what countries where it's legal? there are VERY few.
Break it down further and you'll figure it out. Instead of country, try country+drug. Then you can look at situations like alcohol in the United States. Maybe compare that to alcohol in Saudi Arabia, or cocaine in the United States, or even (country+drug+year) alcohol in 1927 United States.
To my layman's eye (I'm not a statistician) there appears to be a correlation, where the more strenously the government insists that the public use black markets for a commodity, the more violent the trade in that commodity is.
Youtube MUST restore your video, else they will be guilty of a criminal act (under the DMCA).
That is wrong. You need to read DMCA again more carefully (in terms of what its procedures are describing, not the details of those procedures), and then also think about how youtube works, from human labor perspective.
DMCA or not, there are no conditions under which youtube is required to host someone's video. Counter-notices do not create any new hosting requirements for them that they previously wouldn't have had. Youtube could restore the video after getting a counter-notice from NASA, and then they would be absolved of liability to the TV station. But they certainly aren't required to host the video after a counter-notice.
Youtube, like any other host or ISP, is free to immediately "fold" after receiving a notice, without ever bothering to do all the expensive stuff like forwarding notices and dealing with counter-notices. DMCA just assumes that hosts would do such a thing, in the cause of customer service, since the people's whose content would be getting blocked, would presumably be paying the hosts and the hosts would want to continue to collect that money. But when users aren't customers, the forces that make hosts want to do that, are very weak.
For $500, you get a device you saw on Star Trek 20 years ago...
It is totally absurd to think that the Federation was only allowed to run software on their computers, which had been "approved" by some third party.
You are thinking of the 1960s point of view of the computer market, with IBM saying what software you'll run on your mainframe. By the 1980s and the time of ST:TNG, we had all moved beyond the meager and depressing vision of the iPad. The iPad is what you saw on Star Trek 45 years ago, not 20.
Does anyone have recommendations for other sources of coverage on August 6?
Same solution as everything else: timeshift it. Defer source-selection until after some other chump sucker has done all the hard work. Let someone else figure out which videos cover it best. Then a few hours/days later, see which videos are being raved about, and watch them.
This is the very best, most sastisfying, least time-wasting, most educating, most convenient, fastest, least-bandwidth-intensive, most efficient approach, and it works just as well for NASA as it does for all other forms of news which don't involve nuclear attacks, tornados, or other stuff like that.
If this is your roundabout way of trying to persuade Christopher Tolkein to abandon his 1000-page novelization of Meet the Feebles, just come out and say it.
If we look at things optimistically, you may successfully persuade police departments and other government agencies to ignore this publicly visible data.
But regardless of whether you succeed at that or not, if you concentrate on the scanning tech rather than the visible plate, then you have a 0% chance of addressing the privacy concerns. Even if you stop government from looking at the plates, what about the other 99% of the population who is able to see the plates?
This reminds me of situations where people send plaintext emails, find out the one of the dozens or hundreds of parties who is able to read those emails (government) happens to actually be doing it, and then say that making government stop doing that, will solve the problem. *facepalm*
Either become ok with your license plate being a cookie, or lobby to end license plates (and that, I admit, is a very hard position to take). There is no middle solution, and approaches that involve putting scanning genies back into bottles, are stupid on the face of it and 100% guaranteed to not work -- and even that is assuming you can get government to do what you want.
Its like vegetarians who believe in evolution. It just doesn't make since.
WTF? Evolution is the explanation for what happens. Vegetarianism is a strategy for manipulating what happens, in order to achieve your will.
There's no reason a person can't know the truth about life, and also try to either change it, or explore the flexibility they have within it.
Are you one of those people who thinks of natural forces not merely as constraints or facts of life, but as ideals to be revered, more important than our own individual desires? Hippie!
What about the time when everything requires [a protected path]?
Should the day come that you can't view a web page without HDCP protection (or when a significant number of people can't do it), then I, as the copyright holder for all my comments, will revoke the authorization that I have given up to now, for people to descramble the HDCP which effectively limits access to my Slashdot comments.
According to DMCA, viewing my comment will become illegal. Making HDCP-compatible monitors will be illegal. Selling HDCP-compatible monitors will be illegal.
Chaos ensues. Make my fucking day, Hollywood. I'll kill you with your own law.
Never, ever apply your DRM to someone else's content, without getting a contract from them that secures descrambling authorization in perpetuity. Otherwise, you make it possible for someone else to cause your DRM scheme to become illegal for anything to be interoperative with. HDCP is a ticking time bomb, waiting for anyone who feels like destroying it, to press the red button.
If you think about it, the issues with key infrastructure are nothing new, they've been there since day 1
And that's why PRZ started trying to address it, many years before ssh existed. But for some reason in 1995 people decided to not build upon the current (1988-1990, roughly) state of the art in establishing key trust, or the lack thereof, or the realistic acknowledgment of degrees of trust that exist in between "I'm sure" and "I have no idea."
People wanted it dumbed down into incorrectly telling users "be sure" in cases where they would have no reason to actually be sure. And now their shocked that after programming the computer to lie by oversimplifying things, sometimes it does lie by oversimplifying things.
Has anyone else noticed what’s been happening to top-end smartphones recently?
(emphasis mine) If I may paraphrase the question: "Has anyone noticed that if you select among the most expensive phones which have the most expensive components, probably because they have the largest screens, that this tiny subset of the market happens to have the largest screens?"
Thank you, mon ami. I'll have you know that last weekend, we celebrated Bastille Day by eating French Toast in the morning, French Fries for lunch, and French Dip roast beef sandwiches on a French Bread baguette for dinner. There was also a snack where we ate fancy crackers with cheese on them, while drinking wine (local, though, not imported from France) while watching a cheesy movie (Star Trek First Contract, which features an alt.french.captain.borg.borg.borg).
And you can't regulate thought, even if some people are virtual cyborgs who do some of their thinking outside of their own bodies. If I already have the capacity to recognizes faces, there's nothing really all that bad about me getting a thousand times better at it. People's memory of having seen others, is already a "privacy concern", whether they are computer aided or not, but it's a realtively unimportant concern compared to others, and we're just quibbling about scale.
It's also bizarre prioritizing. Mass surveillance is working because We The People ultimately have no real problem with the basic idea of it, we have decided we'd rather not require warrants, and stuff like that. Why should we concentrate on one detail for how people are being tracked (faces), when we don't care about any of the others (license plates on cars, people carrying active transmitters of unique ids, etc)? We should change our mind and decide that we want privacy, before we start arguing about specific techs.
We look at the previous generation with rose-tinted glasses
Seriously. Ms Pac Man? Donkey Kong Junior? Asteroids Deluxe?!Race Drivin'? Quit rehashing the same old mythoses over and over again! We've already seen those worlds|universes, new PoVs or not.
Manufacturers should be free to do whathever they want with the devices they create.
I really do wholehearted agree, without reservation at all.
But also (you knew there would be a "but" didn't you?) I think we can demand anything we want (take it or leave it), such as serving the public good, if any of those manufacturers want the special favor of limited liability protection, an unnatural right.
I also think we can demand anything we want (take it or leave it) from those who want government-granted monopolies on radio spectrum, easements to run cables across other people's private property, charters with local governments, etc. If a carrier wants one of these monopolies, we should impose terms that they may have it, by only marketing unlocked devices, never transmitting things which require locked devices, etc.
I am not even faintly interested in infringing any manufacturer's freedom. But I am interested in driving a hard bargain, for any special favors that they want from Us The People, favors that we normally do not give to most people.
Quid pro quo. That's the idea most of us have forgotten. Freedom is important, but not just their freedom; our freedom is important too, and it is irrational to give things to them at our expense and not get anything in return for it. They are taking my freedom to broadcast signals at a certain frequency, or my freedom to keep Comcast's poles off my lot, or my freedom to collect a debt. I may be willing to part with these things ("may?" no, I am willing, and I'm convinced this can be quite expedient and mutually beneficial for everyone), but for nothing? Fuck That. There will be terms and conditions. That's sane.
If the price seems too high, then the companies can learn to get by without their special favors, just like almost everyone else does (most of us lead mostly-unregulated but also mostly-unprivileged lives, and I like that and wouldn't want it any other way). And yet there will still easily be enough incentive for someone who is ok with not being evil, to take advantage of the offer of monopolies or special protections, to profit while also serving the interests of the people who are extending that offer.
What gets me the politicians who want to spend money on keeping cartels out and securing the border and all that, but then never mention the elephant in the room that is the connection between prohibition, the cartels, and the other boarder problems caused by the cartels.
To be fair, we do reward them for behaving that way, and tend to vote against people who speak about most issues realistically. How many people do you think are going to vote for Gary Johnson as next president, compared to Obama or Romney?
An outside of presidents, how often do realists ever even get onto ballots?
We tend to prefer to only vote for people who raise enough advertising money, and corruption is how to raise that money.
Any idea how the gangs made up for lost income once prohibition ended?
Prohibition never ends; the sweet spots merely change. The government grants black marketeers an oligopoly on many products; if we revoke the charter for one of them (e.g. alcohol) then the oligopoly just moves on to whatever had been the second-most profitable one.
Or they diversify, using all their government-enforced exclusive rights. That way, if the populace decides to revoke other charters, they'll already be configured to adapt to whatever we allow them to keep.
But each market for which we revoke our support for them, does cost black marketeers revenue. (Alcohol in particular, has a very wide customer base; I doubt that marijuana is in the same league.) And drug gangs are impotent incompetent children compared to Wal-Mart.
I'd expect drug cartels to lobby heavily against revoking any more prohibitions, though. And the currently existing policies bear that prediction out; your congressman likely doesn't vote on this issue (or introduce legislation) that is anything close to what the polls say people want.
Getting "a life" damages young mens' productivity/creativity/drive. Film at 11.
You could use life against "hackers" (that word in the bad sense) but could also use it against anyone else who is doing things you don't happen to like, too. Politically active for the wrong party? Get 'em a girlfriend. Work for a competitor? Here, have a wife. And if those things don't work, b&e their houses and puncture their condoms for some Surprise Baby Drama.
Some people are saying they really only "need" a phone for some situations where they'd be the initiator. So they have a problem and a phone with an off button is the solution. You OTOH are saying you want to be tracked, because being findable by friends/family is critical to you. So what's the problem? You leave your phone on; they leave their phone off. Everyone wins.
Slashdot Mirror
Break it down further and you'll figure it out. Instead of country, try country+drug. Then you can look at situations like alcohol in the United States. Maybe compare that to alcohol in Saudi Arabia, or cocaine in the United States, or even (country+drug+year) alcohol in 1927 United States.
To my layman's eye (I'm not a statistician) there appears to be a correlation, where the more strenously the government insists that the public use black markets for a commodity, the more violent the trade in that commodity is.
That is wrong. You need to read DMCA again more carefully (in terms of what its procedures are describing, not the details of those procedures), and then also think about how youtube works, from human labor perspective.
DMCA or not, there are no conditions under which youtube is required to host someone's video. Counter-notices do not create any new hosting requirements for them that they previously wouldn't have had. Youtube could restore the video after getting a counter-notice from NASA, and then they would be absolved of liability to the TV station. But they certainly aren't required to host the video after a counter-notice.
Youtube, like any other host or ISP, is free to immediately "fold" after receiving a notice, without ever bothering to do all the expensive stuff like forwarding notices and dealing with counter-notices. DMCA just assumes that hosts would do such a thing, in the cause of customer service, since the people's whose content would be getting blocked, would presumably be paying the hosts and the hosts would want to continue to collect that money. But when users aren't customers, the forces that make hosts want to do that, are very weak.
It is totally absurd to think that the Federation was only allowed to run software on their computers, which had been "approved" by some third party.
You are thinking of the 1960s point of view of the computer market, with IBM saying what software you'll run on your mainframe. By the 1980s and the time of ST:TNG, we had all moved beyond the meager and depressing vision of the iPad. The iPad is what you saw on Star Trek 45 years ago, not 20.
Same solution as everything else: timeshift it. Defer source-selection until after some other chump sucker has done all the hard work. Let someone else figure out which videos cover it best. Then a few hours/days later, see which videos are being raved about, and watch them.
This is the very best, most sastisfying, least time-wasting, most educating, most convenient, fastest, least-bandwidth-intensive, most efficient approach, and it works just as well for NASA as it does for all other forms of news which don't involve nuclear attacks, tornados, or other stuff like that.
That's the point he was trying to make. The point he actually made was: dinosaurs, awesome.
If this is your roundabout way of trying to persuade Christopher Tolkein to abandon his 1000-page novelization of Meet the Feebles, just come out and say it.
If we look at things optimistically, you may successfully persuade police departments and other government agencies to ignore this publicly visible data.
But regardless of whether you succeed at that or not, if you concentrate on the scanning tech rather than the visible plate, then you have a 0% chance of addressing the privacy concerns. Even if you stop government from looking at the plates, what about the other 99% of the population who is able to see the plates?
This reminds me of situations where people send plaintext emails, find out the one of the dozens or hundreds of parties who is able to read those emails (government) happens to actually be doing it, and then say that making government stop doing that, will solve the problem. *facepalm*
Either become ok with your license plate being a cookie, or lobby to end license plates (and that, I admit, is a very hard position to take). There is no middle solution, and approaches that involve putting scanning genies back into bottles, are stupid on the face of it and 100% guaranteed to not work -- and even that is assuming you can get government to do what you want.
And get Blind Guardian to do the soundtrack, this time!
WTF? Evolution is the explanation for what happens. Vegetarianism is a strategy for manipulating what happens, in order to achieve your will.
There's no reason a person can't know the truth about life, and also try to either change it, or explore the flexibility they have within it.
Are you one of those people who thinks of natural forces not merely as constraints or facts of life, but as ideals to be revered, more important than our own individual desires? Hippie!
[a metaphorical bomb that is triggered by a timer -- no, wait -- a manual trigger]
I just want to apologize, and say that I'm not normally a metaphor abuser.
Should the day come that you can't view a web page without HDCP protection (or when a significant number of people can't do it), then I, as the copyright holder for all my comments, will revoke the authorization that I have given up to now, for people to descramble the HDCP which effectively limits access to my Slashdot comments.
According to DMCA, viewing my comment will become illegal. Making HDCP-compatible monitors will be illegal. Selling HDCP-compatible monitors will be illegal.
Chaos ensues. Make my fucking day, Hollywood. I'll kill you with your own law.
Never, ever apply your DRM to someone else's content, without getting a contract from them that secures descrambling authorization in perpetuity. Otherwise, you make it possible for someone else to cause your DRM scheme to become illegal for anything to be interoperative with. HDCP is a ticking time bomb, waiting for anyone who feels like destroying it, to press the red button.
And that's why PRZ started trying to address it, many years before ssh existed. But for some reason in 1995 people decided to not build upon the current (1988-1990, roughly) state of the art in establishing key trust, or the lack thereof, or the realistic acknowledgment of degrees of trust that exist in between "I'm sure" and "I have no idea."
People wanted it dumbed down into incorrectly telling users "be sure" in cases where they would have no reason to actually be sure. And now their shocked that after programming the computer to lie by oversimplifying things, sometimes it does lie by oversimplifying things.
Leave it to the game console market, to make it so that the Internet is too expensive a medium, for distributing software updates.
(emphasis mine) If I may paraphrase the question: "Has anyone noticed that if you select among the most expensive phones which have the most expensive components, probably because they have the largest screens, that this tiny subset of the market happens to have the largest screens?"
Yes and no. Some people do, some people don't.
By persuading people that they would be happier if they would think of it as true.
And yes, you're right: that same technique can be used to modify any part of the constitution, without the usual amendment process.
Thank you, mon ami. I'll have you know that last weekend, we celebrated Bastille Day by eating French Toast in the morning, French Fries for lunch, and French Dip roast beef sandwiches on a French Bread baguette for dinner. There was also a snack where we ate fancy crackers with cheese on them, while drinking wine (local, though, not imported from France) while watching a cheesy movie (Star Trek First Contract, which features an alt.french.captain.borg.borg.borg).
Yes, really. It happened.
I was going to say, "You miss the point; Microsoft doesn't make money on Android either," but then I remembered, oh wait.. actually they do.
Genies don't go back into bottles.
And you can't regulate thought, even if some people are virtual cyborgs who do some of their thinking outside of their own bodies. If I already have the capacity to recognizes faces, there's nothing really all that bad about me getting a thousand times better at it. People's memory of having seen others, is already a "privacy concern", whether they are computer aided or not, but it's a realtively unimportant concern compared to others, and we're just quibbling about scale.
It's also bizarre prioritizing. Mass surveillance is working because We The People ultimately have no real problem with the basic idea of it, we have decided we'd rather not require warrants, and stuff like that. Why should we concentrate on one detail for how people are being tracked (faces), when we don't care about any of the others (license plates on cars, people carrying active transmitters of unique ids, etc)? We should change our mind and decide that we want privacy, before we start arguing about specific techs.
Seriously. Ms Pac Man? Donkey Kong Junior? Asteroids Deluxe?! Race Drivin'? Quit rehashing the same old mythoses over and over again! We've already seen those worlds|universes, new PoVs or not.
I really do wholehearted agree, without reservation at all.
But also (you knew there would be a "but" didn't you?) I think we can demand anything we want (take it or leave it), such as serving the public good, if any of those manufacturers want the special favor of limited liability protection, an unnatural right.
I also think we can demand anything we want (take it or leave it) from those who want government-granted monopolies on radio spectrum, easements to run cables across other people's private property, charters with local governments, etc. If a carrier wants one of these monopolies, we should impose terms that they may have it, by only marketing unlocked devices, never transmitting things which require locked devices, etc.
I am not even faintly interested in infringing any manufacturer's freedom. But I am interested in driving a hard bargain, for any special favors that they want from Us The People, favors that we normally do not give to most people.
Quid pro quo. That's the idea most of us have forgotten. Freedom is important, but not just their freedom; our freedom is important too, and it is irrational to give things to them at our expense and not get anything in return for it. They are taking my freedom to broadcast signals at a certain frequency, or my freedom to keep Comcast's poles off my lot, or my freedom to collect a debt. I may be willing to part with these things ("may?" no, I am willing, and I'm convinced this can be quite expedient and mutually beneficial for everyone), but for nothing? Fuck That. There will be terms and conditions. That's sane.
If the price seems too high, then the companies can learn to get by without their special favors, just like almost everyone else does (most of us lead mostly-unregulated but also mostly-unprivileged lives, and I like that and wouldn't want it any other way). And yet there will still easily be enough incentive for someone who is ok with not being evil, to take advantage of the offer of monopolies or special protections, to profit while also serving the interests of the people who are extending that offer.
How hard is it to enable, if turned off by default?
To be fair, we do reward them for behaving that way, and tend to vote against people who speak about most issues realistically. How many people do you think are going to vote for Gary Johnson as next president, compared to Obama or Romney?
An outside of presidents, how often do realists ever even get onto ballots?
We tend to prefer to only vote for people who raise enough advertising money, and corruption is how to raise that money.
Prohibition never ends; the sweet spots merely change. The government grants black marketeers an oligopoly on many products; if we revoke the charter for one of them (e.g. alcohol) then the oligopoly just moves on to whatever had been the second-most profitable one.
Or they diversify, using all their government-enforced exclusive rights. That way, if the populace decides to revoke other charters, they'll already be configured to adapt to whatever we allow them to keep.
But each market for which we revoke our support for them, does cost black marketeers revenue. (Alcohol in particular, has a very wide customer base; I doubt that marijuana is in the same league.) And drug gangs are impotent incompetent children compared to Wal-Mart.
I'd expect drug cartels to lobby heavily against revoking any more prohibitions, though. And the currently existing policies bear that prediction out; your congressman likely doesn't vote on this issue (or introduce legislation) that is anything close to what the polls say people want.
Getting "a life" damages young mens' productivity/creativity/drive. Film at 11.
You could use life against "hackers" (that word in the bad sense) but could also use it against anyone else who is doing things you don't happen to like, too. Politically active for the wrong party? Get 'em a girlfriend. Work for a competitor? Here, have a wife. And if those things don't work, b&e their houses and puncture their condoms for some Surprise Baby Drama.
Some people are saying they really only "need" a phone for some situations where they'd be the initiator. So they have a problem and a phone with an off button is the solution. You OTOH are saying you want to be tracked, because being findable by friends/family is critical to you. So what's the problem? You leave your phone on; they leave their phone off. Everyone wins.