Anybody who thought that North Korea's draconian rules applied to those at the top (especially to the one at the very pinnacle) does not understand how totalitarian systems work, or what their purpose is.
Oh they will. Governments of formerly free countries are working feverishly to ensure a totalitarian system will be thrust upon us all very soon.
Don't worry. It is 1) for the children, or 2) to keep you safe from terrorists.
I think the more interesting legal theory would be that since UMG and Google are collectively not following the safe harbor structure of the DMCA, they become liable for not proactively removing content WITHOUT a DMCA takedown notice.
In theory there is no difference between reality; in reality there is.
Your legal theory is entertaining, but nonsense.
The DCMA says you must take down content if a copyright holder notifies you their copyright is being violated. The DCMA does not say you cannot remove content because it is Friday and you feel like it. The DCMA does not say you have to validate a take down notice before acting on it.
If filing a suit is your end goal, then your plan will succeed. If winning a suit is your end goal, you need to demonstrate a basis for suffering damage.
Don't give me your "Google owns the site" crap, they have a public website that can be used by anyone
You don't seem to understand. Google does indeed own the site. By your logic, retail establishments do not have the right to shut their doors or refuse service to anyone. Opening one's doors to the public does not make their private property somehow become public property. Or, in other words, your position is nonsense.
You wouldn't sit by idly while someone was bullied off a street because SOME people didn't want them there for no real reason, would you? Even if their friends lived there and said person actually had a reason to be in the street?
Again, you do not understand the concept of public versus private. Google owns the website. It is in no way comparable to a public sidewalk.
Do you realize just how easy that would make it for anyone with a grudge or conflicting viewpoint to engineer the shutdown of an entire agency?
To bastardize a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too few government agencies than to those attending too many
But what is the alternative? Stop developing communications or information technology?
How about limiting government and punishing those responsible?
Abuse of power is far too often not punished. If a government agency is caught abusing its power, it should be completely shut down (e.g. DOJ - search for fast and furious, as it relates to gunwalking) and for a government employee caught doing so, especially when trying to cover it up, it should be a capital offense (search for Eric Holder as it relates to the previous example).
Granted my plan has absolutely no chance of being implemented (you can't expect someone to press for a law that may eventually send them to prison), but I can still hope.
I believe the tradeoff is worth it because ubiquitous technology in the hands of citizens can be more powerful than in the hands of government.
Your statement is great in theory. By using ubiquitous they way you did, you seem to assume the government and citizens will be on an equal playing field. That is almost assuredly not the case, and the deck will be stacked in the government's favor.
The ubiquity of the technology may contribute to the ease of surveillance, but authoritarian governments were already doing bad things.
Your statement is undeniable. The problem here is that the more power and ability the government has, the more it is likely to be used against you. Or more simply, governments you may not consider authoritarian today are likely to be authoritarian tomorrow.
Lawsuit. Google as well. In fact, if I was Megaload, I'd be suing both of them.
Sue on what grounds? They took an action that is within their TOS that you agreed to. What is your basis for harm? Would a judgement refunding your full subscription price of a full service make you happy?
There is plenty to dislike about this story, but responses to stupid actions do not need to include even stupider actions.
if I encounter a problem, my mind shifts entirely to the problem
Congratulations! You are in the minority (at least based on my empirical observations). In my daily commute I regularly encounter drivers that are obviously giving priority to the conversation.
Just another regulation that will be arbitrarily enforced...
That is only part of the reason it will not work. The other side is that the penalty is worth the tradeoff. Most people will keep texting and driving when faced with a $100 penalty if they are caught.
Change the game.
1) Make distracted driving a civil claim. You are texting and hit me, I can sue you for whatever my attorney thinks he can get. Now instead of a small cash fine, you are on the hook for the judgement. Plus your insurer is likely to adjust your rate, if they don't drop you.
2) Make distracted driving an adder for injury and fatal accidents. If you were texting when you caused a fatal accident, you are automatically charged with voluntary manslaughter.
Put it right next to the Fraternal Order of Police sticker?
Apparently you are unaware that thieves are doing smash and grabs on police cars specifically to steal guns, uniforms, body armor, and radios.
Suppose a robber decides to take you up on your implied offer of violence? He has seen your stickers and decided he is ready for a lethal force encounter. Are you prepared to take him on?
Why would you have to leave your gun in the car when going into a bank?
There are a patchwork of laws across the country, some at a state level, some at a city/county level. Just because it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean it isn't codified into law somewhere.
Does this regulation on a CCW permit really somehow protect banks from armed robberies carried out with stolen or unregistered firearms?
No. You will save yourself a lot of frustration if you quit trying to apply logic and reason to what is written into law. Doubly-so when the subject has anything to do with firearms and laws that are enacted against the law abiding in hopes of containing those intent on breaking the law either way.
A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.
To debut the new sponsored Ask Slashdot, let's post a topic that has been hashed and rehashed before. The answer to the posted question is obviously no, so let's see how many people we can get to debate just how unsafe could data is.
I can't wait to see what they think up next. Will it be something from last week, or from the week before. Maybe the next sponsored Ask Slashdot will skip the build up and link to goatse directly.
The only way to make the new sponsored Ask Slashdot even remotely interesting is to reserve the first post for Dr. Bob.
TrueCrypt does not make invisible containers. It makes encrypted containers.
There is an exception for the container hidden in an container, but that only offers plausible deniability as the existence of the larger container is obvious.
Their rich mommies and daddies. Greenpeace "activists" tend to be spoiled little rich kids who have no qualms about taking the benefits of an industrial society while still condemning how "evil" it is.... perhaps so they don't feel as bad about living off of mommy and daddy.
In that case they should have called it "Occupy Power Plant".
Even worse is that the remaining items reflect aesthetic choices on the part of Apple (no adornment, for example). Such choices should indeed be protected, but they are not inventions which deserve patent protection. Instead they are identifying marks which should be protected under trademark law.
No. Such features can be claimed under a design patent.
Communication takes two parties. The failure may be that we are not capable of receiving or deciphering what they are sending.
Or, if their civilization is sufficiently advanced they already know we are stupid and boring. When is the last time you sat down and introduced yourself to a rat?
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody who thought that North Korea's draconian rules applied to those at the top (especially to the one at the very pinnacle) does not understand how totalitarian systems work, or what their purpose is.
Oh they will. Governments of formerly free countries are working feverishly to ensure a totalitarian system will be thrust upon us all very soon.
Don't worry. It is 1) for the children, or 2) to keep you safe from terrorists.
And all the sheep slept well.
I think the more interesting legal theory would be that since UMG and Google are collectively not following the safe harbor structure of the DMCA, they become liable for not proactively removing content WITHOUT a DMCA takedown notice.
In theory there is no difference between reality; in reality there is.
Your legal theory is entertaining, but nonsense.
The DCMA says you must take down content if a copyright holder notifies you their copyright is being violated. The DCMA does not say you cannot remove content because it is Friday and you feel like it. The DCMA does not say you have to validate a take down notice before acting on it.
Unfortunately this type of ignorance is not limited to legislation targeting technology. You will find it in just about everything Congress touches.
YOU CAN SUE AS MUCH AS YOU WANT TO
If filing a suit is your end goal, then your plan will succeed. If winning a suit is your end goal, you need to demonstrate a basis for suffering damage.
Don't give me your "Google owns the site" crap, they have a public website that can be used by anyone
You don't seem to understand. Google does indeed own the site. By your logic, retail establishments do not have the right to shut their doors or refuse service to anyone. Opening one's doors to the public does not make their private property somehow become public property. Or, in other words, your position is nonsense.
You wouldn't sit by idly while someone was bullied off a street because SOME people didn't want them there for no real reason, would you? Even if their friends lived there and said person actually had a reason to be in the street?
Again, you do not understand the concept of public versus private. Google owns the website. It is in no way comparable to a public sidewalk.
Do you realize just how easy that would make it for anyone with a grudge or conflicting viewpoint to engineer the shutdown of an entire agency?
To bastardize a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too few government agencies than to those attending too many
But what is the alternative? Stop developing communications or information technology?
How about limiting government and punishing those responsible?
Abuse of power is far too often not punished. If a government agency is caught abusing its power, it should be completely shut down (e.g. DOJ - search for fast and furious, as it relates to gunwalking) and for a government employee caught doing so, especially when trying to cover it up, it should be a capital offense (search for Eric Holder as it relates to the previous example).
Granted my plan has absolutely no chance of being implemented (you can't expect someone to press for a law that may eventually send them to prison), but I can still hope.
Would a judgement refunding your full subscription price of a free service make you happy?
There. Fixed that for me.
I believe the tradeoff is worth it because ubiquitous technology in the hands of citizens can be more powerful than in the hands of government.
Your statement is great in theory. By using ubiquitous they way you did, you seem to assume the government and citizens will be on an equal playing field. That is almost assuredly not the case, and the deck will be stacked in the government's favor.
The ubiquity of the technology may contribute to the ease of surveillance, but authoritarian governments were already doing bad things.
Your statement is undeniable. The problem here is that the more power and ability the government has, the more it is likely to be used against you. Or more simply, governments you may not consider authoritarian today are likely to be authoritarian tomorrow.
Lawsuit. Google as well. In fact, if I was Megaload, I'd be suing both of them.
Sue on what grounds? They took an action that is within their TOS that you agreed to. What is your basis for harm? Would a judgement refunding your full subscription price of a full service make you happy?
There is plenty to dislike about this story, but responses to stupid actions do not need to include even stupider actions.
if I encounter a problem, my mind shifts entirely to the problem
Congratulations! You are in the minority (at least based on my empirical observations). In my daily commute I regularly encounter drivers that are obviously giving priority to the conversation.
Just another regulation that will be arbitrarily enforced...
That is only part of the reason it will not work. The other side is that the penalty is worth the tradeoff. Most people will keep texting and driving when faced with a $100 penalty if they are caught.
Change the game.
1) Make distracted driving a civil claim. You are texting and hit me, I can sue you for whatever my attorney thinks he can get. Now instead of a small cash fine, you are on the hook for the judgement. Plus your insurer is likely to adjust your rate, if they don't drop you.
2) Make distracted driving an adder for injury and fatal accidents. If you were texting when you caused a fatal accident, you are automatically charged with voluntary manslaughter.
Put it right next to the Fraternal Order of Police sticker?
Apparently you are unaware that thieves are doing smash and grabs on police cars specifically to steal guns, uniforms, body armor, and radios.
Suppose a robber decides to take you up on your implied offer of violence? He has seen your stickers and decided he is ready for a lethal force encounter. Are you prepared to take him on?
Why would you have to leave your gun in the car when going into a bank?
There are a patchwork of laws across the country, some at a state level, some at a city/county level. Just because it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean it isn't codified into law somewhere.
Does this regulation on a CCW permit really somehow protect banks from armed robberies carried out with stolen or unregistered firearms?
No. You will save yourself a lot of frustration if you quit trying to apply logic and reason to what is written into law. Doubly-so when the subject has anything to do with firearms and laws that are enacted against the law abiding in hopes of containing those intent on breaking the law either way.
A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.
I thought this was going to be an article about the current election cycle.
That's fine. If they enjoy looking at the sticky side of black tape that much, I will happily send them a framed print.
Yeah, but while you are updating your Facebook status and reading Slashdot on your personal PC there is no activity on your work PC.
To debut the new sponsored Ask Slashdot, let's post a topic that has been hashed and rehashed before. The answer to the posted question is obviously no, so let's see how many people we can get to debate just how unsafe could data is.
I can't wait to see what they think up next. Will it be something from last week, or from the week before. Maybe the next sponsored Ask Slashdot will skip the build up and link to goatse directly.
The only way to make the new sponsored Ask Slashdot even remotely interesting is to reserve the first post for Dr. Bob.
TrueCrypt does not make invisible containers. It makes encrypted containers.
There is an exception for the container hidden in an container, but that only offers plausible deniability as the existence of the larger container is obvious.
Researchers will be able to look at the Twitter archive as a complete set of data, which they could then data-mine for interesting information.
Nothing interesting was found.
They say the most Harley owners 'detune' their new bikes just to get the right sound out of the muffler.
Listening to "they" is often hazardous to one's intelligence.
With the way that things might be going, I wonder if some won't miss their cars making engine sounds, not to mention blind people.
For some, possibly. For most, unlikely as long as the entertainment system is working.
Their rich mommies and daddies. Greenpeace "activists" tend to be spoiled little rich kids who have no qualms about taking the benefits of an industrial society while still condemning how "evil" it is.... perhaps so they don't feel as bad about living off of mommy and daddy.
In that case they should have called it "Occupy Power Plant".
Even worse is that the remaining items reflect aesthetic choices on the part of Apple (no adornment, for example). Such choices should indeed be protected, but they are not inventions which deserve patent protection. Instead they are identifying marks which should be protected under trademark law.
No. Such features can be claimed under a design patent.
Touche.
Another reason intelligent extraterrestrial life would want to avoid out planet.
Communication takes two parties. The failure may be that we are not capable of receiving or deciphering what they are sending.
Or, if their civilization is sufficiently advanced they already know we are stupid and boring. When is the last time you sat down and introduced yourself to a rat?