Presuming the creator of the content still holds the copyright to it, they have not given you license to download and use it. If it can be proven that you knew this (e.g. because you went to a web site that told you about it), then you can't really argue that you thought you were granted access to it.
The basic principal behind intellectual property law is that the content provider has the right to limit access. The fact that they have spectacularly and publicly failed to do so does not diminish that right.
Your theater analogy is a good one, but it might be more accurate to say that the play is performed indoors and someone told you that they left the door unlocked after the play started. If you legitimately thought this was a free performance when you walked in, that's one thing. If you knowingly entered without paying, you committed a crime.
Since the beginning of the web, a public (i.e. internet facing) web server serves public web pages. If the pages are intended to be private, then they are put on a private server (ex: intranet) or secured with an authentication mechanism. To argue otherwise is to go against established practice.
In most situations, this hold... however, if it is clear that the information was never intended to be made public, this argument falls apart. For example, if I came across an unadvertised, but still public link that provided a list of credit card numbers, would a reasonable person assume that he / she is allowed to use them?
To make matters even more complicated, if you can prove that the person knew they were not authorized to use the site, then you can't really argue about assumptions anymore.
I think the question is "Does the average person know they are not authorized to use this service?" If you walk into a business during "normal business hours", you assume that you are allowed to be there. If you find an unlocked back door to a movie theater, would you assume that you are invited to watch free movies?
I don't know what the answer is in this case, but we should at least make sure we're asking the right question.
I agree that my analogy doesn't fit this situation. I provided the analogy to point out that this is one of the many "unauthorized access" debates that boils down to the question, "By default (i.e. without further information) would an average person assume this resource is public or private?"
In the gym analogy that I responded to, one would assume that a place of business with an unlocked door (during "normal business hours") is an open invitation to come inside (although actually using the equipment is questionable). In a private home, one would not normally assume that an unlocked door is an open invitation.
To rephrase my earlier post, we need to examine:
Is the "default state" of an unsecured URL "public" or "private"?
Did a given individual have prior knowledge that their access was unauthorized (by the content provider)?
If you left your front door unlocked, would that entitle me to go inside, watch your TV, and raid the fridge? I think we'd all agree that in that case, a lack of access control does not imply free (as in the beer I found in your fridge).
The key question is "Did the user know he was not entitled to use this service?" Also, "Would an average person with no prior knowledge of the service assume that it is 'open to the public'?"
The engine on it is a turboprop, which is basically a jet engine with a propeller attached. They're not as fast as turbofans (traditional jet engines), but they're much more efficient. You'll see them a lot on small commuter planes.
Actually, a turbojet would be a "traditional jet engine". In most applications, they have been replaced by turbofans because they are more efficient and produce less noise.
a man-made brain - Dreaming (Not possible yet - maybe never)
I'm pretty sure that's already been done. In fact, I made a whole person a couple years ago. (OK, so it was a two-person job.) People have been doing it as long as there have been people.
It's not creating that's the problem*. It's the years of maintenance and troubleshooting that are tough.
* for most people (My apologies to those of you who can't do this.)
1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance
I don't think I can rebel against something that is not "in authority or dominance" over me. I may, however, be able to sabotage or subvert it.
Apple provides information and "preview software" for free as long as you agree not to publically disclose the information. If you don't like the agreement, don't agree to it!
Apple could choose not to release any information at all. If you think they don't have a right to control (or forbid) the disclosure of their "trade secrets", then I have to insist that you fully disclose all of your bank account numbers, social security number, credit card numbers, PIN number, and all usernames and passwords you use on various computer systems.
Considering all the talk about how Apple retalliates against people who cross them, don't you think you out to abide by the Non-Disclosure Agreement you entered into when you received that Leopard build?
One really amazing "thought" along these lines that I read some twenty years ago related to the question of "would a "good" God like being limit knowledge of certain principles in order to restrain evil?" -- which if answered affirmatively, would mean that knowledge of or technology using part of the supervisory set would be off limits -- though how that limitation would be imposed I don't know.
Biblically speaking, I would tend to say "no" to your question. Humans were given free will, and with it the opportunity to really screw things up.
Item 1: about the Immutable laws of physics... Assume that there is a set of "principles of physics" that we humans consider to be "immutable", i.e. that can't change. Assume secondarily that there is another set of physics that "God" uses whenever he wants to super-cede the first set. Would it make sense for the "God set" to be incompatible with the "known set"? Or is it one set with two basic divisions, i.e. 1) physics principles currently theorized and either confirmed or considered confirmable by known science and 2) the "supervisory set" -- the stuff not covered by the known set that is in reality the "rest of the story". I would argue that the knowledge and ability to use the principles in this supervisory set is what a "God being" uses to do what we consider to be miraculous/supernatural, etc.
Interesting... This brings up a couple questions:
Are you saying that the "supervisory set" is not immutable? Or does it simply appear that way because humans do not (currently) understand the principles involved?
Your statements seem to imply that the "supervisory set" is not knowable by humans (i.e. there is some "boundary" to our knowledge). Isn't it more likely that humans are constantly expanding their knowledge base and figuring out the things previously only known to God? It seems possible that at some point in the future, human knowledge could expand to know enough of "God's physics" to figure out how "miracles" are done.
(I'm not saying I necessarily believe this, but it is interesting to think about.)
I've argued this point before about falsifiability. Simply put, it is up to a claimant to offer evidence of an idea, not the other way around.
That neatly sidesteps my point, "Scientists (in general) base their models of the universe on the premise that God does not exist." I do not think the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" can be proven or disproven by science (in its current state). It falls outside the realm of science to make this determination, and yet many scientists take the statement "God does not exist" as an unspoken axiom in their theories.
Putting that aside; what does that say about believers if the best evidence they have is that no one can prove it wrong?
Many would consider the Bible as a historical document which supports this belief. Clearly you do not, but stating "I don't believe it" does no more to discredit the evidence than the statement "I believe it" does to support it.
To borrow a legal term, science proves things "beyond a reasonable doubt". We should not make the assumption that what is "proven" today will remain unchallenged by future evidence. Dogmatic adherence to what modern day science has "proven" is foolish. Take it for what it is, the best model we can develop with the current evidence.
The reason why scientists do not pursue a creator model is because it doesn't fit what we observe about the universe. Also, because there is no objective, repeatable evidence of such a being.
That is true, but there is also no objective, repeatable evidence that such a being does not exist. Why do you suppose scientists are so vehement about the non-existence of God? If they are objective, they should acknowledge that they cannot disprove a "creator model".
At the risk of being modded Flamebait, I have to ask... What if Scientists (with a capital S) worship Science and vigorously oppose viewpoints in which Science is not the center of all human understanding? Could they not be seen by an objective observer as behaving quite similarly to those who take the Bible as literal fact?
Now think about the state of science in Galileo's time. Everyone believed the Earth was the center of the universe would not even consider any other possibilities. Galileo risked everything to just to talk about a different model of the universe.
A reasonable person should realize that it is quite possible that the way we view the universe now may not be the same as how we will view it 100 or 500 or 1000 years from now. Why can't we admit that science has limits?
I agree with what you're saying. I think it has been a danger throughout human history to think "Something I don't understand and can't explain is 'magic'". This is the same as saying "We don't know how God could have created the Earth, so that means God must not have to follow the laws of physics."
Now that we have science we realize that there is no "magic", so anything outside the human understanding must be a lie. ("We don't know how God could have created the Earth, so that means God didn't create the Earth.")
We've traded one logical fallacy for another, but the truth is that not knowing how something works doesn't really tell us anything useful. Maybe someday we'll realize that it's better to acknowledge that we don't know everything about the universe than to make conclusions based on the fact that we don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
Withdrawals from RFCs? I don't think I could make it through the day without them!
Generals never risk their lives? http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/dfpratt.htm
OK, it's pretty unlikely that Gen. Lord will be participating in any airborne invasions, but you never know...
Presuming the creator of the content still holds the copyright to it, they have not given you license to download and use it. If it can be proven that you knew this (e.g. because you went to a web site that told you about it), then you can't really argue that you thought you were granted access to it.
The basic principal behind intellectual property law is that the content provider has the right to limit access. The fact that they have spectacularly and publicly failed to do so does not diminish that right.
Your theater analogy is a good one, but it might be more accurate to say that the play is performed indoors and someone told you that they left the door unlocked after the play started. If you legitimately thought this was a free performance when you walked in, that's one thing. If you knowingly entered without paying, you committed a crime.
In most situations, this hold... however, if it is clear that the information was never intended to be made public, this argument falls apart. For example, if I came across an unadvertised, but still public link that provided a list of credit card numbers, would a reasonable person assume that he / she is allowed to use them?
To make matters even more complicated, if you can prove that the person knew they were not authorized to use the site, then you can't really argue about assumptions anymore.
I think the question is "Does the average person know they are not authorized to use this service?" If you walk into a business during "normal business hours", you assume that you are allowed to be there. If you find an unlocked back door to a movie theater, would you assume that you are invited to watch free movies?
I don't know what the answer is in this case, but we should at least make sure we're asking the right question.
I agree that my analogy doesn't fit this situation. I provided the analogy to point out that this is one of the many "unauthorized access" debates that boils down to the question, "By default (i.e. without further information) would an average person assume this resource is public or private?"
In the gym analogy that I responded to, one would assume that a place of business with an unlocked door (during "normal business hours") is an open invitation to come inside (although actually using the equipment is questionable). In a private home, one would not normally assume that an unlocked door is an open invitation.
To rephrase my earlier post, we need to examine:If you left your front door unlocked, would that entitle me to go inside, watch your TV, and raid the fridge? I think we'd all agree that in that case, a lack of access control does not imply free (as in the beer I found in your fridge).
The key question is "Did the user know he was not entitled to use this service?" Also, "Would an average person with no prior knowledge of the service assume that it is 'open to the public'?"
Actually, a turbojet would be a "traditional jet engine". In most applications, they have been replaced by turbofans because they are more efficient and produce less noise.
From Merriam-Webster:
Or do you believe that 100% of the workers who make "man-made" items are male?
I'm pretty sure that's already been done. In fact, I made a whole person a couple years ago. (OK, so it was a two-person job.) People have been doing it as long as there have been people.
It's not creating that's the problem*. It's the years of maintenance and troubleshooting that are tough.
* for most people (My apologies to those of you who can't do this.)
What confidence? Is there any left after the last few elections?
Sorry... I forgot that on /. I should read what you mean not what you type.
Definition of rebellion :
I don't think I can rebel against something that is not "in authority or dominance" over me. I may, however, be able to sabotage or subvert it.
What's the worst that happens if publish the AACS key? You get sued? And even that is unlikely.
Discuss Tiananmen Square and post pictures in China? I suspect you'll suffer a much worse fate.
Apple provides information and "preview software" for free as long as you agree not to publically disclose the information. If you don't like the agreement, don't agree to it!
Apple could choose not to release any information at all. If you think they don't have a right to control (or forbid) the disclosure of their "trade secrets", then I have to insist that you fully disclose all of your bank account numbers, social security number, credit card numbers, PIN number, and all usernames and passwords you use on various computer systems.
Considering all the talk about how Apple retalliates against people who cross them, don't you think you out to abide by the Non-Disclosure Agreement you entered into when you received that Leopard build?
Biblically speaking, I would tend to say "no" to your question. Humans were given free will, and with it the opportunity to really screw things up.
Actually, it's 2005 technology... (The launch was January 2006, so it must have been built in 2005.)
Interesting... This brings up a couple questions:
(I'm not saying I necessarily believe this, but it is interesting to think about.)
That neatly sidesteps my point, "Scientists (in general) base their models of the universe on the premise that God does not exist." I do not think the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" can be proven or disproven by science (in its current state). It falls outside the realm of science to make this determination, and yet many scientists take the statement "God does not exist" as an unspoken axiom in their theories.
Many would consider the Bible as a historical document which supports this belief. Clearly you do not, but stating "I don't believe it" does no more to discredit the evidence than the statement "I believe it" does to support it.
To borrow a legal term, science proves things "beyond a reasonable doubt". We should not make the assumption that what is "proven" today will remain unchallenged by future evidence. Dogmatic adherence to what modern day science has "proven" is foolish. Take it for what it is, the best model we can develop with the current evidence.
That is true, but there is also no objective, repeatable evidence that such a being does not exist. Why do you suppose scientists are so vehement about the non-existence of God? If they are objective, they should acknowledge that they cannot disprove a "creator model".
At the risk of being modded Flamebait, I have to ask... What if Scientists (with a capital S) worship Science and vigorously oppose viewpoints in which Science is not the center of all human understanding? Could they not be seen by an objective observer as behaving quite similarly to those who take the Bible as literal fact?
Now think about the state of science in Galileo's time. Everyone believed the Earth was the center of the universe would not even consider any other possibilities. Galileo risked everything to just to talk about a different model of the universe.
A reasonable person should realize that it is quite possible that the way we view the universe now may not be the same as how we will view it 100 or 500 or 1000 years from now. Why can't we admit that science has limits?
I agree with what you're saying. I think it has been a danger throughout human history to think "Something I don't understand and can't explain is 'magic'". This is the same as saying "We don't know how God could have created the Earth, so that means God must not have to follow the laws of physics."
Now that we have science we realize that there is no "magic", so anything outside the human understanding must be a lie. ("We don't know how God could have created the Earth, so that means God didn't create the Earth.")
We've traded one logical fallacy for another, but the truth is that not knowing how something works doesn't really tell us anything useful. Maybe someday we'll realize that it's better to acknowledge that we don't know everything about the universe than to make conclusions based on the fact that we don't know.