It's a flawed, ineffective, and destructive policy that can only cause harm and can never have any significant benefit. It needs to be stopped immediately.
Read about it. If it sounds like you, get yourself tested. Then, find a job that works with your body cycle. Life is much simpler since I stopped trying to force myself into a "conventional schedule" and created my life around my body's schedule.
That's the key phrase. Stumbling upon it is not sufficient, but taking action to save those images is. While I didn't see this point addressed, continuing to view other images on that site, or logging into a site and viewing a significant amount of CP images could be interpreted as an affirmative, so I wouldn't say this is strictly limited to "downloading" or possession. This simply makes it clear that incidental access is not make one a violator. Sounds like a very sane ruling in an area that often goes overboard "for the children".
“As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders but we strongly believe that tackling the issue of copyright infringement needs compelling legal alternatives, giving consumers access to great content at the right price, to help change consumer behaviour.”
I find that far more interesting than TPB distancing themselves from Anonymous.
Great questions. I've asserted multiple times that we shouldn't need this law, that the "unreasonable search" clause of the 4th Amendment prohibits this. Others have argued (incorrectly I believe) that the 4th Amendment only apples to the government, not to individuals or corporations. So, there is currently some debate. My contention is that while the US Constitution in general limits the power of the federal government, the rights guaranteed to individuals shall not be violated by anyone. Case law supports that interpretation with many people and companies having been found guilty of civil rights violations for infringing on someone's constitutionally guaranteed rights.
On the other hand, the fact that an employer actually demanded this information, and the fact that some people still believe that the civil rights in the Amendments don't apply to everyone suggests that we do need a law just so there is no question about it.
"Provide access to" means requiring the (potential) employee to grant access to the employer, that which they do not already have access. Courts could disagree, but my interpretation, and my defense is that prevents requiring me to accept a friend request, or another other access which is not available to everyone.
Much of it could be covered under "truth in advertising" laws already on the books. The part prohibiting models below the WHO minimum BMI might be tougher.
I propose solving the latency problem by not creating it with bloated buffers in the first place. Small buffers do help with throughput, and they do it with low latency. Large buffers add almost no additional throughput, but they do add latency. Solving a problem created by poor design just adds complexity.
That's a policy dominated by politics, not by the science. The available data don't support LNT, but it's politically unacceptible to say otherwise because the opponents will then accuse you of all sorts of things using logical fallacies to extrapolate to absurdity.
The way they can maintain the false premise of LNT is that the curve is slight, and any sufficiently short segment of a curve can be approximated by a straight line, so as long as you're only looking at a narrow range of exposures, you can continue to pretend that the curve actually matches the LNT theory.
You're trying to solve a problem created by using large buffers. Especially when you have routers with different bandwidth links, it's important to limit the buffer size. Size should be limited per port.
Active buffer management and QoS can be useful, but those are primarily "solutions" to the problem of high latency caused by buffer bloat. Stop creating the buffer bloat in the first place by limiting the size of buffers.
It would be a step in the right direction. Henri Sivonen's response also addresses several valid points, some of which can be addressed with minor mods to the proposal, some of which can be addressed (but not solved) by issuing guidance to vendors and authors. Having developed data communications standards and software in another industry, I'm well aware of the issues caused by non-compliance, insufficiently (and overly) specific standards, and that vendors and authors do not always follow the guidance (mostly because the developers rarely read it).
Most importanly, this proposal gives a clear, standard method for both authors and browser vendors. When it comes to getting compliance and compatibility with a standard, the simpler it is, the better for everyone.
And smaller buffers will help. Larger buffers do almost nothing to increase throughput, but they can increase latency. Having buffers isn't a problem. Having buffers that are too large is a problem.
"How has a 78-ton boulder traveled 130 meters inland from the sea since 1991?... Some boulders move inland at an average rate of nearly 3 meters per decade,....
The way I learned math 130m in 21 years is much greater than 3m/decade.
Which part of his answer adds anything to my original post? Answer None. His answer addresses only the first step in my original post, and with an 8 month old backup, that step alone isn't very useful.
That still doesn't address the issue. Yes, that will identify files that the metadata says haven't changed, but don't match. That's step 1 in my original post. But it does absolutely nothing about determining which files that are new or have changed since his last backup may be corrupt (step 2 in my list).
Neither you, nor the poster I replied above have added anything to the discussion. If you have read the question, and have something useful to add, please do so.
Which part of "last backup is from August" is unclear to you? For any file that has been updated since his terribly outdated back up, your answer is useless and incorrect. Or did you not RTFS?
1. Compare to backup, files that match are ok. 2. AppleScript option others mentioned may help reduce it further. 3. Backup regularly, and verify your backup procedure. 4. Anything else will cost you consulting rates.
Slashdot Mirror
...that seizing domains does absolutely no good, and that in at least a one case, it does significant harm to people who haven't violated the law.
It's a flawed, ineffective, and destructive policy that can only cause harm and can never have any significant benefit. It needs to be stopped immediately.
Cisco - You can buy better, but you can't pay more.
Sounds like you may have Delayed sleep phase disorder.
Read about it. If it sounds like you, get yourself tested. Then, find a job that works with your body cycle. Life is much simpler since I stopped trying to force myself into a "conventional schedule" and created my life around my body's schedule.
For the early crowd, there is also Advanced sleep phase disorder
$50/mo for 12-24 mos (until CS6.5/CS7 upgrade time) = $600-$1200, and you don't even have a license to use the software if you stop paying $50/mo.
Nope, doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
That's the key phrase. Stumbling upon it is not sufficient, but taking action to save those images is. While I didn't see this point addressed, continuing to view other images on that site, or logging into a site and viewing a significant amount of CP images could be interpreted as an affirmative, so I wouldn't say this is strictly limited to "downloading" or possession. This simply makes it clear that incidental access is not make one a violator. Sounds like a very sane ruling in an area that often goes overboard "for the children".
From TFA:
“As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders but we strongly believe that tackling the issue of copyright infringement needs compelling legal alternatives, giving consumers access to great content at the right price, to help change consumer behaviour.”
I find that far more interesting than TPB distancing themselves from Anonymous.
Great questions. I've asserted multiple times that we shouldn't need this law, that the "unreasonable search" clause of the 4th Amendment prohibits this. Others have argued (incorrectly I believe) that the 4th Amendment only apples to the government, not to individuals or corporations. So, there is currently some debate. My contention is that while the US Constitution in general limits the power of the federal government, the rights guaranteed to individuals shall not be violated by anyone. Case law supports that interpretation with many people and companies having been found guilty of civil rights violations for infringing on someone's constitutionally guaranteed rights.
On the other hand, the fact that an employer actually demanded this information, and the fact that some people still believe that the civil rights in the Amendments don't apply to everyone suggests that we do need a law just so there is no question about it.
"Provide access to" means requiring the (potential) employee to grant access to the employer, that which they do not already have access. Courts could disagree, but my interpretation, and my defense is that prevents requiring me to accept a friend request, or another other access which is not available to everyone.
That would be covered under
Prohibits an employer from forcing prospective or current employees to provide access to their own private account as a condition of employment.
Much of it could be covered under "truth in advertising" laws already on the books. The part prohibiting models below the WHO minimum BMI might be tougher.
Just make it ugly enough, and it can be effective at reducing your chances of getting married.
I propose solving the latency problem by not creating it with bloated buffers in the first place. Small buffers do help with throughput, and they do it with low latency. Large buffers add almost no additional throughput, but they do add latency. Solving a problem created by poor design just adds complexity.
That's a policy dominated by politics, not by the science. The available data don't support LNT, but it's politically unacceptible to say otherwise because the opponents will then accuse you of all sorts of things using logical fallacies to extrapolate to absurdity.
The way they can maintain the false premise of LNT is that the curve is slight, and any sufficiently short segment of a curve can be approximated by a straight line, so as long as you're only looking at a narrow range of exposures, you can continue to pretend that the curve actually matches the LNT theory.
You have to wait until they die. However, I see no ethical issue with using TSOs.
You're trying to solve a problem created by using large buffers. Especially when you have routers with different bandwidth links, it's important to limit the buffer size. Size should be limited per port.
Active buffer management and QoS can be useful, but those are primarily "solutions" to the problem of high latency caused by buffer bloat. Stop creating the buffer bloat in the first place by limiting the size of buffers.
It would be a step in the right direction. Henri Sivonen's response also addresses several valid points, some of which can be addressed with minor mods to the proposal, some of which can be addressed (but not solved) by issuing guidance to vendors and authors. Having developed data communications standards and software in another industry, I'm well aware of the issues caused by non-compliance, insufficiently (and overly) specific standards, and that vendors and authors do not always follow the guidance (mostly because the developers rarely read it).
Most importanly, this proposal gives a clear, standard method for both authors and browser vendors. When it comes to getting compliance and compatibility with a standard, the simpler it is, the better for everyone.
And smaller buffers will help. Larger buffers do almost nothing to increase throughput, but they can increase latency. Having buffers isn't a problem. Having buffers that are too large is a problem.
But according to MPAA math, 100,000 pirated copies @ 2250-150k per copy is billions in lost revenue.
Or just inconsistent writing?
"How has a 78-ton boulder traveled 130 meters inland from the sea since 1991? ... Some boulders move inland at an average rate of nearly 3 meters per decade,....
The way I learned math 130m in 21 years is much greater than 3m/decade.
Which part of his answer adds anything to my original post? Answer None. His answer addresses only the first step in my original post, and with an 8 month old backup, that step alone isn't very useful.
That still doesn't address the issue. Yes, that will identify files that the metadata says haven't changed, but don't match. That's step 1 in my original post. But it does absolutely nothing about determining which files that are new or have changed since his last backup may be corrupt (step 2 in my list).
Neither you, nor the poster I replied above have added anything to the discussion. If you have read the question, and have something useful to add, please do so.
Which part of "last backup is from August" is unclear to you? For any file that has been updated since his terribly outdated back up, your answer is useless and incorrect. Or did you not RTFS?
1. Compare to backup, files that match are ok.
2. AppleScript option others mentioned may help reduce it further.
3. Backup regularly, and verify your backup procedure.
4. Anything else will cost you consulting rates.
Those are all easy, as long as you're ok with viewing them from above.
That's better than "octothorpe" and some of it's other names.