Laws are not enforced in context, nor are people judged in context. Once the law is written, context is out the window... and this is another problem with legislators. You can only enforce or interpret what's written, not the intent. Sure legal scholars compare the Virginia constitution with the federal one to clarify what the right to bear arms means, but we don't do that in your local circuit court. I agree that we should have extra scrutiny for requests that come from nutjobs, but that means someone has to decide who the nutjobs are.
If I am requesting a "heterosexuals only" marriage law, it doesn't matter if I am extremely religious, a homophobe, a republican trying to score points with religious conservatives, following Groupthink, or whatever else. If this type of thing comes from someone like Fred Phelps or Jack Thompson, it's even MORE important that you separate your views of the group from your views of the proposal. In general, I agree with EFF and similar organizations, but I don't give their causes a blank check - I have to decide whether I support each issue on its merits, not based on who is pushing for it. If Microsoft suggests something I automatically assume it's going to be bad, but still needs a proper rebuttal instead of just "Microsoft ergo bad."
In fact, I think I would say that considering the context and origination of the movement is dangerous. I won't vote for something that helps education because the idea comes from a Libertarian? Every idea Jack Thompson has is bad?
Lawrence Lessig's ideas need to stand on their own merit, out side of any context, just like everyone else's do. At one time, racial equality would have been considered a bunch of nutjobs, subversive, and back when we had slavery it would be seen as a tremendous economic black hole due to people essentially having their paid-for, valuable property rendered valueless. We can consider big-picture and the impact, and weigh the pros and cons, and not need to consider if the source is a nutbag or not.
Michael Waddoups should be put in jail. You do have a point here, but I'll go one better. He previously supported Jack's bill, but now because Jack is exercising his right of free speech, however annoyingly, Michael is not going to support the bill. This is not commercial, and it is only unsolicited in the sense that they did not expect it. But of all people lawmakers should be accepting input on pending legislation. Claiming this is SPAM is clearly abuse of the laws they made, and they should know better. Utah State Senate President should absolutely know better.
He is deciding his vote on the personal actions of one of the parties - not whether the bill is good for the people. Better still, he is deciding on his opinion of the actions of one of the parties. He is guilty of not doing his job, which is to represent the people. I read his comments as "You have to go through me, I get to choose the laws."
I don't know which bill this is, and can only assume it's as idiotic as Jack Thompson has proven himself to be. But Michael should not be playing this game in public. I will shut down your bill if I don't like you, regardless of whether it is good for the people.
Yopu did not defend yourself thoroughly, I discovered as I prepared a counter-argument.
But, I have an issue with the EFF complaint. Most people don't know how to use a proxy, or what one is, even if it is extremely simple. Just like putting on shoes is simple, but you have to have the money to buy some, or the material to make them - there are precursors. If you know enough about the internet to know that you should keep yourself private, you know a lot more about the internet and how it works than the average person.
Now the kicker is, only the punishment is greater - not the likelihood of conviction. In other words, they didn't lower the barrier to be found guilty. If you are found guilty of something, then factually you did it (regardless of whether you actually did, but that's another story). At that point, you used the internet to do something illegal and knew more about the internet than most people, so it is highly unlikely that you accidentally did something malicious. So yes you are more "sophisticated".
Like an ex-army sharpshooter saying he accidentally shot his neighbor who slept with his wife - he knows more about guns, and has more experience shooting them, than the average person. So it is more unlikely that he made a mistake handling a gun. It might be reasonable to give someone a longer sentence if they knew exactly what they were doing and did it anyway.
The guy who downloads a virus and DOS's the FBI should be in jail for operating the internet with out a license, but the guy who hides behind a proxy DOS-ing the FBI might really be doing it on purpose.
The EFF is saying that normal people who protect their privacy are being judged more harshly. These aren't normal people, they are guilty and being sentenced. Now think about that - guilty people who try to get away with crimes are being sentenced longer than guilty people who don't try to hide. Same as the difference between cooperating with the police and not in my book.
If I try to enforce my constitutional right to be private in my dealings with people, which the government has shown great interest in violating even with the FISA court's availability, I should not be singled out and persecuted. I get that. I was going to make another point but went blank.
The only "crime" where this addendum is a real problem is when your "crime" is speaking out against the government. But I can't come up with one scenario where I would be truly worried about 25% more sentence in that case. You're not getting out any earlier than the next regime change at that point, if you even get out.
Let the counterarguments about people having gun training getting longer sentencing in a gun murder, or race car drivers in a car accident, or ignorance being no excuse and shouldn't result in lower sentences begin.
I have some bargain basement keyboards, and upgraded to a MS one. Needless to say, I have a mouse as well, but I don't use it unless I have to.
Anyway, if I open a picture with IrfanView (ENTER key), delete the crappy photos I took, then return to Explorer (ESC), explorer does not respond for like 10-15 seconds. Key up, down, left, right, backspace, no navigation. Spy++ says it's getting the messages, but it just doesn't get translated (TranslateMessage/DispatchMessage). After a few seconds, translation happens again.
Does it happen with other keyboards/mice? No. Same on another PC? Yes. Updated the drivers? Yes. Why does MS driver exist as an EXE that takes 1-3% of the CPU when I drag the mouse around? Before the MS keyboard I could move it around and nothing went to 3%.
Not happy with it, nosiree. Tonight I disassemble it to find out why it sucks. Wireless Desktop 2000 it is.
The nature of infringement is considered. This is the crux of the book, the denouement, a spoiler. It is the philosophical rant around which the book is staged, the very reason for its existence. It is the summation of the philosophy of the book, as far as I can tell in its entirety.
No one in their right mind would consider this fair use, of course not everyone here is sane.
"oft-skimmed EULA agreement" goes to a Gizmodo article. "interesting paragraph" goes to the whole EULA with no PDF warning.
I assume Gizmodo reprints the EULA in its entirety, while the EULA itself is made up of one interesting paragraph? Or am I supposed to figure out which is the interesting one myself? Here's a novel, I think you'll find one of the passages there very entertaining.
I mean, I was ready to complain when I couldn't tell which was the main link and which were merely supporting materials. But this is just pure shod. That is to say, it's like shod in a way, shoddy, shod-like.
I suppose I should start complaining about those, so that people will be a bit self-conscious about submitting actual targets of ricicule like this one.
Extended support includes security updates and paid support. It's still quite a ways off, in computer years. You'll have security updates for about 5 years still.
If you buy new hardware and want XP on it, it's up to you to make sure it works in XP.
That was my first thought. But I read the article, and it's more complicated than that.
Anonymous feedback has been a dumping ground for people clicking randomly or thoughtlessly, just to get the rating box to go away. Feedback attached to your username is going to increase the reviewer's investment in the accuracy of that rating. It won't solve the problem, but it will be better.
Also, being featured by the app store brings a different audience. I have often thought to myself, I don't like the genre or the design or whatever it is, but I'll give it a chance because someone thought it was good. The same way I hate rap in general but really like certain things. I listened to those on recommendation and enjoyed it, while the ones I randomly found myself were crap.
If the ratings system doesn't account for these kinds of things, it can give a warped view. Especially if it is a question of what is more mainstream because you are exposed to 9x% of the platform users. The rating system in that case doesn't measure how good it is, or entertaining, or worthwhile, or creative.
At that level of exposure, the rating is a measure of how manstream your app is. That is, how likely the average person is to like it. Because with a large enough sample size it actually is a measure of how much the average person likes it.
There are two stories here. The johns are trying to get laid, so it suggests sex for pleasure, which is rare among animals. And the hookers suggest they are willing to barter for food instead of working to acquire it directly.
Maybe a third story, which is they are somehow able to come to an agreement over each party's responsibilities without using words, giving researchers hope that someday they will be able to visit hookers without fear of finding a cop instead.
If you pay, you pay exorbitant rates. If you download, they get to sue you and settle for thousands of dollars. If an RIAA lawyer were advising me, I'd say screw low prices, let's get our money any way we can. Buy an album or we'll force you to buy 147 of them.
That's why I said Sch. 3. I was actually making a case for Sch. 1 but realized that would be absurd given the other criteria. I probably should have removed the "no medical use" part, since it does have minimal usefulness.
Until they have a "Do not ask me again" checkbox directly on the "This site wants to store data" dialog I will continue to leave flash disabled.
I don't want every site able to store data, but some sites will not play anything that way, because they store data files locally instead of using the browser cache. I can steal youtube videos directly out of the cache, but I can't get crap out of these sties that store things using flash storage unless I allow sites to store.
Well, I have no way of knowing which sites are just broken in Firefox, or require Flash storage, so I leave the "ask me" button on.
Colbert Report and Daily Show will not play unless I allow storing locally - it took me 6 months of near-apathy to figure that one out. So I allowed sites to ask me. Adjusting the volume on youtube will get you 10 "This site is storing data, allow?" queries. If I just said no, what are the chances I'll change my mind? Ask me once, that's it.
To set the 'Don't ask me again" you have to go in to the Flash options, and it's fairly simple that way. Yes, I get it. But the default behavior is to ask you repeatedly to store up to 10k of data, with no way of saying "quit asking". This is not good design.
There are other problems, but I've spent this much describing this problem, do you really want to hear more? Probably not. They don't seem to think it's a valid bug report, so instead I'll just disparage them publicly.
More likely, he is getting the same advice that Bush got, from different advisers. He doesn't have to be an idiot, corrupt, or a jerk to take advice from people who think they know what's best for the country.
I'm about 100% sure the request for secrecy is coming from the NSA, and Obama's DOJ is accomodating as much as possible due to convincing arguments, just like Bush's DOJ did.
Something must have convinced Obama to change course from his campaign promises. Do you think he just decided one day that it wasn't worth fighting against?
Blaming one political party or another is not the best way to fight this, because it's obviously not a partisan issue any longer. It's the government against the people now, like it always has been only we couldn't see it.
Caffeine should be listed as a controlled substance in the US of A under Schedule III. It might be prescribed, but other drugs are better at increasing wakefulness as opposed to being a simple stimulant with negative effects on short term memory and attention like caffeine. Therefore no accepted medical use.
Potential for abuse is essentially a measure of the substance's addictiveness, but is not explicitly defined in law. Certainly it has less potential for abuse than Sch. II drugs, but it does lead to dependence.
Anyone who says it should be available OTC without prescription is admitting there are flaws in the drug laws, which can be used to selectively enforce morality instead of providing for the safety of the citizenry.
Schedule III :
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence."
These drugs are available only by prescription, though control of wholesale distribution is somewhat less stringent than Schedule II drugs. Prescriptions for Schedule III drugs may be refilled up to five times within a six month period"
It means "I just discovered this thing called the internet and want to display all of my knowledge so that I appear smart to millions (MM) of people who otherwise wouldn't have any idea who I am."
It failed, in the past, otherwise I wouldn't be reading this. It would be "Psychic says missile test will fail" or "CIA says Korea can't figure out how to build a bomb right."
I know I'll get flak from those trained to do it like this, as if being a journalist gives you the right to ignore the language your readers understand.
Missile launch failed. Don't tell me someone dies, tell me they are dead. Bulls win in overtime, Chicago wins in overtime... these tell me habitual tendencies. Normally, Chicago wins in overtime. Did they win tonight? I want to know who won, not who usually wins, you dickballs.
Jim Smith dies at age 71. People named Jim Smith? Or do you mean Jim typically dies when he's 71? Because neither one makes sense. Is someone goihng to tell me it's more respectful that way? What about "Jim Smith passed on today, to whatever it is he believes is the next stop after nearly half a century of touching the hearts of the best and the brightest, inspiring billions, yes billions of people to be more than they ever thought they could be. Here's our own Reporter McTalksalot with a look into his life."
There are stupid people everywhere, it's good that you're one of few to check sources and actually think about what you read. Keep it up, keep complaining - we need more of you.
With all this typing you've done on Slashdot, which probably won't change the code for you, you've done at least that much typing on a bug report, feature request, on on the VLC forums, right?
Maybe it's resolved since then, but if VLC wasn't concerned about its users then I wasn't going to waste more time on their behalf either. Album art downloads tend to do Google searches and download the first image returned. For at least some releases of VLC, this gets triggered for videos as well as audio. The end result is, every time I watch a video that I have on my local network, VLC advertises the fact that I am watching it. To the largest data mining company ever, Google. Unencrypted for anyone to see.
I posted a question to VLC forums, they seemed very unconcerned about this.
Somehow I enabled album art download. I don't remember doing it, but I am told it is off by default in every release so I did it, as opposed to VLC doing it automatically, so it's not necessarily a big deal. but I don't remember turning it on and had no way to know it was on until I got "out of disk space" errors and went looking for things to delete.
It's not reverse engineering if you let it work as intended. Or at least it can be argued. Using an OnLoad handler basically lets the browser do exactly what it's supposed to do, bypassing nothing and changing nothing. The mechanism is still running and doing what it is expected to do. It is not disabled or altered in any way. No different from trapping unencrypted content directly from the wire.
Packaging this up and distributing it for the purpose of bypassing copy protection would get you in trouble certainly, but allowing DRM to do exactly what it's supposed to do is a very vague and to my knowledge untested area of law.
I think of it this way. If Macrovision were intended to stop copying, but was implemented in a way that did not actually prevent copying, you would not be guilty of bypassing or disabling DRM. Just pop a DVD or VHS in and copy it, you've bypassed the protection but didn't have to do anything to do it. Much like the "analog hole" problem - one could argue that plugging in an audio cable is "bypassing DRM", but the system is operating as expected, and as the DRM implementers should be well aware. Bypassing the secure audio path in Windows involves effort and would be a clear violation, but the system is designed to provide audio out. It is not clear whether this is an intended function or a poor implementation. Likewise the issue of bypassing CD DRM by coloring the edge with a markeror holding down SHIFT when inserting the CD - this involved some effort to bypass, but no charges were filed because it's such a simple, elementary method and exposed the DRM implementation as so fundamentally broken that it did not deserve protection against such an attack.
So you let the browser download what the server sends, let it run the scripts and update the document, and then access the data which is (by design) exposed by the browser.
I ANAL and all that, and even if I were you shouldn't take internet omments as legal advice or you get what you deserve.
Linux doesn't have its Roger Ebert
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Linux doesn't have its Roger Ebert, that's the problem. Someone who brings up issues, and someone to whom people actually listen. someone who makes consistently good points, enough that the "won't fix" bugs turn into "Roger Ebert ripped us a new one and he has a point, so let's at least try" bugs.
There are many people who are critical, but no one is a true critic, trusted and proven and consistent. Linus makes good points, but many app teams dismiss him as the low-level guy. Stallman can be polarizing and principled, instead of pragmatic. Many others have their areas of concern, but stay out of other more wide-ranging issues. that ends up being a sci-fi critic, a drama critic, a cinematography critic, an indy film critic, but still no Roger Ebert.
Ebert is of course not always right, and doesn't know everything about everything, but there are lots of people who will at least consider his opinion where they would dismiss the average joker.
Slashdot Mirror
Laws are not enforced in context, nor are people judged in context. Once the law is written, context is out the window... and this is another problem with legislators. You can only enforce or interpret what's written, not the intent. Sure legal scholars compare the Virginia constitution with the federal one to clarify what the right to bear arms means, but we don't do that in your local circuit court. I agree that we should have extra scrutiny for requests that come from nutjobs, but that means someone has to decide who the nutjobs are.
If I am requesting a "heterosexuals only" marriage law, it doesn't matter if I am extremely religious, a homophobe, a republican trying to score points with religious conservatives, following Groupthink, or whatever else. If this type of thing comes from someone like Fred Phelps or Jack Thompson, it's even MORE important that you separate your views of the group from your views of the proposal. In general, I agree with EFF and similar organizations, but I don't give their causes a blank check - I have to decide whether I support each issue on its merits, not based on who is pushing for it. If Microsoft suggests something I automatically assume it's going to be bad, but still needs a proper rebuttal instead of just "Microsoft ergo bad."
In fact, I think I would say that considering the context and origination of the movement is dangerous. I won't vote for something that helps education because the idea comes from a Libertarian? Every idea Jack Thompson has is bad?
Lawrence Lessig's ideas need to stand on their own merit, out side of any context, just like everyone else's do. At one time, racial equality would have been considered a bunch of nutjobs, subversive, and back when we had slavery it would be seen as a tremendous economic black hole due to people essentially having their paid-for, valuable property rendered valueless. We can consider big-picture and the impact, and weigh the pros and cons, and not need to consider if the source is a nutbag or not.
Who decides who is insane?
Michael Waddoups should be put in jail. You do have a point here, but I'll go one better. He previously supported Jack's bill, but now because Jack is exercising his right of free speech, however annoyingly, Michael is not going to support the bill. This is not commercial, and it is only unsolicited in the sense that they did not expect it. But of all people lawmakers should be accepting input on pending legislation. Claiming this is SPAM is clearly abuse of the laws they made, and they should know better. Utah State Senate President should absolutely know better.
He is deciding his vote on the personal actions of one of the parties - not whether the bill is good for the people. Better still, he is deciding on his opinion of the actions of one of the parties. He is guilty of not doing his job, which is to represent the people. I read his comments as "You have to go through me, I get to choose the laws."
I don't know which bill this is, and can only assume it's as idiotic as Jack Thompson has proven himself to be. But Michael should not be playing this game in public. I will shut down your bill if I don't like you, regardless of whether it is good for the people.
Parent is no troll. Yes the HID and USB stuff works without drivers, but they are not SUPPORTED.
I saw the behavior, decided to install the drivers to resolve, then decided to update.
I agree, installing drivers could be the problem. Normally you don't install the drivers for simple USB stuff, an the fewer the better.
If you have problems with for example a Logitech MX3200, they will ask you to install the drivers.
Yopu did not defend yourself thoroughly, I discovered as I prepared a counter-argument.
But, I have an issue with the EFF complaint. Most people don't know how to use a proxy, or what one is, even if it is extremely simple. Just like putting on shoes is simple, but you have to have the money to buy some, or the material to make them - there are precursors. If you know enough about the internet to know that you should keep yourself private, you know a lot more about the internet and how it works than the average person.
Now the kicker is, only the punishment is greater - not the likelihood of conviction. In other words, they didn't lower the barrier to be found guilty. If you are found guilty of something, then factually you did it (regardless of whether you actually did, but that's another story). At that point, you used the internet to do something illegal and knew more about the internet than most people, so it is highly unlikely that you accidentally did something malicious. So yes you are more "sophisticated".
Like an ex-army sharpshooter saying he accidentally shot his neighbor who slept with his wife - he knows more about guns, and has more experience shooting them, than the average person. So it is more unlikely that he made a mistake handling a gun. It might be reasonable to give someone a longer sentence if they knew exactly what they were doing and did it anyway.
The guy who downloads a virus and DOS's the FBI should be in jail for operating the internet with out a license, but the guy who hides behind a proxy DOS-ing the FBI might really be doing it on purpose.
The EFF is saying that normal people who protect their privacy are being judged more harshly. These aren't normal people, they are guilty and being sentenced. Now think about that - guilty people who try to get away with crimes are being sentenced longer than guilty people who don't try to hide. Same as the difference between cooperating with the police and not in my book.
If I try to enforce my constitutional right to be private in my dealings with people, which the government has shown great interest in violating even with the FISA court's availability, I should not be singled out and persecuted. I get that. I was going to make another point but went blank.
The only "crime" where this addendum is a real problem is when your "crime" is speaking out against the government. But I can't come up with one scenario where I would be truly worried about 25% more sentence in that case. You're not getting out any earlier than the next regime change at that point, if you even get out.
Let the counterarguments about people having gun training getting longer sentencing in a gun murder, or race car drivers in a car accident, or ignorance being no excuse and shouldn't result in lower sentences begin.
I have some bargain basement keyboards, and upgraded to a MS one. Needless to say, I have a mouse as well, but I don't use it unless I have to.
Anyway, if I open a picture with IrfanView (ENTER key), delete the crappy photos I took, then return to Explorer (ESC), explorer does not respond for like 10-15 seconds. Key up, down, left, right, backspace, no navigation. Spy++ says it's getting the messages, but it just doesn't get translated (TranslateMessage/DispatchMessage). After a few seconds, translation happens again.
Does it happen with other keyboards/mice? No. Same on another PC? Yes. Updated the drivers? Yes. Why does MS driver exist as an EXE that takes 1-3% of the CPU when I drag the mouse around? Before the MS keyboard I could move it around and nothing went to 3%.
Not happy with it, nosiree. Tonight I disassemble it to find out why it sucks. Wireless Desktop 2000 it is.
The nature of infringement is considered. This is the crux of the book, the denouement, a spoiler. It is the philosophical rant around which the book is staged, the very reason for its existence. It is the summation of the philosophy of the book, as far as I can tell in its entirety.
No one in their right mind would consider this fair use, of course not everyone here is sane.
"oft-skimmed EULA agreement" goes to a Gizmodo article.
"interesting paragraph" goes to the whole EULA with no PDF warning.
I assume Gizmodo reprints the EULA in its entirety, while the EULA itself is made up of one interesting paragraph? Or am I supposed to figure out which is the interesting one myself? Here's a novel, I think you'll find one of the passages there very entertaining.
I mean, I was ready to complain when I couldn't tell which was the main link and which were merely supporting materials. But this is just pure shod. That is to say, it's like shod in a way, shoddy, shod-like.
I suppose I should start complaining about those, so that people will be a bit self-conscious about submitting actual targets of ricicule like this one.
Extended support includes security updates and paid support. It's still quite a ways off, in computer years. You'll have security updates for about 5 years still.
If you buy new hardware and want XP on it, it's up to you to make sure it works in XP.
This page made me select a country.
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect
US - 4/8/2014
UK - 08/04/2014
China - 2014/4/8
That was my first thought. But I read the article, and it's more complicated than that.
Anonymous feedback has been a dumping ground for people clicking randomly or thoughtlessly, just to get the rating box to go away. Feedback attached to your username is going to increase the reviewer's investment in the accuracy of that rating. It won't solve the problem, but it will be better.
Also, being featured by the app store brings a different audience. I have often thought to myself, I don't like the genre or the design or whatever it is, but I'll give it a chance because someone thought it was good. The same way I hate rap in general but really like certain things. I listened to those on recommendation and enjoyed it, while the ones I randomly found myself were crap.
If the ratings system doesn't account for these kinds of things, it can give a warped view. Especially if it is a question of what is more mainstream because you are exposed to 9x% of the platform users. The rating system in that case doesn't measure how good it is, or entertaining, or worthwhile, or creative.
At that level of exposure, the rating is a measure of how manstream your app is. That is, how likely the average person is to like it. Because with a large enough sample size it actually is a measure of how much the average person likes it.
There are two stories here. The johns are trying to get laid, so it suggests sex for pleasure, which is rare among animals. And the hookers suggest they are willing to barter for food instead of working to acquire it directly.
Maybe a third story, which is they are somehow able to come to an agreement over each party's responsibilities without using words, giving researchers hope that someday they will be able to visit hookers without fear of finding a cop instead.
If you pay, you pay exorbitant rates. If you download, they get to sue you and settle for thousands of dollars. If an RIAA lawyer were advising me, I'd say screw low prices, let's get our money any way we can. Buy an album or we'll force you to buy 147 of them.
That's why I said Sch. 3. I was actually making a case for Sch. 1 but realized that would be absurd given the other criteria. I probably should have removed the "no medical use" part, since it does have minimal usefulness.
Until they have a "Do not ask me again" checkbox directly on the "This site wants to store data" dialog I will continue to leave flash disabled.
I don't want every site able to store data, but some sites will not play anything that way, because they store data files locally instead of using the browser cache. I can steal youtube videos directly out of the cache, but I can't get crap out of these sties that store things using flash storage unless I allow sites to store.
Well, I have no way of knowing which sites are just broken in Firefox, or require Flash storage, so I leave the "ask me" button on.
Colbert Report and Daily Show will not play unless I allow storing locally - it took me 6 months of near-apathy to figure that one out. So I allowed sites to ask me. Adjusting the volume on youtube will get you 10 "This site is storing data, allow?" queries. If I just said no, what are the chances I'll change my mind? Ask me once, that's it.
To set the 'Don't ask me again" you have to go in to the Flash options, and it's fairly simple that way. Yes, I get it. But the default behavior is to ask you repeatedly to store up to 10k of data, with no way of saying "quit asking". This is not good design.
There are other problems, but I've spent this much describing this problem, do you really want to hear more? Probably not. They don't seem to think it's a valid bug report, so instead I'll just disparage them publicly.
More likely, he is getting the same advice that Bush got, from different advisers. He doesn't have to be an idiot, corrupt, or a jerk to take advice from people who think they know what's best for the country.
I'm about 100% sure the request for secrecy is coming from the NSA, and Obama's DOJ is accomodating as much as possible due to convincing arguments, just like Bush's DOJ did.
Something must have convinced Obama to change course from his campaign promises. Do you think he just decided one day that it wasn't worth fighting against?
Blaming one political party or another is not the best way to fight this, because it's obviously not a partisan issue any longer. It's the government against the people now, like it always has been only we couldn't see it.
Caffeine should be listed as a controlled substance in the US of A under Schedule III. It might be prescribed, but other drugs are better at increasing wakefulness as opposed to being a simple stimulant with negative effects on short term memory and attention like caffeine. Therefore no accepted medical use.
Potential for abuse is essentially a measure of the substance's addictiveness, but is not explicitly defined in law. Certainly it has less potential for abuse than Sch. II drugs, but it does lead to dependence.
Anyone who says it should be available OTC without prescription is admitting there are flaws in the drug laws, which can be used to selectively enforce morality instead of providing for the safety of the citizenry.
It means "I just discovered this thing called the internet and want to display all of my knowledge so that I appear smart to millions (MM) of people who otherwise wouldn't have any idea who I am."
You can see why it is commonly abbreviated.
Hope that helps.
It failed, in the past, otherwise I wouldn't be reading this. It would be "Psychic says missile test will fail" or "CIA says Korea can't figure out how to build a bomb right."
I know I'll get flak from those trained to do it like this, as if being a journalist gives you the right to ignore the language your readers understand.
Missile launch failed. Don't tell me someone dies, tell me they are dead. Bulls win in overtime, Chicago wins in overtime... these tell me habitual tendencies. Normally, Chicago wins in overtime. Did they win tonight? I want to know who won, not who usually wins, you dickballs.
Jim Smith dies at age 71. People named Jim Smith? Or do you mean Jim typically dies when he's 71? Because neither one makes sense. Is someone goihng to tell me it's more respectful that way? What about "Jim Smith passed on today, to whatever it is he believes is the next stop after nearly half a century of touching the hearts of the best and the brightest, inspiring billions, yes billions of people to be more than they ever thought they could be. Here's our own Reporter McTalksalot with a look into his life."
It failed.
There are stupid people everywhere, it's good that you're one of few to check sources and actually think about what you read. Keep it up, keep complaining - we need more of you.
With all this typing you've done on Slashdot, which probably won't change the code for you, you've done at least that much typing on a bug report, feature request, on on the VLC forums, right?
Maybe it's resolved since then, but if VLC wasn't concerned about its users then I wasn't going to waste more time on their behalf either. Album art downloads tend to do Google searches and download the first image returned. For at least some releases of VLC, this gets triggered for videos as well as audio. The end result is, every time I watch a video that I have on my local network, VLC advertises the fact that I am watching it. To the largest data mining company ever, Google. Unencrypted for anyone to see.
I posted a question to VLC forums, they seemed very unconcerned about this.
Somehow I enabled album art download. I don't remember doing it, but I am told it is off by default in every release so I did it, as opposed to VLC doing it automatically, so it's not necessarily a big deal. but I don't remember turning it on and had no way to know it was on until I got "out of disk space" errors and went looking for things to delete.
Anyway, more details here and read for yourselves.
http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=55288&p=182407
This is my new mantra/explanation/excuse for all purpose.
It's not reverse engineering if you let it work as intended. Or at least it can be argued. Using an OnLoad handler basically lets the browser do exactly what it's supposed to do, bypassing nothing and changing nothing. The mechanism is still running and doing what it is expected to do. It is not disabled or altered in any way. No different from trapping unencrypted content directly from the wire.
Packaging this up and distributing it for the purpose of bypassing copy protection would get you in trouble certainly, but allowing DRM to do exactly what it's supposed to do is a very vague and to my knowledge untested area of law.
I think of it this way. If Macrovision were intended to stop copying, but was implemented in a way that did not actually prevent copying, you would not be guilty of bypassing or disabling DRM. Just pop a DVD or VHS in and copy it, you've bypassed the protection but didn't have to do anything to do it. Much like the "analog hole" problem - one could argue that plugging in an audio cable is "bypassing DRM", but the system is operating as expected, and as the DRM implementers should be well aware. Bypassing the secure audio path in Windows involves effort and would be a clear violation, but the system is designed to provide audio out. It is not clear whether this is an intended function or a poor implementation. Likewise the issue of bypassing CD DRM by coloring the edge with a markeror holding down SHIFT when inserting the CD - this involved some effort to bypass, but no charges were filed because it's such a simple, elementary method and exposed the DRM implementation as so fundamentally broken that it did not deserve protection against such an attack.
So you let the browser download what the server sends, let it run the scripts and update the document, and then access the data which is (by design) exposed by the browser.
I ANAL and all that, and even if I were you shouldn't take internet omments as legal advice or you get what you deserve.
Linux doesn't have its Roger Ebert, that's the problem. Someone who brings up issues, and someone to whom people actually listen. someone who makes consistently good points, enough that the "won't fix" bugs turn into "Roger Ebert ripped us a new one and he has a point, so let's at least try" bugs.
There are many people who are critical, but no one is a true critic, trusted and proven and consistent. Linus makes good points, but many app teams dismiss him as the low-level guy. Stallman can be polarizing and principled, instead of pragmatic. Many others have their areas of concern, but stay out of other more wide-ranging issues. that ends up being a sci-fi critic, a drama critic, a cinematography critic, an indy film critic, but still no Roger Ebert.
Ebert is of course not always right, and doesn't know everything about everything, but there are lots of people who will at least consider his opinion where they would dismiss the average joker.
Especially before you were born.
Seriously, did you do any research at all before posting this? It's not even worth posting a link to "Let me google that for you".com
Thisbookisveryhelpfulbutmissingaveryimportantchapterinmyopinion.Iusecatoneverythingnow,it'slikemyownmini-vi,ormini-emacsforthoseofyouwholikeemacs.Ihaven'treadeverychapteryet-Ireadalittleslowly.ButonedayIwillbeacompletemasterofcat.Catmaster,that'swhattheywillcallme.