I would like it to be very clear that this person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737 -- i.e., me) who has been posting here on Slashdot for years. The person above has only been posting for a couple of days.
Having said that, I also disagree with what this person posted. Judges have generally found that the 5th Amendment is very much implicated in situations such as this. The just linked to in the post above appears to disagree with just about every other judge who has ruled on this matter.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy in regard to impersonation of other members, but I intend to find out. While I have not noticed this person doing anything blatantly malicious, it is my opinion that my Slashdot name is deliberately being used to mislead people.
I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.
(Having said that, I agree with what this person wrote here.)
I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.
I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.
I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.
It just seems typical of politicians today. It often seems like they've forgotten their history, so they repeat it over and over again.
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
"we can all see how slow they are achieveing anything at all. We can see this clearly with patents, copyrights, sexting and any other number of subjects."
Not even. Not in regard to patents and copyrights, at any rate.
The government hasn't been "moving slowly" at all. It was changes made by the government within the last 2 decades that have CAUSED the problems. Both patents and copyrights worked just fine prior to that.
(No doubt some people would argue with me about the "fine" part, but it's pretty easy to demonstrate that they worked BETTER than they do now, under the current, changed laws.)
Doesn't matter. You can make a profit on Bitcoin, then do a little horse-trading with Bitcoin repositories, and if you did it right nobody would know that you made any profit at all... just that you now have X in Bitcoins.
You can record anything you want in public, which is the vast majority of police encounters. That doesn't change.
The only time you need "consent" to record something is if it's in a setting that has a "reasonable" expectation of privacy attached to it. That excludes about 99.99% of situations that involve police.
If you're having trouble with a psychotic ex, get a court order to allow the calls to be recorded. Or record him/her freaking out somewhere outside, like on the public sidewalk. No big deal.
I actually spent quite a bit of time in one of the states with "all party consent" and it works just fine. The thing is: you can record conversations... it's not illegal. You just can't use it as evidence in court.
Most of the calls that you would be interested in recording are already being recorded by the other party anyway (like law enforcement), harassing bill collectors, etc.) and that constitutes "consent", so you can record away and know that you CAN use it in court. If anyone, at any time during the conversation, says "this call may be recorded", you have your consent.
Granted, it does leave out a few situations, like maybe you get some harassing calls from some private party. But those are relatively rare compared to the others. And if you're REALLY, I mean seriously, being harassed, you can always get a court order to let the police record your calls.
There are only a few states left that have "Consent of All Parties" laws. That is, EVERYBODY has to consent, in order for something to be recorded.
Over time, state after state has passed laws to allow "one party consent". That is, only the party doing the recording has to "consent" to be recorded. And that's bullshit. The laws were passed to make it easier for law enforcement (and corporations) to gather surveillance on other people.
This needs to change. "All party consent" makes very good sense and is the only scheme that preserves privacy at the proper level.
"I think the phrase "make a good idea great" means to implement it effectively and come up with closely related good ideas so that the net result of the original good idea is beyond what a baseline, minimal implementation would effect."
It might. But part of my point is that Google just hasn't shown itself to be any damned good at that. Out of maybe 100 "good ideas" that Google has had its hands on over the last 20 years or so (if I sat down with pencil and paper and some old blog posts, I might find that many... that we have known about), it has managed to take maybe 2 or maybe 3 good ideas and run with them. The rest it squandered or actively killed off.
And those 2 or 3 are already about as developed as they will get. In fact, people are actually rebelling against them now: user-tracking for "targeted ads", abuse of search data, corporate lock-in of supposedly "open" products... etc. Hell, Google has already Googlified Google Glass too much, to the point that I predict it will be dead in the water. People are about to start using Augmented Reality on their phones in earnest, and don't need to wear it on their heads, with Google services being pushed into their eyes and ears all the time.
No, it isn't. In my example, he might even have written in his blog, "This is a terrible thing, and I don't recommend anybody do it." He could directly say he DOESN'T advocate it, and describe it anyway. His reasons for writing things might be advocacy, but they aren't necessarily advocacy.
I could give you instructions on how to make an atomic bomb (I really could... they're not that complicated and they've been published publicly for decades). I could also give you instructions on how to make an explosive with household chemicals... presumably to ward off some future occupation of the United States by hostile forces or something. I could even "glamorize" the idea of knowing these things, for the sake of self-sufficiency and survivalism, as a means of self-preservation in case of some hypothetical societal breakdown.
But that's a very far cry from "advocating" the use of same under anything even remotely resembling normal circumstances. My reasons for giving the instructions (preparedness for emergencies) might be the farthest thing from any kind of "advocacy" at all. In fact I might loathe what I felt was the fact that I needed to disseminate the information as a public service. Which is about 180 degrees apart from advocacy.
So no. I disagree with you completely. While what he did could have been advocating suicide, the mere presence of a description of how to do it isn't necessarily "advocacy". There are many possible reasons for giving instructions that do not include any kind of "advocacy".
There are two things wrong with what the article states. The first, is that it goes on and on about how Google just doesn't do it anymore. Which is a clear example of circular reasoning: "We don't need it anymore because we aren't doing it anymore."
The second thing is the last part of OP's post:
"More than it needs more ideas, it needs to make the ideas it has great."
This is a nonsensical statement. You don't "make an idea great". It either is or isn't. You can make a plan or a business great, but ideas, by definition, stand on their own, or not.
In fact Google is rather infamous for taking lots of pretty good ideas and driving them into the ground... perhaps for precisely the reason that they were trying to follow some misguided notion of "making the ideas better".
All in all, it sounds rather like an apologia for a company that has grown more like a cancer than a weed, and is now more of an evil Frankenstein's monster than it is a Jolly Green Giant.
" Is it fair to assume that documenting one's own reasons for suicide constitutes promoting it? "
No.
If you hated your next door neighbor for some reason, and documented all of your reasons, and described how and why you decided to poison him... does that constitute "advocating" that other people go kill their next door neighbors?
"In addition to being against the law, at least it used to be."
But that's either a straw-man argument, or completely irrelevant, take your pick. Committing a crime does not automatically invalidate contracts with other people.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like it to be very clear that this person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737 -- i.e., me) who has been posting here on Slashdot for years. The person above has only been posting for a couple of days.
Having said that, I also disagree with what this person posted. Judges have generally found that the 5th Amendment is very much implicated in situations such as this. The just linked to in the post above appears to disagree with just about every other judge who has ruled on this matter.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy in regard to impersonation of other members, but I intend to find out. While I have not noticed this person doing anything blatantly malicious, it is my opinion that my Slashdot name is deliberately being used to mislead people.
I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.
(Having said that, I agree with what this person wrote here.)
(post 2)
I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.
(post 3)
I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.
(post 2)
I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.
I would like it to be very clear that this person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years.
I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
Yes, and I acknowledge the point you made. I do think that's what OP meant. But what I was saying is that he is wrong.
"we can all see how slow they are achieveing anything at all. We can see this clearly with patents, copyrights, sexting and any other number of subjects."
Not even. Not in regard to patents and copyrights, at any rate.
The government hasn't been "moving slowly" at all. It was changes made by the government within the last 2 decades that have CAUSED the problems. Both patents and copyrights worked just fine prior to that.
(No doubt some people would argue with me about the "fine" part, but it's pretty easy to demonstrate that they worked BETTER than they do now, under the current, changed laws.)
Doesn't matter. You can make a profit on Bitcoin, then do a little horse-trading with Bitcoin repositories, and if you did it right nobody would know that you made any profit at all... just that you now have X in Bitcoins.
"You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want."
Yes, you do... as long as you aren't harming others in the process.
You can record anything you want in public, which is the vast majority of police encounters. That doesn't change.
The only time you need "consent" to record something is if it's in a setting that has a "reasonable" expectation of privacy attached to it. That excludes about 99.99% of situations that involve police.
If you're having trouble with a psychotic ex, get a court order to allow the calls to be recorded. Or record him/her freaking out somewhere outside, like on the public sidewalk. No big deal.
"One party is actually better if you understand how it really works."
I do understand how it works. Nevertheless, I disagree completely.
Not at all.
I actually spent quite a bit of time in one of the states with "all party consent" and it works just fine. The thing is: you can record conversations... it's not illegal. You just can't use it as evidence in court.
Most of the calls that you would be interested in recording are already being recorded by the other party anyway (like law enforcement), harassing bill collectors, etc.) and that constitutes "consent", so you can record away and know that you CAN use it in court. If anyone, at any time during the conversation, says "this call may be recorded", you have your consent.
Granted, it does leave out a few situations, like maybe you get some harassing calls from some private party. But those are relatively rare compared to the others. And if you're REALLY, I mean seriously, being harassed, you can always get a court order to let the police record your calls.
Yes, I stand corrected.
There are only a few states left that have "Consent of All Parties" laws. That is, EVERYBODY has to consent, in order for something to be recorded.
Over time, state after state has passed laws to allow "one party consent". That is, only the party doing the recording has to "consent" to be recorded. And that's bullshit. The laws were passed to make it easier for law enforcement (and corporations) to gather surveillance on other people.
This needs to change. "All party consent" makes very good sense and is the only scheme that preserves privacy at the proper level.
" If there was ANY evidence of that, Wikileaks would happily be spreading the news."
That's certainly not true. They have deliberately withheld very damning documents for later times. It's part of what they do.
And it's smart. "Insurance" is really what it is.
They just have to be very short hurdles, very close together.
"I think the phrase "make a good idea great" means to implement it effectively and come up with closely related good ideas so that the net result of the original good idea is beyond what a baseline, minimal implementation would effect."
It might. But part of my point is that Google just hasn't shown itself to be any damned good at that. Out of maybe 100 "good ideas" that Google has had its hands on over the last 20 years or so (if I sat down with pencil and paper and some old blog posts, I might find that many... that we have known about), it has managed to take maybe 2 or maybe 3 good ideas and run with them. The rest it squandered or actively killed off.
And those 2 or 3 are already about as developed as they will get. In fact, people are actually rebelling against them now: user-tracking for "targeted ads", abuse of search data, corporate lock-in of supposedly "open" products... etc. Hell, Google has already Googlified Google Glass too much, to the point that I predict it will be dead in the water. People are about to start using Augmented Reality on their phones in earnest, and don't need to wear it on their heads, with Google services being pushed into their eyes and ears all the time.
No, it isn't. In my example, he might even have written in his blog, "This is a terrible thing, and I don't recommend anybody do it." He could directly say he DOESN'T advocate it, and describe it anyway. His reasons for writing things might be advocacy, but they aren't necessarily advocacy.
I could give you instructions on how to make an atomic bomb (I really could... they're not that complicated and they've been published publicly for decades). I could also give you instructions on how to make an explosive with household chemicals... presumably to ward off some future occupation of the United States by hostile forces or something. I could even "glamorize" the idea of knowing these things, for the sake of self-sufficiency and survivalism, as a means of self-preservation in case of some hypothetical societal breakdown.
But that's a very far cry from "advocating" the use of same under anything even remotely resembling normal circumstances. My reasons for giving the instructions (preparedness for emergencies) might be the farthest thing from any kind of "advocacy" at all. In fact I might loathe what I felt was the fact that I needed to disseminate the information as a public service. Which is about 180 degrees apart from advocacy.
So no. I disagree with you completely. While what he did could have been advocating suicide, the mere presence of a description of how to do it isn't necessarily "advocacy". There are many possible reasons for giving instructions that do not include any kind of "advocacy".
I think this question is one of the major exceptions to Betteridge's Law, in that the answer is usually Yes.
Either the answer is "yes", or it doesn't matter because whatever it is, it's coming anyway.
Examples of past headlines like this:
Genetic Engineering Is Coming. Are We Ready?
Digital Cameras And Photo Software Are Becoming Too Sophisticated, Too Fast. Are We Ready For The Inevitable Fake Photographs?
Etc.
The second thing is the last part of OP's post:
"More than it needs more ideas, it needs to make the ideas it has great."
This is a nonsensical statement. You don't "make an idea great". It either is or isn't. You can make a plan or a business great, but ideas, by definition, stand on their own, or not.
In fact Google is rather infamous for taking lots of pretty good ideas and driving them into the ground... perhaps for precisely the reason that they were trying to follow some misguided notion of "making the ideas better".
All in all, it sounds rather like an apologia for a company that has grown more like a cancer than a weed, and is now more of an evil Frankenstein's monster than it is a Jolly Green Giant.
"... but it can be read as instructional for other people, which is a clear violation of Yahoo's ToS."
It is? Exactly what part of the ToS prohibits "instructions"?
Is it against their ToS for me to post instructions for making rag dolls?
" Is it fair to assume that documenting one's own reasons for suicide constitutes promoting it? "
No.
If you hated your next door neighbor for some reason, and documented all of your reasons, and described how and why you decided to poison him... does that constitute "advocating" that other people go kill their next door neighbors?
Answer: No, it does not.
"In addition to being against the law, at least it used to be."
But that's either a straw-man argument, or completely irrelevant, take your pick. Committing a crime does not automatically invalidate contracts with other people.