By "you," I mean the deceased. This does nothing for the person who died, as that person is irretrievably gone. This would only create a copy. But that copy would still be worth a lot to the husbands, wives, daughters, sons, etc. left behind. It would be better than monetary life insurance. Your employer, for one, would love it. It sure would be a mindjob for the copy, though.
Unless the process worked incrementally over a long time, i.e., every day, 0.1% of your consciousness was transferred to the machine. Your brain would (somehow, magically) be induced to start using that part of the machine as part of the coherent whole. Over time, your "real" brain would be retired as more and more of "you" was run in the artificial brain. Of course, if we could do that, we'd probably be able to make a biological brain last forever and attach whatever cybernetic augmentations we wanted, eliminating the need for this in the first place (except for backups in case of death, in which case there's no ambiguity about whether the real you is a alive or dead).
A one-way mission would also be a clear commitment to continuing the project. I mean, Apollo ended because the public lost interest in some men driving around collecting rocks. But what if we had a half dozen astronauts who would DIE if we didn't continue the project. I'm not saying it would be guaranteed support, but it would be much harder to just end the program. On the one hand, a one-way mission seems like a good use of resources, but on the other hand, this sort of seems like a dirty trick to force the public and the government into supporting something they might not be willing to support otherwise.
One of my previous jobs had a link to Q&A site Experts Exchange in some sample content. The current link for that site is http://experts-exchange.com/, but they also had a nearly identical URL which was what was used in our product: http://expertsexchange.com/. At some point, its registration lapsed and it got acquired by a domain squatter who was using it as a similar porn portal. If you're not getting it, read the URL again: http://expertsexchange.com/
Oh, please. How do you enforce compliance? I didn't mention DRM to get an automatic reaction; I mentioned it because that's the only way that we know of to make it stick. Given that anyone could hack up their own MTA and choose not to obey the recall, it's basically useless without a DRM-style approach.
For google: 75 Let us link to a page we hate without boosting its ranking
If you are linking to a page, you are effectively stating that it is significant in some way. Even if you hate it, that doesn't mean it's insignificant. An overriding goal for Google should be (is?) objectivity, and that means ignoring your bias as well as their own in delivering relevant results. If someone's searching for information on a given issue, ideally they would get results from both sides, which is as it should be. Nobody benefits from an echo chamber.
71 Add a recall function for email messages Outlook (with Microsoft Exchange Server) does it, why can't everyone else?
That's a terrible idea. If you don't want to say something, don't say it. If you change your mind, say you've changed your mind. But being able to recall emails means implementing the sort of pervasive DRM that would only be good for the RIAA and John Ashcroft. Not to mention the chilling effects heavily covered here before on things like whistle-blowing and other essential tools for a properly-functioning democracy and capitalist economy.
They're probably going to have to change the name. Using "HomePod" to refer to a digital music player is too close to "iPod." I wouldn't be surprised if they get a friendly letter stating that in legalese.
"The ability to check the contents of a suspect envelope without violating the correspondence rights has been long sought after," said Kawase. "Since ink is generally transparent to terahertz waves the privacy of the correspondence is not violated while the identification of concealed drugs is possible."
So, only the inked part of a mailed package is protected by privacy rights? There are all kinds of things I can imagine mailing that should be worthy of privacy but aren't ink-on-paper. I can think of many justifiable uses of this device (detection of hazardous materials, like bombs or chemicals), even if I think the "War on Drugs" is stupid, but such a narrow scope for privacy of mailed packages is disturbing. I should as much of the same expectation of privacy of my packages in the US mail as in my home (within limits, of course, like the aforementioned bomb example, which poses a clear danger to postal workers). If the US Postal Service wasn't a government-sponsored monopoly, I might feel differently, but it is, and so they should have similar limits on their ability to search my "effects." But then, the article says nothing about the USPS using this. Yet.
Which firing do you mean? Well, mine were all layoffs, not firings... Each of mine went a slightly different way.
A manager comes into my office and tells me she has bad news. Talks to me for about 15 minutes, tries very hard to be reassuring. She'd had a bad day, having laid off my direct manager and many others already. They didn't show up with security or anything, which I really appreciated. I got to wander around and talk to my now former co-workers. One of my former co-workers had had a sign up on his door for a while saying: "Before you come in and bother me, ask yourself what you've done today to increase the value of my stock options?" I scrawled on it: "I got laid off."
The second layoff was due to lawsuit. My employer settled a hefty suit by the RIAA that day. We were just sitting around. At some point, I went upstairs to see my manager and asked him if I still had a job. He said I didn't. Nor did 80% of the others. That was pretty straightforward.
The third (final? knock wood) one was another one I saw coming. I was a contractor. They had a meeting of about half of the regular employees a week or so after the site went live and we were underwhelmed by the response. Since I was not a regular employee, I wasn't in that meeting. When they came for me, I knew what was going on. I was pretty happy about it, too, since it gave me a face-saving way out of a job I did not like.
The first one hurt the most. It got easier over time, possibly because the jobs got less... fulfilling over time. I may have my problems with the first company, but they sure handled the layoffs well. Good severance package, not having the security goons to escort us out the door immediately, having a chance to talk to co-workers before disappearing. A class act, and well appreciated, even if I am still a little bitter about the whole thing.
Note that Nick Lampson is representative from the Texas 10th District. From his web site (emphasis added):
This site is a resource for and about the Ninth District, which serves areas in Jefferson, Chambers, Harris, and Galveston counties;
including Johnson Space Center, NASA's astronaut training facility and Mission Control.
Note also that 11 of the 26 sponsors are also from Texas. I'm not making a comment about this bill's worth. However, Lampson's district would probably benefit from a beefed up space program, and the state of Texas itself would also benefit. The line between worthy project and pork is a very fuzzy one. My representative (D-Texas 10th) is not on that list, but I'm sure he was asked, since Lampson seems to have made an effort to get Texas representatives on board. I also note that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas 22nd) is not a co-sponsor. His district includes parts of Harris County (Houston) and Galveston county as well. Maybe just a political thing, since the other sponsors are Democrats. I wonder if one of the California Democrats has Vandenberg in his/her district. Nobody from Florida, though, so no direct connection with Cape Canaveral. Food for thought.
Code Generation is for people who don't understand or are too lazy for abstraction, and it will ALWAYS have the problem of, what if you want to go through all your projects and change one single thing about the generated part of your code?
I take it you've never used a compiled language? In an abstract sense, that is a code generation. Actually, so are interpreted languages: you give them a high level expression and it turns it into executable code that it runs for you instead. Have you ever set up a build environment to embed a build number and timestamp into the executable? That is code generation. What about a template language? What about something like JSP, which generates Java code from templates? Code generation is everywhere. You use it implicitly. Anything that's not machine code could be considered a code generation template language. Hell, at this point, even that's not true. With both AMD and Intel decomposing x86 instructions to internal RISC-like sub-languages, x86 assembler can be viewed as a template for the decode stages of CPU to generate micro/macro-ops code for the backend. These just happen under your radar. Don't dismiss a universal and useful tool simply because you've seen it done badly. Most of the time it works so well you don't even know it's there.
Your example with EJB reflects a half-baked design for EJBs. Sun is working to fix that with metadata in Java 1.5, but until then, code generation tools are too useful to ignore. Besides, the only difference is how explicit the code generation step is; it's going to be there regardless.
How much of a victory is this? I think we should be very careful about celebrating when something bad fails due to technological constraints. We of all people should understand that is only temporary. People always talk about unenforced laws being no problem. Well, they can be enforced selectively in a way that basically amounts to tyranny, like the Texas anti-sodomy law. Similarly, a law that cannot be enforced is still a problem if the law could someday be enforced. Then we'll have tons of people saying, "Well, it's been legal for years," not realizing that its fundamental nature has changed.
In this case, if you are in public, you don't have a right to privacy. Fine. But it's one thing for your girlfriend's mother to see you going into a seedy motel and telling your girlfriend about it. That's just coincidence (unless it's stalking). But it becomes an entirely different thing when it's systematized. If we feel content and victorious that this failed due to technological reasons, we'd better get our acts together, because the tech is not going to hold still. Fundamentally, privacy against Big Brother is a social problem, even if its invasion is by technology. This doesn't solve that; it only delays it. This is a temporary victory. Don't get complacent. We need these things to fail because people don't want them. That's the battle to win.
buying a potential anti-trust lawsuit?
on
Novell Buys Ximian
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I wonder if they're buying a potential anti-trust lawsuit. If MS screws Ximian Mono by changing.NET or pointing the patent gun at them or whatever, Novell will have the resources to go after them for abusing a monopoly position, whereas it would be harder for Ximian to do that on their own. Kind of like with DR-DOS, although I think it was Caldera who pursued the litigation in that case.
This sounds similar to (but distinct from) the Canary Trap that Tom Clancy described in one of his novels. I think it was "Cardinal of the Kremlin," though I may be wrong. I don't know if the idea was Clancy's originally, but that's where I saw it. Basically, each copy of a classified report has various meaningless differences, like an intentional misspelling or use of a different phrase. Each person is given a slightly different and unique version of the report. If it ends up being leaked, it's relatively straightforward to figure out where the leak originated. I guess that sounds a lot like watermarking/fingerprinting files as well, though this was for both hard and soft copies.
I wouldn't be so quick to draw such a line. Cops are targets far more than the average citizen is. Chances are, if you are a victim of a crime, it's either random or committed by someone you know. Police officers, on the other hand, have hundreds of violent criminals who would like revenge on them. Being a cop is dangerous, but many are willing to take the risk for the greater good. But what if the risk extended to when they weren't in uniform? Or to their familes? Things like this would make it a lot harder to recruit police officers, that's for sure. I guess you feel differently, but I'm not so willing to dismiss this real danger. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and what you're advocating is uniform privacy, in which case I'm on board.
you still won't want to do things that suck
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The most important thing that I had to learn was that the drugs won't make you want to do things you don't want to do. You can divide tasks you currently fail at into three categories:
1) You can't focus and stick to it. 2) You don't really want to. 3) You aren't capable.
Before, I couldn't really tell the difference between the three. Part of that problem was that I was afraid to start things because I knew I couldn't follow through. It was all a muddle. And when things got tough, I'd give up. I couldn't tell whether that was because it really was too hard or because there was a threshhold of dedication that I just couldn't get over. Now, using the drugs, I have a lot more clarity. I know that if I'm capable of doing something and if I want to do it, it'll get done. That's a huge change for me. I also have a clearer understanding of what I really can do, so I know when something is just beyond my ability. The drugs have their side effects, but the clarity they have made possible is an unequivocally good thing. It also sticks with me when I'm not using them, which gives me some hope for a productive and drug-free future.
Katy Johnson, who was Miss Vermont in 1999 and again in 2001, uses her site to promote what she calls her "platform of character education."
That is incorrect. As you can see at the Miss Vermont previous winners page, the winner in 2001 was Amy Johnson, not Katy Johnson, who won in 1999 and is the subject of the article. I should know; I went to high school with Amy and lived one street over.
Furthermore, it just doesn't make sense for someone to be able to compete twice. Did it not occur to anyone at the NY Times or other papers to check this? I have seen the same error in several places.
If we want to make corporate responsibility a real thing in the post-Enron days, this sort of thing is going to have to happen. Lots of people want laws to enable us to go after people who lie to shareholders or pollute the environment, but the sword cuts both ways. If you want to make it more difficult for someone (either a real person or another corporation) to hide behind a corporation after engaging in illegal activity, you're going to have to accept that these laws will be used by people we don't like (RIAA) to go after people we do like (Napster) breaking laws we don't like.
How is this such a wrong thing anyway? Hummer Winblad knew that Napster operated by exploiting copyrights they did not own, but they gave them money anyway. Giving money to a terrorist group that will commit crimes is illegal; why shouldn't it be illegal to give money to a company that will commit crimes also? Ignore whether the law is just; as it stands right now, Napster was illegal.
Microsoft had to discard its methodology of starting with a technology and then creating products. Instead, Savage reasoned, the needs and attitudes of the customers should determine what software Microsoft should produce, and the technology should come later.
Microsoft, understandably, says a different principle is at stake. According to its court filings, the company has spent $1.2 billion on marketing and promoting Windows since the first version was announced in 1983 and shipped in 1985. "Our request in this case is simply that Lindows not free-ride on the investments we have made in building Windows into one of the most recognizable brands in the world over the last 20 years," said Jon Murchinson, a spokesman for Microsoft.
Well, just because Microsoft pissed its money away associating themselves with a generic term doesn't mean they should get trademark protection. If I spend millions of dollars on something that isn't mine in the first place (especialy something that is a public trust), I can't make it mine. That principle would imply that anyone could throw enough promotional money around and eventually claim any word of the English language.* They screwed up. I'm not saying they should give up; "Windows" is too valuable to them and they owe it to their shareholders to try to keep it. But they should lose.
Microsoft... said it is not opposed to open-source software, and points out that its source code is available to approved partners and educational institutions on a limited basis.
Yes, that's like saying I'm not opposed to fruit because I drink Kool-aid. Microsoft is playing on people's ignorance of what open source actually is to deflect criticism and muddy the waters and make it harder to discern the open source/free software advantage.
If you send me an email, I have to be free to do with it whatever I want, short of outright redistribution. I've read a bunch of people say that they should be able to yank the emails they send after the fact because those are their emails, but that's just bogus. They can't control them after they send them, and they shouldn't be allowed to. RMS brings up good examples of how the "disappearing ink" strategy could have terrible effects. I find it ironic and humorous that RMS didn't focus on the rights aspect of it, and instead looked at the practical aspects. Personal communication shouldn't have complicated licenses attached to it. Ubiquitous DRM would allow anyone to attach an enforceable (technically, and possibly legally) license to their outgoing emails or their web pages.
We shouldn't look at this in any different way from any standard media DRM because in a decentralized producer environment like the WWW, there is no clear distinction. If I had my way, these would all fall under a single mandatory license that you as a content producer would be bound to if you disseminate anything: I can do whatever I want with what I buy from you short of redistributing it (in substantial parts, as opposed to excerpts). It should be my right. Any attempt by you to obstruct that, through technological or legal means, is a violation of my rights.
We've all sent angry emails and wished we could take it back it two seconds after hitting "send." We learned (most of us) to be more thoughtful and considered in our messages. We had to mature and get used to not having that control because it wasn't ours to have in the first place. Take backs don't count after fourth grade. If you screw up and publish something that shouldn't be published, you're going to have to just deal with it. This application of DRM is an attempt to use a technological solution to a social problem, and it's a horrible idea.
Another reason Hoffman cited was that deep links made it more difficult--though not impossible--for sites to protect paid, password-protected content.
Oh come on now. Is she trying to say that these sites only check login credentials at a front page login screen? So if I have a subscription and send a link to you, you can bypass the login? That's so braindead. Cookies and session IDs are easy. These people are trying to use "terms of service" to cover up technical incompetence.
Other sites, such as the American Cancer Society, say restrictions on deep linking are in the best interests of people seeking information.
So they're telling me that making me jump through an extra hoop serves me better? If I wanted general information I would have come to the front page in the first place. Nobody follows a complicated link expecting to get to the front page. And then once you're at that deep page, it's trivial to get to the top if you decide you need a broader view; just about every site has their logo in the top left as a link to the front page. If I can't get to a general info page easily, it's a site navigation problem, not a problem with how I'm getting to the site. Do these people think through what they're saying before they say it?
Slashdot Mirror
By "you," I mean the deceased. This does nothing for the person who died, as that person is irretrievably gone. This would only create a copy. But that copy would still be worth a lot to the husbands, wives, daughters, sons, etc. left behind. It would be better than monetary life insurance. Your employer, for one, would love it. It sure would be a mindjob for the copy, though.
Unless the process worked incrementally over a long time, i.e., every day, 0.1% of your consciousness was transferred to the machine. Your brain would (somehow, magically) be induced to start using that part of the machine as part of the coherent whole. Over time, your "real" brain would be retired as more and more of "you" was run in the artificial brain. Of course, if we could do that, we'd probably be able to make a biological brain last forever and attach whatever cybernetic augmentations we wanted, eliminating the need for this in the first place (except for backups in case of death, in which case there's no ambiguity about whether the real you is a alive or dead).
A one-way mission would also be a clear commitment to continuing the project. I mean, Apollo ended because the public lost interest in some men driving around collecting rocks. But what if we had a half dozen astronauts who would DIE if we didn't continue the project. I'm not saying it would be guaranteed support, but it would be much harder to just end the program. On the one hand, a one-way mission seems like a good use of resources, but on the other hand, this sort of seems like a dirty trick to force the public and the government into supporting something they might not be willing to support otherwise.
One of my previous jobs had a link to Q&A site Experts Exchange in some sample content. The current link for that site is http://experts-exchange.com/, but they also had a nearly identical URL which was what was used in our product: http://expertsexchange.com/. At some point, its registration lapsed and it got acquired by a domain squatter who was using it as a similar porn portal. If you're not getting it, read the URL again: http://expertsexchange.com/
Oh, please. How do you enforce compliance? I didn't mention DRM to get an automatic reaction; I mentioned it because that's the only way that we know of to make it stick. Given that anyone could hack up their own MTA and choose not to obey the recall, it's basically useless without a DRM-style approach.
If you are linking to a page, you are effectively stating that it is significant in some way. Even if you hate it, that doesn't mean it's insignificant. An overriding goal for Google should be (is?) objectivity, and that means ignoring your bias as well as their own in delivering relevant results. If someone's searching for information on a given issue, ideally they would get results from both sides, which is as it should be. Nobody benefits from an echo chamber.
That's a terrible idea. If you don't want to say something, don't say it. If you change your mind, say you've changed your mind. But being able to recall emails means implementing the sort of pervasive DRM that would only be good for the RIAA and John Ashcroft. Not to mention the chilling effects heavily covered here before on things like whistle-blowing and other essential tools for a properly-functioning democracy and capitalist economy.
They're probably going to have to change the name. Using "HomePod" to refer to a digital music player is too close to "iPod." I wouldn't be surprised if they get a friendly letter stating that in legalese.
So, only the inked part of a mailed package is protected by privacy rights? There are all kinds of things I can imagine mailing that should be worthy of privacy but aren't ink-on-paper. I can think of many justifiable uses of this device (detection of hazardous materials, like bombs or chemicals), even if I think the "War on Drugs" is stupid, but such a narrow scope for privacy of mailed packages is disturbing. I should as much of the same expectation of privacy of my packages in the US mail as in my home (within limits, of course, like the aforementioned bomb example, which poses a clear danger to postal workers). If the US Postal Service wasn't a government-sponsored monopoly, I might feel differently, but it is, and so they should have similar limits on their ability to search my "effects." But then, the article says nothing about the USPS using this. Yet.
The first one hurt the most. It got easier over time, possibly because the jobs got less... fulfilling over time. I may have my problems with the first company, but they sure handled the layoffs well. Good severance package, not having the security goons to escort us out the door immediately, having a chance to talk to co-workers before disappearing. A class act, and well appreciated, even if I am still a little bitter about the whole thing.
I take it you've never used a compiled language? In an abstract sense, that is a code generation. Actually, so are interpreted languages: you give them a high level expression and it turns it into executable code that it runs for you instead. Have you ever set up a build environment to embed a build number and timestamp into the executable? That is code generation. What about a template language? What about something like JSP, which generates Java code from templates? Code generation is everywhere. You use it implicitly. Anything that's not machine code could be considered a code generation template language. Hell, at this point, even that's not true. With both AMD and Intel decomposing x86 instructions to internal RISC-like sub-languages, x86 assembler can be viewed as a template for the decode stages of CPU to generate micro/macro-ops code for the backend. These just happen under your radar. Don't dismiss a universal and useful tool simply because you've seen it done badly. Most of the time it works so well you don't even know it's there.
Your example with EJB reflects a half-baked design for EJBs. Sun is working to fix that with metadata in Java 1.5, but until then, code generation tools are too useful to ignore. Besides, the only difference is how explicit the code generation step is; it's going to be there regardless.
How much of a victory is this? I think we should be very careful about celebrating when something bad fails due to technological constraints. We of all people should understand that is only temporary. People always talk about unenforced laws being no problem. Well, they can be enforced selectively in a way that basically amounts to tyranny, like the Texas anti-sodomy law. Similarly, a law that cannot be enforced is still a problem if the law could someday be enforced. Then we'll have tons of people saying, "Well, it's been legal for years," not realizing that its fundamental nature has changed.
In this case, if you are in public, you don't have a right to privacy. Fine. But it's one thing for your girlfriend's mother to see you going into a seedy motel and telling your girlfriend about it. That's just coincidence (unless it's stalking). But it becomes an entirely different thing when it's systematized. If we feel content and victorious that this failed due to technological reasons, we'd better get our acts together, because the tech is not going to hold still. Fundamentally, privacy against Big Brother is a social problem, even if its invasion is by technology. This doesn't solve that; it only delays it. This is a temporary victory. Don't get complacent. We need these things to fail because people don't want them. That's the battle to win.
Somebody is so fired.
I wonder if they're buying a potential anti-trust lawsuit. If MS screws Ximian Mono by changing .NET or pointing the patent gun at them or whatever, Novell will have the resources to go after them for abusing a monopoly position, whereas it would be harder for Ximian to do that on their own. Kind of like with DR-DOS, although I think it was Caldera who pursued the litigation in that case.
This post started as a joke; now I'm not so sure.
This sounds similar to (but distinct from) the Canary Trap that Tom Clancy described in one of his novels. I think it was "Cardinal of the Kremlin," though I may be wrong. I don't know if the idea was Clancy's originally, but that's where I saw it. Basically, each copy of a classified report has various meaningless differences, like an intentional misspelling or use of a different phrase. Each person is given a slightly different and unique version of the report. If it ends up being leaked, it's relatively straightforward to figure out where the leak originated. I guess that sounds a lot like watermarking/fingerprinting files as well, though this was for both hard and soft copies.
I wouldn't be so quick to draw such a line. Cops are targets far more than the average citizen is. Chances are, if you are a victim of a crime, it's either random or committed by someone you know. Police officers, on the other hand, have hundreds of violent criminals who would like revenge on them. Being a cop is dangerous, but many are willing to take the risk for the greater good. But what if the risk extended to when they weren't in uniform? Or to their familes? Things like this would make it a lot harder to recruit police officers, that's for sure. I guess you feel differently, but I'm not so willing to dismiss this real danger. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and what you're advocating is uniform privacy, in which case I'm on board.
The most important thing that I had to learn was that the drugs won't make you want to do things you don't want to do. You can divide tasks you currently fail at into three categories:
1) You can't focus and stick to it.
2) You don't really want to.
3) You aren't capable.
Before, I couldn't really tell the difference between the three. Part of that problem was that I was afraid to start things because I knew I couldn't follow through. It was all a muddle. And when things got tough, I'd give up. I couldn't tell whether that was because it really was too hard or because there was a threshhold of dedication that I just couldn't get over. Now, using the drugs, I have a lot more clarity. I know that if I'm capable of doing something and if I want to do it, it'll get done. That's a huge change for me. I also have a clearer understanding of what I really can do, so I know when something is just beyond my ability. The drugs have their side effects, but the clarity they have made possible is an unequivocally good thing. It also sticks with me when I'm not using them, which gives me some hope for a productive and drug-free future.
Furthermore, it just doesn't make sense for someone to be able to compete twice. Did it not occur to anyone at the NY Times or other papers to check this? I have seen the same error in several places.
If we want to make corporate responsibility a real thing in the post-Enron days, this sort of thing is going to have to happen. Lots of people want laws to enable us to go after people who lie to shareholders or pollute the environment, but the sword cuts both ways. If you want to make it more difficult for someone (either a real person or another corporation) to hide behind a corporation after engaging in illegal activity, you're going to have to accept that these laws will be used by people we don't like (RIAA) to go after people we do like (Napster) breaking laws we don't like.
How is this such a wrong thing anyway? Hummer Winblad knew that Napster operated by exploiting copyrights they did not own, but they gave them money anyway. Giving money to a terrorist group that will commit crimes is illegal; why shouldn't it be illegal to give money to a company that will commit crimes also? Ignore whether the law is just; as it stands right now, Napster was illegal.
Well, just because Microsoft pissed its money away associating themselves with a generic term doesn't mean they should get trademark protection. If I spend millions of dollars on something that isn't mine in the first place (especialy something that is a public trust), I can't make it mine. That principle would imply that anyone could throw enough promotional money around and eventually claim any word of the English language.* They screwed up. I'm not saying they should give up; "Windows" is too valuable to them and they owe it to their shareholders to try to keep it. But they should lose.
* Otherwise I've got dibs on "the"
We shouldn't look at this in any different way from any standard media DRM because in a decentralized producer environment like the WWW, there is no clear distinction. If I had my way, these would all fall under a single mandatory license that you as a content producer would be bound to if you disseminate anything: I can do whatever I want with what I buy from you short of redistributing it (in substantial parts, as opposed to excerpts). It should be my right. Any attempt by you to obstruct that, through technological or legal means, is a violation of my rights.
We've all sent angry emails and wished we could take it back it two seconds after hitting "send." We learned (most of us) to be more thoughtful and considered in our messages. We had to mature and get used to not having that control because it wasn't ours to have in the first place. Take backs don't count after fourth grade. If you screw up and publish something that shouldn't be published, you're going to have to just deal with it. This application of DRM is an attempt to use a technological solution to a social problem, and it's a horrible idea.