Actually, about 100 years ago some people tried to do this; kind of a precedent to UCITA. They wanted to eliminate the sale of used books much as the software industry wants to eliminate the sale of used software. The lawsuit involved a major department store chain. I want to say Macys
Well, lets be fair. If you're going to judge the US on how wisely it uses its genetic technology you have to compare it to other societies who would have both the inclination and the ability to impliment such technology. A highly conservative or low tech society may decline to use a particular technology either for good OR evil. This societal choice shouldn't nessicarily be confused with wisdom. The question should be; which societies are better at using their technology for good while avoiding the negative consequences of the technology (whatever you believe those negative consequences are).
Is there any action that we can or should take? If this is a political issue, should we write our congresspeople?
Should we send a message to the mainstream media, appropriatly phrased for lay audiences. (people may not understand tech, but they understand theft, legal wrangling, censorship etc.)
In short, while this problem does require an immediate solution, what can we do to help change the system. I know of one online group, the center for democracy and technology, which may be sympathetic and could be helpful, but I'm not sure just what we should ask them to do. My impression is that their user base is less technicaly astute than slashdots ( and less likely to be obsessed by grits, thank god ).
Legaly, a publication can be held fully responsible for what it publishes. The question is whether Slashdot is a publication, or simply a medium like your telephone. ________________________________________________ ____________
I'm not sure whether the law shares your hatred of analogies. After all, most of the law is 'analogy based' in that it attempts to apply precedent established in one case to a similar one. So I think that analogies can be quite useful in supporting a certain view of how the law should be applied to this situation.
Of course, no one ever said that the American Legal system was based on logic.
Just curious, why do you think that people would be so worried if moderation was not anonymous? ______________________________________ ______________________
When all things aren't considered
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
Don't discount the amount of money that the video games industry is able to contribute to a problem. Their contributions towards 3d imaging were very helpful. I'm sure they'll play at least a supporting role in the development of pattern matching/recognition programs. After all, while chess is very complex ( I was undefeated in regional competition during H.S. ) it's important that computers be able to function in an environment where it isn't possible to calculate all possible moves. It's a different kind of thinking, and a type of thinking which is very important if a program is ever going to learn to interact with the real world. ________________________________________________ ____________
I realize that this article is about England, however the inability of lawmakers to apply basic consumer protection laws and civil rights to comptuer related issues always baffles and terrifies me. The fact that communication is now global makes this an American as well as a Brittish issue.
I hope that those of us living in America remember that part of the friggin bill of rights was protection from unlawful search and seizure, in response to Brittain's penchant for random searches. (if the colonists weren't hiding arms or looking at porn, why should they mind, right?)
Alright, imagine, just for one second, that someone was on trial for cracking into someone else's computer. They don't hurt anything. They just snoop around. The prosecution would invariably ask the jury not to be fooled into thinking that this person was innocent. "Imagine that someone broke into your house," the prosecuter would say " they snooped around but didn't break or steal anything. Would you say that this person was hadn't violated whoever owned the house?"
But invariably, this attitude is never applied to the government.
I don't know Brittish law, but I don't understand why nobody has tried to challenge at least some of the American electronic invasions of privacy as unlawfull search and seizure. (Yes, I realize that some things like cell phone calls are considered to be public).
I simply don't buy the argument that 'you're fine if you have nothing to hide'. This argument is bullshit for several reasons;
1. I'm willing to bet that most Americans, and even most government officials have at least one skeleton in their closet. Electronic evesdropping offers the potential for blackmail, and it does so unevenly. Inevitably those in power can use evesdropping to hurt those challenging their position, while their opponents have less potential to retaliate. Closer controls of evesdropping eliminates this potential for the unethical to prosper.
2. Ideas are valuable. It is perfectly legitamate for a company to have corporate secrets. Patents are less than completly effective. It's completly reasonable that a company, political campaign or any other organization would not want its internal conversations monitored. The potential for these conversations getting into the wrong hands is too great.
3. Privacy is important. While some voyers may like 24 hour survelance, most of us don't. As the internet becomes more and more a part of everyday life, this privacy is going to become more and more important. We don't have to justify the fact that a person who breaks into our house gets arrested. We don't have to justify the fact that we don't like being assaulted. Why do we have to justify the fact that many of us don't like to be monitored? Inevitably, a lack of privacy will be abused, and it will be abused in favor of those with more power, against those who have less.
In the future we will all speak Pearl. ________________________________________________ ____________
Re:Before you condemn, RTFB
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I went and read the bill on "self-help" which is the term used to describe remote disabling of software.
Actually, the bill directly contradicts what you said in your post.
While the software industry currently does not rely on remote repossession of software, innocently termed 'self-help' unders UCITA, sections 86 and 87 give conditions for the implementation of this very act.
God forbid that slashdotters should read a primary source indeed.
-5 disinformative.
7 (B) NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, ELECTRONIC 8 SELF-HELP IS PROHIBITED IN MASS-MARKET TRANSACTIONS.
9 (C) PRIOR TO CANCELLATION OF A LICENSE IN WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE 10 AGREED TO PERMIT THE USE OF ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP, THE LICENSOR SHALL 11 PROVIDE A LICENSEE WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE CLAIMED BREACH 12 GIVING RISE TO THE CANCELLATION AS PROVIDED IN 21-703 OF THIS TITLE.
13 (B) (D) ON CANCELLATION OF A LICENSE, ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP IS NOT 14 PERMITTED, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION.
15 (C) (E) IF THE PARTIES AGREE TO PERMIT ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP, A 16 LICENSEE SHALL SEPARATELY MANIFEST ASSENT TO A TERM AUTHORIZING USE OF 17 ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP. THE TERM MUST:
18 (1) PROVIDE FOR NOTICE OF EXERCISE AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION 19 (D) (F) OF THIS SECTION;
20 (2) STATE THE NAME OF THE PERSON DESIGNATED BY THE LICENSEE 21 TO WHICH NOTICE OF EXERCISE MUST BE GIVEN AND THE MANNER IN WHICH 22 NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN AND PLACE TO WHICH NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THAT 23 PERSON; AND
24 (3) PROVIDE A SIMPLE PROCEDURE FOR THE LICENSEE TO CHANGE THE 25 DESIGNATED PERSON OR PLACE.
26 (D) (F) BEFORE RESORTING TO ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP AUTHORIZED BY A 27 TERM OF THE LICENSE, THE LICENSOR SHALL GIVE NOTICE IN A RECORD TO THE 28 PERSON DESIGNATED BY THE LICENSEE STATING:
29 (1) THAT THE LICENSOR INTENDS TO RESORT TO ELECTRONIC 30 SELF-HELP AS A REMEDY ON OR AFTER 15 30 DAYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT BY THE 31 LICENSEE OF THE NOTICE;
32 (2) THE NATURE OF THE CLAIMED BREACH THAT ENTITLES THE 33 LICENSOR TO RESORT TO SELF-HELP; AND
34 (3) THE NAME, TITLE, AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING DIRECT TELEPHONE 35 NUMBER, FACSIMILE NUMBER, OR E-MAIL ADDRESS, TO WHICH THE LICENSEE MAY 36 COMMUNICATE CONCERNING THE CLAIMED BREACH.
87 HOUSE BILL 19
1 (E) (G) A LICENSEE MAY RECOVER DIRECT AND INCIDENTAL DAMAGES 2 CAUSED BY WRONGFUL USE OF ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP. THE LICENSEE MAY ALSO 3 RECOVER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL USE OF ELECTRONIC 4 SELF-HELP, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE DAMAGES ARE EXCLUDED BY THE TERMS OF 5 THE LICENSE, IF:
6 (1) WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (D)(1) (F)(1) OF THIS 7 SECTION, THE LICENSEE GIVES NOTICE TO THE LICENSOR'S DESIGNATED PERSON 8 DESCRIBING IN GOOD FAITH THE GENERAL NATURE AND MAGNITUDE OF DAMAGES;
9 (2) THE LICENSOR HAS REASON TO KNOW THE DAMAGES OF THE TYPE 10 DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (F) (H) OF THIS SECTION MAY RESULT FROM THE 11 WRONGFUL USE OF ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP; OR
12 (3) THE LICENSOR DOES NOT PROVIDE THE NOTICE REQUIRED IN 13 SUBSECTION (D) (F) OF THIS SECTION.
14 (F) (H) EVEN IF THE LICENSOR COMPLIES WITH SUBSECTIONS (C) (E) AND 15 (D) (F) OF THIS SECTION, ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP MAY NOT BE USED IF THE 16 LICENSOR HAS REASON TO KNOW THAT ITS USE WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL 17 INJURY OR HARM TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY OR GRAVE HARM TO THE 18 PUBLIC INTEREST SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTING THIRD PERSONS NOT INVOLVED IN 19 THE DISPUTE.
20 (G) (I) A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE SHALL GIVE 21 PROMPT CONSIDERATION TO A PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MAY ENJOIN, 22 TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY, THE LICENSOR FROM EXERCISING ELECTRONIC 23 SELF-HELP EVEN IF AUTHORIZED BY A LICENSE TERM OR ENJOIN THE LICENSEE 24 FROM MISAPPROPRIATION OR MISUSE OF COMPUTER INFORMATION, AS MAY BE 25 APPROPRIATE, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
26 (1) GRAVE HARM OF THE KINDS STATED IN SUBSECTION (F) (H) OF THIS 27 SECTION, OR THE THREAT THEREOF, WHETHER OR NOT THE LICENSOR HAS REASON 28 TO KNOW OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES;
29 (2) IRREPARABLE HARM OR THREAT OF IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE 30 LICENSEE OR LICENSOR;
31 (3) THAT THE PARTY SEEKING THE RELIEF IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT 32 TO SUCCEED UNDER ITS CLAIM WHEN IT IS FINALLY ADJUDICATED;
33 (4) THAT ALL OF THE CONDITIONS TO ENTITLE A PERSON TO THE 34 RELIEF UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE HAVE BEEN FULFILLED; AND
35 (5) THAT THE PARTY THAT MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IS 36 ADEQUATELY PROTECTED AGAINST LOSS, INCLUDING A LOSS BECAUSE OF 37 MISAPPROPRIATION OR MISUSE OF COMPUTER INFORMATION, THAT IT MAY SUFFER 38 BECAUSE THE RELIEF IS GRANTED UNDER THIS TITLE.
Computers are just too dang common for us to force someone not to use them. Hell, even convicted drunk drivers are only forbidden to drive after certain hours of the day so that they can still hold down a job. There's a very strong precedent in the American legal system of not letting the law prevent someone from using their skills to earn a living.
If someone signs a non-compete contract for example, the contract can actually be invalidated if it keeps someone from using their skills to earn a living.
What's next?
Someone found guilty of libel is forbidden to use any writing impliments?
Convicted prostitutes are forced to wear chastity belts?
A person who tries to run from the cops is forbidden to wear shoes?
Having used a Mavica myself, I agree that its awsome. Seems like most reviews tend to denigrate it. I guess the thing just evokes strong emotions. But besides the convenience of using floppy disks, you also don't have to go through the software hassle that most other cameras put you through. Simplicty is a definite advantage, and the movie option is cool. Personally, though, I'm waiting till they develop a digital camera that accepts zip disks. Anyone know if such a beast exists?
Most Americans (myself included) believe very strongly in the idea that no-one else should try and tell you how to live your life. The unfortunate consequence is that this makes it nearly impossible to prevent crimes through community outreach or to rehabilitate people once crimes are committed.
We feel that we need to 'do somthing' about Columbine, however in typical American style that 'action' is punative rather than rehabilitative.
It's like one of those tigers that you see pacing back and forth in their cages at the zoo. That pacing is charicteristic of an animal neurosis.
Imagine someone in a cage walking back and forth saying.
"I need to get free. I can't get free." "I need to get free. I can't get free." over and over.
That's America right now. This behavior will continue until we either
1. accept the status quo or
2. fundamentaly change our social responsibilites to one another so that things like Columbine don't happen.
Either choice will go against many things that Americans believe in.
The pinkertons were cops at the turn of the century who worked for the corporate giants and against the unions. The 'third wave' was a movie about a teacher who decides to show some kids just how naziism 'could have happened.' It singled out and ridiculed the top students in the class. Some of this seems like more than coincidence. But they have a web page, so it must be real.
Let me rephrase my question, with the assumption that a human brain's connection stregnths cannot be copied into a comptuer (a valid assumption since no-one's been able to do this yet). Human beings learn about their environment through feedback. If somthing is painful, you don't do it. If somthing is pleasurable you might be more likely to repeat the action. If you have an inherant desire for the consistent representation of a 'self' or any other desire, then you have a motivation to act and learn, and a basis for evaluating environmental feedback. For a computer to be able to learn, it will have to adopt standards of 'success' and 'failure' roughly analogous to emotions. Chances are, the primary source for these standards would be hardwired into the computer, although someone might design a computer which would transfer these motivations in the same way that pavlov's dogs salivated at a bell. Imagine for a moment that you didn't want anything. You didn't want to eat, sleep, learn, succeed experience sensation etc. Why would you ever do or learn anything? A computer will need to have some sort of construct to evaluate success or failure and to motivate it. Unlike humans, who have had such constructs developed over time through the process of evolution, computers will likely have different end purposes. If they didn't, you could have intellegent machines which might rape, steal, and work for microsoft. Since neural nets are going to be created before we can truly reverse engineer a specific human brain we need to consider just what primary motivations an 'intellegent' computer should have.
Here's a question that I've been wondering about a lot.
Since any neural net needs to be able to interpert feedback as a success, failure, or somthing in between in order to 'learn' what standards of success and failure (the machine equivalent of emotions) would we imbue our 'spiritual machines' with?
If you assume that everyone on slashdot has the same opinions, it's inevitable that your 'stereotypical slashdotter' will seem like a hypocrite since some of the opinions that you hear on slashdot will contradict one another.
Or it may just be that people on slashdot disagree with each other.
Look at it this way- what, specificaly, can you say about the abilities of a person who was 'certified' with a degree in music? Specificaly, what effect will increasing the stringentness of certification have on those certified? Of course any creative skill requires a 'toolkit' of mundane skills.
The purpose of certification, however, is the reduction of risk for the employer who hires a 'certified' employee to do a job.
If the task to be done requires creativity, however, then 'certification' may not reduce the employer's risks in hiring as much as some businessmen are led to believe.
I own ideas. All of them. Seriously though, I think that fines or other payments will be a lot more acceptable to any party in these disputes considering that money is what the corporations are after. Besides, the perpetrators(sp?) of these crimes tend to be fairly upper class. The mass imprisonment of college students and other 'valuable members of society' might look bad. And finally, to Jon Katz- I know that insulting you has become somthing of a slashdot tradition, and it's not one that I nessicarily want to join, but just a suggestion; If you spent more time thinking about your ideas and structuring them, your articles would be a lot shorter and clearer. Forcing your readers to organize the various elements of your writing is intellectual laziness on your part and unfair to your readers. Just a thought.
But is there an incentive for companies to move to states where UCITA has been passed? I would think it encourages companies to sell software in areas where UCITA has passed- somthing that they'll do anyways
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, about 100 years ago some people tried to do this; kind of a precedent to UCITA. They wanted to eliminate the sale of used books much as the software industry wants to eliminate the sale of used software. The lawsuit involved a major department store chain. I want to say Macys
There was one poet who patented herself ( I think It was a patent. Could have been a copyright.)
She claimed that she was a unique individual who had spent considerable time and effort 'inventing' herself.
If ya boot up that woman, by golly you're gonna marry her.
Well, lets be fair. If you're going to judge the US on how wisely it uses its genetic technology you have to compare it to other societies who would have both the inclination and the ability to impliment such technology. A highly conservative or low tech society may decline to use a particular technology either for good OR evil. This societal choice shouldn't nessicarily be confused with wisdom. The question should be; which societies are better at using their technology for good while avoiding the negative consequences of the technology (whatever you believe those negative consequences are).
Is there any action that we can or should take?
_ ____________
If this is a political issue, should we write our congresspeople?
Should we send a message to the mainstream media, appropriatly phrased for lay audiences. (people may not understand tech, but they understand theft, legal wrangling, censorship etc.)
In short, while this problem does require an immediate solution, what can we do to help change the system. I know of one online group, the center for democracy and technology, which may be sympathetic and could be helpful, but I'm not sure just what we should ask them to do. My impression is that their user base is less technicaly astute than slashdots ( and less likely to be obsessed by grits, thank god ).
_______________________________________________
Legaly, a publication can be held fully responsible for what it publishes. The question is whether Slashdot is a publication, or simply a medium like your telephone._ ____________
_______________________________________________
I'm not sure whether the law shares your hatred of analogies. After all, most of the law is 'analogy based' in that it attempts to apply precedent established in one case to a similar one. So I think that analogies can be quite useful in supporting a certain view of how the law should be applied to this situation.
_ ____________
Of course, no one ever said that the American Legal system was based on logic.
_______________________________________________
Just curious, why do you think that people would be so worried if moderation was not anonymous?_ ______________________
_____________________________________
Don't discount the amount of money that the video games industry is able to contribute to a problem. Their contributions towards 3d imaging were very helpful. I'm sure they'll play at least a supporting role in the development of pattern matching/recognition programs. After all, while chess is very complex ( I was undefeated in regional competition during H.S. ) it's important that computers be able to function in an environment where it isn't possible to calculate all possible moves. It's a different kind of thinking, and a type of thinking which is very important if a program is ever going to learn to interact with the real world._ ____________
_______________________________________________
I realize that this article is about England, however the inability of lawmakers to apply basic consumer protection laws and civil rights to comptuer related issues always baffles and terrifies me. The fact that communication is now global makes this an American as well as a Brittish issue.
_ ____________
I hope that those of us living in America remember that part of the friggin bill of rights was protection from unlawful search and seizure, in response to Brittain's penchant for random searches. (if the colonists weren't hiding arms or looking at porn, why should they mind, right?)
Alright, imagine, just for one second, that someone was on trial for cracking into someone else's computer. They don't hurt anything. They just snoop around. The prosecution would invariably ask the jury not to be fooled into thinking that this person was innocent. "Imagine that someone broke into your house," the prosecuter would say " they snooped around but didn't break or steal anything. Would you say that this person was hadn't violated whoever owned the house?"
But invariably, this attitude is never applied to the government.
I don't know Brittish law, but I don't understand why nobody has tried to challenge at least some of the American electronic invasions of privacy as unlawfull search and seizure. (Yes, I realize that some things like cell phone calls are considered to be public).
I simply don't buy the argument that 'you're fine if you have nothing to hide'. This argument is bullshit for several reasons;
1. I'm willing to bet that most Americans, and even most government officials have at least one skeleton in their closet. Electronic evesdropping offers the potential for blackmail, and it does so unevenly. Inevitably those in power can use evesdropping to hurt those challenging their position, while their opponents have less potential to retaliate. Closer controls of evesdropping eliminates this potential for the unethical to prosper.
2. Ideas are valuable. It is perfectly legitamate for a company to have corporate secrets. Patents are less than completly effective. It's completly reasonable that a company, political campaign or any other organization would not want its internal conversations monitored. The potential for these conversations getting into the wrong hands is too great.
3. Privacy is important. While some voyers may like 24 hour survelance, most of us don't. As the internet becomes more and more a part of everyday life, this privacy is going to become more and more important. We don't have to justify the fact that a person who breaks into our house gets arrested. We don't have to justify the fact that we don't like being assaulted. Why do we have to justify the fact that many of us don't like to be monitored? Inevitably, a lack of privacy will be abused, and it will be abused in favor of those with more power, against those who have less.
_______________________________________________
In the future we will all speak Pearl._ ____________
_______________________________________________
Okay, I went and read the bill on "self-help" which is the term used to describe remote disabling of software.
_ ____________
Actually, the bill directly contradicts what you said in your post.
While the software industry currently does not rely on remote repossession of software, innocently termed 'self-help' unders UCITA, sections 86 and 87 give conditions for the implementation of this very act.
God forbid that slashdotters should read a primary source indeed.
-5 disinformative.
7 (B) NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, ELECTRONIC
8 SELF-HELP IS PROHIBITED IN MASS-MARKET TRANSACTIONS.
9 (C) PRIOR TO CANCELLATION OF A LICENSE IN WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE
10 AGREED TO PERMIT THE USE OF ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP, THE LICENSOR SHALL
11 PROVIDE A LICENSEE WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE CLAIMED BREACH
12 GIVING RISE TO THE CANCELLATION AS PROVIDED IN 21-703 OF THIS TITLE.
13 (B) (D) ON CANCELLATION OF A LICENSE, ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP IS NOT
14 PERMITTED, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION.
15 (C) (E) IF THE PARTIES AGREE TO PERMIT ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP, A
16 LICENSEE SHALL SEPARATELY MANIFEST ASSENT TO A TERM AUTHORIZING USE OF
17 ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP. THE TERM MUST:
18 (1) PROVIDE FOR NOTICE OF EXERCISE AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION
19 (D) (F) OF THIS SECTION;
20 (2) STATE THE NAME OF THE PERSON DESIGNATED BY THE LICENSEE
21 TO WHICH NOTICE OF EXERCISE MUST BE GIVEN AND THE MANNER IN WHICH
22 NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN AND PLACE TO WHICH NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THAT
23 PERSON; AND
24 (3) PROVIDE A SIMPLE PROCEDURE FOR THE LICENSEE TO CHANGE THE
25 DESIGNATED PERSON OR PLACE.
26 (D) (F) BEFORE RESORTING TO ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP AUTHORIZED BY A
27 TERM OF THE LICENSE, THE LICENSOR SHALL GIVE NOTICE IN A RECORD TO THE
28 PERSON DESIGNATED BY THE LICENSEE STATING:
29 (1) THAT THE LICENSOR INTENDS TO RESORT TO ELECTRONIC
30 SELF-HELP AS A REMEDY ON OR AFTER 15 30 DAYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT BY THE
31 LICENSEE OF THE NOTICE;
32 (2) THE NATURE OF THE CLAIMED BREACH THAT ENTITLES THE
33 LICENSOR TO RESORT TO SELF-HELP; AND
34 (3) THE NAME, TITLE, AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING DIRECT TELEPHONE
35 NUMBER, FACSIMILE NUMBER, OR E-MAIL ADDRESS, TO WHICH THE LICENSEE MAY
36 COMMUNICATE CONCERNING THE CLAIMED BREACH.
87 HOUSE BILL 19
1 (E) (G) A LICENSEE MAY RECOVER DIRECT AND INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
2 CAUSED BY WRONGFUL USE OF ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP. THE LICENSEE MAY ALSO
3 RECOVER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL USE OF ELECTRONIC
4 SELF-HELP, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE DAMAGES ARE EXCLUDED BY THE TERMS OF
5 THE LICENSE, IF:
6 (1) WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (D)(1) (F)(1) OF THIS
7 SECTION, THE LICENSEE GIVES NOTICE TO THE LICENSOR'S DESIGNATED PERSON
8 DESCRIBING IN GOOD FAITH THE GENERAL NATURE AND MAGNITUDE OF DAMAGES;
9 (2) THE LICENSOR HAS REASON TO KNOW THE DAMAGES OF THE TYPE
10 DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (F) (H) OF THIS SECTION MAY RESULT FROM THE
11 WRONGFUL USE OF ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP; OR
12 (3) THE LICENSOR DOES NOT PROVIDE THE NOTICE REQUIRED IN
13 SUBSECTION (D) (F) OF THIS SECTION.
14 (F) (H) EVEN IF THE LICENSOR COMPLIES WITH SUBSECTIONS (C) (E) AND
15 (D) (F) OF THIS SECTION, ELECTRONIC SELF-HELP MAY NOT BE USED IF THE
16 LICENSOR HAS REASON TO KNOW THAT ITS USE WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL
17 INJURY OR HARM TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY OR GRAVE HARM TO THE
18 PUBLIC INTEREST SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTING THIRD PERSONS NOT INVOLVED IN
19 THE DISPUTE.
20 (G) (I) A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE SHALL GIVE
21 PROMPT CONSIDERATION TO A PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MAY ENJOIN,
22 TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY, THE LICENSOR FROM EXERCISING ELECTRONIC
23 SELF-HELP EVEN IF AUTHORIZED BY A LICENSE TERM OR ENJOIN THE LICENSEE
24 FROM MISAPPROPRIATION OR MISUSE OF COMPUTER INFORMATION, AS MAY BE
25 APPROPRIATE, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
26 (1) GRAVE HARM OF THE KINDS STATED IN SUBSECTION (F) (H) OF THIS
27 SECTION, OR THE THREAT THEREOF, WHETHER OR NOT THE LICENSOR HAS REASON
28 TO KNOW OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES;
29 (2) IRREPARABLE HARM OR THREAT OF IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE
30 LICENSEE OR LICENSOR;
31 (3) THAT THE PARTY SEEKING THE RELIEF IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT
32 TO SUCCEED UNDER ITS CLAIM WHEN IT IS FINALLY ADJUDICATED;
33 (4) THAT ALL OF THE CONDITIONS TO ENTITLE A PERSON TO THE
34 RELIEF UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE HAVE BEEN FULFILLED; AND
35 (5) THAT THE PARTY THAT MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IS
36 ADEQUATELY PROTECTED AGAINST LOSS, INCLUDING A LOSS BECAUSE OF
37 MISAPPROPRIATION OR MISUSE OF COMPUTER INFORMATION, THAT IT MAY SUFFER
38 BECAUSE THE RELIEF IS GRANTED UNDER THIS TITLE.
_______________________________________________
UCITA is enacted as State Law.
_ ____________
There are no specifically "UCITA bound comapanies", just states where UCITA has been enacted.
State legislatures often miss the fact that UCITA screws customers in their state without improving the economy of that state.
_______________________________________________
Computers are just too dang common for us to force someone not to use them. Hell, even convicted drunk drivers are only forbidden to drive after certain hours of the day so that they can still hold down a job. There's a very strong precedent in the American legal system of not letting the law prevent someone from using their skills to earn a living.
_ ____________
If someone signs a non-compete contract for example, the contract can actually be invalidated if it keeps someone from using their skills to earn a living.
What's next?
Someone found guilty of libel is forbidden to use any writing impliments?
Convicted prostitutes are forced to wear chastity belts?
A person who tries to run from the cops is forbidden to wear shoes?
Jon Katz is forbidden to post on slashdot?
We can only hope.
_______________________________________________
Having used a Mavica myself, I agree that its awsome. Seems like most reviews tend to denigrate it. I guess the thing just evokes strong emotions.
But besides the convenience of using floppy disks, you also don't have to go through the software hassle that most other cameras put you through. Simplicty is a definite advantage, and the movie option is cool. Personally, though, I'm waiting till they develop a digital camera that accepts zip disks. Anyone know if such a beast exists?
Imagine Bill Gates being replaced by Juan Valdez.
Windows- for that painfully slow brewed taste.
Most Americans (myself included) believe very strongly in the idea that no-one else should try and tell you how to live your life. The unfortunate consequence is that this makes it nearly impossible to prevent crimes through community outreach or to rehabilitate people once crimes are committed.
We feel that we need to 'do somthing' about Columbine, however in typical American style that 'action' is punative rather than rehabilitative.
It's like one of those tigers that you see pacing back and forth in their cages at the zoo. That pacing is charicteristic of an animal neurosis.
Imagine someone in a cage walking back and forth saying.
"I need to get free. I can't get free."
"I need to get free. I can't get free."
over and over.
That's America right now. This behavior will continue until we either
1. accept the status quo or
2. fundamentaly change our social responsibilites to one another so that things like Columbine don't happen.
Either choice will go against many things that Americans believe in.
The pinkertons were cops at the turn of the century who worked for the corporate giants and against the unions. The 'third wave' was a movie about a teacher who decides to show some kids just how naziism 'could have happened.' It singled out and ridiculed the top students in the class. Some of this seems like more than coincidence. But they have a web page, so it must be real.
Let me rephrase my question, with the assumption that a human brain's connection stregnths cannot be copied into a comptuer (a valid assumption since no-one's been able to do this yet). Human beings learn about their environment through feedback. If somthing is painful, you don't do it. If somthing is pleasurable you might be more likely to repeat the action. If you have an inherant desire for the consistent representation of a 'self' or any other desire, then you have a motivation to act and learn, and a basis for evaluating environmental feedback. For a computer to be able to learn, it will have to adopt standards of 'success' and 'failure' roughly analogous to emotions. Chances are, the primary source for these standards would be hardwired into the computer, although someone might design a computer which would transfer these motivations in the same way that pavlov's dogs salivated at a bell. Imagine for a moment that you didn't want anything. You didn't want to eat, sleep, learn, succeed experience sensation etc. Why would you ever do or learn anything? A computer will need to have some sort of construct to evaluate success or failure and to motivate it. Unlike humans, who have had such constructs developed over time through the process of evolution, computers will likely have different end purposes. If they didn't, you could have intellegent machines which might rape, steal, and work for microsoft. Since neural nets are going to be created before we can truly reverse engineer a specific human brain we need to consider just what primary motivations an 'intellegent' computer should have.
Here's a question that I've been wondering about a lot.
_ __
Since any neural net needs to be able to interpert feedback as a success, failure, or somthing in between in order to 'learn' what standards of success and failure (the machine equivalent of emotions) would we imbue our 'spiritual machines' with?
_______________________________________________
Hey watch the stereotyping.
If you assume that everyone on slashdot has the same opinions, it's inevitable that your 'stereotypical slashdotter' will seem like a hypocrite since some of the opinions that you hear on slashdot will contradict one another.
Or it may just be that people on slashdot disagree with each other.
Of course your mass increases as you near the speed of light.
If somthing travels at the speed of light, it is not affected by time.
Light travels at the speed of light....
Therefore light does not travel through time.
Ha! Think about that!
Actually, this goes a long way to explain quantum mechanics.
IANAQM (I am not a quantum mechanic)
:p
Look at it this way- what, specificaly, can you say about the abilities of a person who was 'certified' with a degree in music? Specificaly, what effect will increasing the stringentness of certification have on those certified? Of course any creative skill requires a 'toolkit' of mundane skills.
The purpose of certification, however, is the reduction of risk for the employer who hires a 'certified' employee to do a job.
If the task to be done requires creativity, however, then 'certification' may not reduce the employer's risks in hiring as much as some businessmen are led to believe.
I own ideas. All of them. Seriously though, I think that fines or other payments will be a lot more acceptable to any party in these disputes considering that money is what the corporations are after. Besides, the perpetrators(sp?) of these crimes tend to be fairly upper class. The mass imprisonment of college students and other 'valuable members of society' might look bad. And finally, to Jon Katz- I know that insulting you has become somthing of a slashdot tradition, and it's not one that I nessicarily want to join, but just a suggestion; If you spent more time thinking about your ideas and structuring them, your articles would be a lot shorter and clearer. Forcing your readers to organize the various elements of your writing is intellectual laziness on your part and unfair to your readers. Just a thought.
But is there an incentive for companies to move to states where UCITA has been passed? I would think it encourages companies to sell software in areas where UCITA has passed- somthing that they'll do anyways