I went to by a monitor not that long ago for the 350 their website listed it as. So when I showed up the employees pulled up the internal website that listed it as 400. I had to go back home print out their own website that listed it as 350 in order to get the correct price, but I don't think the emplyees even knew what was going on. To be fair to best buy though once I had the print out it took them about 15 seconds to give me the monitor for the 350, but it would have been nice if I hadn't had to have diven back home to get it for the right price.
But really I think the authorization isn't so much a technical one for passwords and what not as it is one that requires an agreement between parties. That is to say he acted with out the authorization of the owner of the network even if the wireless router let him do it. (Hacking into the network would probably be covered else where by Michigan law)
Example. I leave my harmonica out in the open somewhere and someone picks it up and plays a bit on it. Now did the harmonica let him do so? Of course. But was he authorized to do so? No... not really. Now continuing that, is the appropriate reaction to charge the guy with a felony and up to 5 years in jail? Definitely not. Both this example and the actual story could have been totally handled with a simple 'Hey man, cut that out'
I mean, should he be charged with a crime for using the free parking spot, since it's pretty clear that the store only has the parking spot so people can park and come in the store? Maybe... but you'd probably be looking at only a $20 ticket or at MOST the towing fee. There's no way on earth that crime could justify a 5 year felony charge and a $10,000 fine. Which is really what is so scary about this case. Not that he was charged with a crime, but that he was charged with a felony with up to a 5 year sentence for using something that we being given away freely with the purchase of a cup of coffee.
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:
(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
Unfortunately for the guy in the story he knew what he was doing; even if he didn't think what he was doing was wrong (Though it shouldn't be.... but that's another issue)
Only the ignorant can be satisfied with windows? I'm personally pretty satisfied with windows. Why wouldn't I be? What exactly does linux do that windows can't that would make it worth converting? And there is a price to converting in the time it takes to relearn all the skills, shortcuts, and tricks picked up while using windows. Especially considering the old argument that linux is safer is simply not true for me. I run no firewall and no virus scan but have no problems with virus simply by applying the updates and not downloading anything from the dregs of the internet.
So please enlighten my ignorant self. Why should I covert to linux?
Actually the response was to remove plea agreements from the online docketing system.
According to several sources, the removal occurred due to concerns among federal judges nationwide about an Internet site, WhosaRat.com that publishes the plea agreements and names of informants and undercover agents. The Web site claims that by combing through state and federal court files, it has identified more than 4,000 informants and agents.http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=117733177200 3
The cop that offers to buy or sell drugs on the corner is an 'undercover agent' and chances are their name if not even their picture is probably available on the wall of your local sheriff's office not to mention they're still going to have to come into court to testify against you. More worrisome would be if they're giving personal information about the individual like their phone number or home address.
It's the individuals job to 'enforce' this law. If someone receives a fraudulent DMCA notice don't just ignore it, track down and sue the person that sent it. The law gives you the recourse; I find it hard to blame anyone else if you fail to avail yourself to the options it presents.
Well unless it's your song it would be perjury to file a DMCA notice on behalf of someone else's work.
And you are right in that it does open the door for abuse, but I see it less as an avenue for malicious attacks and more of a way of easily filing nuisance lawsuits (cheaper to settle than to fight). The same kind of law suits that big business has been putting up with for years basically extended down to the individual.
Actually you'd end up costing yourself some money...
(f) Misrepresentations.-- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section--
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
My icelandic lawyer could do nothing else, so i was stuck with a bill Well there's the problem; you need a sleazy American lawyer. Those guys can get blood from a stone;)
Your point? The experiment was conducted on earth therefore the conversion is proper. If a machine moves 150kg on the earth (330 pounds) then on the moon where gravity is ~1/6th the strength it's reasonable to assume the machine could move 6 times as much; 1980 pounds also known as a ton. (There are of course problem with moving more like that since the machine has to do things like spin faster or have bigger buckets which it might not be able to do, but 6 times as much is still a good ballpark figure) Now go get clue before you try to correct someone again.
As used in this subsection... a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
So while the whole holding shift to circumvent copy protection wouldn't be protected any sort of reasonable encryption or authentication scheme would be.
I personally just highlight the text with my mouse as I read through an article seems to help me keep my place and read faster. Of course it drives anyone reading over my shoulder nuts....
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Yah... good luck proving that about Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and Real Networks software.
Just being pedantic, but something can not 'appeared on Bit Torrent' as bit torrent is not a single network. Properly something can 'appear on the internet for download via bit torrent'. And really you don't even need to say anything about the bit torrent method of downloading as it isn't anymore important then saying 'for download via internet explorer' or whatever you browser of choice might be. So really it simply 'appeared on the internet for download'
The real question isn't how they lost it..... I mean the government produces a LOT of crap paperwork and stuff that probably buried it (assumeing it really wasn't stolen like many here seem to think). The real question is why was there only one copy??? No one thought to duplicate it before this?? I mean it doesn't even have to be NASA that made a copy, surely there would have been at least one private collector, one museum, one university, someone out there that would have liked a high res copy.
Bah video games didn't teach me to fear the undead. It thought me how to deal with them; 1 shotgun or 3 rife rounds to the head takes care of most them nasty critters.
I found the exact quote 'If it was up to the NIH to cure polio through a centrally directed program you'd have the best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine.' Samuel Broder, Former Director of the National Cancer Institute
Regardless of who actually came up with the vaccine the point of the quote remains the same. Governments aren't exactly the best places for innovation; all the failed communist economies around the world tend to prove that. (not that they can't just normally don't and to believe other wise is naïve IMO)
Besides doesn't this exact situation basically prove that patents don't stifle public advances of science? If we want more discoveries like this we simply need the lobby the government to give more money to universities, not abolish the patent system.
A noble goal no doubt. But perhaps you've heard this before 'If medical research were left up to the government we'd have best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine.' (or something to that effect)
Medical companies have so far been pretty effective at coming up with the drugs we need. If you remove their economic incentive and put control of research into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians you could be looking at a disaster in the making. Why mess with success?
Slashdot Mirror
I went to by a monitor not that long ago for the 350 their website listed it as. So when I showed up the employees pulled up the internal website that listed it as 400. I had to go back home print out their own website that listed it as 350 in order to get the correct price, but I don't think the emplyees even knew what was going on.
To be fair to best buy though once I had the print out it took them about 15 seconds to give me the monitor for the 350, but it would have been nice if I hadn't had to have diven back home to get it for the right price.
He should have had a better lawyer ;)
But really I think the authorization isn't so much a technical one for passwords and what not as it is one that requires an agreement between parties. That is to say he acted with out the authorization of the owner of the network even if the wireless router let him do it.
(Hacking into the network would probably be covered else where by Michigan law)
Example.
I leave my harmonica out in the open somewhere and someone picks it up and plays a bit on it. Now did the harmonica let him do so? Of course. But was he authorized to do so? No... not really.
Now continuing that, is the appropriate reaction to charge the guy with a felony and up to 5 years in jail? Definitely not.
Both this example and the actual story could have been totally handled with a simple 'Hey man, cut that out'
I mean, should he be charged with a crime for using the free parking spot, since it's pretty clear that the store only has the parking spot so people can park and come in the store?
Maybe... but you'd probably be looking at only a $20 ticket or at MOST the towing fee.
There's no way on earth that crime could justify a 5 year felony charge and a $10,000 fine.
Which is really what is so scary about this case. Not that he was charged with a crime, but that he was charged with a felony with up to a 5 year sentence for using something that we being given away freely with the purchase of a cup of coffee.
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:
4 341gang))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl -752-795&highlight=
(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dcqkar5530bfgw55
Unfortunately for the guy in the story he knew what he was doing; even if he didn't think what he was doing was wrong (Though it shouldn't be.... but that's another issue)
Only the ignorant can be satisfied with windows? I'm personally pretty satisfied with windows. Why wouldn't I be? What exactly does linux do that windows can't that would make it worth converting? And there is a price to converting in the time it takes to relearn all the skills, shortcuts, and tricks picked up while using windows.
Especially considering the old argument that linux is safer is simply not true for me. I run no firewall and no virus scan but have no problems with virus simply by applying the updates and not downloading anything from the dregs of the internet.
So please enlighten my ignorant self. Why should I covert to linux?
Actually the response was to remove plea agreements from the online docketing system.
0 3
According to several sources, the removal occurred due to concerns among federal judges nationwide about an Internet site, WhosaRat.com that publishes the plea agreements and names of informants and undercover agents. The Web site claims that by combing through state and federal court files, it has identified more than 4,000 informants and agents. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=11773317720
The cop that offers to buy or sell drugs on the corner is an 'undercover agent' and chances are their name if not even their picture is probably available on the wall of your local sheriff's office not to mention they're still going to have to come into court to testify against you. More worrisome would be if they're giving personal information about the individual like their phone number or home address.
I did a similar study.
e .jpg
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/blackhol
It's the individuals job to 'enforce' this law.
If someone receives a fraudulent DMCA notice don't just ignore it, track down and sue the person that sent it. The law gives you the recourse; I find it hard to blame anyone else if you fail to avail yourself to the options it presents.
Well unless it's your song it would be perjury to file a DMCA notice on behalf of someone else's work.
And you are right in that it does open the door for abuse, but I see it less as an avenue for malicious attacks and more of a way of easily filing nuisance lawsuits (cheaper to settle than to fight). The same kind of law suits that big business has been putting up with for years basically extended down to the individual.
Actually you'd end up costing yourself some money...
u sc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html
(f) Misrepresentations.-- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section--
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/
My icelandic lawyer could do nothing else, so i was stuck with a bill ;)
Well there's the problem; you need a sleazy American lawyer. Those guys can get blood from a stone
Your point? The experiment was conducted on earth therefore the conversion is proper.
If a machine moves 150kg on the earth (330 pounds) then on the moon where gravity is ~1/6th the strength it's reasonable to assume the machine could move 6 times as much; 1980 pounds also known as a ton.
(There are of course problem with moving more like that since the machine has to do things like spin faster or have bigger buckets which it might not be able to do, but 6 times as much is still a good ballpark figure)
Now go get clue before you try to correct someone again.
A)It's kilograms
B)That's earth weight.
On the moon that's close to a ton of rock every 30 mins.
Nice try, but won't work.
... a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
As used in this subsection
So while the whole holding shift to circumvent copy protection wouldn't be protected any sort of reasonable encryption or authentication scheme would be.
I personally just highlight the text with my mouse as I read through an article seems to help me keep my place and read faster.
Of course it drives anyone reading over my shoulder nuts....
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Yah... good luck proving that about Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and Real Networks software.
Just being pedantic, but something can not 'appeared on Bit Torrent' as bit torrent is not a single network.
Properly something can 'appear on the internet for download via bit torrent'. And really you don't even need to say anything about the bit torrent method of downloading as it isn't anymore important then saying 'for download via internet explorer' or whatever you browser of choice might be.
So really it simply 'appeared on the internet for download'
The real question isn't how they lost it..... I mean the government produces a LOT of crap paperwork and stuff that probably buried it (assumeing it really wasn't stolen like many here seem to think).
The real question is why was there only one copy??? No one thought to duplicate it before this??
I mean it doesn't even have to be NASA that made a copy, surely there would have been at least one private collector, one museum, one university, someone out there that would have liked a high res copy.
But then one must question, why where the Iraqis not able to overthrow their own government?
Maybe, but look at this in the long term. This is Massachusetts, I don't think they'll be cloning many Republicans up there ;)
Bah video games didn't teach me to fear the undead. It thought me how to deal with them; 1 shotgun or 3 rife rounds to the head takes care of most them nasty critters.
Really? They're smart?
Download limewire and do a serach for 'kiddy porn' and see how many results you get.
I found the exact quote
'If it was up to the NIH to cure polio through a centrally directed program you'd have the best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine.'
Samuel Broder, Former Director of the National Cancer Institute
Regardless of who actually came up with the vaccine the point of the quote remains the same. Governments aren't exactly the best places for innovation; all the failed communist economies around the world tend to prove that. (not that they can't just normally don't and to believe other wise is naïve IMO)
Besides doesn't this exact situation basically prove that patents don't stifle public advances of science? If we want more discoveries like this we simply need the lobby the government to give more money to universities, not abolish the patent system.
A noble goal no doubt. But perhaps you've heard this before 'If medical research were left up to the government we'd have best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine.' (or something to that effect) Medical companies have so far been pretty effective at coming up with the drugs we need. If you remove their economic incentive and put control of research into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians you could be looking at a disaster in the making. Why mess with success?