I just want a "I know what I'm doing and accept the risk, now fuck off" button
I'm under the impression that some countries' consumer protection statutes and some payment processors' terms of service forbid companies to offer such a button because scammers are likely to trick marks into clicking it.
I'm guessing that bans on gun ownership by convicted felons follow from a premise that felons have been less than honorably discharged from their otherwise implicit membership in a particular U.S. state's "well-regulated militia". Otherwise, what does "well-regulated" mean in the context of the Second Amendment?
It depends on what you mean by "Windows" (client? server?) and "by default". You can generate a mail CA certificate using Windows Server and then sneakernet that certificate to the machines of your communication partners. In an era of compromised X.509 certificate authorities and compromised participants in the PGP web of trust, nothing short of sneakernet is provably free of MITM. By "by default" do you mean that Outlook should default to showing a Big Scary Warning when sending or receiving messages to or from anyone with whom you have not already performed such an out-of-band key exchange?
I imagine that the Gmail accounts of a lot of people not named LanMan04 are so "easy to compromise". For example, do most people subscribe to multiple email services through which they can obtain "multiple back-up email addresses"? And how are you going to respond to a takeover alert while you are in bed?
I've read that harmonizing for less would be perceived as a 'taking' under the Fifth Amendment and would thus require the logistical nightmare of providing "just compensation" for all copyright owners for the portion of the copyright term "taken for public use".
You can probably set up an alternative that allows SMS messages, like Ring.to or Google, that your son can use as the authenticator
This won't work if the SMS verification backend used by Steam is one of the several that explicitly block non-cellular SMS numbers because they have been "abused" in this manner.
it would be a simple thing to check logs against IPs and international locations
Which opens up the "I can't play games while on vacation or a business trip. Is Steam region locked?" debate if not carefully thought out.
It's not voice chat as much as text chat. The rationale behind the COPPA law and various kid-friendly games' restrictions on chat is that young children allegedly cannot be trusted to share their personally identifying information with would-be abusers. Some games even block use of number words, such as "two" and "three", because that lets users give out their age or home address.
It depends on whether people are likewise stupid enough to spend $1000 over the course of two years on replacing their current phone with an Apple or Google phone just to be able to trade items in a timely fashion.
I've gathered from the instructions page and the FAQ page that the authenticator requires an iPhone with a valid cellular subscription or an Android Phone with Google Play with a valid cellular subscription. As far as I can tell based on these pages, the authenticator cannot* be obtained on Android devices without Google Play, such as devices running Amazon Fire OS or Replicant OS. The authenticator does not work on devices running Windows Phone, on feature phones, or on landlines. Based on repeated references to phone numbers, it is unclear whether the authenticator works on tablets or on phones with an expired cellular subscription. How many people are willing to buy an iPhone or an Android phone with Google Play just to confirm item trades?
My son plays TF2 and doesn't have a cellphone yet (11 years old).
Then how should he call you for a ride home, especially now that payphone operators have been removing payphones? Besides, Team Fortress 2 is rated M. It's not intended for 11-year-olds. Nor is online play intended for anyone under 13 anyway because of COPPA. In any case, the FAQ states that you can put multiple accounts on one phone. The one downside to putting your son's TF2 account on your phone is that it links the identity associated with your Steam account to his.
It's way way way overkill, with no way to opt out.
Then opt out of Team Fortress 2 in the first place.
The US is getting its copyright terms extended by the TPP. Mexico has life-plus-100-years since 1995
Where does the released TPP text say that the copyright term shall be extended past life plus 70? I thought it just said life plus 70 is a minimum. The EU's extension from life plus 50 to life plus 70 was ultimately to reconcile the original rationale for the Berne copyright term, which was the life of heirs who knew the author personally, with life spans that had been extended by better health care. Besides, the EU is far more economically powerful than Mexico. Thus any attempt at "harmonization" to Mexico would be a more obvious attempt at policy laundering and might even widen debate about the very concept of policy laundering.
Trademarks die once they are no longer distinctive. Exclusive rights under the Lanham Act cannot be used to extend the effective term of an expired U.S. copyright. See Dastar v. Fox.
In addition to a declaration that copyright did not subsist in "Happy Birthday to You", the lawsuit sought a refund of royalties to the class of licensees. I imagine the confidentiality relates to Warner's payout under that claim.
the copyright on a song [from] the 30s is _still_ being contested.
U.S. copyright in works of authorship first published in 1923 through 1977 or later subsists for 95 years after the end of the year in which the work was first published. If a song's lyrics were first published in the 1930s, it would have fallen under this rule. A pre-1923 publication, on the other hand, would have put the lyrics in the public domain.
Anyone remember when the Mouse is up
The keystone of copyright in Mickey Mouse is three short films published in 1928: Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie. Likewise, the keystone of copyright in Winnie the Pooh is the books Winnie-the-Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner, the latter having been first published in 1928. Under current law, copyright in these works expires at the end of 2023, meaning those characters become fair game starting in 2024. (And before you say "trademark", read through Dastar v. Fox.)
for another extension?
The Supreme Court has allowed re-extension of a copyright term that had already been extended, but only when the extension has had the intent of harmonizing the term to that of another major developed market. For example, the Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft allowed the 1998 extension to let the U.S. harmonize with the European Union but was careful to distinguish it from what copyright reform advocates have since called "perpetual copyright on the installment plan." With which major developed market would a subsequent term extension prior to the end of 2023 harmonize?
If there were no Hitler, there would have been no World War II code breaking effort, ergo no electronic computers, ergo no computer networks, ergo no famous 1990 post to Usenet.
You're an author and an attorney, so I assume you know some things about laws specifically designed for authors. Is there a way for a writer, a composer, etc. to be sure that he didn't accidentally infringe someone's copyright when creating his own work? For instance, what should George Harrison have done to avoid infringing a copyright owned by Ronald Mack (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music), Michael Bolton to avoid the Isley Brothers (Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton), or Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke to avoid Marvin Gaye (Gaye v. Thicke)? This is especially difficult for songwriters because of the combinatoric limits of possible melodies.
I mean Henry Ford? Great for building cars on assembly lines. Terrible choice to speak at your son's Bar Mitzvah.
Interesting point. This raises another question:
To what extent ought some heinous actions by a particular person to tarnish the reputation associated with the same person's good actions? Case in point: a dictator who made the trains run on time.
I thought that "open source" as pitched by Perens and Raymond, was mainly distinguished from Stallman's Free Software
The Open Source Definition published by Mr. Raymond's organization is nearly word-for-word identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Each item in the DFSG expounds on an item in FSF's definition of free software: DFSG 1 is FSF 2, DFSG 2 is FSF 1, DFSG 3 and 8 and OSD 10 are FSF 3, DFSG 4 explains how Debian applied FSF 3 to the QPL, DFSG 5 and 6 are FSF 0, DFSG 7 ensures FSF 3 applies even on a desert island, and DFSG 9 explains how Debian applies FSF 2 to collective works.
by the former's lack of restrictions on what the licensee could do with the software.
It depends on what exactly you mean by "what the licensee could do with the software." Copyleft licenses, such as the GNU General Public License, qualify under the definition. A license that bans use by a "group of persons" or in a "specific field of endeavor" would not.
Microsoft is becoming less relevant each passing day. With Chromebooks, iPads, Android, iOS and whatever else is "next", there are more viable choices now than ever before.
If Microsoft products are becoming less relevant, and desktop GNU/Linux still hasn't taken off in anglophone countries, then what's becoming more relevant among people who maintain web sites or develop web or native applications? Replacing your PC with a Mac?
Slashdot Mirror
I just want a "I know what I'm doing and accept the risk, now fuck off" button
I'm under the impression that some countries' consumer protection statutes and some payment processors' terms of service forbid companies to offer such a button because scammers are likely to trick marks into clicking it.
Here is the USA a valid Google Play phone with cellular service can be gotten for $40.
$40 per what time period?
Hail to the new boss, same as the old boss.
And hopefully it won't be Heil to the new boss.
I'm guessing that bans on gun ownership by convicted felons follow from a premise that felons have been less than honorably discharged from their otherwise implicit membership in a particular U.S. state's "well-regulated militia". Otherwise, what does "well-regulated" mean in the context of the Second Amendment?
It depends on what you mean by "Windows" (client? server?) and "by default". You can generate a mail CA certificate using Windows Server and then sneakernet that certificate to the machines of your communication partners. In an era of compromised X.509 certificate authorities and compromised participants in the PGP web of trust, nothing short of sneakernet is provably free of MITM. By "by default" do you mean that Outlook should default to showing a Big Scary Warning when sending or receiving messages to or from anyone with whom you have not already performed such an out-of-band key exchange?
A secondary password can be keylogged. The Steam authenticator actually displays the trade details on the smartphone's display.
I imagine that the Gmail accounts of a lot of people not named LanMan04 are so "easy to compromise". For example, do most people subscribe to multiple email services through which they can obtain "multiple back-up email addresses"? And how are you going to respond to a takeover alert while you are in bed?
I've read that harmonizing for less would be perceived as a 'taking' under the Fifth Amendment and would thus require the logistical nightmare of providing "just compensation" for all copyright owners for the portion of the copyright term "taken for public use".
You can probably set up an alternative that allows SMS messages, like Ring.to or Google, that your son can use as the authenticator
This won't work if the SMS verification backend used by Steam is one of the several that explicitly block non-cellular SMS numbers because they have been "abused" in this manner.
it would be a simple thing to check logs against IPs and international locations
Which opens up the "I can't play games while on vacation or a business trip. Is Steam region locked?" debate if not carefully thought out.
as well as muting incoming voice chat
It's not voice chat as much as text chat. The rationale behind the COPPA law and various kid-friendly games' restrictions on chat is that young children allegedly cannot be trusted to share their personally identifying information with would-be abusers. Some games even block use of number words, such as "two" and "three", because that lets users give out their age or home address.
It depends on whether people are likewise stupid enough to spend $1000 over the course of two years on replacing their current phone with an Apple or Google phone just to be able to trade items in a timely fashion.
I've gathered from the instructions page and the FAQ page that the authenticator requires an iPhone with a valid cellular subscription or an Android Phone with Google Play with a valid cellular subscription. As far as I can tell based on these pages, the authenticator cannot* be obtained on Android devices without Google Play, such as devices running Amazon Fire OS or Replicant OS. The authenticator does not work on devices running Windows Phone, on feature phones, or on landlines. Based on repeated references to phone numbers, it is unclear whether the authenticator works on tablets or on phones with an expired cellular subscription. How many people are willing to buy an iPhone or an Android phone with Google Play just to confirm item trades?
* Lawfully.
My son plays TF2 and doesn't have a cellphone yet (11 years old).
Then how should he call you for a ride home, especially now that payphone operators have been removing payphones? Besides, Team Fortress 2 is rated M. It's not intended for 11-year-olds. Nor is online play intended for anyone under 13 anyway because of COPPA. In any case, the FAQ states that you can put multiple accounts on one phone. The one downside to putting your son's TF2 account on your phone is that it links the identity associated with your Steam account to his.
It's way way way overkill, with no way to opt out.
Then opt out of Team Fortress 2 in the first place.
I wrote another comment about why harmonization to Mexico isn't as persuasive.
The US is getting its copyright terms extended by the TPP. Mexico has life-plus-100-years since 1995
Where does the released TPP text say that the copyright term shall be extended past life plus 70? I thought it just said life plus 70 is a minimum. The EU's extension from life plus 50 to life plus 70 was ultimately to reconcile the original rationale for the Berne copyright term, which was the life of heirs who knew the author personally, with life spans that had been extended by better health care. Besides, the EU is far more economically powerful than Mexico. Thus any attempt at "harmonization" to Mexico would be a more obvious attempt at policy laundering and might even widen debate about the very concept of policy laundering.
trademarks do not expire
Trademarks die once they are no longer distinctive. Exclusive rights under the Lanham Act cannot be used to extend the effective term of an expired U.S. copyright. See Dastar v. Fox .
In addition to a declaration that copyright did not subsist in "Happy Birthday to You", the lawsuit sought a refund of royalties to the class of licensees. I imagine the confidentiality relates to Warner's payout under that claim.
the copyright on a song [from] the 30s is _still_ being contested.
U.S. copyright in works of authorship first published in 1923 through 1977 or later subsists for 95 years after the end of the year in which the work was first published. If a song's lyrics were first published in the 1930s, it would have fallen under this rule. A pre-1923 publication, on the other hand, would have put the lyrics in the public domain.
Anyone remember when the Mouse is up
The keystone of copyright in Mickey Mouse is three short films published in 1928: Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie. Likewise, the keystone of copyright in Winnie the Pooh is the books Winnie-the-Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner, the latter having been first published in 1928. Under current law, copyright in these works expires at the end of 2023, meaning those characters become fair game starting in 2024. (And before you say "trademark", read through Dastar v. Fox.)
for another extension?
The Supreme Court has allowed re-extension of a copyright term that had already been extended, but only when the extension has had the intent of harmonizing the term to that of another major developed market. For example, the Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft allowed the 1998 extension to let the U.S. harmonize with the European Union but was careful to distinguish it from what copyright reform advocates have since called "perpetual copyright on the installment plan." With which major developed market would a subsequent term extension prior to the end of 2023 harmonize?
If there were no Hitler, there would have been no World War II code breaking effort, ergo no electronic computers, ergo no computer networks, ergo no famous 1990 post to Usenet.
You're an author and an attorney, so I assume you know some things about laws specifically designed for authors. Is there a way for a writer, a composer, etc. to be sure that he didn't accidentally infringe someone's copyright when creating his own work? For instance, what should George Harrison have done to avoid infringing a copyright owned by Ronald Mack (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music), Michael Bolton to avoid the Isley Brothers (Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton), or Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke to avoid Marvin Gaye (Gaye v. Thicke)? This is especially difficult for songwriters because of the combinatoric limits of possible melodies.
I mean Henry Ford? Great for building cars on assembly lines. Terrible choice to speak at your son's Bar Mitzvah.
Interesting point. This raises another question:
To what extent ought some heinous actions by a particular person to tarnish the reputation associated with the same person's good actions? Case in point: a dictator who made the trains run on time.
Do you have a generally positive or negative opinion of these people?
Source: "Worst Ideas You Didn't Know Come From America" by Melissa Dylan
Is Adam Tod Brown of Cracked justified in comparing Donald Trump's rise to power to that of an infamous German chancellor?
Is it also OK to discriminate against deaf people, who can't use the video or the MP3 file?
I thought that "open source" as pitched by Perens and Raymond, was mainly distinguished from Stallman's Free Software
The Open Source Definition published by Mr. Raymond's organization is nearly word-for-word identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Each item in the DFSG expounds on an item in FSF's definition of free software: DFSG 1 is FSF 2, DFSG 2 is FSF 1, DFSG 3 and 8 and OSD 10 are FSF 3, DFSG 4 explains how Debian applied FSF 3 to the QPL, DFSG 5 and 6 are FSF 0, DFSG 7 ensures FSF 3 applies even on a desert island, and DFSG 9 explains how Debian applies FSF 2 to collective works.
by the former's lack of restrictions on what the licensee could do with the software.
It depends on what exactly you mean by "what the licensee could do with the software." Copyleft licenses, such as the GNU General Public License, qualify under the definition. A license that bans use by a "group of persons" or in a "specific field of endeavor" would not.
Microsoft is becoming less relevant each passing day. With Chromebooks, iPads, Android, iOS and whatever else is "next", there are more viable choices now than ever before.
If Microsoft products are becoming less relevant, and desktop GNU/Linux still hasn't taken off in anglophone countries, then what's becoming more relevant among people who maintain web sites or develop web or native applications? Replacing your PC with a Mac?