Perhaps they meant "interesting". In the same way that "momentarily" is used when "imminently" is meant. (Yeah, I want the play to land momentarily, alright. The pilot needs more touch-and-gos!)
Or perhaps they did mean "insightful", in that you seem to have read something useful about statistics as applied to sample size despite not having made reference to anything other than the original article on the study.
But then, RTFA is always good for +1 (something).:)
Popular sentiment aside, some parts of the DMCA (the safe harbor provisions) could be seen even by slashdot trolls as beneficial.
The fact that a process to create new exemptions to the anti-cirumvention provisions shows at at least a modicum of sense was used in making the bill. At some point in the process, anyway.
Ah, but what they HAVE done is require a reply, and a decision on the motion, all the while the motion to compel is stalled.
While it requires time on Prof. Nesson's part (and that of his students?) - and time is still not completely free for him - it'd be yet more expensive for someone who had to hire representation.
I'm sure we have never seen such tactics used before by the RIAA, have we now?:)
Any Employer who fires somone on such basis should also be forced to rehire the individual if the individual so desires as well as paying a hefty fine.
And the public themselves. Guy working at the day care place gets accused of kiddie porn? "I'm pullin' my kid out, if they guy stays there." What choices does the employer have? "It may or may not be your fault, but you're bad for business."
Once you have started down the dark side, forever will it dominate your destiny...
Thank you for pointing out that those actions are legal now. As well, thank you for describing those actions in more than fits in a sound bite.
It may well be that they WERE acting illegally, knowingly, because they had to to carry out their duties. It seems likely.
The whole telecom immunity thing is an attempt to paper over just this sort of thing.
But the correct answer is "make it legal for us to do this", not "let's do it anyway". Finding out IF and WHY "let's do it anyway" happens is not to be casually dismissed.
"Go back and prosecute"? Maybe, maybe not. "Go back and investigate"? Certainly.
> They missed the Russian army marching into Afghanistan.... They didn't tell us peons. Doesn't mean that people in power didn't know it was going to happen (or likely to happen). In fact, I'm pretty sure that satellite surveillance picked up troop movements early enough.
> ten people who read Arabic at the FBI
You might be right there. But perhaps they're over at the CIA, where EXTERNAL intelligence is handled. Do try to keep up with the acronyms.
> So wouldn't it be better to spend 100 billion a year on securing our ports and borders, rather than hiring agents who...
Ah, perhaps you've got an economic recovery plan there... build a Maginot Line and hope that the ebil furriners don't, say, come in by airplane... not having been suspected as evil because we stopped paying agents to look for such people.
> If you lose important freedoms to have a small chance at security, there's nothing left to defend.
Odd... I would have thought your "let's build a wall" (of security posts around our borders) would have been another chunk of that "losing important freedoms".
When I heard that TR was closing up shop and setting the servers on "free play" until they shut them down, I thought I'd go look at the official web page.
Now, I may just be a spelling Nazi, but... I really think that having a web site up for a year is plenty long enough to go through it with a spellchecker and take out the obvious spelling errors. I ran into more than a few, looking at class descriptions.
And for those knee-jerk, "Y do U care? Spellang ain't important! ur a noob!" people, I'll point out once again that when a text interface is how you communicate with someone, spelling is how you put yourself across. Ignore it at your peril.
> Besides, how can one accept the click-thru EULA prior to downloading?
Sounds a lot like UCITA, trying to legitimize contracts that you 'agree to' by breaking the shrink-wrap on a box.
I confess, the posted article does sound like the company is charging for a 'subscription to OpenOffice 3.0', rather than the downloading service I originally thought. If so, then the 'return within 14 days' might well apply.
But to take advantage of that, you would probably want to have whatever the German equivalent of a notary public come in and witness your removal, "effecting your return of the product", to provide argument if the opportunists decide to resort to the courts.... Assuming that window hasn't already expired.
The problem is that the 'product' purchased is 'ability to download from our site'.
Openoffice being GPL, they aren't selling the *software*, they're selling the *download*. Uninstalling the software doesn't negate the download service 'purchased'.... in the same way that you can't return a package to the sender for a refund of the UPS fees.
> In any case, the outrage over this article is completely misplaced. RTFA -- they aren't requesting any information beyond that which is already requested on the paper forms you fill out in-flight. It seems to me that filling them out online 72 hours in advance isn't particularly burdensome.
The difference being, I guess, that if the government is going to deny your visa-less entry, you don't now spend your time flying back home.
> Because we don't need to. The botnet software is readily detectable. Simple solution: require ISPs to warn users if their machines are found to be infected and, if no action is taken (ie. not cleaned up and the user doesn't contact the ISP to discuss it) in a reasonable timeframe, suspend their network access.
Just as not all users are willing to ensure their computers remain bot-free, so also are there ISPs that don't care. "Requiring" them only works when you have jurisdiction over them. And as with ISPs, so also with governments. You do know that self interest would (and often already does) dictate these actions you suggest?
And just for drill, what ARE the unique and unambiguous signs that differentiate botnet software from, say, someone running IRC and listserv software, when viewed from the upstream network side?
I remember commuting from Battle Ground to Tigard. I know what you're talking about.
But that was 10+ years ago. C-tran offers even less routes out to Battle Ground, and the area has more population. On the plus side, the buses I took were most often full, being specifically commuter runs.
> cars...[are] always slower and more fragile than pedestrian cycling transport for the shortest most common trips that people take
Your mileage may vary. Cycling to the corner store depends on you being able to ride a bike. And there are a lot of reasons you might not be able to ride a bike, but could drive a car. Physical fitness (including age) for one. Distance to the 'corner store' for another. Amount of groceries you pick up for a third.
I bike to work. The store is 'only' a mile away. But I could indeed get there faster in a car.... Most times.
>> Even the best encryption will eventually fall to a determined enough adversary with enough resources to throw at the problem.
>No, actually that's not a certainty. > In order for what you said to be true there would have to be fundamental weaknesses in ever cryptographical scheme ever conceived, now or in the future.
You forget, perhaps, that there in fact ARE fundamental weaknesses in cryptographic schemes - now and in the future. The ones with fingers and eyeballs.
You also throw theoretical arguments back against a theoretical statement. If I have infinite resources, the heat death of the universe is not an obstacle. In fact, if I have infinite resources, I could recreate the author of the encrypted data and his entire life.... But that's a different argument, for another post.
Hmm... infinite key length... infinite resources... what a challenge. Maybe I'll create an entire planet with millions of self replicating processors devoted to solving the problem. I'll need a management layer, too, to ensure the distributed decrypting doesn't run awry. Hmm... How about white mice?
> One myth is that this act will eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing. That is NOT true. The employees will still be able to request that a secret ballot election be held.
Honest question for you. By law, are/will the people being petitioned to unionize told about the possibility of a secret ballot? Or does it require mystic foresight (or prior experience) to learn about it?
If you don't know something is possible, it is much less likely you'll ever think to ask about it. A union trying to make inroads thus has incentive not to mention it unless required.
Unions may be good overall. But trust is for suckers. As true of company management as it is of union management. Or government in general.
> The government has no business telling private citizens what they can earn. Of course! Repeal minimum wage laws! How simple!
> The public SHOULD demand that there be a limit on the financial rewards for serving. Have you looked at what the official salaries are for your state representatives? I recommend you do. They're startlingly low. So who can afford to BE in office? The rich, and those on the take. Anyone else, can't afford to either a) move to the capital, then move back, or b) keep a second residence. And that's assuming they can get elected....
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps they meant "interesting". In the same way that "momentarily" is used when "imminently" is meant. (Yeah, I want the play to land momentarily, alright. The pilot needs more touch-and-gos!)
Or perhaps they did mean "insightful", in that you seem to have read something useful about statistics as applied to sample size despite not having made reference to anything other than the original article on the study.
But then, RTFA is always good for +1 (something). :)
Popular sentiment aside, some parts of the DMCA (the safe harbor provisions) could be seen even by slashdot trolls as beneficial.
The fact that a process to create new exemptions to the anti-cirumvention provisions shows at at least a modicum of sense was used in making the bill. At some point in the process, anyway.
> ... pot does make you think incoherent stuff at times ... the UK government ... incoherent policies.
So the UK government, collectively smokes pot?
Ah, but what they HAVE done is require a reply, and a decision on the motion, all the while the motion to compel is stalled.
While it requires time on Prof. Nesson's part (and that of his students?) - and time is still not completely free for him - it'd be yet more expensive for someone who had to hire representation.
I'm sure we have never seen such tactics used before by the RIAA, have we now? :)
Any Employer who fires somone on such basis should also be forced to rehire the individual if the individual so desires as well as paying a hefty fine.
And the public themselves. Guy working at the day care place gets accused of kiddie porn? "I'm pullin' my kid out, if they guy stays there." What choices does the employer have? "It may or may not be your fault, but you're bad for business."
Once you have started down the dark side, forever will it dominate your destiny...
Thank you for pointing out that those actions are legal now. As well, thank you for describing those actions in more than fits in a sound bite.
It may well be that they WERE acting illegally, knowingly, because they had to to carry out their duties. It seems likely.
The whole telecom immunity thing is an attempt to paper over just this sort of thing.
But the correct answer is "make it legal for us to do this", not "let's do it anyway". Finding out IF and WHY "let's do it anyway" happens is not to be casually dismissed.
"Go back and prosecute"? Maybe, maybe not. "Go back and investigate"? Certainly.
> They missed the Russian army marching into Afghanistan. ... They didn't tell us peons. Doesn't mean that people in power didn't know it was going to happen (or likely to happen). In fact, I'm pretty sure that satellite surveillance picked up troop movements early enough.
> ten people who read Arabic at the FBI
You might be right there. But perhaps they're over at the CIA, where EXTERNAL intelligence is handled. Do try to keep up with the acronyms.
> So wouldn't it be better to spend 100 billion a year on securing our ports and borders, rather than hiring agents who ...
Ah, perhaps you've got an economic recovery plan there... build a Maginot Line and hope that the ebil furriners don't, say, come in by airplane... not having been suspected as evil because we stopped paying agents to look for such people.
> If you lose important freedoms to have a small chance at security, there's nothing left to defend.
Odd... I would have thought your "let's build a wall" (of security posts around our borders) would have been another chunk of that "losing important freedoms".
> I also wonder what it's called when you "blow the whistle" on legal activity...?
Lunch.
And hey, I can track the price trends on Male Performance Enhancers!
And just how long has that money REALLY been sitting in that Nigerian guy's estate, anyway?
5 - 1 = 4
infinity - 1 = infinity
Or perhaps you'd prefer:
Sand gets between your toes.
Beaches are made of sand.
Therefore it can be concluded that beaches get between your toes.
You, sir, have very big toes, if that is the case, or your beaches are very small indeed.
When I heard that TR was closing up shop and setting the servers on "free play" until they shut them down, I thought I'd go look at the official web page.
Now, I may just be a spelling Nazi, but... I really think that having a web site up for a year is plenty long enough to go through it with a spellchecker and take out the obvious spelling errors. I ran into more than a few, looking at class descriptions.
And for those knee-jerk, "Y do U care? Spellang ain't important! ur a noob!" people, I'll point out once again that when a text interface is how you communicate with someone, spelling is how you put yourself across. Ignore it at your peril.
> Besides, how can one accept the click-thru EULA prior to downloading?
Sounds a lot like UCITA, trying to legitimize contracts that you 'agree to' by breaking the shrink-wrap on a box.
I confess, the posted article does sound like the company is charging for a 'subscription to OpenOffice 3.0', rather than the downloading service I originally thought. If so, then the 'return within 14 days' might well apply.
But to take advantage of that, you would probably want to have whatever the German equivalent of a notary public come in and witness your removal, "effecting your return of the product", to provide argument if the opportunists decide to resort to the courts. ... Assuming that window hasn't already expired.
The problem is that the 'product' purchased is 'ability to download from our site'.
Openoffice being GPL, they aren't selling the *software*, they're selling the *download*. Uninstalling the software doesn't negate the download service 'purchased'. ... in the same way that you can't return a package to the sender for a refund of the UPS fees.
>> You want to protect yourself from the government, get a law degree...
> ... Don't try to kill our rights via death by a thousand cuts.
You did catch, didn't you, that guns kill people? not governments?
Lawyers, on the other hand...
Oh, you think that's bad?
I went to work for these guys in black suits. They took MY finger prints, and won't give them back!
> In any case, the outrage over this article is completely misplaced. RTFA -- they aren't requesting any information beyond that which is already requested on the paper forms you fill out in-flight. It seems to me that filling them out online 72 hours in advance isn't particularly burdensome.
The difference being, I guess, that if the government is going to deny your visa-less entry, you don't now spend your time flying back home.
For what it's worth.
> Because we don't need to. The botnet software is readily detectable. Simple solution: require ISPs to warn users if their machines are found to be infected and, if no action is taken (ie. not cleaned up and the user doesn't contact the ISP to discuss it) in a reasonable timeframe, suspend their network access.
Just as not all users are willing to ensure their computers remain bot-free, so also are there ISPs that don't care. "Requiring" them only works when you have jurisdiction over them. And as with ISPs, so also with governments. You do know that self interest would (and often already does) dictate these actions you suggest?
And just for drill, what ARE the unique and unambiguous signs that differentiate botnet software from, say, someone running IRC and listserv software, when viewed from the upstream network side?
I have only one thing to say to that... ... BRAINS....
I remember commuting from Battle Ground to Tigard. I know what you're talking about.
But that was 10+ years ago. C-tran offers even less routes out to Battle Ground, and the area has more population. On the plus side, the buses I took were most often full, being specifically commuter runs.
> cars ...[are] always slower and more fragile than pedestrian cycling transport for the shortest most common trips that people take
Your mileage may vary. Cycling to the corner store depends on you being able to ride a bike. And there are a lot of reasons you might not be able to ride a bike, but could drive a car. Physical fitness (including age) for one. Distance to the 'corner store' for another. Amount of groceries you pick up for a third.
I bike to work. The store is 'only' a mile away. But I could indeed get there faster in a car. ... Most times.
Getting sued by the Motor Vehicle Association of America for using P2P traffic control software and downloading copyrighted road blocks!
I imagine a belt sander might also help a bit...
>> Even the best encryption will eventually fall to a determined enough adversary with enough resources to throw at the problem.
>No, actually that's not a certainty.
> In order for what you said to be true there would have to be fundamental weaknesses in ever cryptographical scheme ever conceived, now or in the future.
You forget, perhaps, that there in fact ARE fundamental weaknesses in cryptographic schemes - now and in the future. The ones with fingers and eyeballs.
You also throw theoretical arguments back against a theoretical statement. If I have infinite resources, the heat death of the universe is not an obstacle. In fact, if I have infinite resources, I could recreate the author of the encrypted data and his entire life. ... But that's a different argument, for another post.
Hmm... infinite key length... infinite resources... what a challenge. Maybe I'll create an entire planet with millions of self replicating processors devoted to solving the problem. I'll need a management layer, too, to ensure the distributed decrypting doesn't run awry. Hmm... How about white mice?
> One myth is that this act will eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing. That is NOT true. The employees will still be able to request that a secret ballot election be held.
Honest question for you. By law, are/will the people being petitioned to unionize told about the possibility of a secret ballot? Or does it require mystic foresight (or prior experience) to learn about it?
If you don't know something is possible, it is much less likely you'll ever think to ask about it. A union trying to make inroads thus has incentive not to mention it unless required.
Unions may be good overall. But trust is for suckers. As true of company management as it is of union management. Or government in general.
> The government has no business telling private citizens what they can earn.
Of course! Repeal minimum wage laws! How simple!
> The public SHOULD demand that there be a limit on the financial rewards for serving.
Have you looked at what the official salaries are for your state representatives? I recommend you do. They're startlingly low. So who can afford to BE in office? The rich, and those on the take. Anyone else, can't afford to either a) move to the capital, then move back, or b) keep a second residence. And that's assuming they can get elected....