From reading the article, I don't think they're even claiming that if there had been 0 downloads, then they'd have an extra $45 billion. Rather, they're looking at the retail value of those downloads when compared to a sale
What relevance does that number have to anything? If they're not saying "this much money is lost to piracy, give it to me", what's the point of bringing up the number in the first place? I would easily believe that the face value of pirated software is 10 times the face value of purchased software. But, so what? What are you going to do with that number? Are you going to try to recoup those costs? Because you're crazy if you do. If you're not, why did you bother figuring it out in the first place?
I'd love to see manufacturing jobs return to the US, but that isn't going to happen until automation is cheaper than developing nation manual labor. And when that does happen it's going to put the brakes on every developing country who relies on rich countries outsources to them for cheap labor.
When that happens it's also going to put the brakes on every rich company that relies on outsourcing to developing countries for cheap labor.
You talk about transparency and democracy, but you blithely dismiss the fact that the asshole who "declassified" this data violated the laws and policies established by his own democratically elected government
You're begging the question here. If you want him to rely on the system, he has to trust that the system is functioning. If the system is functioning, there should be no inappropriate classified material. If he believes that he has found inappropriately classified material, that's evidence that the system is corrupt, and he cannot rely on it to properly classify material.
I don't think the people of the US ever intended for Top Secret protections to apply to evidence of murder by servicemen. That would imply that the system is not acting democratically.
Furthermore, when he thought he found criminal conduct, he had an alphabet soup of agencies that could independently investigate and prosecute the people he turned in. The FBI, Army CID and DoD Inspector General, to name a few.
And which one of those do you really think would prosecute criminal conduct instead of shooting the messenger? Turning it in to the proper authorities is a great way to ensure that it gets ignored. Give it to the media and it won't get ignored *and* the proper authorities can still prosecute.
He decided that he and he alone was the authority to make that call.
He absolutely was. In the end, the only authority that matters is your own conscience. If you have evidence of a murder in your hands, you have to choose whether bringing the murderers to justice is worth breaking the law. That's a tough call to make, and I have a lot more respect for someone who is able to make that call than someone who lets the law act as proxy for his own conscience.
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849
Unfortunately, there's no good way to keep worthy things secret without allowing the government to use that secrecy to hide bad behavior. Given that our own government is always a greater threat to our freedom than external threats (they are here now, and they have a lot more guns than we do), we should err on the side of preventing abuses from our government rather than external threats (which are always exaggerated by the government so they can justify taking liberties with our, um, liberties).
A lot of the material he leaked was Top Secret. To be classified as Top Secret, the release of that information must cause imminent, serious harm to the United States and/or its allies and assets
So far, has any of the material leaked caused imminent, serious harm to the US and/or it's allies and assets? If not, why was it classified Top Secret?
This is about 480 bucketloads of cash (roughly 80 tonnes). Really, at this scale they should be thinking of using barrels or truckloads to move their cash
But usage doesn't cost BT any more than non-usage, so that doesn't change my argument. BT shouldn't charge their customers as if it did, and those ISPs shouldn't charge their customers based on capacity either.
That's why the system should have multiple fall back BOPs. AND they should be required to drill a relief well at the same time as the main well, so that if something like this happens, it doesn't take 3 months to stop it. Anything less is negligence.
Is that true? Does it cost the telcos less to have all those radios and towers sitting around not doing anything? I think the cost lies in building and maintaining the capacity. Once it's there, it's most cost effective (in a bits/dollar sense) to keep your network as close to saturation as possible. Costs are not in fact proportional to volume, and they shouldn't bill as if they were.
Re:They opensourced the engine, but not the data.
on
Aquaria Goes Open Source
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If open sourcing the engine (and the level editor) is not a story, how are the people interested in making games with it going to find out about the new tools available?
Collecting data on the location of open networks can allow google to pinpoint your location based on what SSIDs are around you. It also will allow you to plan a trip such that an open network is available along the way. Two valid and useful applications of this data.
Oh, and for the people getting all up in arms because "people are shouting this information freely and anyone can hear it"...that's patently FALSE. There's maybe 1% of the population that has the know-how or the desire to do that.
If you don't know how to operate your equipment properly, maybe you shouldn't be using it. If you do, don't be surprised when it doesn't behave as you expect.
What you describe would amount to a blanket prohibition on open networks, since there's no way to tell the difference between an intentionally open network and an unintentionally open network. Some people choose to run open networks and they need to be free to run them. Since it's so trivial to close your network, it only makes sense to assume that those who have not done so intend for it to be open.
Imagine if the rest of the internet worked this way. Currently, if you can connect to a webserver and get a response then it's reasonable to assume you have permission to use that web server. Similarly, if you can connect to an AP and get an IP, then it's reasonable to assume that you have permission to do so. If you had to assume that you were not allowed to use a service without specific permission, even if there are no access controls implemented, then the internet would simply not work.
Try intercepting someone's cell phone signals - with your dumb argument, you should be able to listen to them too and not get sued.
You should, absolutely. Just as if you were overhearing a walkie talkie. If you don't want it heard by the public, don't broadcast it. If you need to broadcast it, encrypt it.
Out of curiosity, which lie revealing comedian would you label as "redneck"? I was referring specifically to Jon Stewart, who can in no way be described as a redneck. The only conservative (which generally goes with redneck) political comedian that comes to mind is Dennis Miller, I don't think he fits the redneck label either.
Voters are apathetic, because their vote does not matter. I would love to vote for a candidate that would restrain spending, hold corporation's feet to the fire, and restore our civil liberties. No such candidate exists. Why vote when there's no one worth voting for?
What if that untrusted coder is not an employee, but a customer? If you're hosting websites, and your client wants to write custom PHP, you need to rely on your OS features to ensure that his insecure code can't damage other users.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing it's all the pot he smokes.
From reading the article, I don't think they're even claiming that if there had been 0 downloads, then they'd have an extra $45 billion. Rather, they're looking at the retail value of those downloads when compared to a sale
What relevance does that number have to anything? If they're not saying "this much money is lost to piracy, give it to me", what's the point of bringing up the number in the first place? I would easily believe that the face value of pirated software is 10 times the face value of purchased software. But, so what? What are you going to do with that number? Are you going to try to recoup those costs? Because you're crazy if you do. If you're not, why did you bother figuring it out in the first place?
I'd love to see manufacturing jobs return to the US, but that isn't going to happen until automation is cheaper than developing nation manual labor. And when that does happen it's going to put the brakes on every developing country who relies on rich countries outsources to them for cheap labor.
When that happens it's also going to put the brakes on every rich company that relies on outsourcing to developing countries for cheap labor.
My dad worked at Cornell University when they were trying to adopt NT. Apparently they had some laughs when deciding what to call the mailing list.
You know what endangers the lives of American and Nato soldiers? Murdering the very people we're supposed to be protecting.
You talk about transparency and democracy, but you blithely dismiss the fact that the asshole who "declassified" this data violated the laws and policies established by his own democratically elected government
You're begging the question here. If you want him to rely on the system, he has to trust that the system is functioning. If the system is functioning, there should be no inappropriate classified material. If he believes that he has found inappropriately classified material, that's evidence that the system is corrupt, and he cannot rely on it to properly classify material.
I don't think the people of the US ever intended for Top Secret protections to apply to evidence of murder by servicemen. That would imply that the system is not acting democratically.
Furthermore, when he thought he found criminal conduct, he had an alphabet soup of agencies that could independently investigate and prosecute the people he turned in. The FBI, Army CID and DoD Inspector General, to name a few.
And which one of those do you really think would prosecute criminal conduct instead of shooting the messenger? Turning it in to the proper authorities is a great way to ensure that it gets ignored. Give it to the media and it won't get ignored *and* the proper authorities can still prosecute.
He decided that he and he alone was the authority to make that call.
He absolutely was. In the end, the only authority that matters is your own conscience. If you have evidence of a murder in your hands, you have to choose whether bringing the murderers to justice is worth breaking the law. That's a tough call to make, and I have a lot more respect for someone who is able to make that call than someone who lets the law act as proxy for his own conscience.
Unfortunately, there's no good way to keep worthy things secret without allowing the government to use that secrecy to hide bad behavior. Given that our own government is always a greater threat to our freedom than external threats (they are here now, and they have a lot more guns than we do), we should err on the side of preventing abuses from our government rather than external threats (which are always exaggerated by the government so they can justify taking liberties with our, um, liberties).
A lot of the material he leaked was Top Secret. To be classified as Top Secret, the release of that information must cause imminent, serious harm to the United States and/or its allies and assets
So far, has any of the material leaked caused imminent, serious harm to the US and/or it's allies and assets? If not, why was it classified Top Secret?
Computer fanatics don't have sects.
People do not care about crime that (appearantly, or at least directly) does not affect them.
Then why has there been such support for the war on drugs, the criminalization of prostitution, crackdowns on illegal immigration, etc.?
This is about 480 bucketloads of cash (roughly 80 tonnes). Really, at this scale they should be thinking of using barrels or truckloads to move their cash
How do you think they fill the barrels, genius?
But usage doesn't cost BT any more than non-usage, so that doesn't change my argument. BT shouldn't charge their customers as if it did, and those ISPs shouldn't charge their customers based on capacity either.
That's why the system should have multiple fall back BOPs. AND they should be required to drill a relief well at the same time as the main well, so that if something like this happens, it doesn't take 3 months to stop it. Anything less is negligence.
If you keep proclaiming the end of the world, you're going to be right eventually.
Costs are proportional to volume
Is that true? Does it cost the telcos less to have all those radios and towers sitting around not doing anything? I think the cost lies in building and maintaining the capacity. Once it's there, it's most cost effective (in a bits/dollar sense) to keep your network as close to saturation as possible. Costs are not in fact proportional to volume, and they shouldn't bill as if they were.
If open sourcing the engine (and the level editor) is not a story, how are the people interested in making games with it going to find out about the new tools available?
Collecting data on the location of open networks can allow google to pinpoint your location based on what SSIDs are around you. It also will allow you to plan a trip such that an open network is available along the way. Two valid and useful applications of this data.
Oh, and for the people getting all up in arms because "people are shouting this information freely and anyone can hear it"...that's patently FALSE. There's maybe 1% of the population that has the know-how or the desire to do that.
If you don't know how to operate your equipment properly, maybe you shouldn't be using it. If you do, don't be surprised when it doesn't behave as you expect.
What you describe would amount to a blanket prohibition on open networks, since there's no way to tell the difference between an intentionally open network and an unintentionally open network. Some people choose to run open networks and they need to be free to run them. Since it's so trivial to close your network, it only makes sense to assume that those who have not done so intend for it to be open.
Imagine if the rest of the internet worked this way. Currently, if you can connect to a webserver and get a response then it's reasonable to assume you have permission to use that web server. Similarly, if you can connect to an AP and get an IP, then it's reasonable to assume that you have permission to do so. If you had to assume that you were not allowed to use a service without specific permission, even if there are no access controls implemented, then the internet would simply not work.
Try intercepting someone's cell phone signals - with your dumb argument, you should be able to listen to them too and not get sued.
You should, absolutely. Just as if you were overhearing a walkie talkie. If you don't want it heard by the public, don't broadcast it. If you need to broadcast it, encrypt it.
Yeah seriously. Why does the German government have to be such a bunch of Naz... oh, I see.
You can be sued for listening to signals bombarding you without your consent?
Old news
Oh, I wait behind. The lane is his, just as if he were on any other vehicle. I won't get along side him unless I'm passing.
Out of curiosity, which lie revealing comedian would you label as "redneck"? I was referring specifically to Jon Stewart, who can in no way be described as a redneck. The only conservative (which generally goes with redneck) political comedian that comes to mind is Dennis Miller, I don't think he fits the redneck label either.
Voters are apathetic, because their vote does not matter. I would love to vote for a candidate that would restrain spending, hold corporation's feet to the fire, and restore our civil liberties. No such candidate exists. Why vote when there's no one worth voting for?
Exactly. It's a shame Alexander Hamilton wasn't shot 20 years earlier.
What if that untrusted coder is not an employee, but a customer? If you're hosting websites, and your client wants to write custom PHP, you need to rely on your OS features to ensure that his insecure code can't damage other users.