Why in holy horseshit are you +5 insightful? You had a personal paraphrase of a hypothetical, one-sided exchange between two parties to which you, apparently, are a non-party.

I am 100% certain that some person attempted to contact Turner. Engaged is the term when you don't do this yourself. They made him some apology, he said GFY.

I hold the opinion that "Around the world in 80 {x}" is public domain, and if you happen to choose the same X as someone else in a short timespan, maybe you had the same idea independently.

I cannot judge who is correct in this case, as I am not a judge. But I won't try to paraphrase one side as to suit one side.

Speculation really doesn't help here. And I don't see how 4.1 MIME content headers relates to displaying a clickable link. The headers tell the e-mail client where to look for e-mail content, not how to display links. Maybe I missed something.

No.

I only reply because you somehow got up to +5 interesting. The patent trolls will take action against the people who make money by displaying e-mails. So Microsoft (Outlook), Google (Gmail), you know - they guys with lots of cash.

If they were to send the lawyers after the end users, it would be the people viewing links - you and me, reading non-spam, and not the spammers because they are not infringing this patent as far as I can tell. And I use the term patent extremely loosely.

You're talking about the right "against unreasonable searches and seizures" ?

It's not clear whether "the people" means the people of the United States, or everyone, since the Constitution usually says "citizens" or "persons". So it could apply only to US citizens. If that's the case, the NSA doesn't know if it's data about a citizen or not, and once it figures that out the data gets dumped.

If it should apply to everyone, then we have to define what is reasonable. Is it reasonable to capture all available information in the hope that it cracks open a lead? That's the current argument.

If you intentionally use SSL, Tor, PGP, or any other privacy tool, do you have an expectation of privacy?

This is an important argument. If you send a letter in an envelope, you expect that it will remain unopened until it gets to the recipient, and society generally agrees. If you send a postcard, you have no expectation of privacy. If you are convinced that all mail is private because sealed letters are private, you have an expectation of privacy. But most of society would see that no such expectation is legitimate.

If you use HTTP or POP or some instant messenger, all without encryption, you may *expect* privacy even though you are sending data to third parties, and it might get copied, and not just moved. Society in general would agree that people would expect it to be private - but if they knew how the internet works, they would probably change their minds.

If you use Tor, you obviously expect privacy, and society would agree. But here's the tricky part. The exit node has unencrypted data. Considering that some data includes IP addresses inside the packets, not just in the TCP or UDP headers, you are not always as anonymous as you think.

Now, if knowing the technical details makes you change your expectation of privacy, do you really have an expectation of privacy? There are lots of people who are prosecuted based on social media like FaceBook. They expected privacy, and obviously are just idiots.

Phone records and backing information has been "knowingly exposed" to a third party, even if you expect them to keep it to themselves. Police can just ask for those, and the phone company or bank can just hand the information over. They can refuse, but do so infrequently from what I can tell.

When you use HTTP, you may not consider your ISP, the hosting provider, or any intermediate hops, and society as a whole may expect privacy there, not knowing the technical details. When you use Tor, however, it is reasonable to assume that you know a little about it, at least enough to know why you want to use it.

The front page of the Tor project leads you to believe you are perfectly safe. The "Learn more" link shows red links that are "in the clear". Because Tor is an "anonymizing" solution, it never makes the claim that your information will never be revealed - only the source of it.

If an exit node can save every bit of data that goes in and out, do you really have an expectation of privacy? Or have you exposed information to a third party, which removes that expectation? I would argue that the ignorant masses would agree that HTTP does have an expectation, while the more informed Tor users knowingly give information to a third party, removing that expectation. Tor users retain an expectation of anonymity, which has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.

For the record, I believe that siphoning all Tor data is not what the founding fathers intended. But a legal challenge will only cement it in case law, eventually. Especially since the policy is to dump data that is essentially inside the US only. We don't have to trust them - they are interested in foreign data.

It is unlikely that a US citizen would have standing to bring a lawsuit to even challenge this. Once they know they have US data, it becomes uninteresting. Until then, they don't know that's what they have, and you are unlikely to be able to prove that you were harmed without identifying your data, which involves you revealing your *identity* to the NSA, defeating the purpose of anonymizing. If you have standing to sue, you would have to be using Tor for the sole purpose of having your data captured so you have standing to complain about exactly what you knew would happen - removing your expectation of privacy.

What kind of horseshit rhetoric is this? From all accounts, there are not enough TOR nodes to support much torrent activity. TOR project itself has explained this as well as common attacks against TOR users. I doubt performance is much better in 3 years. So let me re-phrase.

You cannot use Tor to download as the speed is too slow. In fact, you will most likely use it for communication purposes such as e-mails, web browsing, instant messaging, and other low-bandwidth activities.

TCP, IP, UDP are communication protocols, and anything that happens over them is a form of communication. Sharing software like linux distributions, source or binary, is communication. You're not going to do a lot of it over TOR.

An individual or group who believes it is acting in the interests of the state cannot objectively evaluate whether it is correct. Snowden did what he thought was right, based on his understanding of documents that he says came from Executive Branch organizations. We can assume from this official charge that he compromised some security, not that he shared factual information. And he could be prosecuted just based on his own statements, with his defense being that he fabricated the documents to support things he actually misunderstood.

On the other hand, a government organization is just as incapable of deciding whether it is acting in the interest of the country or just in its own self-preservation. After all, the American revolutionaries would be called domestic terrorists today, since the purpose was to overthrow the government. Taxation without representation, and other abuses of King George's court against the colonies, were clearly not in the interests of the governed people. In hindsight, Britain lost the tax revenue and resources of the colonies, and lots of colonists got shot. So it wasn't good for either side.

We had a little disagreement about slavery and states rights, with opinions so staunchly held that we fought each other. And both sides thought they were right, that they were acting in the best interests of the people. Timothy McVeigh thought he was going to spark a revolt against tyranny, and all he accomplished was killing a lot of people. Maybe he was right, but that stopped the moment he set the bomb off and failed. If he had tried another approach, maybe he could have started a change that meant something and been a hero. But no, he's just a delusional mass murderer.

Note: I'm not saying McVeigh was right about anything. He saw a government that had to change direction, and thought he could start turning that boat around. He believed he was just as good for the country as George III did, and as the revolutionaries did.

If Snowden exposed abuses without compromising US interests, he's a hero. But we don't know everything he has, and the impact it will have. He could expose abuses, and reveal information that is as damaging as what the Rosenbergs revealed, and they were executed.

Of course, exactly what the Rosenbergs revealed is still in question, even after numerous memoirs, interviews, transcripts, etc. Their intent seems pretty clear, but what they accomplished is not. And that's really the point. History will reveal the intent of BOTH parties. The truth may never be known, or multiple truths may be known as in the case of the Rosenbergs.

He can't be both a hero and a traitor, so until we know the whole story, we can't really declare him anything. It's way too early to take sides.

Technically though under the constitution, foreigners get the same rights as citizens

No. The Constitution talks about "citizens" and "persons" and fairly clearly distinguishes that they are not the same thing. An immigrant non-citizen in the USA is a "person" and does not have the right to vote, but does get other rights as a person.

Not until 2008 did the question of foreigners outside of the U.S. get a formal statement, thanks to a Supreme Court decision, regarding whether they get protections. The entire purpose of building GITMO was for foreigners held outside of the U.S. based on this premise.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's pretty clear that we have at least 3 divisions - citizens, persons, and persons in a state's jurisdiction. There is enough legal wiggle room to say that this excerpt does not apply to the US government, because it is not a state. And the meaning of "due process" as it relates to foreign nationals is one of those arguable bits. It gets to be a legal quagmire at this point, which is why in my earlier post I said the government can do pretty much anything it wants to to foreigners outside the US.

The legal system means the Executive branch gets to do first, get caught, and years later get told it can't do that anymore, typically with very little punishment. Million dollar settlement? Not even a blip on the radar.

The Constitution APPLIES to everyone, that is clear. The rights granted are NOT granted to everyone. And the crucial bit is HOW the Constitution applies. Unless something else has happened, "due process" could be as simple as declaring what the process is and waiting for someone to complain.

I'm pretty sure it's about the boundaries of the various intelligence agencies. CIA and NSA are for foreign intelligence, and are not supposed to be spying on US citizens. FBI would investigate US citizens.

Regardless of whether that is correct or not, the US Constitution does not prevent government agencies from doing anything it wants to, to foreigners, unless you consider the allowance for international treaties.

If I were to summarize the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in a very simple way, I would call them a reaction against abuses of power, intending to limit what the government could do to citizens. The question of whether someone is a "us person" is therefore crucial to every aspect of the US government.

For example, from the tone of your reply I assume you are not a "us person" and therefore you could be exported to GITMO with little fuss. I could not, because I'm a citizen. I would have to be declared an "enemy combatant" and therefore not subject to the protections of the Constitution of the country I would be accused of trying to destroy, then I could be shipped to GITMO. Huge difference, as you can see.

You should have been more clear on the used games bit.

game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

Basically, go fuck yourself, the horse you rode in on, your mother, and anyone you feel like, because that will fill the time you aren't playing used games. Most publishers will allow it, but that is a statistic, and the outliers will surely be the biggest targets for piracy.

How it will shake out: if you can pirate the game somehow, you will not be allowed to buy it used. This matches everything we have seen from most software publishers, and the biggest game distributors. Not game studios, because they produce a game. Distributors because they add DRM and whatever else they think might be a bottom-line improvement.

I expect a few lawsuits between game production companies and their distributors. Or if they are smart, contract changes.

There is nothing to get - that's the point. Stop overthinking it.

1) Whatever accompanied the license has no terms, including nothing about stripping the copyright notice.
2) The license itself has a license, which only asks that if you modify the license terms you have to change the name

It's not even public domain - it has no legal definition, and is not restricted in any way, including a lack of restrictions on re-copyrighting.

It's also obviously tongue in cheek, since no professional is going to release anything under this license. The lack of restrictions on marking something as being copyrighted make this a difficult legal area, if a dispute were to come up.

But a dispute with one side obviously lying is certainly better than a state prosecuting copyright violations when the author is not aware, nor wishes to have charges pursued. They wanted people to use the code, but did not license it explicitly.

The liberal licenses which retain ownership while granting a license are much more legally sound, both from a creator and a consumer perspective - that's even more of a selling point than short and easy to understand.

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. If we require a statement, the burden is either partly shifted to the defendant (not the defense, just the accused), or the threat of perjury is now very real. While typically not prosecuted, a reasonably solid case plus threats of additional charges like perjury and obstruction of justice make it easier, and more affordable, to plead guilty or no contest.

(btw parent - torture is explicitly off the table, as apparently its no big deal to society if a confession is tortured out of someone because they can always come back and get justice, in every case, without fail, so your comment is irrelevant. instead you should have gone with "any coercion other than what is not legally considered torture nor duress" which I think OP has some other weasel requirements to invalidate but can't be arsed to figure out which)

You (OP) have to consider this within the structure of the justice system, and all of its leanings toward potential abuse. As a defendant, with little or no power, a lengthy appeal process, and if vindicated a lengthy and expensive road to exposing abuses, you are automatically at a disadvantage even if you don't self-incriminate.

Scenario: I talk with the police, or prosecutors. At any point in the future, I mis-remember or mis-state something, on the record. Immediately anyone can say we have evidence that you are at best unreliable and more likely lying. Nothing I say at that point holds any water. I have damaged my own case, and it would be far better had I not said anything if it were optional.

In this example, we can consider the types of evidence that lead to Innocence Project victories because DNA evidence proves that the evidence was really just circumstantial. This isn't just clearly circumstantial evidence, which cannot be used as the sole evidence in a criminal case. This is the kind of rock-solid, 5 eye witnesses, your vehicle leaving the crime scene, you are guilty of murder evidence. But you didn't do it, and you are set free after years in jail.

Let me interrupt you and say that Innocence Project victories are not the subject here, they are only proof that people get convicted of Very Serious Things (c) on very shaky evidence, so don't claim that this type of scenario is impossible.

Instead of mis-stating, I can remember more details which are relevant, and share those when I have to. Either I was hiding them originally, or I'm making them up now. I am undermined, and two eye witnesses who claim it was me now outweigh me, an obviously guilty person lying to stay free.

False memories are surprisingly easy to create, especially accidentally. Depending on the timing and nature of the questions, you could develop a false memory. Your statements will be different because you remember what happened differently. Better to write down what you remember and put it in a locked, unpredictable location.

Any number of variations on scenarios like this boil down to one thing: the moment you appear to contradict yourself, your ability to defend yourself is diminished.

Very clearly, "frequent contributor Bennett Haselton" has never been in a situation with another person where he/she had to say "that's not what I meant." And even more clearly, has not uttered the words "that's not what I meant and you know it." I'm going off into the gender stereotypes here, but I'm fairly certain that everyone over the age of 15 has met that one super-bitch who decides what your words mean, and can recite everything you have ever said when it best suits her argument. Even if that super-bitch is a dude. When the police or prosecution have a record of your statements, "that's not what I meant" works never.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

That's all there is to it, really. But I'll ramble more.

I'm having an affair, and my lover is the only alibi I have, along with hotel receipts and probably security video placing me anywhere but the crime scene. Were I allowed to take the fifth, I make the prosecution find more evidence and hopefully find the actual criminal, without exposing myself any more than I already have. If I share my dirty little secret, that leverage can lead to pressure to allow more invasive searches or questioning. If I instead make up another place and claim I was there, that's lying and obstruction even if I clear things up later. All of which can be used in the event they decide I'm the only suspect and proceed. Just hand over the paper trail, it's all a misunderstanding, and everyone laughs, right? No, your question was the benefit to society as a whole. Like it or not, married people will have affairs as long as single people, or other married people, are willing to be the mistress/poolboy, so there is no net benefit in outing a frowned upon but natural behavior. And dragging the innocent through a legal quagmire is hardly helpful in catching the real bad dude.

What if 10 of my friends say I was at the lake, but I say I was at the hotel, and my girlfriend (who obviously will just say whatever I tell her to say) is my only record because I paid in cash and avoided all but the most grainy video surveillance? I have no paper trail for the lake either because that was my cover story. Now I'm looking like the number one suspect. I can't imagine any world in which there is benefit to society in trapping me in my own web of lies which are completely unrelated to the crime, while the actual criminal is out there.

Now, you shouldn't have to answer questions that are none of anyone else's business; if your alibi for the night of the murder is that you were at a somewhere you're embarrassed to mention, you should be allowed to say, "I didn't commit the murder, but I would prefer not to tell you where I was." But Fifth Amendment absolutists would say that you don't even have to answer the question of whether you committed the murder at all. That, to me, seems absurd. Isn't society entitled to know whether you committed the murder or not?

Yes, society is entitled to know. Is society going to believe me when I say no? The answer is no. Society gains nothing by me answering yes, because that is a false confession. Society gains nothing by me answering no, because society doesn't just take my word for it and move on. Separate from railroading and abuse, when a prosecutor has a good suspect it doesn't matter if you are innocent or guilty - only whether prosecution can meet the bar to get you convicted. No corruption, no railroading, just well-intentioned people on all sides going with what seems to be the obvious answer. I'm guilty, and lying about it.

If you consider the benefit if someone is actually guilty, it is hard to come up with a good scenario. But guilty is decided after the presentation of all evidence, not when you have the chance to decline answering questions. And guilty is not the record of what actually happened, it is the decision of a judge or jury based on evidence presented, which becomes a legal fact, possibly altering history if you are legally guilty of something you did not do. Unless you assert that you can tell when a person has been correctly imprisoned every time, there is no way to work your way back and say we would have let a guilty murderer go if not for his self-incrimination, therefore the benefit to society is obvious. Because after 10 years in jail, he too could be an Innocence Project victory, and your argument shrivels into the pointless mental masturbation that it truly is.

Christ on a cracker, I can't believe I wasted that much space on stating the obvious.

If you did, you'd see that he has a perfectly valid point about how the effect of non-Free licenses, combined with minified (and therefore effectively unreadable) code

No. Free Software wants JavaScript to be readable, and understandable. This is a valid point, regardless of the language and the availability of the source code.

We cannot make readable C from a decompilation, mostly because of different compilers and different optimization levels. We can decompile Java and C#/VB.NET because there is one and only one VM or IL definition.

JavaScript minification is only about renaming variables. I can tell you there is only one thing in the way of understanding JavaScript minification. Two, if you include a generic text editor's lack of "replace word only" functionality.

You have to read the de-minified version, just like any other code. You have to read, or if your language is not the same as the author's, translate, the variable names, just like the original source code.

JavaScript as it runs in your browser is exactly the same as it runs interpreted, compiled, or in any other fashion. You have the freedom to block it, you have the freedom to modify it (GreaseMonky is just one of many), you have the freedom to read it, save it, or do whatever else you want. If it executes on your machine, I think the FSF would support any measure of scrutiny you wish to apply before, during, or after executing.

I have read "free" software source code, and found it no more intelligible than minified JavaScript. Some no more readable than a disassembly.

If you are going to object to minified JS, you also have to object to any code which is difficult to comprehend, and then you place a subjective quality on what is truly free. Firefox, to me, is no longer free software. I debugged just the installer for a bug report on ReactOS, and found piles of code which was misleading, in the most complimentary term. I offered to make a change to Doom, which took me 3 times as long as I thought, and ultimately failed to achieve, because the seemingly readable code was slightly obfuscated by the build process.

Either source code is enough, or it has to be readable. If we say readable, we have to define the least common denominator who should be able to read it. If we do that, it becomes a subjective criterion, and probably a moving target.

So here we are, at a crossroads. If a project produces the source code needed to build a complete, binary-perfect copy of their executable(s), but it was run through the C pre-processor, or C++ pre-processor, is that enough? It compiles, it builds with the version of tools the provider used... if you discount the pre-processor, it is effectively the original source code provided to the compiler. Is that enough?

JavaScript is what is provided to the interpreter - minified or not. Is that enough?

I say it is, and I disagree 100% with the FSF on this point. Named variables are nice, but they can be interpreted by the usage, if you are going to read the code.

If you are going to take an ideological stance and say "I don't understand this, therefore it is not enough", you are going to have to establish an objective baseline. I can understand optimized assembly, and some pure hex - is that free enough?

This is the opinion of someone who believes that source is provided for everything that executes, or is interpreted. Surely to fuck if you wrote a compiler, you can understand this. If you wrote an interpreter it is easier to understand.

If you don't understand anything else, think of JavaScript like Spanish. Lots of people understand it, most people don't. In this case, you don't. You are provided all instructions in Spanish. Is it more difficult to understand the instructions if given in Spanish? Of course. But I don't see the objection. Especially if you allow C programs written with Spanish, or French, or any other foreign language to be classified as free.

Let us support the FSF in making all software English only. Or we could just say GFY.

If you do it your way, it's slower. Most people with a phone have it on already, with no locking. If you do it the way people who use payment apps do it, it can be a lot faster.

You could argue that this method is a lot slower: stare at the cashier, wait for the total, dig in your purse to find stray bills, decide you don't have enough cash, find a checkbook, hand the blank to the cashier so the register prints it, enter the amount and balance your checkbook.

Yes people do it that way, but most people avoid it if possible. Have your method of payment ready when it's time to pay, no matter what system you use.

You're worse than those people on infomercials who can't figure out how to change a light bulb, or get frustrated because they use every product in their house the wrong way. Don't be incompetent. And if you're going to argue against something, be realistic. Exaggeration of the sort found in infomercials is at best disingenuous, and more like outright falsification/

I understand you take exception to this generalization because of your experience. Do you think you are representative of the granny population? Or are you an exception to the generalization?

Any blanket statement will have outliers, including this one, and I find it odd to find replies like these modded up - I'd rather see actual stats on how many grannies are tech savvy rather than a single anecdote with 3 people who also have mod points agreeing.

I have, and gave up. I used to remember the details, but the installer alone was ridiculous. I tried debugging it for ReactOS, and it turned out to be a simple resource/image issue. Maybe things are better now, but I refuse to take a look.

I remember finding functions, only to see unused code in abandoned folders and not knowing which was actually part of the project. Not just a few, I estimated maybe 25% of the source distribution was dead code.

The build chain, considering that the UI is written in XUL, requires a full build of XUL, followed by the actual browser build.

Maybe things have improved, but I'm not going anywhere near it now. You could not pay me to alter a spelling mistake and build the result.