[...]your company has documented that you installed the pirated software, and they will do their best to make you the fall guy for it all
Wouldn't work for the company. No amount of documentation of your activities would get them off the hook. They would be guilty if they knew or didn't know, and if they instructed you or didn't instruct you to infringe. The company's best defense would be to show that they had procedures in place to periodically audit their computers, and they found and removed the illegal software as soon as they could have reasonably been expected to do so. Anything less and they will end up paying big bucks. On the other hand, if *you* document the infringement, later you might be able to convince the jury that you were a victim (along with the copyright holder). Then, you might get away with it with no penalty (but no guarantees).
Whistleblower protection is for an employee's protection from the company's retribution. The copyright holder isn't required to protect you from penalties for your participation in copyright infringement, although they may voluntarily do so if you are the one who reports the infringement (but again, they wouldn't be required to do so).
The truth is, while everyone is responsible by law to know if a copyright is being infringed, in reality (as you point out) it's not practical and a jury would probably side with you when it came to setting a fine. If you *do* know, however, and the copyright holder can prove it, then look out cause all bets are off (as they say:).
Keep in mind there's a difference in copyright infringement and being penalized for it (if you copy it without permission then it is infringement - the infringing part is the act of copying, not whether you know it is copyrighted or not).
I agree with you but copyright law doesn't. You can still be found guilty and the minimum fine is $200 per occurrence last I heard. However, I would also agree that a jury would probably feel the same as you in most circumstances and acquit (but this would be from a human standpoint, not from a point of law).
Doesn't work. A signed statement from your boss saying that he takes all the blame isn't an authorized contract for the copyright holder. In other words, it is the copyright holder's wishes that you have to abide by, not your boss's.
There is no protection just because you are an employee following orders. Technically, you and all of your supervisors all the way up to the president of the company, and the company itself, are individually and collectively guilty of copyright infringement, even if you don't know it is going on. If you *do* know then you are not only guilty, but willfully in violation. In either case, all of you can be sued individually.
Speculating here, in practice the copyright holder would probably attempt to sue anyone with the ability to pay (which may still include you, although for a smaller amount than the company might be sued for). And in front of a jury you might get off using the victim defense (i.e. if you could convince the jury that you were afraid of losing your job, etc.). You'd probably still be found guilty but you might escape a fine (at least in a civil suit). At the very least you should document each time you are told to install an illegal copy f something (who, when, what, where, and your protest to your supervisor at the time). Sounds like that could be a full time chore in your case.
No doubt lots of fraud going on but simply having the SSAN isn't all you need. You would also need at least some employment history data.
Instead of another central database which conveniently aggregates all your personal information in one place, ripe for the hacking, what we need is a law passed that requires companies to remove the SSAN from their databases. All of them. The company can replace it with a unique identifier if they want but there is no reason for them to have the SSAN in the first place. Yes, I know it's the one number everyone remembers when someone is trying to identify you, but that is a poor reason for every database on the planet to contain such an important identifier. Let's develop a better way to authenticate someone, why don't we?
The usual plan is that both parties use minutes. However, there are plenty of different plans. Some plans, for example, do not use minutes on either end if both parties have an account with the same company. Sometimes, you can define a circle of contacts and not use minutes when you call one of them. There are so many endless varitions that it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons.
A practical measurement (subjective but informative) is how much do you pay for cell phone service and how much do you use it? For example, I pay $180 per month for three family members (one separate account for me and a shared account for the wife and teenager). The adults generally use the cell phones as much as they have call to do (i.e. we do not run into minute limitations with our normal calling habits but we also do not call frivously) and the teenager is instructed that if he ever goes over the minute limit then he immediately loses his phone (he has had the phone for 6 months and has NEVER gone over, even though he shares minutes with his mom - he know's I'm serious about it:). Based on the usage I see in the monthly bill, we could probably reduce the current monthly cost by about $20 but I'm not inclined to do so at the moment (I'd rather pay $240 annually than risk a couple of month's going over the limit -- kind of like insurance).
We use the cell phone to make free (as in no extra fees) long distance and roaming calls, which means I reduce my home phone bill (we make lots of out-of-state calls using the cell phones and use the landline primarily for emergency backup purposes). And I am a consultant, so the cell phone allows me to be reached whereever I am in the continental US. So, all in all I feel the $180 per month is a fair cost for the value I receive.
Companies outsource jobs primarily because it is cheaper than providing the job themselves (this is especially true for jobs outsourced to other countries). We all know that. Part of the reason the jobs are cheaper to the company is because they do not have to worry about a host of expenses, including for example the cost of complying with governmental regulations related to the outsourced job.
I personally believe, however, that a company should still be required to enforce all regulations which protect the citizens of the source country (in this case, the UK). If it turns out the company is not able to force compliance with the governing regulation for whatever reason then it should be illegal to outsource that particular function. And if they are able to force compliance then the source company should be held liable for failure to comply by the outsourcing company with all of the associated penalties. The result would be that the source company could not avoid the cost of insuring regulations were followed and the outsourcing company would incur the cost of compliance as well.
This would have at least two effects. The cost of outsourcing would be more in line with competition in the source country and the citizens of the source country would not lose the protection afforded them by law.
Chief Spokesperson for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) today confirmed that the new and improved Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC), first announced last January, is fully functional. "We had our first real world test yesterday when an ICBM launch was detected from an as yet unidentified submarine in the Barents Sea. I am happy to report that the threat was eliminated without incident."
GameStop buys and sells used games also. Most young men who shop there are looking to turn an old game into cash for a new game. I would think eBay would be more competition to GameStop rather than Walmart.
While nVidia may enjoy this brief moment in the limelight with the fastest card, it may be short-lived once ATI comes out with their latest GPU technology, code-named R092064262670, which is suspected to come out within the next two minutes.
The scientists said they would ask US Strategic Command, normally charged with spotting incoming missiles, or other sky-based threats, for help in tracking down their spacecraft.
SAC: Unidentified incoming...ready all missiles...fire!!!
***WHAAMMMM***
SAC: Threat eliminated.
Scientists: SAC, you haven't seen our spacecraft, have you? It would sort of look like an ICBM fired by a Russian sub...
I'm sure everyone who has read the article noticed a gaggle of double-underlined words. These are (of course) one of the new ways to imbed more advertising into the web page. The technology is sold by Vibrant Media as a smart link between the work underlined and a pop-up ad for a contextual sales pitch (they call it contextual keyword advertising). The description from their web site "IntelliTXT(tm) is a pay-for-performance ad unit that delivers the advertiser's message via contextually-relevant keywords within article-based content." The ad that pops up is controlled by the webmaster (i.e. the technology isn't smart enough to figure the context out on its own yet). It's become a game of sorts just to point at the linked text and see how well the ad matches the context of the article. Some are OK, some are a bit iffy, some are downright funny. Case in point, "hardware" underlined on the second to the last page pops up an ad for kitchen cabinet hardware...not what I would call too relevant to an article about computer motherboards. Just thought I'd comment, in case you are paying for these kinds of ads. OK, back to the show...
I received a very clever phishing email the other day. It was good enough to make one want to click the link and make sure everything was OK. I receive lots of email from the "admins" of eBay concerned that someone is using my account nefariously. Those are always bogus, so not a problem. This one, however, had the following text (I saved it cause it was that good:):
"Dear eBay member, Yes, i can ship to your location, and i accept escrow for payment.
Thank you,cowboyup618"
Then, in a boxed message there was a button with the text "Please respond to the question on eBay by clicking the button below. You'll have the option to display your response directly on the listing."
If you notice, this simple message looks like it was from a seller and he had a bid from me. If I were an active bidder on eBay, I would be concerned that I had won a bid that I had forgotten about. It would be very easy for someone in this position to click on the button.
The real problem is not whether someone can or cannot create a paradox by traveling back in time. The real problem is that our understanding of what time is can't be correct. Unfortunately, we have no real clue as to what time really is. We have found only one proven way to influence time, e.g. by motion. And even that is relative to the observer. This means we all experience time differently, however small the difference. Another, as yet unproven, hypothesis is that by approaching a temperature of absolute zero, and dragging the fabric of spacetime around by using a very large gravitational field, time will begin to act like a physical dimension. So, until we can test what time is, any statement about whether we can or cannot create a paradox by traveling back in time (whatever that means) is premature.
Doesn't work. At some point you would have had to decide to go to the past or not. What you are saying is that the past already contains whatever decision you made. If so that would mean you had no real choice. There has to be a beginning in order to have free will. If the past already contains all of our decisions of the present then we couldn't have really decided anything.
You are also thinking of the future as something undetermined but the past as determined and unchangable. Our present is the past of the future. For the past to be unchangable our present would also have to be unchangable. Again, we are back to no free will.
The whole point of time travel presenting us a paradox is because we think we have free will. If there is no possibility of a paradox then we have no free will.
Really? The present would be the history of the future. Is the present read only? If so then there is no free will. Or are you saying that the present is the leading edge of time? Then why does the passage of time slow at close to light speed? Are we causing ripples in the edge of time or what? Does the Universe somehow distinguish between someone who belongs at a given point in time from someone who doesn't? If so, how? Or are you restricting time travel to some ghostly visit? If you are, then you are implying another state of existence outside of the normally accepted one time and three spatial dimensions.
There's so many things wrong with the logic in this article, I don't know where to begin...
Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious
If someone did change the past, would people in the present know it? Can you test that hypothesis? If not then it is just conjecture.
It is as if, in some strange way, the present takes account of all the possible routes back into the past and, because your father is certainly alive, none of the routes back can possibly lead to his death.
If this statement is true then there is no free will (i.e. the events of the future dictate the events of the past as much as the events of the past dictate the events of the future).
"You wouldn't be able to kill him because the very fact that he is alive today is going to conspire against you so that you'll never end up taking that path leads you to killing him."
Only if the Universe itself is sentient.
It's said that the outcome of a quantum event is unknown until observed, and the act of observing controls the end state. Fine, but...one of the great mysteries of quantum mechanics is that an infinite number of probabilities at the quantum level always coalesce into precisely one predictable outcome at the macro level. Every time, no exceptions. Our whole study of physics is based on this assumption, else no test result could ever be relied upon. We know it happens but we don't know why. Are the infinite numbers of probabilities real? Or are they an illusion of something more fundamental? In order to show that quantum mechanics makes the past unchangeable, you first have to show how quantum probabilities produce the macro world around us. Until then, it is only wishful thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
[...]your company has documented that you installed the pirated software, and they will do their best to make you the fall guy for it all
Wouldn't work for the company. No amount of documentation of your activities would get them off the hook. They would be guilty if they knew or didn't know, and if they instructed you or didn't instruct you to infringe. The company's best defense would be to show that they had procedures in place to periodically audit their computers, and they found and removed the illegal software as soon as they could have reasonably been expected to do so. Anything less and they will end up paying big bucks. On the other hand, if *you* document the infringement, later you might be able to convince the jury that you were a victim (along with the copyright holder). Then, you might get away with it with no penalty (but no guarantees).
Whistleblower protection is for an employee's protection from the company's retribution. The copyright holder isn't required to protect you from penalties for your participation in copyright infringement, although they may voluntarily do so if you are the one who reports the infringement (but again, they wouldn't be required to do so).
:).
The truth is, while everyone is responsible by law to know if a copyright is being infringed, in reality (as you point out) it's not practical and a jury would probably side with you when it came to setting a fine. If you *do* know, however, and the copyright holder can prove it, then look out cause all bets are off (as they say
Keep in mind there's a difference in copyright infringement and being penalized for it (if you copy it without permission then it is infringement - the infringing part is the act of copying, not whether you know it is copyrighted or not).
I agree with you but copyright law doesn't. You can still be found guilty and the minimum fine is $200 per occurrence last I heard. However, I would also agree that a jury would probably feel the same as you in most circumstances and acquit (but this would be from a human standpoint, not from a point of law).
Doesn't work. A signed statement from your boss saying that he takes all the blame isn't an authorized contract for the copyright holder. In other words, it is the copyright holder's wishes that you have to abide by, not your boss's.
An anonymous hotline doesn't help if you are turning over evidence in exchange for amnesty...
There is no protection just because you are an employee following orders. Technically, you and all of your supervisors all the way up to the president of the company, and the company itself, are individually and collectively guilty of copyright infringement, even if you don't know it is going on. If you *do* know then you are not only guilty, but willfully in violation. In either case, all of you can be sued individually.
Speculating here, in practice the copyright holder would probably attempt to sue anyone with the ability to pay (which may still include you, although for a smaller amount than the company might be sued for). And in front of a jury you might get off using the victim defense (i.e. if you could convince the jury that you were afraid of losing your job, etc.). You'd probably still be found guilty but you might escape a fine (at least in a civil suit). At the very least you should document each time you are told to install an illegal copy f something (who, when, what, where, and your protest to your supervisor at the time). Sounds like that could be a full time chore in your case.
No doubt lots of fraud going on but simply having the SSAN isn't all you need. You would also need at least some employment history data.
Instead of another central database which conveniently aggregates all your personal information in one place, ripe for the hacking, what we need is a law passed that requires companies to remove the SSAN from their databases. All of them. The company can replace it with a unique identifier if they want but there is no reason for them to have the SSAN in the first place. Yes, I know it's the one number everyone remembers when someone is trying to identify you, but that is a poor reason for every database on the planet to contain such an important identifier. Let's develop a better way to authenticate someone, why don't we?
Apparently, not all uses of p2p technology are illegal after all...someone send Senator Hatch a note on this, will ya?
The usual plan is that both parties use minutes. However, there are plenty of different plans. Some plans, for example, do not use minutes on either end if both parties have an account with the same company. Sometimes, you can define a circle of contacts and not use minutes when you call one of them. There are so many endless varitions that it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons.
:). Based on the usage I see in the monthly bill, we could probably reduce the current monthly cost by about $20 but I'm not inclined to do so at the moment (I'd rather pay $240 annually than risk a couple of month's going over the limit -- kind of like insurance).
A practical measurement (subjective but informative) is how much do you pay for cell phone service and how much do you use it? For example, I pay $180 per month for three family members (one separate account for me and a shared account for the wife and teenager). The adults generally use the cell phones as much as they have call to do (i.e. we do not run into minute limitations with our normal calling habits but we also do not call frivously) and the teenager is instructed that if he ever goes over the minute limit then he immediately loses his phone (he has had the phone for 6 months and has NEVER gone over, even though he shares minutes with his mom - he know's I'm serious about it
We use the cell phone to make free (as in no extra fees) long distance and roaming calls, which means I reduce my home phone bill (we make lots of out-of-state calls using the cell phones and use the landline primarily for emergency backup purposes). And I am a consultant, so the cell phone allows me to be reached whereever I am in the continental US. So, all in all I feel the $180 per month is a fair cost for the value I receive.
Once people aren't able to receive email from their friends and family, I predict a mass exit to other free email systems.
Companies outsource jobs primarily because it is cheaper than providing the job themselves (this is especially true for jobs outsourced to other countries). We all know that. Part of the reason the jobs are cheaper to the company is because they do not have to worry about a host of expenses, including for example the cost of complying with governmental regulations related to the outsourced job.
I personally believe, however, that a company should still be required to enforce all regulations which protect the citizens of the source country (in this case, the UK). If it turns out the company is not able to force compliance with the governing regulation for whatever reason then it should be illegal to outsource that particular function. And if they are able to force compliance then the source company should be held liable for failure to comply by the outsourcing company with all of the associated penalties. The result would be that the source company could not avoid the cost of insuring regulations were followed and the outsourcing company would incur the cost of compliance as well.
This would have at least two effects. The cost of outsourcing would be more in line with competition in the source country and the citizens of the source country would not lose the protection afforded them by law.
200,000 accounts at $7.75 US would be 1.5 million per month. Nice side business.
Yes, I know why the booster failed...
Chief Spokesperson for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) today confirmed that the new and improved Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC), first announced last January, is fully functional. "We had our first real world test yesterday when an ICBM launch was detected from an as yet unidentified submarine in the Barents Sea. I am happy to report that the threat was eliminated without incident."
GameStop buys and sells used games also. Most young men who shop there are looking to turn an old game into cash for a new game. I would think eBay would be more competition to GameStop rather than Walmart.
While nVidia may enjoy this brief moment in the limelight with the fastest card, it may be short-lived once ATI comes out with their latest GPU technology, code-named R092064262670, which is suspected to come out within the next two minutes.
The scientists said they would ask US Strategic Command, normally charged with spotting incoming missiles, or other sky-based threats, for help in tracking down their spacecraft.
SAC: Unidentified incoming...ready all missiles...fire!!!
***WHAAMMMM***
SAC: Threat eliminated.
Scientists: SAC, you haven't seen our spacecraft, have you? It would sort of look like an ICBM fired by a Russian sub...
A conspiracy involving Microsoft? No way!
I'm sure everyone who has read the article noticed a gaggle of double-underlined words. These are (of course) one of the new ways to imbed more advertising into the web page. The technology is sold by Vibrant Media as a smart link between the work underlined and a pop-up ad for a contextual sales pitch (they call it contextual keyword advertising). The description from their web site "IntelliTXT(tm) is a pay-for-performance ad unit that delivers the advertiser's message via contextually-relevant keywords within article-based content." The ad that pops up is controlled by the webmaster (i.e. the technology isn't smart enough to figure the context out on its own yet). It's become a game of sorts just to point at the linked text and see how well the ad matches the context of the article. Some are OK, some are a bit iffy, some are downright funny. Case in point, "hardware" underlined on the second to the last page pops up an ad for kitchen cabinet hardware...not what I would call too relevant to an article about computer motherboards. Just thought I'd comment, in case you are paying for these kinds of ads. OK, back to the show...
I received a very clever phishing email the other day. It was good enough to make one want to click the link and make sure everything was OK. I receive lots of email from the "admins" of eBay concerned that someone is using my account nefariously. Those are always bogus, so not a problem. This one, however, had the following text (I saved it cause it was that good :):
"Dear eBay member, Yes, i can ship to your location, and i accept escrow for payment.
Thank you,cowboyup618"
Then, in a boxed message there was a button with the text "Please respond to the question on eBay by clicking the button below. You'll have the option to display your response directly on the listing."
If you notice, this simple message looks like it was from a seller and he had a bid from me. If I were an active bidder on eBay, I would be concerned that I had won a bid that I had forgotten about. It would be very easy for someone in this position to click on the button.
As phishing emails go, it was a pretty good try.
The real problem is not whether someone can or cannot create a paradox by traveling back in time. The real problem is that our understanding of what time is can't be correct. Unfortunately, we have no real clue as to what time really is. We have found only one proven way to influence time, e.g. by motion. And even that is relative to the observer. This means we all experience time differently, however small the difference. Another, as yet unproven, hypothesis is that by approaching a temperature of absolute zero, and dragging the fabric of spacetime around by using a very large gravitational field, time will begin to act like a physical dimension. So, until we can test what time is, any statement about whether we can or cannot create a paradox by traveling back in time (whatever that means) is premature.
Doesn't work. At some point you would have had to decide to go to the past or not. What you are saying is that the past already contains whatever decision you made. If so that would mean you had no real choice. There has to be a beginning in order to have free will. If the past already contains all of our decisions of the present then we couldn't have really decided anything.
You are also thinking of the future as something undetermined but the past as determined and unchangable. Our present is the past of the future. For the past to be unchangable our present would also have to be unchangable. Again, we are back to no free will.
The whole point of time travel presenting us a paradox is because we think we have free will. If there is no possibility of a paradox then we have no free will.
Really? The present would be the history of the future. Is the present read only? If so then there is no free will. Or are you saying that the present is the leading edge of time? Then why does the passage of time slow at close to light speed? Are we causing ripples in the edge of time or what? Does the Universe somehow distinguish between someone who belongs at a given point in time from someone who doesn't? If so, how? Or are you restricting time travel to some ghostly visit? If you are, then you are implying another state of existence outside of the normally accepted one time and three spatial dimensions.
Just because you have an influence on the past doesn't mean your influence didn't shape time into the way you remembered it.
For this to work, there would have to be no beginning and no end. In other words, no free will.
There's so many things wrong with the logic in this article, I don't know where to begin...
Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious
If someone did change the past, would people in the present know it? Can you test that hypothesis? If not then it is just conjecture.
It is as if, in some strange way, the present takes account of all the possible routes back into the past and, because your father is certainly alive, none of the routes back can possibly lead to his death.
If this statement is true then there is no free will (i.e. the events of the future dictate the events of the past as much as the events of the past dictate the events of the future).
"You wouldn't be able to kill him because the very fact that he is alive today is going to conspire against you so that you'll never end up taking that path leads you to killing him."
Only if the Universe itself is sentient.
It's said that the outcome of a quantum event is unknown until observed, and the act of observing controls the end state. Fine, but...one of the great mysteries of quantum mechanics is that an infinite number of probabilities at the quantum level always coalesce into precisely one predictable outcome at the macro level. Every time, no exceptions. Our whole study of physics is based on this assumption, else no test result could ever be relied upon. We know it happens but we don't know why. Are the infinite numbers of probabilities real? Or are they an illusion of something more fundamental? In order to show that quantum mechanics makes the past unchangeable, you first have to show how quantum probabilities produce the macro world around us. Until then, it is only wishful thinking.