A very good criminal might store evidence in memory and then you'll erase things for him/her in step 1 (or at least make it much more difficult to recover). What if the hard disk is encrypted and the key was sitting there in memory when it was seized?
We could argue semantics about the definition of what "being evil" is. Or we could just acknowledge that censorship is in support of suppresion, not oppression, and have another semantic debate.
As long as you never ever do anything wrong, and never make a mistake, you'll be fine. If you're not guilty why do you care if everyone is watching you?
I was hoping that you were being sarcastic, but sadly, it does not appear to be the case.
Your statement is all well and good if your view of right and wrong matches precisely with those that watch you. I (might) break the law on a regular basis simply because I've decided that, for example, 10 over the limit is not wrong in certain circumstances (no traffic, good conditions), and I'd certainly rather not have a black box impinge on that liberty any more than all the other controls do.
That's just one example, there are loooads of laws that I don't agree with. I consciously avoid impinging on anyone else in breaking irrelevant laws, so why should I let someone impinge on me?
There seems to be more important issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, and terrorism to judge candidates for president
If the 2 main candidates are neck and neck on these issues (in an individual's perspective), then crushing the DMCA would certainly be a deciding factor. IANA (not American), but from where I stand, Bush is absolutely the more sinister of the 2, and the nothing else (economy, healthcare etc) matters if he gets office again and fucks _everything_ up.
The DMCA is a rather silly thing to argue about when you're pissing off people on the other side of the world to the point that they're willing to blow up your house (if the media is to be believed, pfft).
Our HR dept went through a process of standardising our employment agreements, and it was at this point that I decided that I should get some clarification in writing relating to my side business. Originally it was a word of mouth (ie worthless) agreement that there was no conflict of interest.
I had a good meeting with the HR manager and my bosses, discussed the 2 or 3 contentious clauses and came up with an amendment that allowed me to operate my business as long as the activities remained separate.
The ammendment, drafted by the company with my input, was scrutinised by the company's lawyers, but not my own. This was a risk I was prepared to take.
What it comes down to is that the situation will always be different depending most importantly on the company's attitude, and also on what you're willing to negotiate on and how much of a potential conflict of interest there is. My full time job has elements of work that are complimentary to my side business and vice-versa, which turned out to be a plus. Despite that, the actual products/services of the two have a microscopic overlap.
Did you explain to them why it didn't work? Non-techie's need to be educated in terms that they can relate to...
You can explain and draw parallels all you like, but people will still use what works best for them. As you said, if you told me the road was intentionally made for specific cars to use, I'd say "give me one of them". There is no significant correlation between making a person understand and making them change in this situation.
1) It's not the "web", it's the "Internet" - unless you plan on making everything a bunch of HTTP servers?
The World Wide Web is not _the_ web either (popularised contraction aside). This is a web of sensors (aka The Sensor Web) that operates on the internet, I didn't see any implied correlation to the WWW.
It's also a question of scale. In the "War on Drugs" there simply aren't enough resources to successfully target users. The same goes for P2P.
Let's see, 4 million people on Kazaa right now, RIAA preparing to sue a few thousand, who can say the odds aren't pretty good? Sure, it will probably have some impact and get a few big sharers running scared (remains to be seen), but this latest action is just another drop in the ocean.
Independent is the only way to keep the artists from being screwed, I think...
Agreed, but who pays for it then? The reason more bands haven't done this is that studio time and tours cost money. It's often said that a record deal is like a bank loan that has to be repaid, without this initial injection of cash, getting something like this off the ground is harder.
I'd love to see this happen more, so that alternatives to cheesy pop rubbish are more readily available. Unfortunately, as long as the words "music" and "industry" sit side by side, marketing and money will reign supreme.
On the flip-side, the advances in technology are driving down the production costs and complexity at a blinding rate. Once online distribution channels settle and rewrite the law books, musicians and consumers can hopefully start working towards a fairer system.
Slashdot Mirror
There already is a web equivalent acronym for RTFM, it's Search the Fine Web (STFW).
We could argue semantics about the definition of what "being evil" is. Or we could just acknowledge that censorship is in support of suppresion, not oppression, and have another semantic debate.
Isn't that some crappy boy band from a few years back?
I was hoping that you were being sarcastic, but sadly, it does not appear to be the case.
Your statement is all well and good if your view of right and wrong matches precisely with those that watch you. I (might) break the law on a regular basis simply because I've decided that, for example, 10 over the limit is not wrong in certain circumstances (no traffic, good conditions), and I'd certainly rather not have a black box impinge on that liberty any more than all the other controls do.
That's just one example, there are loooads of laws that I don't agree with. I consciously avoid impinging on anyone else in breaking irrelevant laws, so why should I let someone impinge on me?
There seems to be more important issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, and terrorism to judge candidates for president
If the 2 main candidates are neck and neck on these issues (in an individual's perspective), then crushing the DMCA would certainly be a deciding factor. IANA (not American), but from where I stand, Bush is absolutely the more sinister of the 2, and the nothing else (economy, healthcare etc) matters if he gets office again and fucks _everything_ up.
The DMCA is a rather silly thing to argue about when you're pissing off people on the other side of the world to the point that they're willing to blow up your house (if the media is to be believed, pfft).
Thou touteth incorrectly
... I've snorted up Mr Creator, where's my revamp? Let's do lunch!
Wow, doesn't take much to turn you on, does it? Try something with a centrefold.
Nooooo! Without bacteria to practise on, your immune system will be weak, and you'll fall down and die as soon as you get up to go to the toilet!
Hypochondriacs do get sick more often for a reason, they invite it.
Our HR dept went through a process of standardising our employment agreements, and it was at this point that I decided that I should get some clarification in writing relating to my side business. Originally it was a word of mouth (ie worthless) agreement that there was no conflict of interest.
I had a good meeting with the HR manager and my bosses, discussed the 2 or 3 contentious clauses and came up with an amendment that allowed me to operate my business as long as the activities remained separate.
The ammendment, drafted by the company with my input, was scrutinised by the company's lawyers, but not my own. This was a risk I was prepared to take.
What it comes down to is that the situation will always be different depending most importantly on the company's attitude, and also on what you're willing to negotiate on and how much of a potential conflict of interest there is. My full time job has elements of work that are complimentary to my side business and vice-versa, which turned out to be a plus. Despite that, the actual products/services of the two have a microscopic overlap.
heheh ... heh ... you said great lengths </butthead>
You can explain and draw parallels all you like, but people will still use what works best for them. As you said, if you told me the road was intentionally made for specific cars to use, I'd say "give me one of them". There is no significant correlation between making a person understand and making them change in this situation.
The World Wide Web is not _the_ web either (popularised contraction aside). This is a web of sensors (aka The Sensor Web) that operates on the internet, I didn't see any implied correlation to the WWW.
And all those linux users who are feeling left out, go and get Wine.
Well, I guess now we come down to semantics and your definition of web development, which _can_ cover specifics of HTTP, but it isn't crucial.
I'll rephrase my analogy a little, it's more akin to plugging a phone in. Only some people build their own.
Hogwash.
That's like saying a technical understanding of the telecommunications network is crucial for making a phone call.
It's also a question of scale. In the "War on Drugs" there simply aren't enough resources to successfully target users. The same goes for P2P.
Let's see, 4 million people on Kazaa right now, RIAA preparing to sue a few thousand, who can say the odds aren't pretty good? Sure, it will probably have some impact and get a few big sharers running scared (remains to be seen), but this latest action is just another drop in the ocean.
Ummm ... this is where Slashdot should've been noted as News for Geeks, so the appropriate Nerd title can be given to Lockergnomies.
Don't get me wrong, I rate them as geeks too, but there is a certain Nerdiness about their philosophy.
I wonder if there will be a witty little ad for something useless between each and every seat, just like their painful to read but useful newsletters.
Did anyone else read the subject line and think companies were hiring illegal immigrants and punks and providing them with Nerf weapons?
... just me.
Oh
Whether good (or "Don't Be Evil") wins over evil.
Agreed, but who pays for it then? The reason more bands haven't done this is that studio time and tours cost money. It's often said that a record deal is like a bank loan that has to be repaid, without this initial injection of cash, getting something like this off the ground is harder.
I'd love to see this happen more, so that alternatives to cheesy pop rubbish are more readily available. Unfortunately, as long as the words "music" and "industry" sit side by side, marketing and money will reign supreme.
On the flip-side, the advances in technology are driving down the production costs and complexity at a blinding rate. Once online distribution channels settle and rewrite the law books, musicians and consumers can hopefully start working towards a fairer system.
Looks like there might finally be some competition for Tony Hawk.
..."
"... I can't believe it, AIBO has pulled a 720 reverse double dog-paddle air, a trick of his own devising