If it ever cuts loose there will be an epic flood. Did the Beaver Inspectors ever get a look at it? After all Size isn't everything. How many logs went into that thing anyway? Was it checked for strength, flexibility under loads, ability to hold back before gushing? This could be pretty important for anyone below it. Canada's National Honour could be at stake!
Ooohh. Open Source Fonts. That might even be interesting to many people. It would look like crap for the first few iterations, but eventually there would be a nice Serif, Sans Serif, Script, Block, etc. font worthy of being used.
Difficulty of implementation isn't the issue. Most web sites now are created, hosted, or managed from the US. Most businesses just want to make money, not make legal precedent. Legal, or even extra-legal, harassment of those people will happen, forcing the US based people to change, either by moving off shore or moving domains, or maybe both. If any community can decide what is decent enough to be hosted in their town, then.xxx can kick off a new round of mischief.
The alternative is to actually go through all the frivolous courtroom crap. Lots of test cases may eventually decide that localities cannot decide what is decent for the whole internet. May decide. It isn't clear that position will win. It should, but you always have some judge somewhere that didn't get the latest word. Again, Most businesses just want to make money, not make legal precedent. The same thing would happen, to a lesser degree probably, in other nations.
A reason for the moralists to hate.xxx would be that it LOWERS the fear of other content.
If I can put porn anywhere, then the moralists can scare parents into thinking porn is everywhere. If porn is only in.xxx, and.xxx is filterable, their fear whip goes away. Parents will reasonably assume it is less likely their children will run into objectionable content outside of that domain. The parents are probably wrong, but the power brokers can't risk even that.
Porn everywhere on the web is an easy to sell, all pervasive fear. They won't give it up.
Once there is a designated place for porn, anyone who doesn't conform to the designated sense of decency will be compelled to stay there. Creating a.xxx ghetto for porn also invites the Disneyfication of everywhere else.
If the lawyers get into the act, suing for "too much" pornlike content, it will be a race to the bottom. Just think how first they got Playboy and Penthouse to put covers on their magazines. Then it was required by law in many places. Then other mags, like Maxim and even GQ and Vogue, got pushed into the gray zone of questionable for public viewing..xxx is an invitation to do it on the web.
He might be subject to a charge of Theft (by Larceny) for selling the phone. In effect he (wrongfully) converted it to his own use, then (wrongfully) disposed of it.
Did anyone else read TFA? He didn't sell it, he sold exclusivity to a news story regarding it. Extremely different.
Also extremely subject to being a sham story. A package transaction in which I GIVE you a physical item, but I SELL you the abstract notion of exclusivity. You hand over money in return. What would a disinterested observer see, and how would it look different than typically selling an item?
It isn't stolen if he really did "find" it. A piece of abandoned property belongs to whomever finds it, after they've made a reasonable attempt to locate the true owner or waited a reasonable time for them to return. And Reasonable is a very elastic term. If you found an unattended package in an airport, it might be scooped up by security in just a few minutes. A car on the side of the road might sit for a week before being towed. How long do you wait for the owner of a lost watch to return to a dressing room? How about a lost $10 bill? How about a lost cell phone?
At worst the guy might be guilty of Larceny. He sold property he knew was not his as if it were. He did not steal the item since it was never in anyone else's possession when he came across it. And he can always say he did not know for sure who it really belonged to. After all he is not obligated to find the owner, he just can't hide the property if the owner comes looking for it.
Some people take the concept of sweat equity too seriously. They built the system (for a salary) and therefore assume it is theirs to do with as they please. Then they get mod points on slashdot and spread the joy.
The few times I've been modded Troll usually revolve around this kind of issue.
Yes, they deserve it for not eliminating the idiots from among themselves, whether by deportation, self-exile (but where is there free land to found a colony of non-stoopids?) or... by other means.
Like undereducating them, hiding and obfuscating information, discouraging them from voting, blowing off or trivializing public policy debates, and generally encouraging them to isolate and entertain themselves away from laws and their formation, rather than be engaged, because "Politics is Hard."
Funny you should say that. The last jury I sat on, the woman sitting across from me was a programmer. Her exact words to the judge, when he asked her employment were, "I twiddle bits". He blinked, and she got a lot more formal afterward.
By the way, she was also the first to vote to convict when we got back to the jury room. Binary logic was not working in the defendant's favor with her.
Yep. He had a duty to perform to his employers wishes, and he failed. He knew what it meant and he did it anyway. He wasn't just an average guy that stumbled into an unguarded Big Red Button. He was a sysadmin with full understanding of how he was about toe screw up the works. Nail him.
This is classic grey marketing. Cameras, autos, watches, etc. have done it for years. Books and videos too, obviously.
I could see Omega witholding warranty services. Or treating these as if they are "used" watches, not new, since the consumer would be the second owner from Omega's point of view.
Further, since the product was legally purchased from the manufacturer, and the manufacturer was paid and no other license or distribution terms were in effect at completion of sale, the product is the legal property of Costco, and Costco has the legal right to dispose of that property at its own discretion.
Omega is free to repurchase on the same basis as any other Costco customer, but they are not entitled to preferential treatment.
The cost of copying, "can be copied for effectively zero cost," is irrelevant. Worse, it muddles the debate by putting ease of piracy on par with the rights of the author.
If the author has a legal right to allow or prevent copying, how does that right legitimately evaporate in the face of a low cost copying option?
In what way is it ever equitable to allow violation of the author's copyright because it is cheap and easy to do so, but make copyright enforceable when the copier endures expense and difficulty?
Rights and Cost are simply not equivalent arguments. Cost and ease obviously do come into play with respect to enforceability, but not to the Right itself.
b) burn up shitloads of fuel trying to produce a straight-line descent from geosynchronous orbit.
The shuttle doesn't get anywhere near geosynchronous orbit, nor does it ever descend from it. As for fuel, the energy to get down is about the same to get up there, for the dry weight of the shuttle anyway. The "using fuel to lift fuel" problem is left to the student as an exercise.
2. An individual can assign copyright to another, and the assignee, or the person, can renew up to two times. After the second, the copyright expires.
3. In order to renew, the copyright must be centrally registered. After the end of the first period, copyright expires if the work is not registered.
Rule two lets the corporations milk their employees, but still ensures that copyright finally ends. Rule three puts a final definitive stake through the hearts of ghost copyrights. If the original creators do not assert their ownership publicly, the public should have to respect them 30, 40 and 70 years later.
Anything related to a tactical operation could and probably would be classified SECRET just on principle. Getting it unclassified would be the problem. It should be automatic and the classification just expire after some time period. But in practice the Army would never take that last step to let it go open unless they had a good reason.
So you're saying its OK to drive into an intersection when you don't know if someone is might hit you? What part of drive defensively do you not understand? For that matter, just look in your driver's handbook or vehicle code book. They probably mention things like "driving to fast for conditions" or what to do in limited visibility.
Maybe privacy is too generic a term to cover what they actually care about.
Putting your data on a server, and having the server in remote locations accessible by many other people is routine these days. They certainly can't claim Google is violating their privacy when it is just replicating a practice they already engage in.
What is privacy in the context of an organization that certainly has multi-person access rules to any bit of data legitimately on the system? The data isn't Private if a dozen people can see it or distribute it.
OK, but he isn't a US citizen (Well doesn't indicate that he is). What are they going to do? Extradite him and charge him? If this was the case, why the hell haven't they done this to the rest of the world?
Ask Manuel Noreiga. He was rather forcefully pulled out of Panama for crimes against the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
See that's where I fool 'em. I don't encrypt my traffic. They'll search all day and never find the key!
If it ever cuts loose there will be an epic flood. Did the Beaver Inspectors ever get a look at it? After all Size isn't everything. How many logs went into that thing anyway? Was it checked for strength, flexibility under loads, ability to hold back before gushing? This could be pretty important for anyone below it. Canada's National Honour could be at stake!
Ooohh. Open Source Fonts. That might even be interesting to many people. It would look like crap for the first few iterations, but eventually there would be a nice Serif, Sans Serif, Script, Block, etc. font worthy of being used.
Difficulty of implementation isn't the issue. Most web sites now are created, hosted, or managed from the US. Most businesses just want to make money, not make legal precedent. Legal, or even extra-legal, harassment of those people will happen, forcing the US based people to change, either by moving off shore or moving domains, or maybe both. If any community can decide what is decent enough to be hosted in their town, then .xxx can kick off a new round of mischief.
The alternative is to actually go through all the frivolous courtroom crap. Lots of test cases may eventually decide that localities cannot decide what is decent for the whole internet. May decide. It isn't clear that position will win. It should, but you always have some judge somewhere that didn't get the latest word. Again, Most businesses just want to make money, not make legal precedent. The same thing would happen, to a lesser degree probably, in other nations.
A reason for the moralists to hate .xxx would be that it LOWERS the fear of other content.
If I can put porn anywhere, then the moralists can scare parents into thinking porn is everywhere. If porn is only in .xxx, and .xxx is filterable, their fear whip goes away. Parents will reasonably assume it is less likely their children will run into objectionable content outside of that domain. The parents are probably wrong, but the power brokers can't risk even that.
Porn everywhere on the web is an easy to sell, all pervasive fear. They won't give it up.
Good idea, but who screens the content? Really, any site in .kid would literally need the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
And can you imagine the uproar when the NRA decides to open the EddieEagle.kid Gun Safety site, or Larry Flynt opens a SafeHealthySex.kid site?
That is EXACTLY the other part of the problem.
Once there is a designated place for porn, anyone who doesn't conform to the designated sense of decency will be compelled to stay there. Creating a .xxx ghetto for porn also invites the Disneyfication of everywhere else.
If the lawyers get into the act, suing for "too much" pornlike content, it will be a race to the bottom. Just think how first they got Playboy and Penthouse to put covers on their magazines. Then it was required by law in many places. Then other mags, like Maxim and even GQ and Vogue, got pushed into the gray zone of questionable for public viewing. .xxx is an invitation to do it on the web.
He might be subject to a charge of Theft (by Larceny) for selling the phone. In effect he (wrongfully) converted it to his own use, then (wrongfully) disposed of it.
Did anyone else read TFA? He didn't sell it, he sold exclusivity to a news story regarding it. Extremely different.
Also extremely subject to being a sham story. A package transaction in which I GIVE you a physical item, but I SELL you the abstract notion of exclusivity. You hand over money in return. What would a disinterested observer see, and how would it look different than typically selling an item?
It isn't stolen if he really did "find" it. A piece of abandoned property belongs to whomever finds it, after they've made a reasonable attempt to locate the true owner or waited a reasonable time for them to return. And Reasonable is a very elastic term. If you found an unattended package in an airport, it might be scooped up by security in just a few minutes. A car on the side of the road might sit for a week before being towed. How long do you wait for the owner of a lost watch to return to a dressing room? How about a lost $10 bill? How about a lost cell phone?
At worst the guy might be guilty of Larceny. He sold property he knew was not his as if it were. He did not steal the item since it was never in anyone else's possession when he came across it. And he can always say he did not know for sure who it really belonged to. After all he is not obligated to find the owner, he just can't hide the property if the owner comes looking for it.
Some people take the concept of sweat equity too seriously. They built the system (for a salary) and therefore assume it is theirs to do with as they please. Then they get mod points on slashdot and spread the joy.
The few times I've been modded Troll usually revolve around this kind of issue.
Yes, they deserve it for not eliminating the idiots from among themselves, whether by deportation, self-exile (but where is there free land to found a colony of non-stoopids?) or... by other means.
Like undereducating them, hiding and obfuscating information, discouraging them from voting, blowing off or trivializing public policy debates, and generally encouraging them to isolate and entertain themselves away from laws and their formation, rather than be engaged, because "Politics is Hard."
Yep, that might protect them.
Funny you should say that. The last jury I sat on, the woman sitting across from me was a programmer. Her exact words to the judge, when he asked her employment were, "I twiddle bits". He blinked, and she got a lot more formal afterward.
By the way, she was also the first to vote to convict when we got back to the jury room. Binary logic was not working in the defendant's favor with her.
Yep. He had a duty to perform to his employers wishes, and he failed. He knew what it meant and he did it anyway. He wasn't just an average guy that stumbled into an unguarded Big Red Button. He was a sysadmin with full understanding of how he was about toe screw up the works. Nail him.
This is classic grey marketing. Cameras, autos, watches, etc. have done it for years. Books and videos too, obviously.
I could see Omega witholding warranty services. Or treating these as if they are "used" watches, not new, since the consumer would be the second owner from Omega's point of view.
Past that, tough luck.
Further, since the product was legally purchased from the manufacturer, and the manufacturer was paid and no other license or distribution terms were in effect at completion of sale, the product is the legal property of Costco, and Costco has the legal right to dispose of that property at its own discretion.
Omega is free to repurchase on the same basis as any other Costco customer, but they are not entitled to preferential treatment.
The cost of copying, "can be copied for effectively zero cost," is irrelevant. Worse, it muddles the debate by putting ease of piracy on par with the rights of the author.
If the author has a legal right to allow or prevent copying, how does that right legitimately evaporate in the face of a low cost copying option?
In what way is it ever equitable to allow violation of the author's copyright because it is cheap and easy to do so, but make copyright enforceable when the copier endures expense and difficulty?
Rights and Cost are simply not equivalent arguments. Cost and ease obviously do come into play with respect to enforceability, but not to the Right itself.
b) burn up shitloads of fuel trying to produce a straight-line descent from geosynchronous orbit.
The shuttle doesn't get anywhere near geosynchronous orbit, nor does it ever descend from it. As for fuel, the energy to get down is about the same to get up there, for the dry weight of the shuttle anyway. The "using fuel to lift fuel" problem is left to the student as an exercise.
The weather at Edwards for the following three days is only a little better. Its either Edwards on Monday, or Canaveral on Tuesday.
Just don't get any on your skin.
"Gas bag science researchers exploding with good news. Film at eleven!"
I like it, but two things I'd change there.
2. An individual can assign copyright to another, and the assignee, or the person, can renew up to two times. After the second, the copyright expires.
3. In order to renew, the copyright must be centrally registered. After the end of the first period, copyright expires if the work is not registered.
Rule two lets the corporations milk their employees, but still ensures that copyright finally ends. Rule three puts a final definitive stake through the hearts of ghost copyrights. If the original creators do not assert their ownership publicly, the public should have to respect them 30, 40 and 70 years later.
Anything related to a tactical operation could and probably would be classified SECRET just on principle. Getting it unclassified would be the problem. It should be automatic and the classification just expire after some time period. But in practice the Army would never take that last step to let it go open unless they had a good reason.
So you're saying its OK to drive into an intersection when you don't know if someone is might hit you? What part of drive defensively do you not understand? For that matter, just look in your driver's handbook or vehicle code book. They probably mention things like "driving to fast for conditions" or what to do in limited visibility.
Maybe privacy is too generic a term to cover what they actually care about.
Putting your data on a server, and having the server in remote locations accessible by many other people is routine these days. They certainly can't claim Google is violating their privacy when it is just replicating a practice they already engage in.
What is privacy in the context of an organization that certainly has multi-person access rules to any bit of data legitimately on the system? The data isn't Private if a dozen people can see it or distribute it.
OK, but he isn't a US citizen (Well doesn't indicate that he is). What are they going to do? Extradite him and charge him? If this was the case, why the hell haven't they done this to the rest of the world?
Ask Manuel Noreiga. He was rather forcefully pulled out of Panama for crimes against the United States.