I'm going to assume from your remark that you don't know what steganographic encryption is, because if you did, you would realize that no amount of packet inspection on a packet so encrypted by a party that doesn't already know exactly what encryption is being used, and the algorithm employed will make it apparent that the contents of that packet are actually even encrypted in the first place, and not whatever innocuous content that the sender wished it to look like. This can, of course, be further layered inside of whatever protocols are ordinary for the communication, being completely indistinguishable to *EVERYBODY* other than the sending and receiving party from content they would have no evidence-supported reason to suspect of being completely innocuous.
That the skills and education received for a degree may not be directly needed to perform the tasks that are required on the job is irrelevant. The only way to do those tasks for them is to get the job, and if the employer wants a degree for applicants, then you need to have a degree. However arbitrary a requirement it may seem, it does not make it any less of a real requirement than skills you would actually need to already have while working.
True... but WotC doesn't profit from that. The gamble on what cards you are going to get or the actual worth of a pack of cards compared to the investment in them is a gamble that generally profits WotC because the number of really good cards in a pack can vary quite substantially.
.... without any doubt that one is capable of sticking through something that may be difficult, or sometimes even unpleasant, to achieve a goal. It's a high level generalization of a person's character that can be more properly evaluated, albeit much more expensively, with a probationary period.
I'm suggesting that they wouldn't even necessarily have any reason to *know* that transmitted network packet was encrypted. Maybe its content was simply in a language that they don't happen to know... maybe it's actually steganographically encrypted (and fully indistinguishable to anyone who did not already know exactly what encryption technology was being used from a completely innocuous and unencrypted packet).
Even if they made it illegal to communicate on the internet using anything but 7-bit ascii and plain english, the steganography approach would remain open, and completely uncatchable unless, as I said above, the people sending or receiving snitched on themselves.
If you run them regularly then the small bin size isn't a problem
We already vacuum every two or three days as it is to keep up with the fur and hair that our pets leave everywhere. While a robot vacuum could be programmed to run every day, I think it's unlikely a single robot vacuum could manage even one day without having an issue because of the small bin size. 2 or 3 robot vacuums would probably do the trick, but then that's 2 or 3 times the price as well... and even a single robot vacuum is going to already be much more than what you would pay for a regular vacuum.
It's not really filthy... there are just multiple pets here that shed. A lot. With a regular vacuum, which is going to generally do a better job than a robot vacuum anyways, we already have to vacuum every two or three days or it gets crazy,
Robot vacuum canisters are very tiny, and there are a couple of rooms in our house where a robot vacuum might only just be barely able to finish that one room before its canister needed to be emptied. Multiple vacuums would solve the problem, but that would just double or triple the price.
Is it really so much to ask for a robot vacuum that can empty its own canister when its full into a larger bin a base station before resuming the task for which it was programmed?
To be honest, I can see some real validity and usefulness to having an internet-connected robot vacuum. But it should still have to be using your internet connection, using connectivity that YOU provide to it through your own home network, and not obtain its own internet connection independently of your network configuration. Then, at least theoretically, you could use a firewall around your lan to block unwanted actions, while still being able to access it yourself.
It wouldn't need to go so far. Simply having a facility to self-empty, and dispose of its canister contents in a larger bin at the charger's base-station when it's full before going and resuming vacuuming where it left off would be more than adequate.
... IMO is that because they need to be small enough to be able to easily get into various places, their canisters are usually too small to be able to complete an entire house before needing emptying, especially if one has pets, and virtually all of them require you to manually empty the canister.
If Roomba made a self-emptying model, I'd be all over that like nobody's business.
Arrowverse already used the title 'Legion of Doom' in Legends of Tomorrow to describe Eobard Thawn's team-up with Malcolm Merlyn and Damien Darhk from Arrow, as well as Leonard Snart.
It's called, as you say, copyright infringement because you infringe on their rights.... but infringing on someone's copyright quite literally involves depriving them of the *exclusivity* that the copyright holder would have otherwise had. Kidnapping is a kind of theft too... Arson is a kind of vandalism... Forgery is a kind of fraud.... just because things happen to have a special name for them doesn't mean they are no longer specialized instances of something else.
In fact, the *ONLY* reason that practically exists to say that copyright infringement is not theft is so that people who don't care about copyright infringement are able to convince themselves that they don't need to feel guilty, as they would if they had supposedly *truly* stolen something (a variation on the "no true Scotsman" expression).
It's a pretty safe bet that once your ISP no longer observes net neutrality, you probably won't be able to connect to a proxy, because you'll get a no-route-to-host message if you try to connect to unapproved sites, regardless of protocol.
Perhaps... but I think, more likely, that was a retaliation they offered afterward in part because of how annoyed they were with the spam. If that had actually been their original intent, there's absolutely no reason that they could not have said so up front unless you presume that they weren't really interested in such opinions from the start.
I'm not saying that this necessarily wasn't the case, mind you.... but I think that an explanation for why they are ignoring so many letters having to do with the nature of those letters after they were received is a more rational conclusion than implying some unspoken agenda they were alleged to have had right from the very beginning.
Actually, a real solution would have been if nobody had written up a form letter for other people to send in the first place, and everyone who cared enough to write had submitted their own commentary, however ineloquently worded they may have thought they might be.
Copyright infringement actually takes away a measure of the exclusivity of control that a copyright holder is supposed to have and amounts to some unauthorized share of that control going to the infringer. Whether the infinger has an sense of gain in this regard is irrelevant With arson, the arsonist doesn't gain what they deprive a homeowner of when they burn the place down.
So when a thief steals an Amazon package from your doorstep. Tears open the package a block away and then finds nothing that can be resold or used by themselves but take it anyway. That's not stealing in your definition?
How did you arrive at that conclusion from what I said?
Asssuming that theft means, simply, the unauthorized taking of something from someone, copyright infringement most definitely qualifies, because something is quite truly taken away by copyright infringement.
The fact that copyright infringers might not care about the perceived value of what they are taking away, or might even disagree with the notion that it was ever something that the copyright holder ever had is irrelevant.
Amazon seems to want only deliver to their Lockers now. So their delivery people do not ring doorbells.
Well, that's one way of dodging the fact that people aren't necessarily home at the time of the delivery.
When they used to use expedited post, it was no problem. If you weren't home, it would be waiting for you at the post office the next day, which in my experience was usually only a couple of blocks away, and not remotely out of the way when I am going home.
The nearest Amazon locker to my place is about 2 miles, and is nowhere near on my way to or from any place that I routinely go. (grumble, grumble, grumble)
Apples and oranges. I do not mean to make light of the seriousness of the crime of rape for a second here, but the clear difference with your analogy is that a woman that is raped typically still has just as much of her vagina after the crime as they did before it, whereas what is being taken from the copyright holder in the case of copyright infringement is something that they both a) definitely had before the infringement, and b) definitely have less of afterwards. That said, rape probably still could be thought of as theft of certain things, depending on the person. A theft of dignity, a theft of choice on who to have sex with, a theft of virginity perhaps, possibly a theft of purity from STD's... there are probably dozens more.
Again, it's not my intent to make light of rape here, nor to be insensitive to anyone who may have experienced or who may personally know someone who has. I only intended to refute the above remark, and illustrate how the vagina is not actually stolen (where one simply defines theft as any unauthorized taking of something from someone) in the case of rape.
The notion that they could actually *EVER* be caught assumes that a person using unbreakable encryption is otherwise using said encryption to avoid detection by the law on account of other activities they are doing which are otherwise illegal regardless of any laws about encryption. If they are not breaking any other laws, there is no reason that they would ever get caught because there is no reason to suspect they are doing anything illegal, as good unbreakable encryption is indistinguishable from innocuous communication that you may not actually understand.(and using certain types of encryption, an unauthorized person might believe that they do understand it, while in actuality the real encrypted message is something else entirely).
Either that, or a person would have to snitch on themselves.. because is is very possible that the only people who are even going to know about an unbreakable encryption being used at a given point in time are the sender and receiver.
Similarly, WotC sells D&D miniatures in random sealed packages - that's also gambling.
MtG is made by WotC... and prior to their having bought TSR and owning the D&D brand, miniatures for D&D had always, at least in my experience, been sold in transparent packages, or else boxes that clearly indicated their contents in the case of larger sized giant miniatures.
When WotC introduced the concept of "collectability" to miniatures, to be quite frank, it kinda pissed me off.
They shouldn't have to list the contents of each pack, but they should probably make every random pack have a very similar value to any other random pack selling for the same price. having a variation in actual value at the time of publication (as determined by rarity) of no more than about 10-15%. You still get to hope you get certain cards that you may want, but with each pack having the exact same number of cards, and a very small variation in monetary worth, you're going to still have a good idea of what kind of value to expect from the cards before buying them.
nobody is actually spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on any of these games.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.... The number's probably small, to be sure... but given that there is a sizable number of people spending tens of thousands, it's not inconceivable that there are at least a few people of a similar mindset who simply happen to have larger amounts of disposable income.
I believe I explained above how copyright infringement is theft... the fact that there happens to be a more specific name for what we call copyright infringement is no different than the fact that shoplifting is also a form of theft. The only real difference is that in the case of copyright infringement, it may be less obvious to people what is actually being stolen.
If you were to download a movie you had no intention of purchasing, you've deprived the copyright owner of absolutely nothing
Little is not the same as nothing. Copyright is supposed to entail exclusive control over who can make copies, and by making an unauthorized copy, you are usurping some of that control (by definition, because "exclusive" means that nobody else is doing it), and literally depriving the copyright holder of whatever proportional measure of control that your singular unauthorized copy represents.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to assume from your remark that you don't know what steganographic encryption is, because if you did, you would realize that no amount of packet inspection on a packet so encrypted by a party that doesn't already know exactly what encryption is being used, and the algorithm employed will make it apparent that the contents of that packet are actually even encrypted in the first place, and not whatever innocuous content that the sender wished it to look like. This can, of course, be further layered inside of whatever protocols are ordinary for the communication, being completely indistinguishable to *EVERYBODY* other than the sending and receiving party from content they would have no evidence-supported reason to suspect of being completely innocuous.
That the skills and education received for a degree may not be directly needed to perform the tasks that are required on the job is irrelevant. The only way to do those tasks for them is to get the job, and if the employer wants a degree for applicants, then you need to have a degree. However arbitrary a requirement it may seem, it does not make it any less of a real requirement than skills you would actually need to already have while working.
True... but WotC doesn't profit from that. The gamble on what cards you are going to get or the actual worth of a pack of cards compared to the investment in them is a gamble that generally profits WotC because the number of really good cards in a pack can vary quite substantially.
Although of course, YMMV.
I'm suggesting that they wouldn't even necessarily have any reason to *know* that transmitted network packet was encrypted. Maybe its content was simply in a language that they don't happen to know... maybe it's actually steganographically encrypted (and fully indistinguishable to anyone who did not already know exactly what encryption technology was being used from a completely innocuous and unencrypted packet).
Even if they made it illegal to communicate on the internet using anything but 7-bit ascii and plain english, the steganography approach would remain open, and completely uncatchable unless, as I said above, the people sending or receiving snitched on themselves.
We already vacuum every two or three days as it is to keep up with the fur and hair that our pets leave everywhere. While a robot vacuum could be programmed to run every day, I think it's unlikely a single robot vacuum could manage even one day without having an issue because of the small bin size. 2 or 3 robot vacuums would probably do the trick, but then that's 2 or 3 times the price as well... and even a single robot vacuum is going to already be much more than what you would pay for a regular vacuum.
It's not really filthy... there are just multiple pets here that shed. A lot. With a regular vacuum, which is going to generally do a better job than a robot vacuum anyways, we already have to vacuum every two or three days or it gets crazy, Robot vacuum canisters are very tiny, and there are a couple of rooms in our house where a robot vacuum might only just be barely able to finish that one room before its canister needed to be emptied. Multiple vacuums would solve the problem, but that would just double or triple the price.
Is it really so much to ask for a robot vacuum that can empty its own canister when its full into a larger bin a base station before resuming the task for which it was programmed?
To be honest, I can see some real validity and usefulness to having an internet-connected robot vacuum. But it should still have to be using your internet connection, using connectivity that YOU provide to it through your own home network, and not obtain its own internet connection independently of your network configuration. Then, at least theoretically, you could use a firewall around your lan to block unwanted actions, while still being able to access it yourself.
It wouldn't need to go so far. Simply having a facility to self-empty, and dispose of its canister contents in a larger bin at the charger's base-station when it's full before going and resuming vacuuming where it left off would be more than adequate.
If Roomba made a self-emptying model, I'd be all over that like nobody's business.
Hmm... so adding yet more confusion.
Arrowverse already used the title 'Legion of Doom' in Legends of Tomorrow to describe Eobard Thawn's team-up with Malcolm Merlyn and Damien Darhk from Arrow, as well as Leonard Snart.
It's called, as you say, copyright infringement because you infringe on their rights.... but infringing on someone's copyright quite literally involves depriving them of the *exclusivity* that the copyright holder would have otherwise had. Kidnapping is a kind of theft too... Arson is a kind of vandalism... Forgery is a kind of fraud.... just because things happen to have a special name for them doesn't mean they are no longer specialized instances of something else.
In fact, the *ONLY* reason that practically exists to say that copyright infringement is not theft is so that people who don't care about copyright infringement are able to convince themselves that they don't need to feel guilty, as they would if they had supposedly *truly* stolen something (a variation on the "no true Scotsman" expression).
It's a pretty safe bet that once your ISP no longer observes net neutrality, you probably won't be able to connect to a proxy, because you'll get a no-route-to-host message if you try to connect to unapproved sites, regardless of protocol.
Perhaps... but I think, more likely, that was a retaliation they offered afterward in part because of how annoyed they were with the spam. If that had actually been their original intent, there's absolutely no reason that they could not have said so up front unless you presume that they weren't really interested in such opinions from the start.
I'm not saying that this necessarily wasn't the case, mind you.... but I think that an explanation for why they are ignoring so many letters having to do with the nature of those letters after they were received is a more rational conclusion than implying some unspoken agenda they were alleged to have had right from the very beginning.
Actually, a real solution would have been if nobody had written up a form letter for other people to send in the first place, and everyone who cared enough to write had submitted their own commentary, however ineloquently worded they may have thought they might be.
Copyright infringement actually takes away a measure of the exclusivity of control that a copyright holder is supposed to have and amounts to some unauthorized share of that control going to the infringer. Whether the infinger has an sense of gain in this regard is irrelevant With arson, the arsonist doesn't gain what they deprive a homeowner of when they burn the place down.
How did you arrive at that conclusion from what I said?
Asssuming that theft means, simply, the unauthorized taking of something from someone, copyright infringement most definitely qualifies, because something is quite truly taken away by copyright infringement.
The fact that copyright infringers might not care about the perceived value of what they are taking away, or might even disagree with the notion that it was ever something that the copyright holder ever had is irrelevant.
Well, that's one way of dodging the fact that people aren't necessarily home at the time of the delivery.
When they used to use expedited post, it was no problem. If you weren't home, it would be waiting for you at the post office the next day, which in my experience was usually only a couple of blocks away, and not remotely out of the way when I am going home.
The nearest Amazon locker to my place is about 2 miles, and is nowhere near on my way to or from any place that I routinely go. (grumble, grumble, grumble)
Apples and oranges. I do not mean to make light of the seriousness of the crime of rape for a second here, but the clear difference with your analogy is that a woman that is raped typically still has just as much of her vagina after the crime as they did before it, whereas what is being taken from the copyright holder in the case of copyright infringement is something that they both a) definitely had before the infringement, and b) definitely have less of afterwards. That said, rape probably still could be thought of as theft of certain things, depending on the person. A theft of dignity, a theft of choice on who to have sex with, a theft of virginity perhaps, possibly a theft of purity from STD's... there are probably dozens more.
Again, it's not my intent to make light of rape here, nor to be insensitive to anyone who may have experienced or who may personally know someone who has. I only intended to refute the above remark, and illustrate how the vagina is not actually stolen (where one simply defines theft as any unauthorized taking of something from someone) in the case of rape.
The notion that they could actually *EVER* be caught assumes that a person using unbreakable encryption is otherwise using said encryption to avoid detection by the law on account of other activities they are doing which are otherwise illegal regardless of any laws about encryption. If they are not breaking any other laws, there is no reason that they would ever get caught because there is no reason to suspect they are doing anything illegal, as good unbreakable encryption is indistinguishable from innocuous communication that you may not actually understand.(and using certain types of encryption, an unauthorized person might believe that they do understand it, while in actuality the real encrypted message is something else entirely).
Either that, or a person would have to snitch on themselves.. because is is very possible that the only people who are even going to know about an unbreakable encryption being used at a given point in time are the sender and receiver.
MtG is made by WotC... and prior to their having bought TSR and owning the D&D brand, miniatures for D&D had always, at least in my experience, been sold in transparent packages, or else boxes that clearly indicated their contents in the case of larger sized giant miniatures.
When WotC introduced the concept of "collectability" to miniatures, to be quite frank, it kinda pissed me off.
They shouldn't have to list the contents of each pack, but they should probably make every random pack have a very similar value to any other random pack selling for the same price. having a variation in actual value at the time of publication (as determined by rarity) of no more than about 10-15%. You still get to hope you get certain cards that you may want, but with each pack having the exact same number of cards, and a very small variation in monetary worth, you're going to still have a good idea of what kind of value to expect from the cards before buying them.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.... The number's probably small, to be sure... but given that there is a sizable number of people spending tens of thousands, it's not inconceivable that there are at least a few people of a similar mindset who simply happen to have larger amounts of disposable income.
.... it's gambling any more than buying Magic the Gathering packets is "gambling" just because you don't know what's inside the package.
I believe I explained above how copyright infringement is theft... the fact that there happens to be a more specific name for what we call copyright infringement is no different than the fact that shoplifting is also a form of theft. The only real difference is that in the case of copyright infringement, it may be less obvious to people what is actually being stolen.
Little is not the same as nothing. Copyright is supposed to entail exclusive control over who can make copies, and by making an unauthorized copy, you are usurping some of that control (by definition, because "exclusive" means that nobody else is doing it), and literally depriving the copyright holder of whatever proportional measure of control that your singular unauthorized copy represents.