We do not arrange our society for the convenience of the police.
Convenience of the police? I don't see this as being very convenient.
Like copy protections and HDCP, this will only stop people that aren't interested in committing a crime. This is nothing more than a create big database for nefarious people to get into and legitimize themselves.
What? Could the world government database be wrong?
You say birth control is complicated and your alternative is moving 200,000+ people a day for the next 40yrs to an undiscovered planet with science fiction technology? - You must be a PHB.
If we aren't going to use overpopulation as a means for expanding our role in the universe and getting off this rock, what is going to be our eventual goal? To find more oil?
And no, I don't even have any hair to point
It just seems like our interest in stuff outside this planet continues to dwindle. I think now would be a good time to sit down and ponder, as a global civilization of people, whether or not we think we will ever travel to other planets with the purpose of colonization. We are getting to the point where we could feasibly do it, but are losing interest in the idea and are more concerned with fighting for rights on the stuff we currently have in the ground.
As resources become more precious (rare earth metals, potable water, land) the "costs" go up significantly and it becomes harder for a group of people to operate towards a common goal.
I'm of two minds on this one. When you purchase a CD, you do get license to play that CD, fair use, etc. In this case, Amazon is acting as an intermediary for the end user, and providing the infrastructure for that functionality, but Amazon themselves do not have license for these.
Well, Amazon doesn't have a license to use your information in the Cloud Drive, so they don't need a license.
If you read the TOS for the Cloud Drive, it doesn't say that there are going to be employees streaming your music collection, or that they are going to make your music collection available to other people.
I don't understand why this is an issue at all. I use pogoplug to do the same thing for my home collection, but have, in the past, used Mozy, Carbonite, and direct streaming through Windows Media Player (after seeing those awful commercials about who came up with the idea for Windows 7). All of those services use third party infrastructure. Some are stored locally at my house, some through a service provider. Everything that isn't a VPN or a direct IP is going to go through someone else in order to get you to your content.
Right now I am able to stream my entire music collection on my phone through my Pogoplug, and used to do it through Mozy's experimental Decho service.
Why would they need rights to my stuff, and how would they even get the rights for works that aren't part of the RIAA umbrella?
I thought it was silly you had to be in a house with Time Warner Internet to get this to work to begin with. I like having a Slingbox so I don't have to even be in the same country, let alone the same home.
I mean, it's a little expensive, but it's a luxury like cable. You can use a tuner card and do it yourself, but the slingbox is easy. Especially if you have a SlingCatcher, you can use it as a cable box at home, but take it somewhere else and hook it up to a TV and be happy as well.
The solution is to get our population growth under control (i.e. population reduction, not growth). There are some simple, non totalitarian ways to do this:
Sounds good, but complicated if you do it through regulation, birth control, foreign aid, etc.
Why not just move to a new planet? We've got 40 years, and the fate of mankind in the balance - sounds like a good time to develop deep space travel.
Sure, it might not be easy, but figuring out how to sustain ourselves on this planet that we've already crapped up is just going to slow down the necessity to find another one.
I mean, if the Earth hurts at 9 billion people, why not offload 5 billion or so to another planet or two? or ten?
Seems like it would give everyone some breathing room, as well as bolstering the world/worlds economy. If we reach 9 billion in 2050, how long before it sucks to be here? Can the Earth sustain another 1000 years of 9 billion+ people?
That is a long time. Seriously, if 4.5 hours of battery is the biggest complaint they have about this system I have no idea why this is front page news, the battery looks like you can just pop in a new one so what is the big deal?
Seriously! This game system does 3D with no glasses! No glasses!
It's a little magic box that will let a kid play for
1.) Half of a work day
2.) Two-Thirds of the non-school waking hours of the average kid
3.) A 300 mile road trip
C'mon, I know the 2D game systems that it replaces have longer battery life, but I grew up with the Original Game-Boy using 4 ni-cad AA's for a B&W experience and thought 6 hours was amazing.
I'm sure the 9th generation of a device that does this will have better battery life - but who cares! This is a freakin' box that does 3D with no glasses!
Add in the fact that they are all doing this not to "manage slowdowns" but instead to try to push people back into buying "on demand TV" and "premium cable TV packages with rental DVR" and it's clear: this is not what they say it is. This is pure greed on their part.
Now you're just making things up. It doesn't mention that anywhere in the article.
There is a finite amount of bandwidth. The options that have been presented to solve this problem are traffic shaping and capping, so please either throw your towel in with one of those or propose another idea.
Oooh ooh! Pick Me! I know!
Another option would be to have more options!
Since ATT is only able to provide service because they have used publicly owned throughways and have been given permission to sell me service, we could allow more people to provide service!
We could allow co-ops and startups to lease/buy/build lines and improve our networks!
Heck, we could even use that bandwidth that they took from TV providers (remember that?) and use it for broadband wireless with open networks like they said was going to happen!
It seems there are a lot of options besides bandwidth capping, traffic shaping, and anti-competitive practices. We just don't use them.
As a sidenote, HR 607 would take the D-Block of frequencies and instead give them to emergency response/public safety people. Sounds good right? Well, they don't need it, and it keeps it away from what it was taken for (which helps these same ISPs) and proposes to take away the 70cm band from Ham radio operators - which would really impair public safety in the event of a true emergency.
Bad? I love Ubuntu. It might not be for the/. crowd, but for people who call the box on the floor their hard drive and can't find the internet because they don't see the IE logo, Ubuntu is a godsend.
It takes about 7 reboots to get Windows XP SP3, and a couple hours, installed and updated. I can put an Ubuntu live disc in, show people how it's just as easy to use facebook and check email, and then reformat the drive.
It takes a lot less time, and 1 reboot to get it updated and running. It's perfect for people that check email, use facebook, watch youtube, occasionally edit word documents or simple spreadsheets, and can't afford a mac.
Really, people get excited they don't have to buy Norton. Ever since Netflix came out for Wii, it hasn't been an issue with Ubuntu anymore (since most people prefer to see it on their TV.
Ubuntu could have a much greater market, but they tend to alienate some techie people just because it's too easy.
We might not be talking about budget cuts if the pirates/anon/wikileak haxors stopped pirating music, movies, and porn. I'm not sure what the number is, but I'm pretty sure, if we added it all up, we lose about 58 trillion dollars and 20 million jobs annually to that sorta stuff.
If we just made sure we stopped piracy, we'd turn all those pirates into customers, and then we could afford nice things again - like science.
As I always reply when reading this. It says promote the general welfare, it doesn't say provide.
I think "general" should be a key word here.
General welfare seems most easily applied when the government good being done helps everyone. Stuff like roads, infrastructure, bridges, etc. These are projects that are too big for any one group to easily do, but benefits society as a whole in a direct manner.
Sure, making sure people don't starve is good for the whole of society, as well as providing internet to low income housing, as well as subsidizing farmers (all to an extent) but direct good is done through public goods.
Personally, I see a lot more direct good coming from science research than I do through handouts. It affects more people, creates more jobs, makes stuff cheaper, etc. I guess that's up for debate
What I don't understand is when we don't address rising costs in defense, social security, medicare, etc - but are moving towards cutting common goods, paying tolls, and laying off fire departments.
It seems like, the further we get along, the further that the government gets from its intended purpose
I live in a semi-rural/suburban area within an hour of 3 major cities. A basic landline with no frills or long distance is $16 but taxes bring it to $29.
I've read the FCC's plan, and it would all-but-kill the Free TV that poor, unemployed, and ~50 million other americans currently rely upon (i.e. the FCC would sell-off the remaining channels). In exchange these people will be offered 4G internet plans that most cannot afford, and which cannot replace the television they lost, because of 5 GB caps.
From free to ~$600 a year. Not the kind of offer I would expect from a Democrat.
You think that a $600/year plan would cover the cost of watching TV online? If it is really "4G", and if I still have access to the websites where I watch TV, then I think I would blow through a cap in about a day!
However, with net neutrality not applying to wireless networks...maybe I wouldn't...
That would explain the difficulties I had when upgrading from my iPhone 1 to an iPhone 4. Somehow, I got activated with no data plan. It was giving me weird messages and wouldn't connect to the Edge network (rural). Two days later I got a text and two phone calls telling me I didn't have a data plan, was required to have one, and had been enrolled automatically in a 2GB plan.
My guess is that Android power users bring up the average for Android because there are "basic" users on Android. In my experience, I know a lot of iPhone users that hardly use data because they use their iPhone mostly for phone calls and email. I imagine the equivalent of those people on Verizon are mostly using Blackberry's.
Lawsuit? Just cut the damn wires with a pair of wire snips and toss the thing in the dumpster.
If I had seen that installation I would not have got as far as working out that it was a router. A plastic bag with wires coming out of it? That would be an immediate call to 911 to report a suspicious device even if it wasn't stuck on top of a gas manifold.
Seriously, if people get in trouble for hanging lights that look like cartoon aliens in Boston, why shouldn't a crappy installation of wires and electronics on top of exposed gas lines get people riled in the same way?
Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?
Just because you create something doesn't mean that you own it, especially if you expect to be paid for something when you don't do any additional work.
They should pay for sheet music they are using, CD's that are played, or videos that the kids watch. However, groups of people have been singing songs together since time immemorial.
Do you want your teachers spending time trying to write their own songs? Do we need advertisers to sponsor the kids singing times, so that your kids are always singing about the latest toys?
No new good is created except an feeling of community between 5 year-olds. Somewhere in the debate you must insert reason. Kindergarten teachers aren't getting rich, nor do you choose a preschool, because of the songs that they sing during singing-time.
If it is going to be that ridiculous, then there are going to have to be some serious provisions about derivative works. I don't know if you've been to a kindergarten class lately, but very little of the actual song is being sung resembles anything that a songwriter wrote.
They should structure the fee based on the number of correct notes or words that the kid sings as a fraction of a whole.
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info? If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how the public benefits from this release of information
I supported wikileaks up until now... the information they shared this time makes me think they really jumped the shark.
Who's public? It might be hard to see how the USA public benefits, but what about the people all around the world? It's not the job of a non-US based media outlet that specializes in releasing leaked information to decide whether or not this is in someone's best interest.
Frankly, I think it was above and beyond for them to warn the US that it was being released. I would love it if people gave me warning before they spread office gossip about me.
I know politicians/gov't agents might expect a level of privacy, but they shouldn't. I still can't believe people don't understand that, when you write something down and hit the "send" button - it's permanent. You can't take it back. Someone else has that information.
I mean, really, didn't they figure this stuff out in Watergate? I have no sympathy for a government that gets caught with their pants down. Either they need to stand behind their words or they should take their medicine for having such lax security practices.
If they linked it from their front page, and said "View the game here", that's implicitly authorising access. If it was hidden behind a badly done pay wall, I think it fairly clearly implies you should be paying first, even if the technical side is a debacle.
Leaving something unprotected is no more implying access than leaving your front door open. It's bloody stupid, but that's another matter entirely...
It's not really another matter entirely, but one of crucial importance to the case. Did the guy that posted the link pay for access to it? What was he allowed to do with that information? Did they explicitly state in their terms somewhere that he can't post the link, which is open to the internet, once he paid to get access to it? There has to be some rational burden put on the content owners to protect their content from unauthorized access.
This guy didn't subvert the system by "hacking" or "stealing". All this guy did was violate some executives idea of "security through obscurity". I can't post things online that I own and then sue you if you find them without my consent. I can protect them and then sue if you subvert that system.
Clearly Julian Assange has committed a crime of raping the US intelligence and military, which is punishable by every means possible. He needs to be taken care of, he is clearly a sexual deviant, coercing the innocent intelligence and military structures into an uncomfortable position with him in a room in Stockholm.
I believe the safe word was "9-11!". I think the military would have just needed to say that and I'm sure he would have stopped..."
Economically speaking, you have profited from the copying.
Let's say a CD is set at a market value of $12 and you have $50.
Instead of buying that CD you instead download the songs from that CD.
You now have $50 cash and $12 worth of music for a total of $62 of value. You are now effectively $12 richer than you were since you have the music and you retained the $12.
If you bought the CD you would have $12 worth of music and $38 in cash for a total of $50 of value.
I think you might have skipped that day in econ 101.
First - the market sets value. If you buy a CD for $12 from the store that sells it at that price, you are reducing your buying power by $12, but your overall wealth has decreased. You know own a CD that is used. I imagine you could sell your used CD for somewhere around $5, which means you've lost value.
Second, the two goods are not equal. Downloading a song through limewire means it has less value than the store-bought good. They might sound similar, but recording most likely isn't great. There is no physical CD, no album cover, etc. The market value for most downloaded songs is somewhere between $0-$1. However, the market value for "used" digital songs is $0, because most people cannot sell digital goods they have purchased.
So if you download you have $50 in cash and almost no value in songs. If you purchase the CD you have $38 and a CD
I don't have the reference right now, but Tocqueville talked about one of the strengths of the gov't being that it was setup to be slow to act. If there's a lot of hurdles to jump through, then only the good stuff gets through and nothing radical - or so the theory goes.
Nuh-uh: "Time traveler w/ cell phone" is the simplest explanation.
This has to be the simplest explanation. Some old lady that isn't a professional time traveler went back and thinks she's in the clear because she looked up the 20th century on the future wikipedia. It said "20th century - Moving pictures, Big War, Internet, Cellular Telephones"
Since she's most likely going on a time traveling vacation, she thought she was in the norm. She looked up cell phone and it referenced the iPhone. I imagine someone soon corrected her when they asked her why she was talking and she realized her communicator disguised as an iPhone wasn't yet "hip".
I want a phone that will let me install whatever app I choose to install regardless of who made it or what store sold it. For me, Android and BlackBerry work best. For the not-so-techy or those who don't care if they're in a walled garden, an iOS device will suit them just fine.
Regards,
Me
Dear Google/Verizon/ATT/Whoever,
I want that and a phone with no bloatware. I want to install or uninstall anything. I also want tethering at no additional fee, and I want to be able to use whatever device I want on the network. I also want to pay less on my monthly plan if I don't receive a subsidized phone. Since I can't get any of that - for me, iOS works best and is the easiest and most functional.
If you can create a phone that is easier to use, does more, and has more to offer than allowing me to install non-market apps by default (since I can jailbreak either) than I will buy it.
For those that want to feel cool because they can install stuff outside of their walled gardens by default, an Android device will suit them just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
We do not arrange our society for the convenience of the police.
Convenience of the police? I don't see this as being very convenient.
Like copy protections and HDCP, this will only stop people that aren't interested in committing a crime. This is nothing more than a create big database for nefarious people to get into and legitimize themselves.
What? Could the world government database be wrong?
Why not just move to a new planet?
You say birth control is complicated and your alternative is moving 200,000+ people a day for the next 40yrs to an undiscovered planet with science fiction technology? - You must be a PHB.
If we aren't going to use overpopulation as a means for expanding our role in the universe and getting off this rock, what is going to be our eventual goal? To find more oil?
And no, I don't even have any hair to point
It just seems like our interest in stuff outside this planet continues to dwindle. I think now would be a good time to sit down and ponder, as a global civilization of people, whether or not we think we will ever travel to other planets with the purpose of colonization. We are getting to the point where we could feasibly do it, but are losing interest in the idea and are more concerned with fighting for rights on the stuff we currently have in the ground.
As resources become more precious (rare earth metals, potable water, land) the "costs" go up significantly and it becomes harder for a group of people to operate towards a common goal.
I'm of two minds on this one. When you purchase a CD, you do get license to play that CD, fair use, etc. In this case, Amazon is acting as an intermediary for the end user, and providing the infrastructure for that functionality, but Amazon themselves do not have license for these.
Well, Amazon doesn't have a license to use your information in the Cloud Drive, so they don't need a license.
If you read the TOS for the Cloud Drive, it doesn't say that there are going to be employees streaming your music collection, or that they are going to make your music collection available to other people.
I don't understand why this is an issue at all. I use pogoplug to do the same thing for my home collection, but have, in the past, used Mozy, Carbonite, and direct streaming through Windows Media Player (after seeing those awful commercials about who came up with the idea for Windows 7). All of those services use third party infrastructure. Some are stored locally at my house, some through a service provider. Everything that isn't a VPN or a direct IP is going to go through someone else in order to get you to your content.
Right now I am able to stream my entire music collection on my phone through my Pogoplug, and used to do it through Mozy's experimental Decho service.
Why would they need rights to my stuff, and how would they even get the rights for works that aren't part of the RIAA umbrella?
I thought it was silly you had to be in a house with Time Warner Internet to get this to work to begin with. I like having a Slingbox so I don't have to even be in the same country, let alone the same home.
I mean, it's a little expensive, but it's a luxury like cable. You can use a tuner card and do it yourself, but the slingbox is easy. Especially if you have a SlingCatcher, you can use it as a cable box at home, but take it somewhere else and hook it up to a TV and be happy as well.
The solution is to get our population growth under control (i.e. population reduction, not growth). There are some simple, non totalitarian ways to do this:
Sounds good, but complicated if you do it through regulation, birth control, foreign aid, etc.
Why not just move to a new planet? We've got 40 years, and the fate of mankind in the balance - sounds like a good time to develop deep space travel.
Sure, it might not be easy, but figuring out how to sustain ourselves on this planet that we've already crapped up is just going to slow down the necessity to find another one.
I mean, if the Earth hurts at 9 billion people, why not offload 5 billion or so to another planet or two? or ten?
Seems like it would give everyone some breathing room, as well as bolstering the world/worlds economy. If we reach 9 billion in 2050, how long before it sucks to be here? Can the Earth sustain another 1000 years of 9 billion+ people?
That is a long time. Seriously, if 4.5 hours of battery is the biggest complaint they have about this system I have no idea why this is front page news, the battery looks like you can just pop in a new one so what is the big deal?
Seriously! This game system does 3D with no glasses! No glasses!
It's a little magic box that will let a kid play for
1.) Half of a work day
2.) Two-Thirds of the non-school waking hours of the average kid
3.) A 300 mile road trip
C'mon, I know the 2D game systems that it replaces have longer battery life, but I grew up with the Original Game-Boy using 4 ni-cad AA's for a B&W experience and thought 6 hours was amazing.
I'm sure the 9th generation of a device that does this will have better battery life - but who cares! This is a freakin' box that does 3D with no glasses!
Add in the fact that they are all doing this not to "manage slowdowns" but instead to try to push people back into buying "on demand TV" and "premium cable TV packages with rental DVR" and it's clear: this is not what they say it is. This is pure greed on their part.
Now you're just making things up. It doesn't mention that anywhere in the article.
There is a finite amount of bandwidth. The options that have been presented to solve this problem are traffic shaping and capping, so please either throw your towel in with one of those or propose another idea.
Oooh ooh! Pick Me! I know!
Another option would be to have more options!
Since ATT is only able to provide service because they have used publicly owned throughways and have been given permission to sell me service, we could allow more people to provide service!
We could allow co-ops and startups to lease/buy/build lines and improve our networks!
Heck, we could even use that bandwidth that they took from TV providers (remember that?) and use it for broadband wireless with open networks like they said was going to happen!
It seems there are a lot of options besides bandwidth capping, traffic shaping, and anti-competitive practices. We just don't use them.
As a sidenote, HR 607 would take the D-Block of frequencies and instead give them to emergency response/public safety people. Sounds good right? Well, they don't need it, and it keeps it away from what it was taken for (which helps these same ISPs) and proposes to take away the 70cm band from Ham radio operators - which would really impair public safety in the event of a true emergency.
Bad? I love Ubuntu. It might not be for the /. crowd, but for people who call the box on the floor their hard drive and can't find the internet because they don't see the IE logo, Ubuntu is a godsend.
It takes about 7 reboots to get Windows XP SP3, and a couple hours, installed and updated. I can put an Ubuntu live disc in, show people how it's just as easy to use facebook and check email, and then reformat the drive.
It takes a lot less time, and 1 reboot to get it updated and running. It's perfect for people that check email, use facebook, watch youtube, occasionally edit word documents or simple spreadsheets, and can't afford a mac.
Really, people get excited they don't have to buy Norton. Ever since Netflix came out for Wii, it hasn't been an issue with Ubuntu anymore (since most people prefer to see it on their TV.
Ubuntu could have a much greater market, but they tend to alienate some techie people just because it's too easy.
We might not be talking about budget cuts if the pirates/anon/wikileak haxors stopped pirating music, movies, and porn. I'm not sure what the number is, but I'm pretty sure, if we added it all up, we lose about 58 trillion dollars and 20 million jobs annually to that sorta stuff.
If we just made sure we stopped piracy, we'd turn all those pirates into customers, and then we could afford nice things again - like science.
As I always reply when reading this. It says promote the general welfare, it doesn't say provide.
I think "general" should be a key word here.
General welfare seems most easily applied when the government good being done helps everyone. Stuff like roads, infrastructure, bridges, etc. These are projects that are too big for any one group to easily do, but benefits society as a whole in a direct manner.
Sure, making sure people don't starve is good for the whole of society, as well as providing internet to low income housing, as well as subsidizing farmers (all to an extent) but direct good is done through public goods.
Personally, I see a lot more direct good coming from science research than I do through handouts. It affects more people, creates more jobs, makes stuff cheaper, etc. I guess that's up for debate
What I don't understand is when we don't address rising costs in defense, social security, medicare, etc - but are moving towards cutting common goods, paying tolls, and laying off fire departments.
It seems like, the further we get along, the further that the government gets from its intended purpose
I live in a semi-rural/suburban area within an hour of 3 major cities. A basic landline with no frills or long distance is $16 but taxes bring it to $29.
But at what cost?
I've read the FCC's plan, and it would all-but-kill the Free TV that poor, unemployed, and ~50 million other americans currently rely upon (i.e. the FCC would sell-off the remaining channels). In exchange these people will be offered 4G internet plans that most cannot afford, and which cannot replace the television they lost, because of 5 GB caps.
From free to ~$600 a year. Not the kind of offer I would expect from a Democrat.
You think that a $600/year plan would cover the cost of watching TV online? If it is really "4G", and if I still have access to the websites where I watch TV, then I think I would blow through a cap in about a day!
However, with net neutrality not applying to wireless networks...maybe I wouldn't...
How is a rear touch pad going to compete with glasses-free 3D?
That would explain the difficulties I had when upgrading from my iPhone 1 to an iPhone 4. Somehow, I got activated with no data plan. It was giving me weird messages and wouldn't connect to the Edge network (rural). Two days later I got a text and two phone calls telling me I didn't have a data plan, was required to have one, and had been enrolled automatically in a 2GB plan.
Considering that Android users use more data, it's a safe bet that Verizon's network can handle the load.
Really? A safe bet? Considering that iPhones have outpaced all Verizon smartphones combined in sales, I'm not going to hold my breath.
My guess is that Android power users bring up the average for Android because there are "basic" users on Android. In my experience, I know a lot of iPhone users that hardly use data because they use their iPhone mostly for phone calls and email. I imagine the equivalent of those people on Verizon are mostly using Blackberry's.
Lawsuit? Just cut the damn wires with a pair of wire snips and toss the thing in the dumpster.
If I had seen that installation I would not have got as far as working out that it was a router. A plastic bag with wires coming out of it? That would be an immediate call to 911 to report a suspicious device even if it wasn't stuck on top of a gas manifold.
Seriously, if people get in trouble for hanging lights that look like cartoon aliens in Boston, why shouldn't a crappy installation of wires and electronics on top of exposed gas lines get people riled in the same way?
Let me play devil's advocate:
Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?
Just because you create something doesn't mean that you own it, especially if you expect to be paid for something when you don't do any additional work.
They should pay for sheet music they are using, CD's that are played, or videos that the kids watch. However, groups of people have been singing songs together since time immemorial.
Do you want your teachers spending time trying to write their own songs? Do we need advertisers to sponsor the kids singing times, so that your kids are always singing about the latest toys?
No new good is created except an feeling of community between 5 year-olds. Somewhere in the debate you must insert reason. Kindergarten teachers aren't getting rich, nor do you choose a preschool, because of the songs that they sing during singing-time.
If it is going to be that ridiculous, then there are going to have to be some serious provisions about derivative works. I don't know if you've been to a kindergarten class lately, but very little of the actual song is being sung resembles anything that a songwriter wrote.
They should structure the fee based on the number of correct notes or words that the kid sings as a fraction of a whole.
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info? If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how the public benefits from this release of information
I supported wikileaks up until now... the information they shared this time makes me think they really jumped the shark.
Who's public? It might be hard to see how the USA public benefits, but what about the people all around the world? It's not the job of a non-US based media outlet that specializes in releasing leaked information to decide whether or not this is in someone's best interest.
Frankly, I think it was above and beyond for them to warn the US that it was being released. I would love it if people gave me warning before they spread office gossip about me.
I know politicians/gov't agents might expect a level of privacy, but they shouldn't. I still can't believe people don't understand that, when you write something down and hit the "send" button - it's permanent. You can't take it back. Someone else has that information.
I mean, really, didn't they figure this stuff out in Watergate? I have no sympathy for a government that gets caught with their pants down. Either they need to stand behind their words or they should take their medicine for having such lax security practices.
No.
If they linked it from their front page, and said "View the game here", that's implicitly authorising access. If it was hidden behind a badly done pay wall, I think it fairly clearly implies you should be paying first, even if the technical side is a debacle.
Leaving something unprotected is no more implying access than leaving your front door open. It's bloody stupid, but that's another matter entirely...
It's not really another matter entirely, but one of crucial importance to the case. Did the guy that posted the link pay for access to it? What was he allowed to do with that information? Did they explicitly state in their terms somewhere that he can't post the link, which is open to the internet, once he paid to get access to it? There has to be some rational burden put on the content owners to protect their content from unauthorized access.
This guy didn't subvert the system by "hacking" or "stealing". All this guy did was violate some executives idea of "security through obscurity". I can't post things online that I own and then sue you if you find them without my consent. I can protect them and then sue if you subvert that system.
Clearly Julian Assange has committed a crime of raping the US intelligence and military, which is punishable by every means possible. He needs to be taken care of, he is clearly a sexual deviant, coercing the innocent intelligence and military structures into an uncomfortable position with him in a room in Stockholm.
I believe the safe word was "9-11!". I think the military would have just needed to say that and I'm sure he would have stopped..."
So that's why the Google EULA says "Not responsible for inadvertent war." I never understood that before...
Economically speaking, you have profited from the copying.
Let's say a CD is set at a market value of $12 and you have $50.
Instead of buying that CD you instead download the songs from that CD.
You now have $50 cash and $12 worth of music for a total of $62 of value. You are now effectively $12 richer than you were since you have the music and you retained the $12.
If you bought the CD you would have $12 worth of music and $38 in cash for a total of $50 of value.
I think you might have skipped that day in econ 101.
First - the market sets value. If you buy a CD for $12 from the store that sells it at that price, you are reducing your buying power by $12, but your overall wealth has decreased. You know own a CD that is used. I imagine you could sell your used CD for somewhere around $5, which means you've lost value.
Second, the two goods are not equal. Downloading a song through limewire means it has less value than the store-bought good. They might sound similar, but recording most likely isn't great. There is no physical CD, no album cover, etc. The market value for most downloaded songs is somewhere between $0-$1. However, the market value for "used" digital songs is $0, because most people cannot sell digital goods they have purchased.
So if you download you have $50 in cash and almost no value in songs. If you purchase the CD you have $38 and a CD
worth about $5.
I don't have the reference right now, but Tocqueville talked about one of the strengths of the gov't being that it was setup to be slow to act. If there's a lot of hurdles to jump through, then only the good stuff gets through and nothing radical - or so the theory goes.
Nuh-uh: "Time traveler w/ cell phone" is the simplest explanation.
This has to be the simplest explanation. Some old lady that isn't a professional time traveler went back and thinks she's in the clear because she looked up the 20th century on the future wikipedia. It said "20th century - Moving pictures, Big War, Internet, Cellular Telephones"
Since she's most likely going on a time traveling vacation, she thought she was in the norm. She looked up cell phone and it referenced the iPhone. I imagine someone soon corrected her when they asked her why she was talking and she realized her communicator disguised as an iPhone wasn't yet "hip".
I want a phone that will let me install whatever app I choose to install regardless of who made it or what store sold it. For me, Android and BlackBerry work best. For the not-so-techy or those who don't care if they're in a walled garden, an iOS device will suit them just fine.
Regards, Me
Dear Google/Verizon/ATT/Whoever,
I want that and a phone with no bloatware. I want to install or uninstall anything. I also want tethering at no additional fee, and I want to be able to use whatever device I want on the network. I also want to pay less on my monthly plan if I don't receive a subsidized phone. Since I can't get any of that - for me, iOS works best and is the easiest and most functional.
If you can create a phone that is easier to use, does more, and has more to offer than allowing me to install non-market apps by default (since I can jailbreak either) than I will buy it.
For those that want to feel cool because they can install stuff outside of their walled gardens by default, an Android device will suit them just fine.