6. Mus. A written or printed piece of concerted music, in which all the vocal and instrumental parts are noted on a series of staves one under the other.
Commonly stated to be so called from the practice (not now always followed) of connecting the related staves by 'scores' or lines continuing the bars.
b. A musical composition with its distribution of parts.
c. spec. (A piece of) music composed for a film; the musical part of the sound-track of a film; formerly, the background music and effects of a silent film.
However, this is not what Google is doing and unless you can figure out a way to search for the entire text piece by piece and reassemble it in the proper order, you aren't going to get the complete text. I can think of some algorithmic techniques that might work but it would be very hit and miss even with the best techniques I can think of and I'm damned good in the non-linear search department.
People paid money for their existing domains. Taking them away with an ex post facto rule about "porn names" is going to face legal challanges, and will require compensation. Branding being as important as it is this compensation bill will run high.
pornwebsite.com and pornwebsite.net are not neccessarily owned by the same company/individual and if they are they may have different sites on them.
In addition to the argumnt about what is or is not pron, you've just added a whole new layer to the problem with deciding what's a porn name. Is sex.com a porn name? Sex isn't the same thing as porn. (Cue joke about the typical slashdotter not understanding this.) As soon as such a rule was put in place you can bet that someone will register bigfatcocks.com and stick up pictures of overweight male chickens.
>>A maker of surveillance software is using a product download agreement to attempt to bar detection by anti-spyware tools, raising questions about the legal scope of such agreements. >So, according to the article, the anti-spyware people shouldn't have even been able to get a copy of the program to classify it as spyware. Is it possible to classify a program as spyware without even looking at the program?
Yes. Spyware is classification of programs based on their behaviour. The binaries or source code can be seen as one description of a program's behaviour, but they are not the only ones. The undesirable clauses in the EULA could be enough, or the company's own descriptions of the product.
Also, it's possible to obtain a copy of a program's binaries without agreeing to the download agreement. Use an intermidiary say. Now he/she/it may be in violation of copyright law, and possibly said download agreement too, by passing a copy on to you but that's not the point here.
I'm fairly certain that British law doesn't contain any inherent right against self-incrimination
The European Convention on Human Rights is part of UK law and guarantees presumption of innocence. You could make a very strong case that this particular aspect of the RIP Act violates that - the defendat has to proove that they don't know the key. As far as I know no-one has ever been charged under this part of the Act.
So, the ends justify the means then? Are you really sure you want to take that stance?
Not the OP, but IMHO the ends may justify the means depending on the situation and I'd prefer to decide on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket statement that the ends do (not) justify the means always.
More genereally then, if ever someone is about to lose one email address, I'd advise them to go to Amazon, Ebay, etc and change their account info to use their new email address instead before they loose the old address.
If you are about to lose your @gmail.com address, I'd advise you to go to Amazon, Ebay, etc and change your account info to use your new @googlemail.com address instead.
[M]y problem was that he was like a fifth wheel, or to repeat another cliche, proof positive that three's a crowd. I don't mind having the odd repeat character, but Dr. Who has always been about the Doctor and his assistant.
The Doctor had multiple assistants for a very large proportion of the episodes. If not the majority, then very close.
Not only do I have to pay for the songs I don't want
Damn that RIAA, marching you to the record store, forcing a CD you don't want into your hands and making you take the money out your wallet against your will!
Porn is also subject to copyright law, it's not just for music and films. Just because porn producers aren't suing downloaders doesn't mean that they aren't breaking the law.
(I recall an NYT article linked to by/. about a year and a half ago about P2P which mentioned many of the porn producers they spoke to appreciated the free advertising of people swaping their watermarked videos/pics.)
If you're only doing "mundane bitmap work... once every sixth months[sic]" why do you need Photoshop? Why don't you use Paint Shop Pro or another program appropriate to your needs (and cheaper)? Or since - as you point out - there are plenty of legally free alternatives, why not use one of those?
Maybe Adobe haven't lost any money on you not buying Photoshop (I've only got your word that you wouldn't have bought it if you couldn't nick a copy), but that doesn't mean you've got any right to use it.
Which renders the rest of your plan a little pointless don't you think?
I also would place rfid tags on all alcohol and tobacco products and would record all transactions on the computer. If these products show up in the possession of a minor than the person purchasing them would have to explain why.
Unless they payed in cash in which case you can't link the tags to any specific buyer. Even if you forced stores to copy the ID of everyone buying restricted products (a terrible idea) the buyer could simply later state that the alcohol and drugs were stolen, but they do not with to press charges. Or use fake ID like people have been doing to buy alcohol and tobacco for as long as age restrictions have existed.
The police would also have a new tool as they could pull up close to a vehicle and remotely check to see if it had any alcohol in it and if there is only teens in the vehicle than stop it for an explanation.
Don't you think the police have better things to do? Doesn't the idea of the police being able to effectivly search your possessions whenever they feel like it bother you? If a vehicle's being driven in a manner that suggests the driver is intoxicated the police can pull it over and have a look, if not then the contents of the vehicle doesn't really concern the police.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a joke?
If not, here's the relevant OED entry:
6. Mus. A written or printed piece of concerted music, in which all the vocal and instrumental parts are noted on a series of staves one under the other.
Commonly stated to be so called from the practice (not now always followed) of connecting the related staves by 'scores' or lines continuing the bars.
b. A musical composition with its distribution of parts.
c. spec. (A piece of) music composed for a film; the musical part of the sound-track of a film; formerly, the background music and effects of a silent film.
However, this is not what Google is doing and unless you can figure out a way to search for the entire text piece by piece and reassemble it in the proper order, you aren't going to get the complete text. I can think of some algorithmic techniques that might work but it would be very hit and miss even with the best techniques I can think of and I'm damned good in the non-linear search department.
Page numbers?
People paid money for their existing domains. Taking them away with an ex post facto rule about "porn names" is going to face legal challanges, and will require compensation. Branding being as important as it is this compensation bill will run high.
pornwebsite.com and pornwebsite.net are not neccessarily owned by the same company/individual and if they are they may have different sites on them.
In addition to the argumnt about what is or is not pron, you've just added a whole new layer to the problem with deciding what's a porn name. Is sex.com a porn name? Sex isn't the same thing as porn. (Cue joke about the typical slashdotter not understanding this.) As soon as such a rule was put in place you can bet that someone will register bigfatcocks.com and stick up pictures of overweight male chickens.
But the CD single price is for two or more often three tracks. The mobile phone download price is for one track only.
Oops. Same principle though.
Perhaps if you distributed Firefox without the GPL notice.
>>A maker of surveillance software is using a product download agreement to attempt to bar detection by anti-spyware tools, raising questions about the legal scope of such agreements.
>So, according to the article, the anti-spyware people shouldn't have even been able to get a copy of the program to classify it as spyware. Is it possible to classify a program as spyware without even looking at the program?
Yes. Spyware is classification of programs based on their behaviour. The binaries or source code can be seen as one description of a program's behaviour, but they are not the only ones. The undesirable clauses in the EULA could be enough, or the company's own descriptions of the product.
Also, it's possible to obtain a copy of a program's binaries without agreeing to the download agreement. Use an intermidiary say. Now he/she/it may be in violation of copyright law, and possibly said download agreement too, by passing a copy on to you but that's not the point here.
Although the insurance company may not be entirely pleased.
On the contrary, I think they'd be quite pleased. They don't enjoy paying out you know.
I'm fairly certain that British law doesn't contain any inherent right against self-incrimination
The European Convention on Human Rights is part of UK law and guarantees presumption of innocence. You could make a very strong case that this particular aspect of the RIP Act violates that - the defendat has to proove that they don't know the key. As far as I know no-one has ever been charged under this part of the Act.
Then if you've got any sense you'll buy a new computer and never let the confiscated machine near the internet ever again.
"rediculous ... rediculous"
Stop that.
So, the ends justify the means then? Are you really sure you want to take that stance?
Not the OP, but IMHO the ends may justify the means depending on the situation and I'd prefer to decide on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket statement that the ends do (not) justify the means always.
Well the BBC doesn't carry advertising, so in this case that's less of a problem.
Yes but Kird never did it with [..] Spock
That's not what I heard.
More genereally then, if ever someone is about to lose one email address, I'd advise them to go to Amazon, Ebay, etc and change their account info to use their new email address instead before they loose the old address.
If you are about to lose your @gmail.com address, I'd advise you to go to Amazon, Ebay, etc and change your account info to use your new @googlemail.com address instead.
[M]y problem was that he was like a fifth wheel, or to repeat another cliche, proof positive that three's a crowd. I don't mind having the odd repeat character, but Dr. Who has always been about the Doctor and his assistant.
The Doctor had multiple assistants for a very large proportion of the episodes. If not the majority, then very close.
it's basically impossible to crapflood a place like fark.com
How could anyone tell the difference?
Perhaps someone should post a corrected version and hope that it is copy and pasted enough to become the dominant version.
I think you meant "less than," rather than "greater than".
Not only do I have to pay for the songs I don't want
Damn that RIAA, marching you to the record store, forcing a CD you don't want into your hands and making you take the money out your wallet against your will!
Porn is also subject to copyright law, it's not just for music and films. Just because porn producers aren't suing downloaders doesn't mean that they aren't breaking the law.
/. about a year and a half ago about P2P which mentioned many of the porn producers they spoke to appreciated the free advertising of people swaping their watermarked videos/pics.)
(I recall an NYT article linked to by
If you're only doing "mundane bitmap work ... once every sixth months[sic]" why do you need Photoshop? Why don't you use Paint Shop Pro or another program appropriate to your needs (and cheaper)? Or since - as you point out - there are plenty of legally free alternatives, why not use one of those?
Maybe Adobe haven't lost any money on you not buying Photoshop (I've only got your word that you wouldn't have bought it if you couldn't nick a copy), but that doesn't mean you've got any right to use it.
it requires a new version of x, which requires a new version of x
Oh dear, that's not good.
The tags could be designed to be easily removed
Which renders the rest of your plan a little pointless don't you think?
I also would place rfid tags on all alcohol and tobacco products and would record all transactions on the computer. If these products show up in the possession of a minor than the person purchasing them would have to explain why.
Unless they payed in cash in which case you can't link the tags to any specific buyer. Even if you forced stores to copy the ID of everyone buying restricted products (a terrible idea) the buyer could simply later state that the alcohol and drugs were stolen, but they do not with to press charges. Or use fake ID like people have been doing to buy alcohol and tobacco for as long as age restrictions have existed.
The police would also have a new tool as they could pull up close to a vehicle and remotely check to see if it had any alcohol in it and if there is only teens in the vehicle than stop it for an explanation.
Don't you think the police have better things to do? Doesn't the idea of the police being able to effectivly search your possessions whenever they feel like it bother you? If a vehicle's being driven in a manner that suggests the driver is intoxicated the police can pull it over and have a look, if not then the contents of the vehicle doesn't really concern the police.