If destroying the entertainment industry is not a bad thing to you, then you have no interest in the content anyway, so why the hell would you care what other people do? Jealousy? Spite?
Because they are co-opting his culture and locking him out of it. Imagine living in a world where it is illegal to sing "Happy birthday to you" when you celebrate your child's birthday in a restaurant or any public place.
Why does a bully have power over others? Because others don't put up a fight.
It's a bit more than that.
The other kids in the playground can easily beat the snot out of the bully if they cooperate. However, each and every one of them secretly dreams of being a bully himself, so they try to get on the bully's best side by being his toadies.
Before you call someone a "liar", and a "shill", please read and understand that Canadian law for hacking is very broad, and its contained in my reply to JonySuede.
Yes, you were misleading in that non-answer too.
Breaking any kind of digital protection or password system is currently illegal, whether or not you like that fact.
That is patently untrue.
When you fraudulently obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service, its illegal in Canada.
Completely unrelated.
That includes DRM schemes and any other number of ways to secure data
No, it is not. The passages that you quoted in your non-answer prevent you from breaking into others' computer services (and DRM is not a computer service no matter how you spin it) or from tampering with others' data (the data on *your* DVD is not).
Breaking DRM protection on a CD/DVD is legally equivalent to breaking the encryption used to secure data on a CD filled with confidential information. There is ZERO distinction in the law between the two.
There is absolutely no connection between the paragraphs that you quoted and the conclusions that you drew from them. You are just sowing FUD. Breaking DRM has always been legal in Canada.
C-11 is really just renaming some things in the original copyright acts
Shilling much?
Go read Section 41 then come back to apologize for your ludicrous statements.
C-11 criminalizes the circumvention of DRM for any purposes whatsoever, including bunt not limited to exercising your fair dealing rights. Want to rip the DVD that you bought in order to watch it on your iPhone? Congratulations, you are now a criminal for circumventing CSS.
This "idiom" becomes brittle once you introduce a loop into the delimited code (for example, an iterative numerical analysis method). Consider: do {
status = customMalloc(ptr);
if (status) break;
status = populateData(ptr);
if (status) break;
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; ++i) {
status = iterateOnData(ptr);
if (status) break;/* Oops, need another check after the loop */
}
if (status) break;/* Good thing I remembered this */
status = finalizeData(ptr); } while (0);
Or even worse, the whole code block gets surrounded by a loop...
You are better off calling a spade a spade and using a plain goto: status = customMalloc(ptr); if (status) goto Finish; status = populateData(ptr); if (status) goto Finish; for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; ++i) {
status = iterateOnData(ptr);
if (status) goto Finish;/* Hey, it works! */ } status = finalizeData(ptr);
Finish: /* Continue here */
However, a better approach would be to use a helper function: static inline tonsOfStatusCodes helper() {
tonsOfStatusCodes status = customMalloc(ptr);
if (status) return status;
status = populateData(ptr);
if (status) return status;
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; ++i) {
status = iterateOnData(ptr);
if (status) return status;/* Hey, it works! */
}
status = finalizeData(ptr);
return status; }
If you disagree, I'd like to hear your reasoning about 1) why, in your opinion, is the do{}while(0) construct better than a goto, and 2) why, in your opinion, is the do{}while(0) construct better than a helper function.
PS, I was not the one suggesting you leave. Cleaning up the code, on the other hand, can have merit.
The only legitimate place I encountered for a do{}while(0) is inside a #define macro. Using it to simulate a goto is convoluted as the problem can be better handled by putting the code into a function/method or by just using goto.
I can just picture the perpetrators putting the fake tablets into the boxes and reapplying the shrink-wrap while humming "Oh iPad, iPad, iPad, I made it out of clay..."
It's an interesting topic. What is considered a "safe" or "within specs" overvolting for i5 / i7 CPUs and how much of a frequency bump can one usually get from it?
Segue to the present. The Congress passes a law at the behest of the President. The States sue to overturn the law. The general public spends a lot of time shouting that the people who oppose the law are evil incarnate.
Note that I'm talking about a law making it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.
Seems the homeowners (among many others) who lived near schools objected to losing their Second Amendment Rights.
Long story short, the Supremes ruled that the Commerce Clause isn't actually universally applicable and can't be used to override the rest of the Constitution.
Note that you're talking about a 1995 case (United States v. Lopez) while conveniently ignoring a 2005 case (Gonzales v. Raich). We have a different definition of "the present".
Nonsense. The best solution is to limit government power so they can't do this.
And pray tell who is going to limit government power? The government? Yes, your solution makes much more sense...
Properly speaking, in the USA, the Constitution does that.
Two observations:
1) Your constitution does not enforce itself. Your constitution does not punish those that circumvent or ignore it (and, as far as I know, it does not even contain a provision for sanctioning unconstitutional acts, no matter how blatant).
2) The constitution you refer to tries to limit the power of FEDERAL government and does nothing to prevent STATE governments from selling their souls and your rights to the highest bidder.
Slashdot Mirror
If destroying the entertainment industry is not a bad thing to you, then you have no interest in the content anyway, so why the hell would you care what other people do? Jealousy? Spite?
Because they are co-opting his culture and locking him out of it. Imagine living in a world where it is illegal to sing "Happy birthday to you" when you celebrate your child's birthday in a restaurant or any public place.
Why does a bully have power over others? Because others don't put up a fight.
It's a bit more than that.
The other kids in the playground can easily beat the snot out of the bully if they cooperate.
However, each and every one of them secretly dreams of being a bully himself, so they try to get on the bully's best side by being his toadies.
The patriot act and all these powers were granted to the government to fight the war... to hunt down the terrorists and snuff them out.
No. Those powers were sought for the sake of having more power.
That was the point.
Again, no. That was the excuse.
It is the least offensive word I could apply to somebody who tries sugar-coating C-11.
Before you call someone a "liar", and a "shill", please read and understand that Canadian law for hacking is very broad, and its contained in my reply to JonySuede.
Yes, you were misleading in that non-answer too.
Breaking any kind of digital protection or password system is currently illegal, whether or not you like that fact.
That is patently untrue.
When you fraudulently obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service, its illegal in Canada.
Completely unrelated.
That includes DRM schemes and any other number of ways to secure data
No, it is not. The passages that you quoted in your non-answer prevent you from breaking into others' computer services (and DRM is not a computer service no matter how you spin it) or from tampering with others' data (the data on *your* DVD is not).
Breaking DRM protection on a CD/DVD is legally equivalent to breaking the encryption used to secure data on a CD filled with confidential information. There is ZERO distinction in the law between the two.
And both cases are legal.
Go spread your FUD elsewhere, shill.
There is absolutely no connection between the paragraphs that you quoted and the conclusions that you drew from them. You are just sowing FUD.
Breaking DRM has always been legal in Canada.
Mod parent up.
GP is a liar and a shill.
Please, C-11 does nothing of the sort.
C-11 is really just renaming some things in the original copyright acts
Shilling much?
Go read Section 41 then come back to apologize for your ludicrous statements.
C-11 criminalizes the circumvention of DRM for any purposes whatsoever, including bunt not limited to exercising your fair dealing rights. Want to rip the DVD that you bought in order to watch it on your iPhone? Congratulations, you are now a criminal for circumventing CSS.
Bloody liar.
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm
What is the benefit/drawback of Google Apps vs. the regular Google accounts?
Just like everywhere else.
+1 depressing.
Only way to know if this bullshit is going to stand is to take it up to the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is comprised of judges. The same judges that get off on power trips by being able to jail you indefinitely on a whim (a.k.a civil contempt)
What if you don't have the safe key (lost it, or possibly never had it to begin with) but the judge thinks that you do?
A link for the search challenged.
The last statement is pure gold:
"Although never charged with a crime, H. Beatty Chadwick spent fourteen years of his life in prison."
You already have.
Tell your Congresscritter to support it.
Hate to tell you but they are not your Congresscritters.
I would think the pope [...] should not be [...] groped or otherwise molested.
What's good for the goose...
Is it robust? no.
This "idiom" becomes brittle once you introduce a loop into the delimited code (for example, an iterative numerical analysis method). Consider:
/* Oops, need another check after the loop */ /* Good thing I remembered this */
do {
status = customMalloc(ptr);
if (status) break;
status = populateData(ptr);
if (status) break;
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; ++i) {
status = iterateOnData(ptr);
if (status) break;
}
if (status) break;
status = finalizeData(ptr);
} while (0);
Or even worse, the whole code block gets surrounded by a loop...
You are better off calling a spade a spade and using a plain goto:
/* Hey, it works! */
status = customMalloc(ptr);
if (status) goto Finish;
status = populateData(ptr);
if (status) goto Finish;
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; ++i) {
status = iterateOnData(ptr);
if (status) goto Finish;
}
status = finalizeData(ptr);
Finish:
/* Continue here */
However, a better approach would be to use a helper function:
/* Hey, it works! */
static inline tonsOfStatusCodes helper() {
tonsOfStatusCodes status = customMalloc(ptr);
if (status) return status;
status = populateData(ptr);
if (status) return status;
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; ++i) {
status = iterateOnData(ptr);
if (status) return status;
}
status = finalizeData(ptr);
return status;
}
If you disagree, I'd like to hear your reasoning about
1) why, in your opinion, is the do{}while(0) construct better than a goto, and
2) why, in your opinion, is the do{}while(0) construct better than a helper function.
PS, I was not the one suggesting you leave.
Cleaning up the code, on the other hand, can have merit.
When will Visual Studio achieve the "supports the C++11 standard" badge?
shit, still doesn't go where I need it to
Allow me to introduce you to the modern wonders of indoor plumbing.
The only legitimate place I encountered for a do{}while(0) is inside a #define macro.
Using it to simulate a goto is convoluted as the problem can be better handled by putting the code into a function/method or by just using goto.
I can just picture the perpetrators putting the fake tablets into the boxes and reapplying the shrink-wrap while humming "Oh iPad, iPad, iPad, I made it out of clay..."
It's an interesting topic.
What is considered a "safe" or "within specs" overvolting for i5 / i7 CPUs and how much of a frequency bump can one usually get from it?
Segue to the present. The Congress passes a law at the behest of the President. The States sue to overturn the law. The general public spends a lot of time shouting that the people who oppose the law are evil incarnate.
Note that I'm talking about a law making it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.
Seems the homeowners (among many others) who lived near schools objected to losing their Second Amendment Rights.
Long story short, the Supremes ruled that the Commerce Clause isn't actually universally applicable and can't be used to override the rest of the Constitution.
Note that you're talking about a 1995 case (United States v. Lopez) while conveniently ignoring a 2005 case (Gonzales v. Raich).
We have a different definition of "the present".
Properly speaking, in the USA, the Constitution does that.
Two observations:
1) Your constitution does not enforce itself. Your constitution does not punish those that circumvent or ignore it (and, as far as I know, it does not even contain a provision for sanctioning unconstitutional acts, no matter how blatant).
2) The constitution you refer to tries to limit the power of FEDERAL government and does nothing to prevent STATE governments from selling their souls and your rights to the highest bidder.
Hint: the Tenth Amendment exists for a reason.
Counter-hint: for all practical purposes the Commerce Clause trumps the 10th amendment.