I'm reminded of the beautiful phrase: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." Too bad this sort of response is no longer a realistic alternative.
Ok, then. More rain and snow prove global warming. And drought proves global warming. So..... given that any changes in the weather prove global warming, what would disprove global warming?
Except that none of the phenomena you've mentioned actually prove global warming (see definition of straw man argument).
Global warming refers to rising average global temperatures, so the way to disprove global warming would be to show that average global temperatures aren't going up.
I'm not familiar with The Mote in God's Eye / The Mote in Murcheson's Eye, so I didn't mention it. I can't object to statements about things I'm not familiar with.
Javascript is the exception. For whatever reason, Apple must have decided not supporting Javascript would be a bad idea. Otherwise, the terms of the iPhone SDK prohibit virtual machines such as Flash and Java:
3.3.2 -- An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s).
The true reason why Apple won't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they won't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store: it doesn't want software running on these platforms that they haven't specifically approved. Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines.
"We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago. Our kernel is huge and bloated. Whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse." -- Linus Torvalds, September 2009.
Since when do you have to connect to Live to play your games offline?
Ever since Microsoft decided Xbox Live Marketplace content should only work offline when played on the particular console to which it was originally downloaded?
Fair use is defined, and it is not defined to include copying an entire work for your own commercial purposes...
This is how fair use is defined by copyright law:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
As you can see, the law leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and nothing in the above text rules out the possibility of a successful fair use defense when books are scanned for the purpose of making them searchable (not to be confused with making it viewable) online.
I agree with the government's position on this one. What started out as a lawsuit over the scanning of books (to make them searchable, which I consider fair use) has now become an attempt by Google to gain rights they wouldn't have enjoyed without a contract with copyright holders. The idea of a class action lawsuit is to compensate plaintiffs for an alleged wrong, not to grant defendants new rights that could otherwise only be obtained through contract or legislation. In my opinion, the Author's Guild has sold out the class and acted against its best interests. Indeed, the proposed settlement affects even those authors who aren't members of the Author's Guild and does so in a way that is not in their best interests.
If Google wants access to people's copyrighted works beyond what's allowed by the fair use doctrine, let them negotiate with authors or else let them petition the government for sensible laws on orphaned works. The courts are not the way to secure such broad rights as Google has attempted to do through its settlement with the Author's Guild.
1. It would probably be illegal for the US government to require "drivers licenses" for general Internet use. The Internet is primarily a medium for the dissemination of speech, and the US government is prohibited from demanding that people obtain permission before speaking.
2. Even if done privately, requiring people to identify themselves for any and all uses of the internet is likely a bad idea.
"monopoly over their own titles" That word does not mean what you think it means...
Perhaps it doesn't mean what you think it means?
Macmillan has a government-granted monopoly over the production and initial distribution of its own titles, otherwise known as copyright. Not that I agree with Amazon's behavior here, but calling it a monopoly is accurate -- though of course not unique to Macmillan.
Why should average users have control over their computer? Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?
The problem with viruses on Windows isn't due to users having control over their computers. Instead, the problem is due to programs having too much control and users having too little control over what programs are allowed to do. The idea that Windows' vulnerabilities are due to a lack of prerelease approval by Microsoft is just a red herring. Mac OS X allows users to run unsigned software, yet mostly they don't have to worry about malware because the operating system provides reasonable protections against malicious software.
Sure, this is bad for the FSF, but what alternative vision of computing do they offer?
Isn't it obvious? They want a system that doesn't require the hardware manufacturer to approve each and every piece of software that runs on it.
ISPs have far easier tools to cut down P2P traffic if they so choose, without that damocletian sword called liability dangling over their heads.
They can do that now, but if net neutrality law prevented them from throttling P2P traffic then a "copyright infringement" loophole might enable them to block all instances of suspected copyright infringement (e.g. anything sent over P2P) rather than actual copyright infringement.
I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).
... all companies are welcome to operate in China but that they must do so under local laws...
That, of course, is true in any country in which a company operates. If censoring content is part of the rules that Google must follow in order to operate in China, they'll either have to back down from their new anti-censorship stance, pull out of China as threatened, or break the law. I expect it will be one of the first two.
That's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press. "Right before Christmas, it was, 'Holy s***, this malware is accessing the internal intercept [systems],'" he said.
'Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves,' said David Drummond in that blog update. That does sound like it perhaps could be a result of insecure HTTP traffic being intercepted in transit between the users and Gmail's servers.
Actually, I read somewhere that hackers gained access to a system designed to give law enforcement access to people's emails, presumably under warrant. [sarcasm]Who could have ever imagined the same loopholes intended for use by law enforcement could possibly be exploited by hackers as well?[/sarcasm]
This is just Comcast trying to legitimize their practice cutting off users who exceed their data transfer cap.
I suppose it's better than not being told how close you are to having your service suspended for a year, but I'd prefer it if their service were clearly advertised as metered service and had reasonable fees for overages instead of suspending users' accounts.
Yeah, that's the job for the government. As long as the censorship or restrictions has the label "democratic" attached to it, it's usually acceptable, right?
Net neutrality is the opposite of censorship as it bars ISPs from blocking or crippling those network connections the customer chooses to open.
... net neutrality would forbid speeding up or giving priority to certain packets...
Nonsense. It depends on how the law is written. If speeding up certain kinds of packets can help guarantee reliable service without rendering other services unreliable, a properly written law would still allow that.
"beyond whatever is necessary" is convenient wording on your part because it is vague and completely sidesteps over the entire issue of what "whatever is necessary" even is, let alone how one begins defining that
I'm not writing any laws. Legislators would, of course, explicitly define any and all such terms.
One of the worst things in this era is the belief that corporations are worse than governments. They're not exactly great, but Comcast can only cripple customers' connections if customers remain ignorant about the products or services they are purchasing.
Comcast can cripple customers' connections as long as it's legal for them to do so. Some customers might be able to switch ISPs, but when Comcast is the only ISP available or when all available ISPs are crippling users' connections, an unregulated market becomes a real liability for consumers.
They're monopolies either because consumers (who apparently are too stupid to make good purchasing decisions but smart enough to be able help make life-changing political decisions) let them become monopolies or because of sweetheart deals with the government (again, ultimately the fault of the voters anyway)
Whatever the reason they have become monopolies, once they have a monopoly I see nothing wrong with regulations that prevent them from taking advantage of their monopoly position in order to treat customers less than fairly.
A proper net neutrality law is long overdue. I don't want ISPs to ever be allowed to block any content, cripple any protocols, or artificially slow down any kind of traffic beyond whatever is necessary to ensure reliable service for all customers alike. A ruling against the FCC on its own ruling against Comcast would cause significant injury to US broadband users, and that's why we need some kind of legislation outside of FCC rules that will ensure ISPs such as Comcast can't cripple customers' connections. Pro-corporate judges then won't have a leg to stand on.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reminded of the beautiful phrase: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ..." Too bad this sort of response is no longer a realistic alternative.
Except that none of the phenomena you've mentioned actually prove global warming (see definition of straw man argument).
Global warming refers to rising average global temperatures, so the way to disprove global warming would be to show that average global temperatures aren't going up.
I'm not familiar with The Mote in God's Eye / The Mote in Murcheson's Eye, so I didn't mention it. I can't object to statements about things I'm not familiar with.
1. You don't need to go outside of town to see the rings of Saturn.
2. There are no canals on Mars. It's an optical illusion.
I have a 4.7 inch telescope and I can see cloud bands on Jupiter. It won't look like "just a glowing white dot", and they won't see any phases on it.
Javascript is the exception. For whatever reason, Apple must have decided not supporting Javascript would be a bad idea. Otherwise, the terms of the iPhone SDK prohibit virtual machines such as Flash and Java:
The true reason why Apple won't allow Flash to run on the iPad is the same as the reason why they won't allow any standalone emulators into the App Store: it doesn't want software running on these platforms that they haven't specifically approved. Everything else is just them rationalizing their basic prohibition on virtual machines.
"We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago. Our kernel is huge and bloated. Whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse." -- Linus Torvalds, September 2009.
Ever since Microsoft decided Xbox Live Marketplace content should only work offline when played on the particular console to which it was originally downloaded?
I'll be sure to keep this in mind before purchasing any games through Xbox Live Marketplace.
This is how fair use is defined by copyright law:
As you can see, the law leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and nothing in the above text rules out the possibility of a successful fair use defense when books are scanned for the purpose of making them searchable (not to be confused with making it viewable) online.
I agree with the government's position on this one. What started out as a lawsuit over the scanning of books (to make them searchable, which I consider fair use) has now become an attempt by Google to gain rights they wouldn't have enjoyed without a contract with copyright holders. The idea of a class action lawsuit is to compensate plaintiffs for an alleged wrong, not to grant defendants new rights that could otherwise only be obtained through contract or legislation. In my opinion, the Author's Guild has sold out the class and acted against its best interests. Indeed, the proposed settlement affects even those authors who aren't members of the Author's Guild and does so in a way that is not in their best interests.
If Google wants access to people's copyrighted works beyond what's allowed by the fair use doctrine, let them negotiate with authors or else let them petition the government for sensible laws on orphaned works. The courts are not the way to secure such broad rights as Google has attempted to do through its settlement with the Author's Guild.
1. It would probably be illegal for the US government to require "drivers licenses" for general Internet use. The Internet is primarily a medium for the dissemination of speech, and the US government is prohibited from demanding that people obtain permission before speaking.
2. Even if done privately, requiring people to identify themselves for any and all uses of the internet is likely a bad idea.
Because the communications channel that carries the self-signed certificate is exactly the same as the one that has potentially been compromised.
Perhaps it doesn't mean what you think it means?
Macmillan has a government-granted monopoly over the production and initial distribution of its own titles, otherwise known as copyright. Not that I agree with Amazon's behavior here, but calling it a monopoly is accurate -- though of course not unique to Macmillan.
The problem with viruses on Windows isn't due to users having control over their computers. Instead, the problem is due to programs having too much control and users having too little control over what programs are allowed to do. The idea that Windows' vulnerabilities are due to a lack of prerelease approval by Microsoft is just a red herring. Mac OS X allows users to run unsigned software, yet mostly they don't have to worry about malware because the operating system provides reasonable protections against malicious software.
Isn't it obvious? They want a system that doesn't require the hardware manufacturer to approve each and every piece of software that runs on it.
No, because Sherlock Holmes is not exclusive to the copyrighted stories.
They can do that now, but if net neutrality law prevented them from throttling P2P traffic then a "copyright infringement" loophole might enable them to block all instances of suspected copyright infringement (e.g. anything sent over P2P) rather than actual copyright infringement.
I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).
That, of course, is true in any country in which a company operates. If censoring content is part of the rules that Google must follow in order to operate in China, they'll either have to back down from their new anti-censorship stance, pull out of China as threatened, or break the law. I expect it will be one of the first two.
I found the source. It's from PC World:
Actually, I read somewhere that hackers gained access to a system designed to give law enforcement access to people's emails, presumably under warrant. [sarcasm]Who could have ever imagined the same loopholes intended for use by law enforcement could possibly be exploited by hackers as well?[/sarcasm]
This is just Comcast trying to legitimize their practice cutting off users who exceed their data transfer cap.
I suppose it's better than not being told how close you are to having your service suspended for a year, but I'd prefer it if their service were clearly advertised as metered service and had reasonable fees for overages instead of suspending users' accounts.
Net neutrality is the opposite of censorship as it bars ISPs from blocking or crippling those network connections the customer chooses to open.
Nonsense. It depends on how the law is written. If speeding up certain kinds of packets can help guarantee reliable service without rendering other services unreliable, a properly written law would still allow that.
I'm not writing any laws. Legislators would, of course, explicitly define any and all such terms.
Comcast can cripple customers' connections as long as it's legal for them to do so. Some customers might be able to switch ISPs, but when Comcast is the only ISP available or when all available ISPs are crippling users' connections, an unregulated market becomes a real liability for consumers.
Whatever the reason they have become monopolies, once they have a monopoly I see nothing wrong with regulations that prevent them from taking advantage of their monopoly position in order to treat customers less than fairly.
A proper net neutrality law is long overdue. I don't want ISPs to ever be allowed to block any content, cripple any protocols, or artificially slow down any kind of traffic beyond whatever is necessary to ensure reliable service for all customers alike. A ruling against the FCC on its own ruling against Comcast would cause significant injury to US broadband users, and that's why we need some kind of legislation outside of FCC rules that will ensure ISPs such as Comcast can't cripple customers' connections. Pro-corporate judges then won't have a leg to stand on.