I tihnk I take issue with 99% of applications not needing interaction.
So you absolutely need Word to mail merge with your IM clients, which are stored in your thunderbird contact list? Does your FTP client use an excel spreadsheet to keep track of your favorite warez sites and passwords?
I can think up dozens more cases where interaction could be used but I suspect that having excel browse the web for pr0n and forward random pictures to your buddy list is not high up on the list of things it needs.
Other than the whole "he can't do any more of it while he's in prison" aspect, right?
Except for the fact that if he's set up some kind of corporation or even just left an automated email harvester and credit card charge system running in some closet somewhere, he most certainly can.
as the author of the work still has the original video.
Actually, looking at the linked site, it appears the only copy of the video they had was the one that was removed. Shame on them for assuming that some company would not come along, claim their video belonged to the company, and have it removed.
Copyright is simply a limited, artifical, govenment granted monopoly on creative works.
What I meant by theft and the "property part of their intellectual property" was the idea that Viacom could be considered to have stolen the monopoly itself. They are unable to determine why Viacom thinks it belongs to Viacom (this wasn't provided in the takedown notice), and because they cannot determine that, they cannot effectively counter Viacom's claim of ownership, and therefore cannot assert their monopoly right.
So, aside from filing a lawsuit to recover the DMCA's "oops" damages, can they also file charges of theft for Viacom attempting to steal the property part of their intellectual property?
That's completely different, that's Apple's fault. Jobs is trying to convince people that the reason their shiny new iTune won't play on their polished brown Zune is the music company's fault, not iTMS, and that the music companies need to change how they allow iTMS to sell their music, rather than governments forcing Apple to let competitors use their DRM.
they're just changing the costs of accessing publicly available information.
Which the government considers as grounds for censorship when it's THEIR privacy they are trying to protect. There are plenty of maps that show military installations or nuclear reactors, but when you can get them from Google and not the disused lavatory in the basement, it's time to cover it up.
Why would this be a bad thing? I doubt that it is even possible
Then how much of your tax dollars are you willing to spend trying? If it's not possible, then why is throwing the government and money at the problem a good thing?
I seem to recall scientists sounding the alarm over Ozone depletion winning the Nobel Prize. Yet, I don't have skin cancer. With all the alarm that raised over the "ozone hole", can you tell me without a shred of doubt that global warming is not experiencing the same media driven hype cycle?
Yeah, I recall that too. Of course, back then the alarm was sounded and people actually responded, reformulating air conditioners, aerosol cans, and so on to get rid of the CFCs which were being found in air samples in the Antarctic and which were shown in the laboratory to catalyze the destruction of ozone.
Obviously since humans are such impotent and insignificant beings in the face of nature (listening to the talking heads, it's amazing that we ever managed to overcome the darkness and stop panicking when demons eat the sun) the fact that your skin hasn't sloughed off yet couldn't possibly have anything to do with that response.
Fine, but somebody has to pay for it. Should I assume that's something "the Rich" should have to pony up for?
As opposed to forcing everyone to "pony up" for it as the cost of industrialization?
If "the Rich" are heavily invested in corporations that destroy the environment, then I see no problem whatsoever with forcing "the Rich" to carry the cost of their actions. Next thing, you'll be telling us "the Rich" deserve mansions and Rolls Royces for free, just because they're "the Rich".
If you're wealthy and not a shareholder in, say, Union Carbide, I see no reason why anyone should make you pay for cleaning up someone else's mess.
they hope to be able to push the government towards socialism and (eventually) all-out communism.
I'd like to point out that in context, your claim that scientists are seeking communist ends is itself ad hominem. And I can't see that its based on anything in reality either. Your posts that marxists support environmentalism does not impress me either, unless you can demonstrate that every scientist is a marxist. ( http://www.wikipedia.org/Sorry_I_dont_know_the_lat in_for_claiming_all_A_are_B_because_B_is_A )
Compare an environmentalist who insists that companies should pay for the damage they do to the environment (or else not damage it) to a company insisting that the damage is the "cost of progress" and that everyone should "pay their share", and tell me which one really holds the socialist ideals.
I know there are some scifi nuts of a certain age around here.. anyone else watch "V" back in the 1980s?
Thats a good example, but I know a better one: The Arrival, where aliens have infiltrated society and government and are churning out greenhouse gasses and heat to make the planet more comfortable for them.
My ISP tells me that I can't play them because Google hasn't paid their bandwidth charges.
And risk you telling them to go fuck themselves? Clearly their first tier support staff will be trained to tell you that the problem is that google's servers are overloaded and you should use a different server like [paid sponsorship here]'s funny video server.
Why do so many people assume that companies are going to tell the truth about the bad things they do?
The US was like that too, at one time. Then the government decided to "deregulate" and by "deregulate", I mean cancel the regulations that forced the telcos to share their lines.
Even so, it was more of a joke than not while it lasted. The 100 different DSL providers all simply resold lines they rented from the telco, and buying service from them was generally pointless. Half the time the telco would fuck the line up and continuously blame the DSL "provider" (but of course, if you bought the DSL direct from them, there'd be no problem) while the DSL provider insisted it was a line problem (but of course, what do these little companies know about lines, we're the telephone company, it's their fault and we're right because we say we're right).
What of the case where a suspect is bouncing traffic off of an ISP's customer, and that customer isn't the target? If an ISP doesn't have the tools to dynamically parse Gnutella or SOCKS traffic, or decrypt Freenet traffic, it's conceivable that they won't have the information law enforcement is looking for.
First off, if the traffic is encrypted (freenet/tor) then tapping all the traffic for everyone isn't going to solve a whole lot.
Secondly, if the traffic is coming from a client's misconfigured proxy like socks, then by sniffing strictly traffic involving that address should be all that's needed to determine the next address to tap.
Yes, because obviously if I'm having a discussion about the latest terrorist attack and because the feds only pick up parts of the conversation about bombs and killing people due to their "grab everything, data mine for anything that looks criminal" practice, I must be a terrorist.
What this means is that there are circumstances when ISPs cannot isolate IP addys or individuals
Is that so? Personally, I find that rather amazing, how would such an ISP manage to bill anyone?
And that means we the people will have to have the particulars behind such cases when this method is employed, in full detail. Do you think we'll get it?
Then, why in the world would you (a) bid $100 for it, and then (b) complain when you didn't get outbid?!?!?!
Why does anyone bid on anything? Hell, why have auctions in the first place? Why don't we simply have everyone write down what they want to pay, turn it in, and the highest number wins? That would save everyone time and angst, and all those fast-talking auctioneers can go get jobs reading the fine print at the end of commercials.
The solution therefore is for a body to be established whose responsibility it is to act as advocate in advance for these unknown individuals.
No, the solution is not to create more bureaucracy to prop up your business model, the solution is to reverse the flow of information. Why should the medical record ever be separated from the person? Give the person their own medical record, and one of those medalert bracelet things as the key to control access to it. The patient can then give access specifically to the people who need it, not to entire continents. Person shows up unconscious in the ER? As long as their wrist didn't get cut off, thats ok, the ER staff can use the bracelet to pull up the record. And in the worst case, if the bracelet's been ripped off in a wreck or something, they're no worse off than they are now when John Doe gets wheeled in.
A. someone cares about your medical history B. has some way of accessing it C. is willing to risk the likely punishment for doing so
In other words, just about every employer out there who wants to see if the promising new candidate has any mental health issues or is likely to suddenly drop dead. They care, they have the money to get what they want, and what are you going to do, throw a company in jail?
Someday they are going to lose millions of dollars
They? They? I think you'll find that the reason all of this is insecure is that the companies have worked hard and long to protect themselves against their own stupidity. Just try suing a bank for giving out a loan in your name to an impersonator and ruining your credit record. Hell, try suing the credit bureaus for telling the bank that some criminal was you, or for continuing to damage your reputation by leaving these things on your record for years after you've proven someone else took the money and ran.
No, some day Fidelity customers will wake up and all their money will be gone, and Fidelity will simply say that their customers should have protected their passwords better.
Sometimes Japanese CDs come with bonus tracks not released in other markets (usually this means the US), so hardcore fans of various Western singers/groups might be interested in Japanese CDs for that reason too.
People think that the only thing coming out of japan is manufactured pop (and a lot of it is, it's worse than America in some genres over there with entire groups dedicated to nothing but churning out idol after idol) but Japan seems to be where a lot of Western 80's musicians go to die or something. A while back Pet Shop Boys released a Japan-exclusive album, and they're not alone in doing this. I visited on a company trip back in 2001 and record stores at the time were advertising some Whitney Houston album as #1 (I assume it was #1 in some chart or another, all I could read was her name and #1;) Apparently right now, country music is really big in certain niches.
Slashdot Mirror
I tihnk I take issue with 99% of applications not needing interaction.
So you absolutely need Word to mail merge with your IM clients, which are stored in your thunderbird contact list? Does your FTP client use an excel spreadsheet to keep track of your favorite warez sites and passwords?
I can think up dozens more cases where interaction could be used but I suspect that having excel browse the web for pr0n and forward random pictures to your buddy list is not high up on the list of things it needs.
Does fiber count as electromagnetic transmission?
Light is an electromagnetic wave/particle/whatever.
It's still junk legislation.
Other than the whole "he can't do any more of it while he's in prison" aspect, right?
Except for the fact that if he's set up some kind of corporation or even just left an automated email harvester and credit card charge system running in some closet somewhere, he most certainly can.
as the author of the work still has the original video.
Actually, looking at the linked site, it appears the only copy of the video they had was the one that was removed. Shame on them for assuming that some company would not come along, claim their video belonged to the company, and have it removed.
Copyright is simply a limited, artifical, govenment granted monopoly on creative works.
What I meant by theft and the "property part of their intellectual property" was the idea that Viacom could be considered to have stolen the monopoly itself. They are unable to determine why Viacom thinks it belongs to Viacom (this wasn't provided in the takedown notice), and because they cannot determine that, they cannot effectively counter Viacom's claim of ownership, and therefore cannot assert their monopoly right.
So, aside from filing a lawsuit to recover the DMCA's "oops" damages, can they also file charges of theft for Viacom attempting to steal the property part of their intellectual property?
That's completely different, that's Apple's fault. Jobs is trying to convince people that the reason their shiny new iTune won't play on their polished brown Zune is the music company's fault, not iTMS, and that the music companies need to change how they allow iTMS to sell their music, rather than governments forcing Apple to let competitors use their DRM.
they're just changing the costs of accessing publicly available information.
Which the government considers as grounds for censorship when it's THEIR privacy they are trying to protect. There are plenty of maps that show military installations or nuclear reactors, but when you can get them from Google and not the disused lavatory in the basement, it's time to cover it up.
Why would this be a bad thing? I doubt that it is even possible
Then how much of your tax dollars are you willing to spend trying? If it's not possible, then why is throwing the government and money at the problem a good thing?
Obviously I agree that they should be required to get a warrant, so that they can be held accountable for watching people for the hell of it.
You forgot the most important part:
So that they can be held accountable for watching people for the hell of it WITH MY MONEY.
What do you mean by "The proper operation of a democracy"?
Vote for X: yes or no.
What's X? I'm not allowed to tell you.
This is not the proper operation of democracy.
I seem to recall scientists sounding the alarm over Ozone depletion winning the Nobel Prize. Yet, I don't have skin cancer. With all the alarm that raised over the "ozone hole", can you tell me without a shred of doubt that global warming is not experiencing the same media driven hype cycle?
Yeah, I recall that too. Of course, back then the alarm was sounded and people actually responded, reformulating air conditioners, aerosol cans, and so on to get rid of the CFCs which were being found in air samples in the Antarctic and which were shown in the laboratory to catalyze the destruction of ozone.
Obviously since humans are such impotent and insignificant beings in the face of nature (listening to the talking heads, it's amazing that we ever managed to overcome the darkness and stop panicking when demons eat the sun) the fact that your skin hasn't sloughed off yet couldn't possibly have anything to do with that response.
You might be surprised to learn that it's more than just "the Rich" who benefit from such "evil" corporations.
Please elucidate your point, because it sounds awfully like you expect everyone to be happy to pay for fixing the damage done by the corporation.
Nice strawman. Nice troll.
Sorry, I was out of line.
Fine, but somebody has to pay for it. Should I assume that's something "the Rich" should have to pony up for?
As opposed to forcing everyone to "pony up" for it as the cost of industrialization?
If "the Rich" are heavily invested in corporations that destroy the environment, then I see no problem whatsoever with forcing "the Rich" to carry the cost of their actions. Next thing, you'll be telling us "the Rich" deserve mansions and Rolls Royces for free, just because they're "the Rich".
If you're wealthy and not a shareholder in, say, Union Carbide, I see no reason why anyone should make you pay for cleaning up someone else's mess.
they hope to be able to push the government towards socialism and (eventually) all-out communism.
t in_for_claiming_all_A_are_B_because_B_is_A )
I'd like to point out that in context, your claim that scientists are seeking communist ends is itself ad hominem. And I can't see that its based on anything in reality either. Your posts that marxists support environmentalism does not impress me either, unless you can demonstrate that every scientist is a marxist. ( http://www.wikipedia.org/Sorry_I_dont_know_the_la
Compare an environmentalist who insists that companies should pay for the damage they do to the environment (or else not damage it) to a company insisting that the damage is the "cost of progress" and that everyone should "pay their share", and tell me which one really holds the socialist ideals.
I know there are some scifi nuts of a certain age around here.. anyone else watch "V" back in the 1980s?
Thats a good example, but I know a better one: The Arrival, where aliens have infiltrated society and government and are churning out greenhouse gasses and heat to make the planet more comfortable for them.
My ISP tells me that I can't play them because Google hasn't paid their bandwidth charges.
And risk you telling them to go fuck themselves? Clearly their first tier support staff will be trained to tell you that the problem is that google's servers are overloaded and you should use a different server like [paid sponsorship here]'s funny video server.
Why do so many people assume that companies are going to tell the truth about the bad things they do?
The US was like that too, at one time. Then the government decided to "deregulate" and by "deregulate", I mean cancel the regulations that forced the telcos to share their lines.
Even so, it was more of a joke than not while it lasted. The 100 different DSL providers all simply resold lines they rented from the telco, and buying service from them was generally pointless. Half the time the telco would fuck the line up and continuously blame the DSL "provider" (but of course, if you bought the DSL direct from them, there'd be no problem) while the DSL provider insisted it was a line problem (but of course, what do these little companies know about lines, we're the telephone company, it's their fault and we're right because we say we're right).
Wired, the Weekly World News for techies.
At least they managed to note that logs say whatever the person who writes them wants them to say. How many juries get to learn that at trial?
What of the case where a suspect is bouncing traffic off of an ISP's customer, and that customer isn't the target? If an ISP doesn't have the tools to dynamically parse Gnutella or SOCKS traffic, or decrypt Freenet traffic, it's conceivable that they won't have the information law enforcement is looking for.
First off, if the traffic is encrypted (freenet/tor) then tapping all the traffic for everyone isn't going to solve a whole lot.
Secondly, if the traffic is coming from a client's misconfigured proxy like socks, then by sniffing strictly traffic involving that address should be all that's needed to determine the next address to tap.
If you're doing something wrong
Yes, because obviously if I'm having a discussion about the latest terrorist attack and because the feds only pick up parts of the conversation about bombs and killing people due to their "grab everything, data mine for anything that looks criminal" practice, I must be a terrorist.
What this means is that there are circumstances when ISPs cannot isolate IP addys or individuals
Is that so? Personally, I find that rather amazing, how would such an ISP manage to bill anyone?
And that means we the people will have to have the particulars behind such cases when this method is employed, in full detail. Do you think we'll get it?
No.
Then, why in the world would you (a) bid $100 for it, and then (b) complain when you didn't get outbid?!?!?!
Why does anyone bid on anything? Hell, why have auctions in the first place? Why don't we simply have everyone write down what they want to pay, turn it in, and the highest number wins? That would save everyone time and angst, and all those fast-talking auctioneers can go get jobs reading the fine print at the end of commercials.
The solution therefore is for a body to be established whose responsibility it is to act as advocate in advance for these unknown individuals.
No, the solution is not to create more bureaucracy to prop up your business model, the solution is to reverse the flow of information. Why should the medical record ever be separated from the person? Give the person their own medical record, and one of those medalert bracelet things as the key to control access to it. The patient can then give access specifically to the people who need it, not to entire continents. Person shows up unconscious in the ER? As long as their wrist didn't get cut off, thats ok, the ER staff can use the bracelet to pull up the record. And in the worst case, if the bracelet's been ripped off in a wreck or something, they're no worse off than they are now when John Doe gets wheeled in.
A. someone cares about your medical history
B. has some way of accessing it
C. is willing to risk the likely punishment for doing so
In other words, just about every employer out there who wants to see if the promising new candidate has any mental health issues or is likely to suddenly drop dead. They care, they have the money to get what they want, and what are you going to do, throw a company in jail?
Someday they are going to lose millions of dollars
They? They? I think you'll find that the reason all of this is insecure is that the companies have worked hard and long to protect themselves against their own stupidity. Just try suing a bank for giving out a loan in your name to an impersonator and ruining your credit record. Hell, try suing the credit bureaus for telling the bank that some criminal was you, or for continuing to damage your reputation by leaving these things on your record for years after you've proven someone else took the money and ran.
No, some day Fidelity customers will wake up and all their money will be gone, and Fidelity will simply say that their customers should have protected their passwords better.
Sometimes Japanese CDs come with bonus tracks not released in other markets (usually this means the US), so hardcore fans of various Western singers/groups might be interested in Japanese CDs for that reason too.
;) Apparently right now, country music is really big in certain niches.
People think that the only thing coming out of japan is manufactured pop (and a lot of it is, it's worse than America in some genres over there with entire groups dedicated to nothing but churning out idol after idol) but Japan seems to be where a lot of Western 80's musicians go to die or something. A while back Pet Shop Boys released a Japan-exclusive album, and they're not alone in doing this. I visited on a company trip back in 2001 and record stores at the time were advertising some Whitney Houston album as #1 (I assume it was #1 in some chart or another, all I could read was her name and #1