What's the argument against having to show ID? I've been lucky enough to live most of my life in places where I could vote by post, and the only time I've voted in person was my very first time. I recall showing my driving license for authentication. What reason could anyone have for arguing against this?
Ringtones sell for 3-5 bucks and sell pretty well. this suggests that songs are underpriced, or at least priced significantly less than the market will bear.
Could be, sure, but I don't think so. People will pay $3~5 for ringtones because *ringtones* are cool. They probably would not pay the same amount for a single for the iPod, and they certainly *will not* pay that much per song for an album.
I think the cost of ringtones says more about the successful marketing of ringtones than it does about a generally under-priced product
Stupid:
A phone "beeping" annoyingly to alert people nearby that they might be in danger of "losing" some "intellectual property".
sure. and i'm singing that same tune myself. but i'll sound a lot different as soon as i have a million dollar idea spread out in some vc firm's conference room
If you don't think poverty and race are factors in arrest and prosecution, then I'm willing to bet you haven't left your suburb for quite a while. Either that or you've never been outside. Or you live in denial. It's 4 o'clock on a friday, so I'm loath to dig in to a google search for links for you, but good grief man.
Can a person be convicted of solely possessing stolen property, when it was purchased in good faith from the thief?
I don't know how many of you folks ever have run-ins with the man, but while IANAL, I've had more than my fair share of encounters with the system:
If they want to fuck you, they'll fuck you. If you bought the computer in good faith, and genuinely couldn't have known it was stolen, but are poor and black, don't count on an easy time of it.
If you are white, middle class, and can pull off the plausible deniablity without insulting the cops' intelligence, then you are all set.
Also, some cops are good reasonable people too. They'll get a vibe on you, and either charge you or not based on how the interview goes.
It really isn't a boolean opperation, the cops are always playing these things by ear.
"Receiving stolen property" is a federal crime in the US. If he knew the laptop was stolen, bought it, and kept it, he's guilty. 50 years.
ugh.
IANAL, but, I'm right: A federal crime is a crime that involves a violation of federal law. Federal laws are those which (in theory) the congress is authorized to make under the constituttion. Most of the rational for these has to do with "interstate commerce".
Receiving stolen property, like, murder, rape, arson, kidnapping, and you-name-it, is ALWAYS going to be a state law. There are no federal laws against murder. There are no federal laws against kidnapping. There are federal laws against interstate transportation of a minor with unlawful intent (interstate kidnapping).
There are no federal laws against receiving stolen property. There are federal laws against interstate transportation of stolen goods (which doesn't seem to have happened in this case).
If you aren't American, then fine, but if you are American, why didn't you learn this in school?
IANAL either, and I think ectospasm's reply after yours sums it up well: Those kinds of exclusive agreements are only illigal if there is a monopoly situation involved.
Microsoft couldn't get away with it because hardware distributors didn't *really* have a choice with the OS they shipped, so if Microsoft says "take IE or jump in the lake", their options are to ship IE or find a new line of work, because they won't be selling hardware without windows on it.
Fortunately for us, there are other chip manufacturers than Intel.
More exploits or not, FF causes fewer headaches. When it's all said and done, I'll choose FF's problems over IE's problems.
exactly. and really, at the end of the day it's not just number of the exploits, is it? maybe firefox has 44 exploits, all of which are easily implemented by a supreme diety who speaks assembler like a native speakers, and which, once done, make the browser a little slower or the graphics render funny.
whereas there may be only 6 exploits for IE, but my dog can (and does) routinely use them, and every single one of the roots the box the browser's running on.
this is clearly exagerated a bit, but the simple *number* of exploits isn't too relevent
if as you say "Intel offers a better deal" -- and that deal was based upon exclusivity. (In other words: "You get a 15% discount if you sell only Intel chips"), It seems to me that that would be illegal and anti-competitive.
What on earth do you mean? That's about as standard as it gets. It's called exclusive licensing, and that's the way it goes. Companies offer price incentives to sign exclusive deals. It's competitive because Dell is free to sign exclusively with anybody.
Here some other examples: Your job. Your company offers you $100,000/year to build widgets *exclusively* for them. If they wanted a clause in your contract that said that you may not build widgets for anyone else, you aren't going to say it's anticompetitive.
How about your car? Toyotas ship with (I'm making this up) Panasonic audio components. If you asked Toyota to make a line with Zenith components, they'll probably say "sorry, but we have an exclusive agreement with panasonic."
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it assuredly is not illegal.
The third problem is that even you establish a proof of security this still isn't enough. Your proof is based on some formalisation of the language but the compiler itself might be buggy (either by accident or on purpose) and might compile in a way that breaks your proof. Ouch!
Don't ommit the obvious: if i unplug the computer, encase it in cement, and burry it in my garden, it is secure.
According to TFA, it uses 35x the amount of energy as an electric freezer. That's a lot of juice. And you need that juice to move the compressed air around (right?) You can't just hook a tube up to a windmill and magically have ice come out.
It seems entirely counter productive to me. This kind of phenomenon seems like it's usefull in situations where you aren't worried about energy cost, but mabe some other concerns (like rapidly cooling something?)
No one needs any form of regulation from government at any level as they all create favoritism and don't fix any problem.
that's easy for you and me to say, we know how to use our phones and TVs and so forth. I'll imagine you also aren't asking the government to protect your offspring from television.
Then there's the rest of the country, and they can't be bothered to learn how to use anything correctly, or how to understand the tools they use, and just expect the government to play the role of parent to humanity.
Technically, doesn't Mac OSX have some backward compatibility all the way back to the 680X0 chipset?
The way it works is that there's a software version of the old OS (called 'Classic') that loads up similarly to VMware, and you can run some, not all, older software under this "classic environment"
The kind of damage an older virus could do under this set up? Minimal, probably. Hang Classic is probably the worst it could do. I *suppose* it could delete files if it could take over some running software, but not on its own, since the file management is so different.
And, I'm not sure it could run inconspicuously, since the big classic boot screen would interrupt whatever the user is doing.
While you are right in principle, I disagree with the language you use to be right:
Mac OS X is more secure. Period.
It's not that it's more secure, it's that it's easier to secure. Give me a couple of macs and a couple of PCs, all out of the box, and I'll get them to equally secure states. The PC will just take all my time.
At work I'm responsible for almost 40 PCs, and home I'm responsible for a couple Macs. I'm pretty sure that all my babies are equally secure, but you can imagine the relative amount of effort that goes in to this (I'd guess it's 100 to 1, or 1000 to 1, something like that).
You are 100% right, but that isn't the point:)
It's not that I *can't* redo the hundreds of links to un-break the site, it's that I simply can not be bothered to slog through all that.:)
Will the fees affect large corporations? Hell yes. The company I work for files thousands of patent applications a year. Their whole business is intellectual property. They would shit bricks if the fees were to double.
Well then, how about the application fee be a sliding scale based on the number of prior applications (weather submitted or rejected) by that entity (or parent company, or whatever).
Or charge based on anual revenue.
There are lots of ways to implement deterrent rating schemes without hurting the little guys.
I would love to get my users using firefox, because it would save me a lot of spyware related calls. However, that's impossible, because we have an internal document-retrieving website that uses links to documents on our network file servers. IE handles these fine (because they're MS servers), but firefox can't get the files.
Something like this is the best of both worlds for me.
The author mentions that his friends in question here are running a hosting service, and they didn't tell their customers about the blocking.
That's what I see as the biggest issue. Personally, I'm appalled by the idea of blocking an entire country. It feels like some sort of jingoism or racism on a gut level, and on a practical level it interfers with potential business or academic interests who have lots of reasons for reading all kinds of thigns. The internet is one of the coolest tools we have for moving towards in internationalized world, and to block out an entire nation seems really counter productive.
However, that's besides the point. People should be free to block whatever they want. Really. I may not like it, but you are free to do so.
To not tell their customers however, is grossly irresponsible.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the argument against having to show ID? I've been lucky enough to live most of my life in places where I could vote by post, and the only time I've voted in person was my very first time. I recall showing my driving license for authentication. What reason could anyone have for arguing against this?
Ringtones sell for 3-5 bucks and sell pretty well. this suggests that songs are underpriced, or at least priced significantly less than the market will bear.
Could be, sure, but I don't think so. People will pay $3~5 for ringtones because *ringtones* are cool. They probably would not pay the same amount for a single for the iPod, and they certainly *will not* pay that much per song for an album.
I think the cost of ringtones says more about the successful marketing of ringtones than it does about a generally under-priced product
remind me to never atempt a caper with you!:
You could just TAKE THE BOOK. Geez.
the theft is always more successful when nobody knows it's occured. stealing the book without it going missing is far more effective
Stupid: A phone "beeping" annoyingly to alert people nearby that they might be in danger of "losing" some "intellectual property".
sure. and i'm singing that same tune myself. but i'll sound a lot different as soon as i have a million dollar idea spread out in some vc firm's conference room
If you don't think poverty and race are factors in arrest and prosecution, then I'm willing to bet you haven't left your suburb for quite a while. Either that or you've never been outside. Or you live in denial. It's 4 o'clock on a friday, so I'm loath to dig in to a google search for links for you, but good grief man.
Across all analysis, youth who were African American or Latino were consistently more likely to be placed in secure detention.
Minorities not charged with resisting arrest subject to unequal force compared with whites.
Race continues to play a central role in police brutality in the United States.
Seaside man sent to prison for crime he didn't commit
but i don't know why I bother... if you haven't learned all this stuff by now, a few links won't change anything
Can a person be convicted of solely possessing stolen property, when it was purchased in good faith from the thief?
I don't know how many of you folks ever have run-ins with the man, but while IANAL, I've had more than my fair share of encounters with the system:
If they want to fuck you, they'll fuck you. If you bought the computer in good faith, and genuinely couldn't have known it was stolen, but are poor and black, don't count on an easy time of it.
If you are white, middle class, and can pull off the plausible deniablity without insulting the cops' intelligence, then you are all set.
Also, some cops are good reasonable people too. They'll get a vibe on you, and either charge you or not based on how the interview goes.
It really isn't a boolean opperation, the cops are always playing these things by ear.
"Receiving stolen property" is a federal crime in the US. If he knew the laptop was stolen, bought it, and kept it, he's guilty. 50 years.
ugh.
IANAL, but, I'm right: A federal crime is a crime that involves a violation of federal law. Federal laws are those which (in theory) the congress is authorized to make under the constituttion. Most of the rational for these has to do with "interstate commerce".
Receiving stolen property, like, murder, rape, arson, kidnapping, and you-name-it, is ALWAYS going to be a state law. There are no federal laws against murder. There are no federal laws against kidnapping. There are federal laws against interstate transportation of a minor with unlawful intent (interstate kidnapping).
There are no federal laws against receiving stolen property. There are federal laws against interstate transportation of stolen goods (which doesn't seem to have happened in this case).
If you aren't American, then fine, but if you are American, why didn't you learn this in school?
IANAL either, and I think ectospasm's reply after yours sums it up well: Those kinds of exclusive agreements are only illigal if there is a monopoly situation involved.
Microsoft couldn't get away with it because hardware distributors didn't *really* have a choice with the OS they shipped, so if Microsoft says "take IE or jump in the lake", their options are to ship IE or find a new line of work, because they won't be selling hardware without windows on it.
Fortunately for us, there are other chip manufacturers than Intel.
More exploits or not, FF causes fewer headaches. When it's all said and done, I'll choose FF's problems over IE's problems.
exactly. and really, at the end of the day it's not just number of the exploits, is it? maybe firefox has 44 exploits, all of which are easily implemented by a supreme diety who speaks assembler like a native speakers, and which, once done, make the browser a little slower or the graphics render funny.
whereas there may be only 6 exploits for IE, but my dog can (and does) routinely use them, and every single one of the roots the box the browser's running on.
this is clearly exagerated a bit, but the simple *number* of exploits isn't too relevent
if as you say "Intel offers a better deal" -- and that deal was based upon exclusivity. (In other words: "You get a 15% discount if you sell only Intel chips"), It seems to me that that would be illegal and anti-competitive.
What on earth do you mean? That's about as standard as it gets. It's called exclusive licensing, and that's the way it goes. Companies offer price incentives to sign exclusive deals. It's competitive because Dell is free to sign exclusively with anybody.
Here some other examples: Your job. Your company offers you $100,000/year to build widgets *exclusively* for them. If they wanted a clause in your contract that said that you may not build widgets for anyone else, you aren't going to say it's anticompetitive.
How about your car? Toyotas ship with (I'm making this up) Panasonic audio components. If you asked Toyota to make a line with Zenith components, they'll probably say "sorry, but we have an exclusive agreement with panasonic."
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it assuredly is not illegal.
It's also refreshing to see the word 'hack' used positively by news media.
The third problem is that even you establish a proof of security this still isn't enough. Your proof is based on some formalisation of the language but the compiler itself might be buggy (either by accident or on purpose) and might compile in a way that breaks your proof. Ouch!
Don't ommit the obvious: if i unplug the computer, encase it in cement, and burry it in my garden, it is secure.
Functional? No. Secure? Yes.
According to TFA, it uses 35x the amount of energy as an electric freezer. That's a lot of juice. And you need that juice to move the compressed air around (right?) You can't just hook a tube up to a windmill and magically have ice come out.
It seems entirely counter productive to me. This kind of phenomenon seems like it's usefull in situations where you aren't worried about energy cost, but mabe some other concerns (like rapidly cooling something?)
Yes! In a discussion of journalistic standards, let's cite exclusive (a) ourselves, and (b) the medium in which we are publishing!
Way to lead by example! (no hard feelings intended, I'm just ammused).
No one needs any form of regulation from government at any level as they all create favoritism and don't fix any problem.
that's easy for you and me to say, we know how to use our phones and TVs and so forth. I'll imagine you also aren't asking the government to protect your offspring from television.
Then there's the rest of the country, and they can't be bothered to learn how to use anything correctly, or how to understand the tools they use, and just expect the government to play the role of parent to humanity.
You're right, but we're in the minority.
Technically, doesn't Mac OSX have some backward compatibility all the way back to the 680X0 chipset?
The way it works is that there's a software version of the old OS (called 'Classic') that loads up similarly to VMware, and you can run some, not all, older software under this "classic environment"
The kind of damage an older virus could do under this set up? Minimal, probably. Hang Classic is probably the worst it could do. I *suppose* it could delete files if it could take over some running software, but not on its own, since the file management is so different.
And, I'm not sure it could run inconspicuously, since the big classic boot screen would interrupt whatever the user is doing.
While you are right in principle, I disagree with the language you use to be right:
Mac OS X is more secure. Period.
It's not that it's more secure, it's that it's easier to secure. Give me a couple of macs and a couple of PCs, all out of the box, and I'll get them to equally secure states. The PC will just take all my time.
At work I'm responsible for almost 40 PCs, and home I'm responsible for a couple Macs. I'm pretty sure that all my babies are equally secure, but you can imagine the relative amount of effort that goes in to this (I'd guess it's 100 to 1, or 1000 to 1, something like that).
Just a small quibble.
As a government agency, they are bound to the Section 508 accessibility requirements
Well, for Yahoo!'s HONG KONG offie, the TOS probably reads along the lines of "we'll do whatever the government tells us to do."
I've got $5 says suitepotato is running windows
You are 100% right, but that isn't the point :)
It's not that I *can't* redo the hundreds of links to un-break the site, it's that I simply can not be bothered to slog through all that. :)
Will the fees affect large corporations? Hell yes. The company I work for files thousands of patent applications a year. Their whole business is intellectual property. They would shit bricks if the fees were to double.
Well then, how about the application fee be a sliding scale based on the number of prior applications (weather submitted or rejected) by that entity (or parent company, or whatever).
Or charge based on anual revenue.
There are lots of ways to implement deterrent rating schemes without hurting the little guys.
At what point do we start charging the cost of the litigation to the patent office when their mistakes land other companies in court?
This is ideal for my office.
I would love to get my users using firefox, because it would save me a lot of spyware related calls. However, that's impossible, because we have an internal document-retrieving website that uses links to documents on our network file servers. IE handles these fine (because they're MS servers), but firefox can't get the files.
Something like this is the best of both worlds for me.
The author mentions that his friends in question here are running a hosting service, and they didn't tell their customers about the blocking.
That's what I see as the biggest issue. Personally, I'm appalled by the idea of blocking an entire country. It feels like some sort of jingoism or racism on a gut level, and on a practical level it interfers with potential business or academic interests who have lots of reasons for reading all kinds of thigns. The internet is one of the coolest tools we have for moving towards in internationalized world, and to block out an entire nation seems really counter productive.
However, that's besides the point. People should be free to block whatever they want. Really. I may not like it, but you are free to do so.
To not tell their customers however, is grossly irresponsible.