Nah. Just pick some examples and ruin their lives -- get convictions on their criminal records, make a media splash, post the documentation online so it becomes prominent in a Google search, and so forth.
Not in all cases; there are people who picked up suing after the compulsory warning labels were added. Between a government-required warning essentially saying "this product will quite possibly give you a slow, lingering death via lung cancer" and a business saying "trust us, our products are fine"... one of the two is considerably less objective than the other.
Heck yes. The most hilariously outrageous one I received, by far, was one purporting to be from the widow of ex-dictator Mobuto, but otherwise being a normal "please let us clean out your bank accounts" message.
Think of it as an investment. It's not like the machine will explode after its first success, so you can recoup the cost over time.
For instance, if a major government or other well-funded entity not averse to a little corporate espionage managed to intercept and decode information regarding, say, bids on major contracts, it could pay for itself very rapidly.
Neither. You'd want to put the billion into a combination of carrot and stick -- humanitarian aid, education, and investments into certain regions, tied to reforms and oversight where possible; plus substantial amounts into human intelligence and law enforcement, since some people aren't going to like you no matter how nice you play.
When it comes to terrorism, encryption really isn't the main problem. Identifying, isolating and eliminating causes (be they philosophies -- such as a desire for complete theocratic control -- or individual people) is.
That approach would probably hold only as much legal water as looking away while clicking randomly during the installation process, until you hit the 'accept EULA' button. Judges, in general, aren't imbeciles; nor are publishers.
No. The EULA is the only thing that grants him any rights to use the software; if it's invalidated by his age, he has no rights regarding it except, perhaps, to sell it under the first-sale doctrine.
So have a "selection rectangle", or, better yet, freehand drawing or polys, to define the allowed roaming range. Or, maximum distance from any friendly building...
And showing where units are on a minimap has been standard for a LONG time -- even "The Ancient Art of War" had that. It wouldn't be hard to add a filter-by-type selector.
But, they probably won't. If I'm right about the design philosophies behind StarCraft and WarCraft 2, Blizzard specifically wants to reward micromanagement and limit the interface power, as that makes the skirmish AI more competitive -- making an AI micromanage everything at the tactical level is much easier than having an AI coordinate everything well and come up with a coherent game plan. Likewise, there is no excuse for limiting unit selection to twelve (as was done in both those games) except to limit ease-of-use; since the AI doesn't run out of keys for groups, it's another bonus for the computer player.
When tactical AIs are good (or even "not pathetically braindead" -- e.g. WarCraft grunts blithely standing around while the grunts next to them get smacked by catapults), then the burden shifts to the strategic/operational AI to compete.
And that's hard. Good CM players can demolish the CM strategic AI in a "fair fight" or even under fairly adverse conditions, and much of the reason is that the game design makes micro largely irrelevant -- plus, CM's design does not permit AI scripting on a per-scenario basis aside from strategically pre-planned reinforcements. If CM players had to constantly worry about managing every squad and team in their battalion, in real time, while also manuevering maybe 40+ tanks, the game would be a LOT harder versus an AI except for the most-obsessed micromanagers.
For WarCraft's behavior... well, I remember doing some trials in WarCraft 2. Peasants would blithely walk unescorted into Valleys of Death (lots of towers) if they ran out of their original gold mine and the only other one they knew about was yours. Oops. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if WarCraft 3 took a similar approach -- braindead tactical AI, braindead strategic AI esp. where scripts aren't involved, huge AI hordes with allmap cheats and perhaps production bonuses, and micromanagement potential up the wazoo -- because a) it's easier to program, and b) it still sells hotcakes.
Perhaps the most insane micro bit I've read -- in one of the reviews for StarCraft, back when that came out, the reviewer suggested stuff like when using a mass of hydras, to continually rotate the wounded to the back to give them time to regenerate. Ugh.
If you want half-decent TacAI, try a hybrid TBS/RTT game like Combat Mission. Since turns are one minute, even if the TacAI misjudges things you get control afterwards for the next minute, and your opponent uses the same TacAI as well. The micromanagement edge is reduced (some extra effort will still pay off, like using different view levels to verify hull-down status and so forth) and frenetic clicking simply isn't an issue.
The "Close Combat" series can probably had for pretty cheap now, but vehicle AI was pathetic (going out of the way to drive into buildings, or approaching enemy tanks rear-first, and similar boneheaded mistakes), there were some AI cheats (notably, CC2:ABTF, the AI ignored supply rules -- e.g. "cut-off" paras got reinforcements even if you captured the LZs and the road network was still in German hands), and the single-angle presentation really hampers seeing changes in elevation.
EU was a vaguely passable RTS (so slow it's almost *real*-time...), but the various interface mistakes, asymmetries between AI and player, half-baked wild-ass random diplomacy (e.g. in one game as Austria, it was easier to build an alliance with Islamic countries that hated me, than with Spain which nominally loved me at +200...), the "history but no game play" manual, and other irritations *really* put me off. That, plus they pushed out EU2 ASAP.
2. The TW part isn't exactly going to fall over due to random *not* credible legal threats.
Criticism, in general, has NOTHING to do with DMCA. Leaking proprietary information that was only obtained through breaking access controls does in order to achieve unauthorized access to copyrighted information, as does leaking information which itself facilitates breaking access controls. So, incidentally, does merely selling a service with the claim that it helps to do so.
But if you believe that the DMCA is an all-purpose anti-criticism law in contravention of the First, then either a) you're an idiot for posting about it without reading it, or b) you're an idiot for posting about it without understanding it.
Similar. The end-game is less purely masochistic (the long no-level-teleport walk up, plus the "let's walk around and try all the traps to find which one is the teleporter" Elemental Planes of Nethack are best suited for people with a high tolerance for drudgery), but Angband stat-gain can be pretty tedious, as can be wandering around level 99 stockpiling Healing, *Healing*, Restore Mana, Mass Genocide and other consumables.
Well, with regards to firearms, there are Federal controls with regards to importation and possession -- for instance, for the nastier stuff you need to be licensed(*) if it's legal at all, and they're free to refuse you. There are other sundry regulations such as the minimum length of shotgun barrels and so forth.
State and city controls range from complete bans on handguns (e.g. D.C.) and long guns (which is interesting, considering that long guns are fairly rarely used in crime, for obvious reasons), to bans on firearms with specific features (stuff like the ability to attach a bayonet), in more liberal areas, to states with "must issue" policies on concealed-carry permits in more conservative areas, to at least one town where gun ownership is mandatory except for conscientous objectors. And yes, at times registration has led to demands for voluntary hand-over followed by confiscation, depending on where you live.
(*) With exemptions regarding collectors and certain types with historical value. For instance, you might be able to get a Tommy if you're a collector.
More importantly, do they vote? Many of those eligible, don't bother, and the pols know it. They also know that certain demographics, such as the elderly and the more ideologically motivated (radicals on all sides), tend to vote more.
Another bit is the web sites with an unverified opt-in -- that is, anybody can type in an e-mail address and it's considered as an opt-in without sending a confirmation request.
Mandating a) a confirmation request sent via e-mail, that requires POSITIVE confirmation (the response must include a unambiguous not-readily forged reference to the original message) before "real" addition to the list
b) a simple, obvious, free removal mechanism, which works within a reasonable period (say, 48 hours?)
If the source is out-of-country, has no operations within the United States, and does not intend to have such, they may simply laugh at the State AG, and the Federal gov't probably isn't going to cause a major international confrontation over a child porn site or two. I mean, there ARE other tools such as trade barriers and so forth that could be used to bludgeon some countries into passing similar laws, but it's not worth it to the Feds to try, I suspect.
ISPs, however, that operate here likely are US-based, and would generally have offices and employees and all sorts of things that make it easier to go after them if they do not comply.
Proxies are a problem; an anonymous redirector in an international site, hosted by a country that has different views on government versus network traffic (or simply likes irritating the United States, say) would probably also be beyond the effective reach of the state AG.
Well, the law specifically mentions URLs, so it would seem that ISPs will be allowed to target specific URLs instead of, oh, regular-expression-based methods.
Of course,
a) No block list will ever possibly be complete. Instead, perhaps investigators will search over time, and "concerned citizens" might send tips as well.
It is a logical question to ask, "how concentrated is child porn" -- that is, could one block several major sites and stop a significant percentage, or is it more widely distributed and hidden? I would suspect the latter, since due to illegality it's not in their interests to be prominent, major providers, but...
b) There will be a "grey area". Will the state AG go "judge shopping" to find a court that's more aggressive in labelling content as porn?
c) How the ISP blocks URLs... hm, filtering the HTTP requests as they pass through the routers, perhaps? Dropping connections entirely based on the IP won't work too well, since some may be dynamically assigned, and with hosting providers numerous innocent services would get whacked as well.
d) They need a list of ISPs and their contact information, including proxy servers since the latter could provide access. Ouch.
No, it's not. Read the law; it was prepared roughly two months ago, and it's just going into effect 'round now care of the 60-day delay.
And the state AG is the one that makes the blocking decisions; the law explicitly states that the ISPs are under no obligation to go searching on their own, to monitor content (to decide what to block), or to otherwise search for affirmative evidence of wrong-doing.
Now, the proxy issue... the law says "disabling access", which could be interpreted as either accessing directly (which makes a certain degree of sense, as the law mentions that banning requests should include URLs -- so ban the URL might be sufficient under that) or even banning indirect access (proxies, mirrors, and other foo).
I'd be inclined to think that the former was meant (ban direct accessing of the specific URL), but... you'd probably have to check the debate records to find out.
A universal Turing machine is one that is capable of simulating all other Turing machines. That is, where Turing machine M would run program P, for a UTM you can come up with a sequence M' such that UTM(M',P) = M(P).
And a Turing machine is a state machine whose only storage (beyond "what state am I?") and I/O is done with a sequential tape. So the machine can read from the tape, and then act based on its current state -- said actions including overwriting the symbol, or perhaps going forwards or backwards on the tape, plus changing state.
Perhaps some of the folks who constantly scream that the MPAA and RIAA should get a new business model or go out of business would like to comment on this chap's attitude?
If you're convicted of a major theft, you will not only need to repay, if possible, but also be fined and likely jailed; your employer will probably fire you; your spouse may divorce you, and a judge would probably agree there's just cause -- and transfer custody of the children as well; you may forfeit voting rights; you will be marked a convict for the rest of your life, and will find it difficult to rebuild it once you leave prison.
Compared to that, slapping a few conduct restrictions on MSFT doesn't seem too harsh.
Aigh. It's much more feasible at a delay rate of 60ms/frame instead of the default 40ms, as of somewhere 'round level 34 or so. And Level 50 becomes an absolutely inane exercise in patience -- IMHO, the developer simply ran out of ideas fairly early on.
I like XEvil, but it's the other way around -- the "normal" difficulty gets to be too easy, and it's *very* unbalanced (Chopper boy being far more viable, long-term, then the others. On many later crowded levels, and Hive scenarios, not being able to fly == instant death. And yes, while others *could* get flight via an Altar of Sin, you can't count on that.). "Hard" is much more reasonable -- you can get very buff, but a single frog-gun or soul-swapper and you're still hosed.
As a _Newsweek_ columnist said, one of his Arab acquaintances had been talking to some Arab students, and one of them -- apparently out of the blue -- commented that with several nuclear weapons, they could end the Jewish problem. None of the students seemed to think that this was a particularly outrageous statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. Just pick some examples and ruin their lives -- get convictions on their criminal records, make a media splash, post the documentation online so it becomes prominent in a Google search, and so forth.
Correction: the legal fees alone could sink file traders. Innocent folks are in far less danger. This is bad why?
Not in all cases; there are people who picked up suing after the compulsory warning labels were added. Between a government-required warning essentially saying "this product will quite possibly give you a slow, lingering death via lung cancer" and a business saying "trust us, our products are fine"... one of the two is considerably less objective than the other.
Heck yes. The most hilariously outrageous one I received, by far, was one purporting to be from the widow of ex-dictator Mobuto, but otherwise being a normal "please let us clean out your bank accounts" message.
Think of it as an investment. It's not like the machine will explode after its first success, so you can recoup the cost over time.
For instance, if a major government or other well-funded entity not averse to a little corporate espionage managed to intercept and decode information regarding, say, bids on major contracts, it could pay for itself very rapidly.
What does factoring have to do with rendering, or, for that matter, chess?
Neither. You'd want to put the billion into a combination of carrot and stick -- humanitarian aid, education, and investments into certain regions, tied to reforms and oversight where possible; plus substantial amounts into human intelligence and law enforcement, since some people aren't going to like you no matter how nice you play.
When it comes to terrorism, encryption really isn't the main problem. Identifying, isolating and eliminating causes (be they philosophies -- such as a desire for complete theocratic control -- or individual people) is.
That approach would probably hold only as much legal water as looking away while clicking randomly during the installation process, until you hit the 'accept EULA' button. Judges, in general, aren't imbeciles; nor are publishers.
Did you agree to the EULA? No.
Then what right do you have to use the software?
Oops.
No. The EULA is the only thing that grants him any rights to use the software; if it's invalidated by his age, he has no rights regarding it except, perhaps, to sell it under the first-sale doctrine.
So have a "selection rectangle", or, better yet, freehand drawing or polys, to define the allowed roaming range. Or, maximum distance from any friendly building...
And showing where units are on a minimap has been standard for a LONG time -- even "The Ancient Art of War" had that. It wouldn't be hard to add a filter-by-type selector.
But, they probably won't. If I'm right about the design philosophies behind StarCraft and WarCraft 2, Blizzard specifically wants to reward micromanagement and limit the interface power, as that makes the skirmish AI more competitive -- making an AI micromanage everything at the tactical level is much easier than having an AI coordinate everything well and come up with a coherent game plan. Likewise, there is no excuse for limiting unit selection to twelve (as was done in both those games) except to limit ease-of-use; since the AI doesn't run out of keys for groups, it's another bonus for the computer player.
When tactical AIs are good (or even "not pathetically braindead" -- e.g. WarCraft grunts blithely standing around while the grunts next to them get smacked by catapults), then the burden shifts to the strategic/operational AI to compete.
And that's hard. Good CM players can demolish the CM strategic AI in a "fair fight" or even under fairly adverse conditions, and much of the reason is that the game design makes micro largely irrelevant -- plus, CM's design does not permit AI scripting on a per-scenario basis aside from strategically pre-planned reinforcements. If CM players had to constantly worry about managing every squad and team in their battalion, in real time, while also manuevering maybe 40+ tanks, the game would be a LOT harder versus an AI except for the most-obsessed micromanagers.
For WarCraft's behavior... well, I remember doing some trials in WarCraft 2. Peasants would blithely walk unescorted into Valleys of Death (lots of towers) if they ran out of their original gold mine and the only other one they knew about was yours. Oops. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if WarCraft 3 took a similar approach -- braindead tactical AI, braindead strategic AI esp. where scripts aren't involved, huge AI hordes with allmap cheats and perhaps production bonuses, and micromanagement potential up the wazoo -- because a) it's easier to program, and b) it still sells hotcakes.
Perhaps the most insane micro bit I've read -- in one of the reviews for StarCraft, back when that came out, the reviewer suggested stuff like when using a mass of hydras, to continually rotate the wounded to the back to give them time to regenerate. Ugh.
If you want half-decent TacAI, try a hybrid TBS/RTT game like Combat Mission. Since turns are one minute, even if the TacAI misjudges things you get control afterwards for the next minute, and your opponent uses the same TacAI as well. The micromanagement edge is reduced (some extra effort will still pay off, like using different view levels to verify hull-down status and so forth) and frenetic clicking simply isn't an issue.
The "Close Combat" series can probably had for pretty cheap now, but vehicle AI was pathetic (going out of the way to drive into buildings, or approaching enemy tanks rear-first, and similar boneheaded mistakes), there were some AI cheats (notably, CC2:ABTF, the AI ignored supply rules -- e.g. "cut-off" paras got reinforcements even if you captured the LZs and the road network was still in German hands), and the single-angle presentation really hampers seeing changes in elevation.
EU was a vaguely passable RTS (so slow it's almost *real*-time...), but the various interface mistakes, asymmetries between AI and player, half-baked wild-ass random diplomacy (e.g. in one game as Austria, it was easier to build an alliance with Islamic countries that hated me, than with Spain which nominally loved me at +200...), the "history but no game play" manual, and other irritations *really* put me off. That, plus they pushed out EU2 ASAP.
1. They're the same company now.
2. The TW part isn't exactly going to fall over due to random *not* credible legal threats.
Criticism, in general, has NOTHING to do with DMCA. Leaking proprietary information that was only obtained through breaking access controls does in order to achieve unauthorized access to copyrighted information, as does leaking information which itself facilitates breaking access controls. So, incidentally, does merely selling a service with the claim that it helps to do so.
But if you believe that the DMCA is an all-purpose anti-criticism law in contravention of the First, then either a) you're an idiot for posting about it without reading it, or b) you're an idiot for posting about it without understanding it.
Similar. The end-game is less purely masochistic (the long no-level-teleport walk up, plus the "let's walk around and try all the traps to find which one is the teleporter" Elemental Planes of Nethack are best suited for people with a high tolerance for drudgery), but Angband stat-gain can be pretty tedious, as can be wandering around level 99 stockpiling Healing, *Healing*, Restore Mana, Mass Genocide and other consumables.
Well, with regards to firearms, there are Federal controls with regards to importation and possession -- for instance, for the nastier stuff you need to be licensed(*) if it's legal at all, and they're free to refuse you. There are other sundry regulations such as the minimum length of shotgun barrels and so forth.
State and city controls range from complete bans on handguns (e.g. D.C.) and long guns (which is interesting, considering that long guns are fairly rarely used in crime, for obvious reasons), to bans on firearms with specific features (stuff like the ability to attach a bayonet), in more liberal areas, to states with "must issue" policies on concealed-carry permits in more conservative areas, to at least one town where gun ownership is mandatory except for conscientous objectors. And yes, at times registration has led to demands for voluntary hand-over followed by confiscation, depending on where you live.
(*) With exemptions regarding collectors and certain types with historical value. For instance, you might be able to get a Tommy if you're a collector.
More importantly, do they vote? Many of those eligible, don't bother, and the pols know it. They also know that certain demographics, such as the elderly and the more ideologically motivated (radicals on all sides), tend to vote more.
Ouch. That perpetual motion machine is going to HURT.
Another bit is the web sites with an unverified opt-in -- that is, anybody can type in an e-mail address and it's considered as an opt-in without sending a confirmation request.
Mandating
a) a confirmation request sent via e-mail, that requires POSITIVE confirmation (the response must include a unambiguous not-readily forged reference to the original message) before "real" addition to the list
b) a simple, obvious, free removal mechanism, which works within a reasonable period (say, 48 hours?)
would help.
If the source is out-of-country, has no operations within the United States, and does not intend to have such, they may simply laugh at the State AG, and the Federal gov't probably isn't going to cause a major international confrontation over a child porn site or two. I mean, there ARE other tools such as trade barriers and so forth that could be used to bludgeon some countries into passing similar laws, but it's not worth it to the Feds to try, I suspect.
ISPs, however, that operate here likely are US-based, and would generally have offices and employees and all sorts of things that make it easier to go after them if they do not comply.
Proxies are a problem; an anonymous redirector in an international site, hosted by a country that has different views on government versus network traffic (or simply likes irritating the United States, say) would probably also be beyond the effective reach of the state AG.
Well, the law specifically mentions URLs, so it would seem that ISPs will be allowed to target specific URLs instead of, oh, regular-expression-based methods.
Of course,
a) No block list will ever possibly be complete. Instead, perhaps investigators will search over time, and "concerned citizens" might send tips as well.
It is a logical question to ask, "how concentrated is child porn" -- that is, could one block several major sites and stop a significant percentage, or is it more widely distributed and hidden? I would suspect the latter, since due to illegality it's not in their interests to be prominent, major providers, but...
b) There will be a "grey area". Will the state AG go "judge shopping" to find a court that's more aggressive in labelling content as porn?
c) How the ISP blocks URLs... hm, filtering the HTTP requests as they pass through the routers, perhaps? Dropping connections entirely based on the IP won't work too well, since some may be dynamically assigned, and with hosting providers numerous innocent services would get whacked as well.
d) They need a list of ISPs and their contact information, including proxy servers since the latter could provide access. Ouch.
No, it's not. Read the law; it was prepared roughly two months ago, and it's just going into effect 'round now care of the 60-day delay.
And the state AG is the one that makes the blocking decisions; the law explicitly states that the ISPs are under no obligation to go searching on their own, to monitor content (to decide what to block), or to otherwise search for affirmative evidence of wrong-doing.
Now, the proxy issue... the law says "disabling access", which could be interpreted as either accessing directly (which makes a certain degree of sense, as the law mentions that banning requests should include URLs -- so ban the URL might be sufficient under that) or even banning indirect access (proxies, mirrors, and other foo).
I'd be inclined to think that the former was meant (ban direct accessing of the specific URL), but... you'd probably have to check the debate records to find out.
A universal Turing machine is one that is capable of simulating all other Turing machines. That is, where Turing machine M would run program P, for a UTM you can come up with a sequence M' such that UTM(M',P) = M(P).
And a Turing machine is a state machine whose only storage (beyond "what state am I?") and I/O is done with a sequential tape. So the machine can read from the tape, and then act based on its current state -- said actions including overwriting the symbol, or perhaps going forwards or backwards on the tape, plus changing state.
Perhaps some of the folks who constantly scream that the MPAA and RIAA should get a new business model or go out of business would like to comment on this chap's attitude?
If you're convicted of a major theft, you will not only need to repay, if possible, but also be fined and likely jailed; your employer will probably fire you; your spouse may divorce you, and a judge would probably agree there's just cause -- and transfer custody of the children as well; you may forfeit voting rights; you will be marked a convict for the rest of your life, and will find it difficult to rebuild it once you leave prison.
Compared to that, slapping a few conduct restrictions on MSFT doesn't seem too harsh.
Aigh. It's much more feasible at a delay rate of 60ms/frame instead of the default 40ms, as of somewhere 'round level 34 or so. And Level 50 becomes an absolutely inane exercise in patience -- IMHO, the developer simply ran out of ideas fairly early on.
I like XEvil, but it's the other way around -- the "normal" difficulty gets to be too easy, and it's *very* unbalanced (Chopper boy being far more viable, long-term, then the others. On many later crowded levels, and Hive scenarios, not being able to fly == instant death. And yes, while others *could* get flight via an Altar of Sin, you can't count on that.). "Hard" is much more reasonable -- you can get very buff, but a single frog-gun or soul-swapper and you're still hosed.
As a _Newsweek_ columnist said, one of his Arab acquaintances had been talking to some Arab students, and one of them -- apparently out of the blue -- commented that with several nuclear weapons, they could end the Jewish problem. None of the students seemed to think that this was a particularly outrageous statement.