Should corporate copyright holders be able to silence critical voices by enforcing copyrights against vocal individuals? If Australian copyright law is (as I believe it is) similar to Canadian copyright law, beware.
Consider: A 1997 decision in Canadian courts involved a union picketing outside a Michelin property. Union members held signs with a drawing of a giant Michelin Man, foot raised, about to stomp on a worker. Michelin sued and a court ordered the union to turn over all the posters to Michelin and stop using the image.
Whatever you do to your copyright law to reflect the changing digital technologies, never forget that copyright and freedom of expression are in tension, and we must always be on guard not only for new ways in which the rightsholders can increase their control but for existing rules that give too much control to copyright holders over what we can say about them and how we can say it.
For those who care, the case (Michelin v. CAW) is here
I wanted to comment on the claims that RSS performance problems may be "overblown", but all I get is 503 errors!
Must be all those darn RSS users trying to get their slashdot feed on the hour.
As usual, RTFA. The hurricane's path this time may take it directly across the facility, which hasn't happened before.
What I find interesting is that the threat comes from 140mph winds, while the important structures (e.g. shuttle hangar) are designed to withstand only about 105mph winds. What happened to NASA's famed over-engineering? I would have thought these things would have been designed to take a Class 5 (>155mph).
Set your laptop up to send a periodic heartbeat communication, including its IP address, to a server somewhere. That way, in the event that it gets stolen, you'll have at least some data to help you find it.
Also, don't forget to back up your data. Most laptops these days come with a CD burner, so invest $20 in a large stack of CDRs and resist the temptation to use them all for music and movies. Burn your class notes, essays, research, programming assignments and anything else you need (pr0n?) routinely. Date the discs, and keep them in a locked drawer (even if you lock your room).
This won't just be useful in the (unlikely) event that your laptop gets stolen. If your computer should happen to suffer a hardware problem, or one day just stops booting because of corrupt software, your backups make it much easier to make the decision to reformat and clean install.
To address the possibility of a dorm fire, meteor strike or other catastrophe, burning an extra copy every once in a while and giving it to an off-campus friend for safe keeping isn't too difficult either.
My approach to enforcing "coding standards" on my teams has been to hook a pretty-printer into the checkin routine. For most pairs this is a fairly straightforward operation. A second-level mechanical computation of metrics (e.g. lines-of-code per logical unit, number of paths through each subroutine) can also be used to enforce more semantic coding standards than a pretty-printer can manage.
Code inspections may be useful for knowledge transfer, but they're a relatively expensive way of achieving that goal. Code should be written primarily to "speak" to someone who has to maintain the code later, not just for the control of the machine. A full-blown code inspection just so Coder B can take ownership from Coder A is overkill.
In regards to Fact 37 ("Rigorous inspections [code reviews] can remove up to 90% of errors before the first test case is run, but are so mentally and emotionally exhausting that we rarely do them."): so what?
If a code review, which takes several hours of my time and the time of my fellow developers, can catch 90% of the errors before the first test case is run, or I can catch 90% of the errors (not necessarily the same ones) using the test cases, it's a better use of resources to let the computer point the errors out to me.
A code review on "90% debugged" software that finds an error strikes me as more useful than a code review that finds several errors in 0% debugged software.
As for fact #1, good process or tools may not be able to make all programmers gods, but bad process or tools can make a mortal out of anyone.
"We remain concerned about any devices or software that permit listeners to transform a broadcast into a music library," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said."
Sony is not binding precedent in Canada, which is where this fellow lives. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly stated (most recently in CCH v. LSUC) that American copyright law has little direct bearing here, because of our differing copyright statutes.
Notably, contributory copyright infringement (not negligence) is not part of the Canadian copyright law. Instead, we reserve to the author the usual set of rights (copying, etc) and the right to authorize any of those actions. The closest to contributory (C) infringement in Canada is "authorizing" a copyright infringement.
A more fertile legal approach for XM is probably to attack the software on the basis of a violation of the terms-of-use for subscribing to XM radio. I'd be shocked if the subscription didn't come with a license preventing unauthorized recording of broadcast streams. After all, the article even says that "RIAA and XM are both busy figuring out if any copyright laws and user agreements have been broken".
Canada's Department of Justice is pushing for the same thing: see the Lawful Access Consultation document about the Canadian government's plans to insure that it can tap your phone, regardless your telephony technology.
For those of you who don't RTFA, note that the VoIP tapping in question refers to "managed" VoIP, which means VoIP that "touches" the PSTN. Computer-to-computer VoIP calls are not covered by the FCC's decision.
If my Chevy only ran on Chevy gas, I would calculate the cost of Chevy gas before buying it, and compare it to the cost of a Ford running on proprietary Ford gas, over the lifetime of the vehicle. "Tying" is only a problem where Chevy has a monopoly on cars which they can leverage to obtain a monopoly on gas, or vice versa.
To return from the metaphor: Apple has neither a monopoly on portable music players nor online music distribution -- and more competitors (is that a Redmond Giant I hear approaching?) are on the way. Don't like iTMS? Get a Windows-Media player and shop Walmart.
The strange-looking 2001 Toyota POD Concept seems to have been a first cut at the emotional car (e.g. light panels turn red to indicate frustration, blue to indicate "sadness" at being out of gas, etc.) The concept car doesn't have the "eybrows", but does have an antenna it can wag to indicate happiness.
Since this is a a Canadian story, I should point out that there is no such thing as "fair use" in Canadian copyright law. The closest equivalent, "fair dealing", is much more restrictive than the American equivalent; it is restricted to certain classes of users, has a narrower range of protected uses (for example, parody is not fair dealing under Canadian law) and adds a number of attribution requirements in some cases for the use of a work to be "fair". A quick reading of the statute does seem to imply that the dentists' actions are not covered.
The Supreme Court has recently articulated a view of copyright with an increased recognition of "user's rights" beyond those granted by statute, but this is still an evolving area of law in Canada.
So the bank "loses" $250/month on its own ATM. An entry-level teller making $10/hour will cost the bank over $1600/month in salary alone. If the bank didn't have an ATM in the doorway, the bank would need more tellers to handle the same volume of transactions. The bank should pay me for my ATM transactions for lowering their cost structure. (Instead they cut the number of free teller-assisted transactions to encourage you to go the machine.)
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Having more IP addresses doesn't mean that they will be statically assigned, nor that they will be assigned on a "per-user" rather than on a "per-device" basis. Even if each individual were assigned a block of addresses for their devices (this packet comes from John's palm pilot, this from his cell phone, and that one from his refrigerator...) you'd still have the problem of multiple users with a single physical device (public library computers, internet cafes, office beer fridges...) so, unless each device includes biometric identification and logging, you'll never be able to attribute every internet communication to a human party, even when one exists. I won't even get into the privacy concerns there.
The vast majority of bad netizenship occurs at protocol levels above IP -- spammers abuse SMTP, advertisers abuse DHTML, hackers abuse various services running on open ports. While some of this bad netizenship can be addressed at lower protocol levels (e.g. by blackholing certian IP ranges) the real solution is in fixing the higher-level protocols.
No bank communication I've ever seen has had such poor grammar and spelling. Furthermore, reputable institutions tend to prefer traditional mail to e-mail.
Consider a few sentences from a letter from one "Clive Bannister, head of international operations including private banking at HSBC Republic", which should have triggered suspicion:
"Cash movement across
boarders has become especially strict since the incidents of 9/11"
"Four days later, information started to trickle in, apparently Moser was dead. A person who suited his description was declared dead of a heart attack in Canne, South of France"
And then this, which I think in English means "hey, wanna join my scam?":
"What I wish to relate to you will smack of unethical practice but I want you to understand something. It is only an outsider to the banking world who finds the internal politics of the banking world aberrational. The world of private banking especially is fraught with huge rewards for those who occupy certain offices and oversee certain portfolios."
From the diagram, it would seem the commuter train has in-car WiFi repeaters connected to a larger network wirelessly, which breaks in tunnels. The train is always in contact with a pair of "wires" - i.e. the rails - which on many train systems already carry data (that is, information for in-cab signaling systms). Is there a technical limitation which keeps the rails from being a suitable medium for high-speed data access suitable to feed to the in-car access point? Tunnels wouldn't interrupt the service.
The decision was 9-0 on whether ISPs should pay royalties for (C) music they transfer, but was 8-1 on an interesting issue regarding when a communication originates in Canada. The majority decides that a communication that originates outside of Canada can be considered to be made "in Canada". Justice LeBel's dissent focusses on the privacy implications of this decision. If an American server has to pay Canadian royalties for serving Canadian music to Canadians, it probably can't be anonymous (at the very least it would have to use some sort of geographic location algorithm). This means that the operator is effectively forced to collect your personal information. The alternative rule, that all and only servers in Canada with music on them are liable for royalties, for all of its other flaws, is much better for consumer privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider: A 1997 decision in Canadian courts involved a union picketing outside a Michelin property. Union members held signs with a drawing of a giant Michelin Man, foot raised, about to stomp on a worker. Michelin sued and a court ordered the union to turn over all the posters to Michelin and stop using the image.
Whatever you do to your copyright law to reflect the changing digital technologies, never forget that copyright and freedom of expression are in tension, and we must always be on guard not only for new ways in which the rightsholders can increase their control but for existing rules that give too much control to copyright holders over what we can say about them and how we can say it. For those who care, the case (Michelin v. CAW) is here
someone is stealing my telephone equipment!
The Canadian civil stadard is "balance of probabilities", not "reasonable doubt". The grandparent poster is misinformed.
I wanted to comment on the claims that RSS performance problems may be "overblown", but all I get is 503 errors!
Must be all those darn RSS users trying to get their slashdot feed on the hour.
What I find interesting is that the threat comes from 140mph winds, while the important structures (e.g. shuttle hangar) are designed to withstand only about 105mph winds. What happened to NASA's famed over-engineering? I would have thought these things would have been designed to take a Class 5 (>155mph).
This won't just be useful in the (unlikely) event that your laptop gets stolen. If your computer should happen to suffer a hardware problem, or one day just stops booting because of corrupt software, your backups make it much easier to make the decision to reformat and clean install.
To address the possibility of a dorm fire, meteor strike or other catastrophe, burning an extra copy every once in a while and giving it to an off-campus friend for safe keeping isn't too difficult either.
Paranoia works.
Code inspections may be useful for knowledge transfer, but they're a relatively expensive way of achieving that goal. Code should be written primarily to "speak" to someone who has to maintain the code later, not just for the control of the machine. A full-blown code inspection just so Coder B can take ownership from Coder A is overkill.
If a code review, which takes several hours of my time and the time of my fellow developers, can catch 90% of the errors before the first test case is run, or I can catch 90% of the errors (not necessarily the same ones) using the test cases, it's a better use of resources to let the computer point the errors out to me.
A code review on "90% debugged" software that finds an error strikes me as more useful than a code review that finds several errors in 0% debugged software.
As for fact #1, good process or tools may not be able to make all programmers gods, but bad process or tools can make a mortal out of anyone.
Uh-oh! These guys better run!
Notably, contributory copyright infringement (not negligence) is not part of the Canadian copyright law. Instead, we reserve to the author the usual set of rights (copying, etc) and the right to authorize any of those actions. The closest to contributory (C) infringement in Canada is "authorizing" a copyright infringement.
A more fertile legal approach for XM is probably to attack the software on the basis of a violation of the terms-of-use for subscribing to XM radio. I'd be shocked if the subscription didn't come with a license preventing unauthorized recording of broadcast streams. After all, the article even says that "RIAA and XM are both busy figuring out if any copyright laws and user agreements have been broken".
Canada's Department of Justice is pushing for the same thing: see the Lawful Access Consultation document about the Canadian government's plans to insure that it can tap your phone, regardless your telephony technology.
For those of you who don't RTFA, note that the VoIP tapping in question refers to "managed" VoIP, which means VoIP that "touches" the PSTN. Computer-to-computer VoIP calls are not covered by the FCC's decision.
If my Chevy only ran on Chevy gas, I would calculate the cost of Chevy gas before buying it, and compare it to the cost of a Ford running on proprietary Ford gas, over the lifetime of the vehicle. "Tying" is only a problem where Chevy has a monopoly on cars which they can leverage to obtain a monopoly on gas, or vice versa. To return from the metaphor: Apple has neither a monopoly on portable music players nor online music distribution -- and more competitors (is that a Redmond Giant I hear approaching?) are on the way. Don't like iTMS? Get a Windows-Media player and shop Walmart.
The strange-looking 2001 Toyota POD Concept seems to have been a first cut at the emotional car (e.g. light panels turn red to indicate frustration, blue to indicate "sadness" at being out of gas, etc.) The concept car doesn't have the "eybrows", but does have an antenna it can wag to indicate happiness.
The Supreme Court has recently articulated a view of copyright with an increased recognition of "user's rights" beyond those granted by statute, but this is still an evolving area of law in Canada.
So the bank "loses" $250/month on its own ATM. An entry-level teller making $10/hour will cost the bank over $1600/month in salary alone. If the bank didn't have an ATM in the doorway, the bank would need more tellers to handle the same volume of transactions. The bank should pay me for my ATM transactions for lowering their cost structure. (Instead they cut the number of free teller-assisted transactions to encourage you to go the machine.)
Having more IP addresses doesn't mean that they will be statically assigned, nor that they will be assigned on a "per-user" rather than on a "per-device" basis. Even if each individual were assigned a block of addresses for their devices (this packet comes from John's palm pilot, this from his cell phone, and that one from his refrigerator...) you'd still have the problem of multiple users with a single physical device (public library computers, internet cafes, office beer fridges...) so, unless each device includes biometric identification and logging, you'll never be able to attribute every internet communication to a human party, even when one exists. I won't even get into the privacy concerns there.
The vast majority of bad netizenship occurs at protocol levels above IP -- spammers abuse SMTP, advertisers abuse DHTML, hackers abuse various services running on open ports. While some of this bad netizenship can be addressed at lower protocol levels (e.g. by blackholing certian IP ranges) the real solution is in fixing the higher-level protocols.
Consider a few sentences from a letter from one "Clive Bannister, head of international operations including private banking at HSBC Republic", which should have triggered suspicion:
And then this, which I think in English means "hey, wanna join my scam?":From the diagram, it would seem the commuter train has in-car WiFi repeaters connected to a larger network wirelessly, which breaks in tunnels. The train is always in contact with a pair of "wires" - i.e. the rails - which on many train systems already carry data (that is, information for in-cab signaling systms). Is there a technical limitation which keeps the rails from being a suitable medium for high-speed data access suitable to feed to the in-car access point? Tunnels wouldn't interrupt the service.
The decision was 9-0 on whether ISPs should pay royalties for (C) music they transfer, but was 8-1 on an interesting issue regarding when a communication originates in Canada. The majority decides that a communication that originates outside of Canada can be considered to be made "in Canada". Justice LeBel's dissent focusses on the privacy implications of this decision. If an American server has to pay Canadian royalties for serving Canadian music to Canadians, it probably can't be anonymous (at the very least it would have to use some sort of geographic location algorithm). This means that the operator is effectively forced to collect your personal information. The alternative rule, that all and only servers in Canada with music on them are liable for royalties, for all of its other flaws, is much better for consumer privacy.