"We employ people for industry. Welders, electricians, mechanics, etc. to build or repair mining machinery, among other things. Some work sites do mandatory drug testing."
I can understand it if you are operating heavy or otherwise dangerous machinery, or you're a bus driver or something. But other jobs? I mean, you have companies out there insisting on pre-employment testing for grocery store boxboys and people who wash and stock produce, or do laundry! And in the computer business? Forget it.
I vowed long ago that I would never take again take a pre-employment drug screening, or agree to random testing. I am sick and tired of this "guilty until proven innocent" bullshit. If I worked for a company and they had GOOD REASON to suspect that I was taking illegal drugs on the job, that would be one thing. But treat me like I'm guilty without any reason or evidence? Hell, no!
And yes, I have passed up several jobs because of this.
I have made one exception since then, but only because the employer convinced me that the parent corporation left them no choice in the matter. Even then I was reluctant.
There is one other exception I am willing to consider. In an office setting, if ANYBODY is going to screw things up by making a drug-addled decision, it's far more likely to be a manager or corporate officer than some clerk or programmer. So my policy is: if the managers will piss in a cup and show me the results (or show me recent past results), I will do the same.
"You're kidding, right? Do we have to explain the elementary theory of networking to you?"
You're kidding, right? You misunderstood my question THAT much?
I know how to use a VPN. My question was: how do you use a VPN effectively to download? You sure as hell don't want to use a computer at the office as your endpoint.
Maybe not... usually. But I have a performance contract. I pay a certain amount per month for a certain bandwidth tier. If they were to throttle me, they would not be delivering on their part of the contract. Period.
"This is just to lay the legal groundwork for the music and movie industries. This way they can demand this list from the ISP and show that the evildoer just kept going in the face of legal threats."
(A) It doesn't lay any "legal groundwork". They are simply notices that say someone else told them you were illegally downloading or something.
(B) The above point is important: the ISPs aren't informing the "copyright police", it's the other way around.
"Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers."
Yep. It will eventually turn around and bite them in the ass. I suspect that sooner or later there will be some lawsuits, too.
"... and the judges will find for them if it ever comes to trial."
Actually, more and more judges have been ruling that an IP address does not identify a person.
As we saw here on Slashdot just the other day, the first "three strikes" prosecution in the Netherlands was thrown out of court on that very basis: all they had was an IP address. It could have been anybody.
And take a situation like mine: I keep my router open as a public service (as suggested by EFF)... and I have one of the strongest signals around. People on the next block over could be using my internet. I neither know nor care, unless they were to become abusive of my generosity.
The contract I signed with them has no provision for "punishment" based on some 3rd-party's say-so. If they tried to throttle me or cut me off, that is fraud or at least breach of contract.
They can threaten all they like, but I'd bet you a lot their lawyers told them they'd damned well better stop short of actually taking any action.
That is mostly true, and I don't like that situation at all.
Back when Intel was pretty much the only player in the desktop market (there were a few Z-80 systems later on, but relatively few), the CPU could be half the cost of the whole PC, and that just kept getting worse until they actually got some competition in the market.
Even Adam Smith, clear back in his book "Wealth of Nations", recognized that monopoly is inherently harmful and must be regulated, if we are to have a free market at all.
We MUST have competition in the high-end processor market. Intel has a long history of abuse and monopolistic practices. Without a decent competitor, you can expect your processor prices to soar, just as they did in the past when Intel was essentially the only player.
This is not an option. We MUST have somebody to compete with Intel.
Seriously. Make programs (like email, IM, etc.) work with a good but open encryption protocol, like gpg for example. And surely (since Skype has shown what is possible with compression) voice applications can make good use of encryption too.
But a subscription-based, proprietary solution with central servers? No thanks.
"Seriously, why isn't Slashdot using Flowplayer or another "HTML5-first" player? Even YouTube would do..."
That's what I suggested the last time. That they would probably be better off just ripping the FlowPlayer code from some porn site than this Ooyala-mutated wonder.
At first I thought it might be because I have Flash Local Storage turned off, but it works in Chrome and Safari.
It could be because I have HTTP local storage turned off in Firefox. But that is no excuse. The video player should not refuse to run just because I respect my own privacy.
Really, I want to emphasize this, Slashdot: your video player implementation sucks. I said it before, and I will keep saying it unless and until you change it.
But about Slashdot's implementation of a Flash video player.
It doesn't work in my Firefox at all. Even with script-and flash-blockers turned off. In order to watch videos on Slashdot, I have to open Chrome or Safari, and watch them there. Because of course there is NO LINK to the original video anywhere, and Ooyala deliberately hides the video source in a plethora of flash and javascript.
I agree. Slashdot's implementation of Ooyala Player really sucks. It doesn't even work in my Firefox... probably because I have Flash Local Storage turned off.
Give me a damned link to YouTube or whatever, and let me watch it on my own.
"When you consider this, EULAs become not only very understandable, but quite fair and proper."
Nonsense. People can be, and sometimes are, damaged far beyond just the face value of the transaction. There is nothing "fair" about removing your option to sue should you want to. You have a right to sue for damages, under normal circumstances (i.e., no agreement otherwise), and that right should not be taken away by default.
Slashdot Mirror
"Interesting article, I suppose, but is this really /. stuff?"
I don't understand why you seem to think it should not be Slashdot stuff. Care to explain?
"We employ people for industry. Welders, electricians, mechanics, etc. to build or repair mining machinery, among other things. Some work sites do mandatory drug testing."
I can understand it if you are operating heavy or otherwise dangerous machinery, or you're a bus driver or something. But other jobs? I mean, you have companies out there insisting on pre-employment testing for grocery store boxboys and people who wash and stock produce, or do laundry! And in the computer business? Forget it.
I vowed long ago that I would never take again take a pre-employment drug screening, or agree to random testing. I am sick and tired of this "guilty until proven innocent" bullshit. If I worked for a company and they had GOOD REASON to suspect that I was taking illegal drugs on the job, that would be one thing. But treat me like I'm guilty without any reason or evidence? Hell, no!
And yes, I have passed up several jobs because of this.
I have made one exception since then, but only because the employer convinced me that the parent corporation left them no choice in the matter. Even then I was reluctant.
There is one other exception I am willing to consider. In an office setting, if ANYBODY is going to screw things up by making a drug-addled decision, it's far more likely to be a manager or corporate officer than some clerk or programmer. So my policy is: if the managers will piss in a cup and show me the results (or show me recent past results), I will do the same.
I think that's very fair.
... if all they did was write Perl.
Where do you think Slashdot came from?
And the Natural Guard.
"You're kidding, right? Do we have to explain the elementary theory of networking to you?"
You're kidding, right? You misunderstood my question THAT much?
I know how to use a VPN. My question was: how do you use a VPN effectively to download? You sure as hell don't want to use a computer at the office as your endpoint.
"You're comparing apples and hand grenades."
I wasn't "comparing" anything. I just felt it was worthy of mention.
"Usually not."
Maybe not... usually. But I have a performance contract. I pay a certain amount per month for a certain bandwidth tier. If they were to throttle me, they would not be delivering on their part of the contract. Period.
"I'm using a VPN."
Maybe you could do us all a public service and explain how we can get torrents via some kind of public VPN.
"This is just to lay the legal groundwork for the music and movie industries. This way they can demand this list from the ISP and show that the evildoer just kept going in the face of legal threats."
(A) It doesn't lay any "legal groundwork". They are simply notices that say someone else told them you were illegally downloading or something.
(B) The above point is important: the ISPs aren't informing the "copyright police", it's the other way around.
"Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers."
Yep. It will eventually turn around and bite them in the ass. I suspect that sooner or later there will be some lawsuits, too.
"... and the judges will find for them if it ever comes to trial."
Actually, more and more judges have been ruling that an IP address does not identify a person.
As we saw here on Slashdot just the other day, the first "three strikes" prosecution in the Netherlands was thrown out of court on that very basis: all they had was an IP address. It could have been anybody.
And take a situation like mine: I keep my router open as a public service (as suggested by EFF)... and I have one of the strongest signals around. People on the next block over could be using my internet. I neither know nor care, unless they were to become abusive of my generosity.
Bravo.
For once, a post I can agree with 100%.
The contract I signed with them has no provision for "punishment" based on some 3rd-party's say-so. If they tried to throttle me or cut me off, that is fraud or at least breach of contract.
They can threaten all they like, but I'd bet you a lot their lawyers told them they'd damned well better stop short of actually taking any action.
"Strictly speaking you don't have that now."
That is mostly true, and I don't like that situation at all.
Back when Intel was pretty much the only player in the desktop market (there were a few Z-80 systems later on, but relatively few), the CPU could be half the cost of the whole PC, and that just kept getting worse until they actually got some competition in the market.
Even Adam Smith, clear back in his book "Wealth of Nations", recognized that monopoly is inherently harmful and must be regulated, if we are to have a free market at all.
We MUST have competition in the high-end processor market. Intel has a long history of abuse and monopolistic practices. Without a decent competitor, you can expect your processor prices to soar, just as they did in the past when Intel was essentially the only player.
This is not an option. We MUST have somebody to compete with Intel.
Seriously. Make programs (like email, IM, etc.) work with a good but open encryption protocol, like gpg for example. And surely (since Skype has shown what is possible with compression) voice applications can make good use of encryption too.
But a subscription-based, proprietary solution with central servers? No thanks.
"Seriously, why isn't Slashdot using Flowplayer or another "HTML5-first" player? Even YouTube would do..."
That's what I suggested the last time. That they would probably be better off just ripping the FlowPlayer code from some porn site than this Ooyala-mutated wonder.
Do you have Local Storage turned off?
Never, mind, that can't be it either, because it prompts you if a site wants to store something.
Must be something subtle in my configuration. How about 3rd party cookies, maybe?
I'm not getting any HTML or JavaScript errors. There are a boatload of CSS errors but there always are on Slashdot.
So even though I'm pretty good at tracking this kind of thing down, I haven't figured it out.
I'm on OS X. That could be the difference.
At first I thought it might be because I have Flash Local Storage turned off, but it works in Chrome and Safari.
It could be because I have HTTP local storage turned off in Firefox. But that is no excuse. The video player should not refuse to run just because I respect my own privacy.
"Unintentional damages absolutely do not deserve to be compensated."
So... neither you, not GP, have any notion of the concept of "negligence"?
Really, I want to emphasize this, Slashdot: your video player implementation sucks. I said it before, and I will keep saying it unless and until you change it.
But about Slashdot's implementation of a Flash video player.
It doesn't work in my Firefox at all. Even with script-and flash-blockers turned off. In order to watch videos on Slashdot, I have to open Chrome or Safari, and watch them there. Because of course there is NO LINK to the original video anywhere, and Ooyala deliberately hides the video source in a plethora of flash and javascript.
We need a really good, snarky, "Bureaucracy" song, and maybe a video to go with it, that we can mass-email to goofy bastards like these.
I agree. Slashdot's implementation of Ooyala Player really sucks. It doesn't even work in my Firefox... probably because I have Flash Local Storage turned off.
Give me a damned link to YouTube or whatever, and let me watch it on my own.
"When you consider this, EULAs become not only very understandable, but quite fair and proper."
Nonsense. People can be, and sometimes are, damaged far beyond just the face value of the transaction. There is nothing "fair" about removing your option to sue should you want to. You have a right to sue for damages, under normal circumstances (i.e., no agreement otherwise), and that right should not be taken away by default.
True, but you've just laid yourself open to a shitload of false positives.
Nitrates should be first on the list, probably, because they are the most common base, but by no means the only.