This ruling was based on the idea that the user chose to have such a program on their machine. Obviously the judge was not one who has used the internet very heavily.
It is not the job of the law to protect the foolish from themselves.
Copyright law provides certain protection to the author of copyrighted works.
Yes, it does.
The copyrighted works cannot be used beyond the normal "fair use" provided for by copyright law without the "express writtten permission" of the author
Whoa, copyright law says NO SUCH THING. Copyright, despite the misleading name, gives the author the sole right to make copies of his work. USE does not eneter into it (hence the doctrine of first sale.)
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
That's a rather asinine statement, you know. Muslims pray facing Mecca. The only Muslims who pray with their backs to Jerusalem are the ones who live between the two cities.
Good god man, leave that mess alone and hire a professional that knows what they are doing. Don't ever put your life in the hands of Slashdot; are you utterly insane?
I'm half expecting the next "Ask Slashdot" to start, "Dear Slashdot, This morning I was diagnosed with acute Apendicitis. I've fooled around a little with self dentistry in the past, but I'm not entirely sure I'm up to a job of this magnitude..."
A hardware/software vendor actually taking responsibility for the code they write?! Is this a joke? Microsoft would NEVER do this.
Everyday it looks more and more like my next machine will be an Apple. What Microsoft fails to understand is that their customers hate Microsoft's "Screw the customer" attitude more than the bugs in their products.
You must have missed the fact that it took a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT to acheive this end.
Apple ATTEMPTED to utilize the "Screw the customer" attitude, but failed.
Vin Diesel would have to get his acting up to "caveman" though
Stephen Speilberg disagrees with your assessment of Vin Diesel's acting ability--or at least I'd have to assume so, since the role of Caparzo in Saving Private Ryan was written especially for him...
There is no reason the machine could not be on a private network and still be infected.
Yes, I realize that. In fact, I even noted that in the post you replied to--you know, when I said "(or connected to machines connected to the public network.)"
If the ATMs aren't connected to the public internet, then something on their private network is--which is just as bad (as this very case proves!)
No it isn't. Seriously. While it would certainly inconvenience you if the ATM were to crash while you're using it (including up to a lost card, if it's an older machine that still "takes" the card instead of swiping it), the transaction model should ensure that even if a machine were to crash or be disconnected in the middle of a transaction, the transaction will be completely unrolled. That's the point of transactions, and these machines are designed to deal with failures.
You're wrong--it's not scary that the ATM is running Windows. It's not even scary that the ATM is in a reboot loop. What's scary is the ATM is connected to a public network (or connected to machines connected to the public network) such that it was able to contract this virus.
Seriously. If you fancy a laugh, and you're working in the City of London, then go to the Halifax ATM between Canon Street and Poultry. Then try, really, really hard to stop laughing...
I don't know why I have to point this out, but that's NOT funny--it's freaking SCARY.
groups that oppose gun control leave off the first half of the Second Amendment and ONLY quote the second half (you only included the last quarter with an implied reference to the third quarter).
It was the only reference I could make to the 2nd amendment in my slashsig that would a) fit into the character limit, and b) make my point. I agree, we'd all be much better off if both sides of the debate were to reference the entire amendment instead of selected portions. That said...
Most people would agree that the militia cannot be considered to be well regulated if it is not fully aware of the number and/or sort of arms that the component members have. And it also could not be considered to be well regulated if it did not have a full accounting of the training and capabilities of those constituent members. If it didn't know their names, locations, et. al. And since "well regulated" was the first major thing that the founding fathers threw into this Amendment, it's irksome that people gloss over it or abandon it wholesale because it doesn't fit in with their ultimate goal: no regulation.
An obsolete definition of "regulate" (which was common useage at the time our constitution was written) is "in reference to a body of troops: well trained." I think it's farly obvious that if not "well trained" the meaning of regulate the founders would have attached would have been "to put in good order," and not "to pass laws."
Regardless, what you've written IS correct: The militia of today is NOT "well-regulated" by any of the two definitions I proposed--indeed, congress has been QUITE lax in its duty to both arm and train the militia, concentrating only on the organized militia (what would have been called a "select militia" in the 18th century, and what we generally refer to as the National Guard today) and all but ignoring the unorganized militia, which consists, by law, of every male between the ages of 17 and 45 years of age (and that's not some archaic 200 year old law, either--the last time the Militia Act was updated was in the 1950s.)
Congress has essentially abandonned its duty to arm and train the militia (the only remnant being the Civilian Marksmanship Program which is mostly targetted at younger shooters) and abandonned the idea of a well regulated militia along with it.
BUT--and this is a big but--that doesn't mean that the right to keep and bear arms is buried with the militia. The well regulated militia is the offered reasoning behind the right of the people to keep and bear arms--but absent that reasoning, the right remains.
By the way, VERY few of us have as our ultimate goal "no 'regulation'" (regulation as in laws.) Believe it or not, the National Rifle Association wrote the NICS (National Instant Check System) component of the Brady law. In general, gun owners agree that "the wrong people" (people convicted of violent crimes, for example) should not have the right to bear arms--they forfeited it (just like they forfeited their right to vote) upon their convictions. We just disagree with the laws that explicitly go after the law abiding (Chicago, DC gun bans, for example) while doing NOTHING to reduce crime--the stated reason why all these laws exist.
What part of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is so hard to understand?
The above is very easy to understand. To sum up the 2nd amendment in simple english:
A well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state... --therefore-- the right of the people (you know, the folks that actually comprise the militia, who would look pretty silly showing up for muster without weapons) to keep and bear arms (generally speaking, guns suitable for military use, though it includes other things) shall not be infringed.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Or are you suggesting that somehow "the people" mentioned in the 2nd amendment is a different "the people" than that mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Being anonymous is great at the cost of a corrupt voting system. Not to say it's bad....but being anonymous does have it's cost. That's what you need to understand. Being anonymous isn't a right....it's an excuse.
Just to clarify, that was my sig, even though it seemed to blend in with the rest of the post. It's a reference to the 2nd amendment.
I'm pretty sure the parent of your post meant something similar to this method: you go vote very much the way you do now (by presenting your id and signing a sheet of paper)...then you assign your vote to a number (that is not associated with your name in any record) and you make those numbers public, so that you can check against them.
I agree that a system like thisis a MUST when it comes to verifying electronic voting. My big problem with it is that because of the paper trail, the individual VOTER may trouble.
Consider, we have a secret ballot for a reason--for example, to prevent your boss from pressuring you to vote for a certain candidate at the cost of your job, or to keep the local klansmen from going after folks who dared vote for a black candidate.
Under the current system, only you know who you voted for--you can always lie if pressured by someone to know how you voted. With a public paper trail, people with leverage can demand to know your receipt number, and CONFIRM what you tell them. This is BAD.
How about using a giant outdoor mist-screen to show flickery 8mm. movies of ghosts from a concealed projector, in order to scare away the residents from an old village where you have been secretly conducting a highly lucrative but probably illegal operation, so they won't nick your money / grass you up?
Oh, wait, I think this might have been done before.....
And they would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those blasted kids.
I'd tell you what the joke actually is, but unfortunately I'm under an NDA. Sorry.
Luckily, I am not covered by that NDA, though copyright may come into play. Nevertheless, I am willing to risk the ire of the feds and reproduce the joke here:
I cant stand a for-profit corporation seeking donations and charity.
In general, neither can I.
If they collect 2 million, and only need 1.3 million for legal fees, the rest goes into execs pockets.
Err, no, this is not a "RedHat Legal Defense Fund," this is an "OPEN SOURCE Legal Defense Fund" which is rather different. To quote the Redhat press release:
Red Hat said that its new fund, called the Open Source Now Fund, would "cover legal expenses associated with infringement claims brought against companies developing software" under the open-source licensing rules.
So this fund would also aid folks like MySQL, Apache, etc, and not just RedHat.
Download the firmware updated, dd the right section, mount it cramfs. Look at the busybox binary. run strings on it. There is at least 1 error message that isn't in standard busybox. That is a surefire sign that they made a modification to it.
As for zebra, I heavily suspect it's the same deal.
Slashdot Mirror
This ruling was based on the idea that the user chose to have such a program on their machine. Obviously the judge was not one who has used the internet very heavily.
It is not the job of the law to protect the foolish from themselves.
Copyright law provides certain protection to the author of copyrighted works.
Yes, it does.
The copyrighted works cannot be used beyond the normal "fair use" provided for by copyright law without the "express writtten permission" of the author
Whoa, copyright law says NO SUCH THING. Copyright, despite the misleading name, gives the author the sole right to make copies of his work. USE does not eneter into it (hence the doctrine of first sale.)
Can we afford dual laptops, one with sanitary protection?
For when the laptop has that not so fresh feeling?
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
That's a rather asinine statement, you know. Muslims pray facing Mecca. The only Muslims who pray with their backs to Jerusalem are the ones who live between the two cities.
Good god man, leave that mess alone and hire a professional that knows what they are doing. Don't ever put your life in the hands of Slashdot; are you utterly insane?
I'm half expecting the next "Ask Slashdot" to start, "Dear Slashdot, This morning I was diagnosed with acute Apendicitis. I've fooled around a little with self dentistry in the past, but I'm not entirely sure I'm up to a job of this magnitude..."
A hardware/software vendor actually taking responsibility for the code they write?! Is this a joke?
Microsoft would NEVER do this.
Everyday it looks more and more like my next machine will be an Apple. What Microsoft fails to understand is that their customers hate Microsoft's "Screw the customer" attitude more than the bugs in their products.
You must have missed the fact that it took a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT to acheive this end.
Apple ATTEMPTED to utilize the "Screw the customer" attitude, but failed.
Vin Diesel would have to get his acting up to "caveman" though
Stephen Speilberg disagrees with your assessment of Vin Diesel's acting ability--or at least I'd have to assume so, since the role of Caparzo in Saving Private Ryan was written especially for him...
There is no reason the machine could not be on a private network and still be infected.
Yes, I realize that. In fact, I even noted that in the post you replied to--you know, when I said "(or connected to machines connected to the public network.)"
If the ATMs aren't connected to the public internet, then something on their private network is--which is just as bad (as this very case proves!)
No it isn't. Seriously. While it would certainly inconvenience you if the ATM were to crash while you're using it (including up to a lost card, if it's an older machine that still "takes" the card instead of swiping it), the transaction model should ensure that even if a machine were to crash or be disconnected in the middle of a transaction, the transaction will be completely unrolled. That's the point of transactions, and these machines are designed to deal with failures.
You're wrong--it's not scary that the ATM is running Windows. It's not even scary that the ATM is in a reboot loop. What's scary is the ATM is connected to a public network (or connected to machines connected to the public network) such that it was able to contract this virus.
Inconvenience has NOTHING to do with it.
Seriously. If you fancy a laugh, and you're working in the City of London, then go to the Halifax ATM between Canon Street and Poultry.
Then try, really, really hard to stop laughing...
I don't know why I have to point this out, but that's NOT funny--it's freaking SCARY.
You actually believe that reading /. makes you smart?
Yeah, what do you think this is, a Holiday Inn Express or something?
groups that oppose gun control leave off the first half of the Second Amendment and ONLY quote the second half (you only included the last quarter with an implied reference to the third quarter).
It was the only reference I could make to the 2nd amendment in my slashsig that would a) fit into the character limit, and b) make my point. I agree, we'd all be much better off if both sides of the debate were to reference the entire amendment instead of selected portions. That said...
Most people would agree that the militia cannot be considered to be well regulated if it is not fully aware of the number and/or sort of arms that the component members have. And it also could not be considered to be well regulated if it did not have a full accounting of the training and capabilities of those constituent members. If it didn't know their names, locations, et. al. And since "well regulated" was the first major thing that the founding fathers threw into this Amendment, it's irksome that people gloss over it or abandon it wholesale because it doesn't fit in with their ultimate goal: no regulation.
An obsolete definition of "regulate" (which was common useage at the time our constitution was written) is "in reference to a body of troops: well trained." I think it's farly obvious that if not "well trained" the meaning of regulate the founders would have attached would have been "to put in good order," and not "to pass laws."
Regardless, what you've written IS correct: The militia of today is NOT "well-regulated" by any of the two definitions I proposed--indeed, congress has been QUITE lax in its duty to both arm and train the militia, concentrating only on the organized militia (what would have been called a "select militia" in the 18th century, and what we generally refer to as the National Guard today) and all but ignoring the unorganized militia, which consists, by law, of every male between the ages of 17 and 45 years of age (and that's not some archaic 200 year old law, either--the last time the Militia Act was updated was in the 1950s.)
Congress has essentially abandonned its duty to arm and train the militia (the only remnant being the Civilian Marksmanship Program which is mostly targetted at younger shooters) and abandonned the idea of a well regulated militia along with it.
BUT--and this is a big but--that doesn't mean that the right to keep and bear arms is buried with the militia. The well regulated militia is the offered reasoning behind the right of the people to keep and bear arms--but absent that reasoning, the right remains.
By the way, VERY few of us have as our ultimate goal "no 'regulation'" (regulation as in laws.) Believe it or not, the National Rifle Association wrote the NICS (National Instant Check System) component of the Brady law. In general, gun owners agree that "the wrong people" (people convicted of violent crimes, for example) should not have the right to bear arms--they forfeited it (just like they forfeited their right to vote) upon their convictions. We just disagree with the laws that explicitly go after the law abiding (Chicago, DC gun bans, for example) while doing NOTHING to reduce crime--the stated reason why all these laws exist.
What part of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is so hard to understand?
The above is very easy to understand. To sum up the 2nd amendment in simple english:
A well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state... --therefore-- the right of the people (you know, the folks that actually comprise the militia, who would look pretty silly showing up for muster without weapons) to keep and bear arms (generally speaking, guns suitable for military use, though it includes other things) shall not be infringed.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Or are you suggesting that somehow "the people" mentioned in the 2nd amendment is a different "the people" than that mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th?
Being anonymous is great at the cost of a corrupt voting system. Not to say it's bad....but being anonymous does have it's cost. That's what you need to understand. Being anonymous isn't a right....it's an excuse.
Just to clarify, that was my sig, even though it seemed to blend in with the rest of the post. It's a reference to the 2nd amendment.
I'm pretty sure the parent of your post meant something similar to this method: you go vote very much the way you do now (by presenting your id and signing a sheet of paper)...then you assign your vote to a number (that is not associated with your name in any record) and you make those numbers public, so that you can check against them.
I agree that a system like thisis a MUST when it comes to verifying electronic voting. My big problem with it is that because of the paper trail, the individual VOTER may trouble.
Consider, we have a secret ballot for a reason--for example, to prevent your boss from pressuring you to vote for a certain candidate at the cost of your job, or to keep the local klansmen from going after folks who dared vote for a black candidate.
Under the current system, only you know who you voted for--you can always lie if pressured by someone to know how you voted. With a public paper trail, people with leverage can demand to know your receipt number, and CONFIRM what you tell them. This is BAD.
How about using a giant outdoor mist-screen to show flickery 8mm. movies of ghosts from a concealed projector, in order to scare away the residents from an old village where you have been secretly conducting a highly lucrative but probably illegal operation, so they won't nick your money / grass you up?
.....
Oh, wait, I think this might have been done before
And they would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those blasted kids.
Sure! This vapor+projector equipment must be way-way cheaper than cardboard used today..
He didn't say cheap, he said realistic--which is rarely cheap.
The parent is right--that IS an extremely good fit for this technology.
Someone will undoubtedly reply to this saying they have patented posting on /. patent stories
/. patent stories.
I have patented posting on
Luckily, I am not covered by that NDA, though copyright may come into play. Nevertheless, I am willing to risk the ire of the feds and reproduce the joke here:
Your tax dollars at work, folks...
Oh, I kill me....
I hope you finish that particular task soon, the puns are killing me!
One Key to Rule them all, One key to find them, One Key to bring them all and in the gui bind them.
In the land of Redmond, where the shadows lie?
In general, neither can I.
If they collect 2 million, and only need 1.3 million for legal fees, the rest goes into execs pockets.
Err, no, this is not a "RedHat Legal Defense Fund," this is an "OPEN SOURCE Legal Defense Fund" which is rather different. To quote the Redhat press release:
So this fund would also aid folks like MySQL, Apache, etc, and not just RedHat.
Boil the brauts in bud and onions, grill for a couple a minutes on the grill:
No second guessing if the brauts are cooked all the way though and it tastes GREAT!
Isn't this the part where you're supposed to tell me than "Johnsonville is Heaven on a Bun...?"
Just asking...
And as the author of the post linked below states, you're probably wrong.
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=73
I'll quote:
Look at the size of the file. It cannot be
the whole kernel source, only patches.
I just did look at the file size. It's 25.4MB, which is inline with the full kernel sources.