Look - the representative democratic system is flawed as fuck and blaming the voter is wrong, blame the system instead. The democratic system is pinned down by a general conservative "if it barley works it's good enough" attitude. For example, when was the last time media discussed how the ratio of [policies signed in to law compared to policies that the population majority agrees with] can be improved? Never. Whenever unpopular policies gets signed into law the circumstances are blamed instead of the actual system.
Once again, this issue is not about legal technicalities or technical workarounds... If you put up a service like the pirate bay it's laughable to claim that more than 1% of the usage is for non copyright infringement purposes. The "but you can use torrent to share Linux ISOs too" argument won't go very far in court (or with business relations like this case). Neither does the "Google can also be used to index torrents" argument. While technically correct the society is rigged to avoid technicalities in rules and take decisions based on intent. The intent of this service was clearly to profit from copyright violating distribution.
The actual problem is that non-commercial file distribution is not regulated. This is counter intuitive to the Internet as an invention and needs to be changed. The Internet has made such regulation incompatible with fundamental human rights. File sharing is not theft - it's how people will discover new information and consume culture from now and in the future. Business models will have to evolve from utilizing physical scarcity to utilizing distribution-as-a-service. When people finally start to see beyond the "file sharing is theft" and "allowing file sharing means artist shouldn't get paid" arguments/distractions we can have sensible debate and lawmaking. What would change if non-commercial file distribution would be legal/unregulated tomorrow? Think about that. The file sharers are already file sharing. Pandora's box has already been opened.
What makes this case so interesting is that he clearly broke the military rules and also clearly helped humanity through his actions and he never gained anything by doing it. He wasn't paid for doing it and he knew people would hate him and that he would be punished hard but he followed his ideals rather than doing what gains him the most personally. He believed in the right of the public to know what their country is actually doing and where their tax money goes.
I see that some of you are angry with him and want him punished but when asked what he actually did wrong you can't argue further than him "breaking the rules" and "acting irresponsible". That he caused or will cause deaths is pure speculation. Maybe you are angry with him because deep inside you know you would never have the balls to pull this off by yourself? Because you know that you are that kind of person that curls into a ball when the authority beats you with a stick and tells you what to do and think. Because being told what to do and think follows naturally when you argue that the government has the right to censor and keep information secret from the public it serves.
What makes this case so interesting is the reactions from people. It tells you a lot of what kind of person you are deep inside.
You can make the comparison even simpler. Stopping a bullet with the clipboard takes just as much energy as resisting the recoil from the gun you fired with, so with a steady grip on the clipboard you can take the bullet with no problem.
In other words the competition is pushing innovation just as it should. I'd never use bing but I'm happy they exist so google has someone to fight with. Move along....
> Come up with crazy suggestion inside your head. Explain to people how crazy that suggestion is and imply that this suggestion was the original suggestion.
For the copyright identification to work the author must upload their content. It won't work otherwise. I doubt all copyrighted material in existence is uploaded to youtube although I'd guess it's probably a lot. I'd recommend seeing the TED Talk the guy below linked to for more info.
Doesn't work. YouTube has automated copyright infringement detection. Basically the music/movie company uploads all their shit and YouTube will scan trough all uploaded content and match it. Then they can choose to take it down, add advertising etc. This is probably how the copyright claimer was notified of the video in the first place. No YouTube staff where probably ever involved in taking it down.
Yes.. your argument applies to literally everything though... so dismissing anything as "just a chain reaction" is basically saying that "this is just a subset of the universe." In other words your argument is true but pointless. Disclaimer: I assume that the universe is a deterministic state machine.
We've had 4G here now for over a year. (Real 4G, not the 3G+ that I heard some providers in the US has been marketing as "4G") I'm running it on my laptop right now. Works like a charm... 20-80 mbit wireless is sweet. Now if only they'd remove the monthly 40GB cap... also the proprietary windows only mobile internet client is utter and total crap. Hopefully they'll build it into all operating systems soon so I can connect just like Wi-Fi.
I agree. Censorship is a society/social problem so let's discuss it as such and have it derail into technical workarounds which just steals focus for the real problem. It's kinda like the crypto discussion where nerds claim to be invincible because they are using 1024 bit AES encryption with a 512 bit password. If the government wants your "secret" information the will hit you with a rubber hose until you talk. In this case - yes you can always use a custom DNS list, VPN or a SSH proxy... but that's not the issue here..
You make an excellent point. Such a certification system would still be 1000% better than the current system though. It's very plausible that one of the 100 authorities in my browser list screws up or maliciously generates rouge certificates to spy on regime dissidents. A scenario where the US would choose to secretly use the root cert to create rouge certs for MITM attacks is not very likely as it would be easily detected and would undermine the trust in DNSSEC and the whole infrastructure of the Internet so I doubt the US would risk that. It would probably result in some sort of diplomatic crisis.
What an epic fail for TLS. The certification system is broken by design and now apparently the block encryption as well. Let's take this opportunity to draft a new standard that:
A) Solves the having-to-trust-cert-authorities in china by using DNSSEC instead for certification. It should also optionally support manual cert distribution or remember-public-key for advanced users.
B) Just like SSH it should supports a range of handshake methods/encryption algorithms. It's insane to rely on a single algorithm. So when (note "when", not "if") an algorithm gets busted I can simply patch my browser.
I got PERMANENTLY banned from the steam forums for simply stating that piracy exists and people pirate games. Apparently, if you close your ears, hold your hands to you ears and yell LALALALALALA all problems instantly disappear.
I doubt you would want to move out in the middle of the desert with no open stores and no institutions if you are homeless. Since the city only consists of buildings you would have a lot of logistics problems. Do they even have running water? Even if they did the piping there would be no point in having it on except if they did some kind of related water tests.
Meh. I think the dutch government can get a certificate validated pretty quickly and installing a new certificate should take a couple of hours at most anyway.
Yes, and here I also have another outlook. It's also pretty typical American to expect emergency relief (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2405282&cid=37260276) and institutions in society to be funded by charity. I, however think this is the governments obligation, and also UNs in case the government cannot help its own people. I don't refer to emergency relief when I talk about charity. See my other post.
I don't consider emergency relief "charity" so I think there is some mix-up in terminology here. When it comes to emergency relief there are already systems in place, if not governments then at least the UN. If you want to talk about the real problems like world poverty, lack of education, widespread disease, non functioning markets and election systems things tend to get a lot more complex than "people starving because this disaster cuts of their supply of food so we need to give them food". You need to realize that most of the world is actually not in a state of emergency but have problems just as pressing in the long term as people starving in the short term.
What I'm criticizing here is that many charity projects just burns a pile of money for the sake of easing the consciousness of people that are better off, which helps nothing at best and is counterproductive at worst. For example building a bunch of schools so children can get education. Very heart-warming but futile when you don't have teachers and the kids needs to work anyway to provide for their family so the families are not interested in getting education for their kids. The well functioning market economy is the best tool invented so far to generate wealth - and charity is just a temporary flow of resources that could actually interfere with that mechanism. Especially when the goal of the investment is to have a huge impact in the short term just like many charity projects do, since the easiness to gather money is proportional to how seemingly pressing the issue is that being addressed by the charity is.
What's interesting though is charities that attempts to kick start business and entrepreneurship in poor regions. There has been some interesting projects in that area that touches on micro-loans, hands-on education and getting involved with the actual people you are trying to help. I don't want to call that "charity" though since that word has another meaning to m. ("blindly giving away money to things that makes me warm and fuzzy"). If charity was more focused around those kind of projects though I would be less critical of the form it takes today.
Slashdot Mirror
Look - the representative democratic system is flawed as fuck and blaming the voter is wrong, blame the system instead. The democratic system is pinned down by a general conservative "if it barley works it's good enough" attitude. For example, when was the last time media discussed how the ratio of [policies signed in to law compared to policies that the population majority agrees with] can be improved? Never. Whenever unpopular policies gets signed into law the circumstances are blamed instead of the actual system.
The actual problem is that non-commercial file distribution is regulated*
Once again, this issue is not about legal technicalities or technical workarounds... If you put up a service like the pirate bay it's laughable to claim that more than 1% of the usage is for non copyright infringement purposes. The "but you can use torrent to share Linux ISOs too" argument won't go very far in court (or with business relations like this case). Neither does the "Google can also be used to index torrents" argument. While technically correct the society is rigged to avoid technicalities in rules and take decisions based on intent. The intent of this service was clearly to profit from copyright violating distribution.
The actual problem is that non-commercial file distribution is not regulated. This is counter intuitive to the Internet as an invention and needs to be changed. The Internet has made such regulation incompatible with fundamental human rights. File sharing is not theft - it's how people will discover new information and consume culture from now and in the future. Business models will have to evolve from utilizing physical scarcity to utilizing distribution-as-a-service. When people finally start to see beyond the "file sharing is theft" and "allowing file sharing means artist shouldn't get paid" arguments/distractions we can have sensible debate and lawmaking. What would change if non-commercial file distribution would be legal/unregulated tomorrow? Think about that. The file sharers are already file sharing. Pandora's box has already been opened.
What makes this case so interesting is that he clearly broke the military rules and also clearly helped humanity through his actions and he never gained anything by doing it. He wasn't paid for doing it and he knew people would hate him and that he would be punished hard but he followed his ideals rather than doing what gains him the most personally. He believed in the right of the public to know what their country is actually doing and where their tax money goes.
I see that some of you are angry with him and want him punished but when asked what he actually did wrong you can't argue further than him "breaking the rules" and "acting irresponsible". That he caused or will cause deaths is pure speculation. Maybe you are angry with him because deep inside you know you would never have the balls to pull this off by yourself? Because you know that you are that kind of person that curls into a ball when the authority beats you with a stick and tells you what to do and think. Because being told what to do and think follows naturally when you argue that the government has the right to censor and keep information secret from the public it serves.
What makes this case so interesting is the reactions from people. It tells you a lot of what kind of person you are deep inside.
You can make the comparison even simpler. Stopping a bullet with the clipboard takes just as much energy as resisting the recoil from the gun you fired with, so with a steady grip on the clipboard you can take the bullet with no problem.
In other words the competition is pushing innovation just as it should. I'd never use bing but I'm happy they exist so google has someone to fight with. Move along....
> Come up with crazy suggestion inside your head. Explain to people how crazy that suggestion is and imply that this suggestion was the original suggestion.
Also know as a strawman argument.
Are you working on dropbox btw?
For the copyright identification to work the author must upload their content. It won't work otherwise. I doubt all copyrighted material in existence is uploaded to youtube although I'd guess it's probably a lot. I'd recommend seeing the TED Talk the guy below linked to for more info.
Doesn't work. YouTube has automated copyright infringement detection. Basically the music/movie company uploads all their shit and YouTube will scan trough all uploaded content and match it. Then they can choose to take it down, add advertising etc. This is probably how the copyright claimer was notified of the video in the first place. No YouTube staff where probably ever involved in taking it down.
And YouTube killed it
Yes, but it's not YouTubes fault. They have to take it down by law. Blame your politicians and ridiculous copyright laws - not YouTube.
Great points. Mod parent up.
This.
Yes.. your argument applies to literally everything though... so dismissing anything as "just a chain reaction" is basically saying that "this is just a subset of the universe." In other words your argument is true but pointless. Disclaimer: I assume that the universe is a deterministic state machine.
We've had 4G here now for over a year. (Real 4G, not the 3G+ that I heard some providers in the US has been marketing as "4G") I'm running it on my laptop right now. Works like a charm... 20-80 mbit wireless is sweet. Now if only they'd remove the monthly 40GB cap... also the proprietary windows only mobile internet client is utter and total crap. Hopefully they'll build it into all operating systems soon so I can connect just like Wi-Fi.
Thank you for your well written reply. I agree.
I agree. Censorship is a society/social problem so let's discuss it as such and have it derail into technical workarounds which just steals focus for the real problem. It's kinda like the crypto discussion where nerds claim to be invincible because they are using 1024 bit AES encryption with a 512 bit password. If the government wants your "secret" information the will hit you with a rubber hose until you talk. In this case - yes you can always use a custom DNS list, VPN or a SSH proxy... but that's not the issue here..
I think the limit is 3 persons. This is actually a problem as many scientific discoveries today are done in teams much larger than that.
You make an excellent point. Such a certification system would still be 1000% better than the current system though. It's very plausible that one of the 100 authorities in my browser list screws up or maliciously generates rouge certificates to spy on regime dissidents. A scenario where the US would choose to secretly use the root cert to create rouge certs for MITM attacks is not very likely as it would be easily detected and would undermine the trust in DNSSEC and the whole infrastructure of the Internet so I doubt the US would risk that. It would probably result in some sort of diplomatic crisis.
What an epic fail for TLS. The certification system is broken by design and now apparently the block encryption as well. Let's take this opportunity to draft a new standard that:
A) Solves the having-to-trust-cert-authorities in china by using DNSSEC instead for certification. It should also optionally support manual cert distribution or remember-public-key for advanced users.
B) Just like SSH it should supports a range of handshake methods/encryption algorithms. It's insane to rely on a single algorithm. So when (note "when", not "if") an algorithm gets busted I can simply patch my browser.
So somebody, please write an RFC now, anyone? :)
I got PERMANENTLY banned from the steam forums for simply stating that piracy exists and people pirate games. Apparently, if you close your ears, hold your hands to you ears and yell LALALALALALA all problems instantly disappear.
I doubt you would want to move out in the middle of the desert with no open stores and no institutions if you are homeless. Since the city only consists of buildings you would have a lot of logistics problems. Do they even have running water? Even if they did the piping there would be no point in having it on except if they did some kind of related water tests.
Meh. I think the dutch government can get a certificate validated pretty quickly and installing a new certificate should take a couple of hours at most anyway.
Yes, and here I also have another outlook. It's also pretty typical American to expect emergency relief (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2405282&cid=37260276) and institutions in society to be funded by charity. I, however think this is the governments obligation, and also UNs in case the government cannot help its own people. I don't refer to emergency relief when I talk about charity. See my other post.
I don't consider emergency relief "charity" so I think there is some mix-up in terminology here. When it comes to emergency relief there are already systems in place, if not governments then at least the UN. If you want to talk about the real problems like world poverty, lack of education, widespread disease, non functioning markets and election systems things tend to get a lot more complex than "people starving because this disaster cuts of their supply of food so we need to give them food". You need to realize that most of the world is actually not in a state of emergency but have problems just as pressing in the long term as people starving in the short term.
What I'm criticizing here is that many charity projects just burns a pile of money for the sake of easing the consciousness of people that are better off, which helps nothing at best and is counterproductive at worst. For example building a bunch of schools so children can get education. Very heart-warming but futile when you don't have teachers and the kids needs to work anyway to provide for their family so the families are not interested in getting education for their kids. The well functioning market economy is the best tool invented so far to generate wealth - and charity is just a temporary flow of resources that could actually interfere with that mechanism. Especially when the goal of the investment is to have a huge impact in the short term just like many charity projects do, since the easiness to gather money is proportional to how seemingly pressing the issue is that being addressed by the charity is.
What's interesting though is charities that attempts to kick start business and entrepreneurship in poor regions. There has been some interesting projects in that area that touches on micro-loans, hands-on education and getting involved with the actual people you are trying to help. I don't want to call that "charity" though since that word has another meaning to m. ("blindly giving away money to things that makes me warm and fuzzy"). If charity was more focused around those kind of projects though I would be less critical of the form it takes today.