Turned out that those people had no more ability to blow up a firecracker than the Sears Tower.
Seems to be that way with a lot of these captured 'terrorists' - the poster child is Jose Padilla, the one they grabbed getting off a plane at O'Hare a couple of years back and crowed about what a danger he was - dirty nukes, all kinds of terrible carnage he was going to wreck. The guy couldn't even hold down a job at taco bell, but they kept him locked up without access to counsel for years claiming because he was too dangerous to let talk to anyone. What a joke. The only danger Padilla poses is to the reputations of politicos who made such a big deal about arresting him.
New York senator Charles Schumer said: 'This is one instance where intelligence was on top of its game and discovered the plot when it was just in the talking phase.' <Lailaha> Dudez! WTF is that abu-ass-grab torture sh!tz? <Iqbal> Totally. <Lailaha> We should do something about it. <Iqbal> Yeah, like blow something up <Lailaha> No wayz, that's so 911. <Iqbal> Ok, get this - we flood the new york subway! <Lailaha> My uncle's 3rd wife's brother's couzin is zawqari's best bud, he could hook us up! <Iqbal> Isn't he dead? <Lailaha> Nah, that's just the cover story. He's hiding out with 20 virgins, practicing for the big day! <Iqbal> That's sooo cool, I wish I had 20 virgins. <Lailaha> Yah, me twoz <Iqbal> Hey, wtf, someone is banging on my door. <Iqbal> BRB
Of course, if the advertisers actually take your advice and try tailoring commercial breaks to individual viewers' interests, they'll get reamed by privacy advocates for gathering the information they need to be able to do that.
Only if you presume that only way to do that is to invade our privacy.
Here's a thought - instead of making mega-expensive shows designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, er broadest possible audience, advertisers should fund shows that will appeal to their target markets. That way, simply by watching the show, you self-select into the group that are likely to have an interest in the advertised products too.
This is win-win-win all around - more actors get jobs, advertisers get better targetted marketing and people get shows that appeal more to them without having to pay for it with their privacy.
I'll still skip the ads though, I don't like marketing that seeks me out and tries to convince me that I really must have whatever product they are pushing, I prefer to seek out products when I have a need for them.
There will be an image quality degradation since it's the decompressed stream that is being copied, and it will have to be recompressed to get it back to a size that will fit on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. Therefore, this isn't equivalent to a direct copy of the compressed data stream.
But, on the other hand, it is only one transcoding generation away from completely unrestricted copying. I think even most videophiles would be hard pressed to distinguish between a 1st generation and a good 2nd generation transcode of equal resolution and similar bitrates.
Plus, if you look at the pirating on the net today, it is almost always transcoding to lesser quality - be it DVD-9 down to DVD-5 (for easy burning to single-layer DVD blanks) or DVD to one or two 700MB CDs of xvid/dvix. Some people do pirate raw hdtv transport streams but they are compartively few and far between.
Posix is a minor fiasco in and of itself, no input from Microsoft required.
The biggest problem that I have run into with posix is inconsistent implementations. For example, Sun does shared memory just differently enough from HP that even though the same code will compile cleanly on each system, it will only actually work on one of them unless you special case each OS (has to do with the specific implementation details of the namespace in a pseudo-filesystem that may or not be the same as the real filesystem).
These kinds of problems are inevitable given the way Posix was designed. In short, the posix committee was formed of representatives from all the unix vendors and for each piece of the standard they all fought it out to have their own implementation be the standard. Often the result was a compromise that left the nitty-gritty details undefined. This approach pleased the most vendors because it minimized the amount of changes they had to make to their own code to make it "posix compliant" - they basically got the check-list item for "free."
But any programmer who actually tried to use the posix APIs was screwed - either they developed for a single platform and just coded to that platform's idiosyncrasies without even realizing it, or they developed multi-platform and had to figure out the idiosyncrasies of each platform and account for it in their code. Thus making "posix conformance" a real headache. In many cases the non-posix APIs are more consistent than the posix equivalents (i.e. SysV shared mem "just works" on Solaris, AIX, HPUX and Linux).
A quick search on the author ANJAN SUNDARAM shows him to be a bit of a rabble rouser.
The article has all kinds of verifiable facts with sources -- if even half of them are true, then this is exactly the kind of story that ought to get the rabble roused.
Obviously there needs to be a better system, but what kind of system would work?
What makes you think that ANY system could work?
Some beauraucrat comes up with a lame-ass policy that, by the way, goes against the grain of everything America claims to stand for and even the people smart enough to realize it is a lame-ass policy are still brainwashed into believing that it is somehow necessary?
Here is a system that would work - don't waste my tax dollars on useless anti-american shit. Spend it on emergency services instead.
No matter how many tax dollars you throw at the problem, terrorism is a tactic that can not be fully countered. So instead of fucking with people - 99.999% of whom have nothing to do with terrorism - spend it on the infrastructure that minimizes the damage. Better hospitals, better fire departments, better "first responder" teams. That way, we get the benefit of the money spent regardless of if a terrorist blows up a building or an earthquake knocks it down.
This would suggest that "Licensed" broadcasters may have to uphold the same standards on the web as they do on FTA TV, which oddly enough is a logical bow to draw.
Holy Fuck it is not logical.
Since when do internet broadcasters need to be licensed and for GOD'S SAKE WHY?
You are ignoring the context of his post. He was responding to a post that essentially blamed "enviros" for the california energy crisis. Since the "enviros" have presumably not gone away, yet the energy crisis is ancient history, it is hardly plausible that the "enviros" were the cause in the first place.
Who the EFF ever heard of "Chambers Dictionary" as an authoritative source?
On the "about us" section they claim to be a publisher, i.e. a company with a vested interest in slanting the debate.
The etymology just says "16c" so where do you get this "1800s" bit from and how do you know it applies to copyrights rather than high seas?
Not that I really care one way or the other, my favorite semantic argument is "theft vs copyright infringement" -- in fact you are probably right, but you are doing a p-poor job of supporting your claim.
you can't go sueing search engines because they contain links to links of pirated mp3s... thats just what a search engine does... it seems the only way to avoid this would be to manually go through every web page, download all the mp3s that you can get to and check that they are not pirated...
What's wrong with that? If it saves the life of one innocent child, isn't it worth it? We must do our patriotic duty to make sure there are no links to links to links and especialy no circular links to pirated materials anywhere on the net. Do your part good citizen and help to assure that the children of RIAA executives are assured a bright future!
Just to clarify, are we both talking about the Mohammad who signed a 10-year piece treaty with the people of Mecca and then invaded them two years later, slaughtering any who refused to convert to Islam? Somehow I can't see him finding much common ground with a rival prophet...
Yep, yep, yep. That's the one. He was also a child-molester and a sicko-pervert who had sex with old ladies. Plus he LOVED to torture people captured in battle. Oh God! jeeze, Raven you make my nards hard with this stuff, I bet yours are too!
There may be benefits to complete prosthetic bodies...
JLike when that 45 year-old, overweight and balding guy who pretends to be a hot teenage chick with a tight ass and smokin' body on yahoo chat shows up to meet you in person, he actually will have the tight ass and smokin' body of a hot teenage chick.
The concept of "fair use" is really only a legal defense in case you are sued/prosecuted for copyright infringement. This effectively means there are no hard and fast rules as to what is OK and what is not OK - it is all subject to interpretation and one person's grey area may be another judge's clear distinction.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
As you can see, there is lots of room for interpretation - which, like most of the law, helps to keep the unemployment rate among lawyers very low.
There has been quite a bit of headscratching about this, and there seem to be several factors involved:
Don't forget that bizarre turn-on -- dry sex. Painful for women, but apparently strangely enjoyable for men, it also significantly increases the chance of infection for both. I'm not talking about women who have sex when they aren't in the mood. It is a lot more extreme then that -- some women use chemicals like bleach to remove natural lubricants and irritate the tissue to make it swell up, others actually insert little bags of vaginal potpourri to absorb the fluids and dry themselves out - I bet Martha Stewart is already making plans to break into that market.
Anyone who thinks I'm kidding, here are 3 articles, out of thousands, on the practice
the list supposed to be a list of felons from the state of Texas. Most of the people on that list had misdemeanors, not felons.... is that THIER mistake, or something you should be pissy about the State of Texas about?
Its pretty clearly up to Choicepoint to provide accurate data, otherwise if there is no accountability they might as well just make up a bunch of names and use those instead.
If their source was bad, they should have either found another source to validate the data (they should be doing that anyway, it's just good practice to validate the quality of the data you sell -- it is pretty hard to believe that they did not have at least a general idea about the accuracy of the data) or they should not have reported it at all.
Texas certainly has problems if their database is so poor, but in Texas felons who have served their time are not stripped of their right to vote, so it isn't like Texas has the same problem at home.
since the original conception of copyright is that it's a way to balance the rights of creators and the public for the greater good. This has its roots in English common law: the Statute of Anne in 1709 established the idea of limited terms for copyrights, the idea being that previously copyrighted material should become public material after a time.
Canda's legal system is not as directly derived from english common law as is the US's. One factor in Canadian copyright law that has almost no representation in the US system is the concept of "Moral Rights" which derive from the continental (i.e. French) take on copyright.
Moral Rights ("droits moraux" in french) are mostly about the author's right to maintain the integrity of the creation - to prevent it from being used in ways which (in the author's opinion) dilute or alter the intent of his work rather than being about making unaltered copies. It is my understanding that under French, and thus probably Canadian law, an author can not reassign his moral rights the way he may assign the right to distribute.
Until a bill was passed settling it, the US had been headed for a decision regarding moral rights regarding the practice of some companies of making and selling "censorship tracks" for mainstream movies. There are a couple of different implementations, but the end result is the ability to see a movie edited by someone not approved by copyright holder. Usually all the good parts are taken out in order to pacify people like Ned Flanders living in Utah.
Hollywood hated the idea and sued, claiming that the companies selling the dvds in conjunction with censorship tracks were misrepresenting the movies as the original works when they were not the creator's intended versions.
It never got to court because congress passed a law that permitted even more draconian drm but also made such censorship tracks legal. But if it had, it would have been about an author's moral rights - although it is pretty certain Hollywood would have had to depend on somewhat creative interpretations of statutes written about things like trademarks in order to "create" moral rights.
Anyway, the point of all that background and explication is that the line you quoted from the CRA's objectives sounds more like it is referring to Moral Rights as recognized by Canadian law than to proprietary rights like the public domain.
They just didn't want people bricking their routers and returning them under warranty.
One would think it would be extremely cost effective to build a tftp firmware loader into ROM, so that in the event of a bad flash, or a manual reset, the unit would just sit there trying too load a new firmware off the local net. That should solve the problem of accidentally bricking any units - be it with some bogus linux distro, or just a failed flash download of their own official firmware.
Slashdot Mirror
Turned out that those people had no more ability to blow up a firecracker than the Sears Tower.
Seems to be that way with a lot of these captured 'terrorists' - the poster child is Jose Padilla, the one they grabbed getting off a plane at O'Hare a couple of years back and crowed about what a danger he was - dirty nukes, all kinds of terrible carnage he was going to wreck. The guy couldn't even hold down a job at taco bell, but they kept him locked up without access to counsel for years claiming because he was too dangerous to let talk to anyone. What a joke. The only danger Padilla poses is to the reputations of politicos who made such a big deal about arresting him.
New York senator Charles Schumer said: 'This is one instance where intelligence was on top of its game and discovered the plot when it was just in the talking phase.'
<Lailaha> Dudez! WTF is that abu-ass-grab torture sh!tz?
<Iqbal> Totally.
<Lailaha> We should do something about it.
<Iqbal> Yeah, like blow something up
<Lailaha> No wayz, that's so 911.
<Iqbal> Ok, get this - we flood the new york subway!
<Lailaha> My uncle's 3rd wife's brother's couzin is zawqari's best bud, he could hook us up!
<Iqbal> Isn't he dead?
<Lailaha> Nah, that's just the cover story. He's hiding out with 20 virgins, practicing for the big day!
<Iqbal> That's sooo cool, I wish I had 20 virgins.
<Lailaha> Yah, me twoz
<Iqbal> Hey, wtf, someone is banging on my door.
<Iqbal> BRB
<Lailaha> ?? u there ??
<Lailaha> I gotz school, culaterz
Of course, if the advertisers actually take your advice and try tailoring commercial breaks to individual viewers' interests, they'll get reamed by privacy advocates for gathering the information they need to be able to do that.
Only if you presume that only way to do that is to invade our privacy.
Here's a thought - instead of making mega-expensive shows designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, er broadest possible audience, advertisers should fund shows that will appeal to their target markets. That way, simply by watching the show, you self-select into the group that are likely to have an interest in the advertised products too.
This is win-win-win all around - more actors get jobs, advertisers get better targetted marketing and people get shows that appeal more to them without having to pay for it with their privacy.
I'll still skip the ads though, I don't like marketing that seeks me out and tries to convince me that I really must have whatever product they are pushing, I prefer to seek out products when I have a need for them.
There will be an image quality degradation since it's the decompressed stream that is being copied, and it will have to be recompressed to get it back to a size that will fit on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. Therefore, this isn't equivalent to a direct copy of the compressed data stream.
But, on the other hand, it is only one transcoding generation away from completely unrestricted copying. I think even most videophiles would be hard pressed to distinguish between a 1st generation and a good 2nd generation transcode of equal resolution and similar bitrates.
Plus, if you look at the pirating on the net today, it is almost always transcoding to lesser quality - be it DVD-9 down to DVD-5 (for easy burning to single-layer DVD blanks) or DVD to one or two 700MB CDs of xvid/dvix. Some people do pirate raw hdtv transport streams but they are compartively few and far between.
Or it will be like the POSIX fiasco.
Posix is a minor fiasco in and of itself, no input from Microsoft required.
The biggest problem that I have run into with posix is inconsistent implementations. For example, Sun does shared memory just differently enough from HP that even though the same code will compile cleanly on each system, it will only actually work on one of them unless you special case each OS (has to do with the specific implementation details of the namespace in a pseudo-filesystem that may or not be the same as the real filesystem).
These kinds of problems are inevitable given the way Posix was designed. In short, the posix committee was formed of representatives from all the unix vendors and for each piece of the standard they all fought it out to have their own implementation be the standard. Often the result was a compromise that left the nitty-gritty details undefined. This approach pleased the most vendors because it minimized the amount of changes they had to make to their own code to make it "posix compliant" - they basically got the check-list item for "free."
But any programmer who actually tried to use the posix APIs was screwed - either they developed for a single platform and just coded to that platform's idiosyncrasies without even realizing it, or they developed multi-platform and had to figure out the idiosyncrasies of each platform and account for it in their code. Thus making "posix conformance" a real headache. In many cases the non-posix APIs are more consistent than the posix equivalents (i.e. SysV shared mem "just works" on Solaris, AIX, HPUX and Linux).
A quick search on the author ANJAN SUNDARAM shows him to be a bit of a rabble rouser.
The article has all kinds of verifiable facts with sources -- if even half of them are true, then this is exactly the kind of story that ought to get the rabble roused.
Obviously there needs to be a better system, but what kind of system would work?
What makes you think that ANY system could work?
Some beauraucrat comes up with a lame-ass policy that, by the way, goes against the grain of everything America claims to stand for and even the people smart enough to realize it is a lame-ass policy are still brainwashed into believing that it is somehow necessary?
Here is a system that would work - don't waste my tax dollars on useless anti-american shit. Spend it on emergency services instead.
No matter how many tax dollars you throw at the problem, terrorism is a tactic that can not be fully countered. So instead of fucking with people - 99.999% of whom have nothing to do with terrorism - spend it on the infrastructure that minimizes the damage. Better hospitals, better fire departments, better "first responder" teams. That way, we get the benefit of the money spent regardless of if a terrorist blows up a building or an earthquake knocks it down.
This would suggest that "Licensed" broadcasters may have to uphold the same standards on the web as they do on FTA TV, which oddly enough is a logical bow to draw.
Holy Fuck it is not logical.
Since when do internet broadcasters need to be licensed and for GOD'S SAKE WHY?
Only one variable changed?
You are ignoring the context of his post. He was responding to a post that essentially blamed "enviros" for the california energy crisis. Since the "enviros" have presumably not gone away, yet the energy crisis is ancient history, it is hardly plausible that the "enviros" were the cause in the first place.
I think of myself as an honest person, but a desire to retain my freedom has also kept me from straying into a life of crime.
That's funny.
As an honest American, I find that my desire to retain my freedom is pushing me closer and closer to a life of crime with each passing day.
a metaphor doesn't always have to be extended indefinitely
It ought to at least last to the end of the sentence in which it is first used - or where you trying to give an example through demonstration?
"Banners" are not always banner adds
Yeah, sometimes they are banner subtracts, occasionally a banner divide by zero too.
Lol!
Not that I really care one way or the other, my favorite semantic argument is "theft vs copyright infringement" -- in fact you are probably right, but you are doing a p-poor job of supporting your claim.
I personally feel it can deter script kiddies as their scripts occasionally look for banners, etc.
WTF? The scripts look for banners? Why? So they can do click-fraud?
The idea of security is similar to the titanic. Its unsinkable until everyone owns your box.
WTF? Is that some sort of innuendo about the Kate Winslet, because I don't recall anyone "owning" the Titanic.
you can't go sueing search engines because they contain links to links of pirated mp3s... thats just what a search engine does... it seems the only way to avoid this would be to manually go through every web page, download all the mp3s that you can get to and check that they are not pirated...
What's wrong with that? If it saves the life of one innocent child, isn't it worth it? We must do our patriotic duty to make sure there are no links to links to links and especialy no circular links to pirated materials anywhere on the net. Do your part good citizen and help to assure that the children of RIAA executives are assured a bright future!
Gore did have an understanding of how the Internet worked, he made it his business to be informed on relevant subjects when he was a congresscritter.
Those facts and their damn liberal bias! You aren't being truthy!
Just to clarify, are we both talking about the Mohammad who signed a 10-year piece treaty with the people of Mecca and then invaded them two years later, slaughtering any who refused to convert to Islam? Somehow I can't see him finding much common ground with a rival prophet...
Yep, yep, yep. That's the one. He was also a child-molester and a sicko-pervert who had sex with old ladies. Plus he LOVED to torture people captured in battle. Oh God! jeeze, Raven you make my nards hard with this stuff, I bet yours are too!
There may be benefits to complete prosthetic bodies...
JLike when that 45 year-old, overweight and balding guy who pretends to be a hot teenage chick with a tight ass and smokin' body on yahoo chat shows up to meet you in person, he actually will have the tight ass and smokin' body of a hot teenage chick.
That's what I heard 10 years ago. I think next Friday is the D-Day.
It was yesterday, you just missed it.
Here's the relevant section of the law:
As you can see, there is lots of room for interpretation - which, like most of the law, helps to keep the unemployment rate among lawyers very low.
I was saying you don't have to do network analysis because the crash report utility is predictable and dependable.
Some people in God. I believe in conditional statements.
There has been quite a bit of headscratching about this, and there seem to be several factors involved:
Don't forget that bizarre turn-on -- dry sex. Painful for women, but apparently strangely enjoyable for men, it also significantly increases the chance of infection for both. I'm not talking about women who have sex when they aren't in the mood. It is a lot more extreme then that -- some women use chemicals like bleach to remove natural lubricants and irritate the tissue to make it swell up, others actually insert little bags of vaginal potpourri to absorb the fluids and dry themselves out - I bet Martha Stewart is already making plans to break into that market.
Anyone who thinks I'm kidding, here are 3 articles, out of thousands, on the practice
Salon 1999
Time 2001
The Lancet 1998
They could use a marketing campaign over there - "Lube - it does a body good!"
the list supposed to be a list of felons from the state of Texas. Most of the people on that list had misdemeanors, not felons .... is that THIER mistake, or something you should be pissy about the State of Texas about?
Its pretty clearly up to Choicepoint to provide accurate data, otherwise if there is no accountability they might as well just make up a bunch of names and use those instead.
If their source was bad, they should have either found another source to validate the data (they should be doing that anyway, it's just good practice to validate the quality of the data you sell -- it is pretty hard to believe that they did not have at least a general idea about the accuracy of the data) or they should not have reported it at all.
Texas certainly has problems if their database is so poor, but in Texas felons who have served their time are not stripped of their right to vote, so it isn't like Texas has the same problem at home.
since the original conception of copyright is that it's a way to balance the rights of creators and the public for the greater good. This has its roots in English common law: the Statute of Anne in 1709 established the idea of limited terms for copyrights, the idea being that previously copyrighted material should become public material after a time.
Canda's legal system is not as directly derived from english common law as is the US's. One factor in Canadian copyright law that has almost no representation in the US system is the concept of "Moral Rights" which derive from the continental (i.e. French) take on copyright.
Moral Rights ("droits moraux" in french) are mostly about the author's right to maintain the integrity of the creation - to prevent it from being used in ways which (in the author's opinion) dilute or alter the intent of his work rather than being about making unaltered copies. It is my understanding that under French, and thus probably Canadian law, an author can not reassign his moral rights the way he may assign the right to distribute.
Until a bill was passed settling it, the US had been headed for a decision regarding moral rights regarding the practice of some companies of making and selling "censorship tracks" for mainstream movies. There are a couple of different implementations, but the end result is the ability to see a movie edited by someone not approved by copyright holder. Usually all the good parts are taken out in order to pacify people like Ned Flanders living in Utah.
Hollywood hated the idea and sued, claiming that the companies selling the dvds in conjunction with censorship tracks were misrepresenting the movies as the original works when they were not the creator's intended versions.
It never got to court because congress passed a law that permitted even more draconian drm but also made such censorship tracks legal. But if it had, it would have been about an author's moral rights - although it is pretty certain Hollywood would have had to depend on somewhat creative interpretations of statutes written about things like trademarks in order to "create" moral rights.
Anyway, the point of all that background and explication is that the line you quoted from the CRA's objectives sounds more like it is referring to Moral Rights as recognized by Canadian law than to proprietary rights like the public domain.
They just didn't want people bricking their routers and returning them under warranty.
One would think it would be extremely cost effective to build a tftp firmware loader into ROM, so that in the event of a bad flash, or a manual reset, the unit would just sit there trying too load a new firmware off the local net. That should solve the problem of accidentally bricking any units - be it with some bogus linux distro, or just a failed flash download of their own official firmware.
Go ask the Turks if they are the same civilization and they will say yes.
Go ask the Turks if baklava has sugar in it and they will say yes.
Go ask the Turks if they are same economic system and system of government and they will say no.
Keep setting up those strawmen. I asked the Turks and they said that you should at least avoid quoting what you are trying to weasel around.