Probably because the first has been slapped around so much in recent times that it has barely a wisp of its intent left in tact.
Now if MS could somehow wrap this around the second amendment, it would be a surefire case. Because apparently we don't care about speech or privacy or many other rights, but damned if we'll let them take away our ability to put holes in things!
This is so absurdly wrong its almost funny. That carbon you're talking about is already "sequestered" in the trees you're cutting down -- its not in the atmosphere!
And the tree you just cut down is now no longer pulling any more carbon out of the atmosphere.
Never mind things like the equipment needed to cut down, transport, mash and reconsistute the wood into paper all requires fuel, the majority of which is going to be carbon-based, so there's a big subtraction from your equation (that may even go negative I don't have numbers.)
You also assume that the paper we use comes from replanted trees. Which is certainly getting more common but I wouldn't want to bank on it being universally true to any extent.
Its like saying you should evaporate your town's water supply in order to increase the rainfall for the year. Yes, it may well do that but chances are it won't be anywhere close to sufficient to replenish the waste, and what you're left with is in a far less convenient form to boot. Much better to just manage the resource properly in the first place.
Probably almost as hard as responding to it once. They would have to re-do the search in case there are new documents available, and probably review previously-released documents as well in case the redacting needed to be changed (which theoretically should only go in one directly -- removing redacts -- but I seem to recall them being occasionally caught releasing later copies of documents that were more strongly redacted than previous copies, though its hard to necessarily claim its done maliciously when it could simply be two separate people doing the redacting and having differing opinions on what should be hidden.)
In the same sense that a door lock doesn't ACTUALLY mean much. A dedicated criminal will still manage to find a way into your home, but it goes a long way to preventing crimes of convenience.
Sure your signature probably won't stand up against a professional forger, but for the vast majority of cases it really doesn't have to. In the worst case scenario, if you fall victim to a forgery (or if you're trying to get out of a deal by claiming the signature isn't yours) then there's always the court room available to sort the situation out.
Well I'm necroing a half-week-old conversation, but on the off chance that someone bothers reading it anyway, I would like to posit that this is all absolutely irrelevant:
1) As far as I know, a work entering the public domain has no direct requirement for your specific copy to be suddenly unlocked. I'm pretty sure it doesn't even require the works' owner to release it at all. Only that they can't sue you for infringement if you do manage to copy it. That's probably an unpopular viewpoint around here, but I'm reasonably sure that its a correct one.
2) Even if we decide to force companies to release and/or unlock their works, we still have the issue that copyright is currently nearly a century long and they're still pushing to extend terms further. It doesn't really matter what happens when software enters the public domain if no software is ever given the opportunity to do so.
3) And finally, with software specifically, there's the question of what exactly constitutes "the work": The binaries or the source? Specifically, if we decide that the source constitutes the work (and assuming we're discussing closed-source software obviously,) then the entire question is once again moot since its never released publicly and thus will never have the opportunity to enter the public domain.
As for your last phrase: DRM schemes and walled garden store fronts are most definitely not the same thing. Steam doesn't do anything toward ending general-purpose computing. Nor does DVD or Bluray DRM. And conversely, there's nothing in the concept of a walled garden store that requires you to lock your program behind DRM (whether any particular store front does or not is another question.)
Certainly the producers of media, including software, are doing their damnedest to try and claw back control using both technologies, but beyond the coincidence of them both existing and being used for similar goals at the same point in history there's little connecting the two from a technology standpoint. In other words, its the culture rather than the code that's the problem here.
True, but there's a wide gap between accepting that kind of behavior and encouraging it. Our modern corporate culture tends to lean strongly toward the latter.
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a sarcastic point but if so, its not coming through too clearly (pun not intended..)
"Transparency" in these contexts typically means that the FBI (or other government organization) be transparent -- the idea being that public is paying for these documents via taxes, so they should be available to the public.
We've tossed on some restrictions for the sake of security (classified, secret, etc documents) that most people generally acknowledge as necessary in order for these organizations to effectively do their jobs, but anything that isn't explicitly classified should be available, and even classified documents should be available after appropriate redacting providing that their release doesn't directly impact the safety of a person or the nation as a whole.
"Transparency" generally isn't thought of in the other direction because its not "me" or "you" or "John Smith" requesting these documents (in principle at least,) its "the public."
Depends on your definition of expensive. They have to pay someone to dig up the files (though that shouldn't be TOO costly assuming they keep their files on a network with a reasonable search functionality, which is a fairly reasonable assumption given that they'd want to be able to find shit themselves internally.)
But then they have to pay someone (who has sufficient security clearance, so not some minimum wage tween) to go over the documents word for word and decide what needs to be redacted. And then probably pass that on to one or two other people who also have sufficient clearance to double-check before release.
Add it all up and its probably between a couple hundred to a couple thousand dollars worth of wages, per request, depending on the size of each request. That might be small change compared to the FBI's total budget but it adds up pretty quick when they're having to deal with thousands of such requests each year.
None of that is relevant to the fax vs email debate of course -- those hours need to be spent regardless of how the request arrives -- but its definitely more costly and involved than just typing into a search engine and blindly mailing off the results.
Yes, but you can define the shareholder contract as "maximize profit while not being a dick," rather than our current context of "maximize profits at all costs and to hell with morality, conscience or even legality if we think we can get away with it."
Its not just a corporate policy problem though. Its a societal problem across the board. We, as a people, from the top of business and government all the way down to many individuals, treat money as the most important thing in the world, above lives and the planet and everything else.
I'd like to say it wasn't always this way, but all evidence suggests that it was. The rich and powerful have always been dicks to the masses, and we just keep on taking it as long as they dangle a few scraps here and there to temporarily satiate us.
This is barely an article. "I suggest that this is bad. I offer no evidence, not even an anecdote. I trust you'll agree."
Sure in some theoretically pristine world, "optimizing" for funding rounds is dumb but its the reality of things. Its not like any company really wants to have "beg for more money" on their milestone chart but few investors will write you a blank check on day one when you have little more than a vaguely-worded business plan so unless you're amazingly lucky or grossly over-estimate your initial needs and still manage to talk someone into giving you that amount of money, chances are you don't have a choice.
And guess what.. that's perfectly fine. If a business can operate and succeed in that environment then power to them. If they can't then they go away and make room for the next entrepreneur. Yes there may be the odd business that crumbles specifically because of this model, but there are countless businesses that wouldn't be able to get funding, and thus wouldn't exist at all, without it.
But not an entirely unjustified one. Remember this comic from a few years ago?
That said, there's another issue involved: Media is too expensive for the amount people want to consume. If you watch one movie each Saturday, and assuming a $40 price tag per movie because you like to watch relatively new releases, you're talking about $160 per month or $2080 per year. Most people watch a hell of a lot more than one movie a week.
Netflix is great for this -- you pay one flat monthly fee and you can get as much content as you can handle. Perfect! They were on their way to becoming the iTunes for video.
Except somewhere along the way, competition got in the mix. Now I'm all for competition usually, but of course this isn't real competition like you get selling apples -- this is exclusive competition.
So if you want to watch Orange is the New Black you have to have a Netflix account because nobody else offers that show, and if you want to watch Game of Thrones you need an HBO account because nobody else offers that show, and if you want to watch something else you need a third and a fourth and a 10th account, each one of which is costing you $10-20/mo and suddenly we're back to the multiple thousands of dollars per year and people can't afford it again.
So there's lots of situations where people might buy the media you're offering if you provide them with a reasonably-priced and convenient legitimate alternative, but they'll still be trying to pirate the one after that because their budget doesn't stretch nearly as far as their appetite. Unfortunately the movie industry likes to play the all-or-nothing game rather than just trying to get as much as you can afford to pay them and calling it good enough.
Oh and no, "go outside and play with your wheel and stick" isn't really a suitable alternative in this day and age. "Going out" usually ends up involving food or drinks or shopping or a theater movie or something else that costs even more -- people stay in and watch Netflix because its already the cheaper form of entertainment!
Frankly I don't even care if its DRM-free as long as the DRM is right the piss out of the way. I have no problem with Steam. I mean sure if they close up shop tomorrow I'll be a bit annoyed but that's got far less of a chance of happening than me scratching a CD or forgetting where I put my copy of an installer package.
I mean given the option, DRM-free is certainly preferable. But I'm not opposed to it as long as its not preventing legitimate usage (I mean someone somewhere will always have a problem with any software, but as long as the frequency DRM-related issues is on relatively the same scale as any other bug in the game, its not really that big of a deal.)
Movies are a different beast, primarily because they're still served on physical disks for the most part. The DRM on the disks isn't that much of an issue (its pretty transparent) but all the hassle of having to go to a store (or wait for a delivery,) then sit through 3 minutes of unskippable FBI, DHS and Interpol warnings, then another 10 minutes of (sometimes also unskippable) ads for things you'll have forgotten about by the time they're released, then another minute of menu animations before you can finally hit the bloody play button is just so incredibly frustrating that I often end up going online anyway even when I'm watching things I've already purchased and have sitting on the shelf right beside me.
I just had a thought for what might be smarter -- put up an actual legitimate page with actual legitimate places you can purchase the content. I don't really see the point of the honeypot links at the bottom?
If someone's willing to pay for a legitimate source that they just didn't know about anyway, then the honeypot link isn't helpful. Of course a legitimate source would need to be at least streamable (if not downloadable.. ie: not send you off to a physical store or wait for shipping or whatever) and reasonably priced -- two things that are somewhat unlikely the way the movie industry does things currently, but its at least a theoretically plausible scenario if they ever start trying to appease their customers instead of fighting every step of the way.
And if someone's just looking for a torrent they've already closed the page at the first sign of it being a link farm (legitimate links or otherwise) long before they get to the bottom.
If you want it on day 1 you'll shell out the high price
Most people want it on day 1. What's the point of buying a movie for $5 3 years after all of your friends have stopped talking about it? Sure its cheap but you lose a lot of the social aspect of consuming media, which is more important than the media itself to a lot of people.
Not that watching old movies or playing old games is a bad thing, and people do lots of that (both legitimately and otherwise) but that's not really what anyone's worried about in piracy discussions -- other than a few of the biggest names, most media has lost 99% of its value after the first few months give or take, so nobody really cares all that much about those beyond padding a "see how many things got pirated!" chart.
Who needs loyalty when they have 100+ years of government-endorsed monopoly on their works?
Sure if you're looking for "any movie" there's lots of competition, but most people are looking for specific movies and the monopoly prevents you from (legitimately) getting it from a competing provider.
You make it sound like this is new and/or surprising. As long as corporate greed is given priority over personal liberties, you can expect this to not only continue but get worse as companies and marketing departments continue to see how far they can push before we snap.
And then push a little further since we don't really have a choice even after we snap -- not using the internet isn't really an option anymore for a significant majority of the population.
As for throwaway email services.. You can always just register for a real email service (with fake credentials obviously) and simply never check it again. I used to have one or two dummy addresses that I used purely to (avoid) signing up for shitty services that insist I should care about their crap offers (and their partners' crap offers and whatnot.)
I've gotten lazier in my old age though.. there's very few sites that don't just get the red X treatment if they try to pull that shit on me nowadays. Sometimes if they do the hover-overs I'll spend a couple minutes attempting to delete nodes and see if I can uncover the actual information but I rarely spend a whole lot of time on it. Their crap just isn't that important for a very very wide selection of "they."
Do those tabs consistently use more than 1% CPU each? Cause if they don't, the throttling will likely have little or no effect on them.
This is to stop stupid things like ad carousels that rotate every 5 seconds whether you're looking at them or not. Or just flat out poorly-programmed JS that sucks up all available CPU just because the developer couldn't be bothered with something more complex than busy loops and other dumb stuff like that.
There will probably be the odd legitimate app that gets negatively affected, but most even-vaguely-well-written legitimate apps (web or not) don't sit there sucking up huge amounts of CPU time unless you're actively working with them. A basic autosave cycle every 5 or 10 minutes is very unlikely to trigger the throttling.
Presumably, the throttling would a) not apply until the page is actually loaded and b) have enough initial budget that the vast majority of pages wouldn't notice for at least several seconds after the initial load is complete.
I mean if you've got a webpage that manages to full bore your CPU for 10+ seconds as soon as it loads.. the page designer probably should be doing something different, throttled or not.
If you're using Chrome, check out an addon call The Great Suspender (maybe it exists in FF too, I haven't checked.) Its been a lifesaver for a tab hoarder like me.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because the first has been slapped around so much in recent times that it has barely a wisp of its intent left in tact.
Now if MS could somehow wrap this around the second amendment, it would be a surefire case. Because apparently we don't care about speech or privacy or many other rights, but damned if we'll let them take away our ability to put holes in things!
No.
Phew. Good thing https://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/apple-scrambles-after-40-malicious-xcodeghost-apps-haunt-app-store/ never happened. Or http://www.cultofmac.com/241463/researchers-sneak-malicious-ios-app-into-the-app-store-undetected/ that. Or even http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-china-malware-idUSKCN0RK0ZB20150921 that (which is a precursor to the first link I posted, so they obviously aren't even very good at fixing the problems when they show up!)
But hey we live in a world of alternative facts, so believe whatever you want I guess. Truth is irrelevant in our brave new world.
Hilary was predictable. I'm not so sure about safe.
Trump's election was because he was unpredictable. When the predictable option is bad, the unpredictable one is at least a ray of hope.
Of course he's now doing everything he can to smash that hope, but it was there long enough to get him into office.
You obviously don't have all of the alternative facts.
This is so absurdly wrong its almost funny. That carbon you're talking about is already "sequestered" in the trees you're cutting down -- its not in the atmosphere!
And the tree you just cut down is now no longer pulling any more carbon out of the atmosphere.
Never mind things like the equipment needed to cut down, transport, mash and reconsistute the wood into paper all requires fuel, the majority of which is going to be carbon-based, so there's a big subtraction from your equation (that may even go negative I don't have numbers.)
You also assume that the paper we use comes from replanted trees. Which is certainly getting more common but I wouldn't want to bank on it being universally true to any extent.
Its like saying you should evaporate your town's water supply in order to increase the rainfall for the year. Yes, it may well do that but chances are it won't be anywhere close to sufficient to replenish the waste, and what you're left with is in a far less convenient form to boot. Much better to just manage the resource properly in the first place.
Probably almost as hard as responding to it once. They would have to re-do the search in case there are new documents available, and probably review previously-released documents as well in case the redacting needed to be changed (which theoretically should only go in one directly -- removing redacts -- but I seem to recall them being occasionally caught releasing later copies of documents that were more strongly redacted than previous copies, though its hard to necessarily claim its done maliciously when it could simply be two separate people doing the redacting and having differing opinions on what should be hidden.)
In the same sense that a door lock doesn't ACTUALLY mean much. A dedicated criminal will still manage to find a way into your home, but it goes a long way to preventing crimes of convenience.
Sure your signature probably won't stand up against a professional forger, but for the vast majority of cases it really doesn't have to. In the worst case scenario, if you fall victim to a forgery (or if you're trying to get out of a deal by claiming the signature isn't yours) then there's always the court room available to sort the situation out.
Well I'm necroing a half-week-old conversation, but on the off chance that someone bothers reading it anyway, I would like to posit that this is all absolutely irrelevant:
1) As far as I know, a work entering the public domain has no direct requirement for your specific copy to be suddenly unlocked. I'm pretty sure it doesn't even require the works' owner to release it at all. Only that they can't sue you for infringement if you do manage to copy it. That's probably an unpopular viewpoint around here, but I'm reasonably sure that its a correct one.
2) Even if we decide to force companies to release and/or unlock their works, we still have the issue that copyright is currently nearly a century long and they're still pushing to extend terms further. It doesn't really matter what happens when software enters the public domain if no software is ever given the opportunity to do so.
3) And finally, with software specifically, there's the question of what exactly constitutes "the work": The binaries or the source? Specifically, if we decide that the source constitutes the work (and assuming we're discussing closed-source software obviously,) then the entire question is once again moot since its never released publicly and thus will never have the opportunity to enter the public domain.
As for your last phrase: DRM schemes and walled garden store fronts are most definitely not the same thing. Steam doesn't do anything toward ending general-purpose computing. Nor does DVD or Bluray DRM. And conversely, there's nothing in the concept of a walled garden store that requires you to lock your program behind DRM (whether any particular store front does or not is another question.)
Certainly the producers of media, including software, are doing their damnedest to try and claw back control using both technologies, but beyond the coincidence of them both existing and being used for similar goals at the same point in history there's little connecting the two from a technology standpoint. In other words, its the culture rather than the code that's the problem here.
True, but there's a wide gap between accepting that kind of behavior and encouraging it. Our modern corporate culture tends to lean strongly toward the latter.
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a sarcastic point but if so, its not coming through too clearly (pun not intended..)
"Transparency" in these contexts typically means that the FBI (or other government organization) be transparent -- the idea being that public is paying for these documents via taxes, so they should be available to the public.
We've tossed on some restrictions for the sake of security (classified, secret, etc documents) that most people generally acknowledge as necessary in order for these organizations to effectively do their jobs, but anything that isn't explicitly classified should be available, and even classified documents should be available after appropriate redacting providing that their release doesn't directly impact the safety of a person or the nation as a whole.
"Transparency" generally isn't thought of in the other direction because its not "me" or "you" or "John Smith" requesting these documents (in principle at least,) its "the public."
Its called "Alternative Facts" these days. Get with the times!
Depends on your definition of expensive. They have to pay someone to dig up the files (though that shouldn't be TOO costly assuming they keep their files on a network with a reasonable search functionality, which is a fairly reasonable assumption given that they'd want to be able to find shit themselves internally.)
But then they have to pay someone (who has sufficient security clearance, so not some minimum wage tween) to go over the documents word for word and decide what needs to be redacted. And then probably pass that on to one or two other people who also have sufficient clearance to double-check before release.
Add it all up and its probably between a couple hundred to a couple thousand dollars worth of wages, per request, depending on the size of each request. That might be small change compared to the FBI's total budget but it adds up pretty quick when they're having to deal with thousands of such requests each year.
None of that is relevant to the fax vs email debate of course -- those hours need to be spent regardless of how the request arrives -- but its definitely more costly and involved than just typing into a search engine and blindly mailing off the results.
Yes, but you can define the shareholder contract as "maximize profit while not being a dick," rather than our current context of "maximize profits at all costs and to hell with morality, conscience or even legality if we think we can get away with it."
Its not just a corporate policy problem though. Its a societal problem across the board. We, as a people, from the top of business and government all the way down to many individuals, treat money as the most important thing in the world, above lives and the planet and everything else.
I'd like to say it wasn't always this way, but all evidence suggests that it was. The rich and powerful have always been dicks to the masses, and we just keep on taking it as long as they dangle a few scraps here and there to temporarily satiate us.
This is barely an article. "I suggest that this is bad. I offer no evidence, not even an anecdote. I trust you'll agree."
Sure in some theoretically pristine world, "optimizing" for funding rounds is dumb but its the reality of things. Its not like any company really wants to have "beg for more money" on their milestone chart but few investors will write you a blank check on day one when you have little more than a vaguely-worded business plan so unless you're amazingly lucky or grossly over-estimate your initial needs and still manage to talk someone into giving you that amount of money, chances are you don't have a choice.
And guess what.. that's perfectly fine. If a business can operate and succeed in that environment then power to them. If they can't then they go away and make room for the next entrepreneur. Yes there may be the odd business that crumbles specifically because of this model, but there are countless businesses that wouldn't be able to get funding, and thus wouldn't exist at all, without it.
But not an entirely unjustified one. Remember this comic from a few years ago?
That said, there's another issue involved: Media is too expensive for the amount people want to consume. If you watch one movie each Saturday, and assuming a $40 price tag per movie because you like to watch relatively new releases, you're talking about $160 per month or $2080 per year. Most people watch a hell of a lot more than one movie a week.
Netflix is great for this -- you pay one flat monthly fee and you can get as much content as you can handle. Perfect! They were on their way to becoming the iTunes for video.
Except somewhere along the way, competition got in the mix. Now I'm all for competition usually, but of course this isn't real competition like you get selling apples -- this is exclusive competition.
So if you want to watch Orange is the New Black you have to have a Netflix account because nobody else offers that show, and if you want to watch Game of Thrones you need an HBO account because nobody else offers that show, and if you want to watch something else you need a third and a fourth and a 10th account, each one of which is costing you $10-20/mo and suddenly we're back to the multiple thousands of dollars per year and people can't afford it again.
So there's lots of situations where people might buy the media you're offering if you provide them with a reasonably-priced and convenient legitimate alternative, but they'll still be trying to pirate the one after that because their budget doesn't stretch nearly as far as their appetite. Unfortunately the movie industry likes to play the all-or-nothing game rather than just trying to get as much as you can afford to pay them and calling it good enough.
Oh and no, "go outside and play with your wheel and stick" isn't really a suitable alternative in this day and age. "Going out" usually ends up involving food or drinks or shopping or a theater movie or something else that costs even more -- people stay in and watch Netflix because its already the cheaper form of entertainment!
Frankly I don't even care if its DRM-free as long as the DRM is right the piss out of the way. I have no problem with Steam. I mean sure if they close up shop tomorrow I'll be a bit annoyed but that's got far less of a chance of happening than me scratching a CD or forgetting where I put my copy of an installer package.
I mean given the option, DRM-free is certainly preferable. But I'm not opposed to it as long as its not preventing legitimate usage (I mean someone somewhere will always have a problem with any software, but as long as the frequency DRM-related issues is on relatively the same scale as any other bug in the game, its not really that big of a deal.)
Movies are a different beast, primarily because they're still served on physical disks for the most part. The DRM on the disks isn't that much of an issue (its pretty transparent) but all the hassle of having to go to a store (or wait for a delivery,) then sit through 3 minutes of unskippable FBI, DHS and Interpol warnings, then another 10 minutes of (sometimes also unskippable) ads for things you'll have forgotten about by the time they're released, then another minute of menu animations before you can finally hit the bloody play button is just so incredibly frustrating that I often end up going online anyway even when I'm watching things I've already purchased and have sitting on the shelf right beside me.
Wow. There's still people trotting out the terminology non-argument in 2017? I'm impressed!
Language changes. Words obtain new meanings. Deal with it.
I just had a thought for what might be smarter -- put up an actual legitimate page with actual legitimate places you can purchase the content. I don't really see the point of the honeypot links at the bottom?
If someone's willing to pay for a legitimate source that they just didn't know about anyway, then the honeypot link isn't helpful. Of course a legitimate source would need to be at least streamable (if not downloadable.. ie: not send you off to a physical store or wait for shipping or whatever) and reasonably priced -- two things that are somewhat unlikely the way the movie industry does things currently, but its at least a theoretically plausible scenario if they ever start trying to appease their customers instead of fighting every step of the way.
And if someone's just looking for a torrent they've already closed the page at the first sign of it being a link farm (legitimate links or otherwise) long before they get to the bottom.
If you want it on day 1 you'll shell out the high price
Most people want it on day 1. What's the point of buying a movie for $5 3 years after all of your friends have stopped talking about it? Sure its cheap but you lose a lot of the social aspect of consuming media, which is more important than the media itself to a lot of people.
Not that watching old movies or playing old games is a bad thing, and people do lots of that (both legitimately and otherwise) but that's not really what anyone's worried about in piracy discussions -- other than a few of the biggest names, most media has lost 99% of its value after the first few months give or take, so nobody really cares all that much about those beyond padding a "see how many things got pirated!" chart.
Who needs loyalty when they have 100+ years of government-endorsed monopoly on their works?
Sure if you're looking for "any movie" there's lots of competition, but most people are looking for specific movies and the monopoly prevents you from (legitimately) getting it from a competing provider.
You make it sound like this is new and/or surprising. As long as corporate greed is given priority over personal liberties, you can expect this to not only continue but get worse as companies and marketing departments continue to see how far they can push before we snap.
And then push a little further since we don't really have a choice even after we snap -- not using the internet isn't really an option anymore for a significant majority of the population.
As for throwaway email services.. You can always just register for a real email service (with fake credentials obviously) and simply never check it again. I used to have one or two dummy addresses that I used purely to (avoid) signing up for shitty services that insist I should care about their crap offers (and their partners' crap offers and whatnot.)
I've gotten lazier in my old age though.. there's very few sites that don't just get the red X treatment if they try to pull that shit on me nowadays. Sometimes if they do the hover-overs I'll spend a couple minutes attempting to delete nodes and see if I can uncover the actual information but I rarely spend a whole lot of time on it. Their crap just isn't that important for a very very wide selection of "they."
Do those tabs consistently use more than 1% CPU each? Cause if they don't, the throttling will likely have little or no effect on them.
This is to stop stupid things like ad carousels that rotate every 5 seconds whether you're looking at them or not. Or just flat out poorly-programmed JS that sucks up all available CPU just because the developer couldn't be bothered with something more complex than busy loops and other dumb stuff like that.
There will probably be the odd legitimate app that gets negatively affected, but most even-vaguely-well-written legitimate apps (web or not) don't sit there sucking up huge amounts of CPU time unless you're actively working with them. A basic autosave cycle every 5 or 10 minutes is very unlikely to trigger the throttling.
Presumably, the throttling would a) not apply until the page is actually loaded and b) have enough initial budget that the vast majority of pages wouldn't notice for at least several seconds after the initial load is complete.
I mean if you've got a webpage that manages to full bore your CPU for 10+ seconds as soon as it loads.. the page designer probably should be doing something different, throttled or not.
If you're using Chrome, check out an addon call The Great Suspender (maybe it exists in FF too, I haven't checked.) Its been a lifesaver for a tab hoarder like me.