How would the web know who you are? To implement this would there be some grand unified sign on to get on the web? The government would never abuse that. Yeah no I'll pass.
I concede you might be right, but your argument is not a valid one. Just because the firmware is changed does not mean the law is voided. The issue is if the new firmware introduced functionality beyond what the manufacturer sold you. If jail breaking only enabled you to use a second app store then it would be covered. The other things jail breaking allows you to do would likely void your protection. Further, installing apps from said app store that don't conform with what Apple's app rules would also likely void the protection.
Stupid != Aggressive. The problem is a lot of Ontario drivers are stupid. I don't know what its like every where else in the province, but in Waterloo I know that I can't count the number of times I have watched people blow through lights when I am able to stop in the lane beside them. Just to meet them again at the next light because they couldn't blow through that one. Driving through lights might benefit you in the short term, but most of the time in city driving will take the same amount of time no matter what you do.
I like the line of no return idea too. Any driver could easily figure it out himself while approaching the intersection, but it might not be the best use of his attention. The more information the driver is given without having to calculate it the better off the decision is going to be.
One of the comments explains that the statue is there to stop companies from forcing oem parts on the user. The $100 question now is, "Does jail breaking change the product beyond its original form?"
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides irrevocable legal rights. A warranty's contract can not remove your rights. Further, the burden of proof for the limitations is on the manufacturer so just saying that the consumer could have or may have performed a problem causing action does not help them. Service contracts could be a different beast entirely so I have no idea how the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act would apply. Maybe you can jailbreak the ipod touch, but not the iphone.
Not to forget, but windows is a paid for OS. I would expect at least some reasonable support no matter the sophistication then. Google's product is free to the public. How many of those do you know that provide amazing support if any. Their only real responsibility would be image and PR. That is why open source is so great because anyone interested could do the patching themselves instead of relying on the owner of the software to care.
The concept of the question/answer system is great, but is poorly implemented by either the company or the user. I especially mean the recovery systems that force you to pick a question from a list instead of making your own. That destroys the point of them being memorable to you personally. A lot of them seem to want you to use something that if you forget you can figure it out. Anything you can look up the attacker can look up making the system a joke, even if they don't know you personally. I make up my own and I have yet to find anyone I know that can guess them. For example, "What do you hate most about C++?" works great.
Alright I'll try explaining my point again because you asked. If ISPs want to control how people access the internet they demonstrate that they are able and willing to intervene with their customers affairs.
According to the criminal code;
21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.
Common Intention
(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.
The willingness to engage the consumer means that where the ISP has ability they must actively ensure that the customer does not commit crimes. It has been consistently demonstrated in courts that mere presence to the crime does not makes the party liable, but the willingness to participate.
To the point on realtime. It has no significance (excluding statute of limitations) to how the ISP can be found criminally liable. The ISP needs to make technology conform to the law. The courts should not make the law conform to ISPs.
Port blocking shows that you have the technology to analyze trillions of packets per day, check their legality against multiple criminal codes, and allow/deny them in realtime?
Realtime? No, of course they can't. Don't worry though, that is not how courts work. It doesn't matter if committing the crime makes a technology impossibly slow. The law is not applied in real time. You can be charged year after the fact. The ISPs should be dumb tubes. Any inspection makes them liable. Better yet they should take efforts to perform end to end encryption so that they have performed due diligence in not wanting to know what the traffic is.
You don't get it. ISPs should not be the police of the internet. They should manage the traffic, but they shouldn't care what the traffic is. If they start then they should have to make sure that all information they transmit between two end points is following the respective laws in those countries and any countries the data passes through. I know that is impossible and completely ridiculous, but they are aiding and abetting as they are demonstrating that they have the technology in place to stop the crime. Further, the user is liable for their own hardware and won't learn to practice safety if you coddle them.
The image in the post from 1984 should definitely be the new apple picture for/.. They have every right to do what they are doing. I just can't comprehend how it doesn't hurt their image.
Tax the company for selling the product to ensure they build quality product. The longer the warranty the smaller the tax. The consumers will avoid the taxes by buying longer warranty equipment and manufactures will be forced into making quality equipment to avoid service costs. The issue isn't just about how consumers handle the junk it is the speed at which equipment becomes junk.
http://www.foodincmovie.com/. I think I remember watching it covered on that documentary. It is stupid how little attention this issue gets and then Monsanto manages to get their own shill on BBC. Plus, you(not to single you out though) prove that many people are still not informed about how this company does business. A lot of people here hates software patents. I definitely think this IP is worse.
Why should they vet. Everyone should keep each other at arms length. It is not like they have to meet in person or are trying to keep what they are doing secret or anything. This just makes it sound like some club house of children with secret passwords. Makes me wonder if they are attached to their ideals and how much of it is playing secret agents.
I'm not trying to be trollin, but you make it sound like we have burned through all the planets resources. We are at the tip of the ice berg. A lot of people make it sound like we have used up almost all our resources, but I suspect they are the ones trying to sell materials at a premium. Of course we can't access most of the resources. Yet we can access more now then previously possible as the increased value of the resources allows for technological innovation that drives the industrial machine. You are also complaining about things that are easy to accomplish with today's technology, but were very challenging when they were first accomplished. For example, I think anyone who risked life on a ship for months to come to the new world should be rewarded with cheap land. You were born here which probably posed less hardship on you. Of course there are inequities, but complaining about something that wasn't a free lunch is absurd.
Notable example is one part in portal you can "cheat" by executing a skilled momentum move and you feel all intelligent because you didn't have to follow the task, but still beat it. You then play through the commentary and find out that valve knew about the trick, but felt execution of the trick was harder then the actual puzzle so they left it in the game.
I think they are trying to price match netflixs and make up the difference with advertisements. They will probably come out with an ad free package or a pay per view deal for people that don't like ads. PVRs also kind of legitimize the stance for cable as you can use those to skip ads.
I realize you are extremely attached to this issue, but Google is offering a free, without advertisements, service to schools. These people are not customers they are consumers. Maybe the schools shouldn't have become reliant on google and hosted their own services or should just migrate to a new service. Businesses do it all the time when a service stops meeting their needs, they call it upgrading.
Slashdot Mirror
How would the web know who you are? To implement this would there be some grand unified sign on to get on the web? The government would never abuse that. Yeah no I'll pass.
I concede you might be right, but your argument is not a valid one. Just because the firmware is changed does not mean the law is voided. The issue is if the new firmware introduced functionality beyond what the manufacturer sold you. If jail breaking only enabled you to use a second app store then it would be covered. The other things jail breaking allows you to do would likely void your protection. Further, installing apps from said app store that don't conform with what Apple's app rules would also likely void the protection.
I like the line of no return idea too. Any driver could easily figure it out himself while approaching the intersection, but it might not be the best use of his attention. The more information the driver is given without having to calculate it the better off the decision is going to be.
I know it is about cars but made me realize it is not clear cut.
One of the comments explains that the statue is there to stop companies from forcing oem parts on the user. The $100 question now is, "Does jail breaking change the product beyond its original form?"
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides irrevocable legal rights. A warranty's contract can not remove your rights. Further, the burden of proof for the limitations is on the manufacturer so just saying that the consumer could have or may have performed a problem causing action does not help them. Service contracts could be a different beast entirely so I have no idea how the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act would apply. Maybe you can jailbreak the ipod touch, but not the iphone.
Never thought of it that way. It is like Hollywood accounting of the science world.
What would be awesome is if the government handed you that start up money for pretty much gratis.
I fixed the wiki article to better represent the reference it had. You can thank me latter.
Not to forget, but windows is a paid for OS. I would expect at least some reasonable support no matter the sophistication then. Google's product is free to the public. How many of those do you know that provide amazing support if any. Their only real responsibility would be image and PR. That is why open source is so great because anyone interested could do the patching themselves instead of relying on the owner of the software to care.
The concept of the question/answer system is great, but is poorly implemented by either the company or the user. I especially mean the recovery systems that force you to pick a question from a list instead of making your own. That destroys the point of them being memorable to you personally. A lot of them seem to want you to use something that if you forget you can figure it out. Anything you can look up the attacker can look up making the system a joke, even if they don't know you personally. I make up my own and I have yet to find anyone I know that can guess them. For example, "What do you hate most about C++?" works great.
Common examples include the core 2 duo celeron processor under performing against most Pentium 4s.
According to the criminal code;
21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.
Common Intention
(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.
The willingness to engage the consumer means that where the ISP has ability they must actively ensure that the customer does not commit crimes. It has been consistently demonstrated in courts that mere presence to the crime does not makes the party liable, but the willingness to participate.
To the point on realtime. It has no significance (excluding statute of limitations) to how the ISP can be found criminally liable. The ISP needs to make technology conform to the law. The courts should not make the law conform to ISPs.
Port blocking shows that you have the technology to analyze trillions of packets per day, check their legality against multiple criminal codes, and allow/deny them in realtime?
Realtime? No, of course they can't. Don't worry though, that is not how courts work. It doesn't matter if committing the crime makes a technology impossibly slow. The law is not applied in real time. You can be charged year after the fact. The ISPs should be dumb tubes. Any inspection makes them liable. Better yet they should take efforts to perform end to end encryption so that they have performed due diligence in not wanting to know what the traffic is.
You don't get it. ISPs should not be the police of the internet. They should manage the traffic, but they shouldn't care what the traffic is. If they start then they should have to make sure that all information they transmit between two end points is following the respective laws in those countries and any countries the data passes through. I know that is impossible and completely ridiculous, but they are aiding and abetting as they are demonstrating that they have the technology in place to stop the crime. Further, the user is liable for their own hardware and won't learn to practice safety if you coddle them.
As having 23% of the worlds supply that is terrible news.
by Simon, Jul 13th, 2010 @ 9:41am But stronger DRM laws will fix this, right?
The image in the post from 1984 should definitely be the new apple picture for /.. They have every right to do what they are doing. I just can't comprehend how it doesn't hurt their image.
Tax the company for selling the product to ensure they build quality product. The longer the warranty the smaller the tax. The consumers will avoid the taxes by buying longer warranty equipment and manufactures will be forced into making quality equipment to avoid service costs. The issue isn't just about how consumers handle the junk it is the speed at which equipment becomes junk.
I thought they got rid of that emails to editors thing...oh it's a comment.
http://www.foodincmovie.com/. I think I remember watching it covered on that documentary. It is stupid how little attention this issue gets and then Monsanto manages to get their own shill on BBC. Plus, you(not to single you out though) prove that many people are still not informed about how this company does business. A lot of people here hates software patents. I definitely think this IP is worse.
Why should they vet. Everyone should keep each other at arms length. It is not like they have to meet in person or are trying to keep what they are doing secret or anything. This just makes it sound like some club house of children with secret passwords. Makes me wonder if they are attached to their ideals and how much of it is playing secret agents.
I'm not trying to be trollin, but you make it sound like we have burned through all the planets resources. We are at the tip of the ice berg. A lot of people make it sound like we have used up almost all our resources, but I suspect they are the ones trying to sell materials at a premium. Of course we can't access most of the resources. Yet we can access more now then previously possible as the increased value of the resources allows for technological innovation that drives the industrial machine. You are also complaining about things that are easy to accomplish with today's technology, but were very challenging when they were first accomplished. For example, I think anyone who risked life on a ship for months to come to the new world should be rewarded with cheap land. You were born here which probably posed less hardship on you. Of course there are inequities, but complaining about something that wasn't a free lunch is absurd.
Notable example is one part in portal you can "cheat" by executing a skilled momentum move and you feel all intelligent because you didn't have to follow the task, but still beat it. You then play through the commentary and find out that valve knew about the trick, but felt execution of the trick was harder then the actual puzzle so they left it in the game.
I think they are trying to price match netflixs and make up the difference with advertisements. They will probably come out with an ad free package or a pay per view deal for people that don't like ads. PVRs also kind of legitimize the stance for cable as you can use those to skip ads.
I realize you are extremely attached to this issue, but Google is offering a free, without advertisements, service to schools. These people are not customers they are consumers. Maybe the schools shouldn't have become reliant on google and hosted their own services or should just migrate to a new service. Businesses do it all the time when a service stops meeting their needs, they call it upgrading.