When are the RIAA and MPAA going to get it into their skulls that they are not the main source of artistic creativity in the world?
That's why they're after these special favors -- by outlawing any publication format that doesn't meet their specifications they can remove the competition.
No data security is really secure against a government focused on you -- if they can't break the crypto, they'll Trojan the machine, plant a spy camera to capture the passphrase, or squeeze the information out of you and/or your correspondents.
The realistic target is making it cost too much to target you. (Note that cost != money -- the usual government policy in that regard is "spend all you want; we'll tax more". Real costs to governments are man-hours of specially trained personnel, risk of exposure and embarassment, or risk of exposure and loss of ability to use the same trick again.)
But the actual *origin* for most of it seems to be some guy with a cable modem in Arizona.
If this is true, can we take up a collection and pay someone in Arizona to rent a backhoe?
No, no, no -- a woodchipper. Didn't you see Fargo?
It seems to have escaped Slashdot's collective notice that the same nations that have uncontrolled spamming also have uncontrolled piracy.
While there are some areas of the East Indies where one would be ill-advised to sail an unarmed ship, piracy isn't a problem off eastern Asia generally.
Re:Total transparency for us; total privacy for po
on
David Brin on Privacy
·
· Score: 1
It's certainly true that avoiding unnecessary entanglements would reduce the number of secrets the government needs to keep, but as long as there is an obvious and legitimate need for any secrets, then there's a loophole that the government can use to deny full transparency (with the support of most citizens).
For that matter, there are legitimate secrets that have nothing to do with foreign entanglements (e.g. the witness protection program).
Brin's position rests on a belief that the masses don't get enough credit, that they can do just fine if given enough power. But you're right, Hitler was elected by the German people and somehow got elections stopped after that
That's one of my points of fundamental disagreement with Brin. IMO, The People (as opposed to individual people) are prone to irrational responses under stress, and I think history bears me out on this point.
Should armed revolt against the government whenever you think your rights are being infringed upon be encouraged? No.
A point clearly addressed in the Declaration of Independence:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Re:Total transparency for us; total privacy for po
on
David Brin on Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Until this transparency happens in Government, there is a problem.
Well, then, there will always be a problem, because legitimate national security issues prevent full transparency in government, and government officials will exploit this exception to cover up their abuses.
"I cannot believe how many sincere civil libertarians have actually convinced themselves that freedom is best preserved by blinding government. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how we acquired our present liberties."
That statement jumped out at me too. Is Brin really so stupid (no lesser word will do) as to think that this country would exist if George III had been able to get a copy of the letters written by the Committees of Correspondence in the late 1760s - early 1770s?
A few of the gaping holes in Brin's notion of "surveillance with accountability":
1. It's simply too easy for the people in power and their minions to walk away scot free even when we
already know what they've done. I'll be willing to entertain arguments to the contrary when Lon Horiuchi is waiting for his appointment with a guerney and a needle.
2. Accountability can be easily evaded by hiding behind pretexts. If some politician doesn't like you for a non-actionable reason (e.g. you tried to prevent him from getting re-elected), he can always find an actionable reason (e.g. you once smoked the Devil Weed With Roots In Hell[tm]). This is routinely done now, and would be far easier given the surveillance abilities Brin postulates (and, no, surveillance the other way couldn't catch it, much less prove it, unless it includes mind-reading).
3. The notion of really wide-open government is simply not possible. Nobody in his right mind is going to allow some "citizen watchdogs" to leaf through genuine national security secrets; thus, there will always be safe harbors for abuse free from prying citizen eyes.
Does anyone really believe that music consumers "backup" thier discs to mp3 for purely "personal" use?
Yes. In fact, all non-trolls believe that, because it is obviously the truth that people copy the two decent tracks on a dozen CDs onto one CD, that people convert a hundred or so tracks to MP3 so that they can be carried around on one disk, that people make listening copies for the car in case of damage or theft, etc.
Nonsense. This is the same sort of absurd "logic" offered by people who steal the entire run of a campus newspaper in order to censor something that offended them.
Most people think fo spam as any unwanted email, including getting your email from a list that they bought.
If someone bought an e-mail address from anyone other than the owner of that e-mail address, then they are purchasing stolen goods. A purchase of stolen goods conveys no legitimate property right (and, if you knew that the goods were stolen -- which is the case when someone purchases a list of e-mail addresses stolen from the Net -- the purchase makes the purchaser an accessory after the fact).
He is assuming 1/2 of all small businesses will spam, which has no basis in fact.
You're correct that "1/2" has no basis in fact. Were it not for the efforts of anti-spammers in insuring that spam is indelibly branded as the product of sleazy thieves, the fraction would be closer to 99/100.
He also is assuming that there is no opt-out program.
OPT-OUT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Spammer "opt-out" lists are simply a fraudulent method of verifying live e-mail addresses. Even if this were not the case, one spam mailing from everyone with something to sell would bury legitimate e-mail under an avalanche of noise.
My recollection is that the $3 million to $7 million is a break-even point. There is a quantifiable positive correlation between wealth and life expectancy; thus, it is possible to calculate that taking $X out of people's pockets will cause Y extra deaths per year. When Y equals the number of lives you expect to save by spending $X, you have reached the point at which it is counterproductive to spend more.
unfortunately, anti-spam and anti-cracking laws do make it tough to mailbomb the suckers
The best anti-spam law would be the application of the old-fashioned doctrine of outlawry -- i.e. once someone is proven to be a spammer, then he stands outside the protection of the laws pertaining to computer crime, and may be cracked, DOSsed, etc. with impunity.
You are choosing to run sendmail/qmail/exim/postfix on a publically routable IP address (or you are choosing to buy service from someone who does).
You are choosing to accept paper mail at a publically accessible postal address. Since you are not a hypocrite, I expect you to post that address here forthwith, so that we may mail you whatever unwanted trash we may happen to have on hand.
Get a dual 3.5/5.25 unit (assuming your floppy is wastefully mounted in a 5.25 bay).
Why on earth would you make such an unlikely assumption? The only time I've ever seen a 3.5 mounted in a 5.25 bay is in one of those combo plates that have USB and/or FireWire front ports in the extra space. It doesn't make sense to swap out such a unit for a dual 3.5/5.25 either permanently (you'd lose the front ports) or temporarily (in that case, just mount an old 5.25 until the disks are read and forget the 3.5/5.25 "dual" feature).
This is the "free market" in action (government-sponsored monopolies crushing independents), and therefore unquestionable in the US today
It's not a free market.
Well, no. Look up the term "sneer quotes" in a good English style manual.
I suspect that the majority of the bad press free market capitalism gets is because people bandy the term about without understanding it. This isn't a problem of the free market, it's a problem of the government.
And quite convenient for the government, of course.
Q You've offered to provide the database software for free. What about maintenance, tech support and upgrades?
A: I offered the software for free, but in terms of associated services, we have a very wealthy government. I don't think the government has any trouble paying for the labor associated with the software.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why they're after these special favors -- by outlawing any publication format that doesn't meet their specifications they can remove the competition.
The realistic target is making it cost too much to target you. (Note that cost != money -- the usual government policy in that regard is "spend all you want; we'll tax more". Real costs to governments are man-hours of specially trained personnel, risk of exposure and embarassment, or risk of exposure and loss of ability to use the same trick again.)
If this is true, can we take up a collection and pay someone in Arizona to rent a backhoe?
No, no, no -- a woodchipper. Didn't you see Fargo ?
Also, Cap has been around from the Golden Age (WWII era) onward, giving him a networking advantage over later characters such as Spidey.
While there are some areas of the East Indies where one would be ill-advised to sail an unarmed ship, piracy isn't a problem off eastern Asia generally.
For that matter, there are legitimate secrets that have nothing to do with foreign entanglements (e.g. the witness protection program).
That's one of my points of fundamental disagreement with Brin. IMO, The People (as opposed to individual people) are prone to irrational responses under stress, and I think history bears me out on this point.
A point clearly addressed in the Declaration of Independence:
Well, then, there will always be a problem, because legitimate national security issues prevent full transparency in government, and government officials will exploit this exception to cover up their abuses.
1. How do you define "strong free press"?
2. How does your definition exclude the Weimar Republic?
That statement jumped out at me too. Is Brin really so stupid (no lesser word will do) as to think that this country would exist if George III had been able to get a copy of the letters written by the Committees of Correspondence in the late 1760s - early 1770s?
Maybe they should set February aside for new projects and devote the rest of the year to fixing bugs.
Yes. In fact, all non-trolls believe that, because it is obviously the truth that people copy the two decent tracks on a dozen CDs onto one CD, that people convert a hundred or so tracks to MP3 so that they can be carried around on one disk, that people make listening copies for the car in case of damage or theft, etc.
Nonsense. This is the same sort of absurd "logic" offered by people who steal the entire run of a campus newspaper in order to censor something that offended them.
If someone bought an e-mail address from anyone other than the owner of that e-mail address, then they are purchasing stolen goods. A purchase of stolen goods conveys no legitimate property right (and, if you knew that the goods were stolen -- which is the case when someone purchases a list of e-mail addresses stolen from the Net -- the purchase makes the purchaser an accessory after the fact).
You're correct that "1/2" has no basis in fact. Were it not for the efforts of anti-spammers in insuring that spam is indelibly branded as the product of sleazy thieves, the fraction would be closer to 99/100.
He also is assuming that there is no opt-out program.
OPT-OUT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Spammer "opt-out" lists are simply a fraudulent method of verifying live e-mail addresses. Even if this were not the case, one spam mailing from everyone with something to sell would bury legitimate e-mail under an avalanche of noise.
So use "tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh'a'" instead.
Too late -- Drudge just reported that Clinton rolled back the odometer when he tried to sell the capsule to the ChiComs.
My recollection is that the $3 million to $7 million is a break-even point. There is a quantifiable positive correlation between wealth and life expectancy; thus, it is possible to calculate that taking $X out of people's pockets will cause Y extra deaths per year. When Y equals the number of lives you expect to save by spending $X, you have reached the point at which it is counterproductive to spend more.
The best anti-spam law would be the application of the old-fashioned doctrine of outlawry -- i.e. once someone is proven to be a spammer, then he stands outside the protection of the laws pertaining to computer crime, and may be cracked, DOSsed, etc. with impunity.
You are choosing to accept paper mail at a publically accessible postal address. Since you are not a hypocrite, I expect you to post that address here forthwith, so that we may mail you whatever unwanted trash we may happen to have on hand.
Why on earth would you make such an unlikely assumption? The only time I've ever seen a 3.5 mounted in a 5.25 bay is in one of those combo plates that have USB and/or FireWire front ports in the extra space. It doesn't make sense to swap out such a unit for a dual 3.5/5.25 either permanently (you'd lose the front ports) or temporarily (in that case, just mount an old 5.25 until the disks are read and forget the 3.5/5.25 "dual" feature).
It's not a free market.
Well, no. Look up the term "sneer quotes" in a good English style manual.
I suspect that the majority of the bad press free market capitalism gets is because people bandy the term about without understanding it. This isn't a problem of the free market, it's a problem of the government.
And quite convenient for the government, of course.
Nope -- he was using the "Hey, kid, the first hit's free" business model: