Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Oh Come On, it's a Press Release (Score 4, Insightful) 60

OK, no real technical data and some absurd claims here.

First all-digital transceiver? No. There have been others. Especially if you allow them to have a DAC and an ADC and no other components in the analog domain, but even without that, there are lots of IoT-class radios with direct-to-digital detectors and digital outputs directly to the antenna. You might have one in your car remote (mine is two-way).

And they have to use patented algorithms? Everybody else can get along with well-known technology old enough that any applicable patents are long expired.

It would be nicer if there was some information about what they are actually doing. If they really have patented it, there's no reason to hold back.

Comment: Re:Uh ...wat? (Score 1) 448

I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees here. The reason people engage in vigilante activities is because there isn't a legal remedy available to them. Do you disagree with that?

The practical details of budgeting issues, qualifications for police employment, and prioritization of investigations of course plays a role in why there is no legal remedy available. Those details, however, have no bearing on why people choose vigilante justice over no justice.

Our choices, as a society, are to provide some sort of legal venue to pursue justice whenever people feel wronged or accept that those people will find another way to right the wrong. Of course, the third option is to provide no legal means to pursue justice, but crack down hard on anyone who tried to handle it on their own. There are long-term consequences to that approach as well.

Comment: Re:IANAL, but my answer would be no (Score 1) 318

I agree with the AC here. The defendant is at an extreme disadvantage when up against the state and shouldn't be compelled to cooperate in his conviction.

This applies doubly during police interrogation, where there is no time to consider how your statements may be used against you and the police are certainly not sharing their facts and theories with you. Admitting to anything prior to discovery could build a case against yourself, even if your intent was to prove your innocence.

Comment: Re:Obstruction is a wild overstatement (Score 1) 318

Given that we are left to guess due to the lack of details, I would conclude that as he was returning from the Dominican Republic and that they were after his phone, he was likely suspected of having sex with minors and being in the possession of child porn. However, without any real details, this is only speculation.

Which is an example of why hard cases make bad law. Jurisprudence shouldn't be tossed out the window just because the subject matter is revolting or sympathetic.

A case which absolutely requires the cooperation of the defendant is what is commonly known as a flimsy case. Doubling down on coercing the defendant to enable access to evidence against himself isn't the proper way forward.

Comment: Re:Right to remain silent where? (Score 1) 318

For example, the police caution used in England and Wales since 1994 includes "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court", a concept of guilt by omission that doesn't apply in the States.

Which seems like a pretty dangerous exemption to me, when you're faced with police who can add/drop charges as they like. You shouldn't need to cooperate with your prosecution at such an early stage in the case and where you are at such an extreme disadvantage. They're not sharing all of their evidence with the accused during the interrogation, so why should the accused be compelled to spill everything out of court?

Comment: Re:Pandora's Box (Score 1) 448

All of what you are saying is true, but the existence of vigilantism doesn't depend on lofty ideals and solid foundations. If a society refuses to uniformly and fairly allocate justice, people will take it into their own hands. It's inevitable. If society wants to reliably keep people from handling their own justice, it must work together to fix the state's apparatus or expect vigilante actions to continue. A wronged party with no legal remedy isn't just going to let it drop.

In other words, it's not just the wronged person's responsibility to single-handedly "change the system". It's your responsibility, too. By allowing the system to remain broken, you are culpable for the existence of vigilante justice, too. Expecting every wronged person to change the system in order to get their justice is just condoning vigilantism, while still claiming the moral high ground.

Comment: Re: Today the EPA calls CO2 a pollutant (Score 1) 441

by JWW (#49187769) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

You used the standard dictionary definition of waterway. But the EPA has expanded their, correct in my opinion, oversight of actual waterways to include standing water and even temporary bodies of water from storms. A willful expansion of their power. I think they are giving themselves a club to use against farmers who do other things they don't like but can't stop through their current regulations. So they bogusly expand the regulations they have.

Comment: Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 252

by cpt kangarooski (#49186121) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

Then you fall into the second category. Or you're just ignorant.

Well, I'm a copyright lawyer, so I doubt I'm "completely and totally ignorant of the law." Have you considered the possibility that your analysis is wrong?

Since we're talking about works that haven't been around long enough to have their copyrights expire, that's totally irrelevant.

Just thought I'd mention it, since you did make a rather broad statement suggesting that works cannot enter the public domain unless deliberately placed there by the copyright holder. While copyright holders can put works into the public domain, it's not true that that is the only way for works to enter the public domain.

"Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine."

The scenes a faire doctrine, which I don't have to google for, thanks, permits people to copy without fear of infringement, stock elements from works, which are typical, if not indispensible, for works that have a particular setting, genre, theme, etc.

In this case, where you have a show about teenagers fighting monsters with martial arts and giant robots, it would not infringe if you had a five person team, each member of which had personalities as described above, and where the members of the team were color-coded. It's simply expected of the genre, and therefore fair game, even if you copied it from another copyrighted work.

Now if the specific thing you copied was a very detailed example, and you kept all the details, you might then have a problem. So it depends on how much Power Rangers embellished on this standard device, if they did, and if so, how much of that embellishment, if any, was used in this case.

If you disagree as to my explanation, please feel free to actually say what you think the scenes a faire doctrine is.

When you go out to buy, don't show your silver.

Working...