The king can never be placed in check, but if through legal means he finds himself in check, there's no reason he can't take the other king and end the game.
But it's not advertisers that write these user-initated pop-ups, it's silly webdesigners who write javascript to have links open in a new window. What would be nicer would be for firefox to have all user-initated javascript pop-ups open in a new tab, and so keep the "open in a new space" functionality without having to deal with a new window.
I would say that a legal solution to these problems is more trouble than its worth and as long as these things are technically possible they will be things we'll have to worry about.
Harassment is different on the net than in real life. I can currently block people by IP or whitelist my friends. Technically better solutions are already needed and already being worked on.
Invasion of privacy is likewise possible to prevent. I can use GPG or other tools to encrypt my communications through simple plugins to Thunderbird and GAIM. My browser already does HTTP/SSL for financial transactions.
Designing viruses? They'll still be made even if we outlaw them, as if we don't let white-hats work on viruses then the black-hats will. And we want to know what the problem is and fix it as soon as possible. There are also steps we should take to set up a better quarantine system, and many places have set up such systems in the wake of blaster and sassar.
Taking freedom of information as basic, what would the legal system look like?
Pretty much the same. Most of our legal system is perfectly servicable and works well. Now if we're not supplying a "full set" but instead redoing computer and technology law, the situation is different. How about with very few exceptions, we make what is possible and what is legal the same? The Internet is not really like regular society; there is a technological and reasonable solution to everything.
Google says no. Though it might still be old, just localized and not electronically distributed. Or he may have been attepting to make funny by referencing an old saying about patent law.
Somewhat unrelated: if someone makes a statement beginning with "As the old saying goes," and it turns out they came up with it, have they waived their copy rights?
University of London? You silly Brit. Just because your legal system is based on ours doesn't mean that everything that is "valid contract law" over there holds here.
What about all those who signed the Gator/Gain network EULA which prohibits the removal of said spyware/adware from PCs?
So "spyware that is already on existing systems" are relavant. The point is, a state law couldn't release you from the EULA's terms, though a federal law could.
States can prohibit contracts on the basis of what they promise. What they can't do is impair obligation under current contracts, which is what a current EULA would be.
Only federal law (which this is). A state law would have a problem. If EULAs are contracts (which they need to be to be valid anyways) then section I.10.1 has the following to say:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
So while federal law can affect obligation in contract, state law can't.
1. sign up for freeipod/screen/whatever scam
2. make slashdot account
3. post link in sig on/.
4. Fire Rick Berman out of a cannon (sell tickets)
5. profit
Quite doable, as 12 hours a day. And if he may be counting the weekends on both sides he might only ned 8 hours per day.
What a hash is/does
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 3, Informative
No, that would be one application of a hash (and not a very good one, because someone wanting to mess with it enroute could just re-hash the doctored version and pass on the new hash. What you discribe could be a way to check for accidental errors, though.). A hash is a function that given data gives a smaller amount of data. This smaller amount of data is then also called the hash of the origonal data. A good hash function has the property that if you know the hash for a file, you shouldn't be able to come up with another file that has the same hash without a prohibitive amount of work. A hash function is broken if this property stops holding.
I agree that commercial software has a place in the F/OSS revolution, and I wasn't trying to argue in agreement with the GGP. I just wanted to point out that there was one bit of accurate information in a post that was on the whole infactual.
FOSS = Free Open Source Software. Free as in Freedom to modify and redistribute software and open source being self-defining. Free software by itself denotes the same thing, using the term FOSS is just being redundant so people realize you don't simple mean free (as in price) software.
Not really. It is often written F/OSS because it stands for Free/Open Source Software. The GP was actually right about this; there are separate (but closely related) Free Software and Open Source Software movements. They have similar end goals, but for different reasons. The Free Software people see the issue as a moral one while the Open Source people think it's a practical one. Read the Wikipedia entries.
(2) commercial software deprives people of vital rights - ie, they are evil.
Commercial software does no such thing. It is proprietary software that deprives people of rights. The GP's point was that it's important to realize that commercial FOSS projects can be good for the community, and note that FOSS part means (among other things) non-proprietary. Or to quote RMS:
You have to be very careful there. Commercial software and Proprietary software are totally different concepts. "Commercial" refers to the financial arrangement of the software. "Proprietary" refers to what the users are permitted to do. Free software must have the freedom to copy, to modify, and have the source code. So proprietary software is mutually exclusive with free software, but there can be commercial software that are free software.[1]
Perhaps that makes it clearer what he thinks. Not that what he thinks matters as much as you claim it does.
The city didn't buy the copyright to the structure, just the structure itself. Art is cheaper that way. Now I think that the city shouldn't have agreed to buy the art without the copyright, as it is public art, but they did.
Fair use is a defense, not a right. The RIAA does not need to prove that it is NOT fair use. It is entirely up to YOU to prove that it IS.
If I have a CD, does that mean that the RIAA can sue me and its my burden to justify my possession of it? They can sue me, but they better have a reason to suspect I have it illegitamately.
Technically, nobody knows whether or not they are fair use, not even you... Unless you have already been sued, and you have invoked the fair use defense, and the judge has agreed with you. In a sense, fair use does not even exist until then.
This may be true, but that doesn't mean that the RIAA can sue you just because you might have some music on your computer that they might have standing to sue you over. It is true that they only need "the preponderance of the evidence", but they have no evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
The king can never be placed in check, but if through legal means he finds himself in check, there's no reason he can't take the other king and end the game.
Perhaps you meant two kinds of pieces, but imagining a game of Go with two constantly moving pieces is making my head hurt.
Actually, some other people already did:
1) Patent other people's inventions
2) Fire Rick Berman out of a cannon (sell tickets)
3) Profit!!!
But it's not advertisers that write these user-initated pop-ups, it's silly webdesigners who write javascript to have links open in a new window. What would be nicer would be for firefox to have all user-initated javascript pop-ups open in a new tab, and so keep the "open in a new space" functionality without having to deal with a new window.
Harassment is different on the net than in real life. I can currently block people by IP or whitelist my friends. Technically better solutions are already needed and already being worked on.
Invasion of privacy is likewise possible to prevent. I can use GPG or other tools to encrypt my communications through simple plugins to Thunderbird and GAIM. My browser already does HTTP/SSL for financial transactions.
Designing viruses? They'll still be made even if we outlaw them, as if we don't let white-hats work on viruses then the black-hats will. And we want to know what the problem is and fix it as soon as possible. There are also steps we should take to set up a better quarantine system, and many places have set up such systems in the wake of blaster and sassar.
Wouldn't that also block user-initiated javascript popups? Many sites use these legitamately (though they are annoying).
Pretty much the same. Most of our legal system is perfectly servicable and works well. Now if we're not supplying a "full set" but instead redoing computer and technology law, the situation is different. How about with very few exceptions, we make what is possible and what is legal the same? The Internet is not really like regular society; there is a technological and reasonable solution to everything.
Somewhat unrelated: if someone makes a statement beginning with "As the old saying goes," and it turns out they came up with it, have they waived their copy rights?
Said the guy requesting wedding donations in his sig.
University of London? You silly Brit. Just because your legal system is based on ours doesn't mean that everything that is "valid contract law" over there holds here.
Not if you want it to be able to do more than just detect the problems. NTFS write support in Linux is not yet complete.
States can prohibit contracts on the basis of what they promise. What they can't do is impair obligation under current contracts, which is what a current EULA would be.
"The Department of Redundant dual TLA Acronyms ...the SPY ACT Act!"
1. sign up for freeipod/screen/whatever scam /.
2. make slashdot account
3. post link in sig on
4. Fire Rick Berman out of a cannon (sell tickets)
5. profit
Quite doable, as 12 hours a day. And if he may be counting the weekends on both sides he might only ned 8 hours per day.
No, that would be one application of a hash (and not a very good one, because someone wanting to mess with it enroute could just re-hash the doctored version and pass on the new hash. What you discribe could be a way to check for accidental errors, though.). A hash is a function that given data gives a smaller amount of data. This smaller amount of data is then also called the hash of the origonal data. A good hash function has the property that if you know the hash for a file, you shouldn't be able to come up with another file that has the same hash without a prohibitive amount of work. A hash function is broken if this property stops holding.
I agree that commercial software has a place in the F/OSS revolution, and I wasn't trying to argue in agreement with the GGP. I just wanted to point out that there was one bit of accurate information in a post that was on the whole infactual.
Not really. It is often written F/OSS because it stands for Free/Open Source Software. The GP was actually right about this; there are separate (but closely related) Free Software and Open Source Software movements. They have similar end goals, but for different reasons. The Free Software people see the issue as a moral one while the Open Source people think it's a practical one. Read the Wikipedia entries.
(2) commercial software deprives people of vital rights - ie, they are evil.
Commercial software does no such thing. It is proprietary software that deprives people of rights. The GP's point was that it's important to realize that commercial FOSS projects can be good for the community, and note that FOSS part means (among other things) non-proprietary. Or to quote RMS:
Perhaps that makes it clearer what he thinks. Not that what he thinks matters as much as you claim it does.
[1] Quotation from an interview available here.
Have you seen this? Two new episodes of TOS, with more on the way.
The city didn't buy the copyright to the structure, just the structure itself. Art is cheaper that way. Now I think that the city shouldn't have agreed to buy the art without the copyright, as it is public art, but they did.
Reboot the robot, then.
If I have a CD, does that mean that the RIAA can sue me and its my burden to justify my possession of it? They can sue me, but they better have a reason to suspect I have it illegitamately.
Technically, nobody knows whether or not they are fair use, not even you... Unless you have already been sued, and you have invoked the fair use defense, and the judge has agreed with you. In a sense, fair use does not even exist until then.
This may be true, but that doesn't mean that the RIAA can sue you just because you might have some music on your computer that they might have standing to sue you over. It is true that they only need "the preponderance of the evidence", but they have no evidence.