Someone has to challenge the bad laws. What would you say to Gandhi?
"You knew the Brits were going to come after you when you started talking about 'passive resistance' and violating their monopoly by spinning one cotton thread and manufacturing one gram of salt per day. You knew what the law said, so don't act fucking surprised when they come after you."
Then people should be paid to refine and organise potash and bring it to the market, just like people should be paid to refine and organise existing algorithms and adapt them to a specific customer's needs.
Patents prevent people from doing that. The person who digs up potash from the ground can be sued if he does it in a way that someone else thought of first, and the programmer who applies algorithms can be sued if someone else came up with the same algorithm first. Both are prevented from profiting from their own work by patents.
Because combining those pre-existing technologies in that way is obvious, and if nobody had ever done it until x years ago, it's only because the need didn't arise until then.
More like Golden Age and Silver Age Superman, since the Golden and Silver Age versions were not intentionally designed to be alternate versions; the authors just thought the wrote the "true" Superman canon.
Both Islam and Christianity clearly state that their God is the same one as the God of Abraham (i.e, the Jewish God). If we give both religions the courtesy of defining their own hypothetical concepts, then they both believe in the same God.
Maybe not Christians in America, but I think it's different here in Europe. My friend, who's a (recently retired) priest in Church of Sweden, says he gets annoyed when he sees Christians claim that Muslims pray to a different God.
It's silly to claim that Christians and Jews pray to the same God, but not Muslims and Jews. Both Christianity and Islam is based on Jewish scriptures, and both of them clearly state that their God is the same one the Jews pray to.
IMHO, the changes Christians made to the Jewish God are much greater than the ones Muslims did. Christians divided the monotheistic Jewish God into three parts (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), while Muslims kept it whole.
Actually he should be able to tweet everything whichdoes not violate twitter's TOS.
But should Twitter be allowed to write in their TOS, for example, that you may not offend Muhammed?
Should Twitter be allowed to write in their TOS that they can suspend any account for any reason they wish, and then use it to stop Tweets which are critical against a political candidate they support?
So you mean the part of the license agreement where it says you should contact Microsoft if you can't obtain a refund from the retailer, doesn't mean anything, and is just there to mislead the customer?
I'm not saying you're wrong, just clarifying my point, in case there's any misunderstanding.
Also, just because knowing more memories increases the ability to remember does not imply that the brain never actively forgets something it finds unnecessary.
It means it's unnecessary for the brain to delete memories, though. It's unlikely the brain would make an effort to delete something if there's no practical limit to the number of things you can keep in your memory.
I don't think you have any science to back this up, just your gut feeling. If you've got sources, I'd be interested.
Aha, but there's a difference between failing to commit things to memory, and forgetting them. It's like the difference between a degrading VHS tape and not pressing the "Record" button at all.
Once something is committed to memory, the only way to forget it is to refrain from retrieving it for such a long time that it fades away. You (or your brain) can't do anything to forget it faster.
I didn't like the legislation either, but isn't this headline and summary kind of biased? I don't know...I just feel uncomfortable having the submission frame it specifically to make me react a certain way. I mean, it flat-out states how "most/. readers" will respond. I'd rather just read what Cary Sherman has to say and come to my own conclusions, which will likely align with others here, but at least I arrived there on my own.
The summary is definitely biased, but I feel TFA is so obviously misinformed, it doesn't make much difference what the summary says.
The brain doesn't delete memories to make room. There doesn't seem to be any practical limitations on the brain's capacity. To the contrary, knowing a lot of things seems to make it easier to remember new things.
If memories actually disappear, it's because they fade away from not being used for a long time, not because the brain makes an effort to delete them.
"Deleting" is a deliberate act. The brain doesn't actively delete anything, it just fades away if you don't access it for a long time. So the memory is usually still there, although not always, since it may have faded away.
If you bought your computer at one of the big OEM manufacturers, Microsoft have an agreement with them about refunds. If not, Microsoft is required to refund you per their refund policies.
Perhaps the real problem is that there's not enough choices when it comes to buying a computer. In that case draconian legislation like this is merely a bandaid solution.
Microsoft agrees to refund the software separately in their own license agreement, and the courts are just holding them to that promise. Microsoft is free to not include that promise in their future products.
And you choose to ignore the GGGP:s well-written and informative reply on the difference between disagreeing to a software license, and returning something you buy to own.
The EULA clearly states that you should return the software for a refund, not the whole product:
By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoft’s refund policies.
So, unless Microsoft means you should get a full refund for returning only the software, that implies a partial refund.
I believe that people's memories are that bad (mine frequently is), but if there's proof that the encrypted drive was used by the owner, he/she must be able to remember the password.
The owner could still forget the password at a later time, of course - but leaving a note describing how to generate a ridiculously complicated password won't make the forgetfulness any more (or less) believable.
I think they could start treating encryption like alcohol: if you kill someone while drunk, you can't use alcohol as defense. When you consumed the alcohol, you assumed legal responsibility for your future actions. And if you refuse the blood test, the court is going to assume the worst.
In other words, if you encrypt and forget the key, the court could, under suitable legislation, assume the worst and penalize you accordingly. You wouldn't have to incriminate yourself -- you'd be guilty of grossly negligent encryption, whose maximum penalty could be life without parole.
That makes the punishment grossly disproportional to the offence. You could go to jail for years for forgetting the password to your password manager.
If people were robots that never made mistakes, it could work, but in the real world, it would be horribly unjust, and it'd be a horrible waste to take away years of people's lives (plus the cost of jailing them).
Slashdot Mirror
Someone has to challenge the bad laws. What would you say to Gandhi?
"You knew the Brits were going to come after you when you started talking about 'passive resistance' and violating their monopoly by spinning one cotton thread and manufacturing one gram of salt per day. You knew what the law said, so don't act fucking surprised when they come after you."
Then people should be paid to refine and organise potash and bring it to the market, just like people should be paid to refine and organise existing algorithms and adapt them to a specific customer's needs.
Patents prevent people from doing that. The person who digs up potash from the ground can be sued if he does it in a way that someone else thought of first, and the programmer who applies algorithms can be sued if someone else came up with the same algorithm first. Both are prevented from profiting from their own work by patents.
Because combining those pre-existing technologies in that way is obvious, and if nobody had ever done it until x years ago, it's only because the need didn't arise until then.
Btw, are those 10 properties of God accepted among Jews, even those who aren't into the Kabbalah?
"Allah Akhbar" means "God is greater", i.e, greater than anything humans can imagine, and therefore it's futile to describe Him..
More like Golden Age and Silver Age Superman, since the Golden and Silver Age versions were not intentionally designed to be alternate versions; the authors just thought the wrote the "true" Superman canon.
Both Islam and Christianity clearly state that their God is the same one as the God of Abraham (i.e, the Jewish God). If we give both religions the courtesy of defining their own hypothetical concepts, then they both believe in the same God.
Maybe not Christians in America, but I think it's different here in Europe. My friend, who's a (recently retired) priest in Church of Sweden, says he gets annoyed when he sees Christians claim that Muslims pray to a different God.
It's silly to claim that Christians and Jews pray to the same God, but not Muslims and Jews. Both Christianity and Islam is based on Jewish scriptures, and both of them clearly state that their God is the same one the Jews pray to.
IMHO, the changes Christians made to the Jewish God are much greater than the ones Muslims did. Christians divided the monotheistic Jewish God into three parts (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), while Muslims kept it whole.
Actually he should be able to tweet everything whichdoes not violate twitter's TOS.
But should Twitter be allowed to write in their TOS, for example, that you may not offend Muhammed?
Should Twitter be allowed to write in their TOS that they can suspend any account for any reason they wish, and then use it to stop Tweets which are critical against a political candidate they support?
So you mean the part of the license agreement where it says you should contact Microsoft if you can't obtain a refund from the retailer, doesn't mean anything, and is just there to mislead the customer?
I'm not saying you're wrong, just clarifying my point, in case there's any misunderstanding.
Also, just because knowing more memories increases the ability to remember does not imply that the brain never actively forgets something it finds unnecessary.
It means it's unnecessary for the brain to delete memories, though. It's unlikely the brain would make an effort to delete something if there's no practical limit to the number of things you can keep in your memory.
I don't think you have any science to back this up, just your gut feeling. If you've got sources, I'd be interested.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-memory-capacity
Aha, but there's a difference between failing to commit things to memory, and forgetting them. It's like the difference between a degrading VHS tape and not pressing the "Record" button at all.
Once something is committed to memory, the only way to forget it is to refrain from retrieving it for such a long time that it fades away. You (or your brain) can't do anything to forget it faster.
I didn't like the legislation either, but isn't this headline and summary kind of biased? I don't know...I just feel uncomfortable having the submission frame it specifically to make me react a certain way. I mean, it flat-out states how "most /. readers" will respond. I'd rather just read what Cary Sherman has to say and come to my own conclusions, which will likely align with others here, but at least I arrived there on my own.
The summary is definitely biased, but I feel TFA is so obviously misinformed, it doesn't make much difference what the summary says.
The brain doesn't delete memories to make room. There doesn't seem to be any practical limitations on the brain's capacity. To the contrary, knowing a lot of things seems to make it easier to remember new things.
If memories actually disappear, it's because they fade away from not being used for a long time, not because the brain makes an effort to delete them.
"Deleting" is a deliberate act. The brain doesn't actively delete anything, it just fades away if you don't access it for a long time. So the memory is usually still there, although not always, since it may have faded away.
That was actually kind of clever.
Let's just hope the Feds don't read Slashdot :p
And the brain doesn't really delete anything either. Usually, the memory is still there, you just can't access it.
If you bought your computer at one of the big OEM manufacturers, Microsoft have an agreement with them about refunds. If not, Microsoft is required to refund you per their refund policies.
And you act rude and insult the dick at every opportunity, and try not to show too many films from the dick's country at your theatres... right?
Perhaps the real problem is that there's not enough choices when it comes to buying a computer. In that case draconian legislation like this is merely a bandaid solution.
Microsoft agrees to refund the software separately in their own license agreement, and the courts are just holding them to that promise. Microsoft is free to not include that promise in their future products.
And you choose to ignore the GGGP:s well-written and informative reply on the difference between disagreeing to a software license, and returning something you buy to own.
The EULA clearly states that you should return the software for a refund, not the whole product:
By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the
software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund
there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoft’s
refund policies.
So, unless Microsoft means you should get a full refund for returning only the software, that implies a partial refund.
I believe that people's memories are that bad (mine frequently is), but if there's proof that the encrypted drive was used by the owner, he/she must be able to remember the password.
The owner could still forget the password at a later time, of course - but leaving a note describing how to generate a ridiculously complicated password won't make the forgetfulness any more (or less) believable.
You could have a Truecrypt volume with the real data in the hidden partition, and the patriotic stuff in the visible partition, though.
I think they could start treating encryption like alcohol: if you kill someone while drunk, you can't use alcohol as defense. When you consumed the alcohol, you assumed legal responsibility for your future actions. And if you refuse the blood test, the court is going to assume the worst.
In other words, if you encrypt and forget the key, the court could, under suitable legislation, assume the worst and penalize you accordingly. You wouldn't have to incriminate yourself -- you'd be guilty of grossly negligent encryption, whose maximum penalty could be life without parole.
That makes the punishment grossly disproportional to the offence. You could go to jail for years for forgetting the password to your password manager.
If people were robots that never made mistakes, it could work, but in the real world, it would be horribly unjust, and it'd be a horrible waste to take away years of people's lives (plus the cost of jailing them).