seems to be the real problem here. What's wrong with someone ditching work one day and making it up the next, especially if it's for the doctor or the kids? Even the feds use it -- that's how federal employees accrue time to take off religious holidays that aren't federal holidays (Jewish High Holy days, etc.). These people are nothing more than union puppets, and that's sad.
Do these hold up in court? Does this mean Chrysler could sell me a car, and stick in the agreement (and who knows if they've already done it) that I can't take the thing apart to see how it works? Has anyone ever actually taken one of these clauses to court?
I know that the difference here becomes hardware v. software, and that my reverse engineering my jeep doesn't reduce the value of chrysler's property, whereas with software it just might. But then, these drivers are more often than not free, anyway, right? Wouldn't an Open Source model actually reduce driver development costs for people like Diamond if they required modifications to be submitted back to them for testing and release for the good of all?
With things like Google and Alexa, aren't there a few places where one might find this data available for retrieval? And doesn't that make destroying evidence a whole lot harder?
It's not evidence until there's a suit, right? Except for some things that are already required by law to be kept on file (financial records, etc.), wouldn't this be legal? Or is the threat of a suit enough to make this a crime?
By the same reasoning, my company uses a POP3 server, mandates no mail be left on the server, and does not back up the directories where actual mail resides.
Someone should shut Anti-Online down using the same tactics. They shouldn't be allowed (by the community, of course it's legal) to narc all their alleged contacts, then get paid for it.
Censorship is when the government (or perhaps, by analogy, some large, powerful entity like a corporation) prevents views from being heard. Software to screen out certain content from certain users, whether it be an ignore button, or filtering software, is not censorship. Yes, people have a right to say what they want, but I have a right to not listen, or ignore, or be part of a for-pay service which screens out the garbage. That's my right. Self-determination is part of our fundamental human rights, just like free speech is. You have the constitutionally protected right to be an ignorant moron (in the US, anyway), and it makes no sense to me why some people (Katz, in this case) choose to defend just their favorite parts of the constitution.
I think that this is sour grapes coming from someone with a propensity for annoying people to the point where they just won't listen anymore, no matter how intelligent or germaine what he has to say is. I've read lots of authors who I disagree with, but whose approach is much less off-putting, and who I continue to read, despite the disagreement. Grow up and quit whining.
Slashdot Mirror
seems to be the real problem here. What's wrong with someone ditching work one day and making it up the next, especially if it's for the doctor or the kids? Even the feds use it -- that's how federal employees accrue time to take off religious holidays that aren't federal holidays (Jewish High Holy days, etc.). These people are nothing more than union puppets, and that's sad.
Do these hold up in court? Does this mean Chrysler could sell me a car, and stick in the agreement (and who knows if they've already done it) that I can't take the thing apart to see how it works? Has anyone ever actually taken one of these clauses to court?
I know that the difference here becomes hardware v. software, and that my reverse engineering my jeep doesn't reduce the value of chrysler's property, whereas with software it just might. But then, these drivers are more often than not free, anyway, right? Wouldn't an Open Source model actually reduce driver development costs for people like Diamond if they required modifications to be submitted back to them for testing and release for the good of all?
With things like Google and Alexa, aren't there a few places where one might find this data available for retrieval? And doesn't that make destroying evidence a whole lot harder?
It's not evidence until there's a suit, right? Except for some things that are already required by law to be kept on file (financial records, etc.), wouldn't this be legal? Or is the threat of a suit enough to make this a crime?
By the same reasoning, my company uses a POP3 server, mandates no mail be left on the server, and does not back up the directories where actual mail resides.
Someone should shut Anti-Online down using the same tactics. They shouldn't be allowed (by the community, of course it's legal) to narc all their alleged contacts, then get paid for it.
Ugh. Got it wrong again.
Censorship is when the government (or perhaps, by analogy, some large, powerful entity like a corporation) prevents views from being heard. Software to screen out certain content from certain users, whether it be an ignore button, or filtering software, is not censorship. Yes, people have a right to say what they want, but I have a right to not listen, or ignore, or be part of a for-pay service which screens out the garbage. That's my right. Self-determination is part of our fundamental human rights, just like free speech is. You have the constitutionally protected right to be an ignorant moron (in the US, anyway), and it makes no sense to me why some people (Katz, in this case) choose to defend just their favorite parts of the constitution.
I think that this is sour grapes coming from someone with a propensity for annoying people to the point where they just won't listen anymore, no matter how intelligent or germaine what he has to say is. I've read lots of authors who I disagree with, but whose approach is much less off-putting, and who I continue to read, despite the disagreement. Grow up and quit whining.