That
said, I don't see how allowing something in public and allowing
something in a privately owned place are inextricably linked
politically. There is an unnecessary and false assumption here that if
one supports the public civil right to free speech, they must allow
people to come into their home and say anything they
please.
Freedom of speech has never, ever been free of consequences. I support
the legal protection of free speech because I don't believe the
government has or should have a right to dictate which
ideas are expressed.
The point
of my support is served properly even when we have laws against slander,
libel, perjury, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre (where there is
no fire; it would be reasonably appropriate where a fire existed).
Free speech is very different from spreading falsehood with malicious
intent.
Honestly, it's a system that works. Everything is seen as disposable today, but really, the only reasons we end up getting rid of systems that works these days are either because of support issues (i.e. Microsoft's end of life abandonment of security updates for older products) or lack of available replacement hardware to swap in for failed or failing units.
Honestly, without the need for protection from security holes related to the Internet (and the accompanying security patches), most office workers could get by on Windows 2000 machines with Pentium III processors with probably less than 1GB of RAM and Office 2000 for the foreseeable future.
Not saying we haven't made advances, but I'm definitely saying that modern closed-source computing (Microsoft, Apple) is a system of planned obsolescence.
The government claims this data was, for years given "voluntarily" by the companies from whom they get it. I believe this is the same definition of "voluntary" they are using at the airport when they claim TSA searches are "voluntary" because you chose to fly.
i think the problem with this system lies not in its intent but in its effects. I'm less concerned about whether it is searchable than about the abuses involved in creating it. I'm also concerned about the fact that we've seen charges involving 14-17 year old girls sending 14-17 year old boys their own pictures via their cellphones, marking them as felons and sex offenders for life. We need to figure out what is and isn't acceptable in our society and make it clear where that line is before matters get worse. There's true "child porn" and then there's "child" porn. There is a vast difference between the two, and while I'm not in favor of either personally, I do have a problem with treating them as if they were the same.
Agreed. It's also very effective at killing innovation and adaptation. One example that springs to mind is music, where there is a long tradition of songs evolving into new songs, and artists being free to create vastly different interpretations. With the advancement of recording, that has been under constant assault. Led Zeppelin's "The Lemon Song" being a very different interpretation of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor", and ending up in a lawsuit, and old-school sample-happy rap being killed by laws prohibiting the rampant and fundamental (to that music form) sampling of other songs' snippets. Beck's "Odelay" won the Grammy for I believe best album, using copious samples throughout. Beck himself, afterward, said he'd never do another album like that because of the hassles involved in licensing. Meanwhile, Sublime's "40 oz. to Freedom" had to be modified when they signed with a major label because of other unlicensed samples.
I think you'll find that samples are so arbitrary that most could be easily swapped for something else. Would The Beastie Boys' "She's Crafty" exist without Led Zeppelin's "The Ocean"? No, not in its present form, but could it have been done with a different, arbitrarily chosen riff? Absolutely. The point, though, is that both songs are different on such fundamental levels that it's hard to say that a song with samples is the musical form of a collage. an art form that I'm sure is harder to legally produce these days as well due to the overregulation of copyright.
While I'm aware of the size difference, the A350 is still a response to the technologies used in the Dreamliner. It's less a direct market competitor than a direct company-to-company statement of "yes, we can build big things from composites too."
It's certainly true. additionally, your post illustrates the problem of elected governments. They pander whenever possible, while those who do not depend on future elections to preserve their livelihood are more firm in their position can afford to take a clearer view of why one would enact such a regulation and why one would want to limit it.
I don't know enough thieves to answer that, but I'm willing to bet that if phones are no good to thieves, they'll just steal something else. That's the thing about thievery. They steal whatever they can easily fence or profit from otherwise. If it's not phones, they'll find something else.
I'm sure Facebook looked at the legal liabilities of allowing such content on their service in their decision. It wasn't simple campaigning. If it weren't for the problems of people posting openly about illegal activity, this would have fallen on deaf ears. There's a reason that campaigning hasn't convinced Facebook to stop treating breastfeeding photos as pornography, despite the constant campaigning by groups of mothers. There's no potential for getting sued for deleting their content (breastfeeding is explicitly protected in, I believe, 48 states), but there is potential for liability if Facebook does nothing about people openly claiming to be guilty of or proposing and condoning the commission of violent personal felonies against individuals.
There are definitely lies coming from the government, and I'm also fairly certain there is some extent of exaggeration from the whistleblowers. However, the facts of the program itself are problematic, not the semantics the government are trying to justify it with.
The reality of PRISM is that if the program described exists at all, trying to claim what Holder and Rogers are about oversight does not change the fundamental constitutional problems associated with the programs they are running. You'll notice that there are no credible denials here, just declarations that Snowden is exaggerating and assertions that the existence of oversight on how the data is accessed and used is somehow justification for the data collection in the first place. If the program exists at all, it's either without a warrant or under the exact kind of general warrant the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.
I maintain a healthy skepticism about everyone on the internet. The dot is just something I use as a reminder that I've dealt with previously. In the case of the orange (for you, red for me), it reminds me that I've had a disagreement with you, and that I believe we will continue to disagree in general. Nothing more, nothing less.
I suggest that you treat it as I use it, and simply recognize it as a reminder that we've had a disagreement and that I believe we will continue to disagree and, in the future, we are unlikely to reach resolutions that result in either of us presenting an argument that the other will find satisfactory to change our view.
To claim I will "dismiss anything [you] say out of hand" is silly. It is more likely that I will simply disagree on various grounds with your point, or the basis on which you have built your point.
Constitutionally, copyright is meant to be for a limited time. What we have today hardly reflects the constitutional intent behind allowing the concept, originally used in other countries as a form of censorship, in the fledgling States.
But since you already know what I am going to think, there is no worth in talking to you in the first place, so it does not matter that you do not make any sense.
I'm not surprised to see that Woz has his head on straight enough to see that we've become what we feared. I can only hope that, despite the odds being against it, my countrymen will listen to this wise man. But history tells me that they'll ignore it, just like anything else they don't want to hear.
Microsoft seems to have this strange idea that their name carries as much weight as Apple's in the public eye. People go to the Apple Store because Apple knows their products inside-out and in the eyes of their customers, the products sell themselves.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has users that use their products because they think they have to, and has no way to match Apple's ability to offer the entire current Apple world under one small roof.
If Microsoft wants to be the company that people are excited to see what their new product will be, they've got a long way to go towards repairing their image. They'll have to become an innovative company that brings new things to the table. And no, I don't mean support for new things that someone announced something just like it months or years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, I don't see how allowing something in public and allowing something in a privately owned place are inextricably linked politically. There is an unnecessary and false assumption here that if one supports the public civil right to free speech, they must allow people to come into their home and say anything they please.
Freedom of speech has never, ever been free of consequences. I support the legal protection of free speech because I don't believe the government has or should have a right to dictate which ideas are expressed.
The point of my support is served properly even when we have laws against slander, libel, perjury, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre (where there is no fire; it would be reasonably appropriate where a fire existed). Free speech is very different from spreading falsehood with malicious intent.
Honestly, it's a system that works. Everything is seen as disposable today, but really, the only reasons we end up getting rid of systems that works these days are either because of support issues (i.e. Microsoft's end of life abandonment of security updates for older products) or lack of available replacement hardware to swap in for failed or failing units.
Honestly, without the need for protection from security holes related to the Internet (and the accompanying security patches), most office workers could get by on Windows 2000 machines with Pentium III processors with probably less than 1GB of RAM and Office 2000 for the foreseeable future.
Not saying we haven't made advances, but I'm definitely saying that modern closed-source computing (Microsoft, Apple) is a system of planned obsolescence.
What better way to ensure the NSA a constant flow of information?
I'm simply saying that we have an abundance of people asking the wrong question.
The government claims this data was, for years given "voluntarily" by the companies from whom they get it. I believe this is the same definition of "voluntary" they are using at the airport when they claim TSA searches are "voluntary" because you chose to fly.
This is Saudi Arabia. Anyone who knows anything about how that government works should only be surprised that they didn't do this long ago.
i think the problem with this system lies not in its intent but in its effects. I'm less concerned about whether it is searchable than about the abuses involved in creating it. I'm also concerned about the fact that we've seen charges involving 14-17 year old girls sending 14-17 year old boys their own pictures via their cellphones, marking them as felons and sex offenders for life. We need to figure out what is and isn't acceptable in our society and make it clear where that line is before matters get worse. There's true "child porn" and then there's "child" porn. There is a vast difference between the two, and while I'm not in favor of either personally, I do have a problem with treating them as if they were the same.
Agreed. It's also very effective at killing innovation and adaptation. One example that springs to mind is music, where there is a long tradition of songs evolving into new songs, and artists being free to create vastly different interpretations. With the advancement of recording, that has been under constant assault. Led Zeppelin's "The Lemon Song" being a very different interpretation of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor", and ending up in a lawsuit, and old-school sample-happy rap being killed by laws prohibiting the rampant and fundamental (to that music form) sampling of other songs' snippets. Beck's "Odelay" won the Grammy for I believe best album, using copious samples throughout. Beck himself, afterward, said he'd never do another album like that because of the hassles involved in licensing. Meanwhile, Sublime's "40 oz. to Freedom" had to be modified when they signed with a major label because of other unlicensed samples.
I think you'll find that samples are so arbitrary that most could be easily swapped for something else. Would The Beastie Boys' "She's Crafty" exist without Led Zeppelin's "The Ocean"? No, not in its present form, but could it have been done with a different, arbitrarily chosen riff? Absolutely. The point, though, is that both songs are different on such fundamental levels that it's hard to say that a song with samples is the musical form of a collage. an art form that I'm sure is harder to legally produce these days as well due to the overregulation of copyright.
I wish you were wrong.
While I'm aware of the size difference, the A350 is still a response to the technologies used in the Dreamliner. It's less a direct market competitor than a direct company-to-company statement of "yes, we can build big things from composites too."
It's certainly true. additionally, your post illustrates the problem of elected governments. They pander whenever possible, while those who do not depend on future elections to preserve their livelihood are more firm in their position can afford to take a clearer view of why one would enact such a regulation and why one would want to limit it.
Correct, I am not excited about Microsoft.
The government keeps ignoring the fundamental problems of the programs and keeps insisting, "but, but, but...it's working!"
The question has never been "does it work?", but "does it violate the rights guaranteed by the constitution."
It's hard to get excited about a plane that exists only in response to another, and was then a victim of design by committee.
I don't know enough thieves to answer that, but I'm willing to bet that if phones are no good to thieves, they'll just steal something else. That's the thing about thievery. They steal whatever they can easily fence or profit from otherwise. If it's not phones, they'll find something else.
you will take their phone regardless of whether it is any good to you. Why? because it can be used to call the police as soon as you leave.
I'm sure Facebook looked at the legal liabilities of allowing such content on their service in their decision. It wasn't simple campaigning. If it weren't for the problems of people posting openly about illegal activity, this would have fallen on deaf ears. There's a reason that campaigning hasn't convinced Facebook to stop treating breastfeeding photos as pornography, despite the constant campaigning by groups of mothers. There's no potential for getting sued for deleting their content (breastfeeding is explicitly protected in, I believe, 48 states), but there is potential for liability if Facebook does nothing about people openly claiming to be guilty of or proposing and condoning the commission of violent personal felonies against individuals.
There are definitely lies coming from the government, and I'm also fairly certain there is some extent of exaggeration from the whistleblowers. However, the facts of the program itself are problematic, not the semantics the government are trying to justify it with.
The reality of PRISM is that if the program described exists at all, trying to claim what Holder and Rogers are about oversight does not change the fundamental constitutional problems associated with the programs they are running. You'll notice that there are no credible denials here, just declarations that Snowden is exaggerating and assertions that the existence of oversight on how the data is accessed and used is somehow justification for the data collection in the first place. If the program exists at all, it's either without a warrant or under the exact kind of general warrant the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.
I maintain a healthy skepticism about everyone on the internet. The dot is just something I use as a reminder that I've dealt with previously. In the case of the orange (for you, red for me), it reminds me that I've had a disagreement with you, and that I believe we will continue to disagree in general. Nothing more, nothing less.
I suggest that you treat it as I use it, and simply recognize it as a reminder that we've had a disagreement and that I believe we will continue to disagree and, in the future, we are unlikely to reach resolutions that result in either of us presenting an argument that the other will find satisfactory to change our view.
To claim I will "dismiss anything [you] say out of hand" is silly. It is more likely that I will simply disagree on various grounds with your point, or the basis on which you have built your point.
On this we certainly agree.
Constitutionally, copyright is meant to be for a limited time. What we have today hardly reflects the constitutional intent behind allowing the concept, originally used in other countries as a form of censorship, in the fledgling States.
To that I can only answer with "huh?"
But since you already know what I am going to think, there is no worth in talking to you in the first place, so it does not matter that you do not make any sense.
I find it reassuring that you think so.
I'm not surprised to see that Woz has his head on straight enough to see that we've become what we feared. I can only hope that, despite the odds being against it, my countrymen will listen to this wise man. But history tells me that they'll ignore it, just like anything else they don't want to hear.
Microsoft seems to have this strange idea that their name carries as much weight as Apple's in the public eye. People go to the Apple Store because Apple knows their products inside-out and in the eyes of their customers, the products sell themselves.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has users that use their products because they think they have to, and has no way to match Apple's ability to offer the entire current Apple world under one small roof.
If Microsoft wants to be the company that people are excited to see what their new product will be, they've got a long way to go towards repairing their image. They'll have to become an innovative company that brings new things to the table. And no, I don't mean support for new things that someone announced something just like it months or years ago.