You're missing the point..."in the public" does NOT mean "under surveilance." They are two different issues, and it's especially important when you factor in the issue that the surveilance isn't on private property being performed by a private entity, it's being conducted by the government. I believe that ALL government surveilance should be overseen by a court, especially since advances in technology are making it relatively easy.
Conversely, if a global government actually enforced IP laws, the US would be beyond rich.
I think a more likely scenario is that a very small number of Americans might become beyond rich, while continuing their fight to keep others from entering the market as potential competitors.
I do not believe that the "they wouldn't have bought them anyway," line of thinking qualifies as a valid justification for copyright infringement. The only time it is important is when the "content" industry claims losses amounting to huge sums of money they never had. It doesn't mean that infringement is ok, it just means that the industry's claims are quite disingenuous.
How can a parent even make that kind of comment when they don't even know what's in the game to begin with? Hasn't a big part of the problem been parents who completely ignore the ratings anyway?
As long as you can rule out collusion it's going to be good for consumers.
Similar to the way that the RIAA has been good for consumers, with CD price fixing, the elimination of CD singles, and other "consumer-oriented" behavior?
A college degree at the very least shows a minum level of self control and professionalism.
A myth. Welcome to 2006. Many college degrees represent a period of time where the exact opposite was true. I acknowledge that there are students who work hard and take it seriously, but there are a fair number that don't, because to them, it's little more than the "ticket" they're after. It's also somewhat fallacious to suggest that someone without a "ticket" is unable to accommodate a high degree of self-control and professionalism.
Re:Dapper is good, but it's not there yet.
on
Ubuntu 6.06 Reviewed
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think I said that quite bluntly. And when grandma, or any other non-tech savvy person, can't play MP3s or family videos on Ubuntu because of "licensing restrictions," they aren't going to know what to do.
Actually, I'd be more concerned that they know what this means rather than exactly what to do about it. They need to know that in some situations [insert licensing entity here] is either refusing to avail their 'technology' on this platform, or that they require payment in order to use it. I'd like to see Americans start to gain a greater understanding of the political aspect of technology, and how it affects the choices they have.
Are you referring to the same "retroactive" manner they're going after phone records? Let's not kid ourselves...if there is any way they can get their dirty hands on this information, they will, retroactively, proactively, reactively, or otherwise.
I see this as a multi-step process- first they have to make sure the data is available. Once that issue has been addressed, then you take it a step further, and clarify that access to that data is "when ever we damn well feel like it."
If the ISPs do their part, they will demand that a law is passed. At least a law can be struck down. The US IS a nation of law, isn't it? Or has Gonazles forgotten this?
Another one that drives me NUTS is this: if, while using firefox, you click your mouse on a link, inadvertently move it just a tad, and then release the mouse, the "stupid assumption" is that you intended to drag the link, image, or whatever somewhere- so the "drag" operation stays in effect (even when you're not actually dragging anything), until you click the mouse again (presumably "dropping" what you intended to be "dragging"). I can't put into words how annoying this is.
This same thing drove me crazy with OpenOffice, until I learned how to shut it off. The moral? Sometimes developers need to stop making dumb assumptions about the user's intent.
I think the larger problem is that the public has stopped caring about trivial things like laws or ethics because truth bas become relative and the other party always lies.
There's another reason...it's simply more convenient to ignore all these things. American is a society driven by convenience.
The NSA isn't "data mining against" any U.S. citizen.
The NSA has already admitted that they are. Now that they have the information, they think it would be a good resource to track down journalists who create embarrassing situations by the public informed.
You'd think they'd be able to get off their lazy 9-5 butts and figure something like this out. I guess that's what happens (rather acute stagnation) when people get too comfy with the status quo.
it is stated customer phone records are their own private property.
Name one person who has even been charged, let alone detained. I never mentioned detainment or charges.
If you don't like a politician's personality, vote for someone else. Did you mean vote with the new Diebold e-voting junk, or did you mean vote in a ligitimate election? Oh, and the head of the CIA is an appointed position.
Read that pesky Constitution again. Journalists aren't part of the system That same pesky Constitution that Bush refers to as "just a goddamned piece of paper"? Is that the one you're referring to?
Journalists aren't part of the system. They are not part of the formal "checks and balances," but many would argue that the press (and the protection of its rights to free speech) are an integral part of a free society.
Records of who calls who is a type of circumstantial evidence regularly obtained by law enforcement and accepted as relevant by courts. Under warrant- warrants that apply to a specific, narrowly-defined target, for a specific, narrowly-defined purpose.
The NSA is an executive agency subject to congressional and judicial (not journalistic) oversight. Maybe you should be explaining this to the NSA, as its not something they appear to understand. Witness the recent stonewalling with respect to the illegal wiretapping investigation.
Good luck seeking an injuction against continuation of a program which serves a compelling state interest. That's purely a matter of opinion. By your logic, practically anything done in the interest of "fighting terrorism" qualifies as a "compelling state interest," and implies that "fighting terrorism" is more important than freedom.
I don't see how these can be used in the same sentence. At least as far as the US is concerned, I view patriotism as the protection of the principles that grant the freedom and checked government that were intended by the founding fathers. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a sense of mindless allegiance to the state. Nationalism and patriotism are at opposite ends of the same spectrum.
Aside from this being patently illegal, what bothers me is the cavalier attitude behind it, and the fact that it is already being abused to track down people who aren't terrorists, but who are merely doing their job to keep government entities like the NSA under some semblance of control - the journalists. There is no end to the manner in which this kind of information could be abused.
I'm tempted to believe that those doing this are the ones there to collect a paycheck, and that those who make up the genuine geek culture have more worthy goals.
Anyone who has played WoW will have to admit that Blizzard raised the bar quite a bit with this game. That alone could be responsible for at least part of the massive subscriber base.
I played L2 just before that, and while it had its own unique quality (I still miss it in some ways), you just couldn't help but be be overwhelmed by the vastness and artistic detail of the WoW environment (Undercity and Darnassus, for example).
My point was this: it evolved. In other words, circumstances that we did not forsee at its inception, changed the nature and scope of its use. That this type of evolution will occur should be an assumption, allowing us to ask straight away what kinds of risks are we willing to take with information that identifies us.
A national database pairing the SSNs with these codes or biometrics, need NOT make them accessible
It doesn't matter...once an entity has the information, it's out of your control, and that's exactly what we need to prevent.
If I'm not mistaken, Steve Gibson, in one of his recent podcasts talked about a very easy (and effective) way to offer the verification they (government) *say* biometrics will provide, without giving away the farm.
I'd argue that a single, well-placed bullet could do a lot more damage than 10 bombs that missed their target. Bullets are for surgical precision, bombs are for propagating widespread destruction and fear. Ever wonder how it is that Bin Laden escaped? Perhaps it was too little emphasis on surgical precision, too much reliance on bombs.
If anything, we should have learned from the disaster that the use of our social security number has become. It started out with a use that was extremely limited in scope, and has since become a nearly universal identifier for all kinds of information about us- all without our permission, and in many cases, our knowledge. The proliferation of its abuse is now why we're faced with issues like identity theft.
This point cannot be emphasized enough: once something like this becomes a problem, it's too late. Have you seen any "solution" to identity theft? Didn't think so. The only effective response is to slam the door closed on these kinds of ideas, and weld it shut.
I seem to remember a rather depressing benchmark with respect to how fast OOo was able to save and re-open a large spreadsheet- and how much memory was required to do so. The results were not pretty, and would have definitely qualified as something that goes into the "must improve asap" category. I use primarily open source apps, but I have to admit that this performance benchmark was a little disappointing. Here's a to a related ZDNet article: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=119
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point..."in the public" does NOT mean "under surveilance." They are two different issues, and it's especially important when you factor in the issue that the surveilance isn't on private property being performed by a private entity, it's being conducted by the government. I believe that ALL government surveilance should be overseen by a court, especially since advances in technology are making it relatively easy.
Conversely, if a global government actually enforced IP laws, the US would be beyond rich.
I think a more likely scenario is that a very small number of Americans might become beyond rich, while continuing their fight to keep others from entering the market as potential competitors.
I do not believe that the "they wouldn't have bought them anyway," line of thinking qualifies as a valid justification for copyright infringement. The only time it is important is when the "content" industry claims losses amounting to huge sums of money they never had. It doesn't mean that infringement is ok, it just means that the industry's claims are quite disingenuous.
How can a parent even make that kind of comment when they don't even know what's in the game to begin with? Hasn't a big part of the problem been parents who completely ignore the ratings anyway?
As long as you can rule out collusion it's going to be good for consumers.
Similar to the way that the RIAA has been good for consumers, with CD price fixing, the elimination of CD singles, and other "consumer-oriented" behavior?
A college degree at the very least shows a minum level of self control and professionalism.
A myth. Welcome to 2006. Many college degrees represent a period of time where the exact opposite was true. I acknowledge that there are students who work hard and take it seriously, but there are a fair number that don't, because to them, it's little more than the "ticket" they're after. It's also somewhat fallacious to suggest that someone without a "ticket" is unable to accommodate a high degree of self-control and professionalism.
I think I said that quite bluntly. And when grandma, or any other non-tech savvy person, can't play MP3s or family videos on Ubuntu because of "licensing restrictions," they aren't going to know what to do.
Actually, I'd be more concerned that they know what this means rather than exactly what to do about it. They need to know that in some situations [insert licensing entity here] is either refusing to avail their 'technology' on this platform, or that they require payment in order to use it. I'd like to see Americans start to gain a greater understanding of the political aspect of technology, and how it affects the choices they have.
He could have been even more succinct and said, "We want this for terrorizing."
Are you referring to the same "retroactive" manner they're going after phone records? Let's not kid ourselves...if there is any way they can get their dirty hands on this information, they will, retroactively, proactively, reactively, or otherwise.
I see this as a multi-step process- first they have to make sure the data is available. Once that issue has been addressed, then you take it a step further, and clarify that access to that data is "when ever we damn well feel like it."
If the ISPs do their part, they will demand that a law is passed. At least a law can be struck down. The US IS a nation of law, isn't it? Or has Gonazles forgotten this?
Another one that drives me NUTS is this: if, while using firefox, you click your mouse on a link, inadvertently move it just a tad, and then release the mouse, the "stupid assumption" is that you intended to drag the link, image, or whatever somewhere- so the "drag" operation stays in effect (even when you're not actually dragging anything), until you click the mouse again (presumably "dropping" what you intended to be "dragging"). I can't put into words how annoying this is.
This same thing drove me crazy with OpenOffice, until I learned how to shut it off. The moral? Sometimes developers need to stop making dumb assumptions about the user's intent.
I think the larger problem is that the public has stopped caring about trivial things like laws or ethics because truth bas become relative and the other party always lies.
There's another reason...it's simply more convenient to ignore all these things. American is a society driven by convenience.
The NSA isn't "data mining against" any U.S. citizen.
The NSA has already admitted that they are. Now that they have the information, they think it would be a good resource to track down journalists who create embarrassing situations by the public informed.
You'd think they'd be able to get off their lazy 9-5 butts and figure something like this out. I guess that's what happens (rather acute stagnation) when people get too comfy with the status quo.
A Bushie fanboy....
Read the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In this article,
http://www.thedigest.com/articles/188/9.html
it is stated customer phone records are their own private property.
Name one person who has even been charged, let alone detained.
I never mentioned detainment or charges.
If you don't like a politician's personality, vote for someone else.
Did you mean vote with the new Diebold e-voting junk, or did you mean vote in a ligitimate election? Oh, and the head of the CIA is an appointed position.
Read that pesky Constitution again. Journalists aren't part of the system
That same pesky Constitution that Bush refers to as "just a goddamned piece of paper"? Is that the one you're referring to?
Journalists aren't part of the system.
They are not part of the formal "checks and balances," but many would argue that the press (and the protection of its rights to free speech) are an integral part of a free society.
Records of who calls who is a type of circumstantial evidence regularly obtained by law enforcement and accepted as relevant by courts.
Under warrant- warrants that apply to a specific, narrowly-defined target, for a specific, narrowly-defined purpose.
The NSA is an executive agency subject to congressional and judicial (not journalistic) oversight.
Maybe you should be explaining this to the NSA, as its not something they appear to understand. Witness the recent stonewalling with respect to the illegal wiretapping investigation.
Good luck seeking an injuction against continuation of a program which serves a compelling state interest.
That's purely a matter of opinion. By your logic, practically anything done in the interest of "fighting terrorism" qualifies as a "compelling state interest," and implies that "fighting terrorism" is more important than freedom.
patriotic nationalism
I don't see how these can be used in the same sentence. At least as far as the US is concerned, I view patriotism as the protection of the principles that grant the freedom and checked government that were intended by the founding fathers. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a sense of mindless allegiance to the state. Nationalism and patriotism are at opposite ends of the same spectrum.
Aside from this being patently illegal, what bothers me is the cavalier attitude behind it, and the fact that it is already being abused to track down people who aren't terrorists, but who are merely doing their job to keep government entities like the NSA under some semblance of control - the journalists. There is no end to the manner in which this kind of information could be abused.
I'm tempted to believe that those doing this are the ones there to collect a paycheck, and that those who make up the genuine geek culture have more worthy goals.
I believe the planes that hit the towers were domestic flights, and the alleged terrorists had been in the country long before it happened.
Anyone who has played WoW will have to admit that Blizzard raised the bar quite a bit with this game. That alone could be responsible for at least part of the massive subscriber base.
I played L2 just before that, and while it had its own unique quality (I still miss it in some ways), you just couldn't help but be be overwhelmed by the vastness and artistic detail of the WoW environment (Undercity and Darnassus, for example).
My point was this: it evolved. In other words, circumstances that we did not forsee at its inception, changed the nature and scope of its use. That this type of evolution will occur should be an assumption, allowing us to ask straight away what kinds of risks are we willing to take with information that identifies us.
A national database pairing the SSNs with these codes or biometrics, need NOT make them accessible
It doesn't matter...once an entity has the information, it's out of your control, and that's exactly what we need to prevent.
If I'm not mistaken, Steve Gibson, in one of his recent podcasts talked about a very easy (and effective) way to offer the verification they (government) *say* biometrics will provide, without giving away the farm.
I'd argue that a single, well-placed bullet could do a lot more damage than 10 bombs that missed their target. Bullets are for surgical precision, bombs are for propagating widespread destruction and fear. Ever wonder how it is that Bin Laden escaped? Perhaps it was too little emphasis on surgical precision, too much reliance on bombs.
If anything, we should have learned from the disaster that the use of our social security number has become. It started out with a use that was extremely limited in scope, and has since become a nearly universal identifier for all kinds of information about us- all without our permission, and in many cases, our knowledge. The proliferation of its abuse is now why we're faced with issues like identity theft.
This point cannot be emphasized enough: once something like this becomes a problem, it's too late. Have you seen any "solution" to identity theft? Didn't think so. The only effective response is to slam the door closed on these kinds of ideas, and weld it shut.
I seem to remember a rather depressing benchmark with respect to how fast OOo was able to save and re-open a large spreadsheet- and how much memory was required to do so. The results were not pretty, and would have definitely qualified as something that goes into the "must improve asap" category. I use primarily open source apps, but I have to admit that this performance benchmark was a little disappointing. Here's a to a related ZDNet article: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=119