Why is viewing anything illegal? There's no need to cross that line and make viewing illegal because distribution laws already cover the person who transmitted something in the first place. I think in some Middle-Eastern countries you can get your eyes removed for viewing certain things, why do we have to emulate that in any way?
I can understand why distributing something could be illegal and bypass free speech - if you were raped and photographed would you want those pictures being spread? But even then the original distributor would be covered by laws that prevented that material from being created in the first place.
In any case, possession could only be considered if you knowingly kept particular data, if your computer caches everything on its own that's certainly not possession by you, but if you chose to save something individually while knowing its content, then that is. If you backup your whole drive regularly and just happened to backup the cache that's not possession either. Its clearly automation vs human intervention, any court should see that.
Part of me wishes the mother fucking terrorists and paedophiles would just start using encryption so we can forget about all these logging/tapping ideas for good and find something else. Obviously what's going to happen in the real world is that the government(s) will waste billions getting these systems working and 3 months later everyone will be encrypting like there's no tomorrow, then these systems will be worthless. I guess after that we will just have to wait until 19 biometric ID-card holding terrorists hijack some more planes and wonder as everyone says "how did this happen?? they had ID cards!!" or perhaps until someone is gang-raped in front of 10 cameras by masked attackers who never get caught.
Microsoft should completely abandon IE and donate the name to Mozilla, then in return they can include Firefox (now Internet Explorer) maybe slightly modified in Windows with the full support of the Mozilla Foundation, why?
- Most people won't know or care so it would hardly damage Microsoft's reputation, in the tech community it would even give them a boost as a company that does the right thing and embraces the right technology rather than blindly continuing to use outdated crap that doesn't work.
- Firefox is a better browser but it could use some help from Microsoft, possibly with some integration for windows maybe even some speed improvements that could make their way back to the main branch who knows? In any case, the Microsoft branch could be made to look and feel like the old IE so most people wouldn't see a difference - hell they could even disable the pop-up blocker if they wanted!
- CSS and cross browser compatibility would make web developers happy, although probably out of a job because it would now be too easy......Ok scrap all that i think it would be best to continue having 4 major browsers (IE, FF, Mac IE & Safari) that clients demand you support and to continue making web design a slow and painful task.
Your not a looser for paying the $10 a month - thats exactly the same principle as paying for cable subscription, internet or going to the cinema, you're paying for some cheap entertainment. If you however pay 6 figures for some level 50 armour and a sword of darth-zorro +10 against quasai-zorks simply because you want to beat everyone, that makes you a looser. If you pay for it because you think you can dupe some sucker into paying even more for it, then you're not a looser, your an investor.
Apparently most people actually like the new look.
I agree theres absolutely nothing wrong with the old one - a windowing system should look simple and bland, especially for any graphical work - you don't want to be distracted by a style. Its just another example of Microsoft not really changing anything but trying to make it look like they have, waste of resources..
Amazing site, this guy has done some painstaking cross-browser testing for JavaScript, CSS and HTML and come back with compatibility tables and recommendations for everything from the basic box model (how browsers managed to fuck this up i don't know) to robust JavaScript that doesn't use crappy "if browser equals X" statements. Working with HTML/CSS and JS is highly painful if your project specifies that it must look _good_ in all browsers, so any tricks you can learn will save your life.
I always though the best place to hide it would be hard-drives - sealed with no easy way to open them without breaking (so security needs to have a real suspicion before they try) and with today's technology you could even fit a small memory card to 'fake' the drive if anyone wanted to test it. Lastly, you can remove the heavy platters and workings and get the right weight of 'product' in there and the thing will weigh exactly the same as manufacturer specs.
Theres a drama called Last Rights on Ch4 at the moment set in 2009 after a low election turnout brings a new radical party to power. They enforce curfews and shut down ISPs. All the police were carrying little PDAs with cameras and would go up to kids and point it in their eye to scan them and see if they should have been indoors, I thought that gadget was absolutely spot on - if we start having databases like this there won't be any need to carry an ID card - you'll have this crap pointed in your face for just about everything you do and if you're iris isn't on the database you're gonna be treated like the worst of the worst.
Well it hardly violates freedom of expression but it is a very stupid law - it seems the right wingers are all for capitalism while it suits them but as soon as sex is involved its not a service providers choice to provide a blocking service, its somehow their legal responsibility. Of course if its anything to do with violence, guns or Bill Clinton's affair it won't be put on the black list.
Personally im all for ISPs offering blocking services, they can even default it to turned on for all i care - if it will shut-up the fundies, and whatever they want to put on or leave off the filter list is their business, but making it a law to have that service is simply going straight in the face of capitalism and free market and if its not some prudeness its probably covering up a ploy by the big ISPs to make it hard for anyone to make a small startup ISP or maybe even a wireless access point!
I see people saying encryption will become a flag-raising technology if people use it to bypass email scanning, but with all the ways you can send an email, currently the system could probably be bypassed simply by sending a document attachment or a zipped text file with a cover note - the email scanner will see the note and be happy and the real message will be left in the attachment, because the developers are too lazy to scan various attachment formats and will continue to be lazy until its bought up in some meeting, where they will then only implement it for a few common formats.
Then there's Microsoft's latest Office which does all this DRM crap - restricting who you can forward to, i'm guessing theres some encryption there and as soon as the majority of people have upgraded, email scanning will become a thing of the past without the masses ever being the wiser.
Attempts to input words in Chinese such as "democracy" prompted an error message from the site: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item." Other phrases banned included the Chinese for "demonstration", "democratic movement" and "Taiwan independence".
In that case why not apply the same thing to all aspects of service - in this day and age we don't need blanket charges we can easily tag everyone and everything and charge people only for what they use and the government doesn't even need to be involved - walk through a park? the company that owns it will detect this and automatically take a micropayment. Have a drink at the fountain? you'll get charged by the millilitre from xyz water-company, even for the water you squirted at your friend.
Actually in the case of wifi whats more likely to happen is that a private company will grass you up to the police on request _anyway_ but they will also inject your web pages with advertising.
Most people have 3 kids and a mortgage to worry about, they're struggling to keep their job and their marriage is failing, the sad thing is they don't have time to care about censorship and that's why its being eroded - everyone is too stressed to care.
Now if they just mandate more intelligent programming
Perhaps it would be better if they took their noses out of programming and 'moral standards' and concentrated on their real job: technical standards...
...the newer episodes suck! I'm surprised they haven't added audience tracks where you hear laughter after every single line - even when its not supposed to be funny. The comedy style has become like the generic 'Everybody Loves Raymond' shitcom (heh) where writers try and cram every gag they can think of into the scene and you know its supposed to be funny but its just not.
The best thing about these new laws is there won't be any evidence of abuse of power - anyone who squeaks will be locked up and have their reputation destroyed, its like getting rid of free speech without actually getting rid of it: genius!
Print head clogging is a cash cow - if you don't keep using your printer (i.e buying more ink) it stops working. If it gets clogged up you have to waste ink to un-clog it meaning even more ink bought. With this new one its going to be even better because a new print head will cost 10 times more, so if you get to that really clogged stage they will make even more money!
Now if someone can give me the magic figures i can just print a special clog-busting page at the right time intervals to stop it happening, what's the sweet spot?
Slashdot Mirror
Why is viewing anything illegal? There's no need to cross that line and make viewing illegal because distribution laws already cover the person who transmitted something in the first place. I think in some Middle-Eastern countries you can get your eyes removed for viewing certain things, why do we have to emulate that in any way?
I can understand why distributing something could be illegal and bypass free speech - if you were raped and photographed would you want those pictures being spread? But even then the original distributor would be covered by laws that prevented that material from being created in the first place.
In any case, possession could only be considered if you knowingly kept particular data, if your computer caches everything on its own that's certainly not possession by you, but if you chose to save something individually while knowing its content, then that is. If you backup your whole drive regularly and just happened to backup the cache that's not possession either. Its clearly automation vs human intervention, any court should see that.
Part of me wishes the mother fucking terrorists and paedophiles would just start using encryption so we can forget about all these logging/tapping ideas for good and find something else. Obviously what's going to happen in the real world is that the government(s) will waste billions getting these systems working and 3 months later everyone will be encrypting like there's no tomorrow, then these systems will be worthless. I guess after that we will just have to wait until 19 biometric ID-card holding terrorists hijack some more planes and wonder as everyone says "how did this happen?? they had ID cards!!" or perhaps until someone is gang-raped in front of 10 cameras by masked attackers who never get caught.
Microsoft should completely abandon IE and donate the name to Mozilla, then in return they can include Firefox (now Internet Explorer) maybe slightly modified in Windows with the full support of the Mozilla Foundation, why?
...Ok scrap all that i think it would be best to continue having 4 major browsers (IE, FF, Mac IE & Safari) that clients demand you support and to continue making web design a slow and painful task.
- Most people won't know or care so it would hardly damage Microsoft's reputation, in the tech community it would even give them a boost as a company that does the right thing and embraces the right technology rather than blindly continuing to use outdated crap that doesn't work.
- Firefox is a better browser but it could use some help from Microsoft, possibly with some integration for windows maybe even some speed improvements that could make their way back to the main branch who knows? In any case, the Microsoft branch could be made to look and feel like the old IE so most people wouldn't see a difference - hell they could even disable the pop-up blocker if they wanted!
- CSS and cross browser compatibility would make web developers happy, although probably out of a job because it would now be too easy...
Your not a looser for paying the $10 a month - thats exactly the same principle as paying for cable subscription, internet or going to the cinema, you're paying for some cheap entertainment. If you however pay 6 figures for some level 50 armour and a sword of darth-zorro +10 against quasai-zorks simply because you want to beat everyone, that makes you a looser. If you pay for it because you think you can dupe some sucker into paying even more for it, then you're not a looser, your an investor.
Apparently most people actually like the new look.
I agree theres absolutely nothing wrong with the old one - a windowing system should look simple and bland, especially for any graphical work - you don't want to be distracted by a style. Its just another example of Microsoft not really changing anything but trying to make it look like they have, waste of resources..
maybe that needs a www.
http://quirksmode.org/
Amazing site, this guy has done some painstaking cross-browser testing for JavaScript, CSS and HTML and come back with compatibility tables and recommendations for everything from the basic box model (how browsers managed to fuck this up i don't know) to robust JavaScript that doesn't use crappy "if browser equals X" statements. Working with HTML/CSS and JS is highly painful if your project specifies that it must look _good_ in all browsers, so any tricks you can learn will save your life.
I always though the best place to hide it would be hard-drives - sealed with no easy way to open them without breaking (so security needs to have a real suspicion before they try) and with today's technology you could even fit a small memory card to 'fake' the drive if anyone wanted to test it. Lastly, you can remove the heavy platters and workings and get the right weight of 'product' in there and the thing will weigh exactly the same as manufacturer specs.
I swear im not a drug dealer...
Theres a drama called Last Rights on Ch4 at the moment set in 2009 after a low election turnout brings a new radical party to power. They enforce curfews and shut down ISPs. All the police were carrying little PDAs with cameras and would go up to kids and point it in their eye to scan them and see if they should have been indoors, I thought that gadget was absolutely spot on - if we start having databases like this there won't be any need to carry an ID card - you'll have this crap pointed in your face for just about everything you do and if you're iris isn't on the database you're gonna be treated like the worst of the worst.
Well it hardly violates freedom of expression but it is a very stupid law - it seems the right wingers are all for capitalism while it suits them but as soon as sex is involved its not a service providers choice to provide a blocking service, its somehow their legal responsibility. Of course if its anything to do with violence, guns or Bill Clinton's affair it won't be put on the black list.
Personally im all for ISPs offering blocking services, they can even default it to turned on for all i care - if it will shut-up the fundies, and whatever they want to put on or leave off the filter list is their business, but making it a law to have that service is simply going straight in the face of capitalism and free market and if its not some prudeness its probably covering up a ploy by the big ISPs to make it hard for anyone to make a small startup ISP or maybe even a wireless access point!
Also radio and TV (playing from a video or tape deck) the only catch being that it has to be digital. The prior art on this bullshit is insane
My secretary had a problem with my Prince Albert, I fired her.
I see people saying encryption will become a flag-raising technology if people use it to bypass email scanning, but with all the ways you can send an email, currently the system could probably be bypassed simply by sending a document attachment or a zipped text file with a cover note - the email scanner will see the note and be happy and the real message will be left in the attachment, because the developers are too lazy to scan various attachment formats and will continue to be lazy until its bought up in some meeting, where they will then only implement it for a few common formats.
Then there's Microsoft's latest Office which does all this DRM crap - restricting who you can forward to, i'm guessing theres some encryption there and as soon as the majority of people have upgraded, email scanning will become a thing of the past without the masses ever being the wiser.
unemployed? single?
Attempts to input words in Chinese such as "democracy" prompted an error message from the site: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item." Other phrases banned included the Chinese for "demonstration", "democratic movement" and "Taiwan independence".
rtfa?
In that case why not apply the same thing to all aspects of service - in this day and age we don't need blanket charges we can easily tag everyone and everything and charge people only for what they use and the government doesn't even need to be involved - walk through a park? the company that owns it will detect this and automatically take a micropayment. Have a drink at the fountain? you'll get charged by the millilitre from xyz water-company, even for the water you squirted at your friend.
Actually in the case of wifi whats more likely to happen is that a private company will grass you up to the police on request _anyway_ but they will also inject your web pages with advertising.
Thats really odd because when I was at school we used technology to watch pirate films, go to porn sites and play games. Ah good times.
Which one is Michael Jackson guilty of?
Wait I thought Quran-gate was true this week? or was that last week? ah Newsweek.
Most people have 3 kids and a mortgage to worry about, they're struggling to keep their job and their marriage is failing, the sad thing is they don't have time to care about censorship and that's why its being eroded - everyone is too stressed to care.
Now if they just mandate more intelligent programming
Perhaps it would be better if they took their noses out of programming and 'moral standards' and concentrated on their real job: technical standards...
...the newer episodes suck! I'm surprised they haven't added audience tracks where you hear laughter after every single line - even when its not supposed to be funny. The comedy style has become like the generic 'Everybody Loves Raymond' shitcom (heh) where writers try and cram every gag they can think of into the scene and you know its supposed to be funny but its just not.
The best thing about these new laws is there won't be any evidence of abuse of power - anyone who squeaks will be locked up and have their reputation destroyed, its like getting rid of free speech without actually getting rid of it: genius!
Just don't post-it them on your desk or computer and don't write "Password for xyz.com"
Print head clogging is a cash cow - if you don't keep using your printer (i.e buying more ink) it stops working. If it gets clogged up you have to waste ink to un-clog it meaning even more ink bought. With this new one its going to be even better because a new print head will cost 10 times more, so if you get to that really clogged stage they will make even more money!
Now if someone can give me the magic figures i can just print a special clog-busting page at the right time intervals to stop it happening, what's the sweet spot?