The NSA was going to read his files if it took a year, and he was smart enough to know he had no means of encryption at his disposal that the NSA couldn't crack.
The content of the documents released so far suggest there was very little to be gained by encrypting them. No deep secret plans, no address books, no escape routes or bank account numbers.
I'm sure there may well be other documents that are not yet released.
One would think that... then again, considering that a person can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of "resisting arrest" without any other charge, I have my doubts about these 'higher standards' of which you speak...
I've seen this raised several time over the past few days, (perhaps by you), and I fail to see the point of this argument.
If the police or the prosecutor declined (for what ever reason) to press on with the original charges for which you were being arrested, I fail to see how you can expect to get away with resisting arrest, which is a separate offense.
The original charge may not be provable in court, or perhaps they find out you really didn't do it. Doesn't matter. That you in fact resisted what was believed to be at the time a valid arrest, is sufficient all by itself.
This is a silly argument: that you are free to do anything, perhaps up to murdering the cop, to avoid arrest simply because you (claim) you didn't do the original crime.
The guidelines say no DOE employee my have any social media contact with any DOE student who they are not related to.
Then you say:
So, if you're a kindergarten teacher with a 17 year old son, it is not appropriate to use social media to (for instance) plan a birthday party for your son.
Which leaves me questioning my reading comprehension, or yours.
Does this mean video and audio codecs are also not copyrightable? They're also just complex stream of bits, afterall, and has no particular source code attached to them.
Interesting question. Aren't some of these things covered by Patents rather than copyrights? AAC mentions patents in their license Faq.
Reading to your kids is a great experience for both you and the kid.
Meh. Might be nice for the kids, but I never enjoyed reading to them, (or the grandkids). Some people just gush about it like its a given that any human with a heart would naturally enjoy this, and you are a totally bad parent not to do so. Its taken as gospel and is pretty much an unassailable belief these days, and woe be to anyone who questions it.
I view this as just the current fad, and building something together with Legos, or letting the kids help paint a wall, or type on your computer, is far more educational.
I doubt this will enter into it at all, because that has gone to Jury. There is always the Appeal.
Oracle was relying on the ruling that THIS ruling struck down to bolster its case that API interfaces were protected. Now that underpinning is gone, but perhaps too late for this round.
Interesting that computer "the format of data files" are not copyrightable!
"the Court holds that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection."
Very interesting.
The Format of the data file being non copyrightable is an excellent Idea. Most of the time the data in the file belongs to the user, and making the file format non-protected allows for data migration, whether by the user or a competitor's product. I've always maintained that user data belongs to the user.
The wording "the functionality of a computer program" may not be copyrighted pretty much says you can't copyright what your program does, but you may be able to copyright the actual code. This too allows migration, and prevents the "monopoly of ideas", and that might be what they wanted to protect.
My only worry is that wording "functionality of a computer program" is wide open to interpretation, and could be used to ban clones. But The court address this as follows:
In that context, the Court states that if a third party were to procure the part of the source code or object code relating to the programming language or to the format of data files used in a computer program, and if that party were to create, with the aid of that code, similar elements in its own computer program, that conduct would be liable to be prohibited by the author of the program. In the present case, it is apparent from the explanations of the national court that WPL did not have access to the source code of SAS Institute’s program and did not carry out any decompilation of the object code of that program. It was only by means of observing, studying and testing the behaviour of SAS Institute’s program that WPL reproduced the functionality of that program by using the same programming language and the same format of data files.
So if you simply write a program that produces the same output of some proprietary program, that is perfectly permissible. But If you had access to the proprietary source code and used any of that code you were liable for copyright infringement.
This pretty much sounds the death knell for applications that attempt to lock you in. They might not help you migrate, but they can't use copyright laws to prevent the development of competing products.
The FAQ you cited [cleverly] omitted any reference to legality of operation. You got bamboozled into thinking that just because you can buy one, it's legal to use it. It's also legal to buy a cell phone jammer but it is not legal to use it.
These are fully FCC approved units, just like your wifi router. No license required. You know, simply stating your ridiculous opinion without bothering to check any facts makes you loo like a total idiot. Everything on that page is a consumer device approved for installation in the home with no additional license. The FCC id is shown on each product. Check your facts. They are completely legal.
Given you are posting AC, and hand waiving the problem away, I suspect your 7th grade girlfriend is really familiar with the back seat of your 82 toyota.
There are far more than you know in your willful blindness.
Wait till 2629837 seems like a low number here on Slash Dot and you have a 14 year old daughter of your own. I suspect your view will change radically.
Its modded flamebate because there wasn't and lower rating available.
Seriously, how can an intelligent person equate a meeting in a mall or on the street with a stream of clandestine facebook messages between "dreamy" Mr Larson and your 14 year old daughter?
But most employers don't have control over impressionable young children for 5 or 6 hours per day. And in just about every industry where they do, there are rules in place for this kind of stuff, so yeah, any employer in a similar position of authority over , and custody of children WOULD get away with this shit.
(Its pretty obvious you don't have kids and aren't even old enough to do so).
You are not a common carrier simply because you install a cell repeater to serve your own customers in your own premises. They aren't disputing being a common carrier because nobody said they were such.
I'm casually interested in seeing what they think I need to know. But I certainly don't expect to find anything in there that will give me a great deal of new insight. With some foreign stock holdings, its about the only information you can really find.
They (AF1) know exactly what is out there, and they know that British Airways airliners aren't armed, and any deviation from BA's planned route would gain instant attention, and BA had no advanced warning that AF1 would be there.
Its not that big of a risk. Why would anyone try to intercept him in the air? The SS already goes way overboard on Presidential protection, yet the President walks around in public occasionally.
There are limits to what can and should be done for protecting the president. The United Stated would not cease to exist if something happened to the President.
I still wonder how it is that they are profitable. Nobody pays anything for the service, other than with their privacy. It only started turning a profit in late 2009.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you were wrong there too. No need to be so proud of a wrong answer that you spread it around.
Nor does it help. Especially in this case.
The NSA was going to read his files if it took a year, and he was smart enough to know he had no means of encryption at his disposal that the NSA couldn't crack.
The content of the documents released so far suggest there was very little to be gained by encrypting them. No deep secret plans, no address books, no escape routes or bank account numbers.
I'm sure there may well be other documents that are not yet released.
FBI != NSA.
One would think that... then again, considering that a person can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of "resisting arrest" without any other charge, I have my doubts about these 'higher standards' of which you speak...
I've seen this raised several time over the past few days, (perhaps by you), and I fail to see the point of this argument.
If the police or the prosecutor declined (for what ever reason) to press on with the original charges for which you were being arrested, I fail to see how you can expect to get away with resisting arrest, which is a separate offense.
The original charge may not be provable in court, or perhaps they find out you really didn't do it. Doesn't matter.
That you in fact resisted what was believed to be at the time a valid arrest, is sufficient all by itself.
This is a silly argument: that you are free to do anything, perhaps up to murdering the cop, to avoid arrest simply because you (claim) you didn't do the original crime.
Yup, missed the word Invite, saw the word Plan.
First you say:
The guidelines say no DOE employee my have any social media contact with any DOE student who they are not related to.
Then you say:
So, if you're a kindergarten teacher with a 17 year old son, it is not appropriate to use social media to (for instance) plan a birthday party for your son.
Which leaves me questioning my reading comprehension, or yours.
Care to try again?
Does this mean video and audio codecs are also not copyrightable? They're also just complex stream of bits, afterall, and has no particular source code attached to them.
Interesting question. Aren't some of these things covered by Patents rather than copyrights?
AAC mentions patents in their license Faq.
Reading to your kids is a great experience for both you and the kid.
Meh. Might be nice for the kids, but I never enjoyed reading to them, (or the grandkids). Some people just gush about it like its a given that any human with a heart would naturally enjoy this, and you are a totally bad parent not to do so. Its taken as gospel and is pretty much an unassailable belief these days, and woe be to anyone who questions it.
I view this as just the current fad, and building something together with Legos, or letting the kids help paint a wall, or type on your computer, is far more educational.
. /me ... goes away hanging head in shame...
It's kind of always been like this though. Compatibility and data interchange have always been protected.
From your lips to the Oracle Jury's ears....
Note: I think You meant to say NOT Protected, (e.i. non-copyright-able).
I doubt this will enter into it at all, because that has gone to Jury. There is always the Appeal.
Oracle was relying on the ruling that THIS ruling struck down to bolster its case that API interfaces were protected.
Now that underpinning is gone, but perhaps too late for this round.
Interesting that computer "the format of data files" are not copyrightable!
"the Court holds that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection."
Very interesting.
The Format of the data file being non copyrightable is an excellent Idea. Most of the time the data in the file belongs to the user, and making the file format non-protected allows for data migration, whether by the user or a competitor's product. I've always maintained that user data belongs to the user.
The wording "the functionality of a computer program" may not be copyrighted pretty much says you can't copyright what your program does, but you may be able to copyright the actual code. This too allows migration, and prevents the "monopoly of ideas", and that might be what they wanted to protect.
My only worry is that wording "functionality of a computer program" is wide open to interpretation, and could be used to ban clones. But The court address this as follows:
In that context, the Court states that if a third party were to procure the part of the source code or object code relating to the programming language or to the format of data files used in a computer program, and if that party were to create, with the aid of that code, similar elements in its own computer program, that conduct would be liable to be prohibited by the author of the program. In the present case, it is apparent from the explanations of the national court that WPL did not have access to the source code of SAS Institute’s program and did not carry out any decompilation of the object code of that program. It was only by means of observing, studying and testing the behaviour of SAS Institute’s program that WPL reproduced the functionality of that program by using the same programming language and the same format of data files.
So if you simply write a program that produces the same output of some proprietary program, that is perfectly permissible. But If you had access to the proprietary source code and used any of that code you were liable for copyright infringement.
This pretty much sounds the death knell for applications that attempt to lock you in. They might not help you migrate, but they can't use copyright laws to prevent the development of competing products.
But rounded corners? Still protected?
I'd be worried if they WANTED to be my child's friend on facebook.
(Well, actually, my child will not have a facebook account until they are way past the impressionable age, but that's beside the point).
The FAQ you cited [cleverly] omitted any reference to legality of operation. You got bamboozled into thinking that just because you can buy one, it's legal to use it. It's also legal to buy a cell phone jammer but it is not legal to use it.
These are fully FCC approved units, just like your wifi router. No license required.
You know, simply stating your ridiculous opinion without bothering to check any facts makes you loo like a total idiot.
Everything on that page is a consumer device approved for installation in the home with no additional license. The FCC id is shown on each product.
Check your facts. They are completely legal.
Kids that age don't need superheros running around biff bam zonking bad guys.
Why not try Dora the Explorer or something.
Given you are posting AC, and hand waiving the problem away, I suspect your 7th grade girlfriend is really familiar with the back seat of your 82 toyota.
There are far more than you know in your willful blindness.
Wait till 2629837 seems like a low number here on Slash Dot and you have a 14 year old daughter of your own. I suspect your view will change radically.
Its modded flamebate because there wasn't and lower rating available.
Seriously, how can an intelligent person equate a meeting in a mall or on the street with a stream of clandestine facebook messages between "dreamy" Mr Larson and your 14 year old daughter?
The solution is simpler than that.
Realize you are a teacher, and no longer a student looking for a bootie call, grow up, and get the hell off facebook.
But most employers don't have control over impressionable young children for 5 or 6 hours per day.
And in just about every industry where they do, there are rules in place for this kind of stuff, so yeah, any employer in a similar position of authority over , and custody of children WOULD get away with this shit.
(Its pretty obvious you don't have kids and aren't even old enough to do so).
You are not a common carrier simply because you install a cell repeater to serve your own customers in your own premises. They aren't disputing being a common carrier because nobody said they were such.
Cell repeaters are not illegal, and you can go here and buy one for yourself:
http://www.repeaterstore.com/applications/small-building.html
read the FAQ here http://www.repeaterstore.com/support/faq/
They are very common in underground facilities and other places where cell reception is difficult.
Once I got this far, I realized you don't have a clue what you are talking about and lost interest.
You buy the stock, you get the reports.
I'm casually interested in seeing what they think I need to know. But I certainly don't expect to find anything in there that will give me a great deal of new insight. With some foreign stock holdings, its about the only information you can really find.
They (AF1) know exactly what is out there, and they know that British Airways airliners aren't armed, and any deviation from BA's planned route would gain instant attention, and BA had no advanced warning that AF1 would be there.
Its not that big of a risk. Why would anyone try to intercept him in the air? The SS already goes way overboard on Presidential protection, yet the President walks around in public occasionally.
There are limits to what can and should be done for protecting the president. The United Stated would not cease to exist if something happened to the President.
Don't worry, the F16s will keep you well away from the 747.
The same way Google makes a profit: spying on you.
You can hardly call it spying when the sheep willingly post the details of their daily life voluntarily.
I still wonder how it is that they are profitable.
Nobody pays anything for the service, other than with their privacy.
It only started turning a profit in late 2009.