Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Hooray for freedom (Score 1) 747

by burroughsj1 (#33582022) Attached to: HDCP Master Key Revealed
I can certainly understand how you might look at it that way, but that simply isn't how to read a statute. This is a list of disjunctive elements, any of which can suffice to fulfill the statute. It would be constructed very differently if it meant "a and b or c." You need only look a little farther down to (3) see an example of this. If you still aren't convinced, you might look at the history of the statute. 2005 Amendments. Subsec. (a). Pub.L. 109-9, 103(a), rewrote subsec. (a), which formerly read:

"(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."

This makes it clear that meeting any of the conditions is enough. When you see a list like this, the word joining the final two items shows the relationship of all. This makes sense, since it's the same way in ordinary speech and writing. Another illustration from Title 17:

For purposes of section 411, a work is a "United States work" only if--
(1) in the case of a published work, the work is first published--
(A) in the United States;
(B) simultaneously in the United States and another treaty party or parties, whose law grants a term of copyright protection that is the same as or longer than the term provided in the United States;
(C) simultaneously in the United States and a foreign nation that is not a treaty party; or
(D) in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party, and all of the authors of the work are nationals, domiciliaries, or habitual residents of, or in the case of an audiovisual work legal entities with headquarters in, the United States;

If we follow your principle here, something is only a "United States work" if it is either "a, b, and c," or "d". Clearly, this would be wrong.

Comment: Re:Hooray for freedom (Score 1) 747

by burroughsj1 (#33574182) Attached to: HDCP Master Key Revealed
Well that is interesting, but you seem to have some problem with the fact that ALL the criteria have to be met, and not just the one that suits you (Section 1, Clause B). I'm as opposed to modern copyright law as the next slashdotter, but I'm disappointed in the repeated reading comprehension failures in this discussion. You and those replying above you have all failed to grasp that the statute reads a, b, OR c, not a, b, AND c. Only one of those elements needs to be satisfied. Of course, the copying being done must still be outside of fair use to meet the definition.

Comment: Re:Let's keep this one to ourselves... (Score 1) 109

by burroughsj1 (#30970434) Attached to: Old Stems Cells Young Again — Via Vampirism
This whole argument is internally inconsistent. If humans are not different from other animals in any significant way, and therefore are no more important, then why should they be held to some special code of conduct? Animals regularly kill other animals for their own gain. Why shouldn't we? Because we are different in some key way? That makes the whole argument fail. Not that I don't support humane treatment of animals and the conservation of the environment.

Comment: Re:If it looks like a drunk, it probably is. (Score 1) 199

I'm trying to figure out your point. The GP is pointing out that it's important to distinguish between drunks and people in a medical crisis. You responded by saying that people in medical crisis can be dangerous behind the wheel. I fail to see where you could possibly be heading with this.

Comment: Re:These guys are no heroes (Score 1) 199

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point is not that one can never obtain a DUI conviction without a breath test, as I plainly said. Rather, I was saying that your assessment of what it takes to convict isn't quite right. You said that any of the things you listed (odor, fst results, behavior) were proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and enough to secure a conviction, thus making breath results unnecessary. While in certain cases a combination of those things might be enough evidence, the way you portray the situation is not accurate. Without physical evidence of any kind, the chances of a successful conviction drop severely. This is especially true given a competent defense attorney who would introduce evidence of the extreme unreliability of the various field sobriety tests, attack officer reliability and memory, etc. If one has a breath test, at least in my state, nothing else is needed (barring any problems with the results, of course). My point was that breath testing is important to successful prosecution, and ignoring that fact is silly. As you correctly point out, all the prosecution needs to do is prove the case. In many cases, however, breath tests are an important part of that proof. Were that not the case, there would be no discussion about the issue. If you read my post, I think you'll understand what I mean.

I want to assure you that I'm not targeting you in any way- I didn't even realize it was you that I had replied to before. I do find it interesting that on both occasions you've failed to respond substantively to what I posted. I looked back at my reply to you in the EFF discussion, and I really don't think you can begin to call that abuse. I abused the idiot of an AC that replied to me a little, but he was pretty belligerent and abusive himself. (I assume that wasn't you trying to dodge a karma hit) In either case, my arguments never rested in any way on ad hominems. Also, if you want to get picky about logic, I don't need a citation from every state supreme court showing that your assertion is incorrect. The burden lies with you to show evidence supporting your argument. Further, you asked me to disprove points stronger than those you were originally making.

Comment: Re:These guys are no heroes (Score 1) 199

Blood tests, failing FSTs, officer observations of your behavior and smell... any of these things are sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

While you're not quite right about what it takes to convict in a DUI case, you are right in saying that you don't necessarily need breathalyzer results. Hence the ruling: no source code unless it is going to bear on the outcome of the case. If the test results aren't vital to determining guilt, then there is no issue. In many cases, however, they are. In such cases, it's important to know how the test works, and if there is some fundamental problem with its reliability. It's absurd to say that you don't need to know if the test is good or not, since there's other evidence. If that were true, there would be no need for the test in the first place.

Comment: Re:you just think you're joking. (Score 1) 776

by burroughsj1 (#27683939) Attached to: Do We Need Running Shoes To Run?
Sorry for the ambiguity. By "outside our current understanding of nature," I mean outside of what we currently understand to be nature. I was just trying to clarify that we almost certainly don't have a true understanding of nature or its boundaries, and that what appears "supernatural" today, could quite possibly be understood as natural in the future. (Please don't take this as support for ID, I'm just saying that supernatural != religious)

Comment: Re:you just think you're joking. (Score 2, Interesting) 776

by burroughsj1 (#27664599) Attached to: Do We Need Running Shoes To Run?
You're conflating "supernatural" with "religious." Why? The existence of a supernatural designer doesn't imply anything about its nature, or whether it should be worshipped. Merely being outside of our current scientific understanding of nature is not sufficient to make a thing religious.

Comment: Re:Just. Plain. Wrong. (Score 1) 1079

by burroughsj1 (#27608219) Attached to: College Police Think Using Linux Is Suspicious Behavior
Hmmm... I wonder why you posted AC? Your superfluous use of Latin leads me to the (hopefully mistaken) conclusion that you are employed in the legal field. The weakness of your reading and reasoning skills, however, lends me some hope that it is not in the capacity of attorney or, heaven forbid, judge. I'm guessing paralegal, maybe with the 2-year degree. Anyway, Your post adds nothing of value. You give the personal bloggings of Zimmerman a higher level of "statement by the EFF" status than their official press release and the motion. If you bother to read those, which you pretty clearly didn't, you'll get a feel for their actual position. Even if you use only the blog you referenced, however, you and the GP are still wrong. While the statement about terminal commands figures more prominently in the post you cite, he is very clear that there is a much larger legal issue:

Aside from the remarkable overreach by campus and state police in trying to paint a student as suspicious in part because he can navigate a non-Windows computer environment, nothing cited in the warrant application could possibly constitute the cited criminal offenses. There are no assertions that a commercial (i.e. for pay) commercial service was defrauded, a necessary element of any "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" allegation. Similarly, the investigating officer doesn't explain how sending an e-mail to a campus mailing list might constitute "unauthorized access to a computer system."

That is their characterization, even if you choose to narrowly consider only this particular source and not the total content of their statements. The mistake you both make is in taking one piece of the argument and presenting it as if there is nothing more. Seriously, did they not teach critical thinking at whatever school you bought your diploma from? As for your feeble attempt to support the probable cause for the warrant, you've ignored the fact that the witness was not established as reliable. I won't try to convince you, since you clearly aren't interested in finding the truth. Rather, for the sake of those reading this exchange, I'll point to the fact that your reference to the TOC requirement is a red herring. As you point out, it's totally irrelevant to this case. Why you brought it up is still a mystery to me, unless you just wanted to cite the one case with which you're familiar. What matters is that the witness clearly fails the two-prong test required by Spinelli. There is no valid basis for reliability established, beyond "he helped us in another unspecified case with an unspecified outcome." The police simply stating "he's reliable" is obviously insufficient, and even much stronger showings have been found wanting. As for your assertion that it doesn't matter if the crimes are listed properly in the affidavit, you've constructed a straw man. The issue isn't improper citing of the statutes, but whether any of the actions alleged to be criminal are, in fact, criminal. Additionally, there must be some connection between the crime and the location searched/evidence seized. The only potentially criminal act (under any relevant statute) alleged in the warrant application is the grade-changing. There is no information, however, linking the grade-changing to the items seized or the area searched. In fact, the witness doesn't even provide the approximate date or even year when it supposedly took place. If you can read probable cause into the facts of this case, I sincerely hope you are never in a position where your legal opinions matter.

Your arrogance is evident, as is your inability to reason.

Comment: Re:Just. Plain. Wrong. (Score 2, Informative) 1079

by burroughsj1 (#27582697) Attached to: College Police Think Using Linux Is Suspicious Behavior
If you bothered to read the warrant application, I can only assume you also read the Press Release. This would be the only valid basis for your accusation, since it's the only representation of what the EFF said. You seem, however, to be saying that the EFF is stating, like TFS, that the use of the "black with white font (zOMG!)" OS was the reason for the warrant. Were that the case, you would be right, and they would be liars. You're wrong, and they aren't. In fact, in the lengthy press release, they only once mention the use of a CLI, and it is only a very minor part of a larger argument relating to the reliability of the witness. You're ignoring the rest of the legal arguments, and the 15 page motion, which clearly show the invalid nature of the warrant. Your assertion that they're lying, and that there is probable cause, is "Just. Plain. Wrong."

Comment: Re:sure it is (Score 1) 1079

by burroughsj1 (#27582377) Attached to: College Police Think Using Linux Is Suspicious Behavior
Not to nitpick, but it wasn't an arrest. Rather it was a search for evidence of criminal activity. Taking a sticky note detailing the search is obviously not part of the investigation of the crime. Clearly the only motive would be to prevent documentation of their activities, or mere spite. Either is unprofessional and somewhat disturbing, since it is not functionally (note I didn't say legally) different from theft or destruction of property. I say that, since it wasn't listed on his receipt, which means he'll never get it back and it won't be used for anything. When you stop to consider the actual circumstances, your comment seems less witty, and more ignorant.

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)

Working...