DNA to find out if you've been at a crime-scene gets all the attention but what about family? Using genetics it is possible to narrow down whether or not someones DNA who is on file is a relative of someone's who is not. So, all of a sudden the police may have probable cause to investigate families instead of individuals. Privacy is an issue here, can I be compelled to add my DNA to a database because I happen to be in the same branch of genes as someone who committed a crime? And what is crime: with the radicalization of thought the Federalist Papers today would be filed under "Domestic Terrorism." Does this mean that something which arguably for the better can be nipped in the bud before it gets off the ground? To me, the only way I would accept full DNA profiling of an entire population is when law itself has no gray areas and is amendable to change. If you can't legally change then you need privacy to commit "crimes."
Did anyone die this time? How about next? Perhaps they should not have flaunted what the FDA approved the drug for. Mis-marketing it in dangerous doses hurt their bottom line but can you truly tell the family of grandma that justice was served by money when she is rotting six feet under?
Its about maintaining healthy capitalism. They were aggressively marketing drugs for purposes where there was no FDA approval. How many normal people had to die before Pfizer deserved the corporate death penalty? If they were smacked down their assets and people would have migrated to other companies and new business' would have emerged that would theoretically have more respect for playing with the lives of your customers. This ruling just makes it into a game: will we make more net money potentially killing people minus the eventual fine? What about next time? Another way to put it is that Pfizer should have died and were spared and now a new generation of entrepreneurs has been denied the ability to compete in the space that would have been made. These smaller, nimbler, and more likely to obey the law companies were snuffed out before they even had a chance to begin.
By letting Pfizer get away with this the US government has set an example. There is no reason to obey the law if you have enough tentacles. They could have chosen the high-road and smacked them down and then out of the rubble a new generation of companies would have emerged that would have had reason to obey the law. No, instead corruption is institutionalized.
I use Chrome under Linux simply because the fonts look beautiful. I also never type stuff into the address bar - that's what all my bookmarks are for. When I actually am looking for something I use, tada, Google anyway. I am fully connected to a whole wack of Google services so I'm sure they know everything I do. So what. Google is benevolent and any information that could actually be used against you will be gathered anyway by someone with the motivation and resources no matter what browser you use. Now if I get a shiver up my spine I go into the tools menu and choose: "Incognito Window" and for every keystroke being entered into the address bar you can turn that off as well by turning off the suggestion service. So, if you don't use it correctly when privacy matters to you then there are privacy concerns. If you change the convenient settings the privacy concerns go away. Harping on Chrome for its suggestion features is a straw-man, if you want to talk real privacy issues then you talk about Cloud services themselves and laws about whether or not warrants are needed for them and also under privacy you talk about how easily compromised the browser is to leak your information. The address bar and suggestion services are just cross-camp sniping: they are easily changed to what you value if you have half a brain cell. Marketing.
Why are politicians so evil? It's one thing to say that it could be a privacy issue: look into that. But when they start getting in "sexually charged" terminology its like saying the email name was "RepublicanDick." It's fear mongering and grandstanding, nothing more.
I thought it was an effective choice between two parties with both being in the pockets of big business? So really its one choice in reality and you don't have enough money to influence what happens. Ever.
I'd be seriously pissed off if I owned a PS3 and actually used Linux. Sony thinks "Oh, it'll blow over and people will forget." The truth is a lot of people will, I won't. I've already been burned with Sony's proprietary stance with my MP3 player when I moved to Linux and tried to use it there, this - not removing Linux, rather not acting in the interests of their customer - has solidified that negative attitude. I simply won't buy Sony products in the future, which means I'll get to see if someone else burns me;) As an aside, buying a Xbox 360 was the best thing I ever did: all the DRM and related crap bundled into a separate box from my computer for entertainment which freed up my desktop to run Linux as it's only operating system. Best of both worlds.
See that's just dumb. The analog hole. In carefully controlled lighting conditions, say at home in your computer room, you can just point a good video camera at the screen and get a really nice copy with none of these inane restrictions. Does nothing to stop piracy yet everyone is forced to pay a "Hollywood tax" because they have to update their hardware all the time if they want to stay legal. I guess the lesson to learn is don't stay legal until Hollywood stops shifting their costs to you.
I don't believe in walled gardens. Right now the most open environment is Linux or one of the BSD's, Windows comes in next. Apple I wouldn't be surprised if they brought the App Store to OS X and then finished closing everyone else out behind the approving gate. I'm not going to beg permission to run an app, if that means I have to pay with compatibility creep then so be it: the open systems refresh every once in a while as a response to that.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Everyone knows you are an evil little (in all ways) boy. Keep posting so I can laugh so more - especially some vitriol, I'd like to put it up on my wall as an example of how small people can be. Or you know, you could try arguments, logic, and facts.
Are there specific claims? Like can Novell/SCO/DogNextDoor be persuaded to reveal exactly what is in any way questionable about these Unix copyrights "in" Linux? It would be nice to have a list: so they can all be written out.
Corporations never trot out, through excessive copyright we prevented a much larger $X from circulating in the economy.. You are right, government lacks the vision to see the bigger pie over the small pieces they're already hoarding. It exists however: how about some studies to death? The kind where content providers try to drag them on and on forever?
The Pirate Party is platforming on reducing excessive copyright terms. A quick Google search: shows depending on the country of operation values such as 5 and 10 years. I think those are too low, I think a minimum should be 14 years as that was good enough when distribution was primitive and I think with negotiation the magic number should fall between 15-20 years. The Pirate Party is not against copyrights, they are against excessive copyrights.
I disagree. Not that there shouldn't be any copyright but that I disagree that the only voices that are heard are copyright maximalists and their voice is taken as gospel by government. It would take a fool to think that anyone is looking out for their best interests. What I am advocating is going with the spirit of the original deal not subvert it away through back-room deals until it doesn't have any meaning anymore. Are we a culture of jackals seeking to maximize everything for ourself? Or a people vibrant in evangelizing our ideas to every corner of this world?
Use it or lose it is an idea that deserves exploration. As long as token measures like "re-issuing a limited edition" and parlor tricks like that didn't count as "using" it I'm actually open to the idea. If you make Terminator 17 and all of them along the way have made enough profit that you'll be making a Terminator 18... It would still accomplish the goal of releasing the majority of works into a public domain where everyone would have a fair deal and shot at the tapestry of culture. What I'm looking at is an explosion in culture and "Use it or Lose it" could fit with that too.
Do you think that in 3000AD I should not be able to say "Aliens!" because whether its a millennium from now or eighty more years I'm still equally dead. Copyright isn't about corporate welfare forever into the future, it's about giving incentive to create. The deal is that in exchange for your limited monopoly after that period it becomes public domain. It has been distorted so far out of line that the public domain has no real meaning anymore - without doing a benefit analysis anywhere along the way other than "more copyright is good!" I think that more culture outweighs more copyright - that's how we make other people more like us. They made their profit with their limited monopoly now they want to renege on the other side of the deal? That's theft. Funny content industry is doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.
Here's where a public domain benefits everyone: derivative works have their own copyright. They also have the legal right - not something that can be pulled out from under them on the whim of an "owner" - to make their own profit. I am absolutely convinced that the total new profits from public domain material would dwarf the profits pulled in by a few in Hollywood right now. The problem Hollywood has with it is that they wouldn't own every single penny. And as Citizens with public domain our culture: what we persuade the rest of the world with would also explode. None of that matters right now, its all about keeping every penny in as few pockets as possible. Even if that means that in total there is only a fraction of a penny for one compared to a vast wealth for many more.
Interactive media, people can get their Blender Alien models in good shape and with the Free engines the newest "sanctioned" Aliens game would actually have to be really awesome to keep up with the competition. Competition is what content holders are scared of, they don't like the idea that a modern Terminator could be made - you know just in case they happened to maybe cash in on it a bit more in the next eighty (give some decades too) years of government monopoly they already have. Or they could do what they do right now which is ignore all these works while saying: "not yours, fuck off." Gaming wise would stand to see the biggest explosion and you can be sure as shit that is exactly what terrifies content oligarchies of today.
At least you didn't dash my cynicism totally, there is a way out! And it highlights all the MORE reasons that ACTA as law that will impoverish generations to come must be stopped before everyone signs on to it and are then obligated to each other to uphold the stupidity!
Slashdot Mirror
DNA to find out if you've been at a crime-scene gets all the attention but what about family? Using genetics it is possible to narrow down whether or not someones DNA who is on file is a relative of someone's who is not. So, all of a sudden the police may have probable cause to investigate families instead of individuals. Privacy is an issue here, can I be compelled to add my DNA to a database because I happen to be in the same branch of genes as someone who committed a crime? And what is crime: with the radicalization of thought the Federalist Papers today would be filed under "Domestic Terrorism." Does this mean that something which arguably for the better can be nipped in the bud before it gets off the ground? To me, the only way I would accept full DNA profiling of an entire population is when law itself has no gray areas and is amendable to change. If you can't legally change then you need privacy to commit "crimes."
Did anyone die this time? How about next? Perhaps they should not have flaunted what the FDA approved the drug for. Mis-marketing it in dangerous doses hurt their bottom line but can you truly tell the family of grandma that justice was served by money when she is rotting six feet under?
Its about maintaining healthy capitalism. They were aggressively marketing drugs for purposes where there was no FDA approval. How many normal people had to die before Pfizer deserved the corporate death penalty? If they were smacked down their assets and people would have migrated to other companies and new business' would have emerged that would theoretically have more respect for playing with the lives of your customers. This ruling just makes it into a game: will we make more net money potentially killing people minus the eventual fine? What about next time? Another way to put it is that Pfizer should have died and were spared and now a new generation of entrepreneurs has been denied the ability to compete in the space that would have been made. These smaller, nimbler, and more likely to obey the law companies were snuffed out before they even had a chance to begin.
By letting Pfizer get away with this the US government has set an example. There is no reason to obey the law if you have enough tentacles. They could have chosen the high-road and smacked them down and then out of the rubble a new generation of companies would have emerged that would have had reason to obey the law. No, instead corruption is institutionalized.
I'm ignorant ;) I press my home button and my home page is Google!
I use Chrome under Linux simply because the fonts look beautiful. I also never type stuff into the address bar - that's what all my bookmarks are for. When I actually am looking for something I use, tada, Google anyway. I am fully connected to a whole wack of Google services so I'm sure they know everything I do. So what. Google is benevolent and any information that could actually be used against you will be gathered anyway by someone with the motivation and resources no matter what browser you use. Now if I get a shiver up my spine I go into the tools menu and choose: "Incognito Window" and for every keystroke being entered into the address bar you can turn that off as well by turning off the suggestion service. So, if you don't use it correctly when privacy matters to you then there are privacy concerns. If you change the convenient settings the privacy concerns go away. Harping on Chrome for its suggestion features is a straw-man, if you want to talk real privacy issues then you talk about Cloud services themselves and laws about whether or not warrants are needed for them and also under privacy you talk about how easily compromised the browser is to leak your information. The address bar and suggestion services are just cross-camp sniping: they are easily changed to what you value if you have half a brain cell. Marketing.
I think the US had more Citizen influence under Kennedy. Seems to have deteriorated from there. Hey only took 50 years...
Why are politicians so evil? It's one thing to say that it could be a privacy issue: look into that. But when they start getting in "sexually charged" terminology its like saying the email name was "RepublicanDick." It's fear mongering and grandstanding, nothing more.
I thought it was an effective choice between two parties with both being in the pockets of big business? So really its one choice in reality and you don't have enough money to influence what happens. Ever.
It's good enough to stream around the house on the network ;)
I'd be seriously pissed off if I owned a PS3 and actually used Linux. Sony thinks "Oh, it'll blow over and people will forget." The truth is a lot of people will, I won't. I've already been burned with Sony's proprietary stance with my MP3 player when I moved to Linux and tried to use it there, this - not removing Linux, rather not acting in the interests of their customer - has solidified that negative attitude. I simply won't buy Sony products in the future, which means I'll get to see if someone else burns me ;) As an aside, buying a Xbox 360 was the best thing I ever did: all the DRM and related crap bundled into a separate box from my computer for entertainment which freed up my desktop to run Linux as it's only operating system. Best of both worlds.
See that's just dumb. The analog hole. In carefully controlled lighting conditions, say at home in your computer room, you can just point a good video camera at the screen and get a really nice copy with none of these inane restrictions. Does nothing to stop piracy yet everyone is forced to pay a "Hollywood tax" because they have to update their hardware all the time if they want to stay legal. I guess the lesson to learn is don't stay legal until Hollywood stops shifting their costs to you.
I don't believe in walled gardens. Right now the most open environment is Linux or one of the BSD's, Windows comes in next. Apple I wouldn't be surprised if they brought the App Store to OS X and then finished closing everyone else out behind the approving gate. I'm not going to beg permission to run an app, if that means I have to pay with compatibility creep then so be it: the open systems refresh every once in a while as a response to that.
Good. Thank you.
Everyone knows you are an evil little (in all ways) boy. Keep posting so I can laugh so more - especially some vitriol, I'd like to put it up on my wall as an example of how small people can be. Or you know, you could try arguments, logic, and facts.
Are there specific claims? Like can Novell/SCO/DogNextDoor be persuaded to reveal exactly what is in any way questionable about these Unix copyrights "in" Linux? It would be nice to have a list: so they can all be written out.
Corporations never trot out, through excessive copyright we prevented a much larger $X from circulating in the economy.. You are right, government lacks the vision to see the bigger pie over the small pieces they're already hoarding. It exists however: how about some studies to death? The kind where content providers try to drag them on and on forever?
The Pirate Party is platforming on reducing excessive copyright terms. A quick Google search: shows depending on the country of operation values such as 5 and 10 years. I think those are too low, I think a minimum should be 14 years as that was good enough when distribution was primitive and I think with negotiation the magic number should fall between 15-20 years. The Pirate Party is not against copyrights, they are against excessive copyrights.
I disagree. Not that there shouldn't be any copyright but that I disagree that the only voices that are heard are copyright maximalists and their voice is taken as gospel by government. It would take a fool to think that anyone is looking out for their best interests. What I am advocating is going with the spirit of the original deal not subvert it away through back-room deals until it doesn't have any meaning anymore. Are we a culture of jackals seeking to maximize everything for ourself? Or a people vibrant in evangelizing our ideas to every corner of this world?
Use it or lose it is an idea that deserves exploration. As long as token measures like "re-issuing a limited edition" and parlor tricks like that didn't count as "using" it I'm actually open to the idea. If you make Terminator 17 and all of them along the way have made enough profit that you'll be making a Terminator 18... It would still accomplish the goal of releasing the majority of works into a public domain where everyone would have a fair deal and shot at the tapestry of culture. What I'm looking at is an explosion in culture and "Use it or Lose it" could fit with that too.
Do you think that in 3000AD I should not be able to say "Aliens!" because whether its a millennium from now or eighty more years I'm still equally dead. Copyright isn't about corporate welfare forever into the future, it's about giving incentive to create. The deal is that in exchange for your limited monopoly after that period it becomes public domain. It has been distorted so far out of line that the public domain has no real meaning anymore - without doing a benefit analysis anywhere along the way other than "more copyright is good!" I think that more culture outweighs more copyright - that's how we make other people more like us. They made their profit with their limited monopoly now they want to renege on the other side of the deal? That's theft. Funny content industry is doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.
Sorry, missed a close italics tag after "their own profit.."!
Here's where a public domain benefits everyone: derivative works have their own copyright. They also have the legal right - not something that can be pulled out from under them on the whim of an "owner" - to make their own profit. I am absolutely convinced that the total new profits from public domain material would dwarf the profits pulled in by a few in Hollywood right now. The problem Hollywood has with it is that they wouldn't own every single penny. And as Citizens with public domain our culture: what we persuade the rest of the world with would also explode. None of that matters right now, its all about keeping every penny in as few pockets as possible. Even if that means that in total there is only a fraction of a penny for one compared to a vast wealth for many more.
Interactive media, people can get their Blender Alien models in good shape and with the Free engines the newest "sanctioned" Aliens game would actually have to be really awesome to keep up with the competition. Competition is what content holders are scared of, they don't like the idea that a modern Terminator could be made - you know just in case they happened to maybe cash in on it a bit more in the next eighty (give some decades too) years of government monopoly they already have. Or they could do what they do right now which is ignore all these works while saying: "not yours, fuck off." Gaming wise would stand to see the biggest explosion and you can be sure as shit that is exactly what terrifies content oligarchies of today.
At least you didn't dash my cynicism totally, there is a way out! And it highlights all the MORE reasons that ACTA as law that will impoverish generations to come must be stopped before everyone signs on to it and are then obligated to each other to uphold the stupidity!