"Why put up with any of that [shitware and expense] when you can get the best of all worlds for free?"
Well, I would agree with you that the best of all possible worlds for free beats expensive shitware, however, my experience with Linux [Ubuntu included] has been that there is a reason it is free, namely no one in his right mind would pay for such utter dung. Consequently, while I agree that the best of all possible worlds for free is, well, the best of all possible worlds; I assume you think Linux represents the best of all possible worlds and in that you are gravely mistaken.
Look on the bright side, though, you are destined to be happy your entire life because you are just so damn easy to please.
By the way, has anyone else noticed that the HTML tags on here don't work like they used to?
"Don't police have more important things to do than wardrive?"
Only if you suscribe to the notion that police are there to fight crime. If you really know how things work, you understand that the most important thing is for the police forces to be able to justify their budgets with new equipment and more officers. This in turn is applauded by the providers of these devices because they are finally able to suck the government tit and don't have to make it in the real world.
9-11 was a watershed event for wannabe government contractors. All of a sudden there was an easy to sell justification for all kinds of products that couldn't make it in the marketplace. No longer was government welfare directed only to the weapons manufacturers.
"preteen models" succeeds with lots of tawdry links
"bomb making instructions" succeeds
"sex offender law Australia" succeeds
"lolita models" succeeds
I can't imagine what the rationale for eliminating the word "pedophile" is. Do they really think that pedophile sites bill themselves exclusively as "pedophile" sites in their metadata?
Even more interestingly, "pedophiliac" succeeds with a number of responses.
"But if you leave a shop door open, it's legal for people to wander in and browse. It's all about social convention."
More to the point, the law recognizes the difference between privately owned private spaces and privately owned public spaces. A person who wanders into privately owned private spaces is, at best, a trespasser. A person who wanders into open privately owned public spaces is, at worst, a business invitee. Notice that the people are "invitees" even though no invitation other than opening the space has been issued.
It would have made much more sense for the police to cite the guy for trespassing as he had apparently already been told (by the police on behalf of the owner) that he was not welcome on the premises. However, trespassing is probably not an arrestable offense, probably would only result in a fine, if convicted, and isn't as exciting for the news papers. The case will probably be dismissed and the police will be worrying about a potential civil rights suit.
"It's more like putting a TV in your window, turning it on, and getting upset when someone watches it."
You are exactly right and I bet if someone bothered to research it, there are some old cases from the drive-in movie era that would be instructive. If a person can see a movie screen from his back porch and watch it but not pay for it, is that stealing? If a person can hear the concert from the bar next door, but doesn't buy a beer, is he stealing it? If a person has a satellite dish and watches an unencryped broadcast, is he stealing it? I venture that in all cases the legal answer is "no."
Under the right facts, I bet the law woudl not even consider it stealing to receive an encrypted broadcast.
The BD-P1000 is twice the price of the HD-A1 ($999.99 list), but supports full 1080p playback, something the first generation of HD-DVD players do not.
Quote from actual article:
[N]ow that Samsung is shipping the BD-P1000 Blu-Ray player to retailers. The BD-P1000 ($999.99 list), will go on sale June 25th, making it the first Blu-Ray player to hit the market. Until now, the only high-definition video player shoppers could buy has been the Toshiba HD-A1, which has been in short supply. The BD-P1000 is twice the price of the HD-A1...
Now see, the way I read it is that the "($999.99 list)" immediately following "HD-A1" in the blurb suggests that the HD-A1 lists for $999.99 and since the "BD-P1000 is twice the price of the HD-A1" the BD-P1000 must be ~$2,000.00. This made me think, "Gee, Blu-Ray is doomed."
In fact, the BD-P1000 is only $999.00 list as TFA makes clear. Maybe the blurb writer should RTFA.
Good poem. Timely. Original was about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Now, "Silverman" sure sounds like a jewish name to me. Think Scottie's mommy just forgot to give him the Shoah talk?
It doesn't appear that the Plaintiff brought a breach of contract claim, which is pretty bizzare unless he was pro se and just didnt'understand what he was doing. If he was represented, he didnt' have very good representation.
The Court did not address the EULA issue at all. I think there would have been a good claim to make under contract law.
On the other hand, it looks like the Plaintiff could have kept his site from being "readily accessible" by just charging some nominal fee to join, like $1.00. It certanly would strengthen a contracts claim, if he had one.
I'm as anti-DMCA as anyone, so it may seem odd that I'm arguing this point. Here's why I am: Flawed arguments against the DMCA will only serve to make the anti-DMCA position as a whole appear weak. In matters of law and public policy, appearing weak makes a position weak. So...
I constantly see people asserting that every case where a password is broken is a DMCA violation; it is not. DMCA is still COPYRIGHT law. Anit-circumvention talks about circumvention of COPYRIGHT PROTECTION mechanisms (DRM). The virus author was using encryption (poorly), and encryption is a technique that can be used in DRM, but the virus author was not implementing DRM, nor in any other way using crypto to assert his/her copyright. Hence, "breaking" the encryption does not violate the anit-circumvention part of the DMCA (nor any other part)."
It was a joke. But, since you mention it, your analysis is only correct if the file that was subsituted for the files in the My Documents directory is not properly copyrighted. To copyright it, the virus writer just has to attach a copyright notice and reduce it to a machine readable form (already done, obviously). If it is properly copyrighted, then cracking the code gives access to the copyrighted material and subjects the aiders and abetters to potential civil and criminal penalties.
We simply don't have enough information from the article to make this determination, and I am skeptical that any virus writers will be filing civil actions to protect their rights anyway, but it would make an interesting lawschool hypothetical.
"You are not better than everyone else. Neither am I. Don't run as root."
Well now, that's an awefully defeatest attitude. I say damn the torpedoes. No computer needs more than one account and that account is root. Real men run as root.
"Excuse me, one moment please: While I can understand that you (and many others) have a deep personal hatred for unsolicited commercial email, please consider correcting yourself - there is no way in kind or in degree that the irritation of Spam/UCE is equal to the tragedies of child pornography or rape."
Oh yeah? Well, what if it's spam adveretising websites that show pornographic pictures of child rape? Huh? Huh? Huh?
"Give me a single reason why an American should have the job instead of the Indian/Chinese/Russian?"
This question doesn't make sense. The topic concerns whether or not IT professionals should unionize. I think they should in order to maximize the benifits to them.
I never said American IT workers were inherently more worthy than European or Asian IT workers. If you want my personal opinion on the worth of American IT workers, I would posit that they are less worthy than their European or Asian counterparts because of their colosal egos, their silly flame wars over terminology minutiae (Linux vs. Gnu Linux, UNIX vs. BSD, etc.), and their general inability to program an application that performs its function well and doesn't perform anything that isn't its function. But that is beside the point.
An even better solution for IT workers generally would be if all IT workers, world-wide, unionized into one large union. Then they would be able to extract the maximum benefit for their group members. Not unioinizing simply allows the owners of corporations to have disproportinate power over the people with the actual necessary skills.
"Why would I want the playing field artificially leveled? My playing field greatly favors me because I am better at my job than most people. A collective bargaining agreement would end that advantage. I could only do as well as anyone else."
Let's revisit this topic in five years or so when the far more qualified Chinese, Indians, and Russians are doing you job for a fraction of your pay and you are unemployed and unemployable. You miss the point. The point is not to level the playing field between you and other workers, it is to level the playing field between the workers and the oweners.
Just like manufacturing jobs, tech jobs will move overseas as soon as the new MS and Intel universities in India and China begin churning out thier graduates who will do the same work as an American for far less pay and benefits. There is nothing magical about the tech industry that imunizes it to market forces any more than the manufacturing industry. China already makes nearly all the computer components, why not software? That's the next logical step.
"Unions are great at representing manual workers who perform repetitive tasks and who have a very horizontal organisation structure."
Not really. See, Unions is short for "Trade Unions" or "Trades Union," as the Brits say. They are collectives of skilled workers, i.e. tradesmen. Tradesmen might be carpenters, machinests, or even programmers. The reason why a union has any force at all is because these skilled workes cannot simply be replaced, if they could, then the union would have no benefit, as is the case with some modern unions. Unions with no leverage generally collapse.
Failing to realize the benefit in having everyone with a particular skill work together to maximize their individual benefits, evidences a lack of vision or a rejection of game theory.
However, this attitude certianly benefits the people who own companies, and I am sure they are very happy.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why put up with any of that [shitware and expense] when you can get the best of all worlds for free?"
Well, I would agree with you that the best of all possible worlds for free beats expensive shitware, however, my experience with Linux [Ubuntu included] has been that there is a reason it is free, namely no one in his right mind would pay for such utter dung. Consequently, while I agree that the best of all possible worlds for free is, well, the best of all possible worlds; I assume you think Linux represents the best of all possible worlds and in that you are gravely mistaken.
Look on the bright side, though, you are destined to be happy your entire life because you are just so damn easy to please.
By the way, has anyone else noticed that the HTML tags on here don't work like they used to?
How did you get modified to a 4 when you clearly have no ability to pick a computer that fits your needs?
Only if you suscribe to the notion that police are there to fight crime. If you really know how things work, you understand that the most important thing is for the police forces to be able to justify their budgets with new equipment and more officers. This in turn is applauded by the providers of these devices because they are finally able to suck the government tit and don't have to make it in the real world.
9-11 was a watershed event for wannabe government contractors. All of a sudden there was an easy to sell justification for all kinds of products that couldn't make it in the marketplace. No longer was government welfare directed only to the weapons manufacturers.
That is interesting and you are certainly right that the language is similar. I wasn't aware there was similar language in the Bible.
It's somewhat amusing that a Jewish Communist drew his rhetorical inspiration from the Christian New Testament.
Smith & Wesson?
"bomb making instructions" succeeds
"sex offender law Australia" succeeds
"lolita models" succeeds
I can't imagine what the rationale for eliminating the word "pedophile" is. Do they really think that pedophile sites bill themselves exclusively as "pedophile" sites in their metadata?
Even more interestingly, "pedophiliac" succeeds with a number of responses.
More to the point, the law recognizes the difference between privately owned private spaces and privately owned public spaces. A person who wanders into privately owned private spaces is, at best, a trespasser. A person who wanders into open privately owned public spaces is, at worst, a business invitee. Notice that the people are "invitees" even though no invitation other than opening the space has been issued.
It would have made much more sense for the police to cite the guy for trespassing as he had apparently already been told (by the police on behalf of the owner) that he was not welcome on the premises. However, trespassing is probably not an arrestable offense, probably would only result in a fine, if convicted, and isn't as exciting for the news papers. The case will probably be dismissed and the police will be worrying about a potential civil rights suit.
You are exactly right and I bet if someone bothered to research it, there are some old cases from the drive-in movie era that would be instructive. If a person can see a movie screen from his back porch and watch it but not pay for it, is that stealing? If a person can hear the concert from the bar next door, but doesn't buy a beer, is he stealing it? If a person has a satellite dish and watches an unencryped broadcast, is he stealing it? I venture that in all cases the legal answer is "no."
Under the right facts, I bet the law woudl not even consider it stealing to receive an encrypted broadcast.
Woopie, I'm really excited.
Quote from actual article:
Now see, the way I read it is that the "($999.99 list)" immediately following "HD-A1" in the blurb suggests that the HD-A1 lists for $999.99 and since the "BD-P1000 is twice the price of the HD-A1" the BD-P1000 must be ~$2,000.00. This made me think, "Gee, Blu-Ray is doomed."
In fact, the BD-P1000 is only $999.00 list as TFA makes clear. Maybe the blurb writer should RTFA.
LOL, and game developers would be "Nipple Erectors."
Well, except for some AWOL Marines, but, if you watch Fox News, you are right, you never would hear about that.
Um, dude, just how much do you like your pets?
Good poem. Timely. Original was about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Now, "Silverman" sure sounds like a jewish name to me. Think Scottie's mommy just forgot to give him the Shoah talk?
The Court did not address the EULA issue at all. I think there would have been a good claim to make under contract law.
On the other hand, it looks like the Plaintiff could have kept his site from being "readily accessible" by just charging some nominal fee to join, like $1.00. It certanly would strengthen a contracts claim, if he had one.
I'm as anti-DMCA as anyone, so it may seem odd that I'm arguing this point. Here's why I am: Flawed arguments against the DMCA will only serve to make the anti-DMCA position as a whole appear weak. In matters of law and public policy, appearing weak makes a position weak. So...
I constantly see people asserting that every case where a password is broken is a DMCA violation; it is not. DMCA is still COPYRIGHT law. Anit-circumvention talks about circumvention of COPYRIGHT PROTECTION mechanisms (DRM). The virus author was using encryption (poorly), and encryption is a technique that can be used in DRM, but the virus author was not implementing DRM, nor in any other way using crypto to assert his/her copyright. Hence, "breaking" the encryption does not violate the anit-circumvention part of the DMCA (nor any other part)."
It was a joke. But, since you mention it, your analysis is only correct if the file that was subsituted for the files in the My Documents directory is not properly copyrighted. To copyright it, the virus writer just has to attach a copyright notice and reduce it to a machine readable form (already done, obviously). If it is properly copyrighted, then cracking the code gives access to the copyrighted material and subjects the aiders and abetters to potential civil and criminal penalties.
We simply don't have enough information from the article to make this determination, and I am skeptical that any virus writers will be filing civil actions to protect their rights anyway, but it would make an interesting lawschool hypothetical.
Technically, I would say this virus is encrypted, so wouldn't broadcasting a way to "crack" the virus on slashdot be a violation of the DMCA?
Well now, that's an awefully defeatest attitude. I say damn the torpedoes. No computer needs more than one account and that account is root. Real men run as root.
Damn, I thought exactly the same thing when I read the blurb!
Is their software smart enough to tell the difference between terrorism planning and a Desi wedding announcement?
Good point. If eyes were so damn great, we wouldn't have had to invent beer to overcome them.
Oh yeah? Well, what if it's spam adveretising websites that show pornographic pictures of child rape? Huh? Huh? Huh?
This seems like this is a standard tactic of companies that can't compete in the marketplace. It looks kind of like the SCO suit.
This question doesn't make sense. The topic concerns whether or not IT professionals should unionize. I think they should in order to maximize the benifits to them.
I never said American IT workers were inherently more worthy than European or Asian IT workers. If you want my personal opinion on the worth of American IT workers, I would posit that they are less worthy than their European or Asian counterparts because of their colosal egos, their silly flame wars over terminology minutiae (Linux vs. Gnu Linux, UNIX vs. BSD, etc.), and their general inability to program an application that performs its function well and doesn't perform anything that isn't its function. But that is beside the point.
An even better solution for IT workers generally would be if all IT workers, world-wide, unionized into one large union. Then they would be able to extract the maximum benefit for their group members. Not unioinizing simply allows the owners of corporations to have disproportinate power over the people with the actual necessary skills.
Let's revisit this topic in five years or so when the far more qualified Chinese, Indians, and Russians are doing you job for a fraction of your pay and you are unemployed and unemployable. You miss the point. The point is not to level the playing field between you and other workers, it is to level the playing field between the workers and the oweners.
Just like manufacturing jobs, tech jobs will move overseas as soon as the new MS and Intel universities in India and China begin churning out thier graduates who will do the same work as an American for far less pay and benefits. There is nothing magical about the tech industry that imunizes it to market forces any more than the manufacturing industry. China already makes nearly all the computer components, why not software? That's the next logical step.
"Unions are great at representing manual workers who perform repetitive tasks and who have a very horizontal organisation structure."
Not really. See, Unions is short for "Trade Unions" or "Trades Union," as the Brits say. They are collectives of skilled workers, i.e. tradesmen. Tradesmen might be carpenters, machinests, or even programmers. The reason why a union has any force at all is because these skilled workes cannot simply be replaced, if they could, then the union would have no benefit, as is the case with some modern unions. Unions with no leverage generally collapse.
Failing to realize the benefit in having everyone with a particular skill work together to maximize their individual benefits, evidences a lack of vision or a rejection of game theory.
However, this attitude certianly benefits the people who own companies, and I am sure they are very happy.