It is a big deal, because it's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.
The use of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time by the state you live in. Because of so-called motor-vehicle compact laws, you will probably not get another license in any other state. Anything that happens on public roads is their business. If you have a problem with that, you can pay to build private roads and pay for the maintenance of those roads with tolls. Or... you can enjoy free and total access to all public roads, provided you're willing to deal with the fact that they can, are, and will track you. There's no difference between a black box and a camera at every point along the road.
Be more afraid of what insurance companies will start doing in 30 years when there's a black box in every vehicle. "Well, you can pay $10 a month if you get our 'all your black box are belong to us' plan, or $1,000 a month for our 'standard' plan. Oh, by the way, carrying insurance is mandatory in your state. Well, what's it going to be, Citizen?
(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.
OnStar approves. Now it can track all vehicles at all times with the blanket disclaimer that it's to facilitate an emergency response. OnStar is a private company. OnStar can then freely share that information with its affiliates, who may be overseas. Data now laundered, and free for sale to anyone who wants it domestically.
One person stripping naked in an airport makes a much bigger statement.
Yes, it's a statement alright. "Due to being a man of limited intelligence, I am unable to find a way to creatively protest this draconian organization that does not involve breaking public decency laws and exposing myself to other passengers, some of whom were children."
Now if he'd chained himself to the scanner and started announcing to the world he was risking cancer to protest an immoral institution that gropes children and invades the privacy of others... that would send a message too, and it wouldn't have others reaching for the eye bleach in the process. Also, as a bonus... he would have shut down the machine he was protesting, which is the origin of the word sabotage, an ancient and time-honored protest technique.
Debug: CEO attempted to exclusively lock all system resources. Informational: You have set TZ to 'US/Eastern'. Be advised CEOs in this locale are considered deities by the locals and worshipped. Debug: CEO attempted to delete immutable directory/home/finances/incriminating_evidence
Try stacking up those numbers against any other computer companies defective products in what they did to fix them.
Microsoft, during the RROD debacle with the Xbox 360s. Dell, HP, Compaq, etc., after selling defective batteries and adapters that would explode. HP, for selling printers, faxes, and copiers that would catch fire. Sony Viao's, which would overheat...
Just because Apple made an expensive mistake doesn't mean it should get more respect for owning up to it. In fact, Apple has a reputation for coming up with odd explanations for denying a service request. Similar stories are never heard from other OEM vendors because they don't generally do crap like this. And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, Apple makes more profit than any other OEM in the industry, and have built their entire brand identity on shit not falling apart... so I think they should be held to at least a marginally higher standard.
Apple screwed up. No excuses, no apologizing. They. Screwed. Up. What they should have done is pulled the parts from circulation when the problem was discovered and replaced them at the time. When was the last time you heard of a recall where you had to wait until after your computer was a boat anchor to get it replaced?
A hero is defined as someone who sacrifices for the greater good. You know, like walking into a hailstorm of bullets, or lying to his wife about his whereabouts. Those things are heroic (lying to a wife is, in fact, a dangerous thing to do). This wasn't heroic -- this was stupid.
If you want to be heroic... don't fly. No, I mean that truly... and if you have a travel job, well, get a different one. Sacrifice something meaningful.
... In other news, the Senator woke up to find the ghost of internet past in his room, carrying a very long chain, each one forged from a civil liberty removed.... Rogers dismissed the entire affair as turbulent, and was shortly after killed by a mob of angry young boys on crutches, which is how Dickenson would have ended it if he'd had to role play with Rogers, who has the character flaw "Turbulent."
Well, if their infrastructure policies are anything like their editing policies, this should be a real treat to watch. Especially when they get to that bit about how their infrastructure should work according to popular opinion... It's all going to go to hell the first time some csci major tries to make the network fully compliant with the OSI model... they'll have no choice but to rollback any attempt to reverse it because everybody says the OSI model is an accurate representation of a real network. *giggle*
Under severe gale force conditions with wind speeds averaging 21 ms a shipborne wave recorder measured individual waves up to 29.1 m from crest to trough, and a maximum significant wave height of 18.5 m.
Can you convert that to the slashdot standard unit of measurement, Libraries of Congress? Also, if you could provide a car analogy too that would be great. Thanks!
Data from Comcast to customer is half the bandwidth compared to data from Netflix to Comcast to customer.
Comcast is both a provider of internet services and a provider of content. What it is doing is bundling its services together to gain an unfair market advantage. It's the same kind of monopolistic practice that Microsoft got sued by, er... every country it does business within. The legal precident here is obvious, as is the conclusion. Whether you call it net neutrality or not, Comcast is doing something unethical and probably illegal as well.
The point is, obviously they could do something, they just choose not to because it benefits them financially.
And that in turn benefits America, because when a corporation makes a profit, that creates jobs, which improves the economy. So why the hell are you doing your patriotic duty and stealing from your fellow citizens so you can give to the corporation?
On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.
You're the first person to take a story about China's egregious behavior, and turn it around on the US.
And you're the first person to take a sincere criticism of your government and respond with what you feel is a sarcastic and intelligent response, followed by a quote by some famous person that is only tangentially related to the topic of discussion. Well in that case, I see your Winston Churchill and raise you... a Winston Churchill.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill
I find it a bit disturbing that EU and US leaders are saying China is a good model to follow.
The EU, like the US, considers money to be a good thing to follow. China is making rapid improvements in its money generation. Civil liberties, not so much. But then again, with the US having the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, I would say civil liberties are something most people only believe they have these days.
Sometimes it is absolutely necessary for the health of society.
You are misinterpreting; The justice system's laws and procedures should be consistent with the greatest public good. When it isn't, society should resist it. That resistance is unhealthy -- it is effort wasted to correct a corrupted element of the system. That shouldn't happen very often, but these days it is a common occurrance, suggesting that the justice system has become too corrupt to be responsive to civil methods of recourse. That is why the United States sports the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.
The networks, however, say Aereo will cause irreparable harm to their business. Aereo's conduct apparently causes them to 'lose control over the dissemination of their copyrighted programming, disrupts their relationships with licensed distributors and viewers and usurps their right to decide how and on what terms to make available and license content over new internet distribution media.'
That's the exact same argument they used against VCRs. "They'll be able to bypass the advertisement! Share with their friends! Our business model will be in jeopardy." The only thing that's changed between then and now is that back then, the justices didn't support state-sponsored capitalism; That is, the privatization of profits and the socialization of costs.
Which, actually, probably means even more citizens now will be taking the approach of "If a law is stupid, ignore it." -- Which is not healthy for a society, but unavoidable when the justice system has departed so far from the actual values and morals of the general population so as to have lost relevance.
Legalties aside, if you preserve your own common decency online, then you wouldn't egg on someone to commit suicide, precisely because you *don't* know if they're serious or not.
Decency is hard to define and most attempts to impose it have resulted in significantly negative impacts on civil liberties that outweigh any benefits gained. While I agree completely and empathize that the issue of mental illness is not well understood or tolerated by the general public, there are no satisfactory answers to the problem at this time beyond education and campaigns to raise public awareness.
On a separate and more personal note, I have been suicidal, and as with most people who have been, I too dealt with people "egging me on". It made me feel like shit, but I'm not about to say that keeping my feelings from being hurt accomplish have a greater public good than maintaining the civil liberties of the general populace. I can only say this now because I have received treatment and have enough emotional distance from the situation; To someone like this parent, the pain is still too close to be objective like that. This lawsuit has little chance of success, and is motivated by grief. Not to say this is wrong, but we should be careful not to assign significant value to it at this time; A lawsuit can be filed for any reason... it does not establish culpability, intent, or anything other than serving notice that one party wishes for another to be responsible for an event.
And each case could get its own legal treatment, which might end up being a good thing all around.
Up until you said that, I pretty much agreed with your post. A major goal of our justice system is to create a fair and impartial judgement; Creating 'one offs' defeats that. The punishment for theft of code should be the same whether it's Microsoft's Windows 7 source code, or Linux. And even if the source code is publicly available, that doesn't release someone from following the licensing agreement, which brings us back to the problem of making violations of a licensing agreement a crime.
That's why it has been left in civil court instead of criminal court: Imprisonment should never be a power vested in a private individual or organization.
It's not illegal. A 'wrongful death' lawsuit is a civil action, not a criminal one. In this country, you can be sued for anything. I can sue you for pointing out that suing people for stupid shit is stupid, or because you have a lower slashdot ID than I do. I'm perfectly serious here; citation
On the internet, nobody knows if you are who you say you are. You could really be a depressed person, or you could be a 7 line perl script. You could be talking to a real 15 year old girl, or it could be an FBI agent. Then there's products like Siri, cleverbot, etc., that blur the line even further. But even if that problem could be 'solved', there is no way to know whether an internet identity is a single person or a group.
So given that identity is not provable online, why should people act like it is? Also, if you don't mod this post +5, I'm going to hang myself with a power cord.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a big deal, because it's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS.
The use of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time by the state you live in. Because of so-called motor-vehicle compact laws, you will probably not get another license in any other state. Anything that happens on public roads is their business. If you have a problem with that, you can pay to build private roads and pay for the maintenance of those roads with tolls. Or... you can enjoy free and total access to all public roads, provided you're willing to deal with the fact that they can, are, and will track you. There's no difference between a black box and a camera at every point along the road.
Be more afraid of what insurance companies will start doing in 30 years when there's a black box in every vehicle. "Well, you can pay $10 a month if you get our 'all your black box are belong to us' plan, or $1,000 a month for our 'standard' plan. Oh, by the way, carrying insurance is mandatory in your state. Well, what's it going to be, Citizen?
(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.
OnStar approves. Now it can track all vehicles at all times with the blanket disclaimer that it's to facilitate an emergency response. OnStar is a private company. OnStar can then freely share that information with its affiliates, who may be overseas. Data now laundered, and free for sale to anyone who wants it domestically.
The GSA is a prime example of why raising taxes on anyone I don't care what class is beyond stupid.
Be thankful you don't get all the government you pay for.
One person stripping naked in an airport makes a much bigger statement.
Yes, it's a statement alright. "Due to being a man of limited intelligence, I am unable to find a way to creatively protest this draconian organization that does not involve breaking public decency laws and exposing myself to other passengers, some of whom were children."
Now if he'd chained himself to the scanner and started announcing to the world he was risking cancer to protest an immoral institution that gropes children and invades the privacy of others... that would send a message too, and it wouldn't have others reaching for the eye bleach in the process. Also, as a bonus... he would have shut down the machine he was protesting, which is the origin of the word sabotage, an ancient and time-honored protest technique.
Umm, okay. Completely off topic, but okay. Doesn't mean it is not, in fact, dangerous .
Debug: CEO attempted to exclusively lock all system resources. /home/finances/incriminating_evidence
Informational: You have set TZ to 'US/Eastern'. Be advised CEOs in this locale are considered deities by the locals and worshipped.
Debug: CEO attempted to delete immutable directory
Try stacking up those numbers against any other computer companies defective products in what they did to fix them.
Microsoft, during the RROD debacle with the Xbox 360s. Dell, HP, Compaq, etc., after selling defective batteries and adapters that would explode. HP, for selling printers, faxes, and copiers that would catch fire. Sony Viao's, which would overheat...
Just because Apple made an expensive mistake doesn't mean it should get more respect for owning up to it. In fact, Apple has a reputation for coming up with odd explanations for denying a service request. Similar stories are never heard from other OEM vendors because they don't generally do crap like this. And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, Apple makes more profit than any other OEM in the industry, and have built their entire brand identity on shit not falling apart... so I think they should be held to at least a marginally higher standard.
Apple screwed up. No excuses, no apologizing. They. Screwed. Up. What they should have done is pulled the parts from circulation when the problem was discovered and replaced them at the time. When was the last time you heard of a recall where you had to wait until after your computer was a boat anchor to get it replaced?
This man is a hero.
A hero is defined as someone who sacrifices for the greater good. You know, like walking into a hailstorm of bullets, or lying to his wife about his whereabouts. Those things are heroic (lying to a wife is, in fact, a dangerous thing to do). This wasn't heroic -- this was stupid.
If you want to be heroic... don't fly. No, I mean that truly... and if you have a travel job, well, get a different one. Sacrifice something meaningful.
... In other news, the Senator woke up to find the ghost of internet past in his room, carrying a very long chain, each one forged from a civil liberty removed.... Rogers dismissed the entire affair as turbulent, and was shortly after killed by a mob of angry young boys on crutches, which is how Dickenson would have ended it if he'd had to role play with Rogers, who has the character flaw "Turbulent."
Well, if their infrastructure policies are anything like their editing policies, this should be a real treat to watch. Especially when they get to that bit about how their infrastructure should work according to popular opinion... It's all going to go to hell the first time some csci major tries to make the network fully compliant with the OSI model... they'll have no choice but to rollback any attempt to reverse it because everybody says the OSI model is an accurate representation of a real network. *giggle*
So buy [sic] your pro-corporate definition
Are you retarded? Nothing I said was pro or anti-corporate.
Under severe gale force conditions with wind speeds averaging 21 ms a shipborne wave recorder measured individual waves up to 29.1 m from crest to trough, and a maximum significant wave height of 18.5 m.
Can you convert that to the slashdot standard unit of measurement, Libraries of Congress? Also, if you could provide a car analogy too that would be great. Thanks!
Data from Comcast to customer is half the bandwidth compared to data from Netflix to Comcast to customer.
Comcast is both a provider of internet services and a provider of content. What it is doing is bundling its services together to gain an unfair market advantage. It's the same kind of monopolistic practice that Microsoft got sued by, er... every country it does business within. The legal precident here is obvious, as is the conclusion. Whether you call it net neutrality or not, Comcast is doing something unethical and probably illegal as well.
Movies that Hollywood has taken a risk on, since 1986:
The point is, obviously they could do something, they just choose not to because it benefits them financially.
And that in turn benefits America, because when a corporation makes a profit, that creates jobs, which improves the economy. So why the hell are you doing your patriotic duty and stealing from your fellow citizens so you can give to the corporation?
On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.
You're the first person to take a story about China's egregious behavior, and turn it around on the US.
And you're the first person to take a sincere criticism of your government and respond with what you feel is a sarcastic and intelligent response, followed by a quote by some famous person that is only tangentially related to the topic of discussion. Well in that case, I see your Winston Churchill and raise you... a Winston Churchill.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill
Bravo. Golf clap, etc.
I find it a bit disturbing that EU and US leaders are saying China is a good model to follow.
The EU, like the US, considers money to be a good thing to follow. China is making rapid improvements in its money generation. Civil liberties, not so much. But then again, with the US having the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, I would say civil liberties are something most people only believe they have these days.
Sometimes it is absolutely necessary for the health of society.
You are misinterpreting; The justice system's laws and procedures should be consistent with the greatest public good. When it isn't, society should resist it. That resistance is unhealthy -- it is effort wasted to correct a corrupted element of the system. That shouldn't happen very often, but these days it is a common occurrance, suggesting that the justice system has become too corrupt to be responsive to civil methods of recourse. That is why the United States sports the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.
The networks, however, say Aereo will cause irreparable harm to their business. Aereo's conduct apparently causes them to 'lose control over the dissemination of their copyrighted programming, disrupts their relationships with licensed distributors and viewers and usurps their right to decide how and on what terms to make available and license content over new internet distribution media.'
That's the exact same argument they used against VCRs. "They'll be able to bypass the advertisement! Share with their friends! Our business model will be in jeopardy." The only thing that's changed between then and now is that back then, the justices didn't support state-sponsored capitalism; That is, the privatization of profits and the socialization of costs.
Which, actually, probably means even more citizens now will be taking the approach of "If a law is stupid, ignore it." -- Which is not healthy for a society, but unavoidable when the justice system has departed so far from the actual values and morals of the general population so as to have lost relevance.
Nest's stance is that Honeywell filed the lawsuits not to extract money but to set back progress so that they can control the industry."
That would make this a Frivolous lawsuit , not a patent troll, and as such the defendant would be subject to compensation.
How are you going to hang yourself if you only get modded up to +3 or +4?
I'll torture a carebear until I have extracted enough tears to drown myself.
Legalties aside, if you preserve your own common decency online, then you wouldn't egg on someone to commit suicide, precisely because you *don't* know if they're serious or not.
Decency is hard to define and most attempts to impose it have resulted in significantly negative impacts on civil liberties that outweigh any benefits gained. While I agree completely and empathize that the issue of mental illness is not well understood or tolerated by the general public, there are no satisfactory answers to the problem at this time beyond education and campaigns to raise public awareness.
On a separate and more personal note, I have been suicidal, and as with most people who have been, I too dealt with people "egging me on". It made me feel like shit, but I'm not about to say that keeping my feelings from being hurt accomplish have a greater public good than maintaining the civil liberties of the general populace. I can only say this now because I have received treatment and have enough emotional distance from the situation; To someone like this parent, the pain is still too close to be objective like that. This lawsuit has little chance of success, and is motivated by grief. Not to say this is wrong, but we should be careful not to assign significant value to it at this time; A lawsuit can be filed for any reason... it does not establish culpability, intent, or anything other than serving notice that one party wishes for another to be responsible for an event.
And each case could get its own legal treatment, which might end up being a good thing all around.
Up until you said that, I pretty much agreed with your post. A major goal of our justice system is to create a fair and impartial judgement; Creating 'one offs' defeats that. The punishment for theft of code should be the same whether it's Microsoft's Windows 7 source code, or Linux. And even if the source code is publicly available, that doesn't release someone from following the licensing agreement, which brings us back to the problem of making violations of a licensing agreement a crime.
That's why it has been left in civil court instead of criminal court: Imprisonment should never be a power vested in a private individual or organization.
But I can't see how it's any more illegal than
It's not illegal. A 'wrongful death' lawsuit is a civil action, not a criminal one. In this country, you can be sued for anything. I can sue you for pointing out that suing people for stupid shit is stupid, or because you have a lower slashdot ID than I do. I'm perfectly serious here; citation
On the internet, nobody knows if you are who you say you are. You could really be a depressed person, or you could be a 7 line perl script. You could be talking to a real 15 year old girl, or it could be an FBI agent. Then there's products like Siri, cleverbot, etc., that blur the line even further. But even if that problem could be 'solved', there is no way to know whether an internet identity is a single person or a group.
So given that identity is not provable online, why should people act like it is? Also, if you don't mod this post +5, I'm going to hang myself with a power cord.