I completely disagree. What Lichtenstein did was as illegal as this case, unless there's some agreements I don't know about. He made derivative works, or "creat [sic] something different." But he did so without the permission of the copyright holder, claiming that it was OK because they were "parodies." He said his goal was to make such despicable art that no one would buy it, and that was the irony that justified his "parody." It's an incredulous claim seeing that he quit his day job knowing that he could make enough money off his "art." I have seen no evidence in contemporary or current articles that he paid any royalties to the likes of DC Comics. The fact that he never claimed it was "original" is irrelevant; citing sources does not make copyright infringement legal.
We could just as easily argue that Todd traced the lines of the original, and it was the tracing that WAS the art. So this is just a parody, and no royalty payments are due. Trying to make a distinction that Roy Lichtenstein's derived work was somehow legally distinct from Todd's because the methods of copying were different is absurd. In at least one interview, Lichtenstein referred to his technique as "tracing" and "duplicating." So why exactly is it "NOT the same thing"?
And let's look at the financial aspect for a minute. How much does Todd make off of these? 5-10 bucks apiece? How much did Roy make? I don't actually know, but it was enough to live off of. Presumably his estate still makes some money off of his "art," too. At least Todd is trying to make some repayment. Roy never even so much as took Russ Heath out for cocktails, according to one article.
This whole thing reminds me of a post I read on Slashdot a long time ago. Why don't we just make 1's compliment "parodies" of the music the RIAA puts out? It would sound the same on a CD player, but it's a parody, right? Therefore it's not copyright infringement.
Their downright abuses of science are less frequent and egregious than you suggest. Their most common problem is using too small a data set, but nearly every scientist (myself included) has had to do this at some point in his career. Besides, it's more of an abuse of math than an abuse of science. And in case you don't watch the show, you should know that they are rarely trying to bust actual scientific theories; rather, they go after things like urban legends, movie effects, and historical accounts. Even then they are just doing feasibility simulations most of the time.
Rather than nit-pick their misuse of statistics, I applaud the fact that they at least try to do something resembling an experiment: actual hypotheses, modeling, data collection, analysis, and repetition when possible. It's certainly no worse than any of Mr. Wizard's experiments, and you wouldn't call him a hack. Sure they don't always get it exactly right, but it's better to try to apply science than to just assume "well, mom said the gum will be stuck in my stomach for 7 years so that must be true." If corporate and government policy makers would ever use Mythbuster nearly-scientific tactics to solve problems, I dare say the world would be a better place.
Regarding the chop shop shows (of which I'm no fan), I would like to remind you that not all science takes place in a lab. I certainly would consider shows like "How it's Made," "Man vs. Wild," and even "Shark Week" to be scientific in nature. Yes they're primarily entertainment, but they're also engineering, botany, and biology (respectively). Perhaps "American Chopper" could be thought of as applied metallurgy.
I don't think we could get the "Supreme Being" thing changed even if we tried. Just 18 months ago we voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman (without defining those words) by a 3:1 margin. Looks like we're adding ridiculousness to the constitution rather than removing it. If I'm ever elected to office, I'll have to take my oath on the FSM.
What hot-line? I spent quite a while trying to find the right contact number on the Sony website, only to have my online complaint sent to the wrong customer service department. They gave me a 866 phone number that was for yet another wrong service department. After that I gave up. I'm sure they have received many more complaints about DVDs being filed than they even know about, thanks to their idiotic mis-routing of online complaints.
it was never intended as a means of authentication and authorisation,
Interesting point. I've never heard that before. Since I've never been a member of the IETF, I won't pretend to know any better.
What if he broke in, and went on to get a DHCP lease? Because what you're saying is that a DHCPOFFER/DHCPACK is explicit permission to go on using it.
Clearly, if he breaks in first and reconfigures the AP to grant him access, that is not same situation as what I proposed. My point was that the network owner is responsible for the settings of his network. Consequently, the authority granted by his network is granted by him. In your hypothetical, the network owner is no longer responsible for the settings; therefore, he is no longer the person granting access. Further, the hacker would have had to gain unauthorized access in the first place to make the changes in question.
Even if your line of thinking is right (DHCP lease != authorization to use the network), I still have a problem. What means do I have as an operator of an open network, to let people know that my network really is open, not just poorly configured? My original question remains: "How was that guy supposed to know if he was in front of my house or not?" That question alone would be enough to give the jury reasonable doubt, although I don't know if that's the standard of proof required in the UK.
explicit: fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal
Assuming that the guy had a DHCP lease, the network expressed and demonstrated authorization by 1) offering an IP address (DHCPOFFER) and 2) confirming the lease (DHCPACK). There is nothing implied about it. I know the difference between explicit and implicit. I am not saying a lack of security that implied authorization. Instead, the activities of the access point granted the authority explicitly. Now, the owner of the network may not have intentionally approved the activities of his network, but he is responsible for its settings.
If this guy hacked into a secure network, that's a different story, of course.
I don't have a sign outside my house saying that you can use my wifi network, but I fully intend for other people to use it as needed. If I didn't, I would have locked it up tight. How was that guy supposed to know if he was in front of my house or not? I just don't understand how somebody can be convicted of unauthorized access, when the network explicitly authorized him to access it.
The other thing that irks me is the use of the word "hijacking" in the BBC article. Simply ridiculous. It's not as if his use of the network prevented the network from being used for other things.
I first found him while I was looking for homemade pipe organs. There are very few people who have completed such an undertaking. His isn't the best or biggest, but it's the only one I know of that is homemade to to such a minute degree. Most hobbyists use used pipe organ components somewhere.
My favorite works of his are the marble kinetic sculptures.
The police in the US already use IR cameras to catch marijuana farmers, even though it has been ruled unconstitutional. As recently as 2003 there have been reports of feds using the technique in drug busts. My guess is they get around the ruling by not using the imaging as evidence.
As for members of the public photographing other members of the public, it is normally legal. The exception is if the subject has "a reasonable expectation of privacy," according to this handout. A good example would be people in their own homes, but I'll bet that private investigators frequently bend that rule. I heard once that there are two states that don't have laws against bathroom security cameras, and two others where it is legal for hotels to install cameras inside their rooms. There are plenty of examples of obvious abuses, too.
Shouldn't they be allocated in a manner proportional to the registered voters instead of population? While we're at it, screw proportionality. There should be minimums based on previous voter turnout and desired throughput or maximum wait time. For instance, if there's some place that has mostly working-class people who can only vote outside of 8-5, they should get more machines than a district with the same population if they are retirees who can vote any time they want. Just an idea. Probably very hard to standardize and enforce, though.
Each state is different, but Texas has rules about when you can call yourself an engineer. There's a $1,500 to $3,000 fine for calling yourself a PE when you're not, and a $1,000 fine (after the first occurrence) for just using the word "engineer" when you're not allowed to. According to the Texas Engineering Practice Act, most employees of private non-engineering companies are exempt, though. Only the person with the final approval of publicly available goods would need a license.
So in your example, the hardware engineer would be exempt, so long as his wares were not released to the public without the approval of some PE somewhere. Several companies implement this by having a group of chief engineers that handle the big-picture design activity, leaving the tedious details to junior engineers or EITs. The Board can require some goods to actually be designed by a PE as well, but I am not sure if that rule (actually and exception to an exemption) has ever been enforced.
FTFA the kid spent his time reading their emails and diaries and deduced from that who the bad guys were. It says he also tracked their moves online. Presumably that means recording what websites they visit and what chat groups they go to and stuff. Nowhere does it say that he verified things by viewing images. From the snippets of the diary they quoted in the article, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what was going on.
Now if they want to charge the kid with hacking, that's another thing entirely. But given the international nature of the "attack" I doubt the charges would get very far. Even if he did get arrested and go to trial, no jury would ever convict him. I think the only way he'll see time behind bars is if he gets labaled as a "cyber-terrorist" and therefore an "enemy combatant" and gets shipped straight to Gitmo.
If they're going to pass laws about ratings, why not start by opening up the motion picture rating system so it is easier to understand what got rated by whom and why. This would be a major step in the right direction. As it stands now we have films like M:I:3 and 007 Casino Royale with fairly intense violence and torture scenes being rated PG-13, while a film with a homosexual theme can get rated R even without nudity. Better yet, if you make a documentary about the rating process, you can get rated NC-17.
So maybe the anon. reader meant "Why didn't I think of *patenting* that?" I totally agree with your sentiment, though. When I was just a tot, my little brother and I talked about making a change counting machine that would charge people some percentage of the total amount. We laughed to ourselves, "who would be stupid enough to actually use such a thing?!" Years later, imagine our dismay at seeing a shiney new CoinStar machine at the local five and dime.
(sorry for the late reply, but I just became a dad, so I've been a little busy):-)
What I meant to say was "if no one *built* it, no one thought of it." Thanks for pointing out my error. While I think that argument is dumb, it is one that the courts use for proof of non-obviousness. If what you say is true and people have marketed similar phones before, then I think it is a no-brainer invalid patent. Since I was never really on top of the mobile phone market, it's probable that I just never heard of the devices you're talking about. Somebody mentioned the Ericsson Hedvig, but that has the keyboard on the bottom, too, if Google Images is to be trusted.
I think you've got that backwards. If you are thinking "Why didn't I think of that?" you are also thinking "I didn't think of that." If you hadn't thought of it before, then it's not obvious. More importantly, nobody "skilled in the art" thought of it either. If they had, they would have patented it. A lack of an existing successful product is considered "objective evidence of nonobviousness," at least in US patent law. (IANAL, but I have recieved an infringement letter.)
I don't think this is obvious. The common "Why didn't I think of that?" feeling that many people are getting right about now is evidence enough for me. And it's definitely useful for people who text a lot. But has it been done before? I haven't seen anything like it, but I never really paid attention to mobile phones and such. (I know, I know; I'll mail my Geek Card back to HQ)
bwahahaha! I'm gonna write a tune on that progression right now. love it! makes me think of the B-A-C-H theme for some reason. maybe it's the chromatic C-C#-D.
Slashdot Mirror
We could just as easily argue that Todd traced the lines of the original, and it was the tracing that WAS the art. So this is just a parody, and no royalty payments are due. Trying to make a distinction that Roy Lichtenstein's derived work was somehow legally distinct from Todd's because the methods of copying were different is absurd. In at least one interview, Lichtenstein referred to his technique as "tracing" and "duplicating." So why exactly is it "NOT the same thing"?
And let's look at the financial aspect for a minute. How much does Todd make off of these? 5-10 bucks apiece? How much did Roy make? I don't actually know, but it was enough to live off of. Presumably his estate still makes some money off of his "art," too. At least Todd is trying to make some repayment. Roy never even so much as took Russ Heath out for cocktails, according to one article.
This whole thing reminds me of a post I read on Slashdot a long time ago. Why don't we just make 1's compliment "parodies" of the music the RIAA puts out? It would sound the same on a CD player, but it's a parody, right? Therefore it's not copyright infringement.
Rather than nit-pick their misuse of statistics, I applaud the fact that they at least try to do something resembling an experiment: actual hypotheses, modeling, data collection, analysis, and repetition when possible. It's certainly no worse than any of Mr. Wizard's experiments, and you wouldn't call him a hack. Sure they don't always get it exactly right, but it's better to try to apply science than to just assume "well, mom said the gum will be stuck in my stomach for 7 years so that must be true." If corporate and government policy makers would ever use Mythbuster nearly-scientific tactics to solve problems, I dare say the world would be a better place.
Regarding the chop shop shows (of which I'm no fan), I would like to remind you that not all science takes place in a lab. I certainly would consider shows like "How it's Made," "Man vs. Wild," and even "Shark Week" to be scientific in nature. Yes they're primarily entertainment, but they're also engineering, botany, and biology (respectively). Perhaps "American Chopper" could be thought of as applied metallurgy.
I don't think we could get the "Supreme Being" thing changed even if we tried. Just 18 months ago we voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman (without defining those words) by a 3:1 margin. Looks like we're adding ridiculousness to the constitution rather than removing it. If I'm ever elected to office, I'll have to take my oath on the FSM.
What hot-line? I spent quite a while trying to find the right contact number on the Sony website, only to have my online complaint sent to the wrong customer service department. They gave me a 866 phone number that was for yet another wrong service department. After that I gave up. I'm sure they have received many more complaints about DVDs being filed than they even know about, thanks to their idiotic mis-routing of online complaints.
Even if your line of thinking is right (DHCP lease != authorization to use the network), I still have a problem. What means do I have as an operator of an open network, to let people know that my network really is open, not just poorly configured? My original question remains: "How was that guy supposed to know if he was in front of my house or not?" That question alone would be enough to give the jury reasonable doubt, although I don't know if that's the standard of proof required in the UK.
Assuming that the guy had a DHCP lease, the network expressed and demonstrated authorization by 1) offering an IP address (DHCPOFFER) and 2) confirming the lease (DHCPACK). There is nothing implied about it. I know the difference between explicit and implicit. I am not saying a lack of security that implied authorization. Instead, the activities of the access point granted the authority explicitly. Now, the owner of the network may not have intentionally approved the activities of his network, but he is responsible for its settings.
If this guy hacked into a secure network, that's a different story, of course.
I don't have a sign outside my house saying that you can use my wifi network, but I fully intend for other people to use it as needed. If I didn't, I would have locked it up tight. How was that guy supposed to know if he was in front of my house or not? I just don't understand how somebody can be convicted of unauthorized access, when the network explicitly authorized him to access it.
The other thing that irks me is the use of the word "hijacking" in the BBC article. Simply ridiculous. It's not as if his use of the network prevented the network from being used for other things.
good luck. MTR wouldn't do Casino Royale or Stranger than Fiction on my machine.
I first found him while I was looking for homemade pipe organs. There are very few people who have completed such an undertaking. His isn't the best or biggest, but it's the only one I know of that is homemade to to such a minute degree. Most hobbyists use used pipe organ components somewhere.
My favorite works of his are the marble kinetic sculptures.
The police in the US already use IR cameras to catch marijuana farmers, even though it has been ruled unconstitutional. As recently as 2003 there have been reports of feds using the technique in drug busts. My guess is they get around the ruling by not using the imaging as evidence. As for members of the public photographing other members of the public, it is normally legal. The exception is if the subject has "a reasonable expectation of privacy," according to this handout. A good example would be people in their own homes, but I'll bet that private investigators frequently bend that rule. I heard once that there are two states that don't have laws against bathroom security cameras, and two others where it is legal for hotels to install cameras inside their rooms. There are plenty of examples of obvious abuses, too.
Shouldn't they be allocated in a manner proportional to the registered voters instead of population? While we're at it, screw proportionality. There should be minimums based on previous voter turnout and desired throughput or maximum wait time. For instance, if there's some place that has mostly working-class people who can only vote outside of 8-5, they should get more machines than a district with the same population if they are retirees who can vote any time they want. Just an idea. Probably very hard to standardize and enforce, though.
I think year of playing Quake is more likely to turn you into a pasty, twitchy geek instead of Charles Manson.
So in your example, the hardware engineer would be exempt, so long as his wares were not released to the public without the approval of some PE somewhere. Several companies implement this by having a group of chief engineers that handle the big-picture design activity, leaving the tedious details to junior engineers or EITs. The Board can require some goods to actually be designed by a PE as well, but I am not sure if that rule (actually and exception to an exemption) has ever been enforced.
ewwww....
FTFA the kid spent his time reading their emails and diaries and deduced from that who the bad guys were. It says he also tracked their moves online. Presumably that means recording what websites they visit and what chat groups they go to and stuff. Nowhere does it say that he verified things by viewing images. From the snippets of the diary they quoted in the article, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what was going on.
Now if they want to charge the kid with hacking, that's another thing entirely. But given the international nature of the "attack" I doubt the charges would get very far. Even if he did get arrested and go to trial, no jury would ever convict him. I think the only way he'll see time behind bars is if he gets labaled as a "cyber-terrorist" and therefore an "enemy combatant" and gets shipped straight to Gitmo.
If they're going to pass laws about ratings, why not start by opening up the motion picture rating system so it is easier to understand what got rated by whom and why. This would be a major step in the right direction. As it stands now we have films like M:I:3 and 007 Casino Royale with fairly intense violence and torture scenes being rated PG-13, while a film with a homosexual theme can get rated R even without nudity. Better yet, if you make a documentary about the rating process, you can get rated NC-17.
So maybe the anon. reader meant "Why didn't I think of *patenting* that?" I totally agree with your sentiment, though. When I was just a tot, my little brother and I talked about making a change counting machine that would charge people some percentage of the total amount. We laughed to ourselves, "who would be stupid enough to actually use such a thing?!" Years later, imagine our dismay at seeing a shiney new CoinStar machine at the local five and dime. (sorry for the late reply, but I just became a dad, so I've been a little busy) :-)
What I meant to say was "if no one *built* it, no one thought of it." Thanks for pointing out my error. While I think that argument is dumb, it is one that the courts use for proof of non-obviousness. If what you say is true and people have marketed similar phones before, then I think it is a no-brainer invalid patent. Since I was never really on top of the mobile phone market, it's probable that I just never heard of the devices you're talking about. Somebody mentioned the Ericsson Hedvig, but that has the keyboard on the bottom, too, if Google Images is to be trusted.
I think you've got that backwards. If you are thinking "Why didn't I think of that?" you are also thinking "I didn't think of that." If you hadn't thought of it before, then it's not obvious. More importantly, nobody "skilled in the art" thought of it either. If they had, they would have patented it. A lack of an existing successful product is considered "objective evidence of nonobviousness," at least in US patent law. (IANAL, but I have recieved an infringement letter.)
I don't think this is obvious. The common "Why didn't I think of that?" feeling that many people are getting right about now is evidence enough for me. And it's definitely useful for people who text a lot. But has it been done before? I haven't seen anything like it, but I never really paid attention to mobile phones and such. (I know, I know; I'll mail my Geek Card back to HQ)
done. It actually ended up being very pretty. Thanks for the idea. :-)
If you can get past the iStalker factor, it's a pretty interesting listen.
bwahahaha! I'm gonna write a tune on that progression right now. love it! makes me think of the B-A-C-H theme for some reason. maybe it's the chromatic C-C#-D.