It doesn't need to be completely impossible... but there does need to be some actual evidence beyond "I have your IP address, therefore it was you" stuff they do now.
So then, we are in agreement that this ruling is bad. This ruling says that they must tie it to an individual, but they are not allowed to do any investigation that would help them in doing that.
Is this really something to cheer about? Rah rah yay evil copyright trolls defeated! But wait... is this really fair?
The judge's ruling states that an IP address isn't sufficient information to bring a claim, and that discovery is not permitted. Doesn't that make it pretty much impossible to file a copyright infringement claim against someone for downloading a file? The only way I can think of to tie an IP address download to an individual would be to look at the hard drive of the computer to determine if the file was ever there.
The judge also points out that the owner of the wireless network is under no legal obligation to protect their wireless network from someone else using it. So it upholds the wireless network claim, although it wasn't used in this decision.
I am no fan of the copyright trolls, but I don't think making it completely impossible to track down copyright infringement cases is fair either.
Last note: The judge granted the motion on one of three counts brought against the individual. They can refile on the first two counts if they can find a way to identify the individual, not just the IP address.
Perhaps that is what you meant to do. But that is not what you did. You stated "And yet this is neither a face, nor is a hospital involved." which attacks the hypothetical part of the analogy instead of the point that the analogy made. The fact that you thought the poster was looking for an emotional response confirms that you didn't get the point beamdriver was making.
What I believe beamdriver was saying through the analogy is something like "The fragility of the component is not relevant in determining if the act was or was not a crime." He conveyed this by changing the servers to a face and the downloads to a punch. One should not punch a face regardless of how tough the person is. By analogy, one should not mass download data from a server regardless of how powerful the server is.
Do not misunderstand: I'm not saying I agree with the point he/she is trying to make.
By your logic, slashdot readers would be at fault for bringing down websites by simply trying to view their contents. Would you like to be in court for your part in "Slashdot Effect"?
That is a fair analogy based on the original one, and makes your point well.
Also, regarding your follow-up:
For someone who can't recognize an analogy, I sure do use alot of them =D
Irrelevant. How often one uses analogies is not indicative of their ability to critique one.
My point is this: If you wish to disagree with an analogy, do not point out that the items in the hypothetical part of the analogy were not involved. Of course they weren't involved. If they were, it would not be an analogy. Just move on to the meat of the argument. In my case, here is how I read your reply:
Let me explain to you what motivated me to make this point: Imagine someone reading your post for the first time. I saw "And yet this is neither a face, nor is a hospital involved. This kind of retarded logic..." I almost stopped reading here because it sounded like a fool attacking the analogy instead of making a point. But then, I actually read on and saw "...similar to what corporations use to assign themselves rights..." which looks like an offtopic rant about corporations. I stopped reading there.
Now that you replied, I see you might be an intelligent person who actually had a point, it was just hidden behind your emotional response to the works "punch" and "face."
So lastly, I ask myself if the Slashdot effect truly is comparable to this situation. I say it is not, because Slashdot is merely pointing to articles that are intended to be read by the mass public. Those servers should appreciate the readership and traffic volume. Whereas j-stor was not intended for mass downloads. But beamdriver's analogy is still revevant
Samkiss explained it well. They aren't patenting the gene. They are patenting the test that looks for the gene. You can't patent a gene since that isn't an invention.
I don't want to use cellular, Fongo, or Skype. I want to use the existing regular dialing app, connecting through WiFi, to my router, to AT&T's service running on AT&T's servers. They have such servers, but the only software that connects to them is the software on the microcells that AT&T sells.
"It uses a totally different process called Stereolithography,"
I know all these terms like FDM and stereolithography are new here at Slashdot, but this tech isn't new at all. At my employer, the industrial designers engineers tell me how they replaced their stereolithography machines with FDM machines years ago.
"do features down to 0.3 mm," which, he says, is much finer than you can get with FDM
The Makerbot Replicator I have at home does 0.1mm out of the box. This is typical.
"Stereolithography can be made stronger and can be machined more accurately than those made by the FDM process."
Perhaps the technology has improved. But the whole reason companies replaced the stereolithographic machines with FDM is because of the benefits of using "real plastic." It was stronger and didn't photo-degrade like the resins do.
I am not knocking the Form1: it's a great device. But I caution anyone to treat it like some new big up-and-coming thing.
How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?
What is the evidence that North Korea set off a nuclear bomb? There was an earthquake, and we theorize it was caused by an explosion that was "6 to 7 kilotons." That is entirely feasible to do with conventional explosives. There have been accidents with coal trains and ships colliding that have produced explosions equivalent to over 2 kilotons. Doesn't this seem more likely? Or is there some evidence that this really was nuclear?
How is it that Iran can't get enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb, but North Korea can? Iran is much more advanced as far as I know. (Please reply and enlighten me if I am wrong here). If they really do have a nuclear weapon in NK, it seems most likely that they bought old soviet surplus or got it from China.
While we are at it, can we make cell phones support WiFi for phone calls?
The phones already have the hardware to do this. People could make calls from places where cell reception sucks but they had Wifi internet. It would also reduce the burden on cell towers as people eliminate landlines and use their cell phones at home, where they probably already have WiFi routers. It also would eliminate the need for those stupid microcells: you could just use your regular wi-fi router for calls without needing to pay for their box.
Everyone, repeat after me: "Business methods should not be patentable" That means: - No one-click ordering patents - No more patents on online auctions The courts cannot fix this. It is up to congress.
Plus I am concerned about growing use of domestic drone technology like for the in the Alabama kidnapping this week. Only a short step to arm them.
I am not worried about the government arming their drones. I am worried about the government disarming the citizen's drones. I am not worried about them putting cameras on their drones. I am worried about them removing the cameras on our drones.
I thought they were inflating the dollar amount because they were jerks. But it was more than just that: they had to inflate it so it met the dollar amount where the feds could get involved.
We need a responsible disclosure law. Following the law should do two crucial things: 1) indemnify the security researcher and 2) indemnify the company if they fix the problem in some reasonable amount of time. Not following the law should leave you at the mercy of the courts.
The law could require the researcher to notify the company/organization, or allow them to notify some responsible body like CERT or the FBI. If the problem is not fixed by some deadline, then the researcher should be able to disclose or sell the information as they choose with no criminal charge or liability.
I was at a Barnes and Noble yesterday and I heard a salesperson explaining to an older couple about the Nook. I overheard something like "...you don't load apps onto this, it is for reading books.... no, you can't copy those files..." It was a very interesting conversation. She was basically telling this couple that everything they heard was cool about tablets and PCs didn't work on this device. If I had stock in B&N I would have sold it after hearing that!
Microsoft is more likely to sell off the Windows Os side and keep the entertainment division. XBOX exists because they knew that the future of Windows depends on it being in your living room. They are supposed to be using the xbox to sell Windows in the same way Apple uses the iPad and iPhone OS to sell Macs.
With that said, Microsoft is doing a terrible job at this, but the strategy depends on tying entertainment to OS so selling it off would be illogical.
And your first point isn't really worth replying to.
Yet you did... interesting... I suppose that is supposed to tell me something but I can only speculate as to what your point might be. Maybe it was too far outside of the PC zone?
I am still searching for a good source who states what gun was used. Some media outlets show a video of them removing the AR from the car, and conclude that he didn't use it. But then every article says he used the AR to shoot the glass and get into the school. One police chief is quoted as saying he used an assault rifle in the killings, but that doesn't seem corroborated anywhere else. Every report does agree that he used a handgun to kill himself.
Gun laws are in a different class of laws from murder, assault, and theft. Let me explain:
There are 2 kinds of laws: The first kind are laws that make the act illegal. Examples are laws against murder, assault, or theft. The second kind are the preventative laws, which make it illegal to do things that are commonly associated with the crime. Those would be laws against driving intoxicated, or having an open alcohol container in a moving vehicle, or possessing a gun that is an illegal type of gun.
In the US, when we are having problems with the first set of laws being violated, the legislature tends to pass more and more laws of the second type. Sometimes they do this just so that the prosecutors can charge someone with 2 crimes instead of 1. For example, in Baltimore City it is illegal to sell cocaine to a minor. Of course, it is already illegal to sell cocaine in the first place. It's also illegal to possess it. So the only reason for such a law is so that they can say you committed 3 felonies instead of just 1, and it gives the prosecutor bargaining power.
Overall, those secondary laws are not very effective deterrents. They are especially ineffective in cases where the primary crime requires the person to be insane or without remorse. So if someone is going to commit murder, they probably don't care if they also get charged with possessing an illegal firearm, or jaywalking, or anything else. They are already risking life in prison, so stacking more charges on them is pointless.
This is one of the reasons that gun laws are particularly ineffective. In my neighborhood, there has been a rash of armed robberies. Since these guys are already holding people up at gunpoint, willing to kill for money (or thrill?), will they be deterred by a law that says they didn't use the proper type of gun? Or that they used the wrong type of gun to hold someone up? Probably not.
This is the source of the "No criminal will dare violate the law now" comment which is often stated as "If guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns." Because making a particular gun illegal won't change the behavior of the criminals, only the behavior of the law abiding folk.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't need to be completely impossible ... but there does need to be some actual evidence beyond "I have your IP address, therefore it was you" stuff they do now.
So then, we are in agreement that this ruling is bad. This ruling says that they must tie it to an individual, but they are not allowed to do any investigation that would help them in doing that.
Is this really something to cheer about? Rah rah yay evil copyright trolls defeated! But wait... is this really fair?
The judge's ruling states that an IP address isn't sufficient information to bring a claim, and that discovery is not permitted. Doesn't that make it pretty much impossible to file a copyright infringement claim against someone for downloading a file? The only way I can think of to tie an IP address download to an individual would be to look at the hard drive of the computer to determine if the file was ever there.
The judge also points out that the owner of the wireless network is under no legal obligation to protect their wireless network from someone else using it. So it upholds the wireless network claim, although it wasn't used in this decision.
I am no fan of the copyright trolls, but I don't think making it completely impossible to track down copyright infringement cases is fair either.
Last note:
The judge granted the motion on one of three counts brought against the individual. They can refile on the first two counts if they can find a way to identify the individual, not just the IP address.
I disagreed with the analogy
Perhaps that is what you meant to do. But that is not what you did. You stated "And yet this is neither a face, nor is a hospital involved." which attacks the hypothetical part of the analogy instead of the point that the analogy made. The fact that you thought the poster was looking for an emotional response confirms that you didn't get the point beamdriver was making.
What I believe beamdriver was saying through the analogy is something like "The fragility of the component is not relevant in determining if the act was or was not a crime." He conveyed this by changing the servers to a face and the downloads to a punch. One should not punch a face regardless of how tough the person is. By analogy, one should not mass download data from a server regardless of how powerful the server is.
Do not misunderstand: I'm not saying I agree with the point he/she is trying to make.
By your logic, slashdot readers would be at fault for bringing down websites by simply trying to view their contents. Would you like to be in court for your part in "Slashdot Effect"?
That is a fair analogy based on the original one, and makes your point well.
Also, regarding your follow-up:
For someone who can't recognize an analogy, I sure do use alot of them =D
Irrelevant. How often one uses analogies is not indicative of their ability to critique one.
My point is this: If you wish to disagree with an analogy, do not point out that the items in the hypothetical part of the analogy were not involved. Of course they weren't involved. If they were, it would not be an analogy. Just move on to the meat of the argument. In my case, here is how I read your reply:
Let me explain to you what motivated me to make this point: Imagine someone reading your post for the first time. I saw "And yet this is neither a face, nor is a hospital involved. This kind of retarded logic..." I almost stopped reading here because it sounded like a fool attacking the analogy instead of making a point. But then, I actually read on and saw "...similar to what corporations use to assign themselves rights..." which looks like an offtopic rant about corporations. I stopped reading there.
Now that you replied, I see you might be an intelligent person who actually had a point, it was just hidden behind your emotional response to the works "punch" and "face."
So lastly, I ask myself if the Slashdot effect truly is comparable to this situation. I say it is not, because Slashdot is merely pointing to articles that are intended to be read by the mass public. Those servers should appreciate the readership and traffic volume. Whereas j-stor was not intended for mass downloads. But beamdriver's analogy is still revevant
Samkiss explained it well. They aren't patenting the gene. They are patenting the test that looks for the gene. You can't patent a gene since that isn't an invention.
I don't want to use cellular, Fongo, or Skype. I want to use the existing regular dialing app, connecting through WiFi, to my router, to AT&T's service running on AT&T's servers. They have such servers, but the only software that connects to them is the software on the microcells that AT&T sells.
And yet this is neither a face, nor is a hospital involved. This kind of retarded logic...
It's called an analogy . Attacking the hypothetical part of someone''s analogy is what Scott Adams likes to call a "win by knockout."
"It uses a totally different process called Stereolithography,"
I know all these terms like FDM and stereolithography are new here at Slashdot, but this tech isn't new at all. At my employer, the industrial designers engineers tell me how they replaced their stereolithography machines with FDM machines years ago.
"do features down to 0.3 mm," which, he says, is much finer than you can get with FDM
The Makerbot Replicator I have at home does 0.1mm out of the box. This is typical.
"Stereolithography can be made stronger and can be machined more accurately than those made by the FDM process."
Perhaps the technology has improved. But the whole reason companies replaced the stereolithographic machines with FDM is because of the benefits of using "real plastic." It was stronger and didn't photo-degrade like the resins do.
I am not knocking the Form1: it's a great device. But I caution anyone to treat it like some new big up-and-coming thing.
No. I want to dial a regular telephone number and have it use WiFi.
Just to clarify: I am not aware of any coal trains that collided with ships. :-) I meant coal trains colliding, and also ships colliding.
How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?
What is the evidence that North Korea set off a nuclear bomb? There was an earthquake, and we theorize it was caused by an explosion that was "6 to 7 kilotons." That is entirely feasible to do with conventional explosives. There have been accidents with coal trains and ships colliding that have produced explosions equivalent to over 2 kilotons. Doesn't this seem more likely? Or is there some evidence that this really was nuclear?
How is it that Iran can't get enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb, but North Korea can? Iran is much more advanced as far as I know. (Please reply and enlighten me if I am wrong here). If they really do have a nuclear weapon in NK, it seems most likely that they bought old soviet surplus or got it from China.
While we are at it, can we make cell phones support WiFi for phone calls?
The phones already have the hardware to do this. People could make calls from places where cell reception sucks but they had Wifi internet. It would also reduce the burden on cell towers as people eliminate landlines and use their cell phones at home, where they probably already have WiFi routers. It also would eliminate the need for those stupid microcells: you could just use your regular wi-fi router for calls without needing to pay for their box.
Everyone, repeat after me: "Business methods should not be patentable"
That means:
- No one-click ordering patents
- No more patents on online auctions
The courts cannot fix this. It is up to congress.
Plus I am concerned about growing use of domestic drone technology like for the in the Alabama kidnapping this week. Only a short step to arm them.
I am not worried about the government arming their drones. I am worried about the government disarming the citizen's drones. I am not worried about them putting cameras on their drones. I am worried about them removing the cameras on our drones.
We need to be talking about making college as universal, free, and affordable (for society) as high school. Then we'll see some real progress.
While you are at it, please do that with electricity and food too.
this!
I thought they were inflating the dollar amount because they were jerks. But it was more than just that: they had to inflate it so it met the dollar amount where the feds could get involved.
If the guy disclosed to a newspaper then he is a black hat. No sympathy.
If you found my front door unlocked and decided to tell the newspapers instead of telling me, you are potentially aiding a criminal.
We need a responsible disclosure law. Following the law should do two crucial things: 1) indemnify the security researcher and 2) indemnify the company if they fix the problem in some reasonable amount of time. Not following the law should leave you at the mercy of the courts.
The law could require the researcher to notify the company/organization, or allow them to notify some responsible body like CERT or the FBI. If the problem is not fixed by some deadline, then the researcher should be able to disclose or sell the information as they choose with no criminal charge or liability.
I was at a Barnes and Noble yesterday and I heard a salesperson explaining to an older couple about the Nook. I overheard something like "...you don't load apps onto this, it is for reading books.... no, you can't copy those files..." It was a very interesting conversation. She was basically telling this couple that everything they heard was cool about tablets and PCs didn't work on this device. If I had stock in B&N I would have sold it after hearing that!
Microsoft is more likely to sell off the Windows Os side and keep the entertainment division. XBOX exists because they knew that the future of Windows depends on it being in your living room. They are supposed to be using the xbox to sell Windows in the same way Apple uses the iPad and iPhone OS to sell Macs.
With that said, Microsoft is doing a terrible job at this, but the strategy depends on tying entertainment to OS so selling it off would be illogical.
If this is true, then why not have everyone take Vitamin D supplements during the winter, instead of giving them flu shots?
Thanks for the link.
And your first point isn't really worth replying to.
Yet you did... interesting... I suppose that is supposed to tell me something but I can only speculate as to what your point might be. Maybe it was too far outside of the PC zone?
Did you know that the Rawandan genocide
You just took us from radio DJs to a modern day genocide. That counts as a godwin.
rifles, shotguns and firearms
Aren't rifles and shotguns firearms?
Does it ban the gun used - No
I am still searching for a good source who states what gun was used. Some media outlets show a video of them removing the AR from the car, and conclude that he didn't use it. But then every article says he used the AR to shoot the glass and get into the school. One police chief is quoted as saying he used an assault rifle in the killings, but that doesn't seem corroborated anywhere else. Every report does agree that he used a handgun to kill himself.
I don't know why this is so difficult to find.
Gun laws are in a different class of laws from murder, assault, and theft. Let me explain:
There are 2 kinds of laws: The first kind are laws that make the act illegal. Examples are laws against murder, assault, or theft. The second kind are the preventative laws, which make it illegal to do things that are commonly associated with the crime. Those would be laws against driving intoxicated, or having an open alcohol container in a moving vehicle, or possessing a gun that is an illegal type of gun.
In the US, when we are having problems with the first set of laws being violated, the legislature tends to pass more and more laws of the second type. Sometimes they do this just so that the prosecutors can charge someone with 2 crimes instead of 1. For example, in Baltimore City it is illegal to sell cocaine to a minor. Of course, it is already illegal to sell cocaine in the first place. It's also illegal to possess it. So the only reason for such a law is so that they can say you committed 3 felonies instead of just 1, and it gives the prosecutor bargaining power.
Overall, those secondary laws are not very effective deterrents. They are especially ineffective in cases where the primary crime requires the person to be insane or without remorse. So if someone is going to commit murder, they probably don't care if they also get charged with possessing an illegal firearm, or jaywalking, or anything else. They are already risking life in prison, so stacking more charges on them is pointless.
This is one of the reasons that gun laws are particularly ineffective. In my neighborhood, there has been a rash of armed robberies. Since these guys are already holding people up at gunpoint, willing to kill for money (or thrill?), will they be deterred by a law that says they didn't use the proper type of gun? Or that they used the wrong type of gun to hold someone up? Probably not.
This is the source of the "No criminal will dare violate the law now" comment which is often stated as "If guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns." Because making a particular gun illegal won't change the behavior of the criminals, only the behavior of the law abiding folk.