IANAL, but I've read that technically you're not allowed to bring anything 'indecent' into the country. This is a very broad term that covers even mildly titillating and salacious works, such as the saucy postcards openly displayed at British seaside resorts, or Lady Chatterly's Lover. The law is much less strict (but even less clear) about what you can possess and distribute, but if you want to know, have a look round a sex shop next time you're here and see what's on offer.
You have a frickin legal staff and you're hosting with one of these low-end budget companies, huh? And instead of just moving to a high-end hosting provider where you won't get dropped with no warning, you're going to have an entire legal staff sue one of these rinky dink companies.
Tiscali, Wanadoo, Planet Internet, Demon... not tiny companies.
The data don't confirm your speculation: 2 of the 3 free providers pulled the content, compared to 5 of the 7 paid ones.
IANAL, but I wouldn't be surprised if an ISP has more liabilities to worry about if it accepts money for hosting illegal/disputed material. You could sue them in either case, but how much do you expect in damages?
Saddam was terrified of pissing off the US. He didn't dare invade Kuwait until he had the all-clear from the American ambassador, and ten years later when the US threatened another war, he submitted swiftly to the UN weapons inspectors. No doubt the next strong Iraqi government (if any) will take these precedents to heart when choosing its friends.
The Phantom is innocent, I tell you! Some villain has framed the Phantom - I don't know who it was, but once he's free, the Phantom won't rest until he has uncovered the devious plot and cleared his name. You must release the Phantom!
There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings. I bothered to read the article...
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's when a poster boasts of having 'bothered to read' the article but has casually skip-read it at best. Sakic says seven times that the Mambo core code is not derived from the 9 lines he wrote for Connolly. He also says (twice) that Connolly distributed the modification under the GPL. And by the way, I think most of us know that barring a severe attack of amnesia, you can't write a clean-room reimplementation of your own code. [End of bad-tempered rant.]
The response bearing Connolly's name is ominously entitled 'Only Looking for a Mutually Beneficial Resolution'. Connolly denies having distributed (under GPL or otherwise) the customised source, and claims they did have a contract that transferred copyright to Miro (Sakic said there was no contract but that the modifications were copyright Miro). I'm inclined to believe Connolly about the contract, but others here have confirmed that Furthermore distributed the software. The crucial point, though, is the evidence of copying, which is limited to the following selective quotations:
2. We have a written correspondence from Sakic 10/3/03 where he admits having "implemented" our code and IP "to official Mambo"... "Hope you don't mind." We immediate responded that we did mind. Sakic's response then was "Hehe I was afraid you would feel like that;" And "I understand."
The whole basis of Connolly's claim, then, is that to 'implement' the same function infringes copyright. This, and the way Connolly vaguely bandies around terms like 'IP', suggests he hasn't yet consulted a lawyer. I'm not one myself, and my opinions below are based on what I read on Groklaw. Conveniently, this issue seems to be very like SCO's cases writ little.
And it really is different and better, but it's built right off what he had already done for Connolly. I don't know what to think about this part -- there is no law I know of that would address this clearly.
The same issue is central to the SCO-IBM case (which of course is in the USA, not Australia). As Groklaw readers will know, the test there for a derivative work in software is 'substantial similarity', as determined by 'abstraction, filtration and comparison'. Connolly's allegations are unclear, but he'd probably agree with your claim that Sakic started with the code he wrote for Furthermore and modified it until it was completely different. This would not be illegal, at least in America. (See for example Sony vs. Connectix.)
Sakic claims, however, that he started afresh with the official Mambo module, which seems plausible given the much larger size of that project and the lack of any evidence to the contrary. The end result is the same, though: if the code is substantially similar, it infringes. Substantial similarity can be a tricky issue to address, thus to avoid litigation (justified or not), clean-room reimplementation is safer. But as far as I know Connolly has found no similarity whatsoever, and if he does, it will be very easy for Mambo to change the offending few lines.
Behind the intellectual property rant, Connolly has only three possible grievances:
He employed Sakic to write some software shortly before a similar product was released, free of charge, to everyone. Thus his competitive advantage failed to last as long as expected. This is simply bad luck or bad commercial judgement on his part, and such mistakes are hardly uncommon in the industry. At the worst, Sakic would have been acting in bad faith if he already knew he was about to implement the same functionality for the Mambo core, but failed to mention this to Connolly.
While he was marketing his modified Mambo that displayed headlines in this way, the official Mambo project decided to do the same thing (but better). Again, this is qu
There is still considerable debate in the cryptographic community about whether 3des is actually any stronger than des. Many people feel that if an attack is found to be effective against the des algorithm, the extra layers of stirring the bits around will not make the plaintext any more secure.
I have never heard any member of the cryptographic community claim that triple DES is no stronger than DES, except in a very theoretical sense. At least one attack has already been found to be effective against DES (exhaustive search of the keyspace), but it is not currently feasible against 3DES. A cryptographic attack that could crack DES faster than brute force would quite likely work against 3DES too, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily be computationally feasible.
The article says that this technique can be used to thwart illegal file sharing, but it will work equally against legally shared files. The technology could be used to suppress a rival's freely-distributed music (a subtler trick would be to flood the network with plausible-sounding but inferior copies).
This threat isnt going to keep me awake at night if it's confined to music, but as the article says,
Hale said the technology could be applied to protect all sorts of sensitive or confidential material.
This means we won't be able to trust the current generation of P2P networks for authentic news, commentary from reputable sources, free (as in either) software, accurate documentation for same, or any data that some powerful organisation doesn't want us to share. In many cases such forgeries would be illegal under copyright, trademark, defamation or competition laws, but proving which cuckoo laid the egg could be very difficult.
That's absurd. RFIDs are passive, meaning they have very, very short range (a few inches, couple feet at most).
Western spies (I think it was the CIA) used passive RF devices for audio eavesdropping in the 1980s, enabling them to hear officials' conversations from down the street. (The advantages of passive devices were the lack of incriminating wires, and of radiation when they weren't in use.) I imagine technology has improved since then.
To "scan" a house from the street, you'd need an enormous transmitter/receiver combo, which would generate a tremendous amount of RF noise that would be sure to be noticed in a neighborhood.
I'd be surprised if RFIDs operated in the same frequency band as, say, television, but even if they did, a few seconds of interference is not going to make everyone assume there are burglars on the prowl. And if you're trying to smear someone, why hide the fact that you've gathered information about them?
I suppose its possible that some of the digits in there would designate a publicly-available manufacturer (so you'd know that whatever you just scanned, it's a "Toshiba" something-or-other), but you wouldn't know whether it was a bigscreen plasma TV, or an alarm clock, unless you had access to Toshiba's private database, which you would not.
You would if you borrow, stole, or politely requested a copy of the catalogue Toshiba would have to distribute to all its retailers if they're going to get any use out of the system. Or you could just scan some Toshiba products. The code would almost certainly share most of its digits with other TVs of the same batch, not quite so many with the same model, the same product line, and then with audiovisual equipment in general.
OK, if you're rich enough to drive around a neighborhood with a massive, expensive RFID transmitter/receiver...
Even a relatively long-range scanner used for stocktaking in warehouses shouldn't cost more than a few hundred dollars. I can't think of any expensive components that it would require. If (as you imply) it's rather more expensive than a car, it wouldn't be marketable in the first place.
The FTC can harden the list against dictionary attacks by using a salt value: each entry is the hash of the address plus a unique pseudorandom string published with the entry. Then you need to re-hash for each address you're trying to brute-force, instead of comparing one hash to all the addresses.
And they will NEVER, EVER allow voters to vote by post. Or by proxy. Or let anyone in the building without strip-searching them for hidden cameras. These days cameras in mobile phones are preferred, but 19th-century technology is perfectly adequate for the purpose.
Before the Social War, only those born in the city of Rome or its environs were eligible to vote - and given the speed of transport in those days, ordinary people could not spare the time and expense of travelling to Rome just to cast their vote. None of the other cities had any representation in central politics. Even after other Italians became citizens, Rome still had the bulk of the authority - and by this time the most effective route to power was to march an army into Rome, regardless of the opinions of the senate and people.
It's worth noting too that the tribe-based voting system was highly skewed in favour of the patricians and other hereditary nobles. Only when the ruling classes were about evenly divided did the mass of the population have any significance. An exception was the election of the tribune of the Plebs, an ombudsman with significant power, but not one of the most important officials.
The Roman republic was highly centralised by the standards of its time, aguably more so than the other states of comparable size (China, Parthia and Mauryan India). Where decisions were taken locally, they were made by Roman appointees. Generally speaking, governors in the Republic did not need or try to gain the support of the local population; they just pocketed as much money for themselves as possible. The aggrieved populace could petition Rome for redress, so it was important to ensure you extorted enough money in fines to be able to pay your own fine if you were caught. There were however one or two special cases (such as Genua IIRC) where the local elites were allowed a say in their own region's affairs.
After reading an enjoyable list of Spells Not Worth Memorising (Tenser's Formatted Disk, Bigby's Insulting Hand, etc.), I was inspired to create the following list of magic items not worth collecting, based heavily on the AD&D 2nd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide.
Armor of Origami Beads of Sweat Beard of Disguise Belt of Tightness Book of Sticky Pages Boots of Strolling Boots of the Mermaid Carpet of Fraying Chain Mail G-String +4 Dust of Dirtiness Elven Chain Letter Eyes of the Worm Flooding Boat Gem of Glinting Gin Bottle Hammock of the Titans Horn at Awkward Moment Compulsive Lyre Philter of Lameness Potion of Belching Potion of Gargling Potion of Hedonism Potion of Water Drinking Racket of Protection Robe of Useless Items Rod of Fishing Scarab Versus Mecha-Scarab Scroll of Curing Blindness and Dyslexia (self only) Slippers of Spider Squashing Unionised Staff of Striking Stare of Withering Stone of Kidney Sword +-1 Ultimate Solute Vorpal Guillotine
But I'm sure the rest of you have much funnier suggestions to share.
But you manufactured the device, which is illegal. Note also that the DMCA defines 'device' much more broadly than the English language does. For example, a procedure (e.g. clicking the wrong button) counts as a device.
However, this only applies if uncovering the bug is a case of, or leads to, unauthorised access to copyrighted material.
Slashdot Mirror
Of the 985 bugs identified, 627 were in critical parts of the kernel. Another 569 could cause a system crash...
627 and another 569 is 1196, which is already more than 985.
Your grammar and spelling may be 'contructs of based', but I prefer to make myself clear.
IANAL, but I've read that technically you're not allowed to bring anything 'indecent' into the country. This is a very broad term that covers even mildly titillating and salacious works, such as the saucy postcards openly displayed at British seaside resorts, or Lady Chatterly's Lover. The law is much less strict (but even less clear) about what you can possess and distribute, but if you want to know, have a look round a sex shop next time you're here and see what's on offer.
The kiosks are set up with a three-button trackball as a pointing device.
The EU data protection directive is the basis of much of the privacy law in Ireland.
Tiscali, Wanadoo, Planet Internet, Demon... not tiny companies.
The data don't confirm your speculation: 2 of the 3 free providers pulled the content, compared to 5 of the 7 paid ones.
IANAL, but I wouldn't be surprised if an ISP has more liabilities to worry about if it accepts money for hosting illegal/disputed material. You could sue them in either case, but how much do you expect in damages?
Saddam was terrified of pissing off the US. He didn't dare invade Kuwait until he had the all-clear from the American ambassador, and ten years later when the US threatened another war, he submitted swiftly to the UN weapons inspectors. No doubt the next strong Iraqi government (if any) will take these precedents to heart when choosing its friends.
But it's only Australian lawyers who are exempt. If this was sent from America...
The Phantom is innocent, I tell you! Some villain has framed the Phantom - I don't know who it was, but once he's free, the Phantom won't rest until he has uncovered the devious plot and cleared his name. You must release the Phantom!
My family went to the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab Family Fun Day, and all I got was this stupid anti-shirt.
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's when a poster boasts of having 'bothered to read' the article but has casually skip-read it at best. Sakic says seven times that the Mambo core code is not derived from the 9 lines he wrote for Connolly. He also says (twice) that Connolly distributed the modification under the GPL. And by the way, I think most of us know that barring a severe attack of amnesia, you can't write a clean-room reimplementation of your own code. [End of bad-tempered rant.]
The response bearing Connolly's name is ominously entitled 'Only Looking for a Mutually Beneficial Resolution'. Connolly denies having distributed (under GPL or otherwise) the customised source, and claims they did have a contract that transferred copyright to Miro (Sakic said there was no contract but that the modifications were copyright Miro). I'm inclined to believe Connolly about the contract, but others here have confirmed that Furthermore distributed the software. The crucial point, though, is the evidence of copying, which is limited to the following selective quotations:
The whole basis of Connolly's claim, then, is that to 'implement' the same function infringes copyright. This, and the way Connolly vaguely bandies around terms like 'IP', suggests he hasn't yet consulted a lawyer. I'm not one myself, and my opinions below are based on what I read on Groklaw. Conveniently, this issue seems to be very like SCO's cases writ little.
The same issue is central to the SCO-IBM case (which of course is in the USA, not Australia). As Groklaw readers will know, the test there for a derivative work in software is 'substantial similarity', as determined by 'abstraction, filtration and comparison'. Connolly's allegations are unclear, but he'd probably agree with your claim that Sakic started with the code he wrote for Furthermore and modified it until it was completely different. This would not be illegal, at least in America. (See for example Sony vs. Connectix.)
Sakic claims, however, that he started afresh with the official Mambo module, which seems plausible given the much larger size of that project and the lack of any evidence to the contrary. The end result is the same, though: if the code is substantially similar, it infringes. Substantial similarity can be a tricky issue to address, thus to avoid litigation (justified or not), clean-room reimplementation is safer. But as far as I know Connolly has found no similarity whatsoever, and if he does, it will be very easy for Mambo to change the offending few lines.
Behind the intellectual property rant, Connolly has only three possible grievances:
This threat isnt going to keep me awake at night if it's confined to music, but as the article says,
Hale said the technology could be applied to protect all sorts of sensitive or confidential material.
This means we won't be able to trust the current generation of P2P networks for authentic news, commentary from reputable sources, free (as in either) software, accurate documentation for same, or any data that some powerful organisation doesn't want us to share. In many cases such forgeries would be illegal under copyright, trademark, defamation or competition laws, but proving which cuckoo laid the egg could be very difficult.
That's absurd. RFIDs are passive, meaning they have very, very short range (a few inches, couple feet at most).
Western spies (I think it was the CIA) used passive RF devices for audio eavesdropping in the 1980s, enabling them to hear officials' conversations from down the street. (The advantages of passive devices were the lack of incriminating wires, and of radiation when they weren't in use.) I imagine technology has improved since then.
To "scan" a house from the street, you'd need an enormous transmitter/receiver combo, which would generate a tremendous amount of RF noise that would be sure to be noticed in a neighborhood.
I'd be surprised if RFIDs operated in the same frequency band as, say, television, but even if they did, a few seconds of interference is not going to make everyone assume there are burglars on the prowl. And if you're trying to smear someone, why hide the fact that you've gathered information about them?
I suppose its possible that some of the digits in there would designate a publicly-available manufacturer (so you'd know that whatever you just scanned, it's a "Toshiba" something-or-other), but you wouldn't know whether it was a bigscreen plasma TV, or an alarm clock, unless you had access to Toshiba's private database, which you would not.
You would if you borrow, stole, or politely requested a copy of the catalogue Toshiba would have to distribute to all its retailers if they're going to get any use out of the system. Or you could just scan some Toshiba products. The code would almost certainly share most of its digits with other TVs of the same batch, not quite so many with the same model, the same product line, and then with audiovisual equipment in general.
OK, if you're rich enough to drive around a neighborhood with a massive, expensive RFID transmitter/receiver...
Even a relatively long-range scanner used for stocktaking in warehouses shouldn't cost more than a few hundred dollars. I can't think of any expensive components that it would require. If (as you imply) it's rather more expensive than a car, it wouldn't be marketable in the first place.
Quite.
Have you forgotten Westminster City Council? Dame Shirley Porter is still refusing to repay a penny of the 30 million or so she spent evicting poor people from marginal wards [Hansard (page down if you find juicy scandals more entertaining than the Fishery Limits amendment they were supposed to be debating)]. Not that that was the Electoral Commission's doing, mind you.
You sort both lists, and we're talking about an O(1,000,000) job, not an O(450,000,000,000) job.
That's assuming your sort is O(n), of course. But you can get pretty close to that with an index-based sort on pseudorandom data.
The FTC can harden the list against dictionary attacks by using a salt value: each entry is the hash of the address plus a unique pseudorandom string published with the entry. Then you need to re-hash for each address you're trying to brute-force, instead of comparing one hash to all the addresses.
And they will NEVER, EVER allow voters to vote by post. Or by proxy. Or let anyone in the building without strip-searching them for hidden cameras. These days cameras in mobile phones are preferred, but 19th-century technology is perfectly adequate for the purpose.
Before the Social War, only those born in the city of Rome or its environs were eligible to vote - and given the speed of transport in those days, ordinary people could not spare the time and expense of travelling to Rome just to cast their vote. None of the other cities had any representation in central politics. Even after other Italians became citizens, Rome still had the bulk of the authority - and by this time the most effective route to power was to march an army into Rome, regardless of the opinions of the senate and people.
It's worth noting too that the tribe-based voting system was highly skewed in favour of the patricians and other hereditary nobles. Only when the ruling classes were about evenly divided did the mass of the population have any significance. An exception was the election of the tribune of the Plebs, an ombudsman with significant power, but not one of the most important officials.
The Roman republic was highly centralised by the standards of its time, aguably more so than the other states of comparable size (China, Parthia and Mauryan India). Where decisions were taken locally, they were made by Roman appointees. Generally speaking, governors in the Republic did not need or try to gain the support of the local population; they just pocketed as much money for themselves as possible. The aggrieved populace could petition Rome for redress, so it was important to ensure you extorted enough money in fines to be able to pay your own fine if you were caught. There were however one or two special cases (such as Genua IIRC) where the local elites were allowed a say in their own region's affairs.
After reading an enjoyable list of Spells Not Worth Memorising (Tenser's Formatted Disk, Bigby's Insulting Hand, etc.), I was inspired to create the following list of magic items not worth collecting, based heavily on the AD&D 2nd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide.
Armor of Origami
Beads of Sweat
Beard of Disguise
Belt of Tightness
Book of Sticky Pages
Boots of Strolling
Boots of the Mermaid
Carpet of Fraying
Chain Mail G-String +4
Dust of Dirtiness
Elven Chain Letter
Eyes of the Worm
Flooding Boat
Gem of Glinting
Gin Bottle
Hammock of the Titans
Horn at Awkward Moment
Compulsive Lyre
Philter of Lameness
Potion of Belching
Potion of Gargling
Potion of Hedonism
Potion of Water Drinking
Racket of Protection
Robe of Useless Items
Rod of Fishing
Scarab Versus Mecha-Scarab
Scroll of Curing Blindness and Dyslexia (self only)
Slippers of Spider Squashing
Unionised Staff of Striking
Stare of Withering
Stone of Kidney
Sword +-1
Ultimate Solute
Vorpal Guillotine
But I'm sure the rest of you have much funnier suggestions to share.
I prefer Illiad's version.
But you manufactured the device, which is illegal. Note also that the DMCA defines 'device' much more broadly than the English language does. For example, a procedure (e.g. clicking the wrong button) counts as a device.
However, this only applies if uncovering the bug is a case of, or leads to, unauthorised access to copyrighted material.
Yes, this point was made quite forcefully to Judge Kaplan. Who completely ignored it, AFAICR.