If my old computer is fucked because Microsoft Windows ate itself how am I supposed to download and burn a disk to repair it? Oh, right. With my other Microsoft Windows computer I bought just to restore the first Microsoft computer I bought. Makes sense, uh huh. In Redmond, maybe.
What did you do with the recovery disc?
Why didn't you burn recovery discs if not included?
Why didn't you back up your computer?
That you failed to do any of the above is not Microsoft's fault, they don't owe you another recovery disc.
Because you lost/failed to create the re-install media your device shipped with - you are asking for a replacement part that needs to be created, pressed, warehouseed and shipped - why should MS do all that for free?
This ruling states I'm a criminal in violation of copyright law for including the original Windows restore discs that came with the machine.
No, it doesn't.
You included original discs with the computer, this case involves someone that hired a third-party to press 28,000 copies of the windows install disc, then he planned to sell them for 25Â/ea with no requirement that you have the corresponding computer the software shipped with.
The only way this ruling could apply to you would be if you took your original disc and sold it to someone other than the person you sold the computer to.
Hisdisc was effectively similar to the disc that might have shipped with a given computer, it was not a copy of the disc as shipped with the computer. For example, he likely ensured the image had updates and any applicable service pack applied before ordering 28K discs.
Also, he intended to offer the discs to all comers, no proof you owned the proper computer that came with the COA appropriate for the version of Windows on his disc,
His fine was less than $2/disc, is that really so unreasonable?
His plan was to use the 28,000 illegal discs to increase the value of his inventory - including the disc with the computer likely increased the resale value of his computers by well more than $2/each.
Distributing freely available (but not free licensed) software should be a misdemeanor at best, not a felony, and that market value is riaa math.
When he ordered 28,000 illegal copies from a disc duplicator that that didn't require proof he had the right to order 28,000 discs with MS licensed software on it with the windows name on it he lost the ability to have his crime classified as a misdemeanor.
Catch a guy in a store front handing self-burned discs on demand to customers that request it, sure clearly a misdemeanor.
It would take a couple station wagons to transport 28,000 discs - that's a big number.
Someone please provide the "Free for download" link to get this software.
Presumably I can download the version of Windows that 'Auto-magically' detects that the computer has a valid license/via and will'just work' with my Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. desktop - right?
This fellow bought 28,000 discs, if made in the US and packaged in anything other than bulk spindles, likely cost 66-75Â/disc, less if done overseas. He spent significant money on these discs, it strains the limits of credulity to believe he did so to hand them out onsie-twosie to folks picking up otherwise waste computers.
If the software was actually freely downloadable, he could have simply attached a sticker to the computer with a Microsoft URL from which to download it from.
Fellow made 28,000 installation disks - that's a lot of disks.
The 'software expert' may testify that the discs, in his opinion, are 'essentially worthless', that doesn't make them worthless, or having no value.
The company that made the 28,000 discs didn't consider them 'essentially worthless', in fact, the disc maker charged the 'E-Waste Innovator' an amount of money to produce the discs.
And why did the 'E-Waste Innovator' create these discs, to increase the value of the computers he sells.
You seem to think there is some HIPPA requirement that prevents publishing medical data for research purposes - take a look here:
The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes the conditions under which protected health information may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes. Research is defined in the Privacy Rule as, “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” See 45 CFR 164.501. A covered entity may always use or disclose for research purposes health information which has been de-identified (in accordance with 45 CFR 164.502(d), and 164.514(a)-(c) of the Rule)
De-identifying health information is as simple as removing patient name, birth date, and any other non-medically relevant identifier before publishing the data.
You prefer environmental regulations based on secret data?
I have a report right here that says smoking two packs of cigarettes a day has absolutely no negative health effects. What was that, you want to see the data, sorry, HIPPA regulations prevent me from releasing it - trust me.
or
I've got a report right here that details the positive health effects increased greenhouse gases have on children under 3 years old. What was that, you want to see the data, sorry, the data is proprietary so I can't release it - trust me.
The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes the conditions under which protected health information may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes. Research is defined in the Privacy Rule as, “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” See 45 CFR 164.501. A covered entity may always use or disclose for research purposes health information which has been de-identified (in accordance with 45 CFR 164.502(d), and 164.514(a)-(c) of the Rule)
You're talking about HIPPA regulations - have you ever read the HIPPA regulations? Ever worked in a HIPPA regulated field?
HIPPA regulations require that patient identity be protected - I used to work in the clinical drug trial industry and we used six-digit patient numbers and three letter initials to identify patients in our studies, and the client research companies protected the key that mapped the six-digit IDs and initials to the actual consent forms and other personally-identifiable documents.
Take your example:
someone is 37, a non-smoker, takes over-the-counter asprin, and has high-blood pressure
None of that information tells you who the patient is, it does not reveal their identity... Adding that the same person "had cancer in a time frame" does not revel their identity - to use that information to arrive at an identity would require you to already know the person and know they had cancer "in a certain time period" before you could identify who the patient is - the only problem is you haven't revealed anything, you already knew the identity of the patient that had cancer.
Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data.
So the EPA proposes that the science used to determine public policy and environmental regulations be held to the same rigorous standard as your average sixth-grade science fair submission, and critics attack the proposal because... decisions based on secret data is the only way to protect the environment?
Requiring publicly-accessible for all environmental decisions, either increasing or rolling back regulations is a good thing, and the technology needed to minimize medical data to confirm with hills is trivial - unless the Trump administration calls for it, then his critics insist that true science requires decisions based on secret datasets!
This change will require environmental regulation decisions to be based on publicly-available data, rather than secret datasets - and the problem is what, exactly? Critics of this rule change apparently are forcing themselves to pretend medical data can't be annonimized and made public...
What is fascinating is that the critics are ignoring how this regulation would protect their interests of a business-favoring administration tried to ram thru a regulation rolling back a clean water regulation ("I have secret medical data that shows humans have an incredible tolerance for less in their drinking water, we we are rolling back safe water regulations").
On any given day there are 1 million legal immigrants in the US, and as quickly as they either leave or attain permanent legal status new immigrants arrive behind them to take their place.
What other country has 1 million legal immigrants, let alone our 30-40 million illegal immigrants?
You may have missed it, but my comment had links to the immigration requirements for Norway and Canada - my point remains, it isn't a matter of crossing the border, showing them your impressive US degrees, and they welcome you with open arms.
The Canadian gov't tells doctors where to practice, for example. I encourage you to go into Mexico and apply for permission to just work there, let alone live there as anything other than a vacationing guest - they don't want you, they don't want to import workers, they want to export them so they can send hard currency back to relatives in Mexico. (I know you don't want to go to Mexico, but it's the closest example I know)
Per capital? What is the point of that metric in this discussion?
Fourth people show up at the Canadian border and the Canadians act like they are being invaded - 1,500 Central Americans march towards the US border and we are called racists for pointing out it will cause problems...
Did you also know that by agreement between the US and Canada, asylum seekers that cross the southern border from Mexico into the us, then work their way across the us Canada border get returned to the US, since that was the first country they entered - therefore asylum seekers/refugees that sneak across our northern border into Canada get 'deported' back to the US.
Slashdot Mirror
If my old computer is fucked because Microsoft Windows ate itself how am I supposed to download and burn a disk to repair it? Oh, right. With my other Microsoft Windows computer I bought just to restore the first Microsoft computer I bought. Makes sense, uh huh. In Redmond, maybe.
What did you do with the recovery disc?
Why didn't you burn recovery discs if not included?
Why didn't you back up your computer?
That you failed to do any of the above is not Microsoft's fault, they don't owe you another recovery disc.
Because you lost/failed to create the re-install media your device shipped with - you are asking for a replacement part that needs to be created, pressed, warehouseed and shipped - why should MS do all that for free?
This ruling states I'm a criminal in violation of copyright law for including the original Windows restore discs that came with the machine.
No, it doesn't.
You included original discs with the computer, this case involves someone that hired a third-party to press 28,000 copies of the windows install disc, then he planned to sell them for 25Â/ea with no requirement that you have the corresponding computer the software shipped with.
The only way this ruling could apply to you would be if you took your original disc and sold it to someone other than the person you sold the computer to.
Hisdisc was effectively similar to the disc that might have shipped with a given computer, it was not a copy of the disc as shipped with the computer. For example, he likely ensured the image had updates and any applicable service pack applied before ordering 28K discs.
Also, he intended to offer the discs to all comers, no proof you owned the proper computer that came with the COA appropriate for the version of Windows on his disc,
It has always been this way - there are many examples of software that is licensed, not sold, and software that once bought is licensed.
At 25Â/disc, he would collect $7,000 selling copies of other people's software.
What he really wanted was to make his E-Waste computers more valuable by more easily allowing his customers to run Windows on them.
Ignorantly violates copyright law 28,000 times.
At some point the sheer number of disc involved kicks this case out of the 'slap on the wrist' category.
So is it your contention that so-called 'white collar' criminals, whose crimes are non-violent, should never go to jail?
His fine was less than $2/disc, is that really so unreasonable?
His plan was to use the 28,000 illegal discs to increase the value of his inventory - including the disc with the computer likely increased the resale value of his computers by well more than $2/each.
Distributing freely available (but not free licensed) software should be a misdemeanor at best, not a felony, and that market value is riaa math.
When he ordered 28,000 illegal copies from a disc duplicator that that didn't require proof he had the right to order 28,000 discs with MS licensed software on it with the windows name on it he lost the ability to have his crime classified as a misdemeanor.
Catch a guy in a store front handing self-burned discs on demand to customers that request it, sure clearly a misdemeanor.
It would take a couple station wagons to transport 28,000 discs - that's a big number.
Someone please provide the "Free for download" link to get this software.
Presumably I can download the version of Windows that 'Auto-magically' detects that the computer has a valid license/via and will'just work' with my Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. desktop - right?
This fellow bought 28,000 discs, if made in the US and packaged in anything other than bulk spindles, likely cost 66-75Â/disc, less if done overseas. He spent significant money on these discs, it strains the limits of credulity to believe he did so to hand them out onsie-twosie to folks picking up otherwise waste computers.
If the software was actually freely downloadable, he could have simply attached a sticker to the computer with a Microsoft URL from which to download it from.
Fellow made 28,000 installation disks - that's a lot of disks.
The 'software expert' may testify that the discs, in his opinion, are 'essentially worthless', that doesn't make them worthless, or having no value.
The company that made the 28,000 discs didn't consider them 'essentially worthless', in fact, the disc maker charged the 'E-Waste Innovator' an amount of money to produce the discs.
And why did the 'E-Waste Innovator' create these discs, to increase the value of the computers he sells.
You seem to think there is some HIPPA requirement that prevents publishing medical data for research purposes - take a look here:
The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes the conditions under which protected health information may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes. Research is defined in the Privacy Rule as, “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” See 45 CFR 164.501. A covered entity may always use or disclose for research purposes health information which has been de-identified (in accordance with 45 CFR 164.502(d), and 164.514(a)-(c) of the Rule)
De-identifying health information is as simple as removing patient name, birth date, and any other non-medically relevant identifier before publishing the data.
You prefer environmental regulations based on secret data?
I have a report right here that says smoking two packs of cigarettes a day has absolutely no negative health effects. What was that, you want to see the data, sorry, HIPPA regulations prevent me from releasing it - trust me.
or
I've got a report right here that details the positive health effects increased greenhouse gases have on children under 3 years old. What was that, you want to see the data, sorry, the data is proprietary so I can't release it - trust me.
The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes the conditions under which protected health information may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes. Research is defined in the Privacy Rule as, “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” See 45 CFR 164.501. A covered entity may always use or disclose for research purposes health information which has been de-identified (in accordance with 45 CFR 164.502(d), and 164.514(a)-(c) of the Rule)
Source: Health Information Privacy
Ignorance of the HIPPA regulations is fueling much of the backlash this proposed federal regulation change is attracting.
Once the data is "de-identified" it can be published, and removing identifying elements is trivial.
You're talking about HIPPA regulations - have you ever read the HIPPA regulations? Ever worked in a HIPPA regulated field?
HIPPA regulations require that patient identity be protected - I used to work in the clinical drug trial industry and we used six-digit patient numbers and three letter initials to identify patients in our studies, and the client research companies protected the key that mapped the six-digit IDs and initials to the actual consent forms and other personally-identifiable documents.
Take your example:
someone is 37, a non-smoker, takes over-the-counter asprin, and has high-blood pressure
None of that information tells you who the patient is, it does not reveal their identity... Adding that the same person "had cancer in a time frame" does not revel their identity - to use that information to arrive at an identity would require you to already know the person and know they had cancer "in a certain time period" before you could identify who the patient is - the only problem is you haven't revealed anything, you already knew the identity of the patient that had cancer.
Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data.
So the EPA proposes that the science used to determine public policy and environmental regulations be held to the same rigorous standard as your average sixth-grade science fair submission, and critics attack the proposal because... decisions based on secret data is the only way to protect the environment?
Trump admin called for it, so it must be bad - don't bother with details of facts!
Requiring publicly-accessible for all environmental decisions, either increasing or rolling back regulations is a good thing, and the technology needed to minimize medical data to confirm with hills is trivial - unless the Trump administration calls for it, then his critics insist that true science requires decisions based on secret datasets!
This change will require environmental regulation decisions to be based on publicly-available data, rather than secret datasets - and the problem is what, exactly? Critics of this rule change apparently are forcing themselves to pretend medical data can't be annonimized and made public...
What is fascinating is that the critics are ignoring how this regulation would protect their interests of a business-favoring administration tried to ram thru a regulation rolling back a clean water regulation ("I have secret medical data that shows humans have an incredible tolerance for less in their drinking water, we we are rolling back safe water regulations").
You equate 'rich' with tax cheat... there are many more 'rich' people than there are people that risk fines and jail time to save on sales taxes.
On any given day there are 1 million legal immigrants in the US, and as quickly as they either leave or attain permanent legal status new immigrants arrive behind them to take their place.
What other country has 1 million legal immigrants, let alone our 30-40 million illegal immigrants?
You may have missed it, but my comment had links to the immigration requirements for Norway and Canada - my point remains, it isn't a matter of crossing the border, showing them your impressive US degrees, and they welcome you with open arms.
The Canadian gov't tells doctors where to practice, for example. I encourage you to go into Mexico and apply for permission to just work there, let alone live there as anything other than a vacationing guest - they don't want you, they don't want to import workers, they want to export them so they can send hard currency back to relatives in Mexico. (I know you don't want to go to Mexico, but it's the closest example I know)
Per capital? What is the point of that metric in this discussion?
Fourth people show up at the Canadian border and the Canadians act like they are being invaded - 1,500 Central Americans march towards the US border and we are called racists for pointing out it will cause problems...
Did you also know that by agreement between the US and Canada, asylum seekers that cross the southern border from Mexico into the us, then work their way across the us Canada border get returned to the US, since that was the first country they entered - therefore asylum seekers/refugees that sneak across our northern border into Canada get 'deported' back to the US.
Here's the link, from huffpo, but it was widely reported at the time...
Also, if something better were available, why would a college graduate apply at McDonald's?