We'll put chips in your heads to monitor what songs you've played in your head every month and send you a bill on itunes.
Of course you'll pay for your own chip and operation and sign a disclaimer which says that you accept full responsibility for any unanticipated effects of the surgery / implant.
If we follow that line of argument, we would also criticise the government for being pre-crime when it outlaws private possession of nuclear weapons and nerve gas. I think SOME tools should be illegal.
They don't stop there - they 'outlaw' possession of nuclear weapons by other governments..
Regardless, nuclear weapons have few cultural uses and so certainty of hypothesized use increases; dissimilarly to a tool which allows humanity at large to share experiences in an ever-expanding digital world, at the expense of those currently controlling and taxing popular culture, who, coincidentally have their hands on the reigns of law-sponsored power.
The courts typically have pretty good BS detectors and can figure out if somebody's acting in good faith. But the process isn't perfect.
This is what disturbs me most about the legal system when it deals with interpretations of events on which it has imperfect information.
Despite the zillions of subtle rules, what it often comes to is 'gut feeling' sprinkled with legalistic sugar in an attempt to disguise the fallibility of the system; the unknowability of human intention, let alone imperfectly-documented historical actions.
It's not enough that it's horribly flawed at its core, we must all sit by and watch whilst it's corrupted for monetary gain; whilst our deep-rooted belief in fair-play keeps us playing along.
The Usual Suspects believe that any time a file is shared they're losing out on revenue that is their God-given right to collect on forever and ever and ever, Amen.
Presumably they understand that the sharing of 'their' content spreads awareness. Presumably they know the continual legal song-and-dance spreads awareness. Presumably they see a way to get free advertising, increase their sales and get a source of free money at the expense of consumers. Presumably they will make the most of it while it lasts.
That might be what happened in this case; the defendant opted not to implement filtering, and (as would likely happen in the US as well.)
Had they written the software themselves, it would still be impossible to implement filtering. It's clear to all that this was plain-and-simple a no-win situation. It's widely acknowledged that automated filtering is infeasible and that therefore the onus lies with the copyright holder to present the appropriate take-down notices so as to distribute the manual load.
This is like banning hammers because some murderers have used them to bludgeon people to death
Presumably the judge is aware of that so... how is it that they can openly make such a foolish decision? I guess the bribes were too large to ignore, well worth abandoning any credibility one might have.
And yes, I know how to recognise a fluorescent bulb - thanks:D
Thought you were being ironic with the 'You're imagining things'. That's presumably the mindset of those who invented the damn things "I can't see it so it's not there".
I think a better question is why are they focusing on particular appliances?
Presumably, they're trying to maximize <Amount-of-power-saving-per-device> x <number-of-devices>
for any class of device. By targeting classes of device, they can achieve a large saving compared to the somewhat more vague 'please reduce your energy consumption'.
In the UK, I cannot buy them already; nor have I been able to for the past year or more.
I wish someone had taken the time to conduct real studies on the these bulbs:
Two problems are:
(a) they flicker - supposedly not visible but I'm not using a standard set of eyes and cannot avoid the flicker - headaches follow
(b) they have wide gaps in the spectrum of light they give out - supposedly not noticeable but it's like being in the dark even when the fluorescent bulb is 'on'.
Combined effect: I cannot buy a light-bulb which enables me to see without headaches and my stock of incandescent bulbs is now almost dry:-(
There are more issues at stake than cost per unit of electricity. I have this idea that we're all supposed to be reducing our carbon footprint. It makes perfect sense to make personally-painless reductions in needless waste before we start infringing upon our ways of life.
Why would someone want to buy a device which isn't as energy-efficient as possible? Waste isn't cool ppl.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you'll pay for your own chip and operation and sign a disclaimer which says that you accept full responsibility for any unanticipated effects of the surgery / implant.
They don't stop there - they 'outlaw' possession of nuclear weapons by other governments..
Regardless, nuclear weapons have few cultural uses and so certainty of hypothesized use increases; dissimilarly to a tool which allows humanity at large to share experiences in an ever-expanding digital world, at the expense of those currently controlling and taxing popular culture, who, coincidentally have their hands on the reigns of law-sponsored power.
This is what disturbs me most about the legal system when it deals with interpretations of events on which it has imperfect information.
Despite the zillions of subtle rules, what it often comes to is 'gut feeling' sprinkled with legalistic sugar in an attempt to disguise the fallibility of the system; the unknowability of human intention, let alone imperfectly-documented historical actions.
It's not enough that it's horribly flawed at its core, we must all sit by and watch whilst it's corrupted for monetary gain; whilst our deep-rooted belief in fair-play keeps us playing along.
If one wants safety (*) must one become an expert practitioner of of violence?
The fiction that 'law' rightly pervades every thought and action is distasteful in the extreme; even without the corrupting influence of business.
(*) I avoid the use of the hijacked word 'security' at this point
Presumably they understand that the sharing of 'their' content spreads awareness. Presumably they know the continual legal song-and-dance spreads awareness. Presumably they see a way to get free advertising, increase their sales and get a source of free money at the expense of consumers. Presumably they will make the most of it while it lasts.
Of course intent is something forever outside the knowledge of the courts who are happy to settle for the far weaker directed speculation.
Had they written the software themselves, it would still be impossible to implement filtering. It's clear to all that this was plain-and-simple a no-win situation. It's widely acknowledged that automated filtering is infeasible and that therefore the onus lies with the copyright holder to present the appropriate take-down notices so as to distribute the manual load.
Good job soldier! First car analogy of the thread.
No, because there's no P2P lobby entrenched within the establishment.
Presumably the judge is aware of that so... how is it that they can openly make such a foolish decision? I guess the bribes were too large to ignore, well worth abandoning any credibility one might have.
Brazilian Law - sponsored by the APCM.
This is what happens when you give one profession control over everyone else.
Well done mods, let's support the polite racists amongst us; let noone say "hush" to them for fear of unfavourable moderation!
Not that I would know either way but apparently, it's attributable to an incident at a dance involving Emma Goldman.
Maybe but I borrowed it from the linked film.
Nice disclaimer.
btw, are you in the study?
Your latter kind are the kind which cause skin damage...
And yes, I know how to recognise a fluorescent bulb - thanks :D
Thought you were being ironic with the 'You're imagining things'. That's presumably the mindset of those who invented the damn things "I can't see it so it's not there".
I've not experienced any LED lights. Maybe something to consider. I must put some time aside to do some research into lighting...
To my eyes, the long-tube fluorescents have more flicker but less loss of spectrum so they're just wrong in a different way.
Why not both?
I'm wondering why an article on TVs makes you think of homos. Then again, probably everything makes you think of homos..
Presumably, they're trying to maximize <Amount-of-power-saving-per-device> x <number-of-devices>
for any class of device. By targeting classes of device, they can achieve a large saving compared to the somewhat more vague 'please reduce your energy consumption'.
Perhaps someone should write to The Govern(er|ator) ?
In the UK, I cannot buy them already; nor have I been able to for the past year or more.
I wish someone had taken the time to conduct real studies on the these bulbs:
Two problems are:
(a) they flicker - supposedly not visible but I'm not using a standard set of eyes and cannot avoid the flicker - headaches follow
(b) they have wide gaps in the spectrum of light they give out - supposedly not noticeable but it's like being in the dark even when the fluorescent bulb is 'on'.
Combined effect: I cannot buy a light-bulb which enables me to see without headaches and my stock of incandescent bulbs is now almost dry :-(
CO2
There are more issues at stake than cost per unit of electricity. I have this idea that we're all supposed to be reducing our carbon footprint. It makes perfect sense to make personally-painless reductions in needless waste before we start infringing upon our ways of life.
Why would someone want to buy a device which isn't as energy-efficient as possible? Waste isn't cool ppl.
"Costing jobs" is "you're not thinking of the children!"