I'll be honest, I didn't give your post the careful attention it deserves, but it looks correct on all counts. So -- granting, without further review, the factual accuracy of everything you've said... what was FISA's immunity provision for?
Qwest showed some backbone, and they got -- we're all adults here -- they pretty much got fucked over it. Are you pleased with this outcome? Everybody else rolled over, and they got to enjoy not getting fucked over. And FISA sealed the deal -- we'll never be able to balance those scales. Game's over.
And you're happy with this, yes? This is the way we do things in America?
You're quite right -- it's not a strong argument. But the purpose wasn't to seriously argue the point, but merely to remind Slashdot's readers that the rule of law does not always apply, against the day somebody smarter or madder than I am is able to better address the criminal acts of our government and its conspirators.
You're... entirely correct. It is flamebait, of the purest sort. But he's attached his name to those deeds, and there/are/ consequences -- even if they're just people taking the time to remind your potential customers about your past misdeeds.
I mean, I could reply to say that all these people who make Blu-Ray components do so under license from Sony and (unless I'm wildly mistaken) agree to abide by the rules Sony has laid down under that license... but why bother? You're just going to come up with another level of fractal wrongness. But to take it even this far, you obviously know what I'm talking about because you otherwise couldn't've associated it with this dogma or that one, or made these irrelevant distinctions.
Given that you're aware of what I wanted you to know, I'd say I've done what I meant to do -- reminded people that Blu-Ray is not a good thing. I grant that you disagree with the point I was trying to make, and I assume that you're replying in an effort to sway people to your position, but if this is the kind of A-game you bring to public discourse I'm not especially worried.
I couldn't care less about HD-DVD, so way to knock that straw man down. The part where perhaps I miss the difference betwen Sanyo and Sony? Rhetoric gold.
The point is that Blu-Ray is defective by design, and it useful to remember it. Impeding the widespread adoption of Blu-Ray and the DRM-infected data formats that lay atop it is a worthwhile thing to do.
To Jeffrey Kaplan (aka Tigole), game director for World of Warcraft: Now that you've prevailed against the published of the Glider software and (via precedent) earned strange new powers to control the software your customers can and cannot run, are your users enraged or merely apathetic?
Further, how much has this activity hindered the gold sellers your product is lousy with? Zero percent? Five percent (MoE +/-.05)?
No matter what the technical achivements, in the end you're still hooking it up to one of Sony's defective players. Pass.
Re:Remember the RFC: Be liberal in what you accept
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 1
You correctly understand me, and you've argued your point well, we're just disagreeing on the premise. My opinion is that trying to control someone's email is not dissimilar to preventing them from seeing the color blue -- there isn't any gap between "will effectively use email" and "can't find unmonitored email". When they're Really Little, you can sit them on your knee and compose a letter to Aunt Florence, sure, but as soon as they start wanting to genuinely communicate they'll immediately see the value in keeping those communications private.
And if they don't, then they'll learn it the instant you actually take any action based on the information you've gathered from monitoring them.
So if you agree with these basic premises, then there's only one place it can lead -- attempting to monitor a child's email account is ineffective at best and dangerous at worst, because if you can't find what they're hiding you can't crack it, and you only/think/ they can't hide it, and you only/think/ they have no reason to.
Re:Remember the RFC: Be liberal in what you accept
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but you get there without the child defying your instructions and learning that your rules can be thwarted and your words are without value. Any law that can't be enforced is a bad one and engenders a lack of respect for the good ones.
I said what I meant to -- I wouldn't GIVE them an account. When they can register for their own, and they see the need for them to have their own, then they can have one. And as I said, I'd reserve the right to seize the passwords -- but this threat is acceptable because it's transparent (I won't spy on you without you knowing) and expensive (if I do invoke it I'd by-God better have a reason).
Remember the RFC: Be liberal in what you accept...
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
... since your children will interpret censorship as damage and route around you. As soon as you make a decision they don't agree with, they'll be at Google registering their/real/ account...
And right after that, they'll learn to keep a slow flow of garbage to it they won't mind you catching, and then they'll learn compartmentalization, and by the time it gets far enough where you get suspicious, they'll already have so much damning evidence in their second account that they won't hesitate to lie to you about its existence, rationalizing it as being no worse than having indirectly lied to you these last few months, and...
Hmm. You know what? I wouldn't give them an email account. There's no way your expectation of control will match their expectation of privacy -- and for the purposes of this debate, I don't care what rights the parent has or has not, it's what the child expects that's important. If you want to teach your kids to lie to you, by all means, manage their email account. We've already got an industry trying to make a common good scarce and using fear tactics and hamfisted legislation; if you want your children to regard you with the same warm affection we give the RIAA, this is definitely the way to go about it.
Let them register an email account on their own. It's perfectly reasonable to reserve the right to extract the password from them, by force if neccesary -- but they should expect you won't do that unless you feel it's worth what it'll cost you. If you constantly snoop, you'll be snooping garbage inside a week.
Clearer signal (the digital floor is well below the analog floor), a sideband for signal metadata, and more efficent use of the space. To me, this is the clincher. Digital TV makes better use of my airwaves.
I believe this man, who has illegally spied on a member of the government, should face the full and certain penalty that those who illegal spy at the/behest/ of the government should face.
No penalty for this unconscionable breach of privacy is too harsh or severe, no fine too large, no jail term too great. He should face them---
Oh? Really? I guess that does change things, doesn't it.
You're assuming there IS a deterrent factor -- my post said I didn't see one, and I still hold to that.
Before she chose to commit this crime, we had an opportunity to deter her from doing so. We didn't. Any theory of effective deterrence would've held that SHE could've been deterred -- what penalty do you believe would have done so? The nature of the crime is that you think you won't get caught.
So now we have (okay, had, but let's pretend) a chance to set a penalty, that ones such as her might be deterred from similar crimes -- what penalty do you believe will do so? I don't see anything being effective, up to and including Chinese-style summary executions.
The key here is what most benefits The People. There aren't really any gains to paying for her incarceration. Are we not setting a tough enough/example/? Is there some need to deter copycats from contracting cancer to avoid punishment?
I don't know of any punishment the court could exact that would make someone less likely to commit crimes of this nature in the future -- the nature of the malefactor is that they don't think they'll get caught -- and vengeance for its sake doesn't turn my crank.
No, I'm not pleased with her, but... it's just not going to make me any money to jail her.
Yes. I know. That's why I keep talking about microscopic life. Microscopes are good at seeing microscopic life. The poster I was snarking at -- who, if he's reading this, has surely seen justice done at this point -- asked about microscopic life. So I mentioned a microscope.
Question asked concerned a tool to find microscopic life. Microscopes are an excellent way to go about that. "Gorsh, nothing down there that looks like DNA" doesn't really answer the question, even if "yes, if it existed, it probably DID use a DNA analogue" is a good assumption.
Fifty-fifty sort of thing. Didn't some dudes recently make a microscope the size of a dime? I just think we've got better odds dropping microscopes from space and looking to see if they land on marscrobes than we do trying to genetype the damn things. GATTAQA?
My question to you: what kind of machine would you put together that would search for microscopic life forms that are of a type we have yet to imagine?
Slashdot Mirror
And thanks to you, Google now thinks somebody stole William Shatner's car (third hit for "shatner car jacker") and is prepared to sell it on eBay.
Hmm. Nobody's yet reported on Wikipedia...
Oddly enough, the post I made after I made that one (decrying my utter failure) isn't showing up.
I would suggest employing >i>steganography, instead.
I'll be honest, I didn't give your post the careful attention it deserves, but it looks correct on all counts. So -- granting, without further review, the factual accuracy of everything you've said... what was FISA's immunity provision for?
Qwest showed some backbone, and they got -- we're all adults here -- they pretty much got fucked over it. Are you pleased with this outcome? Everybody else rolled over, and they got to enjoy not getting fucked over. And FISA sealed the deal -- we'll never be able to balance those scales. Game's over.
And you're happy with this, yes? This is the way we do things in America?
You're quite right -- it's not a strong argument. But the purpose wasn't to seriously argue the point, but merely to remind Slashdot's readers that the rule of law does not always apply, against the day somebody smarter or madder than I am is able to better address the criminal acts of our government and its conspirators.
My understanding was that illegally wiretapping American citizens carried neither fine nor penalty.
"The Great Farkpocalypse of 2009"? Sounds good to me.
You're... entirely correct. It is flamebait, of the purest sort. But he's attached his name to those deeds, and there /are/ consequences -- even if they're just people taking the time to remind your potential customers about your past misdeeds.
Is there a point you're trying to make here?
I mean, I could reply to say that all these people who make Blu-Ray components do so under license from Sony and (unless I'm wildly mistaken) agree to abide by the rules Sony has laid down under that license... but why bother? You're just going to come up with another level of fractal wrongness. But to take it even this far, you obviously know what I'm talking about because you otherwise couldn't've associated it with this dogma or that one, or made these irrelevant distinctions.
Given that you're aware of what I wanted you to know, I'd say I've done what I meant to do -- reminded people that Blu-Ray is not a good thing. I grant that you disagree with the point I was trying to make, and I assume that you're replying in an effort to sway people to your position, but if this is the kind of A-game you bring to public discourse I'm not especially worried.
I couldn't care less about HD-DVD, so way to knock that straw man down. The part where perhaps I miss the difference betwen Sanyo and Sony? Rhetoric gold.
The point is that Blu-Ray is defective by design, and it useful to remember it. Impeding the widespread adoption of Blu-Ray and the DRM-infected data formats that lay atop it is a worthwhile thing to do.
To Jeffrey Kaplan (aka Tigole), game director for World of Warcraft: Now that you've prevailed against the published of the Glider software and (via precedent) earned strange new powers to control the software your customers can and cannot run, are your users enraged or merely apathetic?
Further, how much has this activity hindered the gold sellers your product is lousy with? Zero percent? Five percent (MoE +/- .05)?
No matter what the technical achivements, in the end you're still hooking it up to one of Sony's defective players. Pass.
You correctly understand me, and you've argued your point well, we're just disagreeing on the premise. My opinion is that trying to control someone's email is not dissimilar to preventing them from seeing the color blue -- there isn't any gap between "will effectively use email" and "can't find unmonitored email". When they're Really Little, you can sit them on your knee and compose a letter to Aunt Florence, sure, but as soon as they start wanting to genuinely communicate they'll immediately see the value in keeping those communications private.
And if they don't, then they'll learn it the instant you actually take any action based on the information you've gathered from monitoring them.
So if you agree with these basic premises, then there's only one place it can lead -- attempting to monitor a child's email account is ineffective at best and dangerous at worst, because if you can't find what they're hiding you can't crack it, and you only /think/ they can't hide it, and you only /think/ they have no reason to.
Yes, but you get there without the child defying your instructions and learning that your rules can be thwarted and your words are without value. Any law that can't be enforced is a bad one and engenders a lack of respect for the good ones.
I said what I meant to -- I wouldn't GIVE them an account. When they can register for their own, and they see the need for them to have their own, then they can have one. And as I said, I'd reserve the right to seize the passwords -- but this threat is acceptable because it's transparent (I won't spy on you without you knowing) and expensive (if I do invoke it I'd by-God better have a reason).
... since your children will interpret censorship as damage and route around you. As soon as you make a decision they don't agree with, they'll be at Google registering their /real/ account...
And right after that, they'll learn to keep a slow flow of garbage to it they won't mind you catching, and then they'll learn compartmentalization, and by the time it gets far enough where you get suspicious, they'll already have so much damning evidence in their second account that they won't hesitate to lie to you about its existence, rationalizing it as being no worse than having indirectly lied to you these last few months, and...
Hmm. You know what? I wouldn't give them an email account. There's no way your expectation of control will match their expectation of privacy -- and for the purposes of this debate, I don't care what rights the parent has or has not, it's what the child expects that's important. If you want to teach your kids to lie to you, by all means, manage their email account. We've already got an industry trying to make a common good scarce and using fear tactics and hamfisted legislation; if you want your children to regard you with the same warm affection we give the RIAA, this is definitely the way to go about it.
Let them register an email account on their own. It's perfectly reasonable to reserve the right to extract the password from them, by force if neccesary -- but they should expect you won't do that unless you feel it's worth what it'll cost you. If you constantly snoop, you'll be snooping garbage inside a week.
Clearer signal (the digital floor is well below the analog floor), a sideband for signal metadata, and more efficent use of the space. To me, this is the clincher. Digital TV makes better use of my airwaves.
Troll? Really? I hardly think so.
Well, yes, of course that's true. I was really trying to make a reference to the immunity for illegal wiretapping Congress passed.
I believe this man, who has illegally spied on a member of the government, should face the full and certain penalty that those who illegal spy at the /behest/ of the government should face.
No penalty for this unconscionable breach of privacy is too harsh or severe, no fine too large, no jail term too great. He should face them---
Oh? Really? I guess that does change things, doesn't it.
You're assuming there IS a deterrent factor -- my post said I didn't see one, and I still hold to that.
Before she chose to commit this crime, we had an opportunity to deter her from doing so. We didn't. Any theory of effective deterrence would've held that SHE could've been deterred -- what penalty do you believe would have done so? The nature of the crime is that you think you won't get caught.
So now we have (okay, had, but let's pretend) a chance to set a penalty, that ones such as her might be deterred from similar crimes -- what penalty do you believe will do so? I don't see anything being effective, up to and including Chinese-style summary executions.
Meh. I could see it either way.
The key here is what most benefits The People. There aren't really any gains to paying for her incarceration. Are we not setting a tough enough /example/? Is there some need to deter copycats from contracting cancer to avoid punishment?
I don't know of any punishment the court could exact that would make someone less likely to commit crimes of this nature in the future -- the nature of the malefactor is that they don't think they'll get caught -- and vengeance for its sake doesn't turn my crank.
No, I'm not pleased with her, but... it's just not going to make me any money to jail her.
Yes. I know. That's why I keep talking about microscopic life. Microscopes are good at seeing microscopic life. The poster I was snarking at -- who, if he's reading this, has surely seen justice done at this point -- asked about microscopic life. So I mentioned a microscope.
Question asked concerned a tool to find microscopic life. Microscopes are an excellent way to go about that. "Gorsh, nothing down there that looks like DNA" doesn't really answer the question, even if "yes, if it existed, it probably DID use a DNA analogue" is a good assumption.
Of course, finding DNA would be sweet, it's true.
Fifty-fifty sort of thing. Didn't some dudes recently make a microscope the size of a dime? I just think we've got better odds dropping microscopes from space and looking to see if they land on marscrobes than we do trying to genetype the damn things. GATTAQA?
A microscope.