No-fly lists simply shouldn't exist, regardless of whether or not they can work. The idea that you can be considered too dangerous (Without a trial!) to fly and yet not dangerous enough to arrest is absurd. As others have said, this is just used for oppression.
Now what you say doesn't make sense. You can't get arrested for being dangerous. You can only get arrested for committing or possibly planning to commit a crime (and "planning" means actively doing things to help committing the crime, not "intending". )
That's of course independent of the fact that it is ridiculous to say there's a million people too dangerous to fly; and even if it was true there would be no excuse for making it hard for people not belonging on that list to come off it.
For all the ways that Walmart is evil, this is not one of them. They are extremely frugal when it comes to executive perks.
That was one of the problems they had in their failed attempt to conquer Germany. They bought two minor chains to have a start. Then they told managers of these chains that they had to share hotel rooms on business trips. Soon after they had no managers who knew anything about the German market and got their asses kicked.
Actually gnasher is correct - you have no *right* to the source code, you only have a *right* to either insist they abide by the licence terms or be in violation of copyright, and if its the latter then you need someone whose copyright is being violated to bring suit against them as no one else can do it in their stead.
Thanks:-) Importantly, I read that an early Waze version was GPL v2.2 licensed, while a new one is proprietary. The question is not just how was the first version licensed, but who owns the copyright. If Waze wrote all that code themselves, it doesn't matter what license, because only Waze could then sue themselves for copyright infringement.
Ahem... if Mr. Gorodish is correct, and Waze was licensed under GPLv2, then we do in fact have a right to the source code, and Google would be breaking the law by not providing it.
No, you don't have the right to the source code. _If_ there is GPL licensed code and the code is licensed under the condition that Google should give you source code, then Google has the free choice of complying with the license (giving you the source code) or committing an act of copyright infringement (not giving you the source code and having no valid license).
You can't force Google which of these choices they take. And if you are not the copyright holder, then you have no standing to sue. Even if you _are_ the copyright holder, you can't force Google to give you any source code. You could say "give me the source code or I'll sue you for beeeelions" and they can say "Ok, sue us", lose the case, pay billions and keep their source code.
So is there any code in Waze that isn't now owned by Google and that was given to Waze under the GPL license? Can we see the exact terms and conditions under which users give data to Waze? You can make all kinds of claims, but eventually you have to come up with the goods (unless you are SCO obviously).
Under US law you have no right to the source code. A copyright owner may have the right to sue for copyright infringement. We'll see how this is different in Israel.
By creating an account on facebook did she not enter into an agreement as a minor? If she has control over the account she has the right to dictate how it is used. It is no different from the school asking to view a notebook that she carries with her to school.
She entered an agreement as a minor. That's fine. Except that such an agreement can be cancelled at any time by herself or by her guardians, until she is 18 years old. It is a voidable contract. Now depending on the situation, as the adult or company you can take the risk of entering a voidable contract. Facebook can; worst case if she voids their contract they wipe out her account. The school would have a problem: Getting into her Facebook account is illegal without that contract, and it becomes illegal in retrospect if she voids the contract.
Oh, and the reason why we don't have a free democratic nation, and the reason why you don't see adults dissent, is because it is beaten out of us as children. We don't have a school system which produces free thinking citizens as adults.
Every time I hear Americans talking about the "freest country in the world", I compare my school days with what I hear about school days of American children, and I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. At least in my class, "learning how to stand up against authority" was an (unofficial) subject.
Especially he has the right to complain. He got in prison for doing what others now do to him. So either his sentence was injustice (because others are allowed for what he serves time in prison), or what the others are doing to him now is injustice and should be punished with prison time.
You've got the wrong perspective here. When he hacked others (and what he is in jail for isn't the only thing he's done, and by far not the worst), he had no sympathy for the victims. He not only didn't give a shit, he intentionally hurt others. _You_ haven't done anything like that (I hope), so _you_ absolutely have the right to say that there are two wrongs, which are both wrong, and complain about it. _Weev_ doesn't have that right.
What makes him a hypocrite? What right did he invade of others regarding emails, or any thing else? The law he is accused of breaking is silly, accessing a public website should not be against the law.
Oh well, another one going on about how the law is silly... He published the email addresses of 114,000 people who just bought an iPad, at a time when an iPad was something new that only very few people had, by hacking into AT&T's computers. Anyone who hasn't got some major social deficits recognises that what he did is a crime. Seriously, don't you think that a judge knows the law better than you, a random bloke posting on the internet?
Dumping a gazillion btc on the market will likely push the price down and hence the profit..
It's not exactly a gazillion. They say "7000-8000 bit coins per month", when MtGox just found 200,000 bit coins that they lost behind the sofa. However, I would be worried how much in bit coin is just paper profits, and how hard it would actually be to sell 8,000 bit coins every month. How many people are actually willing to pay high prices for bit coins?
Does anyone else hate the conditional operator. It replaces six lines of code with one line...
My first boss complained that a page of my code was harder to read than a page of his code. I told him that one page of my code was a lot easier to read than the six pages of code he wrote to accomplish the same thing.
IRS knows about your stock trades because your broker sends them a Form 1099 with all that information. I doubt any Bitcoin exchange will be sending the IRS information about your Bitcoin trades.
That only discusses how risky it is to be caught. Can they look at your bank accounts? What if there is money going into your bank account that you can't explain? And once they have found out that you sold _some_ bit coins without declaring them, how much trouble are you in?
The article explicitly says Microsoft store and site makes no such promise of an upgraded processor, all they is one report from a user that supposedly got told from someone in Microsoft that if they ordered they would get a newer processor (despite the website making no such promise). Why is this even a story?
Basically anyone selling anything will have in their terms and conditions that their agents are capable of making legally binding commitments, and nothing counts unless you have it in writing.
Remember, we're talking about civil suits here, where the burden of proof is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it is in a criminal proceeding. Even if you have an open WiFi hotspot, it's not enough to show that somebody else could have used it. In order to win with that defense, you'd have to show that somebody else probably did leach off your connection and download whatever it was.
It's common sense that if I wanted to download stuff illegally, I wouldn't do that at my own home where I can easily be found, but I would indeed leach someone else's connection. So it is more likely that the downloading wasn't done by the person who can be found easily.
I'm sorry but you can't bundle a secret key in either source code or a binary, ship it to a user and somehow think that the user will be unable to extract it.
The amount of effort can have major legal effects. For example, an easily circumventable copy protection measure turns copying from "copyright infringement" to "DMCA violation". Where I was raised, theft came in different categories for "taking away unprotected items", "taking by circumventing locks or other protection measures", "taking by using force or threat of force against persons", and "armed robbery". So the fact that a user extracted a key from a binary might have strong legal consequences, and that alone may be enough to make a difference.
Closed source applications that access web services have to ship with a key as well. The only difference is how easy it is to access the key. It's the same issue as DVD players. Eventually someone cracked a key, because the DVD player has to be able to read the key.
I think the problem is that with a closed source application, the API key can be somewhere in the source code, and I compile it, and then the API key is invisible except to a determined hacker. That's fine because I don't give you the source with the API key. With open source, I don't mind at all if you get the complete source code - with the exception of the single line with the API key. You would be free to get your own API key and put it into that single line of code and build your own version.
The API key is basically a promise to the service provider "you have my name and email address, and I promise not to abuse the API key by doing DOS attacks against your server or trying to hack into it". I can't make that promise for you, if you get a copy of the source code.
The Wikipedia article on Ponzi schemes describes them as being fraudulent investment operations. Payments in Bitcoin don't involve making investments (you send your bitcoin away immediately after buying it), and in any case they don't have any promise of magically giving you back more money than you put in. Given that, I don't see how you can describe it as a Ponzi scheme.
Ponzi schemes also try hard to convince people that they are not Ponzi schemes and instead legitimate.
Many web services require developers to get keys for their applications. Open source applications cannot provide users with working apps without disclosing the keys.
Depends on your definition of "working app". The source code can contain a random number, and it will work correctly in the sense that it sends the random number to the server to identify itself, and correctly determines that the server rejected it. Like a CD player application; you wouldn't expect the developer to supply CDs with it. Or an app processing credit card numbers for payment.
That is not a universal law. In Europe your landlord can not enter the flat without the tenants permission. It is expressly forbidden.
There are conflicting interests: The right of the tenant to use the rented space, including the right to privacy and the right to secure their property from theft (landlord could easily pick up any cash or valuables lying around), and the right of the landlord to protect his property or the right and duty to keep the public safe, including the tenant.
Assume you are on a long holiday, and there's a major water leak in your flat. Would you insist that the landlord can't get in and fix the leak, and instead has to let his property, your property, and the property of the people living below you getting destroyed?
Slashdot Mirror
No-fly lists simply shouldn't exist, regardless of whether or not they can work. The idea that you can be considered too dangerous (Without a trial!) to fly and yet not dangerous enough to arrest is absurd. As others have said, this is just used for oppression.
Now what you say doesn't make sense. You can't get arrested for being dangerous. You can only get arrested for committing or possibly planning to commit a crime (and "planning" means actively doing things to help committing the crime, not "intending". )
That's of course independent of the fact that it is ridiculous to say there's a million people too dangerous to fly; and even if it was true there would be no excuse for making it hard for people not belonging on that list to come off it.
For all the ways that Walmart is evil, this is not one of them. They are extremely frugal when it comes to executive perks.
That was one of the problems they had in their failed attempt to conquer Germany. They bought two minor chains to have a start. Then they told managers of these chains that they had to share hotel rooms on business trips. Soon after they had no managers who knew anything about the German market and got their asses kicked.
With all those typewriters why even bother buying tablets! On a side note I wonder if the code for their "secure almost-android" OS was typed up.
Typewriter + good microphone + software that distinguishes the sound that different keys make.
What are the odds that someone high up has a company that offers expensive software to protect Android from spies and makes a ton from this?
Actually gnasher is correct - you have no *right* to the source code, you only have a *right* to either insist they abide by the licence terms or be in violation of copyright, and if its the latter then you need someone whose copyright is being violated to bring suit against them as no one else can do it in their stead.
Thanks :-) Importantly, I read that an early Waze version was GPL v2.2 licensed, while a new one is proprietary. The question is not just how was the first version licensed, but who owns the copyright. If Waze wrote all that code themselves, it doesn't matter what license, because only Waze could then sue themselves for copyright infringement.
Ahem... if Mr. Gorodish is correct, and Waze was licensed under GPLv2, then we do in fact have a right to the source code, and Google would be breaking the law by not providing it.
No, you don't have the right to the source code. _If_ there is GPL licensed code and the code is licensed under the condition that Google should give you source code, then Google has the free choice of complying with the license (giving you the source code) or committing an act of copyright infringement (not giving you the source code and having no valid license).
You can't force Google which of these choices they take. And if you are not the copyright holder, then you have no standing to sue. Even if you _are_ the copyright holder, you can't force Google to give you any source code. You could say "give me the source code or I'll sue you for beeeelions" and they can say "Ok, sue us", lose the case, pay billions and keep their source code.
So is there any code in Waze that isn't now owned by Google and that was given to Waze under the GPL license? Can we see the exact terms and conditions under which users give data to Waze? You can make all kinds of claims, but eventually you have to come up with the goods (unless you are SCO obviously).
Under US law you have no right to the source code. A copyright owner may have the right to sue for copyright infringement. We'll see how this is different in Israel.
By creating an account on facebook did she not enter into an agreement as a minor? If she has control over the account she has the right to dictate how it is used. It is no different from the school asking to view a notebook that she carries with her to school.
She entered an agreement as a minor. That's fine. Except that such an agreement can be cancelled at any time by herself or by her guardians, until she is 18 years old. It is a voidable contract. Now depending on the situation, as the adult or company you can take the risk of entering a voidable contract. Facebook can; worst case if she voids their contract they wipe out her account. The school would have a problem: Getting into her Facebook account is illegal without that contract, and it becomes illegal in retrospect if she voids the contract.
Oh, and the reason why we don't have a free democratic nation, and the reason why you don't see adults dissent, is because it is beaten out of us as children. We don't have a school system which produces free thinking citizens as adults.
Every time I hear Americans talking about the "freest country in the world", I compare my school days with what I hear about school days of American children, and I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. At least in my class, "learning how to stand up against authority" was an (unofficial) subject.
The summary said she gave them her password. That sounds like permission.
Permission from a 15 year old doesn't mean much legally.
The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private.
Getting paid $70,000 by the school to avoid a lawsuit seems to indicate that she was right.
Especially he has the right to complain. He got in prison for doing what others now do to him. So either his sentence was injustice (because others are allowed for what he serves time in prison), or what the others are doing to him now is injustice and should be punished with prison time.
You've got the wrong perspective here. When he hacked others (and what he is in jail for isn't the only thing he's done, and by far not the worst), he had no sympathy for the victims. He not only didn't give a shit, he intentionally hurt others. _You_ haven't done anything like that (I hope), so _you_ absolutely have the right to say that there are two wrongs, which are both wrong, and complain about it. _Weev_ doesn't have that right.
What makes him a hypocrite? What right did he invade of others regarding emails, or any thing else? The law he is accused of breaking is silly, accessing a public website should not be against the law.
Oh well, another one going on about how the law is silly... He published the email addresses of 114,000 people who just bought an iPad, at a time when an iPad was something new that only very few people had, by hacking into AT&T's computers. Anyone who hasn't got some major social deficits recognises that what he did is a crime. Seriously, don't you think that a judge knows the law better than you, a random bloke posting on the internet?
Weev is the last person on earth having a right to complain about anyone accessing his emails. Hypocrite.
Dumping a gazillion btc on the market will likely push the price down and hence the profit..
It's not exactly a gazillion. They say "7000-8000 bit coins per month", when MtGox just found 200,000 bit coins that they lost behind the sofa. However, I would be worried how much in bit coin is just paper profits, and how hard it would actually be to sell 8,000 bit coins every month. How many people are actually willing to pay high prices for bit coins?
Does anyone else hate the conditional operator. It replaces six lines of code with one line...
My first boss complained that a page of my code was harder to read than a page of his code. I told him that one page of my code was a lot easier to read than the six pages of code he wrote to accomplish the same thing.
Some people get so damned focused on writing what they think is 'elegant' code that it is neither useful to the task, well written, nor maintainable.
Well, there's the difference between 'elegant' code and elegant code.
IRS knows about your stock trades because your broker sends them a Form 1099 with all that information. I doubt any Bitcoin exchange will be sending the IRS information about your Bitcoin trades.
That only discusses how risky it is to be caught. Can they look at your bank accounts? What if there is money going into your bank account that you can't explain? And once they have found out that you sold _some_ bit coins without declaring them, how much trouble are you in?
If you call that "elegant", I wouldn't want to see your own code. I'd submit it to thedailywtf.com if it wasn't that old.
The article explicitly says Microsoft store and site makes no such promise of an upgraded processor, all they is one report from a user that supposedly got told from someone in Microsoft that if they ordered they would get a newer processor (despite the website making no such promise). Why is this even a story?
Basically anyone selling anything will have in their terms and conditions that their agents are capable of making legally binding commitments, and nothing counts unless you have it in writing.
Remember, we're talking about civil suits here, where the burden of proof is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it is in a criminal proceeding. Even if you have an open WiFi hotspot, it's not enough to show that somebody else could have used it. In order to win with that defense, you'd have to show that somebody else probably did leach off your connection and download whatever it was.
It's common sense that if I wanted to download stuff illegally, I wouldn't do that at my own home where I can easily be found, but I would indeed leach someone else's connection. So it is more likely that the downloading wasn't done by the person who can be found easily.
I'm sorry but you can't bundle a secret key in either source code or a binary, ship it to a user and somehow think that the user will be unable to extract it.
The amount of effort can have major legal effects. For example, an easily circumventable copy protection measure turns copying from "copyright infringement" to "DMCA violation". Where I was raised, theft came in different categories for "taking away unprotected items", "taking by circumventing locks or other protection measures", "taking by using force or threat of force against persons", and "armed robbery". So the fact that a user extracted a key from a binary might have strong legal consequences, and that alone may be enough to make a difference.
Closed source applications that access web services have to ship with a key as well. The only difference is how easy it is to access the key. It's the same issue as DVD players. Eventually someone cracked a key, because the DVD player has to be able to read the key.
I think the problem is that with a closed source application, the API key can be somewhere in the source code, and I compile it, and then the API key is invisible except to a determined hacker. That's fine because I don't give you the source with the API key. With open source, I don't mind at all if you get the complete source code - with the exception of the single line with the API key. You would be free to get your own API key and put it into that single line of code and build your own version.
The API key is basically a promise to the service provider "you have my name and email address, and I promise not to abuse the API key by doing DOS attacks against your server or trying to hack into it". I can't make that promise for you, if you get a copy of the source code.
The Wikipedia article on Ponzi schemes describes them as being fraudulent investment operations. Payments in Bitcoin don't involve making investments (you send your bitcoin away immediately after buying it), and in any case they don't have any promise of magically giving you back more money than you put in. Given that, I don't see how you can describe it as a Ponzi scheme.
Ponzi schemes also try hard to convince people that they are not Ponzi schemes and instead legitimate.
Many web services require developers to get keys for their applications. Open source applications cannot provide users with working apps without disclosing the keys.
Depends on your definition of "working app". The source code can contain a random number, and it will work correctly in the sense that it sends the random number to the server to identify itself, and correctly determines that the server rejected it. Like a CD player application; you wouldn't expect the developer to supply CDs with it. Or an app processing credit card numbers for payment.
That is not a universal law. In Europe your landlord can not enter the flat without the tenants permission. It is expressly forbidden.
There are conflicting interests: The right of the tenant to use the rented space, including the right to privacy and the right to secure their property from theft (landlord could easily pick up any cash or valuables lying around), and the right of the landlord to protect his property or the right and duty to keep the public safe, including the tenant.
Assume you are on a long holiday, and there's a major water leak in your flat. Would you insist that the landlord can't get in and fix the leak, and instead has to let his property, your property, and the property of the people living below you getting destroyed?