So what is the proper response if Aunt Tillie forwarded the mail to both me and my brother (both of who have a mailbox on the same server) in the situation that I want my spam dropped whereas my brother wants his spam delivered for manual checking?
There will be a single mail with two recipients, one who doesn't want the mail and one who does. Should I 5xx the mail (even though my brother wants to receive it) or should I 2xx it and drop my copy silently? AFAIK, there's nothing in between.
We only need one system: 1 KB = 1024 bytes. 1 MB = 1024 KB. 1 GB = 1024 MB. 1 TB = 1024 GB. And 1 TB ought to be enough for anyone ^.^ The problem is that that system conflicts with the even more respected SI system, which states that the k, M, G, and T prefixes mean 1e3, 1e6, 1e9, and 1e12, respectively, NO MATTER THE POSTFIX.
So if you already fully understand the material, why are you even following the course? Why don't you just do the examination without taking the class?
That's a nice fiction, but non-discrimination doesn't apply to immigrants, since immigrants aren't citizens. You don't have a right to immigrate and countries can be quite selective about their immigrants. Except that non-discrimination laws (like all other human rights) aren't limited to citizens in the Netherlands. Most nations aren't that barbaric.
The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000. And how does purposely surfing the Internet on someone else's wireless connection match that definition? After all, the open wireless access point I use to surf the internet explicitly authorized my access when I asked him about it.
Do you realize the massive amount of work required to run a company? So you work more hours than I do? That's fine, I'm willing to pay you more for that. I suggest you and I receive the same hourly wage, so that you working twice as hard (i.e. twice as many hours) means that you receive twice the pay.
Do you understand the job security you have as an employee of a company? The very same security you have. If the company goes belly-up, you and I are both out of work. If one of us does something very stupid, said person gets fired. The fact that you are also the person responsible for keeping the company alive doesn't mean your job security is worse than mine.
It's *my* job to make sure you continue to have a job. And it's my job to (say) administrate servers. I don't see the relevance here.
It's my job to work ridiculous hours and be on call for things you can't even imagine. Same here. Can I get the same wage as you get now?
I have to be multi-talented, multi-disciplined, multi-tasking, and multi-personality. That goes for most workers.
I have to understand the nuances of industries that aren't even related to my field. Whereas I have to understand a shitload of things related to my field. My knowledge goes deep, yours goes wide. I don't see why you should receive more pay than I do.
I spend massive amounts of money and personal time making sure that YOU are able to produce for me without being sidetracked by unrelated issues. So do I (still a server admin).
So don't tell me that I don't deserve it. The same can be said about me, but I sure as hell don't receive it.
While I agree with your point, do remember that this is only correct if the offending process is running with root privileges. Software firewalls are perfectly secure as long as you work as an unprivileged user.
Of course, I'm aware that typical Windows users don't ever do this, so your point is correct in the real world.
Actually, all I meant to express is that your statement - "Whatever. It's an attempt to protect something. Circumventing said protection, however feeble, is illegal." - is too broad as well, and stays too broad if you replace "illegal" by "immoral".
Like you, I don't agree with "if it's not properly protected, it's fair game"; but the statement you made three posts up is an equally foolish extreme. Just the fact that someone tried to secure something doesn't mean anything on its own; some level of effectiveness is required, or things quickly get silly.
I just attempted to protect my privacy by closing one of my two curtains (for the same window); half the window is still available for looking through. Are you suggesting that anyone watching my nakedness is doing something illegal?
Actually, Windows does support a form of symlinks called "junctions". Sysinternals used to have a program to create them. They aren't completely the same thing as symlinks; there are two pitfalls to keep in mind:
If you rm -rf a junction, you remove all of the linked directory's contents, not just the link itself.
Most Windows tools are not aware of the existence of symlinks, so if you create a circular directory structure (/a/b/c linking to/a) you're in for a nasty surprise whenever a program is going to scan a complete directory tree.
I'll get an LCD screen once it has the same viewing angle as my CRT, and when it supports all common resolutions from 320x240 up to 2048x1536 like my CRT does.
And that's not even counting the fact that i LIKE my monitor to be my primary light source.
It appears my original post wasn't as clear as I meant it to be. My bad. I never meant to say or imply that the production of music (or software, for that matter) is free.
What I meant to say is: because it is very much possible to produce copies of the music for free, I expect myself and others to make a significant effort to create music (or programs) of which copies can be produced for free.
In other words: now that the road to Utopia is clear, I consider it rather rude not to contribute your part of getting humanity there.
I spend a whole lot of my time and a significant amount of money on the software I write, and I give all of it away for free. And yes, I expect the same thing from those creating music.
Your argument boils down to that the copyright holders should have a business model that exactly fits your desires, and if it doesn't you'll be justified to illegally copy. In reality, you're just rationalizing what you really want: Stuff for free. In particular, he wants: stuff for which it is, for the first time in history, reasonably possible to produce at near-zero cost for free.
As an analogy, if my house mate happens to walk to the kitchen, I sure as heck expect him to bring me a beer if I request so (assuming he has a free hand, the beer is easy to reach, and the action of bringing me a beer in general costs him a negligible amount of effort), since this action comes at essentially zero cost for him. If he would not bring me a beer in this case, it would just make him an asshole.
In general, making people pay (in effort or money) for stuff that could just as easily be free is very immoral in my book, much more immoral than piracy will ever be.
So how do I create a tabular layout for non-tabular data without using a table? Say, two columns - nav sidebar and main content area - having equal, but liquid height (let's say I'd like the column borders to line up)?
I mean, whatever your age, should there ever be a time when it is ok to have sex with a 9 year old?
I would find it perfectly OK for a 9 year old to have (an attempt at) sex with a different 9 year old.
It seems like the majority of people here want to completely obliterate the business of recorded+sold music. Actually, I think said majority only wants to completely obliterate the copyright system involving recorded+sold music. You would still be free to sell your music to those willing to pay for it, you just wouldn't enjoy copyright protection.
I agree with some of your points there but there's one difference between a malevolent program and a benign program and that is its ability to 'phone home' your personal information. No, the difference between a malevolent program and a benign program is whether it actually does phone home your personal information. Whether it is capable to do so is irrelevant.
The point is that without copyright, it simply wouldn't be lucrative to write closed-source software anymore. If anyone can legally download, distribute, and use your software without paying license costs or loyalties, who will buy your software?
Actually, there is an official way to filter filesystem access in a well-defined manner, and antivirus systems do use them.
However, not all threats are filesystem-based, so this method - on its own - is insufficient. If you want to add an additional protection - such as protect your antivirus processes from tampering - you'll have to hack your way around it, as is frequently done by both antivirus vendors AND blackhats (and Sony, too).
Anyway, what alternatives would you suggest to fix these perceived issues with the justice system? The system is not perfect, but I have yet to see a proposal that isn't worse than the problem it purports to address.
Let lawyers be a government-owned resource. If A sues B, both A and B - small or big - are assigned a random lawyer from the pool of free lawyers; he who loses pays the process costs. Lawyer's salaries are paid from tax money.
The justice system only works if I can actually enforce my rights. So, I must be able to sue whoever violates my rights, and defend against whoever sues me. Even if I can hardly afford the phone call to get a lawyer in the first place.
Yes, these are assumptions. There are examples of people in this world who do not consider these things wrong; therefore, we can only conclude that they are not universally shared values, i.e. assumption.
Are they equally valid? Not from my - biased - point of view. Without the bias - which is, indeed, hard to imagine - they are equally valid.
Slashdot Mirror
So what is the proper response if Aunt Tillie forwarded the mail to both me and my brother (both of who have a mailbox on the same server) in the situation that I want my spam dropped whereas my brother wants his spam delivered for manual checking?
There will be a single mail with two recipients, one who doesn't want the mail and one who does. Should I 5xx the mail (even though my brother wants to receive it) or should I 2xx it and drop my copy silently? AFAIK, there's nothing in between.
No, your 640GB drive stores 640GB AKA 596GiB of files. It's just that your crappy operating system is misleading you by calling it 596GB.
So if you already fully understand the material, why are you even following the course? Why don't you just do the examination without taking the class?
But what's wrong and what isn't is a subjective issue, so it may not be enough to stop someone who doesn't consider it wrong.
While I agree with your point, do remember that this is only correct if the offending process is running with root privileges. Software firewalls are perfectly secure as long as you work as an unprivileged user.
Of course, I'm aware that typical Windows users don't ever do this, so your point is correct in the real world.
For the moment, it looks more like the internet will be responsible for the death of intellectual property as we know it today.
Actually, all I meant to express is that your statement - "Whatever. It's an attempt to protect something. Circumventing said protection, however feeble, is illegal." - is too broad as well, and stays too broad if you replace "illegal" by "immoral".
Like you, I don't agree with "if it's not properly protected, it's fair game"; but the statement you made three posts up is an equally foolish extreme. Just the fact that someone tried to secure something doesn't mean anything on its own; some level of effectiveness is required, or things quickly get silly.
I just attempted to protect my privacy by closing one of my two curtains (for the same window); half the window is still available for looking through. Are you suggesting that anyone watching my nakedness is doing something illegal?
I'll get an LCD screen once it has the same viewing angle as my CRT, and when it supports all common resolutions from 320x240 up to 2048x1536 like my CRT does.
And that's not even counting the fact that i LIKE my monitor to be my primary light source.
It appears my original post wasn't as clear as I meant it to be. My bad. I never meant to say or imply that the production of music (or software, for that matter) is free.
What I meant to say is: because it is very much possible to produce copies of the music for free, I expect myself and others to make a significant effort to create music (or programs) of which copies can be produced for free.
In other words: now that the road to Utopia is clear, I consider it rather rude not to contribute your part of getting humanity there.
I spend a whole lot of my time and a significant amount of money on the software I write, and I give all of it away for free. And yes, I expect the same thing from those creating music.
As an analogy, if my house mate happens to walk to the kitchen, I sure as heck expect him to bring me a beer if I request so (assuming he has a free hand, the beer is easy to reach, and the action of bringing me a beer in general costs him a negligible amount of effort), since this action comes at essentially zero cost for him. If he would not bring me a beer in this case, it would just make him an asshole.
In general, making people pay (in effort or money) for stuff that could just as easily be free is very immoral in my book, much more immoral than piracy will ever be.
So how do I create a tabular layout for non-tabular data without using a table? Say, two columns - nav sidebar and main content area - having equal, but liquid height (let's say I'd like the column borders to line up)?
I would find it perfectly OK for a 9 year old to have (an attempt at) sex with a different 9 year old.
The point is that without copyright, it simply wouldn't be lucrative to write closed-source software anymore. If anyone can legally download, distribute, and use your software without paying license costs or loyalties, who will buy your software?
Actually, there is an official way to filter filesystem access in a well-defined manner, and antivirus systems do use them.
However, not all threats are filesystem-based, so this method - on its own - is insufficient. If you want to add an additional protection - such as protect your antivirus processes from tampering - you'll have to hack your way around it, as is frequently done by both antivirus vendors AND blackhats (and Sony, too).
Anyway, what alternatives would you suggest to fix these perceived issues with the justice system? The system is not perfect, but I have yet to see a proposal that isn't worse than the problem it purports to address.
Let lawyers be a government-owned resource. If A sues B, both A and B - small or big - are assigned a random lawyer from the pool of free lawyers; he who loses pays the process costs. Lawyer's salaries are paid from tax money.
The justice system only works if I can actually enforce my rights. So, I must be able to sue whoever violates my rights, and defend against whoever sues me. Even if I can hardly afford the phone call to get a lawyer in the first place.
IANAL (obviously)
Yes, these are assumptions. There are examples of people in this world who do not consider these things wrong; therefore, we can only conclude that they are not universally shared values, i.e. assumption.
Are they equally valid? Not from my - biased - point of view. Without the bias - which is, indeed, hard to imagine - they are equally valid.