I'll note that none of the actions about the cases that surround the Cabilly patents have anything to do with a "cure for cancer," these are treatments of specific types of cancers. Treatment therapies are much different from cures. There is still no evidence, anywhere, that pharma companies have discovered any cure for cancer.
It's hard to believe that the same government that built the SR71 blackbird and operated it in secret convincing many "useful idiots" that 'they aren't UFO's' is so incompetent that they couldn't stop a bunch of extremists from flying a plane into the largest buildings of the largest US city. How can any other security theatre be justified as effective in the wake of such a bungle.
The people building the SR71 blackbird aren't the people staring at the civilian radar, nor are they they people listening to air traffic control, nor are they analyzing terrorist tactics and assuming the planes will be flown to Cuba or another country and the passengers held for ransom.
I think it's a big mistake to treat the federal government as a monolithic organization with each part as competent as the other, or even that each part communicates in any way with the others.
This fits all the usual traits of a Slashdot anger article, chief among them being that someone comes in and rants about the "social justice movement" in a situation that it doesn't come close to applying to*** just to start up some social justice shitstorm argument. I have to think this is all about the lulz now.
*** Unless of course, you think that any time someone gets annoyed when someone is an asshole, that they're just being an SJW dick in response.
I can think of at least on prominent Republican who is against it. [washingtontimes.com]
I'd say, and guess many Republicans also think that Rand Paul is a RINO. No, not a Democrat in disguise, but mildly-lite libertarian who is running as a Republican because to get anywhere in the US you have to belong to one of the two giant dominant political parties, and the Ds are more hostile towards libertarianism than the Rs.
Just like Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist who is running as a Democrat out of convenience.
false, Obama did that with his campaign BS, then continuing the Bush/Cheney agenda, not having robust public option for "obamacare", etc.
But Obamacare had to be passed by Congress, and if you thought the Affordable Care Act was unpopular, it was the compromise to bring enough Democrats in; many Democrats had threatened not to vote for the bill with the public option.
I'm starting to understand why a lot of market theory is rubbish.
I don't think it's that much rubbish, but it is affected by something that a lot of people on Slashdot (this article in particular) find annoying, and that is that even when people are informed, they just don't care. They don't care if they can service the components controlled by the computer or the computer itself in their car. They will never ever do it, so if you so much as knock off $50 as long as that functionality is removed, the vast majority would just take the $50. Most people don't care about doing anything to their car aside from putting the occasional quart of oil in. They're locked out of their computer control system? So what? Doesn't mean a thing to them, and their dealer, who they're just going to take the car to anyway, doesn't have the same problem.
So maybe when they get a new car, their local independent mechanic won't be able to fix up every problem. But that's just one of many many many decisions to make when deciding what car to get, and for almost all car buyers, that decision would be way waaaaaay down on the priority list. People won't care about open source cars -- they will never use it, so they will not demand it. If there isn't a demand from a very large segment of the population, the auto makers will not coddle it either.
Get over it: we can call you USians. America is more than just that egomaniacal north middle bit.
The continents of North America and South America, perhaps, but there's no other country in the Western Hemisphere that has the word "America" in their country name.
And your fellow countrymen are certainly more likely to call citizens of the USA "Americans." Even the USA's enemies refer to them as Americans and America. So you can try to get the "USians" tag to catch on, but you're pretty much just pissing into the wind.
Indeed, but after MAI Systems v. Peak in 1993, Congress amended the USC 117 to apply to licensees as well as "owners." Owners of the copy of the software could already do this without being liable, but MAI v Peak held that the users were licensees, not software owners (thanks to the EULA). Senator Hatch responded "because most shrink-wrap licenses purport to make the purchaser of computer software a licensee and not an owner of his or her copy of the software, the ordinary purchaser of software may not be able to take advantage of the exemption provided by sec. 117, allowing the “owner” of a copy to reproduce the work in order to use it in his or her computer. Many shrink-wrap licenses limit the purchaser to making only a single backup copy of his or her software. Thus, under a literal reading of the bill, the ordinary purchaser of computer software who loaded the software enough times in the 180-day period to reach the more-than-$1,000 threshold may be a criminal! This is, of course, not the intent of the bill. Clearly, this kind of copying was not intended to be criminalized."
In addition, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the MAI v Peak decision with the Cartoon Network v CSC Holdings (2008) decision, not exactly striking it down (not that Circuit Courts can do that to each other) but at least implying that the MAI decision was over-broad. The court explicitly held that on Cablevision's DVRs, the buffering of streaming data in RAM did not constitute the creation of an unlicensed copy.
youre wrong and most on here are fools. The people controlling ISIS are from saddam husseins inner circle and parts of the conquered iraqi government. They want Iraq back, just the way it was.
ISIS hates the term ISIS as well. They prefer Islamic State.
The reason why they don't like ISIS is because they believe that the Islamic State is the only valid country. Their interpretation of the Koran holds that man-made law is sin, only laws given to man by Allah are allowed to be enforced. Country borders are a construction/creation of man, therefore, countries are blasphemy.
They find the term ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) offensive partly because they think the very -concept- of a country called Iraq or Syria is blasphemous against Allah. There is only the Islamic State, and territory to be claimed/conquered by the Islamic State.
And the existence of such a back door makes it the single most valuable secret on the planet. It would be a shockingly short period of time before dozens of entities had access to it.
The secrets of nuclear weapon construction used to be the single most valuable secret on the planet, and it didn't stop folks like the Julius Rosenberg from passing those secrets on to the Soviets. For tech companies to use encryption that contains a backdoor, it would require far far more people in the know about the secret.
Any product which builds in this for the US government should expect every other government to demand access to the same back door, and should also expect people in every other country to stop buying it.
But we could make it illegal for a US corporation to give a foreign government backdoor crypto access. That would prevent that from happening...... until said corporation says "but we didn't give that backdoor access to this foreign government. Our Chinese/Russian/XXX subsidiary did, and they're based in those countries and employ Chinese/Russians/XXX and they have to comply with the laws of that country."
If Cisco can actively aid the Chinese government in torturing and political repression and get away with it because it was Cisco China doing the collaboration, and they're not bound by US laws, then I don't see why the backdoor/US crypto secrets issue would be any different.
Donewe torture people too? Was their specific type of torture illegal? They tortured people they considered to be a threat. We torture people we consider to be a threat. Think we need to stop doing something before we judge others for the same behavior.
Agreed, and I fully support the prosecution of those in the US who enabled, supported, and committed US torture as well.
Really? You think China's torturing of their citizens or building better network systems to torture their citizens will STOP if you shut Cisco down? And, again with your hubris, the US is the United States government, not the United Federation of Earth (or even the United Nations for that matter of which China has a position on the UN Human rights board. Imagine that!)
Yeah, China's position on the Human Rights board shows how much of a joke the HR board really is.
And Cisco is a US-based company. I don't give a shit whether it's a "chinese subsidiary" of Cisco or not, it's an American company and it's about time some of these bad actors get to pay the piper. If they insist they have to sell to and actively abet torturers, fine, they can leave the US, but if they want to be an American company, they can reap the drawbacks of that as well as the advantages.
If Cisco didn't do it would the Chinese have stopped the torture and killing?
If you and the EFF feel this strongly about it maybe you should support war against China to stop the people actually DOING the torture to begin with.
What, "so it's going to happen anyway, we might as well partake in the torture."
When you support a torturer, that enables more torture. China doesn't want to be a pariah, they don't want to become politically isolated again. They love being able to have their cake and eat it too, having cozy relationships with Western companies while repressing their people. In that position, no one else has any leverage to affect change.
Why is it that you offer only two extremes: all out war or being completely complicit and supportive of torture?
Sure, it works when it comes to building a nuclear plant. Of course, the same attitude (we know better than everyone else, we'll push this through by sheer fiat) also led to some absolute disasters like the Great Leap Forward.
There is a very large contingent of environmentalists who feel that nature is "good" and civilization is "evil." Your average environmental-leaning person isn't this way, but it's a strong current under the surface for many of the people who believe strongly in the cause. For them, the Native Americans were the perfect people who lived in perfect harmony with nature, as man should.
At the start, he seems pretty scary. But the more you get to know him, the more you realize that he's not supposed to be scary. He's weak. He's a novice. It's why he doesn't really accomplish anything after interrogating Poe.
It's a J.J. Abrams movie. Aren't *all* his films basically remakes of other, sometimes better, films redone for people with 10s attention spans and little aptitude for plot detail? Just asking.
Khaaaaaaaaan!
I thought, by far, his best movie was Super-8. That was a fun one, and much different from all his other movies.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll note that none of the actions about the cases that surround the Cabilly patents have anything to do with a "cure for cancer," these are treatments of specific types of cancers. Treatment therapies are much different from cures. There is still no evidence, anywhere, that pharma companies have discovered any cure for cancer.
Climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism -- which is more of a boogeyman than a major threat.
It's hard to believe that the same government that built the SR71 blackbird and operated it in secret convincing many "useful idiots" that 'they aren't UFO's' is so incompetent that they couldn't stop a bunch of extremists from flying a plane into the largest buildings of the largest US city. How can any other security theatre be justified as effective in the wake of such a bungle.
The people building the SR71 blackbird aren't the people staring at the civilian radar, nor are they they people listening to air traffic control, nor are they analyzing terrorist tactics and assuming the planes will be flown to Cuba or another country and the passengers held for ransom.
I think it's a big mistake to treat the federal government as a monolithic organization with each part as competent as the other, or even that each part communicates in any way with the others.
This fits all the usual traits of a Slashdot anger article, chief among them being that someone comes in and rants about the "social justice movement" in a situation that it doesn't come close to applying to*** just to start up some social justice shitstorm argument. I have to think this is all about the lulz now.
*** Unless of course, you think that any time someone gets annoyed when someone is an asshole, that they're just being an SJW dick in response.
I can think of at least on prominent Republican who is against it. [washingtontimes.com]
I'd say, and guess many Republicans also think that Rand Paul is a RINO. No, not a Democrat in disguise, but mildly-lite libertarian who is running as a Republican because to get anywhere in the US you have to belong to one of the two giant dominant political parties, and the Ds are more hostile towards libertarianism than the Rs.
Just like Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist who is running as a Democrat out of convenience.
false, Obama did that with his campaign BS, then continuing the Bush/Cheney agenda, not having robust public option for "obamacare", etc.
But Obamacare had to be passed by Congress, and if you thought the Affordable Care Act was unpopular, it was the compromise to bring enough Democrats in; many Democrats had threatened not to vote for the bill with the public option.
Yup! Disable OTA updates and get your phone nice and hacked.
I'm starting to understand why a lot of market theory is rubbish.
I don't think it's that much rubbish, but it is affected by something that a lot of people on Slashdot (this article in particular) find annoying, and that is that even when people are informed, they just don't care. They don't care if they can service the components controlled by the computer or the computer itself in their car. They will never ever do it, so if you so much as knock off $50 as long as that functionality is removed, the vast majority would just take the $50. Most people don't care about doing anything to their car aside from putting the occasional quart of oil in. They're locked out of their computer control system? So what? Doesn't mean a thing to them, and their dealer, who they're just going to take the car to anyway, doesn't have the same problem.
So maybe when they get a new car, their local independent mechanic won't be able to fix up every problem. But that's just one of many many many decisions to make when deciding what car to get, and for almost all car buyers, that decision would be way waaaaaay down on the priority list. People won't care about open source cars -- they will never use it, so they will not demand it. If there isn't a demand from a very large segment of the population, the auto makers will not coddle it either.
Get over it: we can call you USians. America is more than just that egomaniacal north middle bit.
The continents of North America and South America, perhaps, but there's no other country in the Western Hemisphere that has the word "America" in their country name.
And your fellow countrymen are certainly more likely to call citizens of the USA "Americans." Even the USA's enemies refer to them as Americans and America. So you can try to get the "USians" tag to catch on, but you're pretty much just pissing into the wind.
Indeed, but after MAI Systems v. Peak in 1993, Congress amended the USC 117 to apply to licensees as well as "owners." Owners of the copy of the software could already do this without being liable, but MAI v Peak held that the users were licensees, not software owners (thanks to the EULA). Senator Hatch responded "because most shrink-wrap licenses purport to make the purchaser of computer software a licensee and not an owner of his or her copy of the software, the ordinary purchaser of software may not be able to take advantage of the exemption provided by sec. 117, allowing the “owner” of a copy to reproduce the work in order to use it in his or her computer. Many shrink-wrap licenses limit the purchaser to making only a single backup copy of his or her software. Thus, under a literal reading of the bill, the ordinary purchaser of computer software who loaded the software enough times in the 180-day period to reach the more-than-$1,000 threshold may be a criminal! This is, of course, not the intent of the bill. Clearly, this kind of copying was not intended to be criminalized."
In addition, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the MAI v Peak decision with the Cartoon Network v CSC Holdings (2008) decision, not exactly striking it down (not that Circuit Courts can do that to each other) but at least implying that the MAI decision was over-broad. The court explicitly held that on Cablevision's DVRs, the buffering of streaming data in RAM did not constitute the creation of an unlicensed copy.
youre wrong and most on here are fools.
The people controlling ISIS are from saddam husseins inner circle and parts of the conquered iraqi government. They want Iraq back, just the way it was.
You.... are joking, are you not?
This is pretty much the same as gamergate.
Just couldn't resist turning this around to Gamergate, could you? Well, that didn't take long!
Well at least this time it was appropriate, since we're talking about SJWs. GamerGate was was the greatest collision of SJWs and anti-SJWs ever.
ISIS hates the term ISIS as well. They prefer Islamic State.
The reason why they don't like ISIS is because they believe that the Islamic State is the only valid country. Their interpretation of the Koran holds that man-made law is sin, only laws given to man by Allah are allowed to be enforced. Country borders are a construction/creation of man, therefore, countries are blasphemy.
They find the term ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) offensive partly because they think the very -concept- of a country called Iraq or Syria is blasphemous against Allah. There is only the Islamic State, and territory to be claimed/conquered by the Islamic State.
And the existence of such a back door makes it the single most valuable secret on the planet. It would be a shockingly short period of time before dozens of entities had access to it.
The secrets of nuclear weapon construction used to be the single most valuable secret on the planet, and it didn't stop folks like the Julius Rosenberg from passing those secrets on to the Soviets. For tech companies to use encryption that contains a backdoor, it would require far far more people in the know about the secret.
Any product which builds in this for the US government should expect every other government to demand access to the same back door, and should also expect people in every other country to stop buying it.
But we could make it illegal for a US corporation to give a foreign government backdoor crypto access. That would prevent that from happening... ... until said corporation says "but we didn't give that backdoor access to this foreign government. Our Chinese/Russian/XXX subsidiary did, and they're based in those countries and employ Chinese/Russians/XXX and they have to comply with the laws of that country."
If Cisco can actively aid the Chinese government in torturing and political repression and get away with it because it was Cisco China doing the collaboration, and they're not bound by US laws, then I don't see why the backdoor/US crypto secrets issue would be any different.
how does one do that with the existing silicon, which is what I desire, and supposedly I can get what i desire
You're being intentionally obtuse to make a shitty point. Please stop.
Donewe torture people too? Was their specific type of torture illegal? They tortured people they considered to be a threat. We torture people we consider to be a threat. Think we need to stop doing something before we judge others for the same behavior.
Agreed, and I fully support the prosecution of those in the US who enabled, supported, and committed US torture as well.
Really? You think China's torturing of their citizens or building better network systems to torture their citizens will STOP if you shut Cisco down?
And, again with your hubris, the US is the United States government, not the United Federation of Earth (or even the United Nations for that matter of which China has a position on the UN Human rights board. Imagine that!)
Yeah, China's position on the Human Rights board shows how much of a joke the HR board really is.
And Cisco is a US-based company. I don't give a shit whether it's a "chinese subsidiary" of Cisco or not, it's an American company and it's about time some of these bad actors get to pay the piper. If they insist they have to sell to and actively abet torturers, fine, they can leave the US, but if they want to be an American company, they can reap the drawbacks of that as well as the advantages.
And your point is?
If Cisco didn't do it would the Chinese have stopped the torture and killing?
If you and the EFF feel this strongly about it maybe you should support war against China to stop the people actually DOING the torture to begin with.
What, "so it's going to happen anyway, we might as well partake in the torture."
When you support a torturer, that enables more torture. China doesn't want to be a pariah, they don't want to become politically isolated again. They love being able to have their cake and eat it too, having cozy relationships with Western companies while repressing their people. In that position, no one else has any leverage to affect change.
Why is it that you offer only two extremes: all out war or being completely complicit and supportive of torture?
Sure, it works when it comes to building a nuclear plant. Of course, the same attitude (we know better than everyone else, we'll push this through by sheer fiat) also led to some absolute disasters like the Great Leap Forward.
Oh yeah, what a disaster TMI was. *eyeroll*
There is a very large contingent of environmentalists who feel that nature is "good" and civilization is "evil." Your average environmental-leaning person isn't this way, but it's a strong current under the surface for many of the people who believe strongly in the cause. For them, the Native Americans were the perfect people who lived in perfect harmony with nature, as man should.
Okay then. I agree, it's really dumb that Rey would tell Fin to get into the lower turret when she was going to be flying low.
Maybe Rey isn't as ultra-competent as we were led to believe. ;-)
Ren as the bad guy is frankly not scary.
At the start, he seems pretty scary. But the more you get to know him, the more you realize that he's not supposed to be scary. He's weak. He's a novice. It's why he doesn't really accomplish anything after interrogating Poe.
It's a J.J. Abrams movie. Aren't *all* his films basically remakes of other, sometimes better, films redone for people with 10s attention spans and little aptitude for plot detail? Just asking.
Khaaaaaaaaan!
I thought, by far, his best movie was Super-8. That was a fun one, and much different from all his other movies.