In no sane economic system is anyone permitted to push the cost of cleaning up after them onto the rest of the world, but that's what we have here (on Earth.)
I didn't say otherwise. If legislation doesn't do that, then legislation is the way to fix it. Not the court. But hey, attacking reasonable arguments about the separation of powers and governance systems is much more difficult that just pretending I said something I didn't about how we aught to deal with pollution.
Why, because it's been determined that their government is beholden to them?
No, because it's been determined that their government is beholden to a judge and a lobby group with expensive lawyers. If the plaintiff was McEvil Multinational inc., rather than Hippies.org, I'm sure your tune here would be very different.
Since when the hell is it shocking that a government has an "independent legal obligation towards their citizens".
It's not. When that "independent legal obligation to their citizens" is laid out (specifically) in statute (and is only used to interfere with statutes (as opposed to the executive) when it is a law of appropriate authority (ie. constitution)). But when a court uses the term "independent legal obligation towards their citizens" to mean "there's no basis in law so we made one up", that's a problem.
Even if they had made the promises to the Dutch people, manifesto commitments aren't generally considered legally enforceable (and shouldn't be, for a whole raft of reasons - possibility of coalitions, practicality (party can't control what the legislature will pass), changing circumstances, the fact there already exists a recourse for grievances (elections and recall petition) etc.).
“Before this judgement, the only legal obligations on states were those they agreed among themselves in international treaties,” said Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel for Urgenda, the group that brought the suit.
“This is the first a time a court has determined that states have an independent legal obligation towards their citizens. That must inform the reduction commitments in Paris because if it doesn’t, they can expect pressure from courts in their own jurisdictions.”
In no sane system does a court have the ability to pull legal obligations out of its arse, as it seems to have done here. This is a very bad day for the Dutch people. They are now officially an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by Judge Hans Hofhuis.
Yes, I'm sure Norton Genuine American Addition (NSA Approved!) did not have such exploits. I'm sure the NSA did not exploit this against US citizens (or GCHQ against British citizens). Pull the other one.
It's an incredibly misleading article they omit to mention that it is to do with the way Amazon divvies up royalties from the Kindle lending library, not to do with the way Amazon passes on royalties from actual purchases, until about half way through. At the end of the day the latter would be unambiguously wrong, the former seems not to be an unreasonable approach: It means the difference in value of books is recognised (i.e. a longer book, that requires more to write, earns more than a shorter one) (rather than a flat rate for all books, which is what the article implies is currently paid) and it rewards authors that add value to the library rather than authors whose books customers check out and then decide aren't worth reading.
Some of the deprecated features include:... out-of-the-box... USB floppy support,... old versions of Windows games, and Windows Live Essentials version of OneDrive
USB floppy support is still available, you just have to pull the drivers off Windows update, the old versions of Windows games have been replaced by the new versions (shock, horror) and WL Essentials OneDrive has been superseded by integrated OneDrive. So really we're only left with Media Center, DVD playback and gadgets being removed, and a stupid change being made to the way "Home" editions of the OS handle updates.
I'd really like to know on what principles this 'security driver' is based on
From TFS I'm going for homeopathy. It's tiny (less than 100 kb, compared to several GB for an OS installation), has no known mechanism of effectiveness ("the software requires no use of signature files, white-listing, heuristics or sandboxing"), uses meaningless techno-babble to explain how it works ("by preventing unauthorized I/O activity"), makes unrealistic claims of effectiveness ("reportedly achieves a 100% effectiveness rate against intruders... The CEO of Abatis claims, 'We can stop zero day malware — the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns'") and also claims to save the world (" very significant potential for energy savings").
I've seen various comments/analysis on other sites about how unsafe this makes people feel. My response was completely the opposite: security is completely ineffective yet it's quite rare for terrorists to blow up airliners. Conclusion: terrorists don't pose a massive threat to our safety and we can do away with all the infringements of our liberties made in the name of safety from terrorists.
Although, no doubt, the government will see it as an excuse to make airport security fondle your bollocks for a minimum of 30 seconds; after all, we've got to stop all those terrorists that aren't blowing up planes from blowing up planes!
b) Yes! 1) It prevents whoever is intercepting my emails (lets assume facebook is feeding info to the NSA here, but it could still keep out the Iranians/cybercriminals etc) knowing that Susie (networks:I hate Ahmadinejad) communicates with me. ie. Communications metadata - a pretty big thing. 2) It moves to towards a model of (increased) privacy by default.This is good because it makes bulk collection much more difficult (even if they can crack the encryption it vastly ups the resources they need), leads to widespread adoption of encryption for "important" stuff too and removes the stigma/guilt by association of encryption usage.
Your point? You only give them your public key - the whole point of which is that it's public. That's why we put them on keyservers. Mostly they will use it for the emails they send you... which they already know the contents of. They'll also be acting as a key distribution channel which is interesting - reliably distributing public keys is difficult and a social network account could act as a verified way to do this (although I wouldn't want to rely on it without being sure they hadn't switched the key out for another one).
Well no. You can code out bugs, but you can't code out thugs. The bugs in the programme can be found and fixed, but if the government doesn't want to respect our liberties then, unless we have the numbers and strength to fight back, no liberties for us.
I've always assumed it dates from the days when they actually had to send it off to the factory to be turned into CDs? (Also the origin of the term "gold copy"?)
My take on this is that if I'm required to infringe copyright on a legally purchased product in order to make sensible use of it, why should I actually purchase it instead of just infringing copyright and getting it for free from a torrent?
Because of the moral argument: while both of those may be illegal only one of them is immoral.
(Pedantic moment:Also DRM removal, while often illegal, is not copyright infringement.)
this rise in the digital market has brought with it a growth in online infringement
I'm willing to bet consumption, both legitimate and illegitimate, is up; so I wonder how much damage this "rise in piracy" is actually doing. At the end of the day I could go and hunt down a pirate copy of the book I need, find a website that actually allows me to download it, avoid the viruses and so forth. Or I could just buy it easily from Amazon, and strip the DRM for backup purposes. You see the legitimate content has a massive advantage here: It's much easier to get and comes with the ability to sync notes etc. with the cloud (if you don't mind Amazon knowing your reading habits), while it's not too difficult to remove the DRM for a backup copy.
If I was a publisher I'd be far more worried that this incentivises me to read older, public domain books. Before I still had to go to the bookshop and buy them, and a publisher could probably get new books out at a competitive price if they wanted, whereas now I can just get them free from Guttenberg (or even Amazon themselves). And with many publishers trying to charge almost the same for a Kindle book as a print book I rarely buy new books for my Kindle, if I want to read one of them I buy the dead tree version instead. But often I just find some public domain reading material and the publishers loose my custom.
The UK High Court has ordered British ISPs to block a website that helps users find several websites that help users find unauthorized copies of eBooks. Under the order, BT, Virgin, Sky, EE and TalkTalk must block Slashdot within the next ten days. “We are very pleased that the High Court has granted this order and, in doing so, recognizes the damage being inflicted on UK publishers and authors by this infringing website,” says Richard Mollet, Chief Executive of The Publishers Association. “A third of publisher revenues now come from digital sales but unfortunately this rise in the digital market has brought with it a growth in online infringement. Our members need to be able to protect their authors’ works from such illegal activity; writers need to be paid and publishers need to be able to continue to innovate and invest in new talent and material.”
He said the car is not attempting to self-park. “It seems they are trying to demonstrate pedestrian detection and auto-braking"[while the car is under human control]
So not nearly as sinister as a self driving car that charges extra for a vital feature. It costs extra because it requires them to stick a radar in the car, and radars cost money; and it's fine that they charge extra as all of these cars should be equipped with a pedestrian avoidance system anyway, namely a driver.
Well lower tube fairs, for a start. This directly leads to a lower cost of living. Then all the other people have more disposable income to spend generating jobs in other sectors. This is why we still have widespread employment, despite the industrial revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
They paid me with a house on a mountain so I can laugh in the face of rising sea levels.
In no sane economic system is anyone permitted to push the cost of cleaning up after them onto the rest of the world, but that's what we have here (on Earth.)
I didn't say otherwise. If legislation doesn't do that, then legislation is the way to fix it. Not the court. But hey, attacking reasonable arguments about the separation of powers and governance systems is much more difficult that just pretending I said something I didn't about how we aught to deal with pollution.
Why, because it's been determined that their government is beholden to them?
No, because it's been determined that their government is beholden to a judge and a lobby group with expensive lawyers. If the plaintiff was McEvil Multinational inc., rather than Hippies.org, I'm sure your tune here would be very different.
Since when the hell is it shocking that a government has an "independent legal obligation towards their citizens".
It's not. When that "independent legal obligation to their citizens" is laid out (specifically) in statute (and is only used to interfere with statutes (as opposed to the executive) when it is a law of appropriate authority (ie. constitution)). But when a court uses the term "independent legal obligation towards their citizens" to mean "there's no basis in law so we made one up", that's a problem.
Mod parent up.
Even if they had made the promises to the Dutch people, manifesto commitments aren't generally considered legally enforceable (and shouldn't be, for a whole raft of reasons - possibility of coalitions, practicality (party can't control what the legislature will pass), changing circumstances, the fact there already exists a recourse for grievances (elections and recall petition) etc.).
From TFA (emphasis added):
“Before this judgement, the only legal obligations on states were those they agreed among themselves in international treaties,” said Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel for Urgenda, the group that brought the suit. “This is the first a time a court has determined that states have an independent legal obligation towards their citizens. That must inform the reduction commitments in Paris because if it doesn’t, they can expect pressure from courts in their own jurisdictions.”
In no sane system does a court have the ability to pull legal obligations out of its arse, as it seems to have done here. This is a very bad day for the Dutch people. They are now officially an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by Judge Hans Hofhuis.
Yes, I'm sure Norton Genuine American Addition (NSA Approved!) did not have such exploits. I'm sure the NSA did not exploit this against US citizens (or GCHQ against British citizens). Pull the other one.
It's an incredibly misleading article they omit to mention that it is to do with the way Amazon divvies up royalties from the Kindle lending library, not to do with the way Amazon passes on royalties from actual purchases, until about half way through. At the end of the day the latter would be unambiguously wrong, the former seems not to be an unreasonable approach: It means the difference in value of books is recognised (i.e. a longer book, that requires more to write, earns more than a shorter one) (rather than a flat rate for all books, which is what the article implies is currently paid) and it rewards authors that add value to the library rather than authors whose books customers check out and then decide aren't worth reading.
I'm not sure how I can see it would be in the chancellors interest either...
TFS:
Some of the deprecated features include: ... out-of-the-box ... USB floppy support, ... old versions of Windows games, and Windows Live Essentials version of OneDrive
USB floppy support is still available, you just have to pull the drivers off Windows update, the old versions of Windows games have been replaced by the new versions (shock, horror) and WL Essentials OneDrive has been superseded by integrated OneDrive. So really we're only left with Media Center, DVD playback and gadgets being removed, and a stupid change being made to the way "Home" editions of the OS handle updates.
I'd really like to know on what principles this 'security driver' is based on
From TFS I'm going for homeopathy. It's tiny (less than 100 kb, compared to several GB for an OS installation), has no known mechanism of effectiveness ("the software requires no use of signature files, white-listing, heuristics or sandboxing"), uses meaningless techno-babble to explain how it works ("by preventing unauthorized I/O activity"), makes unrealistic claims of effectiveness ("reportedly achieves a 100% effectiveness rate against intruders ... The CEO of Abatis claims, 'We can stop zero day malware — the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns'") and also claims to save the world (" very significant potential for energy savings").
If only Thufir Hawat had felt the good Dr's balls...
I've seen various comments/analysis on other sites about how unsafe this makes people feel. My response was completely the opposite: security is completely ineffective yet it's quite rare for terrorists to blow up airliners. Conclusion: terrorists don't pose a massive threat to our safety and we can do away with all the infringements of our liberties made in the name of safety from terrorists.
Although, no doubt, the government will see it as an excuse to make airport security fondle your bollocks for a minimum of 30 seconds; after all, we've got to stop all those terrorists that aren't blowing up planes from blowing up planes!
DRM removal is covered by the European Union *COPYRIGHT* Directive, and the US's Digital Millennium *COPYRIGHT* Act.
So? It's illegal. It's still only copyright infringement if you then use the work in some way you're not licensed to.
a) They'll also be offering key distribution.
b) Yes! 1) It prevents whoever is intercepting my emails (lets assume facebook is feeding info to the NSA here, but it could still keep out the Iranians/cybercriminals etc) knowing that Susie (networks:I hate Ahmadinejad) communicates with me. ie. Communications metadata - a pretty big thing. 2) It moves to towards a model of (increased) privacy by default.This is good because it makes bulk collection much more difficult (even if they can crack the encryption it vastly ups the resources they need), leads to widespread adoption of encryption for "important" stuff too and removes the stigma/guilt by association of encryption usage.
Your point? You only give them your public key - the whole point of which is that it's public. That's why we put them on keyservers. Mostly they will use it for the emails they send you... which they already know the contents of. They'll also be acting as a key distribution channel which is interesting - reliably distributing public keys is difficult and a social network account could act as a verified way to do this (although I wouldn't want to rely on it without being sure they hadn't switched the key out for another one).
Well no. You can code out bugs, but you can't code out thugs. The bugs in the programme can be found and fixed, but if the government doesn't want to respect our liberties then, unless we have the numbers and strength to fight back, no liberties for us.
I've always assumed it dates from the days when they actually had to send it off to the factory to be turned into CDs? (Also the origin of the term "gold copy"?)
My take on this is that if I'm required to infringe copyright on a legally purchased product in order to make sensible use of it, why should I actually purchase it instead of just infringing copyright and getting it for free from a torrent?
Because of the moral argument: while both of those may be illegal only one of them is immoral.
(Pedantic moment:Also DRM removal, while often illegal, is not copyright infringement.)
I think you missed the modifications I made to the summary ;)
From TFS:
this rise in the digital market has brought with it a growth in online infringement
I'm willing to bet consumption, both legitimate and illegitimate, is up; so I wonder how much damage this "rise in piracy" is actually doing. At the end of the day I could go and hunt down a pirate copy of the book I need, find a website that actually allows me to download it, avoid the viruses and so forth. Or I could just buy it easily from Amazon, and strip the DRM for backup purposes. You see the legitimate content has a massive advantage here: It's much easier to get and comes with the ability to sync notes etc. with the cloud (if you don't mind Amazon knowing your reading habits), while it's not too difficult to remove the DRM for a backup copy.
If I was a publisher I'd be far more worried that this incentivises me to read older, public domain books. Before I still had to go to the bookshop and buy them, and a publisher could probably get new books out at a competitive price if they wanted, whereas now I can just get them free from Guttenberg (or even Amazon themselves). And with many publishers trying to charge almost the same for a Kindle book as a print book I rarely buy new books for my Kindle, if I want to read one of them I buy the dead tree version instead. But often I just find some public domain reading material and the publishers loose my custom.
The UK High Court has ordered British ISPs to block a website that helps users find several websites that help users find unauthorized copies of eBooks. Under the order, BT, Virgin, Sky, EE and TalkTalk must block Slashdot within the next ten days. “We are very pleased that the High Court has granted this order and, in doing so, recognizes the damage being inflicted on UK publishers and authors by this infringing website,” says Richard Mollet, Chief Executive of The Publishers Association. “A third of publisher revenues now come from digital sales but unfortunately this rise in the digital market has brought with it a growth in online infringement. Our members need to be able to protect their authors’ works from such illegal activity; writers need to be paid and publishers need to be able to continue to innovate and invest in new talent and material.”
TFA said:
He said the car is not attempting to self-park. “It seems they are trying to demonstrate pedestrian detection and auto-braking"[while the car is under human control]
So not nearly as sinister as a self driving car that charges extra for a vital feature. It costs extra because it requires them to stick a radar in the car, and radars cost money; and it's fine that they charge extra as all of these cars should be equipped with a pedestrian avoidance system anyway, namely a driver.
Valve time. Sorry.
Well lower tube fairs, for a start. This directly leads to a lower cost of living. Then all the other people have more disposable income to spend generating jobs in other sectors. This is why we still have widespread employment, despite the industrial revolution.
Cars don't have unions.