If the data is on paper, they'd have to replace the paper, which is detectable, or falsify the counting process, which is also detectable.
Ever heard of stuffing the vote-box? Guess, what it is stuffed with... Paper-ballots. After everybody votes and leave, the official responsible removes all/some of the paper-ballots for the "wrong guy", and adds enough ballots for the "right guy".
It's been with us ever since voting was invented — long before the electronics.
E-voting, which came into the fore after the Florida-2000 disaster, makes it harder for electronics-illiterate people to do this, while making it easier for the electronics-literate ones.
I don't see, how one method is more detectable than another (forensics can find evidence of tampering with storage media, etc., just as well as they can analyze the ashes left from the burned ballots) — unless each voter gets a (forgery-proof) paper receipt to take with them (and hang on the wall or stick to their car's bumper). Then, in case of doubt, each (or every 100th) voter can be asked to come back with their receipts to verify the results.
Unfortunately, such methods endanger voting privacy...
Hence my "damned if you do, damned if don't" sentiment... In the current climate in America, I am in favor of paper receipts (which voters can take with them). If someone somewhere is a victim of intimidation, that's a shame, but is better than wide-spread corruption made possible by absence of verification. (And vote-buying should not be illegal in my opinion anyway.)
I now ask you to present a single case of hacker going to jail for 40 years for anything...
Kevin Mitnick
Kevin is 45 years old. Are you saying, he spent 40 of those years in prison? I'm too lazy to investigate the others you listed — which of them have gone to prison for 40 years, you say?
In short, when you and i infect ONE computer, am caught, renditioned, and sentenced worse than a drug dealer.
No, that's simply not true...
Why should they be arrested? They did pay, what they were ordered to pay...
Yes, But did They Pay?
Let's review this snippet. Me: They did pay. You: Yes, but did they pay? Sorry, I still can't parse it...
Am quoting from Court case file: had been secretly entered by the record companies agents
MediaSentry's action may have been illegal, but it was not harmful.
How do you classify it [Chinese government -mi] as Evil?
Well, even if you seriously believe, that Chinese government is less (or even comparably) evil than America's, than you really are even more of an idiot, than your poorly constructed arguments suggest (Monsanto? Ha-ha!!!).
But that's besides the point, which was: Baidu — unlike Google — are propped by their government, and benefit from their censorship. Their entire existence and dominance of Chinese market is not due to technical excellence, but simply due to their milking the complicity to the censorship and to the wide-spread piracy...
MediaSentry and other RIAA hackers have done no harm.
Oh, really?
That's MediaDefender, not MediaSentry, although, yes, it would qualify as "other RIAA hackers". I guess, I missed that story, thanks for the correction...
Sorry, your post is idiotic, even if typical/.-fare. Starting with the subject — FTC, being part of the Executive can not convict anybody. Going on:
Am [sic] thoroughly disgusted by the illegal activities of these music companies and their hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is not illegal. "Illegal activities"? Let's see:
Sony infected many computers with a dangerous trojan, which would have sent any hacker to 40 years in Prison, and they escaped conviction or even a fine.
Well, that's simply a lie. Sony BMG had plenty of legal troubles over it, with various suits getting settled or still on-going. I now ask you to present a single case of hacker going to jail for 40 years for anything — not just installing a trojan, which has not, actually done anything wrong to the user itself (only exposed them to other harm).
RIAA has been ruled against many times in court and ordered to pay lawyers fees to a poor single mom, and still they are loose: No arrest, no seizure of their equipment, etc.
Why should they be arrested? They did pay, what they were ordered to pay...
MediaSentry and other RIAA hackers violate state laws in Montana, California, Texas and a host of states and yet continue to operate even though they are illegal. None has been sued yet and their findings are valid in a court of law: Its like a thief acting as a witness to a houseowner against another thief.
MediaSentry and other RIAA hackers have done no harm. Using their results against thieves (I'm glad, we agree on the term here) is certainly good. And before you get too outrage, let me remind you of a case, when a thief sued a house-owner for damages after breaking a leg on a poorly-maintained staircase, which the thief had to used to escape capture... It happens — thief is prison for robbery, but the house-owner's insurance had to pay him for "pain and suffering"... There are also numerous cases of robbers suing their victims over being shot.
RIAA would be happy if the whole internet shut down tomorrow
So, you want the FTC (the Executive) to prosecute this thought-crime?
but they still can produce music at zero cost and sell it for $29.99 an album.
As long as the following conditions are true:
Nobody forces music buyers to buy it from RIAA.
Nobody forces musicians to sell it to RIAA
they can sell it for $2900, for all I care.
The Baidu search engine should show its middle finger publicly at RIAA and also sue them for defamation.
The Baidu search engine should die a thousand deaths by choking on its own bile. They are propped up by China's (routinely evil) government, they are complicit in the government's censorship — and benefit from it. They are winning in mainland China over Google, not because of being better, but because they facilitate copyright infringement — and nobody over there cares, because the losers are usually not Chinese.
For systems with paper tapes (not paper ballots) you can sell your vote if you have a camera or cell-phone camera because a picture of the voted paper tape before it scrolls out of sight is proof of vote. So no cameras!
I don't see, how paper-ballots are immune to this either — if it is something you can see, it is something you can photograph... Are you going to strip-search people entering the booth to make sure, they have no cameras on them?
If you can't take the paper with you, (as you can't currently) then your point is moot.
Then you can't make a recount or prove anything once you left the station. Also, if the vote-buyer's representative is among the vote-watching personnel (at the station), your point is moot.
As a computer scientist and programmer I have 0% confidence in any system which doesn't produce a paper audit trail
And if it does, a voter can be bought and/or pressured to vote for someone else — the buyer (or the thug) will demand to see the voting confirmation before giving the money (or letting the kids go)...
No "paper-trail" — open to fraud. "Paper-trail" — no voting privacy. Make your choice...
You seem to think, my own position is that the data-retention is good, while all I was saying was, that "11% changing their ways" is not an argument against it — contrary to the write-up's assertion.
Domestic spying is about eliminating political opposition and the only way to save yourself from that is to run away.
Oh, yes, sure. Ever since the ruling-party's nominee approved of domestic spying, we've seen Hillary run away and Obama eliminated. Right...
If you understand these things and how computers work, you have no choice but to use and advocate free software
Do you, really? Have you ever looked at, say, OpenOffice.org code to be certain, there are no backdoors in it? Especially — in its recently lauded fork (RedOffice) made at that happy place of undisturbed freedoms?
Why must either the Chinese government or the organization involved continuously act so amorally in the pursuit of profit (monetary or otherwise) despite the terrible impact it has on others and ignore any 'outsiders' outcry against their actions.
This is not the worst thing done in preparation for a (possible) war.
I can cite all sorts of things that the free market has done at great profit that have not been of benefit to the people until the government got involved such as, oh, construction, coal mining, food preparation, etc...
These regulations' only justification was the inherent inflexibility of the particular markets. If a consumer dies from food poisoning, he will not be able to switch to a different supplier. If a building collapses, (most of) its occupants will not be able to opt for a better builder next time. This provides some justification to government's preemptive interference in some cases.
Internet Service Provision is vastly different. A dissatisfied customer remains perfectly healthy and is able to switch to a competitor very quickly. Ensuring availability of wide variety of such competitors is what government should concentrate on.
Instead, we may well get saddled with very few very big ISPs, who will negotiate a (near) monopoly (a'la AT&T) from the government in exchange for the on-paper adherence to various regulations, which may be too cumbersome to pass through as laws ("net-neutrality", porn-filtering, cooperation on eavesdropping, etc.). The companies will then, inevitably, outsmart the regulators making the rest of us (far) worse off.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather just switch ISPs, than file complaints with government bureaucrats... Free market is usually the best regulator.
English and American chocolate is very different for historical reasons.
My point was not the differences in chocolate, it was the declaration of all American foo as "rubbish" and the subsequent high moderation...
So when as an Englander I first tasted a Hershey bar the overwhelming impression was of off-milk or vomit.
Come to think of it, I have a very vague recollection of how vomit tastes like... Always having it fresh in memory must be an English thing;-) Sorry, could not resist.
"These days"? You are forgetting the original reasons GPS and the Internet got created, to name just two...
Seriously, if it weren't for the fear of and the designs over property and women of the neighbors, humans would've still been hunting-and-gathering (mostly gathering, of course)...
Property is justified by it's rivalrousness, but that doesn't apply here.
wn rivalrousness
No information available for noun rivalrousness
No information available for verb rivalrousness
No information available for adj rivalrousness
No information available for adv rivalrousness
Khm, let's see:
wn rivalrous -over
Overview of adj rivalrous
The adj rivalrous has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)
1. emulous, rivalrous -- (eager to surpass others)
I'm sorry, but the self-evident argument seems far better than yours — at least, it can be understood...
You are within your rights to install commercial software wherever you like
There's nothing obvious, natural, or fair about the coercive enclosure and commodification of ideas.
The argument was not about "coercive enclosure" (whatever that means) or "commodification of ideas". The argument was, whether property can be intellectual. I hold this truth to be self-evident — if I thought of something first, I get to own it. That particular implementations (such as USPTO) are clunky is irrelevant...
copyleft is perfectly acceptable within the worldview that I've presented
So, GPL (and more permissive licenses like BSD) are the only licenses you recognize as valid? Anybody, who buys one license of a commercial software package, can, in your opinion, ethically install it on an unlimited number of computers?
Nine Inch Nails has made news recently by allowing free download of the first half of their new album. All they wanted in return, was your e-mail address (to spam you later — they've sent me one letter so far). Is it, in your opinion, ethical to share the once-downloaded album with others to deprive NiN from even the e-mail address form of compensation?
What's your opinion of postcardware? Every user still has to pay the author (with a postcard) — and for what?..
The source-distribution requirement of the GPL is, I'll admit, a bit less clear-cut.
how those who coercively enclose and commodify ideas are actually seeking to create an artificial scarcity of product and an artificial curtailing of derivative invention.
Are you seriously spouting these SAT-words here to claim, that it is possible to create "an artificial scarcity" of songs? Or movies? Or purse-designs?..
I'll certainly defend your right to keep your real property, but information isn't property, never was, and never will be.
Maybe, under your rock it is not. But in the modern world, making actual things is increasingly easy, while designing them is the hardest part. Be it music, or medicines, or (designer !) clothes, the creator is obviously and naturally entitled to owning their ideas and dealing with them as they see fit. Whether that ends up being selling (retail or wholesale via RIAA), or destroying, or giving away is up to the creator.
And it certainly ought to be this way — not even because they may otherwise stop creating, but simply out of fairness.
"Real property"? Ha-ha... You will, no doubt, condemn any corporationy corporation, that is caught violating GPL. And what "real property" will they be stealing? Oops... Your worldview was just exposed as inconsistent and thus wrong. Have a good weekend.
If abuses are not resisted through active, vigorous civil disobedience, then your "eventual correction" IS a bloody revolution.
I know. The asshole, who picked up the card I lost last month and racked up $400 worth of charges, was simply in (vigorous) civil disobedience to those hideously abusive anti-theft laws. The thievery was with us for thousands of years now, ending the unwinnable "war on theft" would free up police resources to fight the real crimes — if there are any left, that is, after applying this same logic...
Too late. Pass all the laws you like [...] Times have changed. No law is going to change that.
The more common form of thievery — when actual physical objects are stolen — has been with us for thousands of years. You can say, it has proved itself to be indefeasible much better, than the theft of intellectual property possibly could over the relatively short period that it mattered.
Are we to stop outlawing burglary, because there will always be burglars?
So what can you do on the Moon that would make it so fabulously valuable? Beats me.
Low gravity — can't get that here at any cost?.. I can see retirement homes being built there — many people, who are too frail to walk on Earth, will still be comfortably mobile over there.
These will be very luxury at first (20-30 years from now) — just getting the elderly to the Moon safely will be quite a challenge, but, eventually, it will become common place.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of stuffing the vote-box? Guess, what it is stuffed with... Paper-ballots. After everybody votes and leave, the official responsible removes all/some of the paper-ballots for the "wrong guy", and adds enough ballots for the "right guy".
It's been with us ever since voting was invented — long before the electronics.
E-voting, which came into the fore after the Florida-2000 disaster, makes it harder for electronics-illiterate people to do this, while making it easier for the electronics-literate ones.
I don't see, how one method is more detectable than another (forensics can find evidence of tampering with storage media, etc., just as well as they can analyze the ashes left from the burned ballots) — unless each voter gets a (forgery-proof) paper receipt to take with them (and hang on the wall or stick to their car's bumper). Then, in case of doubt, each (or every 100th) voter can be asked to come back with their receipts to verify the results.
Unfortunately, such methods endanger voting privacy...
Hence my "damned if you do, damned if don't" sentiment... In the current climate in America, I am in favor of paper receipts (which voters can take with them). If someone somewhere is a victim of intimidation, that's a shame, but is better than wide-spread corruption made possible by absence of verification. (And vote-buying should not be illegal in my opinion anyway.)
But that's the trade-off still...
Kevin is 45 years old. Are you saying, he spent 40 of those years in prison? I'm too lazy to investigate the others you listed — which of them have gone to prison for 40 years, you say?
No, that's simply not true...
Let's review this snippet. Me: They did pay. You: Yes, but did they pay? Sorry, I still can't parse it...
MediaSentry's action may have been illegal, but it was not harmful.
Well, even if you seriously believe, that Chinese government is less (or even comparably) evil than America's, than you really are even more of an idiot, than your poorly constructed arguments suggest (Monsanto? Ha-ha!!!).
But that's besides the point, which was: Baidu — unlike Google — are propped by their government, and benefit from their censorship. Their entire existence and dominance of Chinese market is not due to technical excellence, but simply due to their milking the complicity to the censorship and to the wide-spread piracy...
That's MediaDefender, not MediaSentry, although, yes, it would qualify as "other RIAA hackers". I guess, I missed that story, thanks for the correction...
Hypocrisy is not illegal. "Illegal activities"? Let's see:
Well, that's simply a lie. Sony BMG had plenty of legal troubles over it, with various suits getting settled or still on-going. I now ask you to present a single case of hacker going to jail for 40 years for anything — not just installing a trojan, which has not, actually done anything wrong to the user itself (only exposed them to other harm).
Why should they be arrested? They did pay, what they were ordered to pay...
MediaSentry and other RIAA hackers have done no harm. Using their results against thieves (I'm glad, we agree on the term here) is certainly good. And before you get too outrage, let me remind you of a case, when a thief sued a house-owner for damages after breaking a leg on a poorly-maintained staircase, which the thief had to used to escape capture... It happens — thief is prison for robbery, but the house-owner's insurance had to pay him for "pain and suffering"... There are also numerous cases of robbers suing their victims over being shot.
So, you want the FTC (the Executive) to prosecute this thought-crime ?
As long as the following conditions are true:
- Nobody forces music buyers to buy it from RIAA.
- Nobody forces musicians to sell it to RIAA
they can sell it for $2900, for all I care.The Baidu search engine should die a thousand deaths by choking on its own bile. They are propped up by China's (routinely evil) government, they are complicit in the government's censorship — and benefit from it. They are winning in mainland China over Google, not because of being better, but because they facilitate copyright infringement — and nobody over there cares, because the losers are usually not Chinese.
Actually, you can, according to an earlier post:
I don't see, how paper-ballots are immune to this either — if it is something you can see, it is something you can photograph... Are you going to strip-search people entering the booth to make sure, they have no cameras on them?
Then you can't make a recount or prove anything once you left the station. Also, if the vote-buyer's representative is among the vote-watching personnel (at the station), your point is moot.
And if it does, a voter can be bought and/or pressured to vote for someone else — the buyer (or the thug) will demand to see the voting confirmation before giving the money (or letting the kids go)...
No "paper-trail" — open to fraud. "Paper-trail" — no voting privacy. Make your choice...
You seem to think, my own position is that the data-retention is good, while all I was saying was, that "11% changing their ways" is not an argument against it — contrary to the write-up's assertion.
Oh, yes, sure. Ever since the ruling-party's nominee approved of domestic spying, we've seen Hillary run away and Obama eliminated. Right...
Do you, really? Have you ever looked at, say, OpenOffice.org code to be certain, there are no backdoors in it? Especially — in its recently lauded fork (RedOffice) made at that happy place of undisturbed freedoms?
No, it is not... 89% did not change their behavior — arguably, because they had nothing to hide.
BTW, is your glass 11% empty, or 89% full?
This is not the worst thing done in preparation for a (possible) war.
I wish you did... If only we all held our breaths, maybe, there wouldn't be so much CO2 in the world :-(
These regulations' only justification was the inherent inflexibility of the particular markets. If a consumer dies from food poisoning, he will not be able to switch to a different supplier. If a building collapses, (most of) its occupants will not be able to opt for a better builder next time. This provides some justification to government's preemptive interference in some cases.
Internet Service Provision is vastly different. A dissatisfied customer remains perfectly healthy and is able to switch to a competitor very quickly. Ensuring availability of wide variety of such competitors is what government should concentrate on.
Instead, we may well get saddled with very few very big ISPs, who will negotiate a (near) monopoly (a'la AT&T) from the government in exchange for the on-paper adherence to various regulations, which may be too cumbersome to pass through as laws ("net-neutrality", porn-filtering, cooperation on eavesdropping, etc.). The companies will then, inevitably, outsmart the regulators making the rest of us (far) worse off.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather just switch ISPs, than file complaints with government bureaucrats... Free market is usually the best regulator.
My point was not the differences in chocolate, it was the declaration of all American foo as "rubbish" and the subsequent high moderation...
Come to think of it, I have a very vague recollection of how vomit tastes like... Always having it fresh in memory must be an English thing ;-) Sorry, could not resist.
"These days"? You are forgetting the original reasons GPS and the Internet got created, to name just two...
Seriously, if it weren't for the fear of and the designs over property and women of the neighbors, humans would've still been hunting-and-gathering (mostly gathering, of course)...
Uhm... Nothing like an off-the-cuff bashing of something American to score points...
On every point the "last word" is either left to Obama's side, or questioned/rebuffed by the author himself. Bleah...
The truth comes out... When is Slashdot beginning to cover (and encourage) law suits demanding the refund of Linux tax?
No information available for verb rivalrousness
No information available for adj rivalrousness
No information available for adv rivalrousness
Khm, let's see: wn rivalrous -over
Overview of adj rivalrous
The adj rivalrous has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)
1. emulous, rivalrous -- (eager to surpass others)
I'm sorry, but the self-evident argument seems far better than yours — at least, it can be understood...
I am? Is that you, Wally?
The argument was not about "coercive enclosure" (whatever that means) or "commodification of ideas". The argument was, whether property can be intellectual. I hold this truth to be self-evident — if I thought of something first, I get to own it. That particular implementations (such as USPTO) are clunky is irrelevant...
So, GPL (and more permissive licenses like BSD) are the only licenses you recognize as valid? Anybody, who buys one license of a commercial software package, can, in your opinion, ethically install it on an unlimited number of computers?
Nine Inch Nails has made news recently by allowing free download of the first half of their new album. All they wanted in return, was your e-mail address (to spam you later — they've sent me one letter so far). Is it, in your opinion, ethical to share the once-downloaded album with others to deprive NiN from even the e-mail address form of compensation?
What's your opinion of postcardware? Every user still has to pay the author (with a postcard) — and for what?..
There is still hope...
Are you seriously spouting these SAT-words here to claim, that it is possible to create "an artificial scarcity" of songs? Or movies? Or purse-designs?..
Wally, is that you?..
Maybe, under your rock it is not. But in the modern world, making actual things is increasingly easy, while designing them is the hardest part. Be it music, or medicines, or (designer !) clothes, the creator is obviously and naturally entitled to owning their ideas and dealing with them as they see fit. Whether that ends up being selling (retail or wholesale via RIAA), or destroying, or giving away is up to the creator.
And it certainly ought to be this way — not even because they may otherwise stop creating, but simply out of fairness.
"Real property"? Ha-ha... You will, no doubt, condemn any corporationy corporation, that is caught violating GPL. And what "real property" will they be stealing? Oops... Your worldview was just exposed as inconsistent and thus wrong. Have a good weekend.
I know. The asshole, who picked up the card I lost last month and racked up $400 worth of charges, was simply in (vigorous) civil disobedience to those hideously abusive anti-theft laws. The thievery was with us for thousands of years now, ending the unwinnable "war on theft" would free up police resources to fight the real crimes — if there are any left, that is, after applying this same logic...
The more common form of thievery — when actual physical objects are stolen — has been with us for thousands of years. You can say, it has proved itself to be indefeasible much better, than the theft of intellectual property possibly could over the relatively short period that it mattered.
Are we to stop outlawing burglary, because there will always be burglars?
Low gravity — can't get that here at any cost?.. I can see retirement homes being built there — many people, who are too frail to walk on Earth, will still be comfortably mobile over there.
These will be very luxury at first (20-30 years from now) — just getting the elderly to the Moon safely will be quite a challenge, but, eventually, it will become common place.