What? They seem pretty static to me. And, you really think prototype LCDs never ever ever ever ever had stuck rows due to bad connections? And you think bad connections are an almost insurmountable problem?:/
Oh, if only they had done extensive research on it, instead of just saying "Sounds reasonable, lets publish!" then they would have caught that major flaw! Too bad you weren't around to keep them honest!
A show called "Dollar Pound: Star Bang" does sound pretty vulgar. I imagine it's like "Dancing with the Stars" only instead of dancing with B-list and washed up celebrities for money, you're doing something even better with them for money;)
Captain Cyborg is a name given to him in The Register. The Register also made up his claim to be a cyborg because of his RFID chip. You obviously have only heard of him from other Slashdot trolls though, since he has a neural interface connected to the median nerve in his arm. This interface both lets him control a robotic arm with his "mind" but also gives him a sort of tactile feedback from pressure sensors in the robotic arm. And you say "not actually connected to anything biological". If he's an idiot for calling that the "first step towards a true cyborg" then what do you call somebody who rants and rages about somebody without actually knowing the first thing about what they're talking about?
The idiot with his virus chip is an idiot though. Or at least, he's trying to make a point about the importance of secure code as we create more and more medical implants. You don't want hackers hacking your cybernetic prosthetic limb and using it to assassinate the president, like happens to Iron Man every couple of issues (serious dude, get a firewall or something, why's your suit on the internet!?) He just happens to be grandstanding in order to make his point, and look pretty stupid while doing it...
We need pretty advanced AI before computers can start interpreting law, and even more before they can start enumerating all possible actions a person, group of people, or corporation, could possibly commit.
It's not changing another tab. Here's how it works: Somebody posts a link to "Cute cat pictures!" which is just a website with a bunch of pictures. You click it, you look around, you laugh, you go back to facebook (and here's the important part) without closing the cat pictures tab. Hours later you look back at that tab and it's your banks login page. Now, hopefully almost everybody will see that and go "I never opened that tab", and also notice that the URL is wrong. However, there will probably be enough morons who say "Oh, convenient, I needed to pay my bills!" and login immediately. The script never has to touch a tab other than the one it's running in.
It's my experience that it's not just that people who stand up to bullies are demonized, it's that bullies themselves are lionized. It's not unusual for a bully to come up, demand your lunch money, then punch you in the gut anyways. Then when you hit him back, he gets 1 day detention, you get a week suspension. Because you escalated it to a fight. You're the badguy here. But don't sit there passively, either. That'll get you a matching 1 day detention under the "takes two to tango" doctrine. And don't you DARE tell. "Nobody likes a tattle, I'll see you in detention." Meanwhile, Mr. Bully should be getting detention for beating the shit out of you, but he IS on the football team, so he'll get a warning tops. Then a high five. That's why you get school shooting. The people being bulled are ORDERED not to fight back, and the bullies are rewarded. Even the teachers are on the side of the bullies.
It's to outrage free speech advocates, of course. I'm surprised the summary even mentioned the other part, and didn't try to spin the entire thing as the FTC declaring war on porn and free speech.
I don't know about ALL games, but I modded for Half-Life and for Quake II. You make a DLL in C++ and build it with their GCC makefiles or with Visual Studio. You can add any code you want in there, as far as I know.
A woman at a grocery store near here was in charge of counting money from the tills and putting it in the safe. Over the course of a year she managed to steal over $100,000 in cash by doctoring the electronic sales records. The managers noticed, but she was too hot, so they routinely fired+blackballed the ugliest cashiers for stealing. Well, she finally got caught. The judge gave her a stern warning, no jail time, no probation. And she didn't have to pay back, she got to keep the $100,000. Judge even called her a wonderful person, said she has no chance of reoffending, and has a bright future as a university student and it would be wrong of him to get in the way of her! Left implied is that she gives good head, I guess.
I wish I was hot enough to steal 100 Gs and get to KEEP IT ALL with no other punishment.
Not true, "Sugar Daddy" is also a forbidden adult term. TFA says that "arrangement" is not banned, when that's code for paying tuition in exchange for sex...their site even lets you fucking list that. A man goes on, lists how rich he is and how much he's willing to spend for sex. Girls advertise what kind of minimum bid they need. Just their rent? Rent and tuition? Also need expenses? Do they expect jewelry? Fuck. Hopefully now that google knows what that site is actually about, they'll ban it, too.
It's not sexist. Some posts in this thread are outright lies. "Cougar" is banned for being an adult term. So is Sugar Daddy, contrary to what some claim. Not sexist. There ARE sugar-daddy style sites that have slipped through, by being surreptitious about it. They call it "arrangements" and "friendship deals" and all kinds of other things. Google can look at keywords and decide that a site named for an old woman who prowls bars looking for easy sex, and maybe an ongoing boytoy for when her husband is away, is an "adult site" but they can't look at a picture of an older man holding a young woman that says "Make that special arrangement" is a sex site. Their software just isn't that smart. (There are "cougar" sites that are allowed, too. They don't use the word cougar or sex in their ads like cougarlife does, and that's why they're allowed. They call it "age gap" and so on. The same company also runs a "height gap" sex service, allowed to run in that they don't call it a sex service up front.) At any rate, some cougarlife.com ads were mild, but some were borderline pornographic. Not that it bothers me in GENERAL, I just don't want porn if I'm browsing a tech site in the office, looking for reviews. There ARE ad aggregators that allow porn, and if you want porn banners you deal with them. You don't whine to every newspaper in the entire world about how Sexist google is for banning you.
A fair bit??? In all kinds of blogs that allow comments, they're absolutely flooded with dissociated press transformed into an ad "Yeah, I love (random phrase pulled from article/blog post). If you like this article like I do, you'll love cougarmatch.com, it's where I found my hot milf lover!"
Ha, if you ever read cracked.com articles, you'd know that their filters are in a never-ending war of escalation against cougarlife.com spambots who pop in to every comment section to brag about the hot milf they're fucking, who they found on cougerlife.com;) Bizarrely, the other dating site locked in this war is some site that goes after tall women who like short men...
Cougar Life advertises to WOMEN as "Look for a caring young man to love" with a picture of a man and women holding hands and smiling. Nice and family safe, I'd agree, except for the accepted definition of a "cougar" being an older woman on the prowl at the bar for a quickie. But the ads targeting at Men (i.e. on tech sites) are pictures of naked women covering their breasts with their hands. And they're not advertising "love and a steady relationship" they're advertising "hot women who need you BAD". They're sex site ads. And that's fine, I just wouldn't want them in one of my site's rotations!
Yeah, if you want sex-search ads on your website, you can contract with an adult advertising provider instead of with google. Meanwhile, people who don't want banner ads with naked women in them can stick with Google. I'm just glad YOUR vocal minority is thus-far unsuccessful in forcing Slashdot to run pornographic ads, too.
Yeah, not quite...you turn on your proxy and browse whatever porn. Then you close everything, turn off the proxy, and hit up facebook. Now they know who you are.
Children are inquisitive. They don't dismiss words they don't know, they use them. Or at least ask what they mean. Then the parent reacts with abject horror, and the child learns that word is AWESOME;)
Yeah, it sounds like it was tattered enough that the barcode scanner wasn't working. So, SOP is to take it away and inspect it, because the best way to forge one would be to "tatter" the barcode so it can't be scanned. As such, non-scanning passports warrant special attention. Now, are they canceling it because they are jerks? Or because it's tattered and no longer scans, so they're issuing him a new one? TFA doesn't say, and so far, only Assange claims it's been canceled. When questioned, the government said no such thing, they said it's in good standing.
In those 16 months, the drug company sells them $864,000 of treatments. Yeah, nobody is making a killing off of it. And I don't buy the argument that "if you cure them, they'll spend a million dollars on Viagra, instead, so it's a net gain for the drug company". Yeah right. Especially if the drug company cutting funding to the cure isn't the same fucking one that even MAKES Viagra...
Ummm, you must not read many non-technical pages, if you haven't seen Malapropism, Portmanteau, and Neologism a billion times each. Also, Wikipedia is itself a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia, with wiki being both a very recent neologism, and also, a loanword from Hawaiian.
No. Copyright only applies to creative and original works. This microscopic patch that just NOOPs out a few calls to DVD checking routines is neither creative nor original. The game used generic DVD checks that many games did, so it's entirely possible the pirate team cracked it entirely by rote, just fed it into a generic cracker, and got the binary back out. In the same way, Adobe has copyright on Photoshop, but NOT on any photo that's ever been edited in Photoshop. Myth's tool would be copyright by them, the hand full of NOOPs inserted by that tool certainly are not.
Not quite. Whether or not it's authorized isn't the issue. (It's the issue with whether or not Myth can distribute it). The question is on the significance of the changes. If a change is significant, then authorized or not, it gets its own copyright. Now, being a derivative still, barring fair use defenses, the second artist has no right to distribute the whole. But, neither does the first. And again, this is with or without authorization. So, the question really is, how significant is the patch? The benchmark is, does it make the game into a new, original work? Would somebody playing the game notice and say "Well, this sure is a different game?" No, the opposite of that. The point of the patch is that you would never notice the difference, except that you don't need the DVD in anymore. It cannot be a "rote, uncreative variation". Of course, that's for a judge to decide. But, the extremely tiny change is invisible to the user of the game. And, the changes are also by rote, finding and removing calls to the DRM routines. There may be something clever about finding them. There's nothing creative about patching them. So, although you may be incorrect over all, in this case it's extraordinarily unlikely that a judge would find that Myth has any copyright on the patched binary.
On top of that they're using someones elses work and profiting from it.
Lets say a paid slashdot editor uses Firefox to do whatever it is editors do (clearly it's not edit). Firefox is someone else's work, and the editor just used it to make money. Illegal, then? I once read a book that agreed with you. But, in the real world, you can use somebody else's stuff to do whatever you feel like, even make money. If you buy photoshop, you can touch up pictures you took, then sell those pictures. Crazy, huh? You can't sell copies of photoshop, mind you, but you can sell pictures you edited with photoshop, even though Photoshop was "somebody else's work". (Oh, that book? A teacher read it to the class in Elementary. Don't remember the name. But, some kids working at cafe made their boss a mint when they invented a nostalgic milkshake made with brownie cake mix, tastes just like licking the bowl when mom makes brownies. Well, the boss was quite happy until the police came and arrested him. Seems Sara Lee or whatever fictional variant existed in the book was pressing charges for using their mix without a license. The moral of the story was, I suppose, obey your corporate overlord).
At any rate, what work of MYTH did they use? The patcher? Yes, they (apparently) ran it, though they could have downloaded the pre-cracked binary, we don't know. But, they're not distributing the crack, they're just distributing the pre-cracked binary. So the question is, does the pre-cracked binary belong to the developers, or to the pirate group? The answer is, the developers. Rockstar didn't have to pirate the patcher, because the pirate offered it for free, so that wasn't a violation. And so, they used a tool that they legally obtained, to make modifications to their code. Code that they own the copyright to. In the same way that running a photo through a photoshop filter doesn't transfer your copyright to Adobe, running a binary through MYTH's patcher doesn't transfer copyright of the binary from Rockstar to Myth. Thus, the binary is the copyright of Rockstar still, and they have the exclusive right to distribute it.
Legally, the patched binary is a derivative work of the original binary. Under copyright law, only the creator of a work has the right to create and sell derivative works. However, just because you don't have the right to distribute your derivative work, doesn't mean the original artist has it. It depends on the nature of the changes. If it's a significant and transformative change, then you have copyright over your changes, so neither party can distribute it, unless you can make a fair use argument as to why you can distribute it. In no case can the original artist distribute it without permission, though. However, if the changes are minor, you have no copyright on them, and thus, the derivative work contains only the copyrighted material of the original artist. Thus, distributing it is only a copyright violation of the original artist's copyright. As such, they are fully within their rights to distribute it.
So, it could be argued that the patched binary would also be copyright of the pirate group. But, its a very weak argument. The patch didn't change the game play at all. So, comparing it to the DVD version: The unpatched DVD version needed the DVD in it to play. The cracked, steam version needs Steam to play. To a user, there's no change except for the medium of delivery. From a purely technical point of view, there is no creative work put into NOOPing around the DRM calls. All in all, there's no way I see it being decided that the patch is copyright of anybody. As such, the patched binary is wholly the copyright of Rockstar, and they can distribute it legally. Were they distributing the crack, then running the crack as part of the install process, it would be different. But as it stands, it might make them look like tools, but it's legal.
Looking at it in terms of tangible property rights: If you find an empt
Slashdot Mirror
What? They seem pretty static to me. And, you really think prototype LCDs never ever ever ever ever had stuck rows due to bad connections? And you think bad connections are an almost insurmountable problem? :/
Oh, if only they had done extensive research on it, instead of just saying "Sounds reasonable, lets publish!" then they would have caught that major flaw! Too bad you weren't around to keep them honest!
A show called "Dollar Pound: Star Bang" does sound pretty vulgar. I imagine it's like "Dancing with the Stars" only instead of dancing with B-list and washed up celebrities for money, you're doing something even better with them for money ;)
Captain Cyborg is a name given to him in The Register. The Register also made up his claim to be a cyborg because of his RFID chip. You obviously have only heard of him from other Slashdot trolls though, since he has a neural interface connected to the median nerve in his arm. This interface both lets him control a robotic arm with his "mind" but also gives him a sort of tactile feedback from pressure sensors in the robotic arm. And you say "not actually connected to anything biological". If he's an idiot for calling that the "first step towards a true cyborg" then what do you call somebody who rants and rages about somebody without actually knowing the first thing about what they're talking about?
The idiot with his virus chip is an idiot though. Or at least, he's trying to make a point about the importance of secure code as we create more and more medical implants. You don't want hackers hacking your cybernetic prosthetic limb and using it to assassinate the president, like happens to Iron Man every couple of issues (serious dude, get a firewall or something, why's your suit on the internet!?) He just happens to be grandstanding in order to make his point, and look pretty stupid while doing it...
We need pretty advanced AI before computers can start interpreting law, and even more before they can start enumerating all possible actions a person, group of people, or corporation, could possibly commit.
It's not changing another tab. Here's how it works: Somebody posts a link to "Cute cat pictures!" which is just a website with a bunch of pictures. You click it, you look around, you laugh, you go back to facebook (and here's the important part) without closing the cat pictures tab. Hours later you look back at that tab and it's your banks login page. Now, hopefully almost everybody will see that and go "I never opened that tab", and also notice that the URL is wrong. However, there will probably be enough morons who say "Oh, convenient, I needed to pay my bills!" and login immediately. The script never has to touch a tab other than the one it's running in.
It's my experience that it's not just that people who stand up to bullies are demonized, it's that bullies themselves are lionized. It's not unusual for a bully to come up, demand your lunch money, then punch you in the gut anyways. Then when you hit him back, he gets 1 day detention, you get a week suspension. Because you escalated it to a fight. You're the badguy here. But don't sit there passively, either. That'll get you a matching 1 day detention under the "takes two to tango" doctrine. And don't you DARE tell. "Nobody likes a tattle, I'll see you in detention." Meanwhile, Mr. Bully should be getting detention for beating the shit out of you, but he IS on the football team, so he'll get a warning tops. Then a high five. That's why you get school shooting. The people being bulled are ORDERED not to fight back, and the bullies are rewarded. Even the teachers are on the side of the bullies.
It's to outrage free speech advocates, of course. I'm surprised the summary even mentioned the other part, and didn't try to spin the entire thing as the FTC declaring war on porn and free speech.
I don't know about ALL games, but I modded for Half-Life and for Quake II. You make a DLL in C++ and build it with their GCC makefiles or with Visual Studio. You can add any code you want in there, as far as I know.
A woman at a grocery store near here was in charge of counting money from the tills and putting it in the safe. Over the course of a year she managed to steal over $100,000 in cash by doctoring the electronic sales records. The managers noticed, but she was too hot, so they routinely fired+blackballed the ugliest cashiers for stealing. Well, she finally got caught. The judge gave her a stern warning, no jail time, no probation. And she didn't have to pay back, she got to keep the $100,000. Judge even called her a wonderful person, said she has no chance of reoffending, and has a bright future as a university student and it would be wrong of him to get in the way of her! Left implied is that she gives good head, I guess.
I wish I was hot enough to steal 100 Gs and get to KEEP IT ALL with no other punishment.
Not true, "Sugar Daddy" is also a forbidden adult term. TFA says that "arrangement" is not banned, when that's code for paying tuition in exchange for sex...their site even lets you fucking list that. A man goes on, lists how rich he is and how much he's willing to spend for sex. Girls advertise what kind of minimum bid they need. Just their rent? Rent and tuition? Also need expenses? Do they expect jewelry? Fuck. Hopefully now that google knows what that site is actually about, they'll ban it, too.
It's not sexist. Some posts in this thread are outright lies. "Cougar" is banned for being an adult term. So is Sugar Daddy, contrary to what some claim. Not sexist. There ARE sugar-daddy style sites that have slipped through, by being surreptitious about it. They call it "arrangements" and "friendship deals" and all kinds of other things. Google can look at keywords and decide that a site named for an old woman who prowls bars looking for easy sex, and maybe an ongoing boytoy for when her husband is away, is an "adult site" but they can't look at a picture of an older man holding a young woman that says "Make that special arrangement" is a sex site. Their software just isn't that smart. (There are "cougar" sites that are allowed, too. They don't use the word cougar or sex in their ads like cougarlife does, and that's why they're allowed. They call it "age gap" and so on. The same company also runs a "height gap" sex service, allowed to run in that they don't call it a sex service up front.) At any rate, some cougarlife.com ads were mild, but some were borderline pornographic. Not that it bothers me in GENERAL, I just don't want porn if I'm browsing a tech site in the office, looking for reviews. There ARE ad aggregators that allow porn, and if you want porn banners you deal with them. You don't whine to every newspaper in the entire world about how Sexist google is for banning you.
A fair bit??? In all kinds of blogs that allow comments, they're absolutely flooded with dissociated press transformed into an ad "Yeah, I love (random phrase pulled from article/blog post). If you like this article like I do, you'll love cougarmatch.com, it's where I found my hot milf lover!"
Ha, if you ever read cracked.com articles, you'd know that their filters are in a never-ending war of escalation against cougarlife.com spambots who pop in to every comment section to brag about the hot milf they're fucking, who they found on cougerlife.com ;) Bizarrely, the other dating site locked in this war is some site that goes after tall women who like short men...
Cougar Life advertises to WOMEN as "Look for a caring young man to love" with a picture of a man and women holding hands and smiling. Nice and family safe, I'd agree, except for the accepted definition of a "cougar" being an older woman on the prowl at the bar for a quickie. But the ads targeting at Men (i.e. on tech sites) are pictures of naked women covering their breasts with their hands. And they're not advertising "love and a steady relationship" they're advertising "hot women who need you BAD". They're sex site ads. And that's fine, I just wouldn't want them in one of my site's rotations!
Yeah, if you want sex-search ads on your website, you can contract with an adult advertising provider instead of with google. Meanwhile, people who don't want banner ads with naked women in them can stick with Google. I'm just glad YOUR vocal minority is thus-far unsuccessful in forcing Slashdot to run pornographic ads, too.
Yeah, not quite...you turn on your proxy and browse whatever porn. Then you close everything, turn off the proxy, and hit up facebook. Now they know who you are.
Children are inquisitive. They don't dismiss words they don't know, they use them. Or at least ask what they mean. Then the parent reacts with abject horror, and the child learns that word is AWESOME ;)
Yeah, it sounds like it was tattered enough that the barcode scanner wasn't working. So, SOP is to take it away and inspect it, because the best way to forge one would be to "tatter" the barcode so it can't be scanned. As such, non-scanning passports warrant special attention. Now, are they canceling it because they are jerks? Or because it's tattered and no longer scans, so they're issuing him a new one? TFA doesn't say, and so far, only Assange claims it's been canceled. When questioned, the government said no such thing, they said it's in good standing.
You are alleging that Thomas Jefferson is a fictional character created by New Yorkers and Californians? OK, yeah, you're not utterly insane.
In those 16 months, the drug company sells them $864,000 of treatments. Yeah, nobody is making a killing off of it. And I don't buy the argument that "if you cure them, they'll spend a million dollars on Viagra, instead, so it's a net gain for the drug company". Yeah right. Especially if the drug company cutting funding to the cure isn't the same fucking one that even MAKES Viagra...
Ummm, you must not read many non-technical pages, if you haven't seen Malapropism, Portmanteau, and Neologism a billion times each. Also, Wikipedia is itself a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia, with wiki being both a very recent neologism, and also, a loanword from Hawaiian.
No. Copyright only applies to creative and original works. This microscopic patch that just NOOPs out a few calls to DVD checking routines is neither creative nor original. The game used generic DVD checks that many games did, so it's entirely possible the pirate team cracked it entirely by rote, just fed it into a generic cracker, and got the binary back out. In the same way, Adobe has copyright on Photoshop, but NOT on any photo that's ever been edited in Photoshop. Myth's tool would be copyright by them, the hand full of NOOPs inserted by that tool certainly are not.
Not quite. Whether or not it's authorized isn't the issue. (It's the issue with whether or not Myth can distribute it). The question is on the significance of the changes. If a change is significant, then authorized or not, it gets its own copyright. Now, being a derivative still, barring fair use defenses, the second artist has no right to distribute the whole. But, neither does the first. And again, this is with or without authorization. So, the question really is, how significant is the patch? The benchmark is, does it make the game into a new, original work? Would somebody playing the game notice and say "Well, this sure is a different game?" No, the opposite of that. The point of the patch is that you would never notice the difference, except that you don't need the DVD in anymore. It cannot be a "rote, uncreative variation". Of course, that's for a judge to decide. But, the extremely tiny change is invisible to the user of the game. And, the changes are also by rote, finding and removing calls to the DRM routines. There may be something clever about finding them. There's nothing creative about patching them. So, although you may be incorrect over all, in this case it's extraordinarily unlikely that a judge would find that Myth has any copyright on the patched binary.
Lets say a paid slashdot editor uses Firefox to do whatever it is editors do (clearly it's not edit). Firefox is someone else's work, and the editor just used it to make money. Illegal, then? I once read a book that agreed with you. But, in the real world, you can use somebody else's stuff to do whatever you feel like, even make money. If you buy photoshop, you can touch up pictures you took, then sell those pictures. Crazy, huh? You can't sell copies of photoshop, mind you, but you can sell pictures you edited with photoshop, even though Photoshop was "somebody else's work". (Oh, that book? A teacher read it to the class in Elementary. Don't remember the name. But, some kids working at cafe made their boss a mint when they invented a nostalgic milkshake made with brownie cake mix, tastes just like licking the bowl when mom makes brownies. Well, the boss was quite happy until the police came and arrested him. Seems Sara Lee or whatever fictional variant existed in the book was pressing charges for using their mix without a license. The moral of the story was, I suppose, obey your corporate overlord).
At any rate, what work of MYTH did they use? The patcher? Yes, they (apparently) ran it, though they could have downloaded the pre-cracked binary, we don't know. But, they're not distributing the crack, they're just distributing the pre-cracked binary. So the question is, does the pre-cracked binary belong to the developers, or to the pirate group? The answer is, the developers. Rockstar didn't have to pirate the patcher, because the pirate offered it for free, so that wasn't a violation. And so, they used a tool that they legally obtained, to make modifications to their code. Code that they own the copyright to. In the same way that running a photo through a photoshop filter doesn't transfer your copyright to Adobe, running a binary through MYTH's patcher doesn't transfer copyright of the binary from Rockstar to Myth. Thus, the binary is the copyright of Rockstar still, and they have the exclusive right to distribute it.
Legally, the patched binary is a derivative work of the original binary. Under copyright law, only the creator of a work has the right to create and sell derivative works. However, just because you don't have the right to distribute your derivative work, doesn't mean the original artist has it. It depends on the nature of the changes. If it's a significant and transformative change, then you have copyright over your changes, so neither party can distribute it, unless you can make a fair use argument as to why you can distribute it. In no case can the original artist distribute it without permission, though. However, if the changes are minor, you have no copyright on them, and thus, the derivative work contains only the copyrighted material of the original artist. Thus, distributing it is only a copyright violation of the original artist's copyright. As such, they are fully within their rights to distribute it.
So, it could be argued that the patched binary would also be copyright of the pirate group. But, its a very weak argument. The patch didn't change the game play at all. So, comparing it to the DVD version: The unpatched DVD version needed the DVD in it to play. The cracked, steam version needs Steam to play. To a user, there's no change except for the medium of delivery. From a purely technical point of view, there is no creative work put into NOOPing around the DRM calls. All in all, there's no way I see it being decided that the patch is copyright of anybody. As such, the patched binary is wholly the copyright of Rockstar, and they can distribute it legally. Were they distributing the crack, then running the crack as part of the install process, it would be different. But as it stands, it might make them look like tools, but it's legal.
Looking at it in terms of tangible property rights: If you find an empt