1: Like every person who tries to explain how the Iphone is better, you have completely failed to explain why, instead you just throw around vague clues like "the user interface", and then make an appeal to a false comparison: "Mercedes are better than Ford even though I can't explain why; I can't explain why the Iphone is better than other phones, therefore it is". That's a logical fallacy. The same argument could be made of any phone.
So it's something to do with the UI - well what? Obviously it fails at basic UI functionality such as copy/paste, so there must be something it does wonderfully better to make up, right? Just tell us what it is, please...
3: Well, I don't know about Palm OS, but there's many modern phones other than Palm and the Iphone.
Are you reading the same Slashdot as I am? It mentions several examples of Government actions.
I guess the Government consultation on the matter is also a figment of my imagination, right? As you seem incapable of reading summaries, let alone articles, allow me to give you the title: "Consultation on legislative options to address illicit P2P file-sharing".
Although ISPs like Virgin Media are also having trouble meeting the demand (they recently blamed BBC's Iplayer for this). So this measure could be a way to slow or get rid of people downloading the large amounts of material (they already do some slowing of your connection, whether it's legal or not what you download). Thus, they can advertise "fast X-MBS connection", but not have to worry about providing what they advertise, as anyone downloading too much gets slowed or kicked off for possible-copyright-infringement.
I agree. Humour aside, I've seen debates in the Lords that have far more insightful arguments, and they aren't afraid speak up on controversial matters.
It's the commons that is far more likely to go "mumble mumble" and then pass through legislation without even debating it.
The only downside however is that the Government still have influence in the Lords - their whips can turn out the large number of Labour peers, who vote in line with the Government without taking part in the debate.
Whilst the Government don't have to listen, if a majority of responses oppose, it does make it harder for them to claim they have public support for such measures. And certainly, responding is better than just commenting about it on Slashdot:)
I'm not even sure how likely an insurance company is to pay out for a claim of "it was confiscated and held indefinitely by the US government".
I was curious about this too - if my laptop was stolen by customs of another country, I'd report it to my insurance company no different to if I was mugged by any other means. But no doubt they'd claim they don't have to pay.
And don't think that this was some accidental one-off thing. The London police are running a campaign to equate taking photos with terrorism.
The large numbers of London CCTV cameras are justified with the mantra "You have no right to privacy in a public place". Apparently this argument doesn't apply for citizens who wish to take photos themselves...
Eh? Other countries have disproportionate sentences too, therefore disproportionate sentences are okay? What sort of logic is that?
If you have a particular example of another disproportionate sentence, then please mention it. Chances are the OP might be against that too. But the case under discussion here is this particular hacker case.
Note there's a difference between expectation of privacy, and "true privacy". The fact that people finding out about it is possible doesn't mean that you don't have an expectation of privacy.
For example, it's a possibility for someone to privately film sexual acts, and then post them on a website for all to see. But just because this is possible doesn't mean one doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy - as a judge recently ruled in a certain well known case in the UK. No one says "but modern technology such as hidden cameras means that no one has 'true privacy' anymore".
I'm not sure how you mean? I didn't say anything about pay rises.
If you mean the Government isn't willing to spend the money to hire more operators, then sure I agree - it just seems odd to me that "letting people die" is considered a cost that's preferable to "hiring more operators".
Perhaps the operators can see how busy the queue of callers is -- if there aren't any calls in the queue, they may as well try and make sure the person who called 999 about their sandwiches doesn't ever call back.
I agree. Of course if that's the case, it's no longer true that they're endangering anyone's life.
"Around 10 million 999 calls to the police were made in 2004, but an incredible 70% of these were not for genuine emergencies."
I wonder if all of these are as mad stupid cases as those in the videos - that seems hard to believe - or if they are more borderline cases. I can think of some circumstances where a crime has been committed, but it's not clear whether it requires calling 999 or not.
You'd hope they'd focus their efforts on what sort of calls constitutes the majority of that 70%, rather than just picking on the more extreme cases.
Re:But what comes next?
on
NASA Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
After the first FAILED private sector spaceflight, I think the billionaires will rightly leave space to the experts.
Anyone else think the chance of YouTube fame is more likely to encourage copycats than educate people about the wrongs of hoax calling?
For people who intentionally timewaste, maybe, but if there are really people who think it's normal to use 999 for some trivial matter, then raising awareness like this may be useful (though perhaps there is the danger that although it might reduce ignorance, it might increase people who intentionally pretend to be ignorant for a joke).
I haven't looked at these videos, but they have done this sort of thing before on their own sites - one thing that struck me was just how long the operators remain on the call, in some cases getting into a long drawn out discussion about it. If timewasting is such a problem, why not hang up straight away, or press a button to play a recorded message?
I'm also curious how likely this is to be a problem - the usual problem with hoax calls is that a police/ambulance is sent out unnecessarily, but that doesn't apply here. If the volume of calls is so large that it's common for people to wait in a queue to be answered, wouldn't it be worthwhile to, you know, hire some more operators?
The cost of these timewasters should be the cost of the person's time who was employed to answer the call. If the cost is someone's life, then something's wrong with the system.
Wow, you'll have to give me a reference to where so-called "downloaders" are breaking into studios to steal their jobs.
PS - I'm a software developer, so I earn money by producing content too. Which is why I am aware of what copyright infringement is, and what stealing is, and I see no reason to conflate two entirely separate issues. I'm not sure why you can't grasp the difference. No one's stolen my job yet.
Taking someone's work? You mean that all these downloaders are forcing their way into movie studios, and acting in the actors' places, to take their jobs away from them?
Try again. Preferably with a citation from a dictionary this time.
At least it does to anyone who doesn't want to wiggle out of admitting what he is doing is leeching, freeloading or just plain wrong.
This is a non-sequitor. Whether or not copying is "stealing" has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. Copyright infringement can still be wrong, without being "stealing".
In fact, I'm very suspicious why people are so keen to mislabel copyright infringement as "stealing" - it's almost as if they believe that copyright infringement isn't in itself wrong, so they have to pretend it's something else instead.
This shouldn't be a case of "The system went off, arrest him!" It should be a case of "The system went off, let's have a human watch and see what's going on." ---
Even if things are originally intended to be used just to replace a human observer, there is always the danger of things changing in future (e.g., consider places that now ban hats/hoodies on the basis that you need to be visible for the CCTV cameras to identify you; yet CCTV was originally justified on the argument of "it's no different to anyone standing there and observing you in public").
Well, I don't think anyone's suggesting heating one's entire house by a fleet of SETI PCs.
Yes, it's true that there is a small difference, but consider: if it was in the winter, and you were cold, and you turned on the electric heater for extra warmth, would there be outrage that this was a waste of energy because it wasn't as efficient as natural gas? Of course not, and nor should it be for running a PC in the winter.
Slashdot Mirror
1: Like every person who tries to explain how the Iphone is better, you have completely failed to explain why, instead you just throw around vague clues like "the user interface", and then make an appeal to a false comparison: "Mercedes are better than Ford even though I can't explain why; I can't explain why the Iphone is better than other phones, therefore it is". That's a logical fallacy. The same argument could be made of any phone.
So it's something to do with the UI - well what? Obviously it fails at basic UI functionality such as copy/paste, so there must be something it does wonderfully better to make up, right? Just tell us what it is, please...
3: Well, I don't know about Palm OS, but there's many modern phones other than Palm and the Iphone.
If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least get it right.
And where is your evidence?
with no government intervention whatsoever
Are you reading the same Slashdot as I am? It mentions several examples of Government actions.
I guess the Government consultation on the matter is also a figment of my imagination, right? As you seem incapable of reading summaries, let alone articles, allow me to give you the title: "Consultation on legislative options to address illicit P2P file-sharing".
have i gotten the more obvious ones sorted?
You missed this one.
Although ISPs like Virgin Media are also having trouble meeting the demand (they recently blamed BBC's Iplayer for this). So this measure could be a way to slow or get rid of people downloading the large amounts of material (they already do some slowing of your connection, whether it's legal or not what you download). Thus, they can advertise "fast X-MBS connection", but not have to worry about providing what they advertise, as anyone downloading too much gets slowed or kicked off for possible-copyright-infringement.
I agree. Humour aside, I've seen debates in the Lords that have far more insightful arguments, and they aren't afraid speak up on controversial matters.
It's the commons that is far more likely to go "mumble mumble" and then pass through legislation without even debating it.
The only downside however is that the Government still have influence in the Lords - their whips can turn out the large number of Labour peers, who vote in line with the Government without taking part in the debate.
I agree - for the lazy, the link is at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page47141.html . Deadline is 30 October.
Whilst the Government don't have to listen, if a majority of responses oppose, it does make it harder for them to claim they have public support for such measures. And certainly, responding is better than just commenting about it on Slashdot :)
I'm not even sure how likely an insurance company is to pay out for a claim of "it was confiscated and held indefinitely by the US government".
I was curious about this too - if my laptop was stolen by customs of another country, I'd report it to my insurance company no different to if I was mugged by any other means. But no doubt they'd claim they don't have to pay.
I believe this was likely the intent of the designers all along...
Indeed. Hey, I thought of this first - I claim copyright infringement!
No one questioned why Lindows was sued by Microsoft for sounding like Windows
But people did question the validity of that action. And in fact, so did the Judge: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Lindows-Wins-a-Big-One-in-Windows-Trademark-Suit/ . In the end, Microsoft decided to settle instead of risk losing their trademark.
Otherwise, all someone would have to do to duplicate my game would be to change the title.
I suspect that the work to create Scrabulous was more than simply running a Scrabble board through a photocopier and then changing the title...
And don't think that this was some accidental one-off thing. The London police are running a campaign to equate taking photos with terrorism.
The large numbers of London CCTV cameras are justified with the mantra "You have no right to privacy in a public place". Apparently this argument doesn't apply for citizens who wish to take photos themselves...
Eh? Other countries have disproportionate sentences too, therefore disproportionate sentences are okay? What sort of logic is that?
If you have a particular example of another disproportionate sentence, then please mention it. Chances are the OP might be against that too. But the case under discussion here is this particular hacker case.
Indeed. The only worse player is Quicktime - same reason I won't ever use an Apple product.
Note there's a difference between expectation of privacy, and "true privacy". The fact that people finding out about it is possible doesn't mean that you don't have an expectation of privacy.
For example, it's a possibility for someone to privately film sexual acts, and then post them on a website for all to see. But just because this is possible doesn't mean one doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy - as a judge recently ruled in a certain well known case in the UK. No one says "but modern technology such as hidden cameras means that no one has 'true privacy' anymore".
I'm not sure how you mean? I didn't say anything about pay rises.
If you mean the Government isn't willing to spend the money to hire more operators, then sure I agree - it just seems odd to me that "letting people die" is considered a cost that's preferable to "hiring more operators".
The statement "Scrabble still under copyright" doesn't make sense - copyright covers particular things.
Copyrights do not protect against "clones", because otherwise ID Software would be suing every games company that ever released a "Doom clone".
They even took advantage of Scrabble's popularity by giving it a name that was similar.
This is the issue. I don't know why they just didn't give it a different name.
Perhaps the operators can see how busy the queue of callers is -- if there aren't any calls in the queue, they may as well try and make sure the person who called 999 about their sandwiches doesn't ever call back.
I agree. Of course if that's the case, it's no longer true that they're endangering anyone's life.
"Around 10 million 999 calls to the police were made in 2004, but an incredible 70% of these were not for genuine emergencies."
I wonder if all of these are as mad stupid cases as those in the videos - that seems hard to believe - or if they are more borderline cases. I can think of some circumstances where a crime has been committed, but it's not clear whether it requires calling 999 or not.
You'd hope they'd focus their efforts on what sort of calls constitutes the majority of that 70%, rather than just picking on the more extreme cases.
After the first FAILED private sector spaceflight, I think the billionaires will rightly leave space to the experts.
Define failure? Like what happened with the aviation industry?
By the way, have you seen the national debt lately?
How is this relevant - why pick on space flight, and not all the far bigger wastes of Government money?
Anyone else think the chance of YouTube fame is more likely to encourage copycats than educate people about the wrongs of hoax calling?
For people who intentionally timewaste, maybe, but if there are really people who think it's normal to use 999 for some trivial matter, then raising awareness like this may be useful (though perhaps there is the danger that although it might reduce ignorance, it might increase people who intentionally pretend to be ignorant for a joke).
I haven't looked at these videos, but they have done this sort of thing before on their own sites - one thing that struck me was just how long the operators remain on the call, in some cases getting into a long drawn out discussion about it. If timewasting is such a problem, why not hang up straight away, or press a button to play a recorded message?
I'm also curious how likely this is to be a problem - the usual problem with hoax calls is that a police/ambulance is sent out unnecessarily, but that doesn't apply here. If the volume of calls is so large that it's common for people to wait in a queue to be answered, wouldn't it be worthwhile to, you know, hire some more operators?
The cost of these timewasters should be the cost of the person's time who was employed to answer the call. If the cost is someone's life, then something's wrong with the system.
Wow, you'll have to give me a reference to where so-called "downloaders" are breaking into studios to steal their jobs.
PS - I'm a software developer, so I earn money by producing content too. Which is why I am aware of what copyright infringement is, and what stealing is, and I see no reason to conflate two entirely separate issues. I'm not sure why you can't grasp the difference. No one's stolen my job yet.
Did you mean to reply to my post? I clearly referred to copyright infringement as copyright infringement, not "file sharing" or anything else.
Try again, replying to what I said, rather than your straw man.
Taking someone's work? You mean that all these downloaders are forcing their way into movie studios, and acting in the actors' places, to take their jobs away from them?
Try again. Preferably with a citation from a dictionary this time.
At least it does to anyone who doesn't want to wiggle out of admitting what he is doing is leeching, freeloading or just plain wrong.
This is a non-sequitor. Whether or not copying is "stealing" has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. Copyright infringement can still be wrong, without being "stealing".
In fact, I'm very suspicious why people are so keen to mislabel copyright infringement as "stealing" - it's almost as if they believe that copyright infringement isn't in itself wrong, so they have to pretend it's something else instead.
Correction:
This shouldn't be a case of "The system went off, arrest him!" It should be a case of "The system went off, let's have a human watch and see what's going on."
---
Even if things are originally intended to be used just to replace a human observer, there is always the danger of things changing in future (e.g., consider places that now ban hats/hoodies on the basis that you need to be visible for the CCTV cameras to identify you; yet CCTV was originally justified on the argument of "it's no different to anyone standing there and observing you in public").
Well, I don't think anyone's suggesting heating one's entire house by a fleet of SETI PCs.
Yes, it's true that there is a small difference, but consider: if it was in the winter, and you were cold, and you turned on the electric heater for extra warmth, would there be outrage that this was a waste of energy because it wasn't as efficient as natural gas? Of course not, and nor should it be for running a PC in the winter.