Not exactly your point, but in the same vein... Your comment on backup systems reminds me of a common misconception when it comes to designing seals with O-ring gaskets.
I've heard many times: "Well, it almost seals, so if we just put a backup gasket in there it will be fine." Any O-ring design guideline will tell you that adding a backup only allows you to loosen your machining tolerances a bit; e.g. if the groove had to be X +/-0.005" deep, now it can be X +/-0.010" instead. X still has to be the same, the gasket still has to be the correct size and material, and the maximum operating pressure is still the same as before.
It really is amazing that people think redundancy automatically means it's twice as reliable. I guess it's "intuitive" to a lay-person, but the reason we have experts is because things are often not (or even counter) intuitive.
Without even a second of hesitation, the latter. I live in Canada, so there's no at-will or right-to-work or whatever the hell it's called (don't know the difference or care), so good luck firing me for trying to do the right thing. Especially since we have professional organizations backing us up, the company has a hell of a lot more to lose than I do.
Even if that wasn't the case, my answer doesn't change. If I just wanted to make money slaving under someone else's will with no creative say in my work, damning the consequences, there's way better options than engineering.
Nice strawman. Alzheimer's often goes undiagnosed until it enters the later stages and becomes more obvious. That's even true today, with much more awareness, research, and technology to help, let alone 20+ years ago.
Geez, you people sure are hard to agree with, lol. Yes, corruption in government is worse than corruption in other organizations, for the reasons you listed and more!
I think the GP meant that this is not the result of big government, but the result of corruption. Not the same thing as saying the US government isn't big.
I think remotely breaking into machines (if a warrant was issued) was already allowed before this. This only changed how the warrants are issued, not the power granted by the warrants themselves.
When laws are unclear, multiple laws conflict, or one law (e.g. the Constitution) supersedes the other, it's up to the court to decide how to proceed. Remember your grade school civics: the Judicial Branch interprets the law.
Judicial review is built into the Constitution, and was always an intended power of the courts. Read the Federalist (and even the Anti-Federalist) Papers, it's very clear.
To be fair, TFA does not say that the FBI can do it without a warrant:
The Supreme Court ruling also expands the warrants to allow the FBI to hack into computers that have already been hacked, such as those infected by a botnet—a type of malware that gives criminal hackers the power to take over many innocent “zombie” computers to distribute spam or spread viruses.
As far as I can tell, the writer of the summary either misunderstood or made that particular detail up.
If he thinks the Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, or any other platforms that are fondly remembered didn't have libraries loaded down with absolute shit games, then he doesn't remember the era he comes from. We only remember the good games, it's called survivorship-bias. The only difference now is that the market for games is bigger.
But what fraction of PC gamers are likely to actually own an Xbox 360 controller? I'm told many only have the mouse and keyboard, and I'm told PC gamers on the whole tend to be uninterested in games that work better on a joystick than on a keyboard. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. Maybe it used to be that way, but not anymore.
The owner of the Linux Kernel provides it for free, as is the right of the content owner to do so. Don't make ridiculous strawman arguments.
You can rationalize however you want, and perhaps your rationalizations are valid in some context, but nonetheless you are saying that you don't have to pay for it. Maybe you don't think there's anything wrong with not paying for it (and maybe your right), but I didn't make anything up.
Intellectual property [...] doesn't even have a legal definition, much less a legal basis.
More nonsense. There is a ton of precedent where the term has been used in cases, treaties, and both national and international organizations responsible for overseeing the laws pertaining to it. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property was signed in 1883, and serves as the basis for international copyright, patent, and trademark law. It has been amended a few times since then, but is still in effect today. The UN organization responsible for currently administering this treaty is called the World Intellectual Property Organization, a role it inherited from the Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle, established in 1893.
Well I mean we know that trying to prevent piracy is a fool's errand. And there's no doubt that copyright law is completely messed up and in need of reform. I think we agree on that.
But you said in the GGP:
The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.
To me that implied you were talking about Netflix and the VPN crackdown.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly your point, but in the same vein... Your comment on backup systems reminds me of a common misconception when it comes to designing seals with O-ring gaskets.
I've heard many times: "Well, it almost seals, so if we just put a backup gasket in there it will be fine." Any O-ring design guideline will tell you that adding a backup only allows you to loosen your machining tolerances a bit; e.g. if the groove had to be X +/-0.005" deep, now it can be X +/-0.010" instead. X still has to be the same, the gasket still has to be the correct size and material, and the maximum operating pressure is still the same as before.
It really is amazing that people think redundancy automatically means it's twice as reliable. I guess it's "intuitive" to a lay-person, but the reason we have experts is because things are often not (or even counter) intuitive.
What would you rather be
Without even a second of hesitation, the latter. I live in Canada, so there's no at-will or right-to-work or whatever the hell it's called (don't know the difference or care), so good luck firing me for trying to do the right thing. Especially since we have professional organizations backing us up, the company has a hell of a lot more to lose than I do.
Even if that wasn't the case, my answer doesn't change. If I just wanted to make money slaving under someone else's will with no creative say in my work, damning the consequences, there's way better options than engineering.
Lol, the T in TIFU is really more of a guideline, in that it's OK to completely ignore it. Same goes for the I.
TIFU is really more like TITOASWIOSEFU: Today I Thought Of A Story Where I or Someone Else Fucked Up. Not quite as catchy.
Did you even read the admittedly horrible engrish translation of what actually happened?
Yeah, I did, and it really is horrible. I agree with pretty much everything you said, but if I understand this line correctly (?):
The Hotel Sofitel currently offers a comprehensive general settlement not 750 euros, but EUR 400,000.
then it looks like they've since offered him quite a bit more.
2 million euro per usage
I think it's 2 million in total. The summary says "based on each individual usage", i.e. the sum is based on how many times the image was used.
However, the English translation is very difficult to understand, so I could be wrong.
Nice strawman. Alzheimer's often goes undiagnosed until it enters the later stages and becomes more obvious. That's even true today, with much more awareness, research, and technology to help, let alone 20+ years ago.
He wasn't diagnosed until 1994.
That doesn't mean he didn't have it before that.
Geez, you people sure are hard to agree with, lol. Yes, corruption in government is worse than corruption in other organizations, for the reasons you listed and more!
Are we all friends now?
I know (think?) you're saying this to disagree with me, but this actually made me laugh, so kudos. :D
Agreed. The larger any organization is the more corruptible it is.
I think the GP meant that this is not the result of big government, but the result of corruption. Not the same thing as saying the US government isn't big.
I think remotely breaking into machines (if a warrant was issued) was already allowed before this. This only changed how the warrants are issued, not the power granted by the warrants themselves.
What is innocent until proven guilty?
Warrants are usually issued before someone is found guilty anyway.
When laws are unclear, multiple laws conflict, or one law (e.g. the Constitution) supersedes the other, it's up to the court to decide how to proceed. Remember your grade school civics: the Judicial Branch interprets the law.
Judicial review is built into the Constitution, and was always an intended power of the courts. Read the Federalist (and even the Anti-Federalist) Papers, it's very clear.
To be fair, TFA does not say that the FBI can do it without a warrant:
The Supreme Court ruling also expands the warrants to allow the FBI to hack into computers that have already been hacked, such as those infected by a botnet—a type of malware that gives criminal hackers the power to take over many innocent “zombie” computers to distribute spam or spread viruses.
As far as I can tell, the writer of the summary either misunderstood or made that particular detail up.
If he thinks the Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, or any other platforms that are fondly remembered didn't have libraries loaded down with absolute shit games, then he doesn't remember the era he comes from. We only remember the good games, it's called survivorship-bias. The only difference now is that the market for games is bigger.
Citations.
But what fraction of PC gamers are likely to actually own an Xbox 360 controller? I'm told many only have the mouse and keyboard, and I'm told PC gamers on the whole tend to be uninterested in games that work better on a joystick than on a keyboard. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. Maybe it used to be that way, but not anymore.
Depends if that's your fetish.
Why would the autopilot system behave differently based on the age of the driver?
Nixon was pardoned by Ford before he was indicted.
The owner of the Linux Kernel provides it for free, as is the right of the content owner to do so. Don't make ridiculous strawman arguments.
You can rationalize however you want, and perhaps your rationalizations are valid in some context, but nonetheless you are saying that you don't have to pay for it. Maybe you don't think there's anything wrong with not paying for it (and maybe your right), but I didn't make anything up.
Intellectual property [...] doesn't even have a legal definition, much less a legal basis.
More nonsense. There is a ton of precedent where the term has been used in cases, treaties, and both national and international organizations responsible for overseeing the laws pertaining to it. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property was signed in 1883, and serves as the basis for international copyright, patent, and trademark law. It has been amended a few times since then, but is still in effect today. The UN organization responsible for currently administering this treaty is called the World Intellectual Property Organization, a role it inherited from the Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle, established in 1893.
It took effort and time to pick the lock to your house. So in a sense, I paid for the TV I stole from you.
Well I mean we know that trying to prevent piracy is a fool's errand. And there's no doubt that copyright law is completely messed up and in need of reform. I think we agree on that.
But you said in the GGP:
The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.
To me that implied you were talking about Netflix and the VPN crackdown.
ASSERT: I don't have to pay them
Now you're resorting to making up lies about what I said. Good job!
So, to be clear, you agree that copying someone's Intellectual Property without paying for it is stealing?
If so, then I am sorry that I misrepresented your position in the GP, and if /. let me, I would edit the post to indicate my error.