I've always wondered if grammatical scoring would be helpful. This is not beyond the capabilities of today's computers, because I'm not proposing understanding the content - only whether the grammatical syntax seems reasonable. SP4m d1ffernt b1cause looks differnt, and it shouldn't be too hard for a search engine to notice obvious flaws in language. This has the added benefit of forcing spammers to use proper grammar, which should then be easier to understand. A simple comparison to other pages can check for obvious keyword stuffing; e.g., pasting Shakespeare into the bottom of the page.
Also, "physical PageRank" - grading sites that cite academic sources more positively, and then confirming that the book's content matches the site's content - could be helpful. As much as I think Google Book Search is a massive copyright infringement and that they should be forced to cease & desist, it would be handy for physical PageRank.
I hereby release both of these ideas to the public domain.
On the other hand, surely their must be something that can be done
Not on the national level. Regardless of what one believes happened in the local elections, George W. Bush is the legitimate President of the United States, because there has been no allegations that the votes from the electoral college were coerced or otherwise counted incorrectly.
Locally, what can happen varies from state to state. Some states do not require their electors to vote according to the popular vote; they can break ranks. (Indeed, this has happened before.) The political parties, which typically nominate the electors, can refuse to nominate them in the future if the state's vote did not come out as expected. And of course, local poll workers can be sanctioned for wrongdoing.
Attach a five-transfer limit to the file. It would work like this:
Alice decides to sell her iTunes watermarked movie to Bob. She logs into iTunes and fills out Bob's address.
iTunes requires her to click-through an agreement that says she will destroy all copies of the content she is transferring.
Bob logs into his iTunes account and downloads the movie, which is now watermarked with his information.
Because the transfer count is now stored centrally, it becomes trivial to make sure it's kept accurate. Alice and Bob both get files marked with their watermark. If Alice's watermarked file is found, there is conclusive proof that the copy is illegal, since she promised she would delete it as part of the transfer.
Alternatively, we could always prohibit transfers. That's exactly how DRM-infected media works today.
I have an even simpler analogy. Why is it that Apple has to charge money for a capability update to an Airport card but can add game support to the fifth-generation iPod for free?
It's not that simple. Copyright law says a work-for-hire is "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." Court cases have determined that an employee that gets time off from other duties, and is provided work space and IT resources by the employer, can be commissioning a work-for-hire, whether a formal agreement exists or not.
In the U.S., at least some crimes are caused by negligence - I think the lawyers call it an "act of omission," something you were supposed to do according to law but didn't. For example, if you hit a pedestrian with your car and then don't stop to help, you are guilty of a hit-and-run.
It doesn't sound like this was negligence on the teacher's part, but the prosecutor could have accused her of allowing the popups to take place and not doing enough to stop them.
I didn't misread it. You stopped quoting too early:
and the copyright for it is most likely held by the author(s) or the company that created the software
There's a (very short) debate on the talk page about this, but excluding vandalism, the wording has essentially stayed constant since it was added in 2005. I'd argue that that's a strong sign of community consensus.
The question about who owns the copyright here is murky, at best. It would probably be Linden Labs, except that they consider themselves an "online service provider" under the DMCA. Operating under this portion of the law means that you don't claim copyright on the creative works you host; you merely act as a conduit.
My guess would be that at this point, copyright for the individual objects is owned by the creator(s) of each object. The question then becomes whether the public performance of each object is fair use. I'd argue that in most cases, it will be. There's only one copyright holder complaining here.
Interesting. I would have thought that Avid would be strongly preferred because access to media archives would be more cumbersome in FCP. Is there a workflow that you use that makes it easier?
When not everything responds to Tab, tabbing becomes faster. The Apple default means it's faster to get to where you would normally need the keyboard for entry. You can press Enter to immediately hit the action button, and Escape for Cancel, just like you could on Windows.
It seems to me that a useful compromise would be to allow tabbing to other UI elements in dialogs that don't have text boxes.
But they're not forcing anything. Anybody with old code can still patch with code licensed by GPL version 3. All this does is restrict code released starting today.
I agree in principle, but the problem is that iTV is going to hook up to a TV, so I'd imagine that any video content is going to fit better on that medium than purely audio content. If audio was its target functionality, Apple should have added an integrated display.
I actually think the next hurdle to be crossed is going to be live distribution. CNN and Fox News trade on the idea of immediate access to information; other people are also fascinated by the potential of live webcasts as a means of staying connected. Adding streaming to iTV, combined with an efficient and accessible delivery system, would send Apple's mindshare through the roof.
Other potential solutions include preventing machines from reporting local time (through HTTP? - I'm not clear the attacker learns the time in the first place; neither TCP nor IP have time information in the headers, it seems) or preventing hidden servers from talking on the public Internet.
For most hidden services, either should be feasible. Timing doesn't seem that important anyway, given the inherent latency of the Tor network.
There are alternative explanations. The content industry wouldn't release anything to Apple without DRM protection, and the only way TPM has been used so far is to make sure OS X only runs on Apple hardware. I'm not giving them an out, but these behaviors seem benign, relatively speaking.
Consider the alternative:
Make sure you don't misplace your product key, in case you need to reinstall later.
Cross your fingers when Microsoft phones home during activation to discover whether you're worthy of using Windows.
Cross your fingers again as Microsoft checks whether you're a criminal every time you download patches.
Cross your fingers yet again as you wonder whether end-of-life means your purchase will no longer activate.
Remember to opt out of Windows Media Player's helpful tendency to DRM-infect files from CDs you rip yourself.
Consider whether PlaysForSure or Zune DRM is more likely to be future-proof.
I don't deny that Apple might behave this way given the majority market share, but I think they're a long way from reaching that. If the tables are turned in ten years, I'll just do what I did to the Republicans: switch to the better candidate, even if that means Microsoft.
IMHO, Apple would be a fool to consider tighter DRM. A significant portion of the (increasing) user base is switching to avoid Windows. Every step Apple makes toward emulating Windows flaws is one less way they can claim to "think different."
I'm actually very comfortable trading congresscritter reaction shots and wide sweeping pans of the chambers for public domain footage that's not encumbered by copyright.
My favourite is that whenever anyone tries to crack a password, they magically have a progress bar (presumably to heighten the anticipation as the bomb ticks down)
Why would one write a web application that works only in Internet Explorer? Doesn't that defeat the primary benefit of a web app - increased flexibility? Wouldn't it be more sane to use something like VB that will be more consistent at the expense of less portability?
Slashdot Mirror
I've always wondered if grammatical scoring would be helpful. This is not beyond the capabilities of today's computers, because I'm not proposing understanding the content - only whether the grammatical syntax seems reasonable. SP4m d1ffernt b1cause looks differnt, and it shouldn't be too hard for a search engine to notice obvious flaws in language. This has the added benefit of forcing spammers to use proper grammar, which should then be easier to understand. A simple comparison to other pages can check for obvious keyword stuffing; e.g., pasting Shakespeare into the bottom of the page.
Also, "physical PageRank" - grading sites that cite academic sources more positively, and then confirming that the book's content matches the site's content - could be helpful. As much as I think Google Book Search is a massive copyright infringement and that they should be forced to cease & desist, it would be handy for physical PageRank.
I hereby release both of these ideas to the public domain.
Locally, what can happen varies from state to state. Some states do not require their electors to vote according to the popular vote; they can break ranks. (Indeed, this has happened before.) The political parties, which typically nominate the electors, can refuse to nominate them in the future if the state's vote did not come out as expected. And of course, local poll workers can be sanctioned for wrongdoing.
Bush is the president. No doubt about it.
Thank goodness that will change in two years.
- Alice decides to sell her iTunes watermarked movie to Bob. She logs into iTunes and fills out Bob's address.
- iTunes requires her to click-through an agreement that says she will destroy all copies of the content she is transferring.
- Bob logs into his iTunes account and downloads the movie, which is now watermarked with his information.
Because the transfer count is now stored centrally, it becomes trivial to make sure it's kept accurate. Alice and Bob both get files marked with their watermark. If Alice's watermarked file is found, there is conclusive proof that the copy is illegal, since she promised she would delete it as part of the transfer.Alternatively, we could always prohibit transfers. That's exactly how DRM-infected media works today.
Perhaps the judiciary needs to learn what most Slashdotters already know: feeding the troll solves nothing.
I have an even simpler analogy. Why is it that Apple has to charge money for a capability update to an Airport card but can add game support to the fifth-generation iPod for free?
If it were 100% certain, then there would have been no reasonable doubt, and therefore he would have been convicted.
It's not that simple. Copyright law says a work-for-hire is "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." Court cases have determined that an employee that gets time off from other duties, and is provided work space and IT resources by the employer, can be commissioning a work-for-hire, whether a formal agreement exists or not.
In the U.S., at least some crimes are caused by negligence - I think the lawyers call it an "act of omission," something you were supposed to do according to law but didn't. For example, if you hit a pedestrian with your car and then don't stop to help, you are guilty of a hit-and-run.
It doesn't sound like this was negligence on the teacher's part, but the prosecutor could have accused her of allowing the popups to take place and not doing enough to stop them.
There's a (very short) debate on the talk page about this, but excluding vandalism, the wording has essentially stayed constant since it was added in 2005. I'd argue that that's a strong sign of community consensus.
IANAL, but several visit Wikipedia, which completely disagrees with you.
The question about who owns the copyright here is murky, at best. It would probably be Linden Labs, except that they consider themselves an "online service provider" under the DMCA. Operating under this portion of the law means that you don't claim copyright on the creative works you host; you merely act as a conduit.
My guess would be that at this point, copyright for the individual objects is owned by the creator(s) of each object. The question then becomes whether the public performance of each object is fair use. I'd argue that in most cases, it will be. There's only one copyright holder complaining here.
Interesting. I would have thought that Avid would be strongly preferred because access to media archives would be more cumbersome in FCP. Is there a workflow that you use that makes it easier?
When not everything responds to Tab, tabbing becomes faster. The Apple default means it's faster to get to where you would normally need the keyboard for entry. You can press Enter to immediately hit the action button, and Escape for Cancel, just like you could on Windows.
It seems to me that a useful compromise would be to allow tabbing to other UI elements in dialogs that don't have text boxes.
But they're not forcing anything. Anybody with old code can still patch with code licensed by GPL version 3. All this does is restrict code released starting today.
I agree in principle, but the problem is that iTV is going to hook up to a TV, so I'd imagine that any video content is going to fit better on that medium than purely audio content. If audio was its target functionality, Apple should have added an integrated display.
I actually think the next hurdle to be crossed is going to be live distribution. CNN and Fox News trade on the idea of immediate access to information; other people are also fascinated by the potential of live webcasts as a means of staying connected. Adding streaming to iTV, combined with an efficient and accessible delivery system, would send Apple's mindshare through the roof.
Just opening it up to video podcasts in your iTunes library would be a significant opportunity for new media providers.
Other potential solutions include preventing machines from reporting local time (through HTTP? - I'm not clear the attacker learns the time in the first place; neither TCP nor IP have time information in the headers, it seems) or preventing hidden servers from talking on the public Internet.
For most hidden services, either should be feasible. Timing doesn't seem that important anyway, given the inherent latency of the Tor network.
Love your sig :) Where's it from?
Ask, you insensitive clod!
- Make sure you don't misplace your product key, in case you need to reinstall later.
- Cross your fingers when Microsoft phones home during activation to discover whether you're worthy of using Windows.
- Cross your fingers again as Microsoft checks whether you're a criminal every time you download patches.
- Cross your fingers yet again as you wonder whether end-of-life means your purchase will no longer activate.
- Remember to opt out of Windows Media Player's helpful tendency to DRM-infect files from CDs you rip yourself.
- Consider whether PlaysForSure or Zune DRM is more likely to be future-proof.
I don't deny that Apple might behave this way given the majority market share, but I think they're a long way from reaching that. If the tables are turned in ten years, I'll just do what I did to the Republicans: switch to the better candidate, even if that means Microsoft.IMHO, Apple would be a fool to consider tighter DRM. A significant portion of the (increasing) user base is switching to avoid Windows. Every step Apple makes toward emulating Windows flaws is one less way they can claim to "think different."
I'm actually very comfortable trading congresscritter reaction shots and wide sweeping pans of the chambers for public domain footage that's not encumbered by copyright.
...that they check your receipt very carefully as you leave.
Wait. Isn't that why the Department of Homeland Security was created? There's a double standard here.
(Note: These are serious questions.)
Why would one write a web application that works only in Internet Explorer? Doesn't that defeat the primary benefit of a web app - increased flexibility? Wouldn't it be more sane to use something like VB that will be more consistent at the expense of less portability?