As a cop, your camera should never be off. But I, as a private citizen, should be able to get a copy if I have a good reason. In my opinion, the best indication that I have a good reason is if I'm willing to shell out 5 or 10 bucks per minute of footage (enough that I'm unlikely to be able to profitably resell it, but not so much as to be prohibitive) or willing to get a judge to agree that I have a good reason (which should cost less but I'm sure there'll be fees for applying).
I believe that unfortunate as it may be, privacy and secrecy are being eroded by large scale surveillance. However, given that as a practical matter the government _will_ surveil the people, it is far better for the people to also surveil the government, because that helps keep the power imbalance smaller.
And now we get into the differentiations between "normal care", "prudent care", "stupid behavior", and "paranoid preparedness". Unfortunately the boundaries are subjective.
One thing that's currently regulated is "anticompetitive behavior". One example of such is lowering the price on your product enough to drive the competition out of business, absorbing the loss with your (presumably larger than theirs) cash reserves, and thereby becoming a monopoly provider. Would you consider that behavior to be force, fraud, or okay? (Seriously, I'm curious how you would classify it. I could see arguments for each; they're pretty broad categories.)
I think it's less that "letting people warp what the encyclopedia looks like to them to fit their preconceptions" is a good idea, than that "letting people warp what's in the encyclopedia to fit their preconceptions" is a bad one.
The problem the poster seems to be trying to point out is that the term "Net Neutrality" gets thrown around a lot without having a solid meaningful definition. Yours looks good to me, but I bet if you asked 20 people what they thought it meant you'd get 22 answers and maybe two would be compatible with yours:)
You are right that some pot smokers think it is their right to smoke anywhere they want. I think you are projecting in that you seem to think BVis specifically holds that opinion as well, but I see nothing from him that indicates that.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised that they can't require you to divulge the passcode. From what I've read, the 5th is construed to prevent the government from forcing you to create new evidence that could be used to convict you of something; it does not protect any existing evidence (in a safe, in a file cabinet, on your computer, etc), and compelling a defendant to make potential evidence available for examination has been legit for a long time. It's just that until now, if the defendant refused, there was usually a way to get at it anyway...
Except that the recipient (me) is already paying Comcast to deliver the bits. If they want to go to sender pays, then I get to start charging them for traffic that they send to my house.
of course not everyone thinks it's wrong. If everyone thought it was wrong we wouldn't be having this discussion. But a significant number of people seem to think that it's wrong for them, but are finding it harder and harder to avoid.
I think if redhat and debian were to make it an option but not a requirement, all this contention would go away, because everyone could just use what's right for them. But that's not how it's going.
(Speaking of BTSync, I was. That was a standard optimization for seeding, to try to get swarm members to get stuff from each other instead of slamming the seed.)
I'm not certain, but it's quite possible that the server they're both downloading from is smart enough to say "Hmm. I have two clients who want the same thing and have none of it. Let's try sending them different blocks and see if they can share between themselves; if they can, I only have to send each block once instead of twice."
of course selling a counterfeit chip is illegal. But at what point did laws about destruction of private property get a clause that says "unless the property is actually a counterfeit, as determined by the destroyer, regardless of the knowledge of the property's owner"?
A lot of the creation of money happens when banks issue loans (the asset on the bank's books is essentially a pile of antidollars, so the net is zero)... but paying the interest on those loans takes money that wasn't created that way. Maybe that's enough to eat up the excess being pumped by the Treasury?
Slashdot Mirror
As a cop, your camera should never be off. But I, as a private citizen, should be able to get a copy if I have a good reason. In my opinion, the best indication that I have a good reason is if I'm willing to shell out 5 or 10 bucks per minute of footage (enough that I'm unlikely to be able to profitably resell it, but not so much as to be prohibitive) or willing to get a judge to agree that I have a good reason (which should cost less but I'm sure there'll be fees for applying).
I believe that unfortunate as it may be, privacy and secrecy are being eroded by large scale surveillance. However, given that as a practical matter the government _will_ surveil the people, it is far better for the people to also surveil the government, because that helps keep the power imbalance smaller.
I know that and you know that. Now tell my hypothalamus that just because my stomach is empty doesn't mean I haven't had enough food.
Well, then _a_ model is reality. But it's not our model.
And now we get into the differentiations between "normal care", "prudent care", "stupid behavior", and "paranoid preparedness". Unfortunately the boundaries are subjective.
One thing that's currently regulated is "anticompetitive behavior". One example of such is lowering the price on your product enough to drive the competition out of business, absorbing the loss with your (presumably larger than theirs) cash reserves, and thereby becoming a monopoly provider.
Would you consider that behavior to be force, fraud, or okay? (Seriously, I'm curious how you would classify it. I could see arguments for each; they're pretty broad categories.)
I think it's less that "letting people warp what the encyclopedia looks like to them to fit their preconceptions" is a good idea, than that "letting people warp what's in the encyclopedia to fit their preconceptions" is a bad one.
The problem the poster seems to be trying to point out is that the term "Net Neutrality" gets thrown around a lot without having a solid meaningful definition. Yours looks good to me, but I bet if you asked 20 people what they thought it meant you'd get 22 answers and maybe two would be compatible with yours :)
You are right that some pot smokers think it is their right to smoke anywhere they want. I think you are projecting in that you seem to think BVis specifically holds that opinion as well, but I see nothing from him that indicates that.
Is Square a bad option? (I haven't heard anything particularly bad about them, but I don't pay a lot of attention to that field.)
Ah, you appear to be speaking of how it should be, rather than how it is. Fair enough, but not where I was going.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised that they can't require you to divulge the passcode. From what I've read, the 5th is construed to prevent the government from forcing you to create new evidence that could be used to convict you of something; it does not protect any existing evidence (in a safe, in a file cabinet, on your computer, etc), and compelling a defendant to make potential evidence available for examination has been legit for a long time. It's just that until now, if the defendant refused, there was usually a way to get at it anyway...
Not saying I'm unhappy about it, just surprised.
Except that the recipient (me) is already paying Comcast to deliver the bits. If they want to go to sender pays, then I get to start charging them for traffic that they send to my house.
And the cable companies get their shills in congress to tell the FCC "they are not common carriers, try again"
not limited to cash
of course not everyone thinks it's wrong. If everyone thought it was wrong we wouldn't be having this discussion. But a significant number of people seem to think that it's wrong for them, but are finding it harder and harder to avoid.
I think if redhat and debian were to make it an option but not a requirement, all this contention would go away, because everyone could just use what's right for them. But that's not how it's going.
Indeed, if there were existing telco services comparable to what they want to install, they wouldn't need to do it.
The problem is that the average driver will be like "yeah, everyone else needs to be replaced with a computer, but I'm fine."
Did you see that article a couple weeks ago about the latest emacs features?
(Speaking of BTSync, I was. That was a standard optimization for seeding, to try to get swarm members to get stuff from each other instead of slamming the seed.)
I'm not certain, but it's quite possible that the server they're both downloading from is smart enough to say "Hmm. I have two clients who want the same thing and have none of it. Let's try sending them different blocks and see if they can share between themselves; if they can, I only have to send each block once instead of twice."
No, but there is an open source bittorrent based syncer called "syncthing". It's not as mature, but it is supposedly functional. Have at :)
of course selling a counterfeit chip is illegal. But at what point did laws about destruction of private property get a clause that says "unless the property is actually a counterfeit, as determined by the destroyer, regardless of the knowledge of the property's owner"?
Fake chips are a problem. Bricking equipment that includes fake chips is also a problem.
A lot of the creation of money happens when banks issue loans (the asset on the bank's books is essentially a pile of antidollars, so the net is zero)... but paying the interest on those loans takes money that wasn't created that way. Maybe that's enough to eat up the excess being pumped by the Treasury?
Hmmm. I wonder how many gigs per month my backup system uses.