You could make an argument that it would be, but that's somewhat of a straw man, isn't it?
If Sony, MS and Nintendo blacklist a game, that doesn't prevent someone from selling an "open" console (like a PC) that the game maker could then publish to. Barriers to entry aren't *that* high.
You think every bookstore that mails or delivers books has written agreements with every publisher? Amazon was just an example; the logic applies to anyone who mechanically transmits* a work.
*I think the other two child posts are more to the point. 1) Mechanical Transmission doesn't mean physically shipping/giving/lending (see: libraries). 2) Copyright law is more nuanced than the boilerplate on a book's title page.
That includes not only obvious things like transportation, but also lending—both free/personal loans and commercial rental.
That's a good point.
You reminded me of a story I read yesterday about how RedBox has a workaround plan in place in case the studios add to the blackout periods when they next renegotiate their contracts. RedBox basically said if the studios shut them out for more than the current 30 days (the studios currently give their titles to Blockbuster 30 days sooner than RedBox), then RedBox will just go buy a bunch of discs wholesale and rent them. They will pay more per disc, but they can cherry pick the good titles, instead of being forced to buy the entire catalogue the studio wants to sell them, and end up still being profitable.
Why should someone be forbidden from hacking their brakes?
Why should a company be forced to make it easy for someone to hack their brakes?
But more to the point, you aren't forbidden from hacking your brakes/tablet. I mean, was a law passed that expressly forbids the hacking of tablets and other hardware you own? Like someone said earlier, this is the company making a decision about their product because of how it affects their bottom line. Amazon isn't selling Fires at a loss so hackers can get a piece of cheap hardware to do whatever they want with it. They are selling it to get people to buy stuff from them.
To put it another way, should Sony, MS or Nintendo be forced to allow other game formats to run on their consoles? No, they use proprietrary formats so that they can extract licensing revenue from game makers. There is no legal or ethical justification to force them to use an open game format. Apple and MS went through this in the PC market (thought there's a lot more going on there). There are open tablets from Asia that you can buy. Go buy one. Don't complain that every single tablet in the world isn't 100% open.
You can't lend others your books (look in the copyright notice at the front if you doubt me)
"No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher."
"transmitted by any means.... mechanical"
How do I get it home from the store? Did Amazon violate the copyright when they shipped it to me?
The problem with the other Child comments is that they don't envision anything other than the current mass transit system. The reason the current mass transit systems doesn't work as a more wide-spread solution is that people are still married to their individual vehicles (for a variety of reasons). It's possible to imagine a mass transit system that address the problems you (other Child commenters) raise, as well as other problems left un-said.
-a user, for example, might be permitted to order the company to destroy a key that allows decryption of backed up data entered by the user.
+1 insightful.
GP deserves his Informatives too, but P makes a very good point as well.
Rather than pick positions (e.g. delete it instantly vs. it will be around forever) and evaluate the relative merits or possibilities, it is perhaps more fruitful to understand the motivations for a user to want FB to delete his data, and for FB to keep redundant backups for long periods of time. Once we understand the motivations behind the positions, we can come to a better negotiated outcome (such as the examples P gives) that satisfy both parties. This is the essence of Principled Negotiation.
I don't believe I bought anything specifically because of any ad, though it's possible that some of the products I bought over the years were somehow influenced by some ad somewhere
I've specifically purchased Carbonite.com and Audible.com services because they were advertised on podcasts I listened to.
I don't necessarily have a problem with my employer watching what apps I install, or what sites I browse. Afterall, it is their phone. But theoretically they also have complete access to where I am (though I suppose I could turn off location services).
The meat of this entire issue, is that, there is currently no way to get a phone in the US, from a carrier, and opt-out of the data collection process, such that one does not voluntarily leave a trail of everything they do. Being able to opt-out, would require law enforcement to get a judge approved wiretap to collect current and future information, as no log will have existed ( in the being able to opt out scenario ).
I don't have a smart phone. Why? Because my work provides me with one. There is probably no way for me to opt-out of any kind of data collection that the carrier (or my employer) wants to do. In essence, to be employed in any kind of technological, sales, management, or host of other areas, you are essentially required to be tracked at all times.
We don't disagree, but I think you're wrong on a couple points.
Security at B-G is multi-layered, and places a lot of emphasis on the human factor.
1) There is a spot check of vehicles at the perimeter (vs. being waved through at LAX - I go to LAX several times a year and have never had or seen a car stopped) 2) Plain clothed security will strike up conversations in the terminal (i.e. not in the normal security line) with people they deem suspicious. 3) All passangers are interviewed, at least for a bit. There is an interview before check-in, and possible questioning at the security check point after checking. Identification and boarding passes are check both at the security checkpoint and at the gate, where additional questioning may (but probably rarely) occur. Perhaps you are correct that most last less than 5 minutes, but that is 5 minutes longer than any interview I've had in the States. People you arouse suspicion are held for more interviews. 4) All baggage is x-rayed/scanned, then put in a pressure chamber to trigger altitude sensitive explosives (they might x-ray/scan some percentage of bags in the US, but they don't have pressure chambers that I'm aware of). 5) Incoming passengers from most Arab countries can be questioned as well. 6) Israeli security racially and ethnically profiles. In the US they don't admit to doing this, and given the reports of grandma's getting strip searched, they probably don't.
To describe the security at B-G as not intense compared to most major American airports is not very accurate.
The Israeli's do a lot of other things too. Their passenger screening process (which includes personal interviews) is much more intense than the TSA's.
Here's the thing about the PA flight. The terrorists were operating in a pre-9/11 world, but the passengers were already in teh post-9/11 world. They knew what had happened on the other flights, while the terrorists were assuming they'd be sheeple. That's not likely to happen again. If there is a similar incident in the future, both the terrorists and the passengers will be more cognizant of the possible outcomes and take steps accordingly.
Just because one group of passengers happened to be able to overpower terrorists with box cutters doesn't mean we should allow box cutters (or larger, more dangerous edged weapons) on planes. That's all I'm saying.
Welll, sure. We didn't allow knives (over a certain length*) on planes before the TSA, with probably about the same effective rate (meaning, the amount of knives that got through pre-2001 was probably about the same as now). You don't need inefficient bureaucracy like the TSA to secure planes.
My point was that just because the TSA is bad, and passengers are more vigilant to threats because of 9-11, doesn't mean we should allow knives on board.
*I agree that nail scissors/files, plastic knives, pens, butter knives, etc. are all OK to have on a plane. What I'm talking about is blades over, say 4-6 inches, that are designed to kill or incapacitate people. Just because Jason Bourne could take out a 747 with a ballpoint pen doesn't mean would should let some Keystone Terrorist like the Underwear Bomber on board with a combat knife.
Well, 4 guys did a pretty handy job with box cutters. 5-10 with better training and real combat knives would stand a pretty good chance against wannabe heroes.
Do you really think we should allow blades on airplanes? Small butter knives for eating? Sure. But a combat knife? Seriously?
Not a fan of the TSA, but not a fan of allowing knives on planes either. Sure, other passengers are more aware of threats and may react more swiftly, and perhaps the pilot will refuse to open the cockpit (assuming those doors really are secure) when someone puts the knife to the throat of a 5 year old. But if 5-10 young, trained men board a plane all armed with combat/fighting knives, I wouldn't bet my life on the other 150 random passengers being able to overpower them in the confines of a 737.
As for the false equivalence of a ferry or train: control of a plane leads to more immediate and higher casualty rates. You can jump off a ferry (or in a lifeboat). Trains usually have emergency brakes. Though i agree, better security on those modes of transport is probably warranted.
I work for a media company in Los Angeles, and just about all of the developers in our Burbank office working on our flagship media management software are Indian. Our facility in Bangalore is where we send the actual media work if we can (transcoding, editing, etc.). But I think most of the software development stays in the States, but is done by Indians (with a few Chinese and other Asians).
Slashdot Mirror
You could make an argument that it would be, but that's somewhat of a straw man, isn't it?
If Sony, MS and Nintendo blacklist a game, that doesn't prevent someone from selling an "open" console (like a PC) that the game maker could then publish to. Barriers to entry aren't *that* high.
You think every bookstore that mails or delivers books has written agreements with every publisher? Amazon was just an example; the logic applies to anyone who mechanically transmits* a work.
*I think the other two child posts are more to the point. 1) Mechanical Transmission doesn't mean physically shipping/giving/lending (see: libraries). 2) Copyright law is more nuanced than the boilerplate on a book's title page.
From your own quote, they position it as a reader 5th after a vehicle to get "Web, movies, apps, games."
They list movies, TV and music before books.
Then they call it a "7-inch tablet", not a "7-inch reader"
That includes not only obvious things like transportation, but also lending—both free/personal loans and commercial rental.
That's a good point.
You reminded me of a story I read yesterday about how RedBox has a workaround plan in place in case the studios add to the blackout periods when they next renegotiate their contracts. RedBox basically said if the studios shut them out for more than the current 30 days (the studios currently give their titles to Blockbuster 30 days sooner than RedBox), then RedBox will just go buy a bunch of discs wholesale and rent them. They will pay more per disc, but they can cherry pick the good titles, instead of being forced to buy the entire catalogue the studio wants to sell them, and end up still being profitable.
Attractive Nuisance.
If you have a honeypot you know the script kiddies will want to play in, you should protect it.
Why should someone be forbidden from hacking their brakes?
Why should a company be forced to make it easy for someone to hack their brakes?
But more to the point, you aren't forbidden from hacking your brakes/tablet. I mean, was a law passed that expressly forbids the hacking of tablets and other hardware you own? Like someone said earlier, this is the company making a decision about their product because of how it affects their bottom line. Amazon isn't selling Fires at a loss so hackers can get a piece of cheap hardware to do whatever they want with it. They are selling it to get people to buy stuff from them.
To put it another way, should Sony, MS or Nintendo be forced to allow other game formats to run on their consoles? No, they use proprietrary formats so that they can extract licensing revenue from game makers. There is no legal or ethical justification to force them to use an open game format. Apple and MS went through this in the PC market (thought there's a lot more going on there). There are open tablets from Asia that you can buy. Go buy one. Don't complain that every single tablet in the world isn't 100% open.
Neither company advertises there reader as anything but a reader designed to run their software.
Slight quibble - I think Amazon positions the Fire as more than just a reader. It's definitely a tablet.
You can't lend others your books (look in the copyright notice at the front if you doubt me)
"No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher."
"transmitted by any means.... mechanical"
How do I get it home from the store? Did Amazon violate the copyright when they shipped it to me?
The problem with the other Child comments is that they don't envision anything other than the current mass transit system. The reason the current mass transit systems doesn't work as a more wide-spread solution is that people are still married to their individual vehicles (for a variety of reasons). It's possible to imagine a mass transit system that address the problems you (other Child commenters) raise, as well as other problems left un-said.
-a user, for example, might be permitted to order the company to destroy a key that allows decryption of backed up data entered by the user.
+1 insightful.
GP deserves his Informatives too, but P makes a very good point as well.
Rather than pick positions (e.g. delete it instantly vs. it will be around forever) and evaluate the relative merits or possibilities, it is perhaps more fruitful to understand the motivations for a user to want FB to delete his data, and for FB to keep redundant backups for long periods of time. Once we understand the motivations behind the positions, we can come to a better negotiated outcome (such as the examples P gives) that satisfy both parties. This is the essence of Principled Negotiation.
(My boss made me read "Getting to Yes.")
I don't believe I bought anything specifically because of any ad, though it's possible that some of the products I bought over the years were somehow influenced by some ad somewhere
I've specifically purchased Carbonite.com and Audible.com services because they were advertised on podcasts I listened to.
Someone should write a graphic novel featuring NoScript Guy and AdBlock Man.
I don't necessarily have a problem with my employer watching what apps I install, or what sites I browse. Afterall, it is their phone. But theoretically they also have complete access to where I am (though I suppose I could turn off location services).
The meat of this entire issue, is that, there is currently no way to get a phone in the US, from a carrier, and opt-out of the data collection process, such that one does not voluntarily leave a trail of everything they do. Being able to opt-out, would require law enforcement to get a judge approved wiretap to collect current and future information, as no log will have existed ( in the being able to opt out scenario ).
I don't have a smart phone. Why? Because my work provides me with one. There is probably no way for me to opt-out of any kind of data collection that the carrier (or my employer) wants to do. In essence, to be employed in any kind of technological, sales, management, or host of other areas, you are essentially required to be tracked at all times.
Did you perform the music? If you're using someone else's performance of a PD piece I would assume they retain ownership of that performance.
We don't disagree, but I think you're wrong on a couple points.
Security at B-G is multi-layered, and places a lot of emphasis on the human factor.
1) There is a spot check of vehicles at the perimeter (vs. being waved through at LAX - I go to LAX several times a year and have never had or seen a car stopped)
2) Plain clothed security will strike up conversations in the terminal (i.e. not in the normal security line) with people they deem suspicious.
3) All passangers are interviewed, at least for a bit. There is an interview before check-in, and possible questioning at the security check point after checking. Identification and boarding passes are check both at the security checkpoint and at the gate, where additional questioning may (but probably rarely) occur. Perhaps you are correct that most last less than 5 minutes, but that is 5 minutes longer than any interview I've had in the States. People you arouse suspicion are held for more interviews.
4) All baggage is x-rayed/scanned, then put in a pressure chamber to trigger altitude sensitive explosives (they might x-ray/scan some percentage of bags in the US, but they don't have pressure chambers that I'm aware of).
5) Incoming passengers from most Arab countries can be questioned as well.
6) Israeli security racially and ethnically profiles. In the US they don't admit to doing this, and given the reports of grandma's getting strip searched, they probably don't.
To describe the security at B-G as not intense compared to most major American airports is not very accurate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/06/psychology_not_just_technology_for_airport_security_99795.html
http://securitysolutions.com/news/security_exposing_hostile_intent/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_International_Airport#Security_procedures
http://www.israelsituation.com/2010/11/security-at-ben-gurion-airport/
The Israeli's do a lot of other things too. Their passenger screening process (which includes personal interviews) is much more intense than the TSA's.
Here's the thing about the PA flight. The terrorists were operating in a pre-9/11 world, but the passengers were already in teh post-9/11 world. They knew what had happened on the other flights, while the terrorists were assuming they'd be sheeple. That's not likely to happen again. If there is a similar incident in the future, both the terrorists and the passengers will be more cognizant of the possible outcomes and take steps accordingly.
Just because one group of passengers happened to be able to overpower terrorists with box cutters doesn't mean we should allow box cutters (or larger, more dangerous edged weapons) on planes. That's all I'm saying.
Welll, sure. We didn't allow knives (over a certain length*) on planes before the TSA, with probably about the same effective rate (meaning, the amount of knives that got through pre-2001 was probably about the same as now). You don't need inefficient bureaucracy like the TSA to secure planes.
My point was that just because the TSA is bad, and passengers are more vigilant to threats because of 9-11, doesn't mean we should allow knives on board.
*I agree that nail scissors/files, plastic knives, pens, butter knives, etc. are all OK to have on a plane. What I'm talking about is blades over, say 4-6 inches, that are designed to kill or incapacitate people. Just because Jason Bourne could take out a 747 with a ballpoint pen doesn't mean would should let some Keystone Terrorist like the Underwear Bomber on board with a combat knife.
You do realize that the essence of a meme is that it propagates, and is not relegated to a single site/population (even if it should be), right?
Well, 4 guys did a pretty handy job with box cutters. 5-10 with better training and real combat knives would stand a pretty good chance against wannabe heroes.
Do you really think we should allow blades on airplanes? Small butter knives for eating? Sure. But a combat knife? Seriously?
Not a fan of the TSA, but not a fan of allowing knives on planes either. Sure, other passengers are more aware of threats and may react more swiftly, and perhaps the pilot will refuse to open the cockpit (assuming those doors really are secure) when someone puts the knife to the throat of a 5 year old. But if 5-10 young, trained men board a plane all armed with combat/fighting knives, I wouldn't bet my life on the other 150 random passengers being able to overpower them in the confines of a 737.
As for the false equivalence of a ferry or train: control of a plane leads to more immediate and higher casualty rates. You can jump off a ferry (or in a lifeboat). Trains usually have emergency brakes. Though i agree, better security on those modes of transport is probably warranted.
What exactly could a 'terrorist' do if they managed to smuggle a hunting (or x-acto) knife on board?
Can't tell if troll.
Only one order of magnitude? It's about 3 for me.
I work for a media company in Los Angeles, and just about all of the developers in our Burbank office working on our flagship media management software are Indian. Our facility in Bangalore is where we send the actual media work if we can (transcoding, editing, etc.). But I think most of the software development stays in the States, but is done by Indians (with a few Chinese and other Asians).