Its totally ironic if your parents arranged the marriage with a neighboring family in order to get access to their water rights in a drought-stricken land.
To be fair, they'll exchange it for a closed version of the same movie. Were it a more reputable shop, this would be useful since the store would have to deal with the return to the manufacturer. As each Best Buy has a shrink wrap machine on-site, they'll just wrap it up and stick it back on the shelf.
Which is illegal. Its OK to re-shrink-wrap merchandise returned because the customer didn't like it and it is in like-new condition, but re-shrink-wrapping merchandise that is returned because it is defective is illegal in all 50 states. Since BBY and most other stores won't accept returns of opened media for any other reason than it being defective, any store shrink-wrapping DVD returns has a massive legal liability.
Except that the people who ripped it and uploaded it did so in January.
No they didn't. That part of the summary is misleading. The stuff available back then was either recorded off the screen with a video camera - some pirates use high-def cameras so those recordings can look pretty good - or it was a rip of a DVD released in region 5 where bootlegging has actually forced the studios to release barebones DVDs early and for relatively cheap (a couple of dollars which is still a lot more than the bootlegs but a lot cheaper than what they used to price at).
Either way blurays were not ripped until roughly a day after public release and it is the blurays with the brand new and buggy DRM scheme that the article is talking about.
Actually is seems funny how some many people defending this asshole are the same people who demand open systems and bitch about Apple and M$ for being closed.
Any of these people actually putting Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in jail for being closed?
Except that they can not freeze assets that you use to defend yourself.
They can and they do - all they have to do is allege that the assets are the result of ill-gotten gains. Note they just have to say it, they don't have to prove it.
Here's one example of a guy who was forced to the public defender option because the government said all his money was dirty, there are lots more:
And he didn't. He withdrew a bunch of cash. I'd probably try to do the same thing if I thought the government was going to arrest me - which he had been threatened with. Maybe you haven't noticed, but a common enough tactic is for the government to freeze the assets of people it tries to prosecute. No cash means the best you can get is an overworked public defender. Sure they don't do it to everyone, they don't even do it in the majority of cases, but man it sure would suck for them to do it to you wouldn't it?
No, that is not more accurately - in fact it isn't even a more precise analogy - keys being physical property so failure to return them is simple theft, no actual damage occurred in Child's case, etc.
In fact, it misses the entire point, which was NOT to make an analogy at all. It was to show how the same principle of criminalization of inaction is contrary to the spirit of denial of service laws as they were popularized and probably as most legislators understood them, if they understood them at all, when they were written.
From this guy's discussion it sure sounds like the jury convicted Childs for literally doing nothing - as in not revealing the password when asked. That seems completely out of line with the reason for "denial of service" laws in the first place - unauthorized access leading to various sorts of downtime.
Childs clearly had authorized access up until the point in which they decided to "transfer" him and it doesn't sound like he tried to access the systems afterwards. He may have been an ego-maniacal dick about how he managed the systems when he was authorized, but being a dick is not a criminal offense.
I think a doctrine of calling inaction after authorized actions denial of service is the kind of thing that is so overbroad it could lead to all kinds of unfairness - a maintenance guy sees a leaky roof in a server room, gets transferred to another building and doesn't tell anyone about it and a week later the computers in that room get flooded, is he now criminally responsible for that denial of service?
So if those people don't like questions from newbies, then why do they willingly go into forums where newbies are asking questions when they AREN'T AT WORK?
For the discussion from the non-newbies.
Doctors don't hang around the WebMD forums on their off time ridiculing those who didn't go to med school...
No - they have conferences and meetings of professional organizations where newbies can't just blunder in because they aren't open.
It's a minimum common sense necessity obvious to anyone who should be allowed to run production systems and call themselves a sysadmin.
Sure it is, which is why his boss should never have allowed him - or anyone else - to work on the network for all those years without requiring it.
On one hand you've got people faulting him for not doing what the boss said because his boss is the ultimate authority and yet the only reason he's taking the fall here is because the guy with the ultimate authority didn't apply it correctly in the first place.
I'm not going to go further into your "grammar" issue as it is not relevant.
Actually I think it is MORE relevant - your handling of an obviously trivial error suggests a mindset ruled by the id. Based on that reaction alone I predicted your response to the central argument. You followed form exactly - in the face of a simple and direct example you added contortions and weasel words to your previously simple and clear requirements.
As for your single, anecdotal example, that isn't creating second class citizens because people are unable to meet certain criteria or are willfully and maliciously denied licenses. That's people who actively chose not to meet the requirements of a private seller, and were denied access to their private goods. Maybe you should take your business elsewhere.
Who said it was anecdotal? In fact, my wording was pretty specifically not anecdotal - the practice is widespread. And since when do private businesses not enforce castes? Hell, in India and other places it is all about the private businesses doing it with the tacit support of the government - malicious and willful are certain not requirements. Just like the way drivers licenses have become mandatory wide-spread centralized ids with the tacit support of the government.
But, here's another one for you to contort - hunting, fishing and boating licenses are purely revenue driven. Its not like passing a safety class is a common requirement in order to get any of them and only in rare circumstances are they used to limit ecological impact. If you have the money to spend you get the privilege as doled out by the governemnt. If you don't, you are specifically denied access to a public resource.
The question mark wasn't a typo. You may find it to be a common rhetorical device used in spoken American English. I apologize if that was unclear.
Not a typo, then it was a deliberate grammatical error, it is certainly not a 'common rhetorical device' in spoken english because applying the rising intonation commonly associated with a question mark to an accusative statement only makes the speaker sound uneducated rather than indicate some sort of intent. Even funnier though.
Please provide an example of how the implementation of licensing today is creating second class citizens or some other kind of caste society. If this is in fact the case, then I will stand firmly on your side of the issue.
Have you tried to buy liquor in a state like Massachusetts in the last decade? Many liquor stores will not sell you liquor unless they scan the bar code on the back of your license. Simply looking at it is not sufficient. The ubiquity of driver's licenses has made it difficult to buy liquor with an alternate form of age verification that doesn't give up a person's privacy. That's a segmentation of the population into those with privilege and those without that has absolutely nothing to do with the stated intent of the license.
No you don't. Ever. You say "Go to the safe and get them yourself. Don't forget to sign the register." When Superintendent bleats that it is needed NOW! your answer is to point them to the safe. Terry Childs did not put the passwords in the safe and deserves to go down for that.
I disagree. The decision to put passwords in a safe in the first place is above his pay-grade. It seems nobody instructed him to do so, so you can't blame him for not following a procedure that didn't exist. If anything, the blame lies on his superior(s) who failed to adequately implement a "sysadmin gets hit by bus (or fired)" plan.
WTF? The Jesuits were a major player in seventeenth and eighteenth century astronomy and prior to that had been running the observatory in Rome that the GP mentions since 1582--it's the oldest observatory in Europe.
Irrelevant - the fundies have "science centers" dedicated to the proof of 'micro-evolution' - but the people there are not permitted to touch full-blown evolution with a 10-foot stick. Just as all of those examples you cited were curbed by church doctrine.
No, I'm not. I'm just trying to be polite and give you an opportunity to explain your extremely bizarre concern for the freedom to be totally irresponsible and unsafe.
Actually you: a) Made a typo and ended your statement with a question mark. b) Are projecting your understanding of the absolute best possible use of licensing to be how licensing is implemented in the USA today.
They did that a while ago; they have an observatory and host astronomy conferences. Obviously it's an attempt to live down what their predecessors did to Galileo, but I welcome it.
Back in the day, the idea of the church actively supporting astronomy is kind of like the christian fundamentalists of today actively supporting evolutionary biology.
Like they do with driver's licenses, and truck licenses, and nuclear power plant licenses, and fishing licenses and all those other licenses that are misused to create a caste society, right?
Given how driver's licenses have morphed into ID requirements for all kinds of non-driving tasks and things like fishing licenses are about revenue generations rather than anything else - even your other examples are about control and regulation of business - I think you've demonstrated the guy's point.
Sad to say, I don't know what *will* fix it. Probably the best thing would be to legalize dope and cut the bottom out of the black market. But that ain't going to happen.
Cross your fingers that California gets started on that this year.
Slashdot Mirror
And what's ironic about rain on your wedding day?
Its totally ironic if your parents arranged the marriage with a neighboring family in order to get access to their water rights in a drought-stricken land.
To be fair, they'll exchange it for a closed version of the same movie. Were it a more reputable shop, this would be useful since the store would have to deal with the return to the manufacturer. As each Best Buy has a shrink wrap machine on-site, they'll just wrap it up and stick it back on the shelf.
Which is illegal. Its OK to re-shrink-wrap merchandise returned because the customer didn't like it and it is in like-new condition, but re-shrink-wrapping merchandise that is returned because it is defective is illegal in all 50 states. Since BBY and most other stores won't accept returns of opened media for any other reason than it being defective, any store shrink-wrapping DVD returns has a massive legal liability.
Except that the people who ripped it and uploaded it did so in January.
No they didn't. That part of the summary is misleading. The stuff available back then was either recorded off the screen with a video camera - some pirates use high-def cameras so those recordings can look pretty good - or it was a rip of a DVD released in region 5 where bootlegging has actually forced the studios to release barebones DVDs early and for relatively cheap (a couple of dollars which is still a lot more than the bootlegs but a lot cheaper than what they used to price at).
Either way blurays were not ripped until roughly a day after public release and it is the blurays with the brand new and buggy DRM scheme that the article is talking about.
Actually is seems funny how some many people defending this asshole are the same people who demand open systems and bitch about Apple and M$ for being closed.
Any of these people actually putting Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in jail for being closed?
Refusing access to an authorized user, as it turns out, actually *is* a criminal offense.
Yeah? Other than this jury's contorted interpretation, where is it written?
Would you prefer I phrased it as "Disobeying the request to reveal the password is doing something"?
Give me a million dollars.
Except that they can not freeze assets that you use to defend yourself.
They can and they do - all they have to do is allege that the assets are the result of ill-gotten gains. Note they just have to say it, they don't have to prove it.
Here's one example of a guy who was forced to the public defender option because the government said all his money was dirty, there are lots more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/allen-stanford-forced-to-take-public-defender-2009-9
You don't go on the lam over a misunderstanding.
And he didn't. He withdrew a bunch of cash. I'd probably try to do the same thing if I thought the government was going to arrest me - which he had been threatened with. Maybe you haven't noticed, but a common enough tactic is for the government to freeze the assets of people it tries to prosecute. No cash means the best you can get is an overworked public defender. Sure they don't do it to everyone, they don't even do it in the majority of cases, but man it sure would suck for them to do it to you wouldn't it?
Not revealing the password is doing something.
And not collecting stamps is a hobby.
More accurately,
No, that is not more accurately - in fact it isn't even a more precise analogy - keys being physical property so failure to return them is simple theft, no actual damage occurred in Child's case, etc.
In fact, it misses the entire point, which was NOT to make an analogy at all. It was to show how the same principle of criminalization of inaction is contrary to the spirit of denial of service laws as they were popularized and probably as most legislators understood them, if they understood them at all, when they were written.
From this guy's discussion it sure sounds like the jury convicted Childs for literally doing nothing - as in not revealing the password when asked.
That seems completely out of line with the reason for "denial of service" laws in the first place - unauthorized access leading to various sorts of downtime.
Childs clearly had authorized access up until the point in which they decided to "transfer" him and it doesn't sound like he tried to access the systems afterwards.
He may have been an ego-maniacal dick about how he managed the systems when he was authorized, but being a dick is not a criminal offense.
I think a doctrine of calling inaction after authorized actions denial of service is the kind of thing that is so overbroad it could lead to all kinds of unfairness - a maintenance guy sees a leaky roof in a server room, gets transferred to another building and doesn't tell anyone about it and a week later the computers in that room get flooded, is he now criminally responsible for that denial of service?
So if those people don't like questions from newbies, then why do they willingly go into forums where newbies are asking questions when they AREN'T AT WORK?
For the discussion from the non-newbies.
Doctors don't hang around the WebMD forums on their off time ridiculing those who didn't go to med school...
No - they have conferences and meetings of professional organizations where newbies can't just blunder in because they aren't open.
His boss knows enough to ask him for the password, so clearly he knows enough to institute a policy for password escrow.
It's a minimum common sense necessity obvious to anyone who should be allowed to run production systems and call themselves a sysadmin.
Sure it is, which is why his boss should never have allowed him - or anyone else - to work on the network for all those years without requiring it.
On one hand you've got people faulting him for not doing what the boss said because his boss is the ultimate authority and yet the only reason he's taking the fall here is because the guy with the ultimate authority didn't apply it correctly in the first place.
I'm not going to go further into your "grammar" issue as it is not relevant.
Actually I think it is MORE relevant - your handling of an obviously trivial error suggests a mindset ruled by the id. Based on that reaction alone I predicted your response to the central argument. You followed form exactly - in the face of a simple and direct example you added contortions and weasel words to your previously simple and clear requirements.
As for your single, anecdotal example, that isn't creating second class citizens because people are unable to meet certain criteria or are willfully and maliciously denied licenses. That's people who actively chose not to meet the requirements of a private seller, and were denied access to their private goods. Maybe you should take your business elsewhere.
Who said it was anecdotal? In fact, my wording was pretty specifically not anecdotal - the practice is widespread. And since when do private businesses not enforce castes? Hell, in India and other places it is all about the private businesses doing it with the tacit support of the government - malicious and willful are certain not requirements. Just like the way drivers licenses have become mandatory wide-spread centralized ids with the tacit support of the government.
But, here's another one for you to contort - hunting, fishing and boating licenses are purely revenue driven. Its not like passing a safety class is a common requirement in order to get any of them and only in rare circumstances are they used to limit ecological impact. If you have the money to spend you get the privilege as doled out by the governemnt. If you don't, you are specifically denied access to a public resource.
The question mark wasn't a typo. You may find it to be a common rhetorical device used in spoken American English. I apologize if that was unclear.
Not a typo, then it was a deliberate grammatical error, it is certainly not a 'common rhetorical device' in spoken english because applying the rising intonation commonly associated with a question mark to an accusative statement only makes the speaker sound uneducated rather than indicate some sort of intent. Even funnier though.
Please provide an example of how the implementation of licensing today is creating second class citizens or some other kind of caste society. If this is in fact the case, then I will stand firmly on your side of the issue.
Have you tried to buy liquor in a state like Massachusetts in the last decade?
Many liquor stores will not sell you liquor unless they scan the bar code on the back of your license.
Simply looking at it is not sufficient.
The ubiquity of driver's licenses has made it difficult to buy liquor with an alternate form of age verification that doesn't give up a person's privacy.
That's a segmentation of the population into those with privilege and those without that has absolutely nothing to do with the stated intent of the license.
No you don't. Ever. You say "Go to the safe and get them yourself. Don't forget to sign the register." When Superintendent bleats that it is needed NOW! your answer is to point them to the safe. Terry Childs did not put the passwords in the safe and deserves to go down for that.
I disagree. The decision to put passwords in a safe in the first place is above his pay-grade.
It seems nobody instructed him to do so, so you can't blame him for not following a procedure that didn't exist.
If anything, the blame lies on his superior(s) who failed to adequately implement a "sysadmin gets hit by bus (or fired)" plan.
[This post removed under the first rule of USENET.]
Don't tell me, "Don't talk about USENET?"
Your grasp of the obvious is impressive.
WTF? The Jesuits were a major player in seventeenth and eighteenth century astronomy and prior to that had been running the observatory in Rome that the GP mentions since 1582--it's the oldest observatory in Europe.
Irrelevant - the fundies have "science centers" dedicated to the proof of 'micro-evolution' - but the people there are not permitted to touch full-blown evolution with a 10-foot stick. Just as all of those examples you cited were curbed by church doctrine.
No, I'm not. I'm just trying to be polite and give you an opportunity to explain your extremely bizarre concern for the freedom to be totally irresponsible and unsafe.
Actually you:
a) Made a typo and ended your statement with a question mark.
b) Are projecting your understanding of the absolute best possible use of licensing to be how licensing is implemented in the USA today.
Re (a) learn to laugh at yourself.
Re (b) FALSE
I'm sorry that I don't think 12 year old should have the legal right to drive semi-trucks and open their own nuclear power plants?
I don't know, are you?
They did that a while ago; they have an observatory and host astronomy conferences. Obviously it's an attempt to live down what their predecessors did to Galileo, but I welcome it.
Back in the day, the idea of the church actively supporting astronomy is kind of like the christian fundamentalists of today actively supporting evolutionary biology.
Strangers things have happened...
No, all these licenses simply prevent people who shouldn't be doing things from doing them.
As long as you refuse to see what's right in front of you can believe anything with a clear conscience.
Like they do with driver's licenses, and truck licenses, and nuclear power plant licenses, and fishing licenses and all those other licenses that are misused to create a caste society, right?
Given how driver's licenses have morphed into ID requirements for all kinds of non-driving tasks and things like fishing licenses are about revenue generations rather than anything else - even your other examples are about control and regulation of business - I think you've demonstrated the guy's point.
Sad to say, I don't know what *will* fix it. Probably the best thing would be to legalize dope and cut the bottom out of the black market. But that ain't going to happen.
Cross your fingers that California gets started on that this year.