The government cannot take away your right to drive a car - you are free to operate any motor vehicle on any private land, assuming you have the permission of the land owner. If you own the land, fine. If you friend owns the land, then you need your friend's permission.
That is a straw man argument. You know perfectly well that we are talking about driving on the public roads.
Public roads are basically government-owned - therefore you need the governments' permission. This comes in the form of a drivers' license. If you cannot meet the requirements for a drivers' license, then you do not have permission to drive on government-owned roads. You still are able to drive a car - just not on government-owned (or "public") roads.
That is completely false.
The roads are owned by the public, and are administered by the government on our behalf, and with our permission. Its astonishing that you dont understand this. Most american students are taught this most basic concept of the relationship between government and the people in a democracy in civics class.
Think of it this way - if it were truly a right to drive, then you wouldn't need licenses and car registrations. But then you'd have six year-olds driving, and cars that are dropping parts all over the road (although that's sometimes the truth, and not an exaggeration).
This is another straw man argument. Slashdotters are held in such high esteem; Surely you can do better!
John Gilmore's problem was not the government, the airline didn't let him on the plane. Not the government, the airline. (Yes, I read the link - the Captain refused to let him on. That particular article doesn't detail the FAA regulations, one of the linked articles does).
John Gilmore's problems re not over, so the past tense is inappropriate. His problems ARE with the government, because they are creating the lists of people who are not allowed to fly. You need to get acquainted with the facts in this case.
I do have the right to run whatever software I see fit on my computer, as long as it does not violate any United States laws.
That is nonsense. You running software on your own machine that doesn't affect any other computer other than your own is your ABSOLUTE right, just as it is your absolute right to write any type of fiction that you like on your own typewriter.
At this point, I'm not sure on the legal status of DeCSS, but I haven't heard of a law against Linux in general. When one does pass, I'll be thrown in jail like the rest of them.
Now youre just being silly....but I like silly!!!
Dictionary definitions: Right: That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. Privilige: A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.
These nouns apply to something, such as a power or possession, to which one has an established claim. Right refers to a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim: "I'm a champion for the Rights of Woman" (Maria Edgeworth). "An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment" (Hugo L. Black). Privilege usually suggests a right not enjoyed by everyone: Use of the company jet was a privilege reserved for the top executives. Prerogative denotes an exclusive right or privilege, as one based on custom, law, or office: It is my prerogative to change my mind. A perquisite is a privilege or advantage accorded to one by virtue of one's position or the needs of one's employment: "The wardrobe of her niece was the perquisite of her [maid]" (Tobias Smollett). A birthright is a right to which one is entitled by birth: Many view gainful employment as a birthright.
"NO"? Commenting on a film you have not seen, and calling me a troll to boot! Is this what Oxford is churning out these days? Dear me!:]
The drugs in THX1138 are not exclusively sedatives. I choose Ritalin and Prozac as examples of life immitating art deliberately because I HAVE seen that film.
What more can I say? I'm amazed that you admitted to not even having seen the film in public after such a post; hmmmmmmmmmmm it appears that Oxford is turning out honest people...and thats a good thing!
The reason governments can controll who gets to drive and who cannot
This not the reason why governments can control who drives or not. They can control who drives or not because America is a democracy where the people allow the government to administer the public space for the general good.
The rest of what you said is the reasoning behind the driving licence requuirement, which I completely agree with in principle. Driving is a right, which can be removed if you drive in one of a manner of a strictly described set of ways, eg repeatedly recklessly.
THX1138 (1971) has an astonishing number of paralells to what is happening today.
Police brutality as entertaiinment (COPS) Every individual numbered (SSN on birth) Everyone moved into cities Instantly accessible, total information on each person, by "system operators" Universal, pervasive CCTV (UK) Drugging of children (ritalin) Drugging of adults (prozac) Kangaroo courts State torture Everyon working soley to construct the means of control (Taxes) Enforced Birth control (RU486) Female-less gestation and birth
This is a film to re-visit, and if you havent seen it see it.
An insightful part of the film is when one of the characters says that, to paraphrase, "no one knew that anything was happening because everything was changing so slowly". More true today than ever it was.
You are a Canadian living in Fremont California; I dont know what Canadians believe about their rights, but you are definetly wrong about driving being a priveledge in the USA.
If the government can take away your right to drive a car, they can take away your right to drive a bicycle, and in any case, try telling a mother of three to BICYCLE ten miles to get her groceries, with her children, and then get them home.
Im not even going to comment on the absurd suggestion that people walk instead of drive.
Choosing your mode of transport is a right, not a priveledge; you might want to look up the definition of the words "priveledge" and "right" so that you might understand the difference.
Of course when it comes to your own activities, you think that you have the right to run whatever software you want on your machines (LFS), and that this is not a priveledge. Your kind of thinking makes it easier to remove your rights to program whatever you want - use your head!
The anti smoking laws spreading like the cancer caused by smoking are a perfect example of conditioning, sheeple behaviour and the chattelization of the US public.
Banning smoking in bars violates your right to smoke, violates the bar owners right to control his own property in the way he sees fit, and represents yet another unjustifiable chip away from your rights.
Now all the smokers are whining "what are they going to do next, stop me from smoking in my own home?" Ummm yes you dimwit; thats what they already do to you by forbidding you to snort cocaine and smoke Mary Jane in your own house. Now its the turn of tobacco smokers; the laws are being rammed in and there is no one there to defend your right to smoke where and when you want.
In Iraq by the way, the imposed constitution guarantees the right to privacy. It is also legal to smoke in public. Iraqis have more rights than Americans do. Notice who the people that are taking away your rights; billionaires in government, like Mayor Bloomberg. They understand perfectly the character of the population (chattel), and they know how weak the understanding of rights is today. This is why he can demand that smoking is banned in public places, and get what he wants; billionaires get what they want every day, just by speaking on the phone, wether its banning smoking or ordering the illegal destruction of a country.
As for showing your ID card, just ask any South African what the pass laws did to that country, and then think about wether its a good idea or not that you should be required to have an ID card issued by the state. A poster above said that its a "problem" that there are 51 states all with many different driving licences. Thats actually a GOOD thing; a driving licence is only to show that you have passed a driving test, nothing more; if driving licences are standardized, there will be an explosion of feature creep turning them into de facto fully functioning national ID cards.
The poster is right. Distopias are built incrementally. If you dont stand up for your fundamental rights, like John Gilmore does then they will all dissapear.
"Vandalism (capitalized) is hostility to the arts and literature, or willful destruction or defacement of their monuments, said to be in the spirit of the Vandals in their attacks on the Roman Empire. The first time the term was used was probably January 10, 1794 during the French Revolution, by Henri Gregoire, constitutional bishop of Blois, in his report directed to the Republican Convention, where he used word Vandalisme to describe some aspects of the behaviour of the republican army. However, the term Vandal (English) or Vandale (French) with pejorative meaning was in use in English at least since the 17th century."
My emphasis.
The article author could use the word "Vandal" in this case because it could be argued that breaking this DRM is an act that is hostile to artists.
If you work for the government or military, you dont count.
If "non profits" are using fingerprints as some sort of guarantee against letting in a potential monster, well, they are insane. In the UK they have just had a brutal example of how these background checks can fail disasterously.
Banks and grocery stores; this is a voluntary submission. Also, a grocery store is not going to be sharing your prints with the French Government, and all the other EU governments simultaneously. This is the difference, compulsion and the default sharing of your information. I'm sure that if people in the USA knew that their fingerprints AND their complet bank history were going to be shared world wide when they give their fingerprints that they would think twice about submitting to this sort of thing so redily.
We have to think clearly about the distinction between different scenarios where fingerprints are used. Compulsion is what I am against, that, and the sharing, storage and correlating of personal data to a unique and indelible identifier without the explicit, per usage, consent of the identified.
And to quote a great Slashdotter, "They are already half way up your ass, so why not push it all the way in?" is not the best way to live!
The nothing to hide argument has been categorically trashed many, many times before, so I wont repeat it here.
As for "nothing to loose" you either dont understand what a unique identifier combined with joined up commercial and government databases means, or...you are a troll!
People who think they have nothing to loose live in a dream world without bad guys, where government officials and millions of civil servants are 100% trustworthy, never lie and cannot be corrupted, where each successive generation of government employees and elected officials are more pure than the last bunch...the fact is, these measures cannot be ever entrusted to any gorvernment run by humans. Ever. And anyone who says differently is either:
A troll. Ignorant. VERY young.
You appear to be the first, since you obviously have a strong grasp on what is happening in the USA, judging by this post you made.
The project they will tnot be able to announce
on
Speculating About Gmail
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Is the system to instantly correlate the billion biometric files that might be created if everyone falls for biometric passports.
If every European, Japanese, American, basically everyone with a passport is made to deliver up their fingerprints, photographs and maybe iris scans, there will need to be a system to cross check all of this "At the speed of Google", every time a passport holder crosses a border anywhere in the world. Google will provide this service to governments, over an SSL secured web interface.
Google has the experience, they have the hardware in place, and they are going to make a fortune out of this. If they do it, it will be the greatest switch from good to pure evil in the history of software.
I use the word "might" above because this Biometric Net may not be created if everyone simply refuses to be fingerprinted and photographed. Of all the countries in line for this, the Americans will probably shout the loudest. Fingerprinting is for criminals; to be forced to get fingerprinted and biometrically photographed to get a passport, the data of which will be stored by other governments and anyone with an RFID reader is simply too much to swallow for any freedom loving person.
That law is stupid, while emulators are in a legal grey area. Uou cannot allow breathing but outlaw oxygen and not look like an ass.
I fail to see how allowing people to backup their games and play them with 3rd party software is in Nintendos best interest.
Goodwill?
I fail to see how allowing people to backup their games and play them with 3rd party software is in Nintendos best interest.
Just because something CAN be used for an illegal purpose doesnt mean that it should be made illegal. This has been tested in court (Sony Betamax, and more recently Sharman Networks with KaZaa). Emulators are fundamentally not illegal, and will be found to be so when this issue inevitably goes to court.
What was the point of your post again? Besides stating the obvious that is?
Are you a n00b? - not with a low user numba like that yhu arent! I have four words for you as to why I made that post:
Maybe all of these "fair use" laws should be replace with "common sense" laws.
How likely is that??!? The EU has just voted in an absurd law written by and for vested interests. The fact of the matter is, if you want your rights, you have to take them and not expect any parliament or unelected commission to act sensibly and look after your interests. If you dont act accordingly in the face of blatant corruption as we have just seen in the EU, then you have only yourself to blame for the rightless life you will be living if you abide by corporate bought law.
My word; I implied, "IF" Nintendo doesnt provide it not Nintendo "HAS" to provide it.
Cant get clearer than that. Backups are USELESS without a way to play them. The law is an ass if it outlaws a way to play legal backups, yet permits the making of backups that are unplayable without an illegal device like an emulator - "Thats the whole point General!".
Yes, but you can only use a backup copy for restoration purposes, otherwise it's not a backup copy anymore.
If you make a backup copy, and your original cart gets destroyed, where are you supposed to play your backed up copy?. Where are you supposed to restore it to?
Unless Ninetndo makes it possible to restore and play your backed up game, you will have to use a third party device to play the game you payed for.
In France you cannot buy a pay as you go simcard without showing ID. Its bullshit of course, they will sell you one even if you show someone elses ID.
These self immolating morons dont know anything about security. If they knew even a little, they would switch SIMS for each call, and then discard the SIM. But even that would be no good, because if they were always calling from one of ten cells to another set of ten always used cells, you can build a pattern up and start moniroting all the relevant calls. This as all Slashdotters know is Traffic Analysis.
They should be sending messages via a human courrier who memorizes messages. Its slow, but what do they care? They waited years to kill themselvs the first time - anything that reveals their locations is a huge risk...thankfully. What we now have to ask is how many people are they actively monitoring, and if its even one person, why have they not (if they have not) picked these people up?
GWB has hinted that they are bumping these people off - maybe they are all (ex) GSM users?
Mu favourite GSM/Combat related story is the one where MOSSAD blew off the head of a top Hammas man, by switching his cellphone for one that had an explosive charge put into it. Aparently, he was able to use his phone normally. It was detonated only when a call came from a specific number and he answered it, presumably with a suitable delay for him to lift up the phone to his ear and say "Hello". Cellphones are being used for this sort of thig more and more. Fascinating.
"The test is part of efforts in many countries, especially the United States in the wake of the September 11 attacks, to extend the use of biometric technology -- using fingerprint, eye or facial recognition scans -- to track travelers and immigrants, while also cutting down on time spent in line."
People like you are wearing tinfoil - over their eyes. You will be scanned nonetheless, if the "paranoid" weilders of conjecture and bold and assertive statements fail to stand up for your basic human rights while you sit around hurling lame insults.
The American government is using the 911 pretext to bring in a national ID card with your fingerprint and eyecan embedded in it. They are trying to make this happen by forcing all passport holders who come to America to either have fingerprints and eyescans in their passports or face being fingerprinted and eyescanned at an American Airport.
Since all of the the people in the world are having to have fingerprints and eyescans to enter the USA, other countries will use the same biometric technology to control who comes into their countries. If you do not have a biometric passport, you will eventually be scanned say, when you enter Canada or the United Kingdom or any other country.
This means that Americans will either have to have biometric passports issued by their own government (meaning that the government routinely fingerprints and eyescans innocent citizens) or, Americans will be fingerprinted and eyescanned when they travel to other peoples countries.
Paper based passports are going to become a thing of the past; all passports will be reduced to a machine readable card. Once this happens, your drivers licence can be your passport AND your drivers licence at the same time. This means that your fingerprints, taken by the governemt so that you can travel, will be available to the police when they ask you for your drivers licence.
This case is crucially important to the rights of American citizens. If Mr. Hiibel loses this case in the Supreme Court, it means that any policeman can ask for your ID, which will eventually mean that he can demand that you put your thumb into a portable fingerprint reader - on a whim. If he wins the case, the police will not be able to ask to see your ID, and the deployment of the national biometric ID system will be at the very least, delayed at best it will be destroyed completely before it starts.
If you want to read the reasons why ID cards are a non starter, try this.
And read this about the man who single handedly brought down the British ID Card system.
I hope he wins, because this will be a win for the entire Amercan public, and it will also be a clear sign to all other countries in the world that claim they are free democracies; ID cards violate your rights. They are bad for democracy, and should be shunned.
Bill Thompson is the same man wo said that Google should be privatised like a public utility simply because it has become so powerful.
The BBC has a couple of crackpots with writing priveledges, like the one that recently trolled for attention.
Personally, I cannot stomach control addicts like Thompson who are terrified of the ad hoc nature of the internet. They dont understand how it works, why it works so well, and....you know the story.
What I also fail to understand is how the BBC cannot find anyone with a brain cell to write about the internet. They are making some very interesting and fun work at the moment, surely someone somewhere in the BBC has a clue and can write.
I have to agree with what another person said in this thread; whatever it costs, it would be more expensive not to do it. If all the powerlines everywhere were replaced with superconductors, we would save billions of euros worth of electricity. Eventually, over maybe decades, it would pay off.
I wonder if the manufacturing process is going to be patented....uh oh!
That billionth quote was straight from the article...and by the way you insane mods, how the hell is that post a Troll?
Someone has to make practical use develop cost effective manufacturing processes of room temperature superconductors if we are to reduce our reliance on oil, which is crucial not only for the environment, but for world peace.
"They cooled potassium gas to a billionth of a degree C above absolute zero or minus 459 degrees F -- which is the point at which matter stops moving.
They confined the gas in a vacuum chamber and used magnetic fields and laser light to manipulate the potassium atoms into pairing up.
"This is very similar to what happens to electrons in a superconductor," Jin said.
This is more likely to provide applications in the practical world than a Bose-Einstein condensate, she said, because fermions are what make up solid matter."
Hmmmmm; how are they going to come to a process that can produce an extruded filament that can be bought in Radio Shack, if cooling to such a low temperature is needed in the process?
Slashdot Mirror
That is a straw man argument. You know perfectly well that we are talking about driving on the public roads.
Public roads are basically government-owned - therefore you need the governments' permission. This comes in the form of a drivers' license. If you cannot meet the requirements for a drivers' license, then you do not have permission to drive on government-owned roads. You still are able to drive a car - just not on government-owned (or "public") roads.
That is completely false.
The roads are owned by the public, and are administered by the government on our behalf, and with our permission. Its astonishing that you dont understand this. Most american students are taught this most basic concept of the relationship between government and the people in a democracy in civics class.
Think of it this way - if it were truly a right to drive, then you wouldn't need licenses and car registrations. But then you'd have six year-olds driving, and cars that are dropping parts all over the road (although that's sometimes the truth, and not an exaggeration).
This is another straw man argument. Slashdotters are held in such high esteem; Surely you can do better!
John Gilmore's problem was not the government, the airline didn't let him on the plane. Not the government, the airline. (Yes, I read the link - the Captain refused to let him on. That particular article doesn't detail the FAA regulations, one of the linked articles does).
John Gilmore's problems re not over, so the past tense is inappropriate. His problems ARE with the government, because they are creating the lists of people who are not allowed to fly. You need to get acquainted with the facts in this case.
I do have the right to run whatever software I see fit on my computer, as long as it does not violate any United States laws.
That is nonsense. You running software on your own machine that doesn't affect any other computer other than your own is your ABSOLUTE right, just as it is your absolute right to write any type of fiction that you like on your own typewriter.
At this point, I'm not sure on the legal status of DeCSS, but I haven't heard of a law against Linux in general. When one does pass, I'll be thrown in jail like the rest of them.
Now youre just being silly....but I like silly!!!
Dictionary definitions:
Right: That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
Privilige: A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.
If you READ till the end of the defin
"NO"? Commenting on a film you have not seen, and calling me a troll to boot! Is this what Oxford is churning out these days? Dear me! :]
The drugs in THX1138 are not exclusively sedatives. I choose Ritalin and Prozac as examples of life immitating art deliberately because I HAVE seen that film.
What more can I say? I'm amazed that you admitted to not even having seen the film in public after such a post; hmmmmmmmmmmm it appears that Oxford is turning out honest people...and thats a good thing!
Please email me....Got some things to discuss...
The reason governments can controll who gets to drive and who cannot
This not the reason why governments can control who drives or not. They can control who drives or not because America is a democracy where the people allow the government to administer the public space for the general good.
The rest of what you said is the reasoning behind the driving licence requuirement, which I completely agree with in principle. Driving is a right, which can be removed if you drive in one of a manner of a strictly described set of ways, eg repeatedly recklessly.
Do you have any clue at all about mental illness?
Ill bite.
Have you actually seen the film I am talking about?
Some cinematic examples
THX1138 (1971) has an astonishing number of paralells to what is happening today.
Police brutality as entertaiinment (COPS)
Every individual numbered (SSN on birth)
Everyone moved into cities
Instantly accessible, total information on each person, by "system operators"
Universal, pervasive CCTV (UK)
Drugging of children (ritalin)
Drugging of adults (prozac)
Kangaroo courts
State torture
Everyon working soley to construct the means of control (Taxes)
Enforced Birth control (RU486)
Female-less gestation and birth
This is a film to re-visit, and if you havent seen it see it.
An insightful part of the film is when one of the characters says that, to paraphrase, "no one knew that anything was happening because everything was changing so slowly". More true today than ever it was.
You are a Canadian living in Fremont California; I dont know what Canadians believe about their rights, but you are definetly wrong about driving being a priveledge in the USA.
If the government can take away your right to drive a car, they can take away your right to drive a bicycle, and in any case, try telling a mother of three to BICYCLE ten miles to get her groceries, with her children, and then get them home.
Im not even going to comment on the absurd suggestion that people walk instead of drive.
Choosing your mode of transport is a right, not a priveledge; you might want to look up the definition of the words "priveledge" and "right" so that you might understand the difference.
And, in case you were not following, the us government is now making flying on airplanes internally a priveledge; one that is handed out by them and them alone. That is wrong.
Of course when it comes to your own activities, you think that you have the right to run whatever software you want on your machines (LFS), and that this is not a priveledge. Your kind of thinking makes it easier to remove your rights to program whatever you want - use your head!
A brilliant post.
The anti smoking laws spreading like the cancer caused by smoking are a perfect example of conditioning, sheeple behaviour and the chattelization of the US public.
Banning smoking in bars violates your right to smoke, violates the bar owners right to control his own property in the way he sees fit, and represents yet another unjustifiable chip away from your rights.
Now all the smokers are whining "what are they going to do next, stop me from smoking in my own home?" Ummm yes you dimwit; thats what they already do to you by forbidding you to snort cocaine and smoke Mary Jane in your own house. Now its the turn of tobacco smokers; the laws are being rammed in and there is no one there to defend your right to smoke where and when you want.
In Iraq by the way, the imposed constitution guarantees the right to privacy. It is also legal to smoke in public. Iraqis have more rights than Americans do. Notice who the people that are taking away your rights; billionaires in government, like Mayor Bloomberg. They understand perfectly the character of the population (chattel), and they know how weak the understanding of rights is today. This is why he can demand that smoking is banned in public places, and get what he wants; billionaires get what they want every day, just by speaking on the phone, wether its banning smoking or ordering the illegal destruction of a country.
As for showing your ID card, just ask any South African what the pass laws did to that country, and then think about wether its a good idea or not that you should be required to have an ID card issued by the state. A poster above said that its a "problem" that there are 51 states all with many different driving licences. Thats actually a GOOD thing; a driving licence is only to show that you have passed a driving test, nothing more; if driving licences are standardized, there will be an explosion of feature creep turning them into de facto fully functioning national ID cards.
The poster is right. Distopias are built incrementally. If you dont stand up for your fundamental rights, like John Gilmore does then they will all dissapear.
If it looks like a pop-up, feels like a pop-up or interrupts like a pop-up, you are not running Mozilla.
Boom!
Anyway, how is unlocking something you've paid for being a vandal?
;)
My first reaction was to say that you cannot vandalize something that belongs to you (a file) but then, I made sure....
From Wikipedia:
"Vandalism (capitalized) is hostility to the arts and literature, or willful destruction or defacement of their monuments, said to be in the spirit of the Vandals in their attacks on the Roman Empire. The first time the term was used was probably January 10, 1794 during the French Revolution, by Henri Gregoire, constitutional bishop of Blois, in his report directed to the Republican Convention, where he used word Vandalisme to describe some aspects of the behaviour of the republican army. However, the term Vandal (English) or Vandale (French) with pejorative meaning was in use in English at least since the 17th century."
My emphasis.
The article author could use the word "Vandal" in this case because it could be argued that breaking this DRM is an act that is hostile to artists.
I said "could"
If you work for the government or military, you dont count.
If "non profits" are using fingerprints as some sort of guarantee against letting in a potential monster, well, they are insane. In the UK they have just had a brutal example of how these background checks can fail disasterously.
Banks and grocery stores; this is a voluntary submission. Also, a grocery store is not going to be sharing your prints with the French Government, and all the other EU governments simultaneously. This is the difference, compulsion and the default sharing of your information. I'm sure that if people in the USA knew that their fingerprints AND their complet bank history were going to be shared world wide when they give their fingerprints that they would think twice about submitting to this sort of thing so redily.
We have to think clearly about the distinction between different scenarios where fingerprints are used. Compulsion is what I am against, that, and the sharing, storage and correlating of personal data to a unique and indelible identifier without the explicit, per usage, consent of the identified.
And to quote a great Slashdotter, "They are already half way up your ass, so why not push it all the way in?" is not the best way to live!
I'll bite you troll.
The nothing to hide argument has been categorically trashed many, many times before, so I wont repeat it here.
As for "nothing to loose" you either dont understand what a unique identifier combined with joined up commercial and government databases means, or...you are a troll!
People who think they have nothing to loose live in a dream world without bad guys, where government officials and millions of civil servants are 100% trustworthy, never lie and cannot be corrupted, where each successive generation of government employees and elected officials are more pure than the last bunch...the fact is, these measures cannot be ever entrusted to any gorvernment run by humans. Ever. And anyone who says differently is either:
A troll.
Ignorant.
VERY young.
You appear to be the first, since you obviously have a strong grasp on what is happening in the USA, judging by this post you made.
Is the system to instantly correlate the billion biometric files that might be created if everyone falls for biometric passports.
If every European, Japanese, American, basically everyone with a passport is made to deliver up their fingerprints, photographs and maybe iris scans, there will need to be a system to cross check all of this "At the speed of Google", every time a passport holder crosses a border anywhere in the world. Google will provide this service to governments, over an SSL secured web interface.
Google has the experience, they have the hardware in place, and they are going to make a fortune out of this. If they do it, it will be the greatest switch from good to pure evil in the history of software.
I use the word "might" above because this Biometric Net may not be created if everyone simply refuses to be fingerprinted and photographed. Of all the countries in line for this, the Americans will probably shout the loudest. Fingerprinting is for criminals; to be forced to get fingerprinted and biometrically photographed to get a passport, the data of which will be stored by other governments and anyone with an RFID reader is simply too much to swallow for any freedom loving person.
The law says you can make backups.
That law is stupid, while emulators are in a legal grey area. Uou cannot allow breathing but outlaw oxygen and not look like an ass.
I fail to see how allowing people to backup their games and play them with 3rd party software is in Nintendos best interest.
Goodwill?
I fail to see how allowing people to backup their games and play them with 3rd party software is in Nintendos best interest.
Just because something CAN be used for an illegal purpose doesnt mean that it should be made illegal. This has been tested in court (Sony Betamax, and more recently Sharman Networks with KaZaa). Emulators are fundamentally not illegal, and will be found to be so when this issue inevitably goes to court.
What was the point of your post again? Besides stating the obvious that is?
Are you a n00b? - not with a low user numba like that yhu arent! I have four words for you as to why I made that post:
"The Emporers New Clothes"
Reason enough every time.
Maybe all of these "fair use" laws should be replace with "common sense" laws.
How likely is that??!? The EU has just voted in an absurd law written by and for vested interests. The fact of the matter is, if you want your rights, you have to take them and not expect any parliament or unelected commission to act sensibly and look after your interests. If you dont act accordingly in the face of blatant corruption as we have just seen in the EU, then you have only yourself to blame for the rightless life you will be living if you abide by corporate bought law.
Nintendo HAS
My word; I implied, "IF" Nintendo doesnt provide it not Nintendo "HAS" to provide it.
Cant get clearer than that. Backups are USELESS without a way to play them. The law is an ass if it outlaws a way to play legal backups, yet permits the making of backups that are unplayable without an illegal device like an emulator - "Thats the whole point General!".
Unless Ninetndo makes it possible to restore and play your backed up game, you will have to use a third party device to play the game you payed for.
Its for everybody, not just the world elite to join.
Only Google and the CIA will have access to the broader picture and its associated cool interfaces.
All the users build it for the CIA, instead of the CIA having to build it for themselvs.
Talk about turning yourself in for questioning!
In France you cannot buy a pay as you go simcard without showing ID. Its bullshit of course, they will sell you one even if you show someone elses ID.
These self immolating morons dont know anything about security. If they knew even a little, they would switch SIMS for each call, and then discard the SIM. But even that would be no good, because if they were always calling from one of ten cells to another set of ten always used cells, you can build a pattern up and start moniroting all the relevant calls. This as all Slashdotters know is Traffic Analysis.
They should be sending messages via a human courrier who memorizes messages. Its slow, but what do they care? They waited years to kill themselvs the first time - anything that reveals their locations is a huge risk...thankfully. What we now have to ask is how many people are they actively monitoring, and if its even one person, why have they not (if they have not) picked these people up?
GWB has hinted that they are bumping these people off - maybe they are all (ex) GSM users?
Mu favourite GSM/Combat related story is the one where MOSSAD blew off the head of a top Hammas man, by switching his cellphone for one that had an explosive charge put into it. Aparently, he was able to use his phone normally. It was detonated only when a call came from a specific number and he answered it, presumably with a suitable delay for him to lift up the phone to his ear and say "Hello". Cellphones are being used for this sort of thig more and more. Fascinating.
This is from CNN attached to this story.
People like you are wearing tinfoil - over their eyes. You will be scanned nonetheless, if the "paranoid" weilders of conjecture and bold and assertive statements fail to stand up for your basic human rights while you sit around hurling lame insults.
The American government is using the 911 pretext to bring in a national ID card with your fingerprint and eyecan embedded in it. They are trying to make this happen by forcing all passport holders who come to America to either have fingerprints and eyescans in their passports or face being fingerprinted and eyescanned at an American Airport.
Since all of the the people in the world are having to have fingerprints and eyescans to enter the USA, other countries will use the same biometric technology to control who comes into their countries. If you do not have a biometric passport, you will eventually be scanned say, when you enter Canada or the United Kingdom or any other country.
This means that Americans will either have to have biometric passports issued by their own government (meaning that the government routinely fingerprints and eyescans innocent citizens) or, Americans will be fingerprinted and eyescanned when they travel to other peoples countries.
Paper based passports are going to become a thing of the past; all passports will be reduced to a machine readable card. Once this happens, your drivers licence can be your passport AND your drivers licence at the same time. This means that your fingerprints, taken by the governemt so that you can travel, will be available to the police when they ask you for your drivers licence.
This case is crucially important to the rights of American citizens. If Mr. Hiibel loses this case in the Supreme Court, it means that any policeman can ask for your ID, which will eventually mean that he can demand that you put your thumb into a portable fingerprint reader - on a whim. If he wins the case, the police will not be able to ask to see your ID, and the deployment of the national biometric ID system will be at the very least, delayed at best it will be destroyed completely before it starts.
If you want to read the reasons why ID cards are a non starter, try this.
And read this about the man who single handedly brought down the British ID Card system.
I hope he wins, because this will be a win for the entire Amercan public, and it will also be a clear sign to all other countries in the world that claim they are free democracies; ID cards violate your rights. They are bad for democracy, and should be shunned.
Bill Thompson is the same man wo said that Google should be privatised like a public utility simply because it has become so powerful.
The BBC has a couple of crackpots with writing priveledges, like the one that recently trolled for attention.
Personally, I cannot stomach control addicts like Thompson who are terrified of the ad hoc nature of the internet. They dont understand how it works, why it works so well, and....you know the story.
What I also fail to understand is how the BBC cannot find anyone with a brain cell to write about the internet. They are making some very interesting and fun work at the moment, surely someone somewhere in the BBC has a clue and can write.
I have to agree with what another person said in this thread; whatever it costs, it would be more expensive not to do it. If all the powerlines everywhere were replaced with superconductors, we would save billions of euros worth of electricity. Eventually, over maybe decades, it would pay off.
I wonder if the manufacturing process is going to be patented....uh oh!
That billionth quote was straight from the article...and by the way you insane mods, how the hell is that post a Troll?
Someone has to make practical use develop cost effective manufacturing processes of room temperature superconductors if we are to reduce our reliance on oil, which is crucial not only for the environment, but for world peace.
Thats no joke, and thats no troll!!!!!
"They cooled potassium gas to a billionth of a degree C above absolute zero or minus 459 degrees F -- which is the point at which matter stops moving.
They confined the gas in a vacuum chamber and used magnetic fields and laser light to manipulate the potassium atoms into pairing up.
"This is very similar to what happens to electrons in a superconductor," Jin said.
This is more likely to provide applications in the practical world than a Bose-Einstein condensate, she said, because fermions are what make up solid matter."
Hmmmmm; how are they going to come to a process that can produce an extruded filament that can be bought in Radio Shack, if cooling to such a low temperature is needed in the process?
Time to dump all your oil shares boys!