Currently, those ruling us have to answer to the people in only a tiny fashion. It may be tiny, but it's something. This should be expanded so that there is more accountability to the public rather than cementing this lack of accountability into a monarchy/nobility system.
Every time he sits down to update the OS, the Earth (or some other planet) needs to be saved again.
Besides, if you had a TARDIS and could see all of time and space, would you spend your time sitting around updating your device's OS? I certainly wouldn't.
Few on Slashdot actually think that Copyright should be killed off entirely. Most would like to see it modified such as a reduction in copyright length and lower penalties for non-commercial infringement. (I think that the few who would want it killed off completely haven't thought through what that would mean - such as companies being able to take any open source code and use it as their own without any license restrictions.) In this case, though, the copyright was clearly still in effect *and* it was used for commercial purposes therefore the photographer was entitled to compensation.
As for the example you brought up, I would never defend someone for pirating music/movies. If you like it enough, buy it. If you can't afford it or think the price is too high, don't buy it. (It's not like we're living in an age where there isn't a ton of content to consume.) My only quibble with movie companies going after pirates are the items I mentioned before: copyright term length and penalties for non-commercial infringement. Retaining copyright for 100+ years completely destroys the Public Domain which was the bargain that we were supposed to gain by allowing copyright in the first place. In addition, having a $150,000 fine for one instance of an unauthorized movie/music download seems excessive. This winds up could bankrupt people which, in turn, means that people can be accused and forced to settle even if they are innocent because the penalties are too high to risk. Something more along the lines of ten times market value of the item seems more appropriate. It would still be high, but not "bankrupt you for life" high.
Exactly. Democracy isn't perfect and our politicians often feel more beholden to the corporations that line their political campaigns than to the people they're supposed to represent, but in the end they do answer to the people to some degree. It might not be enough, but it's something.
Imagine if we appointed all current politicians as "noblemen" and named our next president as king. (Use the next president to deflate any "I love Obama so I'm in favor of it" or "I hate Obama so I oppose it" views. This is about the concept, not the men/women.) We'll ignore the huge Constitutional crisis and the fact that this would likely result in a huge conflict if not outright civil war. Suddenly, these noblemen and the king wouldn't need to consult the people or answer to them at all. Do the people not like your higher taxes? Too bad. They can pay it or maybe the military will be used to collect the taxes.
Monarchy might work in a few places thanks to kind monarchs, but that's the exception, not the rule.
I think the problem lies in that coal/oil companies are now feeling heat from solar companies who are replacing them in certain markets. The coal/oil companies don't like this and thus are pressuring Republican legislators to put some legislative roadblocks in solar's path. Many of these would be the same Republicans who previous said we "shouldn't pick winners or losers." This means they can either a) show themselves to be hypocrites and pick a winner (coal/oil) and a loser (solar) or b) stand on their principles and lose the backing of the coal/oil industry. (Of course, given that most politicians are spineless lumps of matter who allow themselves to be molded by the lobbyist with the biggest check, the choice will of course be A while they pretend that this is completely in line with their previous policy decisions.)
Having just watched the episode of Doctor Who with my boys, I pictured a cannon firing those slow invasion cubes from The Power Of Three all over the world.
My father was hit by one of these scammers. Thankfully, he got suspicious when they said he should go to a website to download a program that they would use to remote into his PC. He called me up (with the guy on another line) to ask me advice. My advice was to hang up. He kept saying "but he showed me this" and "but this guy said that." My advice didn't change. "I don't care what he said or showed you or told you to do. HANG UP on him NOW!!!"
This "tech" was also calling from "Windows" and showed my father "proof" of the fact that his computer was filled with viruses (the Event Log which will have errors on even the cleanest and most secure of Windows PCs). For someone not savvy with computers, this is proof positive that this guy knows what he is talking about and that you need to follow what he tells you. For some reason, people just don't realize that Microsoft (or "Windows") isn't looking at everyone's computers and helping fix every virus infection. If they were able to do that, Windows might have a much better security reputation. (For the sheer fact that building a more secure OS would mean devoting less man power to calling users to help fix their PCs.)
It might solve the problem of "no employer wants to hire you because some criminal committed crimes and then said he was you", but it doesn't solve the root problem of "criminal can say he is X and now the real X's record contains his conviction." There's got to be some way for police to verify identity or, at the very least, some standard way of flagging when erroneous IDs are made. The current system of "we don't believe that the system is wrong and that you aren't a criminal because our system says you are a criminal" just doesn't work.
Clean arrest record and a good tech education, though
Sadly, there's more than just financial identity theft. There's criminal identity theft also. Here's how it works:
1) Criminal arrested for some crime. 2) Criminal gives your name/SSN/DOB/etc to the police. 3) Arrest goes onto your criminal record and not the real criminal's record.
Now you go for a job interview and your potential employer runs a background check. Suddenly, they find out that you've committed felonies across three states and were arrested nine times. You don't get that job offer - or any other one. Plus, if the local police stop you for any reason, they'll find out you're a "felon" and will treat you as such. No matter how many times you try to clear this up, if even one database still links you to the crimes, it will flow back over and start again.
At one point, I was following the blog of someone who had this happen to him. He couldn't find a job, was being harassed by police, and nobody would help him. All this.despite the fact that the photo of "him" at the arrest was clearly not really him. People just trusted what was "in the system" even if the system seemed wrong. Last I heard, after years of struggling, he had finally gotten some people to listen and begin the process of clearing his record.
It's insane that one criminal with a stolen identity could ruin someone's life like this but it does happen.
Given my experience with identity theft, I'd say a step in the right direction would be not allowing someone to sign up via a web form, get the mother's maiden name wrong, and STILL issue them a credit card.
Of course, that's just me. Credit card companies and credit agencies actually don't care about identity theft. When it happens, they just shift the cost to the person whose identity was stolen and call it a day. If it does impact them, it falls under "cost of doing business", not "severe threat to profits" so just raise everyone's rates and you're good to go.
Exactly this. When my identity was stolen, the thieves didn't use it to find and break into my bank account. Instead, they opened a credit card in my name (with my address, SSN, and DOB, but NOT with the correct Mother's Maiden name - red flag #1). The only reason they didn't get away with it was that they 1) paid for rush shipment of the credit card and 2) then immediately changed the address (red flag #2). So the card got shipped out quickly to my address and THEN the address was changed. The card arrived at my doorstep instead of theirs. Of course, that didn't stop them as they tried to get a $5,000 cash advance before even activating the card (red flag #3).
And the credit card company's response to me? "Are you sure your wife didn't open the card in your name without telling you? No? Well, we can't give you any information on the account because if you go and kill them then we're liable." They stonewalled me and when I got the police involved, they directed them to a number that was never answered. To them, they just closed the account and the problem was solved. Actually helping to catch the people who did this would involve effort that they weren't willing to put in. That's why Capital One credit card's are not and will never be "what's in my wallet."
You know what this means? Buzz Aldrin's secretly a zombie! (Lest one wonder why he punched that moon landing denier instead of feasting on his brains, the denier's brain was just too small to bother with.)
I read that and their treatment of him was sick. In the long run, he should win his court case against them (seems pretty open and shut to me), but it never should have gotten that far. The initial checks should have been more than enough to rule out any "probably cause." The final rubbing of salt in the wound, though? Sending him a bill for the colonoscopy (and other procedures) that the police forced him to undergo. So not only were his rights and his body violated, but he was charged $6,000 for the entire humiliating process.
And by "worked in Medieval times", you mean "worked for Kings, Queens, and other people of noble descent but not so much for the peasants." Anyone who thinks that the average person would be better if we went back to Medieval times doesn't understand history too well.
If the discovered Signal Translation is "EX-TERM-IN-ATE! EX-TERM-IN-ATE! EX-TERM-IN-ATE!" then you lose. Unless the next signal detected comes from The Doctor.
About a decade and a half ago, I thought of how the future of computing might be and I envisioned people walking around with portable computer storage pods (think hard drives in a case) that would be plugged into "computer shells" via special slots. This would turn the shell into the user's customized computer with all of their applications and preferences.
Nowadays, we have smartphones and tablets that are just as portable as those "pods" I thought of so long ago and much more powerful. Add a bluetooth keyboard and mouse as well as a monitor (via a HDMI Out port) and you could turn your smartphone/tablet into a full fledged keyboard that would rival any desktop computer from 2000.
Three easy ways to lower the birth rate (without enforcing draconian "One Child Per Couple" policies) is to a) raise the standard of living of people, b) distribute birth control (including "morning after" pills) and provide education about it, and c) guarantee women's rights worldwide.
A) Poor people in rural areas tend to have more children because they need more hands helping and because that raises the odds that one of their kids will marry and have kids of their own. If these people had access to better health care, they could have one or two kids instead of a dozen and still guarantee a surviving child.
B) Let's face it. People are going to have sex. Especially if you ban it. ("No people under the age of 18 are allowed to have sex" reads to under 18 year olds as "Sex is awesome! Try it now!") So given that they're going to do it, at least let them do it safely and use birth control so we reduce teen pregnancy rates which, in turn, raises standard of living in teens when they grow up - See A. (Of course, this would have the side effect of dropping death rates as it slows the spread of STDs, but I think it would still be a net negative on population growth.)
C) Where women have more rights, they have more say in how many kids they are going to have or whether they are going to have any kids at all. Few women want to just stay in the home popping out a new baby to take care of every 11 months. (The Duggars are the exception to this, of course.) If women get more rights and can refuse when a man says "I want you to bear my kids right now", birth rates decline.
Of course, implementing this world-wide would be difficult - especially in areas where religion has ingrained "have lots of kids", "birth control is evil", and/or "women are inferior to men" over thousands of years.
It's simpler than even that. Reining in a "national security agency" means being able to be painted as "weak on national security" in the next election. No politician wants that as it's basically political suicide. If there's a huge amount of anger over such an agency's actions, they'll hold hearings and introduce "leash" bills that actually do nothing to rein in the agency - to say that they worked for the people - but they won't actually DO anything.
I don't know. If the first offer to me was $3 Billion, I'd be hard pressed to stop dancing around the room shouting "YES!!!!!" Keeping a straight face would be really difficult and asking for more would be impossible.
Heck, if I was the owner of SnapChat and you offered me $500 million, I'd sell out. I'm not greedy.
One obvious workaround that I can think of: Screen capture. On my phone (Droid Bionic), pressing the Volume Down + Power button for a few seconds takes a photo of the screen no matter what app I'm in. Most other phones have a similar capability (though the actual method for this may vary). So if someone sent me a SnapChat photo, I could save a screenshot of it on my phone. While the original would "expire" and be unavailable, my screenshot version would remain for me to keep looking at or send to other people.
So what you're saying is that Penn and Teller, the network that aired their show, YouTube (where the videos are uploaded), and anyone who has viewed the videos needs to go on the list also, right?
It might be easier for the NSA et all to just make a list of people they DON'T want to watch. "John Smith is utterly boring in every way. He just sits around all day watching reality shows. Whatever you do, don't monitor him."
Slashdot Mirror
Currently, those ruling us have to answer to the people in only a tiny fashion. It may be tiny, but it's something. This should be expanded so that there is more accountability to the public rather than cementing this lack of accountability into a monarchy/nobility system.
Plus, once Gallifrey fell the commits on the Open Source Sonic Screwdriver Operating System project just stopped coming in.
Every time he sits down to update the OS, the Earth (or some other planet) needs to be saved again.
Besides, if you had a TARDIS and could see all of time and space, would you spend your time sitting around updating your device's OS? I certainly wouldn't.
Few on Slashdot actually think that Copyright should be killed off entirely. Most would like to see it modified such as a reduction in copyright length and lower penalties for non-commercial infringement. (I think that the few who would want it killed off completely haven't thought through what that would mean - such as companies being able to take any open source code and use it as their own without any license restrictions.) In this case, though, the copyright was clearly still in effect *and* it was used for commercial purposes therefore the photographer was entitled to compensation.
As for the example you brought up, I would never defend someone for pirating music/movies. If you like it enough, buy it. If you can't afford it or think the price is too high, don't buy it. (It's not like we're living in an age where there isn't a ton of content to consume.) My only quibble with movie companies going after pirates are the items I mentioned before: copyright term length and penalties for non-commercial infringement. Retaining copyright for 100+ years completely destroys the Public Domain which was the bargain that we were supposed to gain by allowing copyright in the first place. In addition, having a $150,000 fine for one instance of an unauthorized movie/music download seems excessive. This winds up could bankrupt people which, in turn, means that people can be accused and forced to settle even if they are innocent because the penalties are too high to risk. Something more along the lines of ten times market value of the item seems more appropriate. It would still be high, but not "bankrupt you for life" high.
Exactly. Democracy isn't perfect and our politicians often feel more beholden to the corporations that line their political campaigns than to the people they're supposed to represent, but in the end they do answer to the people to some degree. It might not be enough, but it's something.
Imagine if we appointed all current politicians as "noblemen" and named our next president as king. (Use the next president to deflate any "I love Obama so I'm in favor of it" or "I hate Obama so I oppose it" views. This is about the concept, not the men/women.) We'll ignore the huge Constitutional crisis and the fact that this would likely result in a huge conflict if not outright civil war. Suddenly, these noblemen and the king wouldn't need to consult the people or answer to them at all. Do the people not like your higher taxes? Too bad. They can pay it or maybe the military will be used to collect the taxes.
Monarchy might work in a few places thanks to kind monarchs, but that's the exception, not the rule.
I think the problem lies in that coal/oil companies are now feeling heat from solar companies who are replacing them in certain markets. The coal/oil companies don't like this and thus are pressuring Republican legislators to put some legislative roadblocks in solar's path. Many of these would be the same Republicans who previous said we "shouldn't pick winners or losers." This means they can either a) show themselves to be hypocrites and pick a winner (coal/oil) and a loser (solar) or b) stand on their principles and lose the backing of the coal/oil industry. (Of course, given that most politicians are spineless lumps of matter who allow themselves to be molded by the lobbyist with the biggest check, the choice will of course be A while they pretend that this is completely in line with their previous policy decisions.)
Having just watched the episode of Doctor Who with my boys, I pictured a cannon firing those slow invasion cubes from The Power Of Three all over the world.
My father was hit by one of these scammers. Thankfully, he got suspicious when they said he should go to a website to download a program that they would use to remote into his PC. He called me up (with the guy on another line) to ask me advice. My advice was to hang up. He kept saying "but he showed me this" and "but this guy said that." My advice didn't change. "I don't care what he said or showed you or told you to do. HANG UP on him NOW!!!"
This "tech" was also calling from "Windows" and showed my father "proof" of the fact that his computer was filled with viruses (the Event Log which will have errors on even the cleanest and most secure of Windows PCs). For someone not savvy with computers, this is proof positive that this guy knows what he is talking about and that you need to follow what he tells you. For some reason, people just don't realize that Microsoft (or "Windows") isn't looking at everyone's computers and helping fix every virus infection. If they were able to do that, Windows might have a much better security reputation. (For the sheer fact that building a more secure OS would mean devoting less man power to calling users to help fix their PCs.)
It might solve the problem of "no employer wants to hire you because some criminal committed crimes and then said he was you", but it doesn't solve the root problem of "criminal can say he is X and now the real X's record contains his conviction." There's got to be some way for police to verify identity or, at the very least, some standard way of flagging when erroneous IDs are made. The current system of "we don't believe that the system is wrong and that you aren't a criminal because our system says you are a criminal" just doesn't work.
Sadly, there's more than just financial identity theft. There's criminal identity theft also. Here's how it works:
1) Criminal arrested for some crime.
2) Criminal gives your name/SSN/DOB/etc to the police.
3) Arrest goes onto your criminal record and not the real criminal's record.
Now you go for a job interview and your potential employer runs a background check. Suddenly, they find out that you've committed felonies across three states and were arrested nine times. You don't get that job offer - or any other one. Plus, if the local police stop you for any reason, they'll find out you're a "felon" and will treat you as such. No matter how many times you try to clear this up, if even one database still links you to the crimes, it will flow back over and start again.
At one point, I was following the blog of someone who had this happen to him. He couldn't find a job, was being harassed by police, and nobody would help him. All this.despite the fact that the photo of "him" at the arrest was clearly not really him. People just trusted what was "in the system" even if the system seemed wrong. Last I heard, after years of struggling, he had finally gotten some people to listen and begin the process of clearing his record.
It's insane that one criminal with a stolen identity could ruin someone's life like this but it does happen.
Given my experience with identity theft, I'd say a step in the right direction would be not allowing someone to sign up via a web form, get the mother's maiden name wrong, and STILL issue them a credit card.
Of course, that's just me. Credit card companies and credit agencies actually don't care about identity theft. When it happens, they just shift the cost to the person whose identity was stolen and call it a day. If it does impact them, it falls under "cost of doing business", not "severe threat to profits" so just raise everyone's rates and you're good to go.
Exactly this. When my identity was stolen, the thieves didn't use it to find and break into my bank account. Instead, they opened a credit card in my name (with my address, SSN, and DOB, but NOT with the correct Mother's Maiden name - red flag #1). The only reason they didn't get away with it was that they 1) paid for rush shipment of the credit card and 2) then immediately changed the address (red flag #2). So the card got shipped out quickly to my address and THEN the address was changed. The card arrived at my doorstep instead of theirs. Of course, that didn't stop them as they tried to get a $5,000 cash advance before even activating the card (red flag #3).
And the credit card company's response to me? "Are you sure your wife didn't open the card in your name without telling you? No? Well, we can't give you any information on the account because if you go and kill them then we're liable." They stonewalled me and when I got the police involved, they directed them to a number that was never answered. To them, they just closed the account and the problem was solved. Actually helping to catch the people who did this would involve effort that they weren't willing to put in. That's why Capital One credit card's are not and will never be "what's in my wallet."
You know what this means? Buzz Aldrin's secretly a zombie! (Lest one wonder why he punched that moon landing denier instead of feasting on his brains, the denier's brain was just too small to bother with.)
This is even bigger news than WinAMP shutting down! AOL has a profitable business unit?!!
I read that and their treatment of him was sick. In the long run, he should win his court case against them (seems pretty open and shut to me), but it never should have gotten that far. The initial checks should have been more than enough to rule out any "probably cause." The final rubbing of salt in the wound, though? Sending him a bill for the colonoscopy (and other procedures) that the police forced him to undergo. So not only were his rights and his body violated, but he was charged $6,000 for the entire humiliating process.
And by "worked in Medieval times", you mean "worked for Kings, Queens, and other people of noble descent but not so much for the peasants." Anyone who thinks that the average person would be better if we went back to Medieval times doesn't understand history too well.
If the discovered Signal Translation is "EX-TERM-IN-ATE! EX-TERM-IN-ATE! EX-TERM-IN-ATE!" then you lose. Unless the next signal detected comes from The Doctor.
About a decade and a half ago, I thought of how the future of computing might be and I envisioned people walking around with portable computer storage pods (think hard drives in a case) that would be plugged into "computer shells" via special slots. This would turn the shell into the user's customized computer with all of their applications and preferences.
Nowadays, we have smartphones and tablets that are just as portable as those "pods" I thought of so long ago and much more powerful. Add a bluetooth keyboard and mouse as well as a monitor (via a HDMI Out port) and you could turn your smartphone/tablet into a full fledged keyboard that would rival any desktop computer from 2000.
Three easy ways to lower the birth rate (without enforcing draconian "One Child Per Couple" policies) is to a) raise the standard of living of people, b) distribute birth control (including "morning after" pills) and provide education about it, and c) guarantee women's rights worldwide.
A) Poor people in rural areas tend to have more children because they need more hands helping and because that raises the odds that one of their kids will marry and have kids of their own. If these people had access to better health care, they could have one or two kids instead of a dozen and still guarantee a surviving child.
B) Let's face it. People are going to have sex. Especially if you ban it. ("No people under the age of 18 are allowed to have sex" reads to under 18 year olds as "Sex is awesome! Try it now!") So given that they're going to do it, at least let them do it safely and use birth control so we reduce teen pregnancy rates which, in turn, raises standard of living in teens when they grow up - See A. (Of course, this would have the side effect of dropping death rates as it slows the spread of STDs, but I think it would still be a net negative on population growth.)
C) Where women have more rights, they have more say in how many kids they are going to have or whether they are going to have any kids at all. Few women want to just stay in the home popping out a new baby to take care of every 11 months. (The Duggars are the exception to this, of course.) If women get more rights and can refuse when a man says "I want you to bear my kids right now", birth rates decline.
Of course, implementing this world-wide would be difficult - especially in areas where religion has ingrained "have lots of kids", "birth control is evil", and/or "women are inferior to men" over thousands of years.
You could certainly try to sue them.
Whether you would succeed or not (or live to see whether you succeeded or not) is another story.
It's simpler than even that. Reining in a "national security agency" means being able to be painted as "weak on national security" in the next election. No politician wants that as it's basically political suicide. If there's a huge amount of anger over such an agency's actions, they'll hold hearings and introduce "leash" bills that actually do nothing to rein in the agency - to say that they worked for the people - but they won't actually DO anything.
I thought it was in an unlit basement without stairs, in a disused lavatory, in a locked filing cabinet that says "Beware of Leopard."
No, wait... That's where the Constitution is. Never mind.
I don't know. If the first offer to me was $3 Billion, I'd be hard pressed to stop dancing around the room shouting "YES!!!!!" Keeping a straight face would be really difficult and asking for more would be impossible.
Heck, if I was the owner of SnapChat and you offered me $500 million, I'd sell out. I'm not greedy.
One obvious workaround that I can think of: Screen capture. On my phone (Droid Bionic), pressing the Volume Down + Power button for a few seconds takes a photo of the screen no matter what app I'm in. Most other phones have a similar capability (though the actual method for this may vary). So if someone sent me a SnapChat photo, I could save a screenshot of it on my phone. While the original would "expire" and be unavailable, my screenshot version would remain for me to keep looking at or send to other people.
So what you're saying is that Penn and Teller, the network that aired their show, YouTube (where the videos are uploaded), and anyone who has viewed the videos needs to go on the list also, right?
It might be easier for the NSA et all to just make a list of people they DON'T want to watch. "John Smith is utterly boring in every way. He just sits around all day watching reality shows. Whatever you do, don't monitor him."