I was chatting about the DCMA and the Sklyarov case with a friend and he asked me if I had participated in mirroring the DeCSS code. I live abroad and gladly mirrored the DeCSS thinking I was safe from any kind of prosecution and laughed at the letter addressed to me by the MPAA lawyers.
Now it has turned out that I'll be doing my post-doctorate studies in the US next year and the Sklyarov case got me thinking if I might be in trouble because of my DeCSS mirroring. After all the MPAA lawyers argued that I was in breach of DCMA.
You remember what Sony executive said? He promised to take "the battle" to every user's home and computer. As soon as digital TV becomes more commonplace I expect to see media corporations like Sony start lobbying for making the net access by open and unapproved (uncontrolled) hardware and software illegal.
Of course this would require monumental organization and a good PR campaign
Which is exactly why there are trade unions for more established industries.
It's interesting that geeks and IT professionals seem to have so far only scoffed at the idea of becoming an organized work force. "We're indispensable, we don't have to become unionised".
Yet, the more idiotic IT bills get passed the more important "organization and good PR" seems to become.
Ok, I should have been more specific in my post. What I meant was, can these processors operate without a CPU fan. Most of the noise in my current computer comes from the CPU fan, so eliminating that noise is what I'm most interested in.
After having to put up with a noise polluting AMD Duron PC for a few years, I've been looking for a decent computer that would not have any cooling fans and would come in a sturdy enough case to silence the power source and hard drive noise. Noise levels should preferably be at around 30 dB and below when operating (the PC I'm using screams at 62 dB).
You're right in the sense that simulations are only simulations. They can never replace experimental information and should be used only when experimental information is not available and even then with great care.
I never claimed that the majority decisions on the morality are right.
I mere argued that the notion of giving the majority of the public (IQ=100 and opinions completely determined by whatever documentary they last saw on TV) chance to decide what laws they should follow and what not would result in a disaster.
You're probably a smart and moral guy who could decide for himself. I would propose that this would be true in the case of most of the Slashdot readers. However, the problem is that the majority of the public really is stupid and incapable of making moral judgements themselves. It may sound elitist bullshit but just spend some time with the "common people" and you'd realize that if they were given executive power we'd have a eye-for-an-eye judicial system, for instance.
The fact that 1/3 of the UK population does it (as you claim) does not make it legal or acceptable as long as the democractic process has deemed it illegal.
Yeah, it's stupid but would you rather have the morons (the most of the population in any country) decide their own moral judgements? I re-iterate: most citizens are too stupid, lazy or immoral to follow their own moral judgement. That's why we have a system of laws that is, I admit, imperfect. Yet, the alternative is chaos.
If you want certain drugs legalised (as I do) vote accordingly. Breaking the laws does not further your cause!
Terrible things happen to people all the time at the hands of the state.
I wonder why that argument never comes up when the topic of capital punishment in the U.S.A. comes up...
Anyway, you're absolutely right. There's no such thing as a perfect law enforcement or judicial system. People will get convicted for something they didn't do. Yet, for the most of the time, it works and that must be enough. Either we give up all pretense at law enforcement or accept a certain percentage of false convictions. I'd rather take the latter (which is also why I will never support the death penalty).
Spying on people is outside the state's legitimate authority - it is therefore a crime in and of itself.
State's business is to guarantee the safety of her citizens. Period.
If that involves placing a surveillance camera at every street corner it's within the state's legitimate authority as long as the voters agree. If they don't the government will change. Do not underestimate the survival instinct of the political animal. If they really thought that installing more cameras or putting more policemen on the streets hurts their public image they would not do it.
can someone tell me what are the British equivalents of COINTELPRO, MK-UTLTRA, Watergate, the "enemies list", Waco, Amadou Diallo, and Rampart?
It only shows your desperation when you assume that in the "more controlled" societies there must be equivalent miscarriages of justice as in your own "free" society. I wonder why that is...
From your future employer: I'm sorry, we can't hire you, you are tagged a risk by the government
You're twisting the facts. That's not what being red-flagged by the police means. The law enforcement agencies do not do job interviews or provide references when you apply for a job.
You are now under 24 hour surveillance. The government decides to question your friends, co-workers
People who apply for security clearances for sensitive government jobs go through this and their reputation hardly suffers from it. Besides, I can hardly see an FBI agent doing the background checks starting the interview with "So, Janet, we suspect your friend Jack is a drug baron...".
I cannot morally follow. I mentioned being a Christian in China in a recent post
So, in essence, you claim that you have the right to ignore any and all democratically passed laws that you find difficult to live by?
I used to think like that too, but then I realised that most people simply cannot be trusted to act that way. Face it. The majority of the public is either too stupid, lazy or immoral to be allowed to make their own moral judgements.
Hence, the least common denominator policy must be followed in this case as well and laws should be respected as long as they are democratically passed.
1) It's already there. No need to get rid of it.
2) It's psychologically benefical. "See, we do have some concrete backing to our currency (although in reality it won't matter at all if the shit hits the fan)."
Sell it to the industry
Uh, why should the government subsidise the industry?
to help make sure they don't amputate the leg of the wrong patient
Well, I haven't had my leg amputated but every time I've been operated on (four times so far) I've been asked to confirm what operation I'm in for when I'm lying on the operating table before the anesthesia. I'd say that's much more easier way to avoid accidents than an implant.
I don't know if this is a standard practise, though, if you take the premedication they tend to push (Valium) which makes you groggy. I've never liked it.
Some anti-terrorist snoop looks at your purchases and raises a red flag
Even if that would be true... so what if you're red-flagged?
You're perfectly safe until you actually build a bomb, start your own little chemical war with chlorine or go nuts with your shotgun.
They detect a trace of on illegal drug in the fabric of your car
And pray tell me what they're gonna do?
Send you to maximum security prison right away? No, they would have to prosecute you and show concrete evidence that you are dealing/using drugs. Get real. No self-respecting law enforcement agency would make noise based on such flimsy piece of an evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an interesting concept.
Could elaborate a bit?
Now it has turned out that I'll be doing my post-doctorate studies in the US next year and the Sklyarov case got me thinking if I might be in trouble because of my DeCSS mirroring. After all the MPAA lawyers argued that I was in breach of DCMA.
Any ideas?
Speaking of which it runs beautifully not only on PC but also on Sun and Alpha (I'm posting this right now using Konqueror on Sun Blade 100).
Once I replaced the butt-ugly CDE with KDE I've never looked back.
The Inquirer has a short article and a link you might find interesting.
Got links?
You remember what Sony executive said? He promised to take "the battle" to every user's home and computer. As soon as digital TV becomes more commonplace I expect to see media corporations like Sony start lobbying for making the net access by open and unapproved (uncontrolled) hardware and software illegal.
After all, the net was created hippies with no strong profit mentality.
Which is exactly why there are trade unions for more established industries.
It's interesting that geeks and IT professionals seem to have so far only scoffed at the idea of becoming an organized work force. "We're indispensable, we don't have to become unionised".
Yet, the more idiotic IT bills get passed the more important "organization and good PR" seems to become.
Those notebooks and company PHBs must have been a winning combination.
Ok, I should have been more specific in my post. What I meant was, can these processors operate without a CPU fan. Most of the noise in my current computer comes from the CPU fan, so eliminating that noise is what I'm most interested in.
After having to put up with a noise polluting AMD Duron PC for a few years, I've been looking for a decent computer that would not have any cooling fans and would come in a sturdy enough case to silence the power source and hard drive noise. Noise levels should preferably be at around 30 dB and below when operating (the PC I'm using screams at 62 dB).
You're right in the sense that simulations are only simulations. They can never replace experimental information and should be used only when experimental information is not available and even then with great care.
Good for them.
How do you proof that it was YOU who clicked on that particular "Agree" button?
I never claimed that the majority decisions on the morality are right.
I mere argued that the notion of giving the majority of the public (IQ=100 and opinions completely determined by whatever documentary they last saw on TV) chance to decide what laws they should follow and what not would result in a disaster.
You're probably a smart and moral guy who could decide for himself. I would propose that this would be true in the case of most of the Slashdot readers. However, the problem is that the majority of the public really is stupid and incapable of making moral judgements themselves. It may sound elitist bullshit but just spend some time with the "common people" and you'd realize that if they were given executive power we'd have a eye-for-an-eye judicial system, for instance.
Once again, mistakes do happen, innocent people will get hurt but the alternative is even worse.
If that's the crux of your argument you've already lost.
Most people cannot be trusted with such responsibility because in the process they'll fuck up other people's "bodies and lives".
Work of fiction.
Any of you same people smoke cannabis?
The fact that 1/3 of the UK population does it (as you claim) does not make it legal or acceptable as long as the democractic process has deemed it illegal.
Yeah, it's stupid but would you rather have the morons (the most of the population in any country) decide their own moral judgements? I re-iterate: most citizens are too stupid, lazy or immoral to follow their own moral judgement. That's why we have a system of laws that is, I admit, imperfect. Yet, the alternative is chaos.
If you want certain drugs legalised (as I do) vote accordingly. Breaking the laws does not further your cause!
I wonder why that argument never comes up when the topic of capital punishment in the U.S.A. comes up...
Anyway, you're absolutely right. There's no such thing as a perfect law enforcement or judicial system. People will get convicted for something they didn't do. Yet, for the most of the time, it works and that must be enough. Either we give up all pretense at law enforcement or accept a certain percentage of false convictions. I'd rather take the latter (which is also why I will never support the death penalty).
Seems? Got any real data backing that up?
State's business is to guarantee the safety of her citizens. Period.
If that involves placing a surveillance camera at every street corner it's within the state's legitimate authority as long as the voters agree. If they don't the government will change. Do not underestimate the survival instinct of the political animal. If they really thought that installing more cameras or putting more policemen on the streets hurts their public image they would not do it.
can someone tell me what are the British equivalents of COINTELPRO, MK-UTLTRA, Watergate, the "enemies list", Waco, Amadou Diallo, and Rampart?
It only shows your desperation when you assume that in the "more controlled" societies there must be equivalent miscarriages of justice as in your own "free" society. I wonder why that is...
You're twisting the facts. That's not what being red-flagged by the police means. The law enforcement agencies do not do job interviews or provide references when you apply for a job.
You are now under 24 hour surveillance. The government decides to question your friends, co-workers
People who apply for security clearances for sensitive government jobs go through this and their reputation hardly suffers from it. Besides, I can hardly see an FBI agent doing the background checks starting the interview with "So, Janet, we suspect your friend Jack is a drug baron...".
So, in essence, you claim that you have the right to ignore any and all democratically passed laws that you find difficult to live by?
I used to think like that too, but then I realised that most people simply cannot be trusted to act that way. Face it. The majority of the public is either too stupid, lazy or immoral to be allowed to make their own moral judgements.
Hence, the least common denominator policy must be followed in this case as well and laws should be respected as long as they are democratically passed.
1) It's already there. No need to get rid of it.
2) It's psychologically benefical. "See, we do have some concrete backing to our currency (although in reality it won't matter at all if the shit hits the fan)."
Sell it to the industry
Uh, why should the government subsidise the industry?
Well, I haven't had my leg amputated but every time I've been operated on (four times so far) I've been asked to confirm what operation I'm in for when I'm lying on the operating table before the anesthesia. I'd say that's much more easier way to avoid accidents than an implant.
I don't know if this is a standard practise, though, if you take the premedication they tend to push (Valium) which makes you groggy. I've never liked it.
Even if that would be true... so what if you're red-flagged?
You're perfectly safe until you actually build a bomb, start your own little chemical war with chlorine or go nuts with your shotgun.
They detect a trace of on illegal drug in the fabric of your car
And pray tell me what they're gonna do?
Send you to maximum security prison right away? No, they would have to prosecute you and show concrete evidence that you are dealing/using drugs. Get real. No self-respecting law enforcement agency would make noise based on such flimsy piece of an evidence.