I'm pretty sure CDs didn't exist when Hendrix recorded that "original" CD you've got. If you're listening to music on any recorded format instead of live, you're missing out on a lot of quality, and I don't see how you can possibly call yourself an audiophile if you're willing to compromise by listening to "good enough" digital recordings (or, even worse, vinyl).
All music should be listened to live in an acoustically perfect space, and anyone who disagrees doesn't deserve to have ears.
Apache is the most widely-used http server. It could be 50% more secure or 50% less secure than IIS, and we'd still see a lot more exploits for Apache.
By what mechanism do you think these pollutants are being "attached" to the water molecules? If there's anything attached to a molecule besides 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, it's not a water molecule.
Maybe you overestimated your own grasp of chemistry.
The ISP of the innocent user probably isn't in the United States and won't care if your local police department wants to know where the information was sent. (You do report every phishing attempt to the police, right? And they don't tell you to stop wasting their time, right?)
Personally I'm shocked that phishing isn't investigated using the same forensic techniques used in a high-profile murder case. Shocked.
It's hardly news that the phone companies keep logs of who you're calling; the only news in the recent stores is that they've been turning over their entire logs to the NSA.
The police have been able to get suspects' phone records from the phone companies for years. If we're to believe the writers at Law & Order and people recently defending the NSA program, they don't even need a warrant if the content of the communications isn't being revealed.
If you actually read your contract with your ISP, you'd see that what you think they're selling you isn't actually what you agreed to pay them for.
And if you think "I didn't read the contract so it doesn't apply to me" is going to hold up in court if they shut off your service and you try suing them for breach of contract, good luck with that.
Not as ridiculous as spelling ridiculous that way, though.
Hey, give the guy some credit. At least his misspelling was original. Everyone using "rediculous" was starting to get old. It's about time someone offered a bold new way to misspell the 2nd most commonly misspelled word on/.. I was starting to luuze faith in individuality.
And I think it's reasonable to assume that if someone says they were looking for top secret information about UFOs that they believe the US military is trying to keep secret from the rest of the world for nefarious purposes, that they probably don't really think the sites they're accessing are supposed to be public.
if you go over to a friends house and follow him in the door can he go and call the police and have you arrested for trespassing.
Yes.
Of course, he'd no longer be your friend, and would be risking prosecution for making false statements to the police when you convinced them that he invited you in and then called them because he's an idiot.
I think it says a lot about just how bad the article summary is that I can't figure out why you're talking about USC when I was talking about whether the 1st Amendment had anything to do with a completely unrelated case. It appears that the summary is just a quoted paragraph that really has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual article besides providing some background information on this unrelated case. It's certainly not "news".
In any event, whistleblowers are protected by specific statutes that recognize the importance of reveals certain secrets, not by an absolute right to free speech. Try getting a federal job working with highly classified material that reveals no wrongdoing whatsoever on the governments part, and then publically leaking that information. If your leak doesn't serve a compelling public interest, I think you'll find that the courts won't really care that your crime is an act of speech.
That was exactly my point. The problem isn't with laws that make it illegal to circumvent security, but with those that make it illegal to do something you have a right to do in the first place (like enter your own home or format shift some copyrighted content for your own use) because there happens to be some form of security-breaking involved in the process.
Laws against breaking someone else's security to do something you wouldn't be allowed to do even if there was no security apparatus in place aren't really susceptible to the some sort of objections.
Convictions don't set precedents at all. Your worry about prosecutors getting convictions vacated based on what precedents they might set is completely groundless, and you can rest assured that the motivation behind vacating this sentence had nothing to do with it.
Legal precedents are only made by actual court opinions. Some random prosecutor can't create precendent by his choice of whether to prosecute a case, or our entire legal system would be (even more than it is) hopelessly broken.
If someone convicted of murder appeals, and before the appeal is heard the prosecuter becomes aware of new evidence that exonerates the defendant and moves to vacate the conviction, do you think that all future murders in the relevant jurisdiction should suddenly become legal?
Criminalizing the circumvention of security is exactly the problem many people have with laws such as the DMCA.
I thought the problem people had with the DMCA was that it prevents consumers from exercising rights (fair use copying) over content that they would have if they purchased it in an older, non-DRMed format without breaking the law.
I'd think that very few people would be opposed to criminalizing circumvention of security per se, in cases where there wasn't assumed to be some underlying right to do whatever the security is preventing you from doing.
Would you be opposed to criminal penalties for someone who picks the lock on your front door, as long as he doesn't actually come in and steal anything?
That said, I wouldn't want to hire a lawyer who thinks that the 1st Amendment is likely to be interpreted by any court as protecting speech that reveals "secret" information, especially if it's done by breaking into a computer system in the process.
The fact that the charges were later vacated by the prosecution might indicate that they didn't really have a case, but I don't think the 1st Amendment is likely to be the reason why.
Redbox is available in 1 of the 20 largest cities in the US. The Internet is available is all 20 of the largest 20 cities in the US.
Competing with Netflix and Blockbuster isn't going to work. I don't think they're too worried about the ability to compete in Houston and a bunch of small markets.
Actually, it was created in response to stupid fat Americans who thought that it was a good idea to lose weight by eating more fat and cutting out carbohydrates.
You'd hope the fact that the Atkins diet fad has subsided enough that Coke would eliminate their low-carb product was a sign that people realized it's better to eat fewer calories in a balanced diet and get some exercise than to be thin and die from heart disease, but it's probably far more likely that the people driving the fad just all switched to a pill.
It's not just about money; no politician with Presidential aspirations (which, although most of them won't admit it, is all of them) is going to risk pissing off Iowa.
You think giving the voters in the Red States a newly legal cash crop to grow (guess who the big farm states voted for in the last election) is going to piss them off more than sending money to the Evil Communists Who Want To Kill Us All in Cuba? Your political savvy is astounding.
Slashdot Mirror
All music should be listened to live in an acoustically perfect space, and anyone who disagrees doesn't deserve to have ears.
"Free as in Freedom Fries."
Apache is the most widely-used http server. It could be 50% more secure or 50% less secure than IIS, and we'd still see a lot more exploits for Apache.
The number of people who care enough about DRM to boycott it is far closer to 5 than the number of people who are willing to buy DRMed content is.
Maybe you overestimated your own grasp of chemistry.
Personally I'm shocked that phishing isn't investigated using the same forensic techniques used in a high-profile murder case. Shocked.
To really be safe, I always call the FDIC before each online transaction to make sure the "bank" I've been dealing with for years even exists.
Or, in this case, bad punctuation.
The police have been able to get suspects' phone records from the phone companies for years. If we're to believe the writers at Law & Order and people recently defending the NSA program, they don't even need a warrant if the content of the communications isn't being revealed.
And if you think "I didn't read the contract so it doesn't apply to me" is going to hold up in court if they shut off your service and you try suing them for breach of contract, good luck with that.
Not as ridiculous as spelling ridiculous that way, though.
Hey, give the guy some credit. At least his misspelling was original. Everyone using "rediculous" was starting to get old. It's about time someone offered a bold new way to misspell the 2nd most commonly misspelled word on /.. I was starting to luuze faith in individuality.
And I think it's reasonable to assume that if someone says they were looking for top secret information about UFOs that they believe the US military is trying to keep secret from the rest of the world for nefarious purposes, that they probably don't really think the sites they're accessing are supposed to be public.
Yes.
Of course, he'd no longer be your friend, and would be risking prosecution for making false statements to the police when you convinced them that he invited you in and then called them because he's an idiot.
In any event, whistleblowers are protected by specific statutes that recognize the importance of reveals certain secrets, not by an absolute right to free speech. Try getting a federal job working with highly classified material that reveals no wrongdoing whatsoever on the governments part, and then publically leaking that information. If your leak doesn't serve a compelling public interest, I think you'll find that the courts won't really care that your crime is an act of speech.
Precedent is only made by appeals courts in the US, whether it's in a criminal or a civil case.
Laws against breaking someone else's security to do something you wouldn't be allowed to do even if there was no security apparatus in place aren't really susceptible to the some sort of objections.
Convictions don't set precedents at all. Your worry about prosecutors getting convictions vacated based on what precedents they might set is completely groundless, and you can rest assured that the motivation behind vacating this sentence had nothing to do with it.
If someone convicted of murder appeals, and before the appeal is heard the prosecuter becomes aware of new evidence that exonerates the defendant and moves to vacate the conviction, do you think that all future murders in the relevant jurisdiction should suddenly become legal?
I thought the problem people had with the DMCA was that it prevents consumers from exercising rights (fair use copying) over content that they would have if they purchased it in an older, non-DRMed format without breaking the law.
I'd think that very few people would be opposed to criminalizing circumvention of security per se, in cases where there wasn't assumed to be some underlying right to do whatever the security is preventing you from doing.
Would you be opposed to criminal penalties for someone who picks the lock on your front door, as long as he doesn't actually come in and steal anything?
That said, I wouldn't want to hire a lawyer who thinks that the 1st Amendment is likely to be interpreted by any court as protecting speech that reveals "secret" information, especially if it's done by breaking into a computer system in the process.
The fact that the charges were later vacated by the prosecution might indicate that they didn't really have a case, but I don't think the 1st Amendment is likely to be the reason why.
Competing with Netflix and Blockbuster isn't going to work. I don't think they're too worried about the ability to compete in Houston and a bunch of small markets.
You'd hope the fact that the Atkins diet fad has subsided enough that Coke would eliminate their low-carb product was a sign that people realized it's better to eat fewer calories in a balanced diet and get some exercise than to be thin and die from heart disease, but it's probably far more likely that the people driving the fad just all switched to a pill.
And to be really pedantic, if it's real tea shouldn't the term be "detheinated" as you're removing theine? :)
It's not just about money; no politician with Presidential aspirations (which, although most of them won't admit it, is all of them) is going to risk pissing off Iowa.
You think giving the voters in the Red States a newly legal cash crop to grow (guess who the big farm states voted for in the last election) is going to piss them off more than sending money to the Evil Communists Who Want To Kill Us All in Cuba? Your political savvy is astounding.