Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it shouldn't be newsworthy. These companies need to be exposed for what they are doing as much as possible just like governments should be.
They may not have had to buy any of these politicians to get this passed. I mean, the way most politicians talk about "stimulating the economy" through spending you wouldn't think it'd take much to convince them that protecting copyright with an Iron fist would be a good thing... sigh...
You would think so but remember that the US government as well as many other governments have grown beyond being bound by their original restrictions... That and I doubt the copyright lobby would fail to get their own legislation passed.
It's more the fault of the people for believing that their rights can be protected solely by the voting process. History has shown that belief to be ridiculous. The problem is that most people are completely convinced that they have no real option to change things outside of the voting process.
I believe the standard is that if you should reasonably know that a crime will be committed then you would have a legal responsibility not to sell the materials in question. That is something that is to my knowledge fairly hard to prove in court. However, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an authoritative source on the matter so it would be great for some actual lawyers on/. to comment on the matter.
The second amendment is largely protected because there are enough people defending the amendment to make it meaningful. If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient."
TFA only mentions one; as a diagnostic tool. On a related note, if the FBI did indeed find a post by DerEngel (the modder in question) mentioning the MAC addresses then I think that he would be in a lot of trouble in court.
Selling bullets is one thing, selling bullets knowing that it'll end up being used to murder someone specific is quite another. The problem is that it may be difficult to prove the equivalent here. *disclaimer I'm only explaining what I think the GP's position is in regards to aiding and abetting*
The act of defrauding the cable provider is illegal but the instructions for the hack that may or may not allow this type of fraud apparently has legal uses as well. Tools are neither good nor evil, the manner in which you use them is what determines the ethics of using those tools. A shovel can help plant a garden and it can also be used for murder, that doesn't mean the shovel is evil, just the use of the shovel for evil purposes.
Oh and a typical asteroid is something like 500x as rich in Gold and various precious metals than Earth is due to the nature of their formation. The idea is to start with the really easy profit niches like space tourism and precious material mining and go from there. We don't need to bring back ore from the asteroids, just the finished processed materials. That way fuel is conserved and the profit of the whole operation is significantly increased. The single largest problem in terms of colonizing space is getting from Earth's surface to LEO. The trip from there is relatively easy using solar/nuclear powered alternative engines like plasma, ion etc. That's why I said that there were significant barriers to competitors entering the field. The problem is that most people think that there aren't any niches that exist between what we have now and solar colonisation. First the space tourism then infrastructure to support that tourism and then precious material mining and processing on asteroids then we can get to utilising cheaper resources. It's just a matter of doing it all in several small, manageable steps.
I am trying to tell you that we need everyone on this planet to be involved not just the US. I never said that other countries shouldn't have x-prizes of their own, all I said was that it was short sighted to restrict the x-prize competition to our own industry. The tech will be developed faster if countries create x-prize style incentives that are international in scale. Geeze... Everyone and their brother wants the tech to themselves it's just amazing that anything ever gets done on this planet.
Yes what you're proposing is protectionism. Any measure designed to artificially tilt the balance toward local industry against foreign competition is protectionism. You're just justifying it with national security and anti-dumping policies on which you are wrong on both counts. There's a difference between covert military tech and the civilian tech prizes I'm talking about here. You're not considering the advantages to rapid development of space flight tech by whomever is able to do so. You're just throwing out reasons why we shouldn't bother.
THere is nothing stopping a US company fro mwinning the funds, they're just competing with the rest of the world for those funds. If the US companies are worth a damn they'll get the prize, if not.. well there's no right to profit only the right to try to make a profit. The US should stick to what it does best and stop this silly protectionism in its tracks. It does us no good to put artificial barriers to stop other countries from stepping in where we aren't as efficient. It just helps the inefficient industries here to live when they really shouldn't. Just take a look at our auto industry if you want to see an example of the bloated corporations that were allowed to exist because of protectionism.
Oh there's profit in it... The asteroid belt alone has enough resources to sustain humanity at current rates of consumption for 150 million years or more. Space travel entails a very large barrier to any competitive entities surviving long enough to be profitable. The X-prize provided a near term reward which spurred tons of research into cheap sub-orbital space flight and now there's some rudimentary space industry that can be used to get the ball rolling. The next step is obtaining resources for LEO cheaply and that likely means making use of volatiles and such from NEOs. Then once that is all set up, we can start making real progress into expanding into places that aren't as easily profitable without all of the space infrastructure already in place. Really, I think what NASA needs most is competition through x-prize style incentives. Just a few hundred million a year might be enough to do the trick. It's comparatively tiny compared to their 17 billion$/year budget but it'll probably get things really going.
They would do well to put the moon and Mars on the back burner and focus on the asteroids. Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to *everyone* not just US companies. Focus on alternative propulsion and energy systems as chemical engines are not going to get us very far. Get NASA out of Earth to LEO and focused toward targets that are farther out and harder to reach. Let SpaceX and friends take care of launch costs to LEO. Focus on utilising robotic missions where possible and reserve human space flight for in depth study where the time lag/AI insufficiencies become problematic. Get hacking on the problem of orbital space debris- that will be a major problem if we're going to be going to do anything outside of our atmosphere.
My guess is that they'll treat the internet the same way they've treated every other technological advance for the last century+: fight with everything available to them to resist changing their business model until their respective corporate shareholders start lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks and grudgingly adapt to the new technology slowly but never really taking full advantage of it. Perhaps even snagging themselves a new fangled piece of legislation like the DMCA or ACTA.
You're assuming that 100% of people who watched regular TV without DVRs watched all of the commercials and that is a very bad assumption. Of course it's also foolish to equate not skipping an ad for actually watching an ad. I mean how many people do other stuff while the commercials are running?
What are the odds that most people use the time during commercials to go get themselves a drink or something and aren't actually watching them? Sure with a DVR you could skip over them but it could very well be just a habit not to do so.
Good point. Their heating costs go down bu the amount of water they're using probably goes up. Is it worth sacrificing water conservation for power conservation?
The sad part is that you're more correct than most people understand. If you look at the dominant economic strategy that the US and most other countries in the world follow, it hinges mostly on Keynes' insistence that demand was all that mattered and that government spending was the way to get people consuming ravenously again...
I fear that you're right. With our luck, ACTA will probably kill net neutrality stone dead with provisions allowing for perhaps even mandating throttling by ISPs to protect various corporate interests regarding copyright law. The FCC's position on net neutrality supports this view strongly. Allowing for exceptions where activity is deemed illegal.
People aren't push for MORE government, wizardfarce, but for honest and legal government.
Then they've failed. The banks got their bailout, the wars are still raging and the other failings of Bush are still around. The only difference is that people believed that things had really changed this time. People are not making the government do its job; that's the real problem.
I think that's wishful thinking. Most of the "cons" I know still cling to the idea that Bush was a good guy after all and it's likely that the same will hold true of Obama. Politics is much like religion, everyone involved feels a very strong need to support their group and it's nearly impossible to shake them out of their comfort zone; which is essentially to admit that their side could do wrong after all.
*remove the end points of the journey and use the data between the end points. *separate the movement data from other data; they don't need to connect a car to its data as it probably isn't needed to determine general commuter habits. If they somehow need to connect a car to its journey they can generalize to its model or assign a randomised alphanumerical tag to it instead of someone's name etc..
Slashdot Mirror
Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it shouldn't be newsworthy. These companies need to be exposed for what they are doing as much as possible just like governments should be.
They may not have had to buy any of these politicians to get this passed. I mean, the way most politicians talk about "stimulating the economy" through spending you wouldn't think it'd take much to convince them that protecting copyright with an Iron fist would be a good thing... sigh...
You would think so but remember that the US government as well as many other governments have grown beyond being bound by their original restrictions... That and I doubt the copyright lobby would fail to get their own legislation passed.
It's more the fault of the people for believing that their rights can be protected solely by the voting process. History has shown that belief to be ridiculous. The problem is that most people are completely convinced that they have no real option to change things outside of the voting process.
I believe the standard is that if you should reasonably know that a crime will be committed then you would have a legal responsibility not to sell the materials in question. That is something that is to my knowledge fairly hard to prove in court. However, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an authoritative source on the matter so it would be great for some actual lawyers on /. to comment on the matter.
The second amendment is largely protected because there are enough people defending the amendment to make it meaningful. If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient."
TFA only mentions one; as a diagnostic tool. On a related note, if the FBI did indeed find a post by DerEngel (the modder in question) mentioning the MAC addresses then I think that he would be in a lot of trouble in court.
Selling bullets is one thing, selling bullets knowing that it'll end up being used to murder someone specific is quite another. The problem is that it may be difficult to prove the equivalent here. *disclaimer I'm only explaining what I think the GP's position is in regards to aiding and abetting*
The question is: did he actually do that? It looks like the forums were most of the reason why he was charged the way he was.
The act of defrauding the cable provider is illegal but the instructions for the hack that may or may not allow this type of fraud apparently has legal uses as well. Tools are neither good nor evil, the manner in which you use them is what determines the ethics of using those tools. A shovel can help plant a garden and it can also be used for murder, that doesn't mean the shovel is evil, just the use of the shovel for evil purposes.
Oh and a typical asteroid is something like 500x as rich in Gold and various precious metals than Earth is due to the nature of their formation. The idea is to start with the really easy profit niches like space tourism and precious material mining and go from there. We don't need to bring back ore from the asteroids, just the finished processed materials. That way fuel is conserved and the profit of the whole operation is significantly increased. The single largest problem in terms of colonizing space is getting from Earth's surface to LEO. The trip from there is relatively easy using solar/nuclear powered alternative engines like plasma, ion etc. That's why I said that there were significant barriers to competitors entering the field. The problem is that most people think that there aren't any niches that exist between what we have now and solar colonisation. First the space tourism then infrastructure to support that tourism and then precious material mining and processing on asteroids then we can get to utilising cheaper resources. It's just a matter of doing it all in several small, manageable steps.
I am trying to tell you that we need everyone on this planet to be involved not just the US. I never said that other countries shouldn't have x-prizes of their own, all I said was that it was short sighted to restrict the x-prize competition to our own industry. The tech will be developed faster if countries create x-prize style incentives that are international in scale. Geeze... Everyone and their brother wants the tech to themselves it's just amazing that anything ever gets done on this planet.
Yes what you're proposing is protectionism. Any measure designed to artificially tilt the balance toward local industry against foreign competition is protectionism. You're just justifying it with national security and anti-dumping policies on which you are wrong on both counts. There's a difference between covert military tech and the civilian tech prizes I'm talking about here. You're not considering the advantages to rapid development of space flight tech by whomever is able to do so. You're just throwing out reasons why we shouldn't bother.
THere is nothing stopping a US company fro mwinning the funds, they're just competing with the rest of the world for those funds. If the US companies are worth a damn they'll get the prize, if not.. well there's no right to profit only the right to try to make a profit. The US should stick to what it does best and stop this silly protectionism in its tracks. It does us no good to put artificial barriers to stop other countries from stepping in where we aren't as efficient. It just helps the inefficient industries here to live when they really shouldn't. Just take a look at our auto industry if you want to see an example of the bloated corporations that were allowed to exist because of protectionism.
Oh there's profit in it... The asteroid belt alone has enough resources to sustain humanity at current rates of consumption for 150 million years or more. Space travel entails a very large barrier to any competitive entities surviving long enough to be profitable. The X-prize provided a near term reward which spurred tons of research into cheap sub-orbital space flight and now there's some rudimentary space industry that can be used to get the ball rolling. The next step is obtaining resources for LEO cheaply and that likely means making use of volatiles and such from NEOs. Then once that is all set up, we can start making real progress into expanding into places that aren't as easily profitable without all of the space infrastructure already in place. Really, I think what NASA needs most is competition through x-prize style incentives. Just a few hundred million a year might be enough to do the trick. It's comparatively tiny compared to their 17 billion$/year budget but it'll probably get things really going.
They would do well to put the moon and Mars on the back burner and focus on the asteroids. Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to *everyone* not just US companies.
Focus on alternative propulsion and energy systems as chemical engines are not going to get us very far. Get NASA out of Earth to LEO and focused toward targets that are farther out and harder to reach. Let SpaceX and friends take care of launch costs to LEO. Focus on utilising robotic missions where possible and reserve human space flight for in depth study where the time lag/AI insufficiencies become problematic. Get hacking on the problem of orbital space debris- that will be a major problem if we're going to be going to do anything outside of our atmosphere.
My guess is that they'll treat the internet the same way they've treated every other technological advance for the last century+: fight with everything available to them to resist changing their business model until their respective corporate shareholders start lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks and grudgingly adapt to the new technology slowly but never really taking full advantage of it. Perhaps even snagging themselves a new fangled piece of legislation like the DMCA or ACTA.
You're assuming that 100% of people who watched regular TV without DVRs watched all of the commercials and that is a very bad assumption. Of course it's also foolish to equate not skipping an ad for actually watching an ad. I mean how many people do other stuff while the commercials are running?
What are the odds that most people use the time during commercials to go get themselves a drink or something and aren't actually watching them? Sure with a DVR you could skip over them but it could very well be just a habit not to do so.
Good point. Their heating costs go down bu the amount of water they're using probably goes up. Is it worth sacrificing water conservation for power conservation?
The sad part is that you're more correct than most people understand. If you look at the dominant economic strategy that the US and most other countries in the world follow, it hinges mostly on Keynes' insistence that demand was all that mattered and that government spending was the way to get people consuming ravenously again...
I fear that you're right. With our luck, ACTA will probably kill net neutrality stone dead with provisions allowing for perhaps even mandating throttling by ISPs to protect various corporate interests regarding copyright law. The FCC's position on net neutrality supports this view strongly. Allowing for exceptions where activity is deemed illegal.
Then they've failed. The banks got their bailout, the wars are still raging and the other failings of Bush are still around. The only difference is that people believed that things had really changed this time. People are not making the government do its job; that's the real problem.
I think that's wishful thinking. Most of the "cons" I know still cling to the idea that Bush was a good guy after all and it's likely that the same will hold true of Obama. Politics is much like religion, everyone involved feels a very strong need to support their group and it's nearly impossible to shake them out of their comfort zone; which is essentially to admit that their side could do wrong after all.
*remove the end points of the journey and use the data between the end points.
*separate the movement data from other data; they don't need to connect a car to its data as it probably isn't needed to determine general commuter habits. If they somehow need to connect a car to its journey they can generalize to its model or assign a randomised alphanumerical tag to it instead of someone's name etc..