My Gigabyte motherboard has two BIOS flash chips. If an upgrade borks, I change a jumper and use the old. Included in there is the functionality to overwrite the borked flash with a working one. How hard would this be for some of these consoles?
There is nothing, anywhere in US law that mentions a jury of one's peers. Just a fair and impartial jury, as picked by the lawyers for both sides with guidance from a judge.
Actually, I agree with that completely. Unfortunately, across the human spectrum the earliest point that EVERYONE can agree a baby becomes a human person is birth. Where I fall and where others fall will almost never line up. So where should the LAW be drawn? Someone is going to pissed off no matter what. And now, no matter which side they fall on, they can have guns to overthrow the government when they disagree.
Actually, the right of a mother to not have the government's nose in her medical records and decisions was upheld 7-2. But don't let facts in the way of your argument.
But even if the GPL didn't say this, you'd still be wrong - because the GPL also says that you must *provide* the source. It does not say a request has to be made first.
Actually, it says you must OFFER TO PROVIDE the source. So, yes, they can make each user request a copy, i.e. through a form on a website. And before you cry foul about my interpretation, take a quick read (from ):
What does "written offer valid for any third party" mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If they send him the source tomorrow, and change one web page to include the offer and a request form, they are in the clear. And my interpretation would suggest that they could then ignore all emailed requests for source.
And reading this and their site, it seems that Minerva only distributes the middleware. From their main page: "iTVManager is a field proven solution for launching, operating and growing a profitable IPTV service. The TV user interface has all the latest HD and PVR features and runs on a variety of leading set-top boxes from ADB, Amino, Cisco/SA, Entone and Motorola." Would not it not be more correct to say that ADB, Amino, Cisco/SA, Entone, and Motorola would be the parties required to distribute the source since they are the ones who actually gave the binaries to the customer?
So you missed the three iterations of broken smb share mapping, including moving files resulting in lost data? You missed the endless reboots? You missed the filevault issues after upgrade?
Those are all a wee bit more major that UI issues, and a wee bit less major than "my Celeron system with base onboard graphics won't run Aero..."
UAC made standard what I did from the start. I had to runas to do ANYTHING at the system level. I couldn't even change screensaver as my daily user. Armed with that statement...yes. UAC was a UI change TO ME. And since the original and mine both dealt with one person's experience, it is exactly the same.
Vista was a 'fiasco'? where did that come from? I never had problems with Vista, bought soon after it came out and installed on a fairly new Dell. I've installed all the updates as soon as they came out, no problems encountered. Others have had issues with UI changes (Aero, UAC, Ribbon-like UI) but that would not merit the label "fiasco".
State law in Ohio. ID is required to cast a non-provisional ballot. By allowing you to cast a provisional, they aren't denying you a vote and therefore it is legal. Thus sayeth the courts.
Here's another example of how the slippery slope works. Maybe then you can see that it isn't as absurd as you would like to think.
1) Fair use exceptions and first-sale doctrine are written into copyright law 2) Recording companies and groups try to sue because betamax and vcr's would allow someone to time-shift or format-shift tv programs and skip commercials. Fair use allows them to be sold legally, to the betterment of many people's lives. 3) The DMCA is passed and makes it illegal to circumvent DRM or encryption of any type or in any format 4) You cannot legally time-shift or format-shift your media due to DRM (in this case, CSS on DVD) restrictions 5) The DMCA makes it illegal to strip the DRM and format-shift or even make an archival backup copy of your legally purchased DVDs 6) Your DVD is scratched and becomes unplayable. You are deprived of your legally purchased movie because you could not make a copy. 7) Your fair use rights are diminished because the "fear-addled fruitcakes" who warned of just such an occurrence before the DMCA was passed were not taken seriously
Do you get it yet? I don't live in daily fear, I just see where this is likely to lead and I don't like it. I'm hardly paralyzed and not at all hysterical.
Why is it that you can't seem to find anything even remotely logical to argue for your slippery slope?
I think the world would be better off without you.
By reading this comment you are agreeing to the following terms and conditions:
1) You are of legal age to view or read blatantly sarcastic and potentially offensive material
2) You aren't afraid to look more than one step towards the horizon regarding legal issues
3) You won't ignore the meat of an argument to nitpick one or two convenient facts because you have no way to refute the argument as a whole
Now that that is out of the way....
the only alarmism and fear here is coming from you. you honestly believe that if someone is convicted for a specific and extenuating circumstance like this, that all of a sudden they will throw people in jail for breaking a tos? alarmism, fear: yours, not anyone elses Do you really believe this? I can remember a time when suing commercial entities for copyright infringement by the RIAA and media cartels was seen as unlikely. Once that started, a few people asked if suing users would be next and the general answer was "No, that will never happen. No one would sue their customers."
Now look where we stand. People are being financially ruined because they were targeted. But let's take your line of thought. Those silly alarmists had nothing to worry about, did they?
So let's look at the point here. The FBI believes that maybe you have been purchasing supplies to grow marijuana and is looking for a reason to arrest you. They find out that you signed up on XYZ.com which requires that you give your real name, address, phone number, and birth date. With a simple subpoena, they find out that you used a fake birth date and phone number. If this Myspace case is successful, they have reason to charge you. Since you are already a target, they will have absolutely no qualms with charging you with unauthorized access to a computer system and push for 20 years in prison, all in the name of getting a plea bargain and another successful conviction at no unnecessary taxpayer expense.
Are you really so short-sighted that this couldn't happen? In fact, I would go one step further and ask if you are so fantastically STUPID that you believe this couldn't happen. It is the next logical step.
It is fairly common knowledge that prosecutors pile on multiple charges to increase the maximum possible sentence to encourage a plea (see 3 counts of unauthorized access to a computer system for a single incident and 1 count of conspiracy). Giving them another 20 possible years to add to any internet-related investigation has absolutely no positive benefits for anyone except the prosecutor who wants to railroad someone who can't afford a $500 an hour lawyer.
Because she isn't being charged for what happened, she is being charged for unauthorized access to a computer. They are trying to criminalize not following a site's TOS. Furthermore, they are selectively prosecuting on the grounds that people like you will take an alarmist view of what happened and convict on emotion rather than facts.
My logic is like this:
1) Someone signed up a fake myspace account
2) Someone sent fake messages pretending to be a boy interested in a girl
3) Someone started to be mean, supposedly because that Someone wanted the girl to forget the boy and end the charade
4) As a final comment, Someone told the girl that the world would be better without her
5) No criminal law on the books was violated as a result of this
6) To molify the "protect the children OMG" crowd, a very wrong interpretation of existing law is being used to make an, at best, civil action criminal
7) To make matter worse, the indicted person is NOT the Someone mentioned above
8) The general populace, you included, has been blinded by rage and is losing sight of the fact that actions which have for years been done to avoid spam or other unnecessary identification online are being criminalized all because a girl whose parents wouldn't get her help and who willfully ignored her mother's order to stay off the internet offed herself because she thought a boy dumped her
Is that clear enough for you? I'm not defending the,as you call them, evil actions. They suck. But using a hacking statute to prosecute because there exists no other law rather than fixing the legislation that does exist is reactionary and scary and most of all wrong. You are the one trying to justify it by bring "corrupting minors" into it, then changing the focus when I point out that no living minors were corrupted as it was adults involved. My point revolves solely around the prosecution of, at most, an accessory while the actual participant is forgiven and not charged.
If Ashley Grills had also been charged, I would be railing SOLELY on the law used. That isn't happening, though. So let's go back to your original question regarding a school shooting (great use of more reactionary crap to use your point).
if i have a son who buys a gun to kill someone, and threatens to shoot a bunch of kids at school, and then i find about this, and gleefully pick up the gun, help my son with the list of kids to murder, and shoot some of the kids myself, am i somehow less guilty than if i had arranged the school shooting all by myself without my son's involvement?
No, you are not less guilty. What you are neglecting in your analogy is this question: Should you be charged and your son NOT charged? since we all know that answer is no, it is not an apples to apples comparison and you are just using inflammatory, emotional arguments to try to make me look like an asshole.
I've probably done a great job of looking like an asshole on my own, just not for the reasons you've cited. And I've managed to do it without invoking school shootings and emotional "think of the children" pleas. Think you can work terrorism into your next response for the trifecta?
Perhaps you missed the part where Ashley Grills was an adult at the time? Why is the ADULT who 1) created the account 2) Sent the bulk of the messages 3) basically told the girl to kill herself getting off scot-free?
Have I driven the point home that it was an adult, but not Lori Drew? Do you understand that 18 is an adult and no amount of flowering her age changes that?
Further, 13 is old enough to be charged with murder as an adult. Since most states have made that decision, including Missouri [1], there was no child involved in the case at all.
If a 13 year-old offender can be charged as an adult, a 13 year-old victim should be considered an adult.
The terms of the TOS aren't the issue. The issue is that the feds are taking an agreement (in effect a contract) and trying to make a criminal offense out of violating it. That should be a civil matter completely, and nothing the FBI is even involved with.
If this flies and she is convicted, when I go to download some piece of crappy software and say that my name is Bob Roberts, my email is bob@bob.com, and I am over 50 making $350,000 a year, the feds will have precedent to charge me with unauthorized access to a computer system because I skewed some random company's marketing demographics and caused irreparable harm to their bottom line.
That is what is dangerous here. Violating a website's TOS should never be a criminal act.
Good points. Unfortunately, you are confused since Lori Drew didn't send the famous "the world would be better without you" message. In fact, she didn't: 1) create the account 2) send a majority of the messages 3) "tell" her to kill herself.
All of those were done by Ashley Grills, also an adult. Incidentally, the Meier family does NOT hold her responsible.... Fascinating, isn't it?
So actually, no good points. Charging the wrong person because of public pressure is never a good thing.
I'm glad someone else actually realizes this. Lori Drew did NOT send the "fateful" message and did not even actually create the account. Where are the charges against the rest of them?
Most major, and even many minor, colleges and universities have police forces with full arrest powers. Both on-campus and in surrounding cities/suburbs. If you only see them getting donuts or driving to the other side of campus, you really need to examine the state of public safety at your university.
I work at a branch campus of a fairly major university. We have 4 buildings and approximately 4000 full time students. There are always at least 2 police officers visible on campus. I can't believe that we are that unusual.
Slashdot Mirror
My Gigabyte motherboard has two BIOS flash chips. If an upgrade borks, I change a jumper and use the old. Included in there is the functionality to overwrite the borked flash with a working one. How hard would this be for some of these consoles?
There is nothing, anywhere in US law that mentions a jury of one's peers. Just a fair and impartial jury, as picked by the lawyers for both sides with guidance from a judge.
Actually, I agree with that completely. Unfortunately, across the human spectrum the earliest point that EVERYONE can agree a baby becomes a human person is birth. Where I fall and where others fall will almost never line up. So where should the LAW be drawn? Someone is going to pissed off no matter what. And now, no matter which side they fall on, they can have guns to overthrow the government when they disagree.
The text of the ruling is SEMANTICS? Wow...
Actually, the right of a mother to not have the government's nose in her medical records and decisions was upheld 7-2. But don't let facts in the way of your argument.
That almost sounds like intentionally breaking an API to freeze out a competitor...
Actually, it says you must OFFER TO PROVIDE the source. So, yes, they can make each user request a copy, i.e. through a form on a website. And before you cry foul about my interpretation, take a quick read (from ):
What does "written offer valid for any third party" mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If they send him the source tomorrow, and change one web page to include the offer and a request form, they are in the clear. And my interpretation would suggest that they could then ignore all emailed requests for source.
And reading this and their site, it seems that Minerva only distributes the middleware. From their main page: "iTVManager is a field proven solution for launching, operating and growing a profitable IPTV service. The TV user interface has all the latest HD and PVR features and runs on a variety of leading set-top boxes from ADB, Amino, Cisco/SA, Entone and Motorola." Would not it not be more correct to say that ADB, Amino, Cisco/SA, Entone, and Motorola would be the parties required to distribute the source since they are the ones who actually gave the binaries to the customer?
So you missed the three iterations of broken smb share mapping, including moving files resulting in lost data? You missed the endless reboots? You missed the filevault issues after upgrade?
Those are all a wee bit more major that UI issues, and a wee bit less major than "my Celeron system with base onboard graphics won't run Aero..."
UAC made standard what I did from the start. I had to runas to do ANYTHING at the system level. I couldn't even change screensaver as my daily user. Armed with that statement...yes. UAC was a UI change TO ME . And since the original and mine both dealt with one person's experience, it is exactly the same.
You want to talk about striking out in t-ball...
To me, it was a UI change. But I've always run as a limited user. It's as valid as "I had no problems with the upgrade so it is OK for everyone."
Vista was a 'fiasco'? where did that come from? I never had problems with Vista, bought soon after it came out and installed on a fairly new Dell. I've installed all the updates as soon as they came out, no problems encountered. Others have had issues with UI changes (Aero, UAC, Ribbon-like UI) but that would not merit the label "fiasco".
See where your logic fails?
State law in Ohio. ID is required to cast a non-provisional ballot. By allowing you to cast a provisional, they aren't denying you a vote and therefore it is legal. Thus sayeth the courts.
On Slashdot internet, thinking frees you.
Actually, I just mean that there is no free thinking here, just stupid cliched memes.
"Now that I'm about to graduate, I'm not sure exactly what the hell I'm supposed to do with this fancy piece of embossed paper. Please help me!!!"
Justice is a false construct, based on the belief that anything can make a wrong right.
Christ, I'm sick of having to explain everything to you. It's Friday. go home.
By that rationale, neither does justice. It doesn't exist. For any crime. Against anyone. Anywhere. So we should stop trying.
Here's another example of how the slippery slope works. Maybe then you can see that it isn't as absurd as you would like to think.
1) Fair use exceptions and first-sale doctrine are written into copyright law
2) Recording companies and groups try to sue because betamax and vcr's would allow someone to time-shift or format-shift tv programs and skip commercials. Fair use allows them to be sold legally, to the betterment of many people's lives.
3) The DMCA is passed and makes it illegal to circumvent DRM or encryption of any type or in any format
4) You cannot legally time-shift or format-shift your media due to DRM (in this case, CSS on DVD) restrictions
5) The DMCA makes it illegal to strip the DRM and format-shift or even make an archival backup copy of your legally purchased DVDs
6) Your DVD is scratched and becomes unplayable. You are deprived of your legally purchased movie because you could not make a copy.
7) Your fair use rights are diminished because the "fear-addled fruitcakes" who warned of just such an occurrence before the DMCA was passed were not taken seriously
Do you get it yet? I don't live in daily fear, I just see where this is likely to lead and I don't like it. I'm hardly paralyzed and not at all hysterical.
Why is it that you can't seem to find anything even remotely logical to argue for your slippery slope?
I think the world would be better off without you.
By reading this comment you are agreeing to the following terms and conditions:
1) You are of legal age to view or read blatantly sarcastic and potentially offensive material
2) You aren't afraid to look more than one step towards the horizon regarding legal issues
3) You won't ignore the meat of an argument to nitpick one or two convenient facts because you have no way to refute the argument as a whole
Now that that is out of the way....
the only alarmism and fear here is coming from you. you honestly believe that if someone is convicted for a specific and extenuating circumstance like this, that all of a sudden they will throw people in jail for breaking a tos? alarmism, fear: yours, not anyone elses Do you really believe this? I can remember a time when suing commercial entities for copyright infringement by the RIAA and media cartels was seen as unlikely. Once that started, a few people asked if suing users would be next and the general answer was "No, that will never happen. No one would sue their customers."Now look where we stand. People are being financially ruined because they were targeted. But let's take your line of thought. Those silly alarmists had nothing to worry about, did they?
So let's look at the point here. The FBI believes that maybe you have been purchasing supplies to grow marijuana and is looking for a reason to arrest you. They find out that you signed up on XYZ.com which requires that you give your real name, address, phone number, and birth date. With a simple subpoena, they find out that you used a fake birth date and phone number. If this Myspace case is successful, they have reason to charge you. Since you are already a target, they will have absolutely no qualms with charging you with unauthorized access to a computer system and push for 20 years in prison, all in the name of getting a plea bargain and another successful conviction at no unnecessary taxpayer expense.
Are you really so short-sighted that this couldn't happen? In fact, I would go one step further and ask if you are so fantastically STUPID that you believe this couldn't happen. It is the next logical step.
It is fairly common knowledge that prosecutors pile on multiple charges to increase the maximum possible sentence to encourage a plea (see 3 counts of unauthorized access to a computer system for a single incident and 1 count of conspiracy). Giving them another 20 possible years to add to any internet-related investigation has absolutely no positive benefits for anyone except the prosecutor who wants to railroad someone who can't afford a $500 an hour lawyer.
Because she isn't being charged for what happened, she is being charged for unauthorized access to a computer. They are trying to criminalize not following a site's TOS. Furthermore, they are selectively prosecuting on the grounds that people like you will take an alarmist view of what happened and convict on emotion rather than facts.
My logic is like this:
1) Someone signed up a fake myspace account
2) Someone sent fake messages pretending to be a boy interested in a girl
3) Someone started to be mean, supposedly because that Someone wanted the girl to forget the boy and end the charade
4) As a final comment, Someone told the girl that the world would be better without her
5) No criminal law on the books was violated as a result of this
6) To molify the "protect the children OMG" crowd, a very wrong interpretation of existing law is being used to make an, at best, civil action criminal
7) To make matter worse, the indicted person is NOT the Someone mentioned above
8) The general populace, you included, has been blinded by rage and is losing sight of the fact that actions which have for years been done to avoid spam or other unnecessary identification online are being criminalized all because a girl whose parents wouldn't get her help and who willfully ignored her mother's order to stay off the internet offed herself because she thought a boy dumped her
Is that clear enough for you? I'm not defending the,as you call them, evil actions. They suck. But using a hacking statute to prosecute because there exists no other law rather than fixing the legislation that does exist is reactionary and scary and most of all wrong. You are the one trying to justify it by bring "corrupting minors" into it, then changing the focus when I point out that no living minors were corrupted as it was adults involved. My point revolves solely around the prosecution of, at most, an accessory while the actual participant is forgiven and not charged.
If Ashley Grills had also been charged, I would be railing SOLELY on the law used. That isn't happening, though. So let's go back to your original question regarding a school shooting (great use of more reactionary crap to use your point).
No, you are not less guilty. What you are neglecting in your analogy is this question: Should you be charged and your son NOT charged? since we all know that answer is no, it is not an apples to apples comparison and you are just using inflammatory, emotional arguments to try to make me look like an asshole.I've probably done a great job of looking like an asshole on my own, just not for the reasons you've cited. And I've managed to do it without invoking school shootings and emotional "think of the children" pleas. Think you can work terrorism into your next response for the trifecta?
Perhaps you missed the part where Ashley Grills was an adult at the time? Why is the ADULT who 1) created the account 2) Sent the bulk of the messages 3) basically told the girl to kill herself getting off scot-free?
Have I driven the point home that it was an adult, but not Lori Drew? Do you understand that 18 is an adult and no amount of flowering her age changes that?
Further, 13 is old enough to be charged with murder as an adult. Since most states have made that decision, including Missouri [1], there was no child involved in the case at all.
If a 13 year-old offender can be charged as an adult, a 13 year-old victim should be considered an adult.
The terms of the TOS aren't the issue. The issue is that the feds are taking an agreement (in effect a contract) and trying to make a criminal offense out of violating it. That should be a civil matter completely, and nothing the FBI is even involved with.
If this flies and she is convicted, when I go to download some piece of crappy software and say that my name is Bob Roberts, my email is bob@bob.com, and I am over 50 making $350,000 a year, the feds will have precedent to charge me with unauthorized access to a computer system because I skewed some random company's marketing demographics and caused irreparable harm to their bottom line.
That is what is dangerous here. Violating a website's TOS should never be a criminal act.
Good points. Unfortunately, you are confused since Lori Drew didn't send the famous "the world would be better without you" message. In fact, she didn't:
1) create the account
2) send a majority of the messages
3) "tell" her to kill herself.
All of those were done by Ashley Grills, also an adult. Incidentally, the Meier family does NOT hold her responsible.... Fascinating, isn't it?
So actually, no good points. Charging the wrong person because of public pressure is never a good thing.
I'm glad someone else actually realizes this. Lori Drew did NOT send the "fateful" message and did not even actually create the account. Where are the charges against the rest of them?
My employer (a fairly major Big East university) auctions off all old equipment. It's a way to get that final .01% return on their investments.
Great place to pick up old servers though.
How about we play "credit the original source"? http://www.ubersite.com/m/29438
Most major, and even many minor, colleges and universities have police forces with full arrest powers. Both on-campus and in surrounding cities/suburbs. If you only see them getting donuts or driving to the other side of campus, you really need to examine the state of public safety at your university.
I work at a branch campus of a fairly major university. We have 4 buildings and approximately 4000 full time students. There are always at least 2 police officers visible on campus. I can't believe that we are that unusual.