at a party every so often, or does a bit of political baiting, then evidence of that happening doesn't really matter -- as long as it's equal-opportunity public record, then employers &c. will be forced to compromise on hiring people whose indiscretions aren't so bad.
So -- if shoving a camera in your face is something you hate, maybe you should think long and hard about the way you behave in public.
You are recording on private property and people can have an expectation of privacy.
It's more complex than that. Have a "privacy fence", where it takes some effort to see through? Yup, expectation of privacy. Have a chain-link fence which can be seen through from public land? Not in any state I've lived in, no.
Slashdot Mirror
I could see a lot of people, on different ends of the spectrum, tending to agree that warrantless wiretaps should be unconstitutional. It's hardly a position exclusive to (large portions, but not the entirety of) the left.
There's an on-the-record public interview with Scalia from which the parent took their claim. You could, y'know, fact-check what people say before mocking them.
Name one.
In every system I'm aware of, it's entrapment only if law enforcement (not some random private party) encourages you to violate a law you wouldn't have broken otherwise (which providing a forum for folks to discuss their violations of the law is not).
So, funny thing --
I'm trying to sell my house right now. Except with the shutdown in place, anyone who needs a federal loan can't get it approved.
Pretty essential from where I'm standing.
If she gets the patents thrown out, that's good for everyone, rest of us included.
I'm suspecting we're in violent agreement here.
People supporting nontechnical friends/family who bought a phone directly through their carrier?
More to the world than just us geeks. :)
Unsubsidized, and without a contract, yes.
Unlocked... have a source for that?
If you read the fine article -- the cache contained metadata showing the search to be done from his workplace, not their home.
Depends on the direction of causality, of course.
A much larger percentage than that of actors as a whole. It used to be possible to buy your way into SAG -- but these days, you only get in my being credited on enough SAG-eligible pictures. Except that the big-budget movies won't bring you on unless you're already in the guild, so you need to fight for every bit piece in a low-budget SAG picture (allowing non-member talent) you can get.
But really... a lot of it varies depending on where you are. There are cities where it's possible to make a living wage (not a good living wage, but to keep the lights on) doing theater, and there are places where industrials and commercials are the only real money to be had... and if you're unlucky enough to be in a "right-to-work" state, it's possible that SAG membership might hurt as much as it helps.
Any Utilikilt other than the "new original" has huge pockets which hang down and to the front. I keep my (2nd-gen) Nexus 7 (the 1st-gen was a little wider, and fit in the pockets but not as easily), cell phone, and external battery in a single side/front pocket.
Eh? Investing makes sense when you want a return more than you care about the means by which it's derived. Crowdsourcing makes sense when you want a product to exist more than you care about a return -- it's useful for projects which simply won't generate a return, where the end result of the project (the product, media, &c being generated) is the goal in and of itself. They're different things, and one can reasonably choose either of them depending on their goals.
I don't know where you get the idea that anyone conflates the two.
Which licenses, precisely, are you describing as "gratuitous"? Consideration is, after all, not a hard thing to find.
In the case of software using copylefted dependencies, the ability to use 3rd-party similarly licensed code is consideration for release the license. In the case of software under more permissive licenses, there's an argument to be made that public assistance in the development of same (bug reports, community support assistance, etc) acts as consideration for the license. If a single peppercorn is sufficient to establish compensation under common law, surely a well-researched bug report is worth more.
You ask for an example of a case when a "gratuitous" license (a term implying that absolutely no consideration is given, which I deny is the case in the situations given here) was not allowed to be withdrawn. Frankly, I'm not familiar with a single instance in which an OSI-approved license has been withdrawn in a US jurisdiction with respect to previously released codebases -- and were this a feasible thing, we'd have seen Oracle, SCO and others doing no end of it (particularly in the time period in which Microsoft was willing to spend money on convincing the world that using open source software in business was high-risk, and certainly had the funds to buy companies which owned copyright to the codebases of major OSS infrastructure, either directly or by proxy).
I'd be curious to hear about a case of revocation of an OSI-approved license being held valid in a US court, should such exist -- and suspect that, if one did make it to appeals, we'd be seeing the OSI and their friends weighing in as amici; it'd certainly be an interesting read.
Under which country's law?
In most places, I'd expect promissory estoppel to apply.
Why bother? I'll just wait out the MTBTF; enjoy your head crash (or house fire, or whatever else eventually happens).
Part of what you're paying for with a cloud service (whether in cash or ad-viewing) is geographically distributed redundancy.
Summarizing, rather, work which is published in more detail elsewhere. (Admittedly, none of it my own).
Absolutely true -- I did not at any point intend to imply that this was not correct.
Pardon? I store (encrypted) backups online. I'm sure as hell not publishing them to the world.
If that's not the case, please cite sources.
Please respond to the post I wrote, not the one you think I wrote. I didn't espouse upstart or systemd, both of which are far, far more complex than runit or daemontools (the DJB tool on which it's based).
Sure, it's atomic, but it's not fit-to-purpose.
Okay: You can create a file atomically. Now, what good does that do you if you want to clear the lock when the process holding the lock is dead?
If you're using POSIX advisory locking, you don't do anything: Lock is released the moment the process closes its file handles. Reboot? No locks are held on the way back up. kill -9? No locks held. You don't have to deal with stale locks, because they can't ever happen.
I'm all for a surveillance society, so long as it's equal-opportunity. If only the powerful have access to the footage, that's 1984; if everyone has their own (read: under their ownership, to be released or withheld as they see fit barring court order) record of everything that happens whenever they're in a public space -- ideally a non-repudiable, tamper-evident one (something cryptography makes possible), I'd call that a step towards a utopia.
This sentence being included in your reply implies -- strongly -- that you didn't follow the link and read the scripts behind it.
Hint: run scripts are far, far simpler and easier-to-read than SysV init scripts. (They also exist on-disk -- in a directory matching /service/${servicename} if you're following DJB's conventions -- so filename matching is absolutely supported).
If you gained something by your race conditions, I'd see it. Using big, overcomplex SysV init scripts adds nothing but bugs.
I'm... sorry?
You think SysV init scripts are in any way, shape or form moderately acceptable?!
I have a very simple refutation to that -- the collection of run scripts behind this link.
Go ahead -- have a look. Keep in mind that systems using those mostly one-line scripts all provide not just startup/shutdown/status, but also the ability to auto-restart on failure and lack the propensity for race conditions that pidfile-based locking almost universally used by SysV scripts is so very, very prone to.
Holding up SysV init scripts as a thing that doesn't have to be changed... it beggars belief.
Dunno. Personally, I'm all for personal responsibility -- if I do something in public today that'd get me turned down for a job in ten years, that's 100% my own damned fault.
Ubiquitous cameras help keep honest people honest, and help get people who aren't honest caught. If some asshat runs me off the road on my (very, very well-lit) bicycle, I damned well want there to be a record showing (1) their license plate, and (2) me being my usual, exceedingly law-abiding, conscientious self. If someone breaks into my condo? Record. If someone picks a fight, and I need to show that self-defense was justified? Record. If someone was merely an asshat? Well, that's fair game too.
Keep in mind, too, that if everyone is getting the same kind of record built up about them, then small infractions aren't such a big thing. If everyone is a drunk asshat at a party every so often, or does a bit of political baiting, then evidence of that happening doesn't really matter -- as long as it's equal-opportunity public record, then employers &c. will be forced to compromise on hiring people whose indiscretions aren't so bad.
So -- if shoving a camera in your face is something you hate, maybe you should think long and hard about the way you behave in public.
It's more complex than that. Have a "privacy fence", where it takes some effort to see through? Yup, expectation of privacy. Have a chain-link fence which can be seen through from public land? Not in any state I've lived in, no.