What I find objectionable about this is not the lack of incest, with which you dance around the issue masterfully btw, but the fact that Amazon deletes already bought material from users' devices.
Since you seem to be fond of food stores, I'll offer this analogy: This is not like a store deciding to not offer Twinkies anymore. Instead it's like a store deciding to forcefully stomach pump all the people who bought Twinkies from the store in the past.
Perhaps they funnel the money to a seperate saving account and then use the money left over in their salary account as they need/please?
And sometimes those saving accounts only allow so many withdrawals within a timeframe.
Though I am a long time Microsoft basher (with very good reason) I have to totally disagree with you. A small company with nothing to lose run by a moron (SCO anyone?) is much more likely to try the kind of Hail Mary that any such attempt would constitute. Microsoft, while wrong in many ways, is not that phenomenally stupid. They actually have something to lose, and would be going up against Google, Motorola, HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies single handedly, and even they can't t weather the ill will such a stupid move would garner circa 2011. If it gets in the hands of another Darl McBride, it is still a non-issue, because they are guaranteed to lose, whether you think it is because we are right (which we are of course), or because big money talks. Any way you slice it, worrying about said trademark and who owns it is tantamount to complete foolishness.
On the other hand, it would make a perfect "nuke", if you will, to strike back at multiple competitors for Microsoft to use when the end is drawing near.
How about 357 * 289 being hard is because 7 is the average size of the short term memory, and you need to remember more numbers than that to arrive at 103,173?
I hate people who don't share my point of view too.:)
Perhaps you only define freedom of speech as a legal term (and only in the US legal system and only as it appears in the constitution) but you cannot deny that the concept is much bigger than that. Society can restrict freedom of speech in unlegislated ways.
Is that a rhetorical question? Can you clarify your position?
I guess it's good to think about it before you say it, whatever it is.
Are you implying that not all speech should be protected?
If that's case, I'd say that the best possible scenario exists somewhere in the middle: No shouting fire frivolously and no banning people from a country because of a drunken letter.
Since when does state tyranny have anything to do with continuing a private relationship with someone who publicly trashes you?
Both situations have a worker (or citizen) negatively affected by a large and powerful entity, which the worker (citizen) is a part of, because of what the worker (citizen) has said.
Regarding "private" relations: You don't think it would be a freedom of speech issue if, for example, you bashed Scientology out in public and as a consequence the Church of Scientology sent people to harass you and tried to make you look like a terrorist in the eyes of FBI (which has happened)?
There isn't much cognitive dissonance. GPL just uses the strong copyright to keep itself and derivatives one sort of free.
A much stranger position to me is hating copyright and GPL, because you at the same time hate the former which takes away freedom (to use and copy) and the latter which gives freedom (to use and copy).
"We can all be thankful that Tinkode's activities appear to be have been more mischievous than dangerous. If someone with more malice in mind had hacked the site they could have used it to post malicious links on the Navy's JackSpeak blog, or embedded a Trojan horse into the site's main page."
Giving anyone free reign to embed said trojans into the site is only marginally better. Assuming of course that it could be done with the exposed admin logins. Now they're forced to go through pretty much everything to make sure no such traps were placed or if information was stolen.
The mischevious option would have been to remain only parts of the passwords, or otherwise proving it and not leaking anything sensitive.
Not to worry however, I'm sure he'll get 60 years in jail without parole for embarrassing the wrong people.
Depends on the implementation of the website. It could be that clicking "log out" only removes the cookie from your browser -> You are logged out.
Making sure that someone else doesn't also have the cookie might be viewed as redundant, if this kind of security is not kept in mind while designing/coding the site. Perhaps it could even be removed as an optimization for a very popular service like Facebook.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the financial aspect of the film, but that doesn't help me getting bored out of my skull sitting through the samey movies.
Is there a better example of the slippery slope associated with any censorship?
What I find objectionable about this is not the lack of incest, with which you dance around the issue masterfully btw, but the fact that Amazon deletes already bought material from users' devices.
Since you seem to be fond of food stores, I'll offer this analogy: This is not like a store deciding to not offer Twinkies anymore. Instead it's like a store deciding to forcefully stomach pump all the people who bought Twinkies from the store in the past.
AC makes an excellent point.
Yeah, it needs to be pretty to prove a concept.
Flying was also tried time and a time again, but eventually humans flew.
And not looking for alternatives right now, I'd be mighty ashamed of myself.
Perhaps they funnel the money to a seperate saving account and then use the money left over in their salary account as they need/please?
And sometimes those saving accounts only allow so many withdrawals within a timeframe.
Though I am a long time Microsoft basher (with very good reason) I have to totally disagree with you. A small company with nothing to lose run by a moron (SCO anyone?) is much more likely to try the kind of Hail Mary that any such attempt would constitute. Microsoft, while wrong in many ways, is not that phenomenally stupid. They actually have something to lose, and would be going up against Google, Motorola, HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies single handedly, and even they can't t weather the ill will such a stupid move would garner circa 2011. If it gets in the hands of another Darl McBride, it is still a non-issue, because they are guaranteed to lose, whether you think it is because we are right (which we are of course), or because big money talks. Any way you slice it, worrying about said trademark and who owns it is tantamount to complete foolishness.
On the other hand, it would make a perfect "nuke", if you will, to strike back at multiple competitors for Microsoft to use when the end is drawing near.
How about 357 * 289 being hard is because 7 is the average size of the short term memory, and you need to remember more numbers than that to arrive at 103,173?
Can I get that in football fields or Libraries of Congress?
DCMA used for censorship?
With no penalty for frivolous claims, there's nothing stopping it.
Probably from Poseidon.
That's the name? Just random letters?
From the looks of the actual game, I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
How about a bad patent protection instead?
I hate people who don't share my point of view too. :)
Perhaps you only define freedom of speech as a legal term (and only in the US legal system and only as it appears in the constitution) but you cannot deny that the concept is much bigger than that. Society can restrict freedom of speech in unlegislated ways.
Is that a rhetorical question? Can you clarify your position?
I guess it's good to think about it before you say it, whatever it is.
Are you implying that not all speech should be protected?
If that's case, I'd say that the best possible scenario exists somewhere in the middle: No shouting fire frivolously and no banning people from a country because of a drunken letter.
Since when does state tyranny have anything to do with continuing a private relationship with someone who publicly trashes you?
Both situations have a worker (or citizen) negatively affected by a large and powerful entity, which the worker (citizen) is a part of, because of what the worker (citizen) has said.
Regarding "private" relations: You don't think it would be a freedom of speech issue if, for example, you bashed Scientology out in public and as a consequence the Church of Scientology sent people to harass you and tried to make you look like a terrorist in the eyes of FBI (which has happened)?
With that logic, North Korea has freedom of speech.
"You can say/write whatever you want...just be ready to accept the consequences."
The consequence just happens to be capital punishment or forced labor for years.
What would happen if we ignored GPL violations?
I posit that GPL would no longer remain relevant at all and the end result would be far more welcome to "the FUDists" than what we have now.
There isn't much cognitive dissonance. GPL just uses the strong copyright to keep itself and derivatives one sort of free.
A much stranger position to me is hating copyright and GPL, because you at the same time hate the former which takes away freedom (to use and copy) and the latter which gives freedom (to use and copy).
"We can all be thankful that Tinkode's activities appear to be have been more mischievous than dangerous. If someone with more malice in mind had hacked the site they could have used it to post malicious links on the Navy's JackSpeak blog, or embedded a Trojan horse into the site's main page."
Giving anyone free reign to embed said trojans into the site is only marginally better. Assuming of course that it could be done with the exposed admin logins. Now they're forced to go through pretty much everything to make sure no such traps were placed or if information was stolen.
The mischevious option would have been to remain only parts of the passwords, or otherwise proving it and not leaking anything sensitive.
Not to worry however, I'm sure he'll get 60 years in jail without parole for embarrassing the wrong people.
Depends on the implementation of the website. It could be that clicking "log out" only removes the cookie from your browser -> You are logged out.
Making sure that someone else doesn't also have the cookie might be viewed as redundant, if this kind of security is not kept in mind while designing/coding the site. Perhaps it could even be removed as an optimization for a very popular service like Facebook.
You forget the '4chan' part of the problem. They will use this to ruin your (however unimportant you think it is) life and just for giggles.
The new Nokia CEO is Stephen Elop, the former head of Microsoft Corp.’s business unit.
Source.
Also there have been talk of and/or more integration of their services:
https://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2007/aug07/08-22NokiaMSLiveServicesPR.mspx
https://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/aug09/08-12pixipr.mspx
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/15/will-microsoft-and-nokia-team-up-to-take-on-apple-google/