That question has a false premise. In virtually all countries it's legal to occupy public spaces and record all that you see, even if that amounts to trailing a particular person.
I get you're joking.. but I wanted to point out that FCC licenses to use those airwaves actually explicitly require that the broadcasts use FCC-determined standards, specifically so that anyone can capture and decode that content. That's also part of why time-shifting is fair-use; you're recording something broadcast in a finite, public medium. Broadcasters give up their right to exclude by licensing public airwaves.
Mozilla is not that desperate to go out of business. You're suggesting that Mozilla do the heavy lifting, then let someone else rebrand Firefox and include support for EME? Please.
I will pay for content when I can access it without use of closed-source executables. So long as you want me to instantiate code I cannot audit, I won't be buying your content. Sorry.
Unfortunately the "smart" software requires frequent updates. Not merely for security patches which are potentially moot with MAC blocking -- but for bugs which cause crashes or poor performance. I've had a Samsung for a few years, and they've stopped patching it; the final patch left me rebooting the TV daily, otherwise the video starts to stutter. I'd love a truly non-smart TV without the increased possibility of bugs.
Hurting customers is only bad for business when it can lead to a loss of customers. As we have seen time and again, that doesn't apply monopolies. That was the major motivation for making them illegal -- the usual checks built into capitalism don't work, since they are predicated on competition. Capitalism is great, but it's also full of corner cases which libertarians always try to dream away with magical thinking and praying to their capitalist god. If someone thinks Capitalism is infallible and a cure-all, more perfect, less in need of keeping a watchful eye than the men who created it.. then that is religion, not science.
My background is economics, don't make the mistake of devolving to ad hominem attacks.
And never will be. The FCC mandate to regulate comes from the finite nature of radio bandwidth; that's the same reason the FCC cannot regulate cable TV. Check the FCC FAQs and you'll see -- they can only accept indecency complaints related to broadcast TV and radio (although broadcast TV retransmitted over cable is included, since it was still broadcast).
Yes, he can -- but he will lose. His beliefs are protected, but not his right to use company resources to disseminate them. By sending out that memo he misappropriated company resources for his political ends.
Actually, that IS how Capitalism works -- because Capitalism does no more or less than incentivize any activity that can earn you a buck. The disincentive is competition and loss of customers.. and that only applies if there are substitute goods available, and would require the company to actually be disclosing their conduct.. otherwise they are able to profit regardless because no one knows to ditch the service.
If you'd bothered to RTFA before commenting you'd have noticed the link doesn't go to the story mentioned, it links to an article about Charlottesville.
Actually, it's more than just creating a hostile work environment: his actions created a distraction. Companies can fire employees who drag the business off-target and are disrupting their business activities. Of course they really need to fire the leaker, as well.
Most people care, just not enough to make it worth the cost of doing anything. Make end-to-end encryption simpler and more ubiquitous (WhatsApp, Signal) and people will use it. Given two equivalent goods where the only differentiator is privacy, users will choose the more-secure option.
Broadband speeds have lagged the rest of the developed world because monopolies only produce up to the point marginal cost equals marginal revenue. This wouldn't be a problem if, like most natural monopolies (water, electricity), broadband was closely regulated, but it isn't. There's effectively no fixed wireline competition for cable broadband; without competition there is no pressure to increase efficiency. The problem is that regulators have been pretending cable internet, dsl (i.e. uverse) internet, and wireless internet are substitute goods, when in fact they are not.
Cable and DSL are similar, but not substitutes; DSL cannot come anywhere near matching the throughput of cable. And as natural monopolies, it would be massively inefficient and costly for a second company to set up physical infrastructure duplicating the cable system, when the existing infrastructure is largely adequate. What we need is competition for USE of that infrastructure, rather than the current status quo.
Your name is no more "you" than your email address; both are "personal identifying information". Online someone's email address is as much their identity as is their name. If you impersonate someone and collect donations for them, you are guilty of stealing from the person whom you impersonated. If you create business accounts in their name, those accounts are theirs and they are free to assume control of them, use them or cancel them. Why would the law turn a blind eye to impersonation simply because the perpetrator is using one of the victim's lawful accounts (email) to create others?
I would argue that an email address is an identity, and that using one which does not belong to you to create an account on a public system is identity theft. The creation of the bogus account deprives the legitimate email address owner of the ability to create their own account in their name.
If an identity thief opens a credit card or Blockbuster account (they still around?) in my name it is not a crime for me to use those accounts, nor to cancel them. How is it different if they have stolen my identity for purposes of opening an electronic account?
Neither of those cases have any relevance in this situation. In this case, the account was created using the OP's identity, but without his knowledge. As the legal person in whose name the accounts were created, he is lawfully entitled to access them. It's no different than if some third party purchased land in your name without your knowledge or consent; having discovered that the land exists, you can sell it or use it as you wish -- it's *your* land.
Case law is pretty well settled that if someone purchases goods or services in your name they belong to you, notwithstanding your asking a court to annul the contract. If they created obligations on your behalf (i.e. debt) you can use the courts to get the debt discharged; however, if they did something which actually benefitted you financially you could also choose to let it stand.
Diversity decreases the threat profile, you don't want every device having an identical attack surface.
Think of humanity; a virus which is potentially lethal to one person may not even give another person a cold, even in the absence of immunity due to previous exposure -- this is thanks to genetic diversity. If every human was genetically identical then we could easily be wiped out by a single well-evolved virus (maybe not too well-evolved if it exterminates the host..).
Slashdot Mirror
That question has a false premise. In virtually all countries it's legal to occupy public spaces and record all that you see, even if that amounts to trailing a particular person.
I get you're joking.. but I wanted to point out that FCC licenses to use those airwaves actually explicitly require that the broadcasts use FCC-determined standards, specifically so that anyone can capture and decode that content. That's also part of why time-shifting is fair-use; you're recording something broadcast in a finite, public medium. Broadcasters give up their right to exclude by licensing public airwaves.
Yea. I really don't understand why this question made ./ front page.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Actually, that's true of me, too. Maybe I should have elaborated.
Mozilla is not that desperate to go out of business. You're suggesting that Mozilla do the heavy lifting, then let someone else rebrand Firefox and include support for EME? Please.
I will pay for content when I can access it without use of closed-source executables. So long as you want me to instantiate code I cannot audit, I won't be buying your content. Sorry.
Yea, it's not a trivial problem, but not a particularly insurmountable one either, to drive the rotors via shafts powered from below-deck.
Unfortunately the "smart" software requires frequent updates. Not merely for security patches which are potentially moot with MAC blocking -- but for bugs which cause crashes or poor performance. I've had a Samsung for a few years, and they've stopped patching it; the final patch left me rebooting the TV daily, otherwise the video starts to stutter. I'd love a truly non-smart TV without the increased possibility of bugs.
Hurting customers is only bad for business when it can lead to a loss of customers. As we have seen time and again, that doesn't apply monopolies. That was the major motivation for making them illegal -- the usual checks built into capitalism don't work, since they are predicated on competition. Capitalism is great, but it's also full of corner cases which libertarians always try to dream away with magical thinking and praying to their capitalist god. If someone thinks Capitalism is infallible and a cure-all, more perfect, less in need of keeping a watchful eye than the men who created it.. then that is religion, not science. My background is economics, don't make the mistake of devolving to ad hominem attacks.
And never will be. The FCC mandate to regulate comes from the finite nature of radio bandwidth; that's the same reason the FCC cannot regulate cable TV. Check the FCC FAQs and you'll see -- they can only accept indecency complaints related to broadcast TV and radio (although broadcast TV retransmitted over cable is included, since it was still broadcast).
Yes, he can -- but he will lose. His beliefs are protected, but not his right to use company resources to disseminate them. By sending out that memo he misappropriated company resources for his political ends.
Actually, that IS how Capitalism works -- because Capitalism does no more or less than incentivize any activity that can earn you a buck. The disincentive is competition and loss of customers.. and that only applies if there are substitute goods available, and would require the company to actually be disclosing their conduct.. otherwise they are able to profit regardless because no one knows to ditch the service.
If you'd bothered to RTFA before commenting you'd have noticed the link doesn't go to the story mentioned, it links to an article about Charlottesville.
Actually, it's more than just creating a hostile work environment: his actions created a distraction. Companies can fire employees who drag the business off-target and are disrupting their business activities. Of course they really need to fire the leaker, as well.
Most people care, just not enough to make it worth the cost of doing anything. Make end-to-end encryption simpler and more ubiquitous (WhatsApp, Signal) and people will use it. Given two equivalent goods where the only differentiator is privacy, users will choose the more-secure option.
Broadband speeds have lagged the rest of the developed world because monopolies only produce up to the point marginal cost equals marginal revenue. This wouldn't be a problem if, like most natural monopolies (water, electricity), broadband was closely regulated, but it isn't. There's effectively no fixed wireline competition for cable broadband; without competition there is no pressure to increase efficiency. The problem is that regulators have been pretending cable internet, dsl (i.e. uverse) internet, and wireless internet are substitute goods, when in fact they are not.
Cable and DSL are similar, but not substitutes; DSL cannot come anywhere near matching the throughput of cable. And as natural monopolies, it would be massively inefficient and costly for a second company to set up physical infrastructure duplicating the cable system, when the existing infrastructure is largely adequate. What we need is competition for USE of that infrastructure, rather than the current status quo.
Your name is no more "you" than your email address; both are "personal identifying information". Online someone's email address is as much their identity as is their name. If you impersonate someone and collect donations for them, you are guilty of stealing from the person whom you impersonated. If you create business accounts in their name, those accounts are theirs and they are free to assume control of them, use them or cancel them. Why would the law turn a blind eye to impersonation simply because the perpetrator is using one of the victim's lawful accounts (email) to create others?
For example, M-03-22 from the Office of Management and Budget defines an email address as "personally protected information".
I would argue that an email address is an identity, and that using one which does not belong to you to create an account on a public system is identity theft. The creation of the bogus account deprives the legitimate email address owner of the ability to create their own account in their name.
If an identity thief opens a credit card or Blockbuster account (they still around?) in my name it is not a crime for me to use those accounts, nor to cancel them. How is it different if they have stolen my identity for purposes of opening an electronic account?
Neither of those cases have any relevance in this situation. In this case, the account was created using the OP's identity, but without his knowledge. As the legal person in whose name the accounts were created, he is lawfully entitled to access them. It's no different than if some third party purchased land in your name without your knowledge or consent; having discovered that the land exists, you can sell it or use it as you wish -- it's *your* land. Case law is pretty well settled that if someone purchases goods or services in your name they belong to you, notwithstanding your asking a court to annul the contract. If they created obligations on your behalf (i.e. debt) you can use the courts to get the debt discharged; however, if they did something which actually benefitted you financially you could also choose to let it stand.
This story ran weeks ago and was already on /. once before. STALE!
Diversity decreases the threat profile, you don't want every device having an identical attack surface. Think of humanity; a virus which is potentially lethal to one person may not even give another person a cold, even in the absence of immunity due to previous exposure -- this is thanks to genetic diversity. If every human was genetically identical then we could easily be wiped out by a single well-evolved virus (maybe not too well-evolved if it exterminates the host..).
Macs have Python out-of-box. What's the problem? Python is most definitely a "beginner's language".
Whether they have caused cancer is the real question.