Here is a clue: if you buy a computer and you do not like the license that is presented to you when your bring it home and first boot the computer, then TAKE THE COMPUTER BACK for a refund.
I don't know about the Apple EULA, but the Microsoft one says it can and will do exactly what Apple did to this guy. Basically they will delete your software and data at their discretion and with intent.
Just find Apple in violation of some anti-competitive trade practice and make the fine equivalent to the desired taxes. There must be hundreds of choices to select from, all companies of their size are in violation of anit-competitive behaviour somewhere.
Trophies only have meaning to those who want them to.
The numbers the needle hits on your speedometer is a sort of trophy. I can not think of one teenage friend who has never tried to get that speedometer to 160 kph. Because all kids think that 100 mph is a sort of social trophy. So later they can say: "Yeah, I did that."
IMO: The only responsible party is a speeding driver. It don't matter who or what encouraged them to get there. That is why we demand age restrictions and a license, because driving is the drivers responsibility. Driving in public is not meant for trophy seekers.
“there are an infinite number of worlds... not every one of them is inhabited... there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds... any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing”
All worlds × percent inhabited = inhabited world
...so... Infinity × Finite = Finite
Now do you see where Douglas Adams tried to trick you
When he "leaked" what he had, it had names of people working for the US and Western interests, as well as their family and friends.
I do not know of any documents that Snowden released to the public. Please provide the link. I thought he provided it to a news writer.
it is really doubtful that Snowden can be considered a hero
Thanks for letting me know what is likely vs doubtful in the consideration of my own mind. Before you said this I fully believed the exact opposite. I was incorrect to think that opinions are personal.
they will 'support capitalism', whatever that even means.
Or more simply, what does "capitalism" mean to them?
IMO: capitalism generally can be interchanged with "fraud". They just don't know this yet and cannot verbalize it.
It is my opinion that Fraud is the biggest danger to the future of capitalism. So far, the capitalist countries are doing little to nothing to correct it. If this is the connection these young people are making... then good for them. Hopefully they will have the strength to bring fraudsters to justice and get capitalism working again, because we are too weak and scared to do anything right now. The other option is that they do not put their finger on what exactly it is they do not like about capitalism. Then they will do nothing and probably participate in the continuing mass of fraud that weakens capitalism, because they do not believe in it anyway.
you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free.
You are entitled to mine. And I am entitled to many 3rd party works for free. I make my own entertainment content to do exactly the opposite of your claim... I make media in order to entitle others to use my work for free.
There is very much content that is available online for free. I watch, listen, edit and re-mix free music and video provided to me by the authors with a license to do it.
Please do not forget to include the large group of content (like millions of works) that is already free and where the author has made a conscious decision to consume the media in the legal and easily obtainable format they desire.
I love free entertainment. And I make my own to give something back for free as well. There is a growing community of people like this. Please don't include us in general sweeping statements which suggest that "free", "sharing" or "taking" somehow relates to theft. That is only a problem for people who are so desperate to get what they want, that they are willing to violate the rights of others to do it.
I think you are referring to works which go through a distributor. These works almost always have outdated licensing and distribution mechanisms, which are designed to maximize your expense and minimize your entertainment. The expense is maximized by limiting the channels through which you can find the content, thereby eliminating competition or allowing for price fixing. The entertainment is minimized by maintaining a select and small group of "super star" artists and actors. By doing this they can minimize the number of participants with which they split their profits (your money). By making sure you cannot obtain the amount of content you desire or are able to consume, they create an artificial demand by limiting supply. Finally, by limiting your selection of entertainment to their small selection of stars, they can maximize their marketing budget per artist, to create additional desire where none should exist. Distributors are dead as books and newspapers. The cost of their efforts has gone to zero since we (the customer) pays for all the bandwidth for that distribution. So what does a company do that has no reason for being? It begins to sue everyone in sight in order to justify its existence. Distribution companies are walking dead suing machines. My advice is to just stop looking at them and let nature take its course.
re: Mega Upload. As a consumer of free content, this website was quickly becoming a valuable and maybe primary source for legal sharing of free content direct from the artist. There may or may not have been excessive commercial theft on this site as well... I do not know. But what ended up happening is that the "free" sharing community suffered from the loss of a good site that was allowing artists and their audiences to connect directly and conveniently. I do not know the true motivations of the authorities who shut it down. All I know is that it provided an alternate, cheap and legal distribution channel for many and now it is gone under the pressure of big distribution companies. I think the biggest benefit to the distribution companies was not the deterrent of copyright infringement, but rather the removal of competition and trying to stop an alternate form of distribution. Distribution companies are lucky that some people were using Mega Upload for illegal activities, because otherwise it would be difficult for them to eliminate a real threat to their monopoly on distribution control. So you can see why I think it makes these companies happy to find their content being distributed over channels they do not control. Because it is the only way they can knock out any distribution channels with are more efficient and profitable (for the artists).
Government should protect its citizens. It would be ideal if the people we appoint and pay to solutions us, worked hard to find the best encryption to protect secure our digital assets. Instead, the officials work to weaken us so they can claim more reason to protect us. Every citizens should be armed with strong computing environments possible to protect us from digital attacks from those who want to do us harm (everyone else).
I hope nothing happens to our country. But when a country is invaded, the first thing to go is the government. I don't want to be weak so big government needs to protect me. I want to be strong (with the help of my government) so that I do not need further protections.
There should be a 'maybe' programming condition. Like if(), else(), unless(). Except the block would only be executed if true most of the time and also sometimes when it is false. For example:
maybe (x > 1) then {
print "I think x is greater than 1"
}
You may modify open source and keep your changes secret, but you must reveal the source of your modifications if you want to resell it directly as a package.
a) Tor lets good people do good things anonymously so as to avoid persecution
b) Tor lets bad people do bad things anonymously so as to avoid persecution
but also...
c) Tor lets everyone search out their curiosities online without having that curiosity permanently attached to their profile.
I think far too many people quote extreme examples of who might want to use tor. When in reality, the anonymous features of tor is useful for the average citizen living in a "free" country. We all know that everything is being collected on mass and often sold to 3rd parties or used by authorities to profile and monitor their citizens. Tor is for the masses. It is unreasonable for a massive caching and DDOS service to toy with all of them and knowingly attempt to destroy the objectives of those users.
But what if the shop keeper is skimming off your card? How does the customer know that the chip reader has not been hacked?
The chip on your card cannot be read from a skimmer. The shop keeper does not gather enough information to repeat a transaction or request a new payment. Each transaction requires the chip which is embedded in the card. The shop keeper would require your PIN and also to steal your physical card.
Good security is damned expensive.
I think bad security is more expensive. And no... this form of security it is not expensive. It only becomes expensive when security has been ignored for a long time while it should have been slowly upgraded, as was done in the rest of the world. But now, the US is in poor shape for in personal digital payment technology and yes, it will be very expensive to update what has been neglected for so long.
...could be done through the mag reader as an interface, or through a new interface...
No new standard is required. Many exist. There are standards used throughout the world. Most involve a chip and a pin pad entry. Your bank or banking group simply picks one if it does not already have a proprietary solution.
..we already know is that the chip based cards are really slow to authorize.
That is not my experience at all. Please provide a link to the data you are referencing. Because I think maybe you are just expressing your personal experiences. Perhaps your bank or merchant has installed slow products or uses slow network connections.
I am guessing that maybe you are from the United States. It is my experience that consumer banking technology in that country is easily 10 years behind the others. I don't know why that is, but I speculate that either the banking cartels in the US are too competitive to come to a single standard that they are have access to, or more likely, the banking system depends on fraud in order to profit from the consumers and businesses who are forced to insurance against it.
In my personal experience, credit/bank card with chip is the faster than a cash payment. The new swipe technology is fastest. Your suggestion that it is slow or requires new technology is incorrect and I would be suspicious of the source of your information.
I have hundreds of videos on youtube as "peawormsworth". I often film for a day and then put the best clips to music. I find music under the Creative Commons license with the "Attribution", but not the "Non-commercial licenses".
Which should mean that I have full rights to use the music as a background in my video and still contain full rights of ownership over its display as long as the artist is mentioned. Which I do.
But Youtube does not care. I will receive a notice from some unknown entity (CD Baby, Peach Music, etc) that claims to own the rights to my video based on the background music. Then the video immediately turns on the adverts and money goes to that unknown party. When I present the creative commons license to Youtube, they told me that they do not recognize it as valid proof of anything.
I think Youtube is running great risk by switching the revenue of videos over to a 3rd party on an unproven claim of ownership. For example, they have generate money from my work and sent it over to this 3rd party without including me in the deal. The problem is, that I may not want to just receive a few pennies for each view that they get through adverts. I may want $100 per view. And if they don't pay me that amount, I would rather not display it for commercial purposes.
I mean to say that the liability for youtube generating revenue on my work without my permission is not limited.
Just because I want to put up a video that I own for free to view by the public now, does not imply that I am willing to let others make money off of it without consulting me.
I think many youtube content providers like me have experienced this problem and would like to see the largest offenders of false copyright claims suffer financially for all the dollars (ie: many many pennies) they have taken from people who actually produce real things of value.
I think a class action lawsuit addressing youtube's system that allows false claims of ownership to result in immediate profit would result in many participants like me. I mean I have some pretty good documented proof and links to licenses and in some cases, direct evidence of verbal and written permission from the original artists.
If you are arguing that encryption may or may not be an offensive tool, then you have already lost the argument. Everyone who actually use encryption knowa it is a defensive tool. Those who want to protect us would support encryption. Those who oppose encryption for any reason desire to make you and your property weak and desire you to be robbed and victimized.
There is an assumption that with enough information we can foresee the future to avoid or stop these types of events.
Does anyone believe that?
And who cares whether encryption was used or not. Its a good tool with a useful and legal purpose. And nobody was harmed by the use of encryption. Criminals use all kinds of tools including, crowbars, phones, cars, running shoes... all of which assist them in the crime.
I always thought that fake meat was more about saving resources.
Supplying meat eater is a huge waste of energy when compared to plants.
Fake Meat would allow more people to continue their bad habits of wasting more food than they eat.
Today I learned that there is an open source compression algorithm named "Brotli" and that Google released it 2 weeks ago.
Marketing received. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should tobacco or any form of cigarette be legal at all? There are no redeeming benefits of smoking.
Spoken like a bigot.
"I can't see the purpose, so there must not be one". And I said this so it is fact.
Backups, Dude. Backups.
Read the EULA dude. EULAs.
Here is a clue: if you buy a computer and you do not like the license that is presented to you when your bring it home and first boot the computer, then TAKE THE COMPUTER BACK for a refund.
I don't know about the Apple EULA, but the Microsoft one says it can and will do exactly what Apple did to this guy. Basically they will delete your software and data at their discretion and with intent.
If you accept it, then you are the nutball.
...1 of 2 things: 1) ... 2) Not being willing to expose himself as the creator.
option #2 is no longer a possibility. And I did check the other alternate realities to confirm this.
Just find Apple in violation of some anti-competitive trade practice and make the fine equivalent to the desired taxes. There must be hundreds of choices to select from, all companies of their size are in violation of anit-competitive behaviour somewhere.
the app...
An app? So it was running on a mobile phone? or tablet
... crashed spectacularly
The crash was spectacular... so how was it different or spectacular? In what way was this so much more special than a regular program crash?
Trophies only have meaning to those who want them to.
The numbers the needle hits on your speedometer is a sort of trophy. I can not think of one teenage friend who has never tried to get that speedometer to 160 kph. Because all kids think that 100 mph is a sort of social trophy. So later they can say: "Yeah, I did that."
IMO: The only responsible party is a speeding driver. It don't matter who or what encouraged them to get there. That is why we demand age restrictions and a license, because driving is the drivers responsibility. Driving in public is not meant for trophy seekers.
To quote Douglas Adams...:
“there are an infinite number of worlds... not every one of them is inhabited... there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds... any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing”
All worlds × percent inhabited = inhabited world
...so... Infinity × Finite = Finite
Now do you see where Douglas Adams tried to trick you
When he "leaked" what he had, it had names of people working for the US and Western interests, as well as their family and friends.
I do not know of any documents that Snowden released to the public. Please provide the link. I thought he provided it to a news writer.
it is really doubtful that Snowden can be considered a hero
Thanks for letting me know what is likely vs doubtful in the consideration of my own mind. Before you said this I fully believed the exact opposite. I was incorrect to think that opinions are personal.
they will 'support capitalism', whatever that even means.
Or more simply, what does "capitalism" mean to them?
IMO: capitalism generally can be interchanged with "fraud". They just don't know this yet and cannot verbalize it.
It is my opinion that Fraud is the biggest danger to the future of capitalism. So far, the capitalist countries are doing little to nothing to correct it. If this is the connection these young people are making... then good for them. Hopefully they will have the strength to bring fraudsters to justice and get capitalism working again, because we are too weak and scared to do anything right now. The other option is that they do not put their finger on what exactly it is they do not like about capitalism. Then they will do nothing and probably participate in the continuing mass of fraud that weakens capitalism, because they do not believe in it anyway.
you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free.
You are entitled to mine. And I am entitled to many 3rd party works for free. I make my own entertainment content to do exactly the opposite of your claim... I make media in order to entitle others to use my work for free.
There is very much content that is available online for free. I watch, listen, edit and re-mix free music and video provided to me by the authors with a license to do it.
Please do not forget to include the large group of content (like millions of works) that is already free and where the author has made a conscious decision to consume the media in the legal and easily obtainable format they desire.
I love free entertainment. And I make my own to give something back for free as well. There is a growing community of people like this. Please don't include us in general sweeping statements which suggest that "free", "sharing" or "taking" somehow relates to theft. That is only a problem for people who are so desperate to get what they want, that they are willing to violate the rights of others to do it.
I think you are referring to works which go through a distributor. These works almost always have outdated licensing and distribution mechanisms, which are designed to maximize your expense and minimize your entertainment. The expense is maximized by limiting the channels through which you can find the content, thereby eliminating competition or allowing for price fixing. The entertainment is minimized by maintaining a select and small group of "super star" artists and actors. By doing this they can minimize the number of participants with which they split their profits (your money). By making sure you cannot obtain the amount of content you desire or are able to consume, they create an artificial demand by limiting supply. Finally, by limiting your selection of entertainment to their small selection of stars, they can maximize their marketing budget per artist, to create additional desire where none should exist. Distributors are dead as books and newspapers. The cost of their efforts has gone to zero since we (the customer) pays for all the bandwidth for that distribution. So what does a company do that has no reason for being? It begins to sue everyone in sight in order to justify its existence. Distribution companies are walking dead suing machines. My advice is to just stop looking at them and let nature take its course.
re: Mega Upload. As a consumer of free content, this website was quickly becoming a valuable and maybe primary source for legal sharing of free content direct from the artist. There may or may not have been excessive commercial theft on this site as well... I do not know. But what ended up happening is that the "free" sharing community suffered from the loss of a good site that was allowing artists and their audiences to connect directly and conveniently. I do not know the true motivations of the authorities who shut it down. All I know is that it provided an alternate, cheap and legal distribution channel for many and now it is gone under the pressure of big distribution companies. I think the biggest benefit to the distribution companies was not the deterrent of copyright infringement, but rather the removal of competition and trying to stop an alternate form of distribution. Distribution companies are lucky that some people were using Mega Upload for illegal activities, because otherwise it would be difficult for them to eliminate a real threat to their monopoly on distribution control. So you can see why I think it makes these companies happy to find their content being distributed over channels they do not control. Because it is the only way they can knock out any distribution channels with are more efficient and profitable (for the artists).
My take: What's the difference? If the (simulated or otherwise) particles interact in a way that supports life, it's life.
That's exactly what a simulation would say.
Government should protect its citizens. It would be ideal if the people we appoint and pay to solutions us, worked hard to find the best encryption to protect secure our digital assets. Instead, the officials work to weaken us so they can claim more reason to protect us. Every citizens should be armed with strong computing environments possible to protect us from digital attacks from those who want to do us harm (everyone else).
I hope nothing happens to our country. But when a country is invaded, the first thing to go is the government. I don't want to be weak so big government needs to protect me. I want to be strong (with the help of my government) so that I do not need further protections.
I made my Snowden mix videos 2 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There should be a 'maybe' programming condition. Like if(), else(), unless(). Except the block would only be executed if true most of the time and also sometimes when it is false. For example:
maybe (x > 1) then { print "I think x is greater than 1" }
You may modify open source and keep your changes secret, but you must reveal the source of your modifications if you want to resell it directly as a package.
a) Tor lets good people do good things anonymously so as to avoid persecution
b) Tor lets bad people do bad things anonymously so as to avoid persecution
but also...
c) Tor lets everyone search out their curiosities online without having that curiosity permanently attached to their profile.
I think far too many people quote extreme examples of who might want to use tor. When in reality, the anonymous features of tor is useful for the average citizen living in a "free" country. We all know that everything is being collected on mass and often sold to 3rd parties or used by authorities to profile and monitor their citizens. Tor is for the masses. It is unreasonable for a massive caching and DDOS service to toy with all of them and knowingly attempt to destroy the objectives of those users.
But what if the shop keeper is skimming off your card? How does the customer know that the chip reader has not been hacked?
The chip on your card cannot be read from a skimmer. The shop keeper does not gather enough information to repeat a transaction or request a new payment. Each transaction requires the chip which is embedded in the card. The shop keeper would require your PIN and also to steal your physical card.
Good security is damned expensive.
I think bad security is more expensive. And no... this form of security it is not expensive. It only becomes expensive when security has been ignored for a long time while it should have been slowly upgraded, as was done in the rest of the world. But now, the US is in poor shape for in personal digital payment technology and yes, it will be very expensive to update what has been neglected for so long.
...could be done through the mag reader as an interface, or through a new interface...
No new standard is required. Many exist. There are standards used throughout the world. Most involve a chip and a pin pad entry. Your bank or banking group simply picks one if it does not already have a proprietary solution.
..we already know is that the chip based cards are really slow to authorize.
That is not my experience at all. Please provide a link to the data you are referencing. Because I think maybe you are just expressing your personal experiences. Perhaps your bank or merchant has installed slow products or uses slow network connections.
I am guessing that maybe you are from the United States. It is my experience that consumer banking technology in that country is easily 10 years behind the others. I don't know why that is, but I speculate that either the banking cartels in the US are too competitive to come to a single standard that they are have access to, or more likely, the banking system depends on fraud in order to profit from the consumers and businesses who are forced to insurance against it.
In my personal experience, credit/bank card with chip is the faster than a cash payment. The new swipe technology is fastest. Your suggestion that it is slow or requires new technology is incorrect and I would be suspicious of the source of your information.
I have hundreds of videos on youtube as "peawormsworth". I often film for a day and then put the best clips to music. I find music under the Creative Commons license with the "Attribution", but not the "Non-commercial licenses". Which should mean that I have full rights to use the music as a background in my video and still contain full rights of ownership over its display as long as the artist is mentioned. Which I do. But Youtube does not care. I will receive a notice from some unknown entity (CD Baby, Peach Music, etc) that claims to own the rights to my video based on the background music. Then the video immediately turns on the adverts and money goes to that unknown party. When I present the creative commons license to Youtube, they told me that they do not recognize it as valid proof of anything. I think Youtube is running great risk by switching the revenue of videos over to a 3rd party on an unproven claim of ownership. For example, they have generate money from my work and sent it over to this 3rd party without including me in the deal. The problem is, that I may not want to just receive a few pennies for each view that they get through adverts. I may want $100 per view. And if they don't pay me that amount, I would rather not display it for commercial purposes. I mean to say that the liability for youtube generating revenue on my work without my permission is not limited. Just because I want to put up a video that I own for free to view by the public now, does not imply that I am willing to let others make money off of it without consulting me. I think many youtube content providers like me have experienced this problem and would like to see the largest offenders of false copyright claims suffer financially for all the dollars (ie: many many pennies) they have taken from people who actually produce real things of value. I think a class action lawsuit addressing youtube's system that allows false claims of ownership to result in immediate profit would result in many participants like me. I mean I have some pretty good documented proof and links to licenses and in some cases, direct evidence of verbal and written permission from the original artists.
The back door of your back door is: The front door.
If you are arguing that encryption may or may not be an offensive tool, then you have already lost the argument. Everyone who actually use encryption knowa it is a defensive tool. Those who want to protect us would support encryption. Those who oppose encryption for any reason desire to make you and your property weak and desire you to be robbed and victimized.
There is an assumption that with enough information we can foresee the future to avoid or stop these types of events.
Does anyone believe that?
And who cares whether encryption was used or not. Its a good tool with a useful and legal purpose. And nobody was harmed by the use of encryption. Criminals use all kinds of tools including, crowbars, phones, cars, running shoes... all of which assist them in the crime.
Criminals mostly get caught through mistakes they make.
Ignoring Reuters is a crime?
I always thought that fake meat was more about saving resources.
Supplying meat eater is a huge waste of energy when compared to plants. Fake Meat would allow more people to continue their bad habits of wasting more food than they eat.
Today I learned that there is an open source compression algorithm named "Brotli" and that Google released it 2 weeks ago. Marketing received. Thank you.