The record labels are only interested in making sure you don't bring an SLR with a nice lens into concerts. Apparently my $5000 Leica was allowed because it wasn't a good camera:-)
There's actually a few artists speaking out against the absurd fuckery that is people recording poorly lit unwatchable content with sound that ultimately is little more than a monotonous -0dB level with the occasional distorted blip into something that sounds like actual music. Here's Roger Water's (That's Pink Floyd for the millennials) take on the issue:
“For my part I would never turn on a cell phone at any musical event,” he wrote, “whether it’s at The Met, The Garden or anywhere else. It would seem to me to show a lack of respect to and care for fellow concert goers or for that matter for the artist. Apart from anything else, how could I possibly truly experience the thing I’d paid to see and hear, if I was fiddling with an iPhone, filming or twittering or chatting or whatever?”
Seriously I've never seen anyone look at one of these recordings. If they did their eyes and ears would bleed. Why do people make them?
By fairly well you fail to acknowledge the massive fuck you that was given to it's core audience (content creators) as companies like Adobe struggled to produce versions of their software thanks to the change. There were whole versions of Photoshop not available on Mac (THE platform to have if you used Photoshop professionally) because of the "fairly well" handled transition.
Cruft? Definitely. When the Windows source code leaks happened years ago there was a lot of comments in security circles on how much code was dedicated to ensuring something "legacy" didn't break. But security holes... to make that assertion you need to start by addressing the assumptions that replacement code is better than legacy code, and thus far the security bugs that have been "forward compatible" from old versions of Windows have been architectural, i.e. due to the way NTFS or SMB was designed and similar shit like that.
FBI Director Christopher Wray: either imbecile and/or not to be trusted
You don't get to be director of the FBI by being an imbecile. Make no mistake what he is proposing is 100% malicious and he couldn't give a fuck what happens to every one else as long as the FBI can read your WhatsApp. And he has to read your WhatsApp because you are a terrorist just masquerading as a normal person.
Don't trust your strangers or your best friend. You can describe them all with two words: Sleeper cell.
A minor scrape to a bumper while parking is cause for police reports and waiting around
Not at all. This varies greatly by country. In some countries you are legally obligated to file a police report for any minor ding (Hello Germany) other countries have no problem using bumpers to actually assist parking allowing you to push some cars out of the way (Hello France). Personally I never understood the fascination for keeping a bumper perfectly scratch free. It's there for a reason.
Apparently the issue is mostly that modern cars have really fancy bumpers.
Also an issue has for a long time been that bumpers have been custom moulded plastic parts which crack easily and can't be repaired. If you damage your bumper, you have to replace the bumper. If you ding the side panel of the car, a good panel beater may be able to get it looking like new again.
The insurance industry is just crazy! Plum fucking loco.
Why? They collect data to build a risk profile based on the accidents they observe. Without accurate data they fall back on the most accurate model they have. The use of a hotmail account may be a proxy for identifying a certain group of people. (side note the only people I know who have a Hotmail account are 25-35 year old women). Not saying that women are bad drivers, but that is an example of the type of characterisation such things can determine.
Chrome has an ad blocker? I think given Google is also an advertising company
Google's advertising adheres to some basic form of standards. Chrome has always attempted to block outright malicious and exceedingly annoying adverts. It doesn't block any ads which would be allowed on adsense which is why the FTC would have no basis to take any action.
As for pop-up blocker, that has existed since long before Chrome jumped to the update major version on every release bandwagon. In fact I think it was there from day one and it has been fine tuned many times over the years to defeat an ever changing malicious profile. E.g. opening something in a new window has always been blocked. Preventing a site from opening content in a new tab and then re-directing a previous tab to an advert on a click is something far more recent.
To stop general pollution, we need to consume less.
To stop absolutely yes we do. But we won't because humans don't work like that. However there's no reason we can't consume different. You're far more likely to not end up with teenage pregnancy if you teach people safe sex rather than abstinence. The same applies to everything else we do.
My local supermarket started individually plastic wrapping vegetables. I no longer shop there, I got to the grocer next door. My girlfriend is obsessed with drinking from straws, she now uses paper ones. Electronics go to a dedicated local recycling plant. We now recycle grey water. I stopped driving to the shops (it takes 10min extra to walk but those 10min are good exercise and an excuse to get out of the house).
There's so many things we can do to curb our pollution without relying on governments or abstinence. Ultimately if we wish to eliminate pollution entirely then we need to take more drastic measures, but you will never convince people to make those drastic steps.
Speaking of Amazon. I'm okay with that. We're actually quite good at recycling cardboard here. When the Amazon box then contains plastic wrapping inside, along with filler because the box is the wrong size that is needless waste.
But one thing is certain: we need to throw away large parts of our disposable culture (pun intended).
I think the point he is trying to make is that even if something becomes a meme it retains its copyright and you can't just use it in your products without licensing.
It's different to say a trademark where you have to defend it, for example.
Then he made the point very poorly because this case and the win was about defending this registered trademark.
The monetary value of software downloaded has no relation at all to the financial damages experienced by a company. I admit, I downloaded AutoCAD. I would never in my right mind buy it. What did happen though is I learnt how to use it and subsequently I requested a copy for use in my office.
The monetary damage of AutoCAD being available to me via megaupload is at present a large negative number.
Governments are held accountable to their constituents in different ways around the world. The USA said you can't sue us, but you have the right to arm yourself to the teeth. NZ said you can't own a gun and we can out fire you, but it's your constitutional right to hold us accountable in court.
You'll find a lot of commonwealth nations followed the UK in this. The UK introduced laws that made the Crown liable in 1947. NZ followed suit in 1950, and that was subsequently added to their Bill of Rights.
I presume no sane government would make a law that subjects the country to that large liabilities.
Why not? Governments are much like people. It's not insane to be held liable or accountable. Many governments are built on foundations of restricting what the government can and can't do. Some write lengthy constitutions, others leave it up to the courts.
For all the "taboo" things you think people care about, the vast majority of the population has no such misgivings about their medical records. A system that improves the general good for the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population is exactly the textbook use case for opt-out systems.
The method of reverting involved a new package number with a very strange version name. That's all. The actual thing which was done (removing the buggy releases) is perfectly normal. I just figured there may have been a neater way of versioning recalled releases.
I just channeled my inner American combining middle endian date formats and converting from big endian to little endian with no regard to standards because I like to watch the world burn:)
Exclusive contracts would not be illegal for anyone.
Except they become illegal as soon as it is done as an abuse of market position. Lookup "anti-trust laws". A lot of non-illegal things can suddenly be illegal. Even deciding to sell a product at a loss can be illegal without ever actually involving a third party.
Yes it means a contractual user of a product or service. Like it or not, if you are using Chrome you *are* a customer. You got access to a combination product and service and you paid for it with data and agreed to the service terms and conditions to boot. Just because you didn't hand over any US Dollars doesn't mean you didn't part with some form of currency in exchange.
You are still their customer regardless of how you try and twist the word.
"a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business" You are a person You are using a service You got it from a business You paid for it with data.
For example, now that I know this is so easy to do, if I'm ever on a jury, I can't really consider any video evidence as enough for a criminal conviction
The term you're looking for is "beyond reasonable doubt". Not every video automagically qualifies just because someone somewhere has the technology to make a fake (pro tip: That has been the case for MANY years).
Slashdot Mirror
No I am simpler. My phone runs my diabetic equipment.
Just because you're suicidal doesn't mean you should use your phone at a concert.
Oh and quit lying. There's no life dependent system in the world that is approved for medical use if it requires to be tethered to a phone.
or is this from some record label person?
The record labels are only interested in making sure you don't bring an SLR with a nice lens into concerts. Apparently my $5000 Leica was allowed because it wasn't a good camera :-)
There's actually a few artists speaking out against the absurd fuckery that is people recording poorly lit unwatchable content with sound that ultimately is little more than a monotonous -0dB level with the occasional distorted blip into something that sounds like actual music. Here's Roger Water's (That's Pink Floyd for the millennials) take on the issue:
“For my part I would never turn on a cell phone at any musical event,” he wrote, “whether it’s at The Met, The Garden or anywhere else. It would seem to me to show a lack of respect to and care for fellow concert goers or for that matter for the artist. Apart from anything else, how could I possibly truly experience the thing I’d paid to see and hear, if I was fiddling with an iPhone, filming or twittering or chatting or whatever?”
Seriously I've never seen anyone look at one of these recordings. If they did their eyes and ears would bleed. Why do people make them?
By fairly well you fail to acknowledge the massive fuck you that was given to it's core audience (content creators) as companies like Adobe struggled to produce versions of their software thanks to the change. There were whole versions of Photoshop not available on Mac (THE platform to have if you used Photoshop professionally) because of the "fairly well" handled transition.
Cruft? Definitely. When the Windows source code leaks happened years ago there was a lot of comments in security circles on how much code was dedicated to ensuring something "legacy" didn't break. But security holes... to make that assertion you need to start by addressing the assumptions that replacement code is better than legacy code, and thus far the security bugs that have been "forward compatible" from old versions of Windows have been architectural, i.e. due to the way NTFS or SMB was designed and similar shit like that.
FBI Director Christopher Wray: either imbecile and/or not to be trusted
You don't get to be director of the FBI by being an imbecile. Make no mistake what he is proposing is 100% malicious and he couldn't give a fuck what happens to every one else as long as the FBI can read your WhatsApp. And he has to read your WhatsApp because you are a terrorist just masquerading as a normal person.
Don't trust your strangers or your best friend. You can describe them all with two words: Sleeper cell.
Or, they could just... you know, charge people who get in more accidents higher premiums. Just a thought.
Indeed. Please tell me while you fill out this paperwork how many accidents you will have in the next 5 years. Thanks.
A minor scrape to a bumper while parking is cause for police reports and waiting around
Not at all. This varies greatly by country. In some countries you are legally obligated to file a police report for any minor ding (Hello Germany) other countries have no problem using bumpers to actually assist parking allowing you to push some cars out of the way (Hello France). Personally I never understood the fascination for keeping a bumper perfectly scratch free. It's there for a reason.
Apparently the issue is mostly that modern cars have really fancy bumpers.
Also an issue has for a long time been that bumpers have been custom moulded plastic parts which crack easily and can't be repaired. If you damage your bumper, you have to replace the bumper. If you ding the side panel of the car, a good panel beater may be able to get it looking like new again.
The insurance industry is just crazy! Plum fucking loco.
Why? They collect data to build a risk profile based on the accidents they observe. Without accurate data they fall back on the most accurate model they have. The use of a hotmail account may be a proxy for identifying a certain group of people. (side note the only people I know who have a Hotmail account are 25-35 year old women). Not saying that women are bad drivers, but that is an example of the type of characterisation such things can determine.
Chrome has an ad blocker? I think given Google is also an advertising company
Google's advertising adheres to some basic form of standards. Chrome has always attempted to block outright malicious and exceedingly annoying adverts. It doesn't block any ads which would be allowed on adsense which is why the FTC would have no basis to take any action.
As for pop-up blocker, that has existed since long before Chrome jumped to the update major version on every release bandwagon. In fact I think it was there from day one and it has been fine tuned many times over the years to defeat an ever changing malicious profile. E.g. opening something in a new window has always been blocked. Preventing a site from opening content in a new tab and then re-directing a previous tab to an advert on a click is something far more recent.
To stop general pollution, we need to consume less.
To stop absolutely yes we do. But we won't because humans don't work like that. However there's no reason we can't consume different. You're far more likely to not end up with teenage pregnancy if you teach people safe sex rather than abstinence. The same applies to everything else we do.
My local supermarket started individually plastic wrapping vegetables. I no longer shop there, I got to the grocer next door. My girlfriend is obsessed with drinking from straws, she now uses paper ones. Electronics go to a dedicated local recycling plant. We now recycle grey water. I stopped driving to the shops (it takes 10min extra to walk but those 10min are good exercise and an excuse to get out of the house).
There's so many things we can do to curb our pollution without relying on governments or abstinence. Ultimately if we wish to eliminate pollution entirely then we need to take more drastic measures, but you will never convince people to make those drastic steps.
Speaking of Amazon. I'm okay with that. We're actually quite good at recycling cardboard here. When the Amazon box then contains plastic wrapping inside, along with filler because the box is the wrong size that is needless waste.
But one thing is certain: we need to throw away large parts of our disposable culture (pun intended).
What's a carrier?
I think the point he is trying to make is that even if something becomes a meme it retains its copyright and you can't just use it in your products without licensing.
It's different to say a trademark where you have to defend it, for example.
Then he made the point very poorly because this case and the win was about defending this registered trademark.
The monetary value of software downloaded has no relation at all to the financial damages experienced by a company. I admit, I downloaded AutoCAD. I would never in my right mind buy it. What did happen though is I learnt how to use it and subsequently I requested a copy for use in my office.
The monetary damage of AutoCAD being available to me via megaupload is at present a large negative number.
Governments are held accountable to their constituents in different ways around the world.
The USA said you can't sue us, but you have the right to arm yourself to the teeth.
NZ said you can't own a gun and we can out fire you, but it's your constitutional right to hold us accountable in court.
You'll find a lot of commonwealth nations followed the UK in this. The UK introduced laws that made the Crown liable in 1947. NZ followed suit in 1950, and that was subsequently added to their Bill of Rights.
I presume no sane government would make a law that subjects the country to that large liabilities.
Why not? Governments are much like people. It's not insane to be held liable or accountable. Many governments are built on foundations of restricting what the government can and can't do. Some write lengthy constitutions, others leave it up to the courts.
What part of "have an opt out" did you miss?
For all the "taboo" things you think people care about, the vast majority of the population has no such misgivings about their medical records. A system that improves the general good for the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population is exactly the textbook use case for opt-out systems.
Tell me about it. My phone is far more important than that!
What is strange about this?
The method of reverting involved a new package number with a very strange version name. That's all. The actual thing which was done (removing the buggy releases) is perfectly normal. I just figured there may have been a neater way of versioning recalled releases.
I just channeled my inner American combining middle endian date formats and converting from big endian to little endian with no regard to standards because I like to watch the world burn :)
Exclusive contracts would not be illegal for anyone.
Except they become illegal as soon as it is done as an abuse of market position. Lookup "anti-trust laws". A lot of non-illegal things can suddenly be illegal. Even deciding to sell a product at a loss can be illegal without ever actually involving a third party.
Sure. If your comprehension skills are that low then yes, let's go with non-domestic.
Hyperbole much?
Yeah it's hyperbole if an eye surgeon fucks up your surgery due to a crappy tech support call and you can't see the obvious point in front of you.
You're utterly ridiculous. Cut back on the coffee or something.
Now you're making assumptions on my coffee intake from a forum post. You're good at this.
But the word "customer" means something specific.
Yes it means a contractual user of a product or service. Like it or not, if you are using Chrome you *are* a customer. You got access to a combination product and service and you paid for it with data and agreed to the service terms and conditions to boot. Just because you didn't hand over any US Dollars doesn't mean you didn't part with some form of currency in exchange.
You are still their customer regardless of how you try and twist the word.
"a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business"
You are a person
You are using a service
You got it from a business
You paid for it with data.
I'll skiip the obvious political ones.
Trump and Clinton with Bernie as a supporting role?
!NOT SAFE FOR WORK! >> https://www.pornhub.com/view_v... !NOT SAFE FOR WORK!
For example, now that I know this is so easy to do, if I'm ever on a jury, I can't really consider any video evidence as enough for a criminal conviction
The term you're looking for is "beyond reasonable doubt". Not every video automagically qualifies just because someone somewhere has the technology to make a fake (pro tip: That has been the case for MANY years).