There are a bunch of similar stories here (as well as several other atrocities like selling lemonade, Girl Scout cookies, felony ditch cleaning, and holding illegal prayer meetings).
Cops on tape, breaking the law, and nothing is done about it.
the public generally only sees the failures, and almost never the successes
Well, it's a matter of how 'success' is defined. Sure the CIA was 'succesful' in overthrowing The Sha in Iran, but the results were disastrous (see the front page of any paper). Repeat for any number of South and Central American countries, Pol Pot, etc.
If you want to claim that there are secret successes that nobody knows about - well, don't expect us to prove the negative.
I could honestly not believe how much our government didn't know about what was going on in our own country, let alone the rest of the world.
An honest assessment of history shows that the CIA is almost always wrong. The President could have a coin minted that said 'Intelligence' and flip it and do better.
If you believe their intelligence units are their reason for being, then you need to ask why they're constant re-authorized. Or, perhaps, understand that the question assumes a false basis.
I suppose the argument is that the US taxpayers will still be paying for the amortized cost of developing DNS, while the UN gets the control. If they want the control, they need to pay for the costs.
The flaw, then, would be that the FTC is still paying to admin DNS. But giving it away to an NGO isn't a great solution either.
Decentralized DNSSEC seems inevitable at this point.
Good thing that people who rant about out of control government are always so reasoned and intellectual about it. They'd never post poorly proofread rants with dubious historical analogies or anything.
Pointing out typos in a Slashdot comment is not a substitute for a reasoned argument, it's just line noise (if you have an argument, post it).
(this comment does not address the correctness of the GP's argument one way or the other)
Yes, this. The colo provider I work with has never mentioned the utilization since we pay for a 100-meg service. I seem to recall the bill for 6U being about $800.
That is exactly how I feel. As a Network Engineer myself I share their frustration with old, grumpy, white men who sit on capital hill raining down laws that would effect my job and customers without understanding the technology itself, nor the gravity their actions would have on the Internet community at large
Sorry, but they're going to take over your industry, regulate it with their laws, and imprison anybody who doesn't go along as a terrist.
Well, as long as the People keep supporting them anyway.
"draconian" restrictions are there because someone in IT/management is lazy or has twisted viewes about what moral powers they should have over students. In other words because they are bastards.
Hey, don't count out incompetence now. Some MCSE with an outside vendor to put in a firewall to block everything can run a web content filter.
Well, I hope your comment winds up being wrong, but the comment I got in response doesn't indicate it is.
I've seen the "happy talk" thing myself - it sure doesn't cut it when substantive issues (money, engineering, politics) are on the line. I guess we can hope that will keep it self-limiting to some extent.
Many of those responses are pre-canned in the YouTube system, so unfortunately we get stuck when it comes to the responses.
I don't think anybody cares about the wording here... for the message
All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content"
to be sent to eeplox, did somebody at Rumblefish have to manually initiate confirmation?
I think that's the impression that we're all under here (that such a thing was confirmed maliciously or incompetently) so if that's not true, please set the record straight.
This is serious legal business here - being too busy or too careless isn't an excuse. eeplox was sharing his experience with picking salad greens, and then somebody jumps on his ass with the backing of government force - he initiated aggression against nobody. We live in a society where we've decided it's better to let n wrong-doers get away with it than to wrongfully punish the innocent. If the YouTube system sucks and is catching innocent people in its wake, then ethical people won't use it until the system is fixed.
Does HAMMER have unusable performance in the event of apps using fsync() or if somebody is using virtualization? BTRFS might be usable some day but it's not today. (I run ZFS for important work and have BTRFS on my desktop for real-world testing).
Presumably they were already given that opportunity when he disputed the claim. So where did this come from? "All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."
Right, either the offending employee needs to go for abusing the YouTube system or just stark laziness, YouTube was lying to the uploader (cui bono?) , or this is SOP and the author is just blowing smoke because they've been caught.
So now something that was supposed to be free and fun, will suck money out of his pocket, drain his time, and tie him up in court for who knows how long.
Until we replace government with something better, that's the unfortunate reality of one's duty as a subject under our system.
Yeah, if a toaster is a technology, Facebook is a technology. If a toaster is just an assemblage of sheet metal, resistive heaters, and timer switches, then Facebook is just a database, a web app, and a bunch of HTML tied together with AJAX'y stuff.
But most people like toasters and think of them as toasters - more than the sum of their parts.
But I'm not a lawyer. Anyone want to pretend they are one and weigh in?
Well, I'm not a psychic either, but I'm pretty sure if I played the inverse game - made a copyright claim against their videos, claimed to review the claims and still claim to own it - that they'd take the path of suing for fraud.
the populace flies into a rage... officials there rejecting each and every idea he put forward because they were "too different"
The second phrase is correct. The subset of the inital phrase that matters is 'vending machine owners'. But basically with legal tender laws, they can put put whatever they want and that's that.
It simply is no longer being used for the reason for which it was created.
We must shed the illusion that we can deliberately 'create the future of mankind'⦠This is the final conclusion of the forty years which I have now devoted to the study of these problemsâ¦
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't be above the law then why be a cop?
There are a bunch of similar stories here (as well as several other atrocities like selling lemonade, Girl Scout cookies, felony ditch cleaning, and holding illegal prayer meetings).
Cops on tape, breaking the law, and nothing is done about it.
the public generally only sees the failures, and almost never the successes
Well, it's a matter of how 'success' is defined. Sure the CIA was 'succesful' in overthrowing The Sha in Iran, but the results were disastrous (see the front page of any paper). Repeat for any number of South and Central American countries, Pol Pot, etc.
If you want to claim that there are secret successes that nobody knows about - well, don't expect us to prove the negative.
I could honestly not believe how much our government didn't know about what was going on in our own country, let alone the rest of the world.
An honest assessment of history shows that the CIA is almost always wrong. The President could have a coin minted that said 'Intelligence' and flip it and do better.
If you believe their intelligence units are their reason for being, then you need to ask why they're constant re-authorized. Or, perhaps, understand that the question assumes a false basis.
In 1992 North Korea agreed to keep the peninsula free of nuclear weapons.
Good thing the US Government gave them two light-water reactors in 1996, then.
What's debt got to do with anything anyway?
I suppose the argument is that the US taxpayers will still be paying for the amortized cost of developing DNS, while the UN gets the control. If they want the control, they need to pay for the costs.
The flaw, then, would be that the FTC is still paying to admin DNS. But giving it away to an NGO isn't a great solution either.
Decentralized DNSSEC seems inevitable at this point.
Good thing that people who rant about out of control government are always so reasoned and intellectual about it. They'd never post poorly proofread rants with dubious historical analogies or anything.
Pointing out typos in a Slashdot comment is not a substitute for a reasoned argument, it's just line noise (if you have an argument, post it).
(this comment does not address the correctness of the GP's argument one way or the other)
Yes, this. The colo provider I work with has never mentioned the utilization since we pay for a 100-meg service. I seem to recall the bill for 6U being about $800.
The other answer is just to take down your stuff and never post again.. Somewhat simpler.
Not being free is simpler ... in the short term.
I dunno, Tim's S.O. might have something to say about that.
That is exactly how I feel. As a Network Engineer myself I share their frustration with old, grumpy, white men who sit on capital hill raining down laws that would effect my job and customers without understanding the technology itself, nor the gravity their actions would have on the Internet community at large
Sorry, but they're going to take over your industry, regulate it with their laws, and imprison anybody who doesn't go along as a terrist.
Well, as long as the People keep supporting them anyway.
"draconian" restrictions are there because someone in IT/management is lazy or has twisted viewes about what moral powers they should have over students. In other words because they are bastards.
Hey, don't count out incompetence now. Some MCSE with an outside vendor to put in a firewall to block everything can run a web content filter.
Well, I hope your comment winds up being wrong, but the comment I got in response doesn't indicate it is.
I've seen the "happy talk" thing myself - it sure doesn't cut it when substantive issues (money, engineering, politics) are on the line. I guess we can hope that will keep it self-limiting to some extent.
I really wish I could have a clear cut answer for you right now.
So, you don't know if manual confirmation is required for that message to be set back to the user who has challenged the claim?
I'm not asking "who knew what and when did they know it" - I'm still wondering if the premise is being correctly framed here.
Many of those responses are pre-canned in the YouTube system, so unfortunately we get stuck when it comes to the responses.
I don't think anybody cares about the wording here ... for the message
to be sent to eeplox, did somebody at Rumblefish have to manually initiate confirmation?
I think that's the impression that we're all under here (that such a thing was confirmed maliciously or incompetently) so if that's not true, please set the record straight.
This is serious legal business here - being too busy or too careless isn't an excuse. eeplox was sharing his experience with picking salad greens, and then somebody jumps on his ass with the backing of government force - he initiated aggression against nobody. We live in a society where we've decided it's better to let n wrong-doers get away with it than to wrongfully punish the innocent. If the YouTube system sucks and is catching innocent people in its wake, then ethical people won't use it until the system is fixed.
Does HAMMER have unusable performance in the event of apps using fsync() or if somebody is using virtualization? BTRFS might be usable some day but it's not today. (I run ZFS for important work and have BTRFS on my desktop for real-world testing).
Presumably they were already given that opportunity when he disputed the claim. So where did this come from? "All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."
Right, either the offending employee needs to go for abusing the YouTube system or just stark laziness, YouTube was lying to the uploader (cui bono?) , or this is SOP and the author is just blowing smoke because they've been caught.
So now something that was supposed to be free and fun, will suck money out of his pocket, drain his time, and tie him up in court for who knows how long.
Until we replace government with something better, that's the unfortunate reality of one's duty as a subject under our system.
Yet, you're not paying for using Slashdot.
Behold - the $5 asterisk (seriously, the best value on the web).
Facebook is a technology now?
Yeah, if a toaster is a technology, Facebook is a technology. If a toaster is just an assemblage of sheet metal, resistive heaters, and timer switches, then Facebook is just a database, a web app, and a bunch of HTML tied together with AJAX'y stuff.
But most people like toasters and think of them as toasters - more than the sum of their parts.
The guy was gone by 1990
Speaking of 1990 - "OnLive Desktop Plus"?
Sounds like bloatware RealNetworks would have installed.
But I'm not a lawyer. Anyone want to pretend they are one and weigh in?
Well, I'm not a psychic either, but I'm pretty sure if I played the inverse game - made a copyright claim against their videos, claimed to review the claims and still claim to own it - that they'd take the path of suing for fraud.
the populace flies into a rage ... officials there rejecting each and every idea he put forward because they were "too different"
The second phrase is correct. The subset of the inital phrase that matters is 'vending machine owners'. But basically with legal tender laws, they can put put whatever they want and that's that.
If State Legislatures don't WAKE THE F***K UP and push back they will be irrelevant.
Even the ACLU is starting to understand this.
Or, how about voting for federal legislators who will address the problem
Because that's proven to be such a workable solution.
It simply is no longer being used for the reason for which it was created.
-Friedrich Hayek