FYI, I'm a Immmigration Officer with CBSA. That said, this message is my personal opinion and I do not represent the government.
This scale currently exists [see Immigration Refugee Act, A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b)]. If the crime you committed is equivalent to an indictable Canadian offence (ie not a misdemeanor), then you're inadmissable but its not impossible to get entry. Permits and pardons will allow you into the country. If you commit an offence which would give more than 10 years in prison (ie manslaughter, theft over $5000, etc), then you're inadmissible and its damn hard to get a permit into the country. That is, unless you're a celebrity. Bloody government.
Also, if the offence was more than 10 years ago, you didn't commit any OTHER offences, and the offence was the first category, its as if the offence never existed. This article is bullshit media talking, what the hell do they know? Marijuanna possession isn't even an indictable offence in Canada unless its more than 22g. If anything, the guy was inadmissible for the DUI from seven years ago. (recall the 10 year rule, and he has at least two offences). I don't know anything else about this guy except from the article, but our laws are pretty misrepresented in the article.
Dr. Geist has a blog entry on the IIPA report here.
Heres a good bit:
"The U.S. approach is quite clearly one of "do what I say, not what I do" (fair use is good for the U.S., but no one else), advising country after country that it does not meet international TPM standards (perhaps it is the U.S. that is not meeting emerging international standards), and criticizing national attempts to improve education or culture through exceptions or funding programs. Moreover, it is very clear that the U.S. lobby groups are never satisfied as even those countries that have ratified the WIPO treaties or entered into detailed free trade agreements with the U.S. that include IP provisions still find themselves criticized for not doing enough.
Canadians should not be deceived into thinking that our laws are failing to meet an international standard, no matter what U.S. lobby groups or the Globe and Mail say. Rather, Canadians should know that our approach - and the criticism that it inevitably brings from the U.S. - places us in very good company."
If you search "msn search" and "ask" you get the extra search box. Keywords such as "altavista", "msn", "mamma search", and "ask jeeves" don't have the box.
I don't realy see what the point of it is, but I hoping for some kind of conspiracy. Freemasons run the country!
I'm not an accountant, and I'm only taking my second accounting course.
Your statement is correct. If a company is involved in litigation where loss is likely they must report it in the annual report. If the chance of loss is indeterminate, they must also make a note. However, if they are certain that they will win, then you don't make a note at all. Clearly they aren't going to win, so they made a note in their report.
Now I haven't read the report, but I'm going to assume they didn't put a monetary value on the possible loss. This is probably a good assumption since it definately would have been mentioned*. This means that either SCO don't know what the loss would be, or they're not certain they will lose. Clearly they haven't given up yet.
*Unless no-one else read the report. This is Slashdot after all.
I don't know where you got the idea that getting rid of the gold standard messed up your currency. Gold standards are terrible.
From wikipedia:
"It is generally opposed by the vast majority of governments and economists, because the gold standard has frequently been shown to provide insufficient flexibility in the supply of money and in fiscal policy, because the supply of newly mined gold is finite and must be carefully husbanded and accounted for."
Technically it is correct to say non-Windows platforms currently have an advantage in this area. There are less attacks targeting their platform, therefore they are more secure. This is a real and tangible benefit over the foreseable future. It would be perfectly valid to mention this in your response.
You are correct however that the advantage wouldn't remain over the long term if Linux became the global standard.
My Grandpa used to run his own refridgeration engineering company. He told me a story about one job of his he did for a meat-packing plant. Meat needs to be hung in a refridgerated environment for a certain length of time. After installing the new refridgeration system for the room, a few weeks later he received a phonecall. Apparently the system "wasn't working right" and he'd better come and fix it. It turns out a supervisor had cut a damn huge hole in the wall and was using the cold air to cool off the workers on the assembly line.
Moral of the story, unless you set up the system yourself, you probably don't know how it works and shouldn't fuck with it.
Even though the expert's CV is extremely padded with unrelevant crap, he is adequately qualified to testify on this topic. It'd be useless to try and somehow discredit him on his credentials. That said, you could briefly ask why he felt it was important to include "equipment grants" in his cv, but that'd probably waste the court's time. Given that their expert has good credentials, you could try and prove he is a biased expert given that he is employed by the police. This bias shows up in the report.
Regarding the expert's report, attack both his methods and the subjective conclusions he's made. To compile the report, the expert used two sources of data: Mediasentry, and a physical examination. As we can see in Dr. Sips article, Mediasentry is a simplistic program that does not produce accurate results. Ask the witness how familiar he is with the inner workings of Mediasentry, was he an original designer, has he read the source code, what are its limitations, how accurate is the data it produces, can the data be faked, does the data even prove that someone was sharing copyrighten material, etc. If he doesn't know any of that, how can he make any conclusions regarding the data it provides? Read Dr. Sips article and the other comments above regarding the technical limitations of Mediasentry, and the problems with evidence regarding P2P and internet analysis in general. Given these overwhelming issues, I would personally conclude that Mediasentry is providing inaccurate data, and should NOT be used to form any conclusions regarding guilt.
Now here is the important part: the physical examination didn't find ANY evidence of filesharing. If MediaSentry is very unreliable, and the physical examination produced no evidence, the RIAA has no case! They realize this and so they go on a fishing expedition as a last resort. In the last part of the report, the expert, out of nowhere, somehow tries to link the case to the defendants son. Lucky for the defendant, they also do this in the weakest way possible: they say they found one of his files on the computer. Does this prove anything? Of course not, it merely means the son used her computer at some point to write his resume or that he sent her a copy. The expert also mentions that her son was living in the city at the time the filesharing took place, as if this is evidence of guilt. I think you can see the problem with that. The judge should strike point 7 as completely irrelevant and immaterial.
This last point also shows the expert's bias in that he includes a reference to a single immaterial file in his report to try and further the RIAAs case. Why include that file and not others? Her own resume or perhaps a cooking recipe would be just as material. This conduct makes the witness' entire testimony suspect.
Finally, why was this expert looking at the contents of this file in the first place? A document file, clearly labeled as a resume, is hardly a suspect for copywritten material. After opening this file, and seeing that it was a resume, why would the expert continue to read the personal information included in the file? He is clearly violating the defendents privacy by reading her personal files.
Please realize that I've formed my analysis on the information and evidence you provided in your post. I have not read the other material presented in this case.
I won't comment on points 2 through 5, but your first point is a little flawed.
First, a corporation is a legal entity, ie essentially a person. Why would a corporation be allowed to own any number of other assets, but not this specific intangible one? In addition, how would preventing a corporation from owning copyrights benefit consumers or artists?
Second, if corporations can't own copyrights, who will? For example, if a team of employees in a company creates material FOR the company, who owns the copyright? The team? Why then would the company fund their work?
Wow, I can't believe Steinbach Credit Union was mentioned on Slashdot. I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada...about an hour from Steinbach, Manitoba. The Steinbach Credit Union is so small, I think it only has like 3 branches in total. Steinbach itself only has a population of approximately 10,000. Further, Steinbach is located in rural Manitoba, known for its Hutterite colonies. Given all that... somehow they're on the bleeding edge of technology? Take that California!
I'm sorry, the meaning was ambiguous. What I MEANT to say was:
"I remember reading recently that certain scientists thought that string theory, in general, was rubbish."
I wasn't refering to Stephen Hawking's position on string theory. Also, I didn't make any accusations. I was merely repeating the opinion that I thought I had heard.
She's probably unhappy because the copies are NOT being made available for public scrutiny. They are being returned to Diebold.
Also, it is possible that those disks were copied before they were discovered. These copies could potentially get into the hands of someone who wanted to abuse the election. Security through obscurity is no longer a good defense when your enemy has the source code. The only thing they're succeeding at is hiding flaws from the people who wish to fix them.
I used to play a MUD very frequently, nearly as frequently as the poster. I knew a guy that had 130+ days of game time, all in one "playerwipe." A playerwipe, deletion of all characters, occurs perhaps once every 12 months. I'm sure some of that time was idling, but still...
While its true that "you, not games, ruin your life", games and other distractions are dangerous. As mentioned in the article, WoW and MUDS and similar video games provide constant feedback, a feeling of accomplishment, and escape from other hardships in your life. This is a very fertile ground for addictions. Gamers scoff when they hear about "game addiction clinics" and the like, but clealy there is a problem here. Games don't CAUSE your life to get fucked up, but they sure make it easy for you.
That said, I love videogames and I think they're absolutely wonderful in moderation. When I was young, my slightly older sister was better at everything. When I realized I was better at videogames, I got a great sense of accomplishment and self-worth. I'm pretty sure the insane number of thinking and intelligent games I play has also helped my brain develop. My 4.3 GPA (out of 4.5), says videogames don't make you stupid.
DNS registration is not required to build a website, its simply more convenient. A regular IP address works fine. That said, what is easier to remember? www.mywebsiteisthebest.com or 111.111.111.111?
I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you for or against the proposed legislation in the article?
Unfortunately, you did miss something. Jack Thompson was present, along with T2 employees, when the judge was viewing the game. The judge watched about 2 hours of different parts of the game, accessed through cheat codes provided by the T2 employees.
The "you don't even know what it was you saw" comment was in regards to the cheat codes. Jack Thompson is complaining that the judge didn't view the game in its entirety, played through from beginning to end.
"... from the idea that space has up to 11 dimensions... "
Does this mean the movie will cover String Theory? I wasn't aware that Stephen Hawking worked in this area. Does anyone know what his position is on String Theory? I remember reading recently that some people thought it was all rubbish.
If you're interested in learning a little about string theory, "The Elegant Universe" by Briane Greene is a great place to start. Its more of a popular-science type book, using simple and interesting example. NOVA also made a good tv series under the same name, hosted by Briane Green. Its good stuff, you should check it out. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Cheers,
Jim
Only trying to be helpful. I read the article and didn't know what it was. Now people won't have to navigate away from the page to find background information. If anything, the blurb should have included a brief note as to what RTOS' are.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah hell, I forgot to switch the formatting. Thats what I get for not previewing.
FYI, I'm a Immmigration Officer with CBSA. That said, this message is my personal opinion and I do not represent the government. This scale currently exists [see Immigration Refugee Act, A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b)]. If the crime you committed is equivalent to an indictable Canadian offence (ie not a misdemeanor), then you're inadmissable but its not impossible to get entry. Permits and pardons will allow you into the country. If you commit an offence which would give more than 10 years in prison (ie manslaughter, theft over $5000, etc), then you're inadmissible and its damn hard to get a permit into the country. That is, unless you're a celebrity. Bloody government. Also, if the offence was more than 10 years ago, you didn't commit any OTHER offences, and the offence was the first category, its as if the offence never existed. This article is bullshit media talking, what the hell do they know? Marijuanna possession isn't even an indictable offence in Canada unless its more than 22g. If anything, the guy was inadmissible for the DUI from seven years ago. (recall the 10 year rule, and he has at least two offences). I don't know anything else about this guy except from the article, but our laws are pretty misrepresented in the article.
Dr. Geist has a blog entry on the IIPA report here.
Heres a good bit: "The U.S. approach is quite clearly one of "do what I say, not what I do" (fair use is good for the U.S., but no one else), advising country after country that it does not meet international TPM standards (perhaps it is the U.S. that is not meeting emerging international standards), and criticizing national attempts to improve education or culture through exceptions or funding programs. Moreover, it is very clear that the U.S. lobby groups are never satisfied as even those countries that have ratified the WIPO treaties or entered into detailed free trade agreements with the U.S. that include IP provisions still find themselves criticized for not doing enough.
Canadians should not be deceived into thinking that our laws are failing to meet an international standard, no matter what U.S. lobby groups or the Globe and Mail say. Rather, Canadians should know that our approach - and the criticism that it inevitably brings from the U.S. - places us in very good company."
If you search "msn search" and "ask" you get the extra search box. Keywords such as "altavista", "msn", "mamma search", and "ask jeeves" don't have the box.
I don't realy see what the point of it is, but I hoping for some kind of conspiracy. Freemasons run the country!
I'm not an accountant, and I'm only taking my second accounting course.
Your statement is correct. If a company is involved in litigation where loss is likely they must report it in the annual report. If the chance of loss is indeterminate, they must also make a note. However, if they are certain that they will win, then you don't make a note at all. Clearly they aren't going to win, so they made a note in their report.
Now I haven't read the report, but I'm going to assume they didn't put a monetary value on the possible loss. This is probably a good assumption since it definately would have been mentioned*. This means that either SCO don't know what the loss would be, or they're not certain they will lose. Clearly they haven't given up yet.
*Unless no-one else read the report. This is Slashdot after all.
I don't know where you got the idea that getting rid of the gold standard messed up your currency. Gold standards are terrible.
From wikipedia:
"It is generally opposed by the vast majority of governments and economists, because the gold standard has frequently been shown to provide insufficient flexibility in the supply of money and in fiscal policy, because the supply of newly mined gold is finite and must be carefully husbanded and accounted for."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
Technically it is correct to say non-Windows platforms currently have an advantage in this area. There are less attacks targeting their platform, therefore they are more secure. This is a real and tangible benefit over the foreseable future. It would be perfectly valid to mention this in your response.
You are correct however that the advantage wouldn't remain over the long term if Linux became the global standard.
--
Jim
My Grandpa used to run his own refridgeration engineering company. He told me a story about one job of his he did for a meat-packing plant. Meat needs to be hung in a refridgerated environment for a certain length of time. After installing the new refridgeration system for the room, a few weeks later he received a phonecall. Apparently the system "wasn't working right" and he'd better come and fix it. It turns out a supervisor had cut a damn huge hole in the wall and was using the cold air to cool off the workers on the assembly line.
Moral of the story, unless you set up the system yourself, you probably don't know how it works and shouldn't fuck with it.
IANAL, etc.
Even though the expert's CV is extremely padded with unrelevant crap, he is adequately qualified to testify on this topic. It'd be useless to try and somehow discredit him on his credentials. That said, you could briefly ask why he felt it was important to include "equipment grants" in his cv, but that'd probably waste the court's time. Given that their expert has good credentials, you could try and prove he is a biased expert given that he is employed by the police. This bias shows up in the report.
Regarding the expert's report, attack both his methods and the subjective conclusions he's made. To compile the report, the expert used two sources of data: Mediasentry, and a physical examination. As we can see in Dr. Sips article, Mediasentry is a simplistic program that does not produce accurate results. Ask the witness how familiar he is with the inner workings of Mediasentry, was he an original designer, has he read the source code, what are its limitations, how accurate is the data it produces, can the data be faked, does the data even prove that someone was sharing copyrighten material, etc. If he doesn't know any of that, how can he make any conclusions regarding the data it provides? Read Dr. Sips article and the other comments above regarding the technical limitations of Mediasentry, and the problems with evidence regarding P2P and internet analysis in general. Given these overwhelming issues, I would personally conclude that Mediasentry is providing inaccurate data, and should NOT be used to form any conclusions regarding guilt.
Now here is the important part: the physical examination didn't find ANY evidence of filesharing. If MediaSentry is very unreliable, and the physical examination produced no evidence, the RIAA has no case! They realize this and so they go on a fishing expedition as a last resort. In the last part of the report, the expert, out of nowhere, somehow tries to link the case to the defendants son. Lucky for the defendant, they also do this in the weakest way possible: they say they found one of his files on the computer. Does this prove anything? Of course not, it merely means the son used her computer at some point to write his resume or that he sent her a copy. The expert also mentions that her son was living in the city at the time the filesharing took place, as if this is evidence of guilt. I think you can see the problem with that. The judge should strike point 7 as completely irrelevant and immaterial.
This last point also shows the expert's bias in that he includes a reference to a single immaterial file in his report to try and further the RIAAs case. Why include that file and not others? Her own resume or perhaps a cooking recipe would be just as material. This conduct makes the witness' entire testimony suspect.
Finally, why was this expert looking at the contents of this file in the first place? A document file, clearly labeled as a resume, is hardly a suspect for copywritten material. After opening this file, and seeing that it was a resume, why would the expert continue to read the personal information included in the file? He is clearly violating the defendents privacy by reading her personal files.
Please realize that I've formed my analysis on the information and evidence you provided in your post. I have not read the other material presented in this case.
Good luck,
James Dalton
I won't comment on points 2 through 5, but your first point is a little flawed.
First, a corporation is a legal entity, ie essentially a person. Why would a corporation be allowed to own any number of other assets, but not this specific intangible one? In addition, how would preventing a corporation from owning copyrights benefit consumers or artists?
Second, if corporations can't own copyrights, who will? For example, if a team of employees in a company creates material FOR the company, who owns the copyright? The team? Why then would the company fund their work?
Cheers,
Jim
But without sudo, how will I get sandwichs?
http://www.xkcd.com/c149.html
Why would they care which way you bought the DVD? They get royalties either way.
Its a trick. Get an axe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ws_Vista#Digital_Rights_Management
Wow, I can't believe Steinbach Credit Union was mentioned on Slashdot. I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada...about an hour from Steinbach, Manitoba. The Steinbach Credit Union is so small, I think it only has like 3 branches in total. Steinbach itself only has a population of approximately 10,000. Further, Steinbach is located in rural Manitoba, known for its Hutterite colonies. Given all that... somehow they're on the bleeding edge of technology? Take that California!
Directly from the first line of TFA:
"GamePolitics is a single-issue site. Video games and politics, thats all we cover.
And while we dont advocate casting your vote based solely on this issue, we know its important to you - otherwise you wouldnt be reading GP."
I'm sorry, the meaning was ambiguous. What I MEANT to say was: "I remember reading recently that certain scientists thought that string theory, in general, was rubbish." I wasn't refering to Stephen Hawking's position on string theory. Also, I didn't make any accusations. I was merely repeating the opinion that I thought I had heard.
She's probably unhappy because the copies are NOT being made available for public scrutiny. They are being returned to Diebold.
Also, it is possible that those disks were copied before they were discovered. These copies could potentially get into the hands of someone who wanted to abuse the election. Security through obscurity is no longer a good defense when your enemy has the source code. The only thing they're succeeding at is hiding flaws from the people who wish to fix them.
Remind me again why people use Diebold products?
*woosh* That was the sarcasm from GGP going over my head. Thanks for pointing that out. :)
I used to play a MUD very frequently, nearly as frequently as the poster. I knew a guy that had 130+ days of game time, all in one "playerwipe." A playerwipe, deletion of all characters, occurs perhaps once every 12 months. I'm sure some of that time was idling, but still...
While its true that "you, not games, ruin your life", games and other distractions are dangerous. As mentioned in the article, WoW and MUDS and similar video games provide constant feedback, a feeling of accomplishment, and escape from other hardships in your life. This is a very fertile ground for addictions. Gamers scoff when they hear about "game addiction clinics" and the like, but clealy there is a problem here. Games don't CAUSE your life to get fucked up, but they sure make it easy for you.
That said, I love videogames and I think they're absolutely wonderful in moderation. When I was young, my slightly older sister was better at everything. When I realized I was better at videogames, I got a great sense of accomplishment and self-worth. I'm pretty sure the insane number of thinking and intelligent games I play has also helped my brain develop. My 4.3 GPA (out of 4.5), says videogames don't make you stupid.
Cheers,
Jim
UK citizens pay taxes, which are then used by the Government to fund the BBC. So they already charge people to receive BBC broadcasts.
DNS registration is not required to build a website, its simply more convenient. A regular IP address works fine. That said, what is easier to remember? www.mywebsiteisthebest.com or 111.111.111.111? I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you for or against the proposed legislation in the article?
Linky:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4072704.stm
Unfortunately, you did miss something. Jack Thompson was present, along with T2 employees, when the judge was viewing the game. The judge watched about 2 hours of different parts of the game, accessed through cheat codes provided by the T2 employees.
u ment-dump/t hompson-reacts-to-court-defeat-in-bully-case/l y-verdict-blow-by-blow
The "you don't even know what it was you saw" comment was in regards to the cheat codes. Jack Thompson is complaining that the judge didn't view the game in its entirety, played through from beginning to end.
Gamepolitics.com has full coverage of the case.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/
http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/13/bully-case-doc
http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/13/breaking-jack-
http://www.destructoid.com/today-in-court-the-bul
Cheers,
Jim
"... from the idea that space has up to 11 dimensions ... "
Does this mean the movie will cover String Theory? I wasn't aware that Stephen Hawking worked in this area. Does anyone know what his position is on String Theory? I remember reading recently that some people thought it was all rubbish.
If you're interested in learning a little about string theory, "The Elegant Universe" by Briane Greene is a great place to start. Its more of a popular-science type book, using simple and interesting example. NOVA also made a good tv series under the same name, hosted by Briane Green. Its good stuff, you should check it out. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ Cheers, Jim
Only trying to be helpful. I read the article and didn't know what it was. Now people won't have to navigate away from the page to find background information. If anything, the blurb should have included a brief note as to what RTOS' are.