Although scientists whose area of expertise is in this area would have to show real data either confirming my gut feeling or disproving it (and I'll then blame the fish I had earlier)., I would guess that...
When you're young and you're exposed to the imagery of 'ideals' you might try to actually reach those ideals. However, if you fail - and most of us do; even if you do make it to the ideal, a month later you may have bounced right back up and then some - that may make you sad at best and downright depressed at worst.
The sadness/depression is, in turn, fought using - among other - comfort foods (It's no coincidence that a lot of people think that eating a bucket of ice cream is a great way to do away with the blues).
But eating comfort foods is rarely health and in fact is likely to lead you to further weight gain.. which depresses you more, etc.
At some point, though, you stop really caring. You've realized that you are overweight, and that while you have fleeting moments of wanting to do something about it, there's no real pressure to do so any more as you are now one of the millions of overweight adults who are accepted just fine by society as long as you don't go overboard in obesity (at which point you might become the subject of internet ridicule for a day, after which life goes on). In fact, once you reach that point, you realize that the superskinny are far more often pointed out in a negative way than the overweight (think Angelina Jolie).
As such, if these distorted 'ideals' can be kept away from kids, then perhaps that would effect change. However, I don't think legislation is the answer. How would you actually legislate this anyway? The change has to come from within the fashion/magazine industry itself.
However, as some in that industry have already suggested that Kate Upton (google, judge for yourself) is too 'curvy' (read: fat) for magazine covers, I doubt that change is coming anytime soon.
[...] and then little 15 year old Suzie walks by the camera on the way from her bathroom to her bedroom and *boom!* the company behind this has just analyzed child porn
Putting aside for a moment that perhaps such households should think for a moment before opting into such plans, I have to ask......what, exactly, would be wrong with that scenario?
For one thing, it's not child pornography. The law may perhaps interpret it as such, especially if it ends up being treated as such by the person caught on camera / their legal guardians, but naked people walking in front of a camera does not necessarily pornography make.
For another, my computer could be analyzing child pornography all day long every day of the week. Perhaps it's analyzing it to see if it's known pornography or new pornography. If it's new pornography, perhaps it's trying facial recognition to see if this is of a person whose case has already been handled, or that it may be a new case and should be flagged as such.
But given that the system doesn't know what the material is in the first place, perhaps it's analyzing the picture, sees what looks like a human form, detects that either there's no clothing or the person happens to walk around in a wetsuit that matches their skin color, and either way decides to discard the data. The analyzing software may be much more interested in that bright rectangular surface called your TV to see what programs you watch.
People are way, way too jumpy about this stuff. Next thing you know an adult can't go to a lake for a swim because there's also kids who like diving into the water and have issues keeping their bikini bottoms on* and you just might see that. Oh noes.
It's different if that's the purpose of going swimming there in the first place, of course. Just as it would be different if one of the goals of this company would be to catch people naked (adults: blackmail, kids: CP market?), or if, as part of its operation, the material would be made available to third parties who in turn might have such motives.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opting into such a program anytime soon.. but the whole "what if it catches X doing Y!?" thing? Not the biggest problem with this by a long shot.
And by 'we' I certainly don't mean Slashdot staff.
-- begin transcript -- [0:00] <TITLE> The background shows the EFF logo and the following three lines: Electronic Frontier Foundation protecting Rights and promoting Freedom on the Electronic Frontier www.eff.org
The logo for Slashdot, with the subline "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." scrolls into view.
[0.04] Timothy> A lot of the companies here at RSA probably don't mind violating your privacy once in a while in fact, I get the feeling some of them enjoy it. Timothy> So, what's a nice bunch like the EFF doing here? Timothy> I talked to International Outreach Coordinator Maira Sutton to find out.
[0:16] Timothy> Why is the EFF at an event like this surrounded by companies that do very different things and don't necessarily respect privacy?
[0:23] Maira> Well, we are part of the community. Maira> Whether or not we do the same things, we are a counter point to a lot of the work that these companies do. Maira> And, I think we need to be here to add to the conversation. Maira> And at the same time, we do support coders' rights and programmers' rights. Maira> So on an individual level a lot of people come to us to support what they do. Maira> So, we have a lot of fans here. Maira> Sometimes, you know, they might say "It's great that you're here.. but why are you here? It's strange that you're here". Maira> But, I think it's important that we add to the conversation and just by having a presence, I think we are making a statement.
[1:10] Maira> So the question as to whether privacy can be a security risk: Maira> It's a complicated question, it's something that we deal with constantly. Maira> The age-old example is child pornography. Maira> You know, what are you supposed to do with these criminals that can hide their identity and do evil, criminal things? Maira> But at the same time, you can't assume that they're doing something criminal. Maira> And that's where that delicate balance comes in, and that's where [the] EFF is at the forefront. Maira> We take on cases dealing with these delicate, fragile issues.
[01:45] Maira> People that come by here - I would say they're pretty much a fan. Maira> I've seen some people who don't know who we are, and we explain, and they say "Whoa," you know, "that's strange that they're here in the first place." Maira> But for the most part the people that do approach us are huge fans, and they are members or they are becoming members. Maira> So it's great, we're getting a lot of love here.
[02:05] <TITLE> What threats to you see to online freedoms now, in the year 2012?
[02:05] Maira> Well, a large issue is situations in which ISPs, intermediaries, are handing over user data to the state - whether it's in the U.S. or in other countries. Maira> So that's an on-going issue. Maira> When should a company hand over user's data to the state or to police authorities if they are charged with doing a crime? Maira> Locational information, GPS, cases such as license plate monitoring - biometrics is actually a large new issue -
[02:44] <TITLE> The background shows a shot of the stand for the (U.S.) Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[02:45] Maira> - tracking people's biometric data, so their eye color, their face structure - and how these new technologies are making it much easier for that data to be put in a database and filed away, so that if you are filmed on a camera on the street, they can recognize that you're there. Maira> You know, it's some scary stuff.
[03:09] Timothy> What would make a company better in your eyes? Timothy> If they're already companies, you know, any actions that come to mind that would make a company, you know, seem like a better netizens, and a better protector of online freedoms? Timothy> What so
haha - I meant, bodog.ca.. redirects.. to.. yes. ( This, of course, being the reason people want a.com domain. Oh iro.. wait, where's Alanis? Have to verify proper usage... )
The summary can say not-American for a billion things, at the end of the day the domain TLD was com, over which the U.S. firmly asserts jurisdiction as the companies that run them are all U.S.-based.
Besides fighting 'The (U.S.) Man', people would do well to realize this and register somewhere a bit more friendly (in addition to any.com,.net,.org, etc.). In the case of this Canadian business, perhaps.ca? Oh wait, they did. And that ( bodog.com ) in turn redirects to a.co.uk .
They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defense Intelligence Agency.
...to this...
A company that fronts as an intelligence publisher... but is secretly an intelligence publisher?
...instead of something like: A company that fronts as an intelligence publisher... but secretly acts as an intelligence agency.
Even if that introduction wasn't clear enough, the remainder of the press release would have cleared things up quite well.
There is barely any 'roaming' in the U.S. You might get some plans that will give you free calling to other people on the same network, but unless you send all the people you interact with while there a survey indicating what network they're on and basing your decision on that... well.
You're coming from Europe with an N9 and an iPhone that, presumably, take SIM cards and run on the GSM networks. This is what limits you mostly - to AT&T and T-Mobile - if you want to stick to those phones and want to pick up a local SIM card. And yes, you'd want to pick up a local SIM card unless your European cell company doesn't gouge customers for actual roaming costs from using your European SIM in the U.S.
The reason I mention "if you want to stick to those phones" is because you have a much greater choice if you just pick up a plan+phone, or prepaid phone, from any provider you please, and use it to make actual calls - keeping your N9/iPhone around for chatting, internetting, etc. on e.g. WiFi networks (your hotel / place you stay, starbucks, mcdonald's, book stores, whatever). You can then keep that phone and just bring it with you every time you visit the U.S. (note that prepaid options expire after a while (at least at AT&T) unless you top it off, so if you visit again in a year, you might have to pick up a new prepaid SIM/plan and deal with having to send people new U.S. numbers each time).
If you do pick up an AT&T Go Phone or SIM, please note that topping up is best done at an AT&T store location. The reason for this is that, as recently as January, their web interface does not accept non-American Credit Cards and their call-in service puts you first through a speaking menu, then a 'press # to...' menu, then finally decides to also not accept your credit card, puts you on hold for a queue to an actual person, and by the time you get through to them, will be out of the credits that were left (yes, calling the top-up service costs you credit.) Maybe they fixed that, maybe mashing buttons to get through to a person asap works as well, but in my opinion.. just go to one of the stores, much less hassle and they can help you out better with options in case your usage indicates a better plan, too.
That's my personal experience - a simple search query will yield many sites that give advice to travelers, though.
warning: car analogy and likely comments about physical vs digital world differences incoming!
The difference being that in the proposed scheme, there wasn't a bargaining for the product. The product was essentially taken, then once the store realized it and identified the person, offered a lower price.
I don't see a problem with a business model where haggling is par for the course or if nothing else, an option. A business model in which you offer this haggling by default to those who would just take the product first and only even enter into haggling if caught, is something else entirely.
And, again, my main question was with regard to whether or not they'd still get the same level of support. In the case of haggling with a car dealership, you might be able to shave off $N with no change, but beyond that the car dealership would bump you down a support level, or instead of the premium tires you get the standard ones.. or they drop the lifetime free updates for the built-in satnav and you'll have to pay for updates in the future instead. etc. No car dealership is going to let you walk away with the car at 1/5th of its list price with full benefits - but that's exactly what the propose scheme would allow simply because 1/5th is still better than $0.
So say you negotiate with that user and they would be willing to pay $2,000 instead. Do they still get all the benefits that the $10,000 customer does?
Because if they do, and word gets out, what potential customer in their right mind wouldn't say "I hear iamhassi got your product for $2,000 - I would like for you to extend that offer to us."
Not to mention existing customers.. say a customer that bought it 1 day before the offer was made.. what would keep them from thinking you're just rewarding the 'pirate' with am $8,000 discount. I guess you'd have to tell them "You should have just downloaded a copy off of TPB instead. Thanks for the $8,000, we'll put it to good use supporting the 'customers' that only paid $2,000."
A printer should be just another computer that accepts a document (pick something...PDF, whatever) and the usual parameters (num of copies, size, etc.) and prints it.
Sure, in a world where the printers are a lot smarter (recognizing the media type and adjusting printing settings automatically - i.e. glossy photo paper = highest DPI, adjust ink levels automatically, etc., transparency = mirror the input, etc.) that would be great. If that's what Apple would be pushing for, awesome.
Until then, I'll take my printer driver over poking at buttons on the printer or going through the printer's HTML interface just because the OS developer thinks printer drivers and per-session/per-job settings are stupid.
I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating as more and more services no longer use their own identity systems, relying instead on Gravatar, or doing away with their own comments system by relying on Disqus (which uses Gravatar).
In the case of sites using Gravatar incorrectly*, which is pretty much all of them, 'anonymous' posts still have their Gravatar ID attached - which is just an MD5 of the person's e-mail address. All you then need to do is find that same MD5 on another site where the author opted not to post anonymously.
The main reason this ties into the story at hand is in getting reference material together. With e.g. Disqus, you can be reasonably assured (unless account sharing occurs) that the anonymous post with MD5 X on site A is authored by the same person as that of the anonymous post with MD5 X on site B, and you can include both in the pool of reference material. ( This also means there are issues with anonymity even if the author always posts 'anonymous'. )
* The worst part of this is the website owners. Aside from letting anonymous posts still grab their results from Gravatar (even if you don't have a Gravatar 'account', the e-mail address you use will be the MD5 in the HTML), some sites implement Gravatar as an afterthought. You could have been posting to a site for years behind a pseudonym, knowing that you're reasonably anonymous - and then find your pseudonym, and all the posts made, linked to other posts at other sites because the website owner decided to use Gravatar to display users' avatars of choice, using the e-mail address in their account.
Gravatar is a useful service, especially in that the website can save some bandwidth, and the users who do want it can just update a single avatar and have that immediately be used on any site that uses the service.
But I implore webmasters to consider seriously the ramifications of using Gravatar or Disqus, and at least: 1. Disallow Gravatar on posts, profiles, etc. that were created before your implementation of Gravatar. 2. Create an opt-in system for the use of Gravater, per-profile. 3. Disable the Gravatar code when the post author has indicated that they want to post anonymously. 4. If implementing Disqus, make clear that its service may not adhere to your site's own privacy policies, and posting anonymously is a faÃade.
Much the same applies to other login, profile, and comment consolidation/aggregation/syndication systems (such as facebook's), but especially in the case of Gravatar, which requires no user interaction such as a login or existing valid login state), it is all too easy to think only of the benefits.
Blocking TBP would push encryption and privacy into the public conciousness and millions more people would start caring about it. It would be a disaster for Big Brother.
Being in a country (NL) where TPB is blocked by two major providers, I can tell you that no such thing has occurred on any notable scale.
What did happen? 1. Outrage at forums and news sites. 2. Questions of how to get around the blockade. 3. Answers providing many methods to get 'around' the blockade, none of which require encryption or privacy-enhancing methods, really. Sure, TOR has been suggested, but TOR is cumbersome. 4. Further answers pointing out alternatives, including 'news' servers. 5. Outrage? What outrage? Oh, The Pirate Beach? Yeah, I vaguely remember that irrelevant site. *goes back to watching recent episode of popular U.S. show downloaded from news server*
Sure.. I don't know how this could be done on Windows - perhaps start the effect on process startup, stop it upon detection of a proper window? But that doesn't necessarily mean it's actually done loading.
Then again, it's one thing for something to bounce to indicate that something may or may not be happening, it's another to actually show progress.
And yes, OS X and Windows are somewhat different beasts:)
Sadly, this applies to The GIMP as well. I do wish more programs would lazy-load features that are time-consuming.
I can understand why they don't, though... imagine going to the filters menu and then have to wait several seconds while Photoshop/GIMP/whatever iterates over the plugin DLLs/executables/scripts to fill in the menu. Quite annoying - possibly moreso than just waiting those seconds during startup.
For what it's worth, Windows developers can also do this - they can put a progress bar in the program's task bar button - since Windows 7. Of course that they haven't might be indicative of it being too difficult.. or that they're too unfamiliar with it.. or that they do offer their own splash screen because it's more informative than just a task bar progress bar.
fair enough:) Although I don't think 'neutral carrier' is what I was going for either... I do think they should be subject to legal procedures, for example. The DMCA take-down request notice form thing is essentially a shortcut to go around the courts (which does alleviate pressure on them, yes) under the assumption that rights owners are following the rules to the letter. Which, quite often, they don't. Bringing things back to the courts puts up a much higher barrier and as a result the complaints would be of much higher quality. I.e. the legal dept. might consider that a court is just going to look at them funny if the complaint is that some song is on a radio that's heard in the background of a video that is primarily of a cat doing awesome things, and thus not bother. Whereas with the DMCA takedown, they know the site will have to comply and the user who uploaded will have to file a counter-notice.. which they very, very rarely do. (Complaining about it on twitter and getting 'the internets' riled up seems to be more efficient anyway.)
I'm guessing babo wants to use them on-set, review the shots, etc. Rather than being constrained to the main workstation, just stream the shot to the tablet (this is where thunderbolt and a long cable come in handy) and off you go.
I'm sure he'll read your reply, so to answer his silly question...
Could the iPad 3 display be used instead?
Yes, at least in terms of resolution. Basic math tells us that 2048 and 2048 are the same, while 1536 s greater than 1080. But that just means you get some extra space for on-screen controls that won't have to overlay the footage.
Of course resolution is not the only qualifier for a review monitor, and the 128 missing pixels are rarely interesting enough... you view the scaled down version on the monitor to make sure there's nothing weird going on on the left/right side of the view that you can't take out in post (or would be too expensive to - but then, planning your shots better is always preferable) and if you want to check focus, you check the 1:1.
A higher resolution monitor does allow you to combine both in one, but your 1:1 shot will also be tiny - you'd probably have to zoom in 2:1 to judge details better again. ( or carry a magnifying glass )
The iPad 3 might be just slightly on the small side for the purpose, basically.
Where I draw the line is if someone who is trying to make a buck decides to use my work to make money.
You'll be happy to know that this is what I was aiming at with the last part of my post.
I essentially envision a change to the copyright model in which a model from most of the media publishing world is used as a foundation for legislation; the separate statuses of copyright and distribution (or publishing) rights.
Now, I realize my 'abolish copyright' is extreme - but you yourself are already saying that hey... you don't care if somebody downloads a scan of your work. You also, presumably, don't care if they took a photo of your photo (the analog hole for an analog work?). But once they distribute it, and in my suggestion it really doesn't matter whether they distribute it for free or or for a fee, that's when they should sort things out with you, legally.
Additionally, as I explained in another post where somebody suggested they could just make a harry potter sequel and distribute that, there may be other rights inherent to your photography. I think a recent case was pointed out at Slashdot (was it the black/white London photo with the doubledecker bus left in stark red contrast?). A sufficiently similar work, presuming your work served as an inspiration, or a derivative work, for example, may be in violation of other such rights.
Wait... you want to do away with copyright altogether?
Given the complete disregard for copyright when you look at things rationally? yes.
I could write a sequel to the Harry Potter books. If I had been really quick about it, I could even have rushed out a sequel right after she had written the first book, but before she was done writing her second book.
You can do so right now - you just can't call it that and it really shouldn't be particularly similar. If you did, you're really not in violation of copyright, but plagiarism, character rights, etc. I'm fine with retaining those - they're a bit like patents, if you will (complete with some of the problems apparent in the patent system).
Therefore..
I could call it Harry Potter 2: Forbidden Lust
No, you couldn't. Although, at least in the U.S., if the book were clearly a parody (and with that title, I can only presume it should be), then you might be able to get away with it.
and use her cover art from the original publication without paying for it!
Yes! Yes you could. And the problem with that would be? Presumably she already paid the artist for designing the cover, and under the new funding models that artist wouldn't be paid out of royalties over copyrights. They, for one, thus shouldn't care that other people are copying that cover art.
The problem does come in when you combine that with the 'rushed out' part of your statement. I think you meant to imply that you would get it published. But in that case we're back to the whole distribution thing which I have left as 'illegal' in my post. I'm pretty sure you couldn't claim you're just 'backing up' the book cover by publishing it;)
Most of the rest of your post pretty much falls back to that... your models all include a component of distribution - and many sites that host user content do in fact allow third parties to take that content at no benefit to the original author other than potentially some exposure. Watched the news lately? Seen a youtube video come by? Seen the little 'credit' line in the corner that reads "credit: YouTube"? You wouldn't happen to think that the person who actually shot the video and uploaded it got money off of that news station for that, would you? And that's news shows.. they get a bit of leeway as it is, journalism and all that. There's entire shows that are pretty much 'the best of youtube this week' where the only purpose is entertainment... the people whose videos are used? they get nada. If they're lucky, people will try to find it again at youtube, get a lot of views, and be able to opt into YouTube's "get paid for stuff" program.. and get a few dimes.
It's so obvious! Completely abolishing copyright is the only solution that makes sense! Let's do it!
Abolishing copyright is not the only solution that makes sense, but given the status quo I would certainly say it's one of the premiere solutions. Again, this would be separate from distribution rights. You want to make a copy? Go for it. You want to actually distribute that copy? Well, here's where you can reach our legal department.
The alternative is that we retain copyright.. but then what? Again, keep in mind that many here complain about copyright solely in terms of it having been extended to life + 70 years, and that a supposed appropriate term is 14 years. But the vast majority of the 'pirated' content isn't even stuff that's already 50 years old.. it's not even stuff that is 14 years old, and if the copyright term were 4 years, you still wouldn't see people saying "well I'll just wait 4 years and then download this MKV or alternative I will purchase it because I just can't wait that long". ( the 'purchase it' might be more likely if pricing were drastically lower and availability drastically improved
If you repeal the DMCA, you're also repealing the 'safe harbor' provisions that many site currently enjoy.
5. Provide 'safe harbor' to all service providers, guaranteeing legal immunity to them with regard to material provided by third parties.
Note that there's no clause there about having to handle DMCA take-down requests, as those are a hassle, abused and near-impossible to verify at best and a privacy disaster at worst.
You already have the right to backup your items in most jurisdictions. However, I understand what you're saying and it ties into AC's point number 4, so I'll get back to that.
If you set copyright to 'sane bounds' you wouldn't change all that much. I think a website once put it as follows... if the copyright term were set to 14 years, or - and why not - 4 years.. would that mean the masses would wait those 4 years to download the blockbuster movie that premiered in theaters 1 month ago? Considering the vast majority of 'piracy' is of recent materials, I think you can deduce an answer.
So instead... 3. Drop copyrights. Sorry, but copyrights are clearly an unenforceable construction in the digital age. If that means businesses that relied on copyrights to make back their investment will have to instead find a new funding model, so be it. I'll let the FSF ponder the ramifications for the GPL and such. For physical items, we'll still have patents.
So to point 4, which the AC supplied as the right to reverse-engineer, bypass, etc. stuff that is your property. This, like your point 1a, are things that you're already allowed to do in most jurisdictions.
In your point 1a, I think the point you're making is not just that you should have the right to make a backup, but that nobody should interfere with that right and that that right is to a perfect backup. That is to say, that companies should not be allowed to use DRM to try to prevent you from making a backup, and that pointing your video camera at your OLED screen to record a movie while playing it back (the analog hole) does not count as 'a backup' either.
So you'll want to adjust 1a to... 1a - codify the right to a 1:1 backup, without restrictions or undue burden, to secure one's legally obtained material against accident as a fundamental, protected, consumer right....but preferably without the horrible grammar. Note that I'm not saying you have right to make the backup, you just have a right to a backup. The right to make one is implied, but more importantly...
1b 'legally obtained' includes, but is not limited to, the theoretical recording of a performance that has been broadcast openly to any individual at any time during the consumer's lifetime on the grounds that the consumer could have been that individual and could have recorded it themselves, and it is merely limitations on space-time that may have prevented them from doing so.
1c. a 'backup' constitutes any such recording. I.e. if some random guy in Russia made a backup of their recording (R5 DVD) of a movie, then that is a valid backup of that movie for you, and you have every right to obtain it.
Which in turn leads back to AC's point 4... it's all good and well to be allowed to reverse-engineer stuff you own, but what about telling others about it? What about telling others about how to do it? What about making a program that makes it easy for others to do it? Those are things that, in some jurisdictions, are currently illegal without good reason.. after all, if a random somebody sold the thing they own to you, you reverse-engineered it, then sold it back to you, that would apparently be perfectly legal.
So... let's adjust 4 a little bit.. 4a. All buyers of electronic goods have the right to reverse engineer, bypass, overwrite and do what they bloody well please with their property 4b. All such individuals have the right to make available any and all findings, in any and all forms, related to the act as described in 4a.
In Europe we've all but done away with the 1 and 2 eurocent coins - their monetary value vs cost involved in handling them just didn't make sense.
But we do still have e.g. â0.99 type prices. The way it works is that your total gets rounded at most placed and almost certainly if you decide to pay by debit card. So if you buy 3 of those â0.99 items, you get a total of â2.97, rounded to â2.95. If you buy two, it gets rounded up and you pay â2.00 instead of the â1.98. ( this is apparently called 'Swedish rounding' when specifically applied to the situation of currency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_rounding )
However, if you want to pay with 1 or 2 eurocent coins to match a price exactly, many places will still accept that - but if you pay 'just over' where your return would technically be 1 or 2 eurocent, you won't be getting those.
The places that accept them bring them to the bank, which bring them to bigger banks, which basically have them destroyed - and gradually the 1 and 2 eurocent coins are removed from circulation.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not really.
Although scientists whose area of expertise is in this area would have to show real data either confirming my gut feeling or disproving it (and I'll then blame the fish I had earlier)., I would guess that...
When you're young and you're exposed to the imagery of 'ideals' you might try to actually reach those ideals. However, if you fail - and most of us do; even if you do make it to the ideal, a month later you may have bounced right back up and then some - that may make you sad at best and downright depressed at worst.
The sadness/depression is, in turn, fought using - among other - comfort foods (It's no coincidence that a lot of people think that eating a bucket of ice cream is a great way to do away with the blues).
But eating comfort foods is rarely health and in fact is likely to lead you to further weight gain.. which depresses you more, etc.
At some point, though, you stop really caring. You've realized that you are overweight, and that while you have fleeting moments of wanting to do something about it, there's no real pressure to do so any more as you are now one of the millions of overweight adults who are accepted just fine by society as long as you don't go overboard in obesity (at which point you might become the subject of internet ridicule for a day, after which life goes on).
In fact, once you reach that point, you realize that the superskinny are far more often pointed out in a negative way than the overweight (think Angelina Jolie).
As such, if these distorted 'ideals' can be kept away from kids, then perhaps that would effect change. However, I don't think legislation is the answer. How would you actually legislate this anyway? The change has to come from within the fashion/magazine industry itself.
However, as some in that industry have already suggested that Kate Upton (google, judge for yourself) is too 'curvy' (read: fat) for magazine covers, I doubt that change is coming anytime soon.
Putting aside for a moment that perhaps such households should think for a moment before opting into such plans, I have to ask... ...what, exactly, would be wrong with that scenario?
For one thing, it's not child pornography. The law may perhaps interpret it as such, especially if it ends up being treated as such by the person caught on camera / their legal guardians, but naked people walking in front of a camera does not necessarily pornography make.
For another, my computer could be analyzing child pornography all day long every day of the week. Perhaps it's analyzing it to see if it's known pornography or new pornography. If it's new pornography, perhaps it's trying facial recognition to see if this is of a person whose case has already been handled, or that it may be a new case and should be flagged as such.
But given that the system doesn't know what the material is in the first place, perhaps it's analyzing the picture, sees what looks like a human form, detects that either there's no clothing or the person happens to walk around in a wetsuit that matches their skin color, and either way decides to discard the data.
The analyzing software may be much more interested in that bright rectangular surface called your TV to see what programs you watch.
People are way, way too jumpy about this stuff. Next thing you know an adult can't go to a lake for a swim because there's also kids who like diving into the water and have issues keeping their bikini bottoms on* and you just might see that. Oh noes.
It's different if that's the purpose of going swimming there in the first place, of course. Just as it would be different if one of the goals of this company would be to catch people naked (adults: blackmail, kids: CP market?), or if, as part of its operation, the material would be made available to third parties who in turn might have such motives.
( * apparently, that's a thing? Here, have a plug: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/525823883/swimwear-that-stays-put-made-locally-made-responsi )
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opting into such a program anytime soon.. but the whole "what if it catches X doing Y!?" thing? Not the biggest problem with this by a long shot.
And by 'we' I certainly don't mean Slashdot staff.
-- begin transcript --
[0:00] <TITLE>
The background shows the EFF logo and the following three lines:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
protecting Rights and promoting Freedom on the Electronic Frontier
www.eff.org
The logo for Slashdot, with the subline "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." scrolls into view.
[0.04]
Timothy> A lot of the companies here at RSA probably don't mind violating your privacy once in a while in fact, I get the feeling some of them enjoy it.
Timothy> So, what's a nice bunch like the EFF doing here?
Timothy> I talked to International Outreach Coordinator Maira Sutton to find out.
[0:16]
Timothy> Why is the EFF at an event like this surrounded by companies that do very different things and don't necessarily respect privacy?
[0:23]
Maira> Well, we are part of the community.
Maira> Whether or not we do the same things, we are a counter point to a lot of the work that these companies do.
Maira> And, I think we need to be here to add to the conversation.
Maira> And at the same time, we do support coders' rights and programmers' rights.
Maira> So on an individual level a lot of people come to us to support what they do.
Maira> So, we have a lot of fans here.
Maira> Sometimes, you know, they might say "It's great that you're here.. but why are you here? It's strange that you're here".
Maira> But, I think it's important that we add to the conversation and just by having a presence, I think we are making a statement.
[1:10]
Maira> So the question as to whether privacy can be a security risk:
Maira> It's a complicated question, it's something that we deal with constantly.
Maira> The age-old example is child pornography.
Maira> You know, what are you supposed to do with these criminals that can hide their identity and do evil, criminal things?
Maira> But at the same time, you can't assume that they're doing something criminal.
Maira> And that's where that delicate balance comes in, and that's where [the] EFF is at the forefront.
Maira> We take on cases dealing with these delicate, fragile issues.
[01:45]
Maira> People that come by here - I would say they're pretty much a fan.
Maira> I've seen some people who don't know who we are, and we explain, and they say "Whoa," you know, "that's strange that they're here in the first place."
Maira> But for the most part the people that do approach us are huge fans, and they are members or they are becoming members.
Maira> So it's great, we're getting a lot of love here.
[02:05] <TITLE>
What threats to you see to online freedoms now, in the year 2012?
[02:05]
Maira> Well, a large issue is situations in which ISPs, intermediaries, are handing over user data to the state - whether it's in the U.S. or in other countries.
Maira> So that's an on-going issue.
Maira> When should a company hand over user's data to the state or to police authorities if they are charged with doing a crime?
Maira> Locational information, GPS, cases such as license plate monitoring - biometrics is actually a large new issue -
[02:44] <TITLE>
The background shows a shot of the stand for the (U.S.) Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[02:45]
Maira> - tracking people's biometric data, so their eye color, their face structure - and how these new technologies are making it much easier for that data to be put in a database and filed away, so that if you are filmed on a camera on the street, they can recognize that you're there.
Maira> You know, it's some scary stuff.
[03:09]
Timothy> What would make a company better in your eyes?
Timothy> If they're already companies, you know, any actions that come to mind that would make a company, you know, seem like a better netizens, and a better protector of online freedoms?
Timothy> What so
haha - I meant, bodog.ca .. redirects.. to.. yes. .com domain. Oh iro.. wait, where's Alanis? Have to verify proper usage... )
( This, of course, being the reason people want a
This isn't new... even Slashdot has covered stories like these before.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/04/1439246/us-uk-targeting-piracy-websites-outside-their-borders
The summary can say not-American for a billion things, at the end of the day the domain TLD was com, over which the U.S. firmly asserts jurisdiction as the companies that run them are all U.S.-based.
Besides fighting 'The (U.S.) Man', people would do well to realize this and register somewhere a bit more friendly (in addition to any .com, .net, .org, etc.). In the case of this Canadian business, perhaps .ca? Oh wait, they did. And that ( bodog.com ) in turn redirects to a .co.uk .
Ah, that changes everything! (or at least, $300 worth of something). Thanks for clearing that up :)
Was about to submit my post addressing the math fail, but you were ahead of me.
However... at 10TB, you hit the $0.09 price according to GP, so $900. Wouldn't know if that's expensive.
I figure with that much streaming traffic, they can probably squeeze their listeners for some money to cover these expenses.
How do Spotify/Pandora handle these things?
How do you go from this...
A company that fronts as an intelligence publisher... but secretly acts as an intelligence agency.
Even if that introduction wasn't clear enough, the remainder of the press release would have cleared things up quite well.
There is barely any 'roaming' in the U.S. You might get some plans that will give you free calling to other people on the same network, but unless you send all the people you interact with while there a survey indicating what network they're on and basing your decision on that... well.
You're coming from Europe with an N9 and an iPhone that, presumably, take SIM cards and run on the GSM networks. This is what limits you mostly - to AT&T and T-Mobile - if you want to stick to those phones and want to pick up a local SIM card. And yes, you'd want to pick up a local SIM card unless your European cell company doesn't gouge customers for actual roaming costs from using your European SIM in the U.S.
The reason I mention "if you want to stick to those phones" is because you have a much greater choice if you just pick up a plan+phone, or prepaid phone, from any provider you please, and use it to make actual calls - keeping your N9/iPhone around for chatting, internetting, etc. on e.g. WiFi networks (your hotel / place you stay, starbucks, mcdonald's, book stores, whatever).
You can then keep that phone and just bring it with you every time you visit the U.S. (note that prepaid options expire after a while (at least at AT&T) unless you top it off, so if you visit again in a year, you might have to pick up a new prepaid SIM/plan and deal with having to send people new U.S. numbers each time).
If you do pick up an AT&T Go Phone or SIM, please note that topping up is best done at an AT&T store location. The reason for this is that, as recently as January, their web interface does not accept non-American Credit Cards and their call-in service puts you first through a speaking menu, then a 'press # to...' menu, then finally decides to also not accept your credit card, puts you on hold for a queue to an actual person, and by the time you get through to them, will be out of the credits that were left (yes, calling the top-up service costs you credit.) Maybe they fixed that, maybe mashing buttons to get through to a person asap works as well, but in my opinion.. just go to one of the stores, much less hassle and they can help you out better with options in case your usage indicates a better plan, too.
That's my personal experience - a simple search query will yield many sites that give advice to travelers, though.
warning: car analogy and likely comments about physical vs digital world differences incoming!
The difference being that in the proposed scheme, there wasn't a bargaining for the product. The product was essentially taken, then once the store realized it and identified the person, offered a lower price.
I don't see a problem with a business model where haggling is par for the course or if nothing else, an option.
A business model in which you offer this haggling by default to those who would just take the product first and only even enter into haggling if caught, is something else entirely.
And, again, my main question was with regard to whether or not they'd still get the same level of support. In the case of haggling with a car dealership, you might be able to shave off $N with no change, but beyond that the car dealership would bump you down a support level, or instead of the premium tires you get the standard ones.. or they drop the lifetime free updates for the built-in satnav and you'll have to pay for updates in the future instead. etc.
No car dealership is going to let you walk away with the car at 1/5th of its list price with full benefits - but that's exactly what the propose scheme would allow simply because 1/5th is still better than $0.
So say you negotiate with that user and they would be willing to pay $2,000 instead. Do they still get all the benefits that the $10,000 customer does?
Because if they do, and word gets out, what potential customer in their right mind wouldn't say "I hear iamhassi got your product for $2,000 - I would like for you to extend that offer to us."
Not to mention existing customers.. say a customer that bought it 1 day before the offer was made.. what would keep them from thinking you're just rewarding the 'pirate' with am $8,000 discount.
I guess you'd have to tell them "You should have just downloaded a copy off of TPB instead. Thanks for the $8,000, we'll put it to good use supporting the 'customers' that only paid $2,000."
Sure, in a world where the printers are a lot smarter (recognizing the media type and adjusting printing settings automatically - i.e. glossy photo paper = highest DPI, adjust ink levels automatically, etc., transparency = mirror the input, etc.) that would be great.
If that's what Apple would be pushing for, awesome.
Until then, I'll take my printer driver over poking at buttons on the printer or going through the printer's HTML interface just because the OS developer thinks printer drivers and per-session/per-job settings are stupid.
I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating as more and more services no longer use their own identity systems, relying instead on Gravatar, or doing away with their own comments system by relying on Disqus (which uses Gravatar).
In the case of sites using Gravatar incorrectly*, which is pretty much all of them, 'anonymous' posts still have their Gravatar ID attached - which is just an MD5 of the person's e-mail address. All you then need to do is find that same MD5 on another site where the author opted not to post anonymously.
The main reason this ties into the story at hand is in getting reference material together. With e.g. Disqus, you can be reasonably assured (unless account sharing occurs) that the anonymous post with MD5 X on site A is authored by the same person as that of the anonymous post with MD5 X on site B, and you can include both in the pool of reference material.
( This also means there are issues with anonymity even if the author always posts 'anonymous'. )
* The worst part of this is the website owners. Aside from letting anonymous posts still grab their results from Gravatar (even if you don't have a Gravatar 'account', the e-mail address you use will be the MD5 in the HTML), some sites implement Gravatar as an afterthought. You could have been posting to a site for years behind a pseudonym, knowing that you're reasonably anonymous - and then find your pseudonym, and all the posts made, linked to other posts at other sites because the website owner decided to use Gravatar to display users' avatars of choice, using the e-mail address in their account.
Gravatar is a useful service, especially in that the website can save some bandwidth, and the users who do want it can just update a single avatar and have that immediately be used on any site that uses the service.
But I implore webmasters to consider seriously the ramifications of using Gravatar or Disqus, and at least:
1. Disallow Gravatar on posts, profiles, etc. that were created before your implementation of Gravatar.
2. Create an opt-in system for the use of Gravater, per-profile.
3. Disable the Gravatar code when the post author has indicated that they want to post anonymously.
4. If implementing Disqus, make clear that its service may not adhere to your site's own privacy policies, and posting anonymously is a faÃade.
Much the same applies to other login, profile, and comment consolidation/aggregation/syndication systems (such as facebook's), but especially in the case of Gravatar, which requires no user interaction such as a login or existing valid login state), it is all too easy to think only of the benefits.
Being in a country (NL) where TPB is blocked by two major providers, I can tell you that no such thing has occurred on any notable scale.
What did happen?
1. Outrage at forums and news sites.
2. Questions of how to get around the blockade.
3. Answers providing many methods to get 'around' the blockade, none of which require encryption or privacy-enhancing methods, really. Sure, TOR has been suggested, but TOR is cumbersome.
4. Further answers pointing out alternatives, including 'news' servers.
5. Outrage? What outrage? Oh, The Pirate Beach? Yeah, I vaguely remember that irrelevant site. *goes back to watching recent episode of popular U.S. show downloaded from news server*
Maybe it would be different in the U.K.
Sure.. I don't know how this could be done on Windows - perhaps start the effect on process startup, stop it upon detection of a proper window? But that doesn't necessarily mean it's actually done loading.
Then again, it's one thing for something to bounce to indicate that something may or may not be happening, it's another to actually show progress.
And yes, OS X and Windows are somewhat different beasts :)
Sadly, this applies to The GIMP as well. I do wish more programs would lazy-load features that are time-consuming.
I can understand why they don't, though... imagine going to the filters menu and then have to wait several seconds while Photoshop/GIMP/whatever iterates over the plugin DLLs/executables/scripts to fill in the menu. Quite annoying - possibly moreso than just waiting those seconds during startup.
For what it's worth, Windows developers can also do this - they can put a progress bar in the program's task bar button - since Windows 7.
Of course that they haven't might be indicative of it being too difficult.. or that they're too unfamiliar with it.. or that they do offer their own splash screen because it's more informative than just a task bar progress bar.
Google is your friend...
http://www.parkpennies.com/pressed-penny/penny-pressing-legal.htm
fair enough :) Although I don't think 'neutral carrier' is what I was going for either... I do think they should be subject to legal procedures, for example. The DMCA take-down request notice form thing is essentially a shortcut to go around the courts (which does alleviate pressure on them, yes) under the assumption that rights owners are following the rules to the letter. Which, quite often, they don't. Bringing things back to the courts puts up a much higher barrier and as a result the complaints would be of much higher quality. I.e. the legal dept. might consider that a court is just going to look at them funny if the complaint is that some song is on a radio that's heard in the background of a video that is primarily of a cat doing awesome things, and thus not bother. Whereas with the DMCA takedown, they know the site will have to comply and the user who uploaded will have to file a counter-notice.. which they very, very rarely do. (Complaining about it on twitter and getting 'the internets' riled up seems to be more efficient anyway.)
Because it's not very portable?
I'm guessing babo wants to use them on-set, review the shots, etc. Rather than being constrained to the main workstation, just stream the shot to the tablet (this is where thunderbolt and a long cable come in handy) and off you go.
I'm sure he'll read your reply, so to answer his silly question...
Yes, at least in terms of resolution. Basic math tells us that 2048 and 2048 are the same, while 1536 s greater than 1080. But that just means you get some extra space for on-screen controls that won't have to overlay the footage.
Of course resolution is not the only qualifier for a review monitor, and the 128 missing pixels are rarely interesting enough... you view the scaled down version on the monitor to make sure there's nothing weird going on on the left/right side of the view that you can't take out in post (or would be too expensive to - but then, planning your shots better is always preferable) and if you want to check focus, you check the 1:1.
A higher resolution monitor does allow you to combine both in one, but your 1:1 shot will also be tiny - you'd probably have to zoom in 2:1 to judge details better again. ( or carry a magnifying glass )
The iPad 3 might be just slightly on the small side for the purpose, basically.
You'll be happy to know that this is what I was aiming at with the last part of my post.
I essentially envision a change to the copyright model in which a model from most of the media publishing world is used as a foundation for legislation; the separate statuses of copyright and distribution (or publishing) rights.
Now, I realize my 'abolish copyright' is extreme - but you yourself are already saying that hey... you don't care if somebody downloads a scan of your work. You also, presumably, don't care if they took a photo of your photo (the analog hole for an analog work?).
But once they distribute it, and in my suggestion it really doesn't matter whether they distribute it for free or or for a fee, that's when they should sort things out with you, legally.
Additionally, as I explained in another post where somebody suggested they could just make a harry potter sequel and distribute that, there may be other rights inherent to your photography. I think a recent case was pointed out at Slashdot (was it the black/white London photo with the doubledecker bus left in stark red contrast?). A sufficiently similar work, presuming your work served as an inspiration, or a derivative work, for example, may be in violation of other such rights.
Good luck with your portfolio!
Given the complete disregard for copyright when you look at things rationally? yes.
You can do so right now - you just can't call it that and it really shouldn't be particularly similar.
If you did, you're really not in violation of copyright, but plagiarism, character rights, etc. I'm fine with retaining those - they're a bit like patents, if you will (complete with some of the problems apparent in the patent system).
Therefore..
No, you couldn't. Although, at least in the U.S., if the book were clearly a parody (and with that title, I can only presume it should be), then you might be able to get away with it.
Yes! Yes you could. And the problem with that would be? Presumably she already paid the artist for designing the cover, and under the new funding models that artist wouldn't be paid out of royalties over copyrights. They, for one, thus shouldn't care that other people are copying that cover art.
The problem does come in when you combine that with the 'rushed out' part of your statement. I think you meant to imply that you would get it published. But in that case we're back to the whole distribution thing which I have left as 'illegal' in my post. I'm pretty sure you couldn't claim you're just 'backing up' the book cover by publishing it ;)
Most of the rest of your post pretty much falls back to that... your models all include a component of distribution - and many sites that host user content do in fact allow third parties to take that content at no benefit to the original author other than potentially some exposure. Watched the news lately? Seen a youtube video come by? Seen the little 'credit' line in the corner that reads "credit: YouTube"? You wouldn't happen to think that the person who actually shot the video and uploaded it got money off of that news station for that, would you?
And that's news shows.. they get a bit of leeway as it is, journalism and all that. There's entire shows that are pretty much 'the best of youtube this week' where the only purpose is entertainment... the people whose videos are used? they get nada. If they're lucky, people will try to find it again at youtube, get a lot of views, and be able to opt into YouTube's "get paid for stuff" program.. and get a few dimes.
Abolishing copyright is not the only solution that makes sense, but given the status quo I would certainly say it's one of the premiere solutions.
Again, this would be separate from distribution rights. You want to make a copy? Go for it.
You want to actually distribute that copy? Well, here's where you can reach our legal department.
The alternative is that we retain copyright.. but then what?
Again, keep in mind that many here complain about copyright solely in terms of it having been extended to life + 70 years, and that a supposed appropriate term is 14 years. But the vast majority of the 'pirated' content isn't even stuff that's already 50 years old.. it's not even stuff that is 14 years old, and if the copyright term were 4 years, you still wouldn't see people saying "well I'll just wait 4 years and then download this MKV or alternative I will purchase it because I just can't wait that long".
( the 'purchase it' might be more likely if pricing were drastically lower and availability drastically improved
If you repeal the DMCA, you're also repealing the 'safe harbor' provisions that many site currently enjoy.
5. Provide 'safe harbor' to all service providers, guaranteeing legal immunity to them with regard to material provided by third parties.
Note that there's no clause there about having to handle DMCA take-down requests, as those are a hassle, abused and near-impossible to verify at best and a privacy disaster at worst.
You already have the right to backup your items in most jurisdictions. However, I understand what you're saying and it ties into AC's point number 4, so I'll get back to that.
If you set copyright to 'sane bounds' you wouldn't change all that much. I think a website once put it as follows... if the copyright term were set to 14 years, or - and why not - 4 years.. would that mean the masses would wait those 4 years to download the blockbuster movie that premiered in theaters 1 month ago? Considering the vast majority of 'piracy' is of recent materials, I think you can deduce an answer.
So instead...
3. Drop copyrights. Sorry, but copyrights are clearly an unenforceable construction in the digital age.
If that means businesses that relied on copyrights to make back their investment will have to instead find a new funding model, so be it.
I'll let the FSF ponder the ramifications for the GPL and such.
For physical items, we'll still have patents.
So to point 4, which the AC supplied as the right to reverse-engineer, bypass, etc. stuff that is your property.
This, like your point 1a, are things that you're already allowed to do in most jurisdictions.
In your point 1a, I think the point you're making is not just that you should have the right to make a backup, but that nobody should interfere with that right and that that right is to a perfect backup.
That is to say, that companies should not be allowed to use DRM to try to prevent you from making a backup, and that pointing your video camera at your OLED screen to record a movie while playing it back (the analog hole) does not count as 'a backup' either.
So you'll want to adjust 1a to... ...but preferably without the horrible grammar.
1a - codify the right to a 1:1 backup, without restrictions or undue burden, to secure one's legally obtained material against accident as a fundamental, protected, consumer right.
Note that I'm not saying you have right to make the backup, you just have a right to a backup. The right to make one is implied, but more importantly...
1b 'legally obtained' includes, but is not limited to, the theoretical recording of a performance that has been broadcast openly to any individual at any time during the consumer's lifetime on the grounds that the consumer could have been that individual and could have recorded it themselves, and it is merely limitations on space-time that may have prevented them from doing so.
1c. a 'backup' constitutes any such recording.
I.e. if some random guy in Russia made a backup of their recording (R5 DVD) of a movie, then that is a valid backup of that movie for you, and you have every right to obtain it.
Which in turn leads back to AC's point 4... it's all good and well to be allowed to reverse-engineer stuff you own, but what about telling others about it? What about telling others about how to do it? What about making a program that makes it easy for others to do it? Those are things that, in some jurisdictions, are currently illegal without good reason.. after all, if a random somebody sold the thing they own to you, you reverse-engineered it, then sold it back to you, that would apparently be perfectly legal.
So... let's adjust 4 a little bit..
4a. All buyers of electronic goods have the right to reverse engineer, bypass, overwrite and do what they bloody well please with their property
4b. All such individuals have the right to make available any and all findings, in any and all forms, related to the act as described in 4a.
So now you can make a copy of that sc
geeze I got those all mixed up in my head.. if you pay by debit card you do almost certainly do not pay the rounded number.
Also, why did Slashdot kill my euro symbols? Geez.
Actually, there's no problem with having $9.99 .
In Europe we've all but done away with the 1 and 2 eurocent coins - their monetary value vs cost involved in handling them just didn't make sense.
But we do still have e.g. â0.99 type prices. The way it works is that your total gets rounded at most placed and almost certainly if you decide to pay by debit card. So if you buy 3 of those â0.99 items, you get a total of â2.97, rounded to â2.95. If you buy two, it gets rounded up and you pay â2.00 instead of the â1.98.
( this is apparently called 'Swedish rounding' when specifically applied to the situation of currency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_rounding )
However, if you want to pay with 1 or 2 eurocent coins to match a price exactly, many places will still accept that - but if you pay 'just over' where your return would technically be 1 or 2 eurocent, you won't be getting those.
The places that accept them bring them to the bank, which bring them to bigger banks, which basically have them destroyed - and gradually the 1 and 2 eurocent coins are removed from circulation.