Do not track is a farce that relies on the good will of corporations acting against their own interests.
I'd far rather internet users smarten up and be careful what they do online.
The information isn't under the user's control anyhow, so I'd rather that fact be transparently known and precautions taken, rather than have gullible users live in some magical fairy world where they pretend they are safe.
And also points out that the vicious pomeranian is taking advantage of the situation by adding insult to injury picking on your heels when you've already got your hands ful dealing with the wolf.
Don't cut the pomeranian any slack just because the wolf happens to be bigger.
Pardon the pun, but dogpiling on someone already under attack is a pretty cheap tactic.
It never was, that is a mere symptom of the same corruption of big business ass-raping the government and forcing it to give out goodies to their lobbyists.
Get business out of government and everything else will take care of itself. Keep business in government and no solution is going to work anyway.
Even growing 100 balls won't be enough to overcome a little thing called sovereignty which lets the government do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants to.
Simple. The government can damn well decide that it's illegal to leave your car unlocked and hold you responsible for the bank robbery because hey, they don't really like you leaving your car unlocked anyway.
Saying "I don't give a shit who did it, it came from your internet" is a powerful motivator for people to clamp down out of fear.
And that suits the authorities just fine. They don't want upstart outspoken free speech yahoos providing TOR exit nodes anyway. They WANT you to help them censor things, and if they can make you do it by holding you responsible for other people's crimes just because they borrowed your internet to do it they will.
And learn your place you dirty fucking peasant...because businesses are in charge and they get things you don't. So suck it up.
I am of course being sarcastic on the last one, but cracking down on people that only provided the internet connection is not entirely based on ignorance. Many don't care, and are happy to force you to do their work for them.
An oppressive law that imposes strict liability and holds you criminally responsible for everything that comes out of your computer, and deliberatley doesn't give a shit if someone else did it.
Considering that it will hamper free speech I see it happening anyway just to make it easier for the elite to control things.
Slashdot Mirror
Do not track is a farce that relies on the good will of corporations acting against their own interests.
I'd far rather internet users smarten up and be careful what they do online.
The information isn't under the user's control anyhow, so I'd rather that fact be transparently known and precautions taken, rather than have gullible users live in some magical fairy world where they pretend they are safe.
This is ABC blatantly using their status as tinpot dictator to keep out someone they can't control once nominated.
It is if stunts like this keep good people off the menu.
This incident just proves what I already knew, that corporate america has our political system by teh balls and won't let go.
Simple.
Would he have been arrested for the probation violation without pressure from the feds?
And people who leave their houses unlocked wouldn't get burgled.
Please stop justifying the actions of the aggressor by blaming the victim.
Rape and burglary are still wrong unless you WANT to go darwin and say that the weak or foolish deserve to be oppressed or abused.
Unfortunately, it's not perjury to send a fake dmca notice, only perjury to misrepresent the copyright holder.
It is, however, perjury to falsely challenge a dmca notice.
Very one sided, and I think it such an obvious mismatch that whoever wrote the law designed it that way on purpose.
And I said wrote, not passed.
What choice do they have?
MS already got out of the anti-trust nuke we lobbed at it and is still grabbing OEMs by the balls.
Technically, you bet.
Legally, like hell.
And also points out that the vicious pomeranian is taking advantage of the situation by adding insult to injury picking on your heels when you've already got your hands ful dealing with the wolf.
Don't cut the pomeranian any slack just because the wolf happens to be bigger.
Pardon the pun, but dogpiling on someone already under attack is a pretty cheap tactic.
It's a power balance.
The suppliers who want to sell, versus the consumer with the money.
If it pays to cheat, then cheat you will...if you don't your competitors will and you'll be out of business anyway.
This is why we need laws. Because market darwinism favors the aggressive nasty people who can *get away* with stabbing their competition in the back.
Unfortunately information is a commodity and it is in the supplier's interest to provide as little of it as possible.
Also, it's not exactly a free market if suppliers can gang up on the government to pass laws in their favor.
All they have to do is get a friend who maintains the system to do a failover.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/07/26/1238211/court-filing-on-how-2004-ohio-election-hacked
It's a good way to express your mood without personally attacking the audience.
Kinda my point exactly.
The root problem isn't patents.
It never was, that is a mere symptom of the same corruption of big business ass-raping the government and forcing it to give out goodies to their lobbyists.
Get business out of government and everything else will take care of itself. Keep business in government and no solution is going to work anyway.
Hey, genuises in office.
How about some patent reform to stop megacorps from locking innovators out of the market?
Patenst are supposed to make people go forward, not keep others back.
It's a blatant copout that admits "There's so many fuckups we don't have time to fix them all" and gives the appeals courts a blank check to run amok.
Kinda puts a spotlight on who is in bed with whom doesn't it?
Even growing 100 balls won't be enough to overcome a little thing called sovereignty which lets the government do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants to.
It's more like how the RIAA uses the threat of a big lawsuit to extort a smaller but still hefty settlement.
They put a loaded shotgun on your head and threaten to blow your brains out if you don't let them break your legs.
Their real motive is to break your resistance and teach you a lesson in not fighting back against the man.
They don't actually give a damn if you're guilty or not.
Simple. The government can damn well decide that it's illegal to leave your car unlocked and hold you responsible for the bank robbery because hey, they don't really like you leaving your car unlocked anyway.
Saying "I don't give a shit who did it, it came from your internet" is a powerful motivator for people to clamp down out of fear.
And that suits the authorities just fine. They don't want upstart outspoken free speech yahoos providing TOR exit nodes anyway. They WANT you to help them censor things, and if they can make you do it by holding you responsible for other people's crimes just because they borrowed your internet to do it they will.
And learn your place you dirty fucking peasant...because businesses are in charge and they get things you don't. So suck it up.
I am of course being sarcastic on the last one, but cracking down on people that only provided the internet connection is not entirely based on ignorance. Many don't care, and are happy to force you to do their work for them.
An oppressive law that imposes strict liability and holds you criminally responsible for everything that comes out of your computer, and deliberatley doesn't give a shit if someone else did it.
Considering that it will hamper free speech I see it happening anyway just to make it easier for the elite to control things.
First lesson is not to work for a douchebag that will force you to cough up a number.
Remember, even if he's an idiot he's still your boss.
That's only because the law SAYS it's enough, due process be damned.