IANAL, but I suspect they would not own copyright on a scan of a public domain work, at least not in the U.S., because of the precedent set down in Bridgeman v. Corel. Corel distributed non-original photographs taken by Bridgeman Art of public domain art works, and Bridgeman sued them, claiming they owned the copyright to those images. According to the decision, because the photographs were slavish copies of public domain works, the photographs themselves had no original element and thus couldn't be copyrighted.
as Wikipedia puts it:
"Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality."
Wait so... instead of letting these guys sit around on the internet all day where they're essentially harmless, those in the sex offender registry who are there for a legitimate reason (as opposed to for say... pissing on somebodys lawn at 3 AM or being 17 while getting a blowjob from a 15 year old) will now need to go outside and "interact" (i.e. molest for those of you you are clueless--namely, legislators) with real people to get their rocks off.
Good job New Jersey. You sure solved that problem. Make sure all the child molesters go outside and play instead of sitting around in front of the computer at all hours. Maybe it'll help out the kids too. 'Cause they get some more exercise trying to run away. We'll have this obesity epidemic kicked in no time. That WAS the problem they were trying to solve right?
Then you can take your printout to your boss at work and show him you voted the way he told you to so he won't fire you.
Not if you setup the voting system correctly. Reread the grandparent post:
These [copies of my completed ballot] should each be marked with a hash comprising the timestamp of the vote, the contents of the vote, and the specific machine on which I voted. This hash should be recorded by the counting device and associated with the votes cast, such that I have the option to verify my vote against the vote tallied (which would compromise my voter anonymity, of course, but only at my discretion).
In other words, the details (name, voting result, etc.) serve as input to a hash function: output = h(input). The hash that the grandparent was referring to is not human readable. It might appear on the receipt as something like: OAKJERAOJ. Because a hash function can't be inverted, you can't find out the input with just the output of the hash function. Of course, if you know a person's name, and you know the hash function, you can verify that the person voted for a particular candidate (unless whoever designed the voting system added extra precautions detailed later on).
For instance, if you have the hash / hash value OAKJERAOJ, and you want to make sure Joe Blow voted for Richard Nixon, just evaluate h("Name: Joe Blow; Voted for: Richard Nixon"), and see if the result is OAKJERAOJ. If this fails, keep doing that with all the candidates in the "Voted for:" field, and eventually you'll find out who they really voted for. HOWEVER, if you throw in an extra number as part of the input, which is private to the voting registration database (e.g. a private voter id #), this screws up everything for "your boss at work".
If OAKJERAOJ = h("Name: Joe Blow; VOTING_ID: 44145515; Voted for: Richard Nixon"), and the boss doesn't know the correct value of VOTING_ID, then he has no way to determine who you voted for. He can only verify that you voted in the election, period. In this way, you can have a receipt, and have information to match your vote to the one on file, should you choose to give up your anonymity. Your boss will still be in the dark, and even if you wanted to show him you voted for his favored candidate, you have no proof. He'll have to take your word for it. ^_^
After the election, if the voter is suspicious for some reason, he shows up at a vote auditing station run by a third party which has access to the database that matches VOTING_IDs to names/addresses/etc. The voter presents a photo ID to verify his identity. The third party checks to make sure that the vote with the given hash was tabulated as belonging to the candidate (Richard Nixon in the example). If it is, all is well. If not, the election has been compromised, or the voting system designers screwed up somewhere. If a certain threshold of miscounts appear, then there's probably a serious degree of election fraud occurring, and a serious investigation would be initiated to track down the causes and guilty parties (or figure out the bugs in the verification system and correct them for future elections).
...
Or instead, we can continue with our current approach in the US. Go to the polls, vote, and cross our collective fingers that our democracy hasn't been compromised. And if has, maybe we'll never know. I think you can probably make a guess as to which scenario I'd prefer.
He does, you just don't appear to understand the context.
So sayeth Wikipedia: "Cosmic irony is a sharp incongruity between our expectations of things and what actually occurs, as if the universe were mocking us." - Irony
Cosmic irony is the most commonly accepted and recognized form of irony these days.
So meanwhile, we need a sharp incongruity between our expectations of things and what actually occurs. One might assume that, as smiley faces are intended to be a representation of happiness, people's interactions with smiley faces would be positive. However, in this particular case it appears that a symbol of happiness is unexpectedly causing an opposite emotion (sad, upset, angry, etc.) for all parties involved in this issue. Seems ironic to me, even if the irony isn't particularly *amusing*.
One should keep in mind that doing a search using Google.cn is probably not the same as doing a search using Google.cn within the "great firewall". You'd want to do a search over a Chinese proxy to really be sure that that link would even show up in the results.
Oh my. And not only that, because libraries are relatively insecure, you might even be able to "check out" (i.e. smuggle) the books, and then do the scanning on your flatbed scanner, in the safety of your own home. And clearly there is no usage of these devices apart from copyright infringement. We must stop the sale of these "scanners" and "photocopying" machines before they become popular. As things progress, those damn commie librarians might even bring in their own. They might call them... Xerox machines.....
Your point was?
How do you do. Please state your problem. >> I spend too much time with computers. Why do you mention computers ? >> You are one. Does it please you to believe I am one ? >> Yes. You seem to be quite positive. >> I suppose I am. How long have you been ? >> 31 years. I'm not sure I understand you fully. >> Join the club. Please go on. >> You don't make too much sense yourself. We were discussing you -- not me.
Which is to say, all of the hardware which Dell purchased from OTHER VENDORS worked perfectly; but the very exact service that they're being payed to provide -- namely the proper configuration and testing of that hardware setup with the software they install by default, as well as technical support -- ended up being practically of no value. Sad.
There was more than one "Sedition" act.
The most recent Sedition Act was passed in 1918. The Socialist Party's presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs was imprisoned for 2 years (though sentenced to 10 years) for an anti-war speech which violated the terms of said act.
"The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917. The Sedition Act forbade an American to use 'disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language' about the United States government, flag, or armed forces. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters."
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but I suspect they would not own copyright on a scan of a public domain work, at least not in the U.S., because of the precedent set down in Bridgeman v. Corel. Corel distributed non-original photographs taken by Bridgeman Art of public domain art works, and Bridgeman sued them, claiming they owned the copyright to those images. According to the decision, because the photographs were slavish copies of public domain works, the photographs themselves had no original element and thus couldn't be copyrighted. as Wikipedia puts it: "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality."
You're in luck. Sort of: http://wgcenter.com/e107_plugins/games/game.php?game=Microsoft%20Ants
Ah yes, Miskatonic University, my beloved alma mater. Oh, and it's not quite a true lobster.
I had to look it up myself. The saying is...
Wait so... instead of letting these guys sit around on the internet all day where they're essentially harmless, those in the sex offender registry who are there for a legitimate reason (as opposed to for say... pissing on somebodys lawn at 3 AM or being 17 while getting a blowjob from a 15 year old) will now need to go outside and "interact" (i.e. molest for those of you you are clueless--namely, legislators) with real people to get their rocks off. Good job New Jersey. You sure solved that problem. Make sure all the child molesters go outside and play instead of sitting around in front of the computer at all hours. Maybe it'll help out the kids too. 'Cause they get some more exercise trying to run away. We'll have this obesity epidemic kicked in no time. That WAS the problem they were trying to solve right?
Then you can take your printout to your boss at work and show him you voted the way he told you to so he won't fire you.
Not if you setup the voting system correctly. Reread the grandparent post:
These [copies of my completed ballot] should each be marked with a hash comprising the timestamp of the vote, the contents of the vote, and the specific machine on which I voted. This hash should be recorded by the counting device and associated with the votes cast, such that I have the option to verify my vote against the vote tallied (which would compromise my voter anonymity, of course, but only at my discretion).
In other words, the details (name, voting result, etc.) serve as input to a hash function: output = h(input). The hash that the grandparent was referring to is not human readable. It might appear on the receipt as something like: OAKJERAOJ. Because a hash function can't be inverted, you can't find out the input with just the output of the hash function. Of course, if you know a person's name, and you know the hash function, you can verify that the person voted for a particular candidate (unless whoever designed the voting system added extra precautions detailed later on).
For instance, if you have the hash / hash value OAKJERAOJ, and you want to make sure Joe Blow voted for Richard Nixon, just evaluate h("Name: Joe Blow; Voted for: Richard Nixon"), and see if the result is OAKJERAOJ. If this fails, keep doing that with all the candidates in the "Voted for:" field, and eventually you'll find out who they really voted for. HOWEVER, if you throw in an extra number as part of the input, which is private to the voting registration database (e.g. a private voter id #), this screws up everything for "your boss at work".
If OAKJERAOJ = h("Name: Joe Blow; VOTING_ID: 44145515; Voted for: Richard Nixon"), and the boss doesn't know the correct value of VOTING_ID, then he has no way to determine who you voted for. He can only verify that you voted in the election, period. In this way, you can have a receipt, and have information to match your vote to the one on file, should you choose to give up your anonymity. Your boss will still be in the dark, and even if you wanted to show him you voted for his favored candidate, you have no proof. He'll have to take your word for it. ^_^
After the election, if the voter is suspicious for some reason, he shows up at a vote auditing station run by a third party which has access to the database that matches VOTING_IDs to names/addresses/etc. The voter presents a photo ID to verify his identity. The third party checks to make sure that the vote with the given hash was tabulated as belonging to the candidate (Richard Nixon in the example). If it is, all is well. If not, the election has been compromised, or the voting system designers screwed up somewhere. If a certain threshold of miscounts appear, then there's probably a serious degree of election fraud occurring, and a serious investigation would be initiated to track down the causes and guilty parties (or figure out the bugs in the verification system and correct them for future elections).
...
Or instead, we can continue with our current approach in the US. Go to the polls, vote, and cross our collective fingers that our democracy hasn't been compromised. And if has, maybe we'll never know. I think you can probably make a guess as to which scenario I'd prefer.
He does, you just don't appear to understand the context.
So sayeth Wikipedia: "Cosmic irony is a sharp incongruity between our expectations of things and what actually occurs, as if the universe were mocking us." - Irony Cosmic irony is the most commonly accepted and recognized form of irony these days.
So meanwhile, we need a sharp incongruity between our expectations of things and what actually occurs. One might assume that, as smiley faces are intended to be a representation of happiness, people's interactions with smiley faces would be positive. However, in this particular case it appears that a symbol of happiness is unexpectedly causing an opposite emotion (sad, upset, angry, etc.) for all parties involved in this issue. Seems ironic to me, even if the irony isn't particularly *amusing*.
For the clueless or forgetful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias
One should keep in mind that doing a search using Google.cn is probably not the same as doing a search using Google.cn within the "great firewall". You'd want to do a search over a Chinese proxy to really be sure that that link would even show up in the results.
Oh my. And not only that, because libraries are relatively insecure, you might even be able to "check out" (i.e. smuggle) the books, and then do the scanning on your flatbed scanner, in the safety of your own home. And clearly there is no usage of these devices apart from copyright infringement. We must stop the sale of these "scanners" and "photocopying" machines before they become popular. As things progress, those damn commie librarians might even bring in their own. They might call them... Xerox machines..... Your point was?
Oh yeah, I used to play that game too:
How do you do. Please state your problem.
>> I spend too much time with computers.
Why do you mention computers ?
>> You are one.
Does it please you to believe I am one ?
>> Yes.
You seem to be quite positive.
>> I suppose I am.
How long have you been ?
>> 31 years.
I'm not sure I understand you fully.
>> Join the club.
Please go on.
>> You don't make too much sense yourself.
We were discussing you -- not me.
Which is to say, all of the hardware which Dell purchased from OTHER VENDORS worked perfectly; but the very exact service that they're being payed to provide -- namely the proper configuration and testing of that hardware setup with the software they install by default, as well as technical support -- ended up being practically of no value. Sad.
Unfortunately, the interviewer failed to ask the most important question.
Does Mark Healey have stairs in his house?
And yeah, fcuk these people who doesn't want to learn and use proper English.
Well put sir.