Oh geez, this is bad. If Firefox becomes more Google-dependent THERE GOES ADBLOCK and there goes the whole pleasant web experience. This may be more important than people realize.
Does the FBI own the rights to the image they're showing around? Aren't they violating copyright? Can't they be sued for millions in made up damages?
Nope, in the US you can use the image of a public figure for many purposes-- he's fair game. Of course, he might win a case of defamation if he could show generally that members of any significant group he's in actually *believed* he were Osama based on the picture.
...sperm superiority is so important to successfully passing on an organism's genes that the best sperm, the ones that "win" and partner in producing the zygote, carry along even detrimental traits, since the chromosome is taken as a whole. No wonder Nature works on improving sperm more than anything else. (Now cue the obligatory jokes about detrimental, or radical traits, all coming from the male.) (Actually, there is some truth in this, since the Y chromosome cannot swap out its defective or its suboptimal parts with its pair, since it hasn't one, which accounts for more idiots AND more geniuses among the male vs. the female population.)
Well, pilots of small aircraft (myself included) found it the best, cheapest nav choice prior to GPS. Dunno if it's worth having as a fallback in case GPS is degraded or taken offline or not. Maybe I'm just nostalgic because being able to navigate "Loran Direct" was so superior to flying from VOR to VOR.
Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc. requires attribution, and even pirates don't bother removing credits. Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.
However, his royalties may. Sooner or later we will have to consider, as a culture, what to do if established authors, and promising young authors, decide to abandon writing because too many freeloaders reduce author profits below subsistence. I'm not talking about the **AAs, I'm talking about individual authors who may have contracts with reputable publishing houses that do not insist on exploitive relationships. And what about the psychological deterrent to creativity? JK Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book in desperation on welfare. Might she have done so if she believed her work would be distributed freely without any compensation to her?
Do we want promising youths to avoid careers in writing because online distribution has hurt profitability? Would J.D. Salinger, John Updike, Norman Mailer have enriched our lives if they needed other jobs? And Robert Heinlein said that many of his stories were written "to buy groceries".
Without some requirement to pay for books, would enough people do so?
Since a large part of the US's trade brings our nation income from royalties on Hollywood movies, is it possible we need to make sure what we produce has value in the world market to improve our balance of trade and thereby reduce inflation and unemployment? Of course the answer is yes-- so maybe the question we should be asking is how to puncture the evil media conglomerates (like the **AAs) to make sure the wealth from our nation's creative minds does not unduly concentrate wealth and power.
I say we are in danger of devaluing books, for instance, to the point of discouraging authors-- and harming our entire nation by stripping the value from music and movies simply because we want the money we pay to be distributed more fairly to the creators. We should not fight to keep online distribution free unless we also fight to create new systems of direct compensation to authors and not to middlemen.
But what about the harm to books and to the confidence of new authors happening RIGHT NOW.... what do we do BEFORE we have a system of direct compensation in place?
I know in our organization we could easily replace some of our 1500 servers with Linux where right now no matter how light the load or low priority the system is we dump W2K3 or 8 on it. We couldn't do it on all, but easily on some and nobody would even notice. The only thing that stops it is fear of the unknown.
DAMN this is true. Last place I worked they gave me specs and budget for a server that just couldn't be met with M$, so I quietly built a FreeBSD server. When they found out they were angry and in a panic, but when they saw how well and how trouble-free it was working, I got lots of belated praise. Fear of the unknown is it, alright... I had to use stealth. (Don't try this at work-- your job mileage may suddenly terminate.)
And what amount of public pressure will ever move the government to repudiate a treaty that serves the interests of the principal government campaign contributors?
If one follows the link in TFA to Michael Geist's interactive timeline, there's an element that leads to a short video of a debate in the Canadian Houses of Parliament-- one member says ACTA is a tool of US corporate interests and will lock millions of users out of the net; the government minister who responds says anything in ACTA is "subservient to the acts of this Parliament". What he DOESN'T say, and what the member is not sharp enough to pick up in the swift give-and-take of debate, is that *once the treaty is in place*, there is NO more subservience to *anything* (short of something on the order of a US Constitutional Amendment". This is the point: the people and even those of their representatives who want to derail this blindsiding juggernaut *will be able to do nothing* once the treaty is signed, and *saying the treaty is subject to US or Canadian law* is a pure, cynical smokescreen. An ounce of prevention here can accomplish what no amount of cure can fix. ACTA negotiations must be transparent. If we don't fight for that the corporate interests will do an end run around our rights.
... I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this. "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers." Really? REALLY?!?!?
Of course not. I know you're being ironic, but it should be pointed out *they have no one but consumers* to consume their "goods" at all. They still have to rent or sell their product to consumers even if consumers can stream or rip to heart's content. They will accept less revenue rather than forgo revenue completely. Certainly expect them to fight for as much revenue as they can as long as possible, but this argument about restricting the consumer's "enabling" them to provide more product is a canard, and in fact economically impossible for them.
This means on boot a checker runs from *inside the encrypted volume* to see if anything has changed. It should notice if the bootloader no longer checksums the same (so far as I understand).
Off the top of my head, some stories that have *lifted* the top off my head. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few of equal merit.
Startide Rising by David Brin Blood Music by Greg Bear Way Station by Clifford Simak Neuromancer by William Gibson All The Colors of Darkness by Lloyd Biggle, Jr. The Year of the Quiet Sun (short story, can't remember author) Time and Again by Jack Finney The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham The Space Merchants by Frederick Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth Any of the Nebula Award anthologies Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein Dune by Frank Herbert The Demolished Man (short story) by Alfred Bester The Moon Moth (short story) by Jack Vance Norstrilia by Cordwainer Smith A Planet Named Shayol (short story) by Cordwainer Smith The Double Shadow by Clark Ashton Smith The Color Out of Space, and The Call of Cthulhu, by H. P. Lovecraft Mars is Heaven (short story) by Ray Bradbury Animal Farm by George Orwell
(One note however - if using PostScript with a LaserJet 4 or 5 be sure to have enough printer memory or you'll have a few issues with the printer becoming overwhelmed).
Interestingly, when I replaced the memory module in my LaserJet 5MP I lost Postscript. Guess it was on the memory card. I get along well enough with PCL though, and the printing is WAY faster with the larger memory.
Companies like HP made a name in this market by charging a premium but providing good value for money. They didn't need to try to cut costs, because they could pass their costs on to the customer, and the customer would be happy because it meant less downtime.
This is so true re HP. I bought my LaserJet 5MP about 1994 for $700.00 (a lot in those days) and it has been completely trouble-free for 15 years. Replacement toner carts are as easy to get as the day it was made.
Wouldn't most people who would NEED a supercomputer be able to build one much more cheaply using a dozen workstations? It's hard to see how this SGI system might be sold (except perhaps as a replacement for an overburdened business-office server).
Fuck. Me. I sometimes wonder what it must be like to be a person with no moral fibre at all. I can't imagine it, must be weird.
My wife's a psychologist and we have discussed such people. The answer to what it's like to be one is depressingly simple. They have no morals to trouble them at all; no conscience, no guilt. They're happy as if they had ethics and compassion.
There are people who are simply not like us; just not the same.
I can't understand how the freedom of a business comes before the freedom of the people.
There is a quote attributed (perhaps erroneously) to Mussolini, but he is alleged to have said "FASCISM should more properly be called corporatism, because it combines the power of the business sector with the power of the state".
I do believe America is suffering now under a kind of corporatism. The term seems more accurate than capitalism. At least since we are also a democracy there may be hope.
I can't understand how the freedom of a business comes before the freedom of the people.
There is a quote attributed (perhaps erroneously) to Mussolini, but he is alleged to have said "Socialism should more properly be called corporatism, because it combines the power of the business sector with the power of the state".
I do believe America is suffering now under a kind of corporatism. The term seems more accurate than capitalism. At least since we are also a democracy there may be hope.
This is most likely a student helping his friends, not a commercial profit-driven entity. I would hope penalties would be minimal. This case is one that will be diverted short of a conviction upon a submission to sufficient facts-- then continued for dismissal at a later date. At least this is likely what would happen in my state (MA).
Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.
What's to prevent poisoning legal p2p? There are plenty of examples of copyrights being inappropriately asserted. The technology itself doesn't discriminate.
The article says the method works only on P2P networks that have adopted the authors' proprietary PAP protocol. That's not likely to be many of them.
IAAL but not a specialist in search-and-seizure. Nonetheless I think your post asks the right questions and makes the right points. The Constitution guarantees Americans freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Encyclopedias-full of cases have refined and honed this principle. We are similarly guaranteed freedom from the taking of our effects and papers except upon the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause. Probable cause also has an encyclopedia of cases saying what is and what isn't. The underlying idea is that unless there is credible evidence (another encyclopedia) of the commission of a crime, the sanctity of our persons and papers is assured to us. Credible evidence takes more than one prong of credibility: typically, as in the case of a search warrant, it takes two. For instance, a tip from an informant that has proven trustworthy in the past AND some corroborating evidence. (1. They're dealing drugs in that house, says the informant (who has pointed out drug dealers correctly before). 2. People come and go for short visits at all hours of the night and sometimes open a packet and snort on the doorstep on their way out. Under less innuendo than these two points, you can't be rousted.) You can't be rousted on the malicious and phony say-so of a neighbor, nor on the say-so of an informant who knows and dislikes you, without additional advance evidence. A warrant must state with specificity what is sought and what the basis for suspecting its presence. Police CANNOT, even with a warrant, conduct a "fishing expedition" to find evidence of some other crime (an exception being, obviously, if you pull out a gun and threaten them, which is a crime in itself).
This case seeks to preserve the principle of probable cause. If there was none for any of the items found on the laptop, it was correctly decided. Could another, better investigation with a better warrant have successfully seized and kept the laptop? Sure; for instance, if the school had complained about unlawful access to its computer system and identified the location of the IP. Now, we know that's not enough, and that's why the second prong (the roommate's statement that the defendant had hacked grades) would be enough for a bulletproof warrant. I don't think any judge would throw out the laptop's seizure given those corroborative points.
This article is really not news except to say the exclusionary rule is still alive and well and protecting you from the abuses of a police state.
Slashdot Mirror
You gotta admire Google. They are so endlessly, avidly proliferating themselves. If they ever turn evil we could be in a lot of trouble.
Oh geez, this is bad. If Firefox becomes more Google-dependent THERE GOES ADBLOCK and there goes the whole pleasant web experience. This may be more important than people realize.
Does the FBI own the rights to the image they're showing around? Aren't they violating copyright? Can't they be sued for millions in made up damages?
Nope, in the US you can use the image of a public figure for many purposes-- he's fair game. Of course, he might win a case of defamation if he could show generally that members of any significant group he's in actually *believed* he were Osama based on the picture.
His only recourse will be diplomatic.
...sperm superiority is so important to successfully passing on an organism's genes that the best sperm, the ones that "win" and partner in producing the zygote, carry along even detrimental traits, since the chromosome is taken as a whole. No wonder Nature works on improving sperm more than anything else. (Now cue the obligatory jokes about detrimental, or radical traits, all coming from the male.) (Actually, there is some truth in this, since the Y chromosome cannot swap out its defective or its suboptimal parts with its pair, since it hasn't one, which accounts for more idiots AND more geniuses among the male vs. the female population.)
Well, pilots of small aircraft (myself included) found it the best, cheapest nav choice prior to GPS. Dunno if it's worth having as a fallback in case GPS is degraded or taken offline or not. Maybe I'm just nostalgic because being able to navigate "Loran Direct" was so superior to flying from VOR to VOR.
Gee, I'm a lawyer and I'm nothing like that. Maybe you've met some from The Dark Side....
Almost every aspect of open source/creative commons etc. requires attribution, and even pirates don't bother removing credits. Your 'artistic ownership' goes nowhere.
However, his royalties may. Sooner or later we will have to consider, as a culture, what to do if established authors, and promising young authors, decide to abandon writing because too many freeloaders reduce author profits below subsistence. I'm not talking about the **AAs, I'm talking about individual authors who may have contracts with reputable publishing houses that do not insist on exploitive relationships. And what about the psychological deterrent to creativity? JK Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book in desperation on welfare. Might she have done so if she believed her work would be distributed freely without any compensation to her?
Do we want promising youths to avoid careers in writing because online distribution has hurt profitability? Would J.D. Salinger, John Updike, Norman Mailer have enriched our lives if they needed other jobs? And Robert Heinlein said that many of his stories were written "to buy groceries".
Without some requirement to pay for books, would enough people do so?
Since a large part of the US's trade brings our nation income from royalties on Hollywood movies, is it possible we need to make sure what we produce has value in the world market to improve our balance of trade and thereby reduce inflation and unemployment? Of course the answer is yes-- so maybe the question we should be asking is how to puncture the evil media conglomerates (like the **AAs) to make sure the wealth from our nation's creative minds does not unduly concentrate wealth and power.
I say we are in danger of devaluing books, for instance, to the point of discouraging authors-- and harming our entire nation by stripping the value from music and movies simply because we want the money we pay to be distributed more fairly to the creators. We should not fight to keep online distribution free unless we also fight to create new systems of direct compensation to authors and not to middlemen.
But what about the harm to books and to the confidence of new authors happening RIGHT NOW.... what do we do BEFORE we have a system of direct compensation in place?
I know in our organization we could easily replace some of our 1500 servers with Linux where right now no matter how light the load or low priority the system is we dump W2K3 or 8 on it. We couldn't do it on all, but easily on some and nobody would even notice. The only thing that stops it is fear of the unknown.
DAMN this is true. Last place I worked they gave me specs and budget for a server that just couldn't be met with M$, so I quietly built a FreeBSD server. When they found out they were angry and in a panic, but when they saw how well and how trouble-free it was working, I got lots of belated praise. Fear of the unknown is it, alright... I had to use stealth. (Don't try this at work-- your job mileage may suddenly terminate.)
And what amount of public pressure will ever move the government to repudiate a treaty that serves the interests of the principal government campaign contributors?
If one follows the link in TFA to Michael Geist's interactive timeline, there's an element that leads to a short video of a debate in the Canadian Houses of Parliament-- one member says ACTA is a tool of US corporate interests and will lock millions of users out of the net; the government minister who responds says anything in ACTA is "subservient to the acts of this Parliament". What he DOESN'T say, and what the member is not sharp enough to pick up in the swift give-and-take of debate, is that *once the treaty is in place*, there is NO more subservience to *anything* (short of something on the order of a US Constitutional Amendment". This is the point: the people and even those of their representatives who want to derail this blindsiding juggernaut *will be able to do nothing* once the treaty is signed, and *saying the treaty is subject to US or Canadian law* is a pure, cynical smokescreen. An ounce of prevention here can accomplish what no amount of cure can fix. ACTA negotiations must be transparent. If we don't fight for that the corporate interests will do an end run around our rights.
... I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this. "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers." Really? REALLY?!?!?
Of course not. I know you're being ironic, but it should be pointed out *they have no one but consumers* to consume their "goods" at all. They still have to rent or sell their product to consumers even if consumers can stream or rip to heart's content. They will accept less revenue rather than forgo revenue completely. Certainly expect them to fight for as much revenue as they can as long as possible, but this argument about restricting the consumer's "enabling" them to provide more product is a canard, and in fact economically impossible for them.
This means on boot a checker runs from *inside the encrypted volume* to see if anything has changed. It should notice if the bootloader no longer checksums the same (so far as I understand).
Off the top of my head, some stories that have *lifted* the top off my head. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few of equal merit.
Startide Rising by David Brin
Blood Music by Greg Bear
Way Station by Clifford Simak
Neuromancer by William Gibson
All The Colors of Darkness by Lloyd Biggle, Jr.
The Year of the Quiet Sun (short story, can't remember author)
Time and Again by Jack Finney
The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham
The Space Merchants by Frederick Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth
Any of the Nebula Award anthologies
Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein
Dune by Frank Herbert
The Demolished Man (short story) by Alfred Bester
The Moon Moth (short story) by Jack Vance
Norstrilia by Cordwainer Smith
A Planet Named Shayol (short story) by Cordwainer Smith
The Double Shadow by Clark Ashton Smith
The Color Out of Space, and The Call of Cthulhu, by H. P. Lovecraft
Mars is Heaven (short story) by Ray Bradbury
Animal Farm by George Orwell
Best wishes!
(One note however - if using PostScript with a LaserJet 4 or 5 be sure to have enough printer memory or you'll have a few issues with the printer becoming overwhelmed).
Interestingly, when I replaced the memory module in my LaserJet 5MP I lost Postscript. Guess it was on the memory card. I get along well enough with PCL though, and the printing is WAY faster with the larger memory.
Companies like HP made a name in this market by charging a premium but providing good value for money. They didn't need to try to cut costs, because they could pass their costs on to the customer, and the customer would be happy because it meant less downtime.
This is so true re HP. I bought my LaserJet 5MP about 1994 for $700.00 (a lot in those days) and it has been completely trouble-free for 15 years. Replacement toner carts are as easy to get as the day it was made.
Picture here: http://www.ubergizmo.com/tags/octane-3
Wouldn't most people who would NEED a supercomputer be able to build one much more cheaply using a dozen workstations? It's hard to see how this SGI system might be sold (except perhaps as a replacement for an overburdened business-office server).
Fuck. Me. I sometimes wonder what it must be like to be a person with no moral fibre at all. I can't imagine it, must be weird.
My wife's a psychologist and we have discussed such people. The answer to what it's like to be one is depressingly simple. They have no morals to trouble them at all; no conscience, no guilt. They're happy as if they had ethics and compassion.
There are people who are simply not like us; just not the same.
I can't understand how the freedom of a business comes before the freedom of the people.
There is a quote attributed (perhaps erroneously) to Mussolini, but he is alleged to have said "FASCISM should more properly be called corporatism, because it combines the power of the business sector with the power of the state".
I do believe America is suffering now under a kind of corporatism. The term seems more accurate than capitalism. At least since we are also a democracy there may be hope.
I can't understand how the freedom of a business comes before the freedom of the people.
There is a quote attributed (perhaps erroneously) to Mussolini, but he is alleged to have said "Socialism should more properly be called corporatism, because it combines the power of the business sector with the power of the state".
I do believe America is suffering now under a kind of corporatism. The term seems more accurate than capitalism. At least since we are also a democracy there may be hope.
This is most likely a student helping his friends, not a commercial profit-driven entity. I would hope penalties would be minimal. This case is one that will be diverted short of a conviction upon a submission to sufficient facts-- then continued for dismissal at a later date. At least this is likely what would happen in my state (MA).
Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.
Yeah, right.
The article says the method works only on P2P networks that have adopted the authors' proprietary PAP protocol. That's not likely to be many of them.
So, if someone was to take the prosecutor's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body, that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder?
Nope, necrophilia.
IAAL but not a specialist in search-and-seizure. Nonetheless I think your post asks the right questions and makes the right points. The Constitution guarantees Americans freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Encyclopedias-full of cases have refined and honed this principle. We are similarly guaranteed freedom from the taking of our effects and papers except upon the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause. Probable cause also has an encyclopedia of cases saying what is and what isn't. The underlying idea is that unless there is credible evidence (another encyclopedia) of the commission of a crime, the sanctity of our persons and papers is assured to us. Credible evidence takes more than one prong of credibility: typically, as in the case of a search warrant, it takes two. For instance, a tip from an informant that has proven trustworthy in the past AND some corroborating evidence. (1. They're dealing drugs in that house, says the informant (who has pointed out drug dealers correctly before). 2. People come and go for short visits at all hours of the night and sometimes open a packet and snort on the doorstep on their way out. Under less innuendo than these two points, you can't be rousted.) You can't be rousted on the malicious and phony say-so of a neighbor, nor on the say-so of an informant who knows and dislikes you, without additional advance evidence. A warrant must state with specificity what is sought and what the basis for suspecting its presence. Police CANNOT, even with a warrant, conduct a "fishing expedition" to find evidence of some other crime (an exception being, obviously, if you pull out a gun and threaten them, which is a crime in itself).
This case seeks to preserve the principle of probable cause. If there was none for any of the items found on the laptop, it was correctly decided. Could another, better investigation with a better warrant have successfully seized and kept the laptop? Sure; for instance, if the school had complained about unlawful access to its computer system and identified the location of the IP. Now, we know that's not enough, and that's why the second prong (the roommate's statement that the defendant had hacked grades) would be enough for a bulletproof warrant. I don't think any judge would throw out the laptop's seizure given those corroborative points.
This article is really not news except to say the exclusionary rule is still alive and well and protecting you from the abuses of a police state.