"How about a consistent opinion in favor of revealing flaws? Those who favor security by obscurity deserve neither."
It's entirely proper for these two arguments to be inconsistent, because they have completely opposite goals. Neither is favoring security by obscurity.
Those who want exposure of flaws want security, and know that security by obscurity never works. Those who favor insecurity - and in the case of the Chinese firewall that's a completely understandable desire, know that insecurity by obscurity always works.
but other minor objects have moons too - not just asteroids, but Kuiper belt objects and other trans-Neptunian objects besides Pluto.
Pluto is a planet only because of tradition, and I for one will be somewhat disappointed if Pluto is NOT demoted, because scientific chategorization based on emotion, "what will the kids think" and public opinion is the reason we're dealing with this creationism bullshit.
The only logical definition of planethood that would include Pluto is a broad one, such as any object massive enough to be roughly spherical. If that's what they decide, then fine - but then we have to add at least a couple of asteroids to the tally too.
I find it fascinating that someone can have the opinion that animated soft-core sex that would get maybe an R rating in a movie should not be hidden in a game where the objective is to kill cops and other people, have sex with prostitutes and beat them to death, etc.
I can certainly see someone having a problem with the game itself, but objecting to this content in this game is akin to obecting to the use of profanity in a porno film.
But until EULAs are upheld, AND the individual bullshit provisions of them are upheld, then they are still bullshit and I can consider them bullshit. Some lawyer correct me if I'm wrong, but if I buy a car from you and you make me sign a contract, and I hand you the money... and you refuse to give me the car, pointing out the fine print that I had apparently agreed to fellate you daily and kill your in-laws, and you argue that since I haven't done these things I'm in breech of contract and you don't have to deliver the car OR return my money, you would be wrong on both counts... you would not be able to enforce the egregious demands of the contract, PLUS you would still be liable to deliver the car.
Well of course! You know why Iran is pursing nukes (if they really are?)
Because they'd have to be crazy NOT to. The US has sent the message loud and clear that if you want to have any hopes of being a sovereign and independent nation pursuing your own national self-interest, you MUST have nukes if you don't want a US-backed coup or invasion.
Even the McCarthyism ones were - wars against communism, after all... a war against a rival system of economics. (these wars were not about the fascistic and dictatorial aspects of those communist countries - we're fine with dictators and fascists if they're OUR dictators and fascists.)
f you think the United states wouldn't go to war to protect its economic interests you are fooling yourself.
If you dom't realize that the United States went to war to protect its economic interests several times in the last century and has already done so once in the young current century you are fooling yourself.
Who says? perhaps there IS no solution - or no solution we are willing to live with. DRM is not a solution any more than law is a solution to crime. Law is merely a tool used in the attempt to stop crime - enforcement and punishment are also parts of this attempt to "solve" crime. Yet we still have rampant crime, if you include white-collar and low-level non-violent crimes. Why? Because we are unwilling to give government the power to use these tools effectively enough to "solve" crime. Unwilling, because to live under a government with such power would be intolerable. We are willing to accept a certain level of crime in order to live relatively freely. In fact, given the basis of certain Constitutional rights, it can reasonably be argued that we have decided that ACCEPTING a certain amount of crime is a solution, the solution to totalitarianism.
I could argue that the original position of our government was that information naturally belongs to all and that rights to it being held by individuals was intended as a temporary, artificial incentive.
But forget that. Forget morality, forget law, they are completely irrelevant. We are living in a time when a 10-year old can, with virtually no effort, consuming no raw materials, at no expense, in virtually no time, can with a $200 home appliance "manufacture" and "distribute" tens or hundreds of thousands of copies of a copyrighted work. There are tens if not hundreds of millions of people currently able to do so. The number of people able to do so could conceivably be in the billions eventually.
How can that be stopped, even with DRM? Education and change of attitude can only do so much - who would pay a farmer for an apple when they could make a copy for free with the twitch of a finger? Some perhaps. Not enough.
There is only one way to stop this - give government the power to totally control technology to completely prevent its development in certain ways - and to turn back advances already made... make such tech illegal and use in certain ways illegal, and give government the power to not only know when hundreds of millions or billions of people have made the "illegal" kind of mouse-click, but to physically prevent them from doing so.
I'm not sure I know all of the names for a government with such power, but I know its not one I want to live under.
And so what happens if we DON'T give government such power? Perhaps the movie and music manufacture and reproduction industries collapse. Perhaps more - perhaps we discover that moving away from an economy based on real goods to an "information economy," one based on the privitization of thoughts and ideas, the monetization and control of culture and human interaction, was not a sustainable idea... millions lose their jobs, the economy collapses, and we suffer through a depression as musicians sing about apples on the streets for ten cents, while manufacturing economies such as China's take the lead in the world.
Sound bleak? Maybe, but I'll take it over living under a government with the power to prevent it, if the former is what that government will resemble.
This shows that those swedish police are truly incompetent! That was no raid, that was a disinterested tour group!
Where's the battering ram taking down the door? Where are the flash-bang grenades? Instead we got a group of very slow moving, bored guys shuffling about aimlessly, looking like they haven't got a clue, once in a while jotting something down or taking a photo, smiling at their friends, but mostly looking like my grandma would at the server racks.
You probably could trademark "Bread 2.0" or "Pizza 2.0."
For example if Pizza Hut came out with some new improvement similar to their stuffed crust thing of a few years ago, and called it "Pizza 2.0" they could trademark that and it would probably stick. Also, trademark is unlike patent, in that "prior art" doesn't generally count.
I tear them up completely, and then use a blender to take it down to individual pulp fibers. Then I use these fibers to make new paper by placing them on a fine screen, squeezing them down, waiting for them to dry. Then I take this new paper, tear it apart, blend it down to fibers, etc.
I repeat this process 35 times to ensure Guttman level erasure.
Exactly. What people don't get is that there would be no net if it weren't for competition. Some people complain about the breakup of AT&T, saying it was government interference, regulation, etc. But nobody remembers that before Sprint won the right to provide long distance service, it was actually illegal to hook up any non-Bell equipment to your phone line. You couldn't buy a cheap small phone, you could only get a big clunky Bell phone, usually rented. They were NOT innovating, they were using century-old tech.
It's was only after government began chipping away at Bell's monopoly that you got small interesting phones from 3rd parties becoming available... and what else? MODEMS.
The web grew because of dial-up availability. It's beyond that now, but would not have existed without it. If people had not been able to use non-Bell equipment on their phone lines to get non-Bell content, then there would be no web. there *MIGHT* be an AOL-like service provided by Bell, but don't count on that either - all of those kinds of attempts failed in the past.
It was only until government came along and interfered that we got actual competition, which gave rise to innovation, which gave rise to the web (not to mention cell phones connected to the main phone infrastructure, etc.)
People these days, forgetting the experience of the era of the Trusts, seem to think that deregulation fosters competition. Just another lie drilled into their heads by corporate interests who want monopolies.
I hate feinstein's position, but you have to understand that since hollywood is in her state, as are many music labels, as far as she is concerned, she IS representing her constituency.
Get 'em hooked, and then when it's too late, you have 'em by the balls.
It's very simple - they learned that people don't want DRM, won't buy DRM. So, sell them something without DRM. Don't mention DRM. Then, years down the road when the tech is intrenched, when it's the standard, flip your little secret DRM switch.
This is literally an industry that has decided to screw its customers. Fuck them.
Slashdot Mirror
Us? got us? So then you're a bible-thumping ultra religious type?
- Children
- Mentally challenged people (see children)
- Bible-thumping ultra-religious types (see mentally challenged people)
your original got truncated somehow.What is this - a new trend? Company operatives paid to astroturf slashdot?
It's entirely proper for these two arguments to be inconsistent, because they have completely opposite goals. Neither is favoring security by obscurity.
Those who want exposure of flaws want security, and know that security by obscurity never works.
Those who favor insecurity - and in the case of the Chinese firewall that's a completely understandable desire, know that insecurity by obscurity always works.
Pluto is a planet only because of tradition, and I for one will be somewhat disappointed if Pluto is NOT demoted, because scientific chategorization based on emotion, "what will the kids think" and public opinion is the reason we're dealing with this creationism bullshit.
The only logical definition of planethood that would include Pluto is a broad one, such as any object massive enough to be roughly spherical. If that's what they decide, then fine - but then we have to add at least a couple of asteroids to the tally too.
I can certainly see someone having a problem with the game itself, but objecting to this content in this game is akin to obecting to the use of profanity in a porno film.
But until EULAs are upheld, AND the individual bullshit provisions of them are upheld, then they are still bullshit and I can consider them bullshit. Some lawyer correct me if I'm wrong, but if I buy a car from you and you make me sign a contract, and I hand you the money... and you refuse to give me the car, pointing out the fine print that I had apparently agreed to fellate you daily and kill your in-laws, and you argue that since I haven't done these things I'm in breech of contract and you don't have to deliver the car OR return my money, you would be wrong on both counts... you would not be able to enforce the egregious demands of the contract, PLUS you would still be liable to deliver the car.
Um, I think he actually first got greedy when he decided to fucking steal a million dollars of other people's money.
Because they'd have to be crazy NOT to. The US has sent the message loud and clear that if you want to have any hopes of being a sovereign and independent nation pursuing your own national self-interest, you MUST have nukes if you don't want a US-backed coup or invasion.
Even the McCarthyism ones were - wars against communism, after all... a war against a rival system of economics. (these wars were not about the fascistic and dictatorial aspects of those communist countries - we're fine with dictators and fascists if they're OUR dictators and fascists.)
You haven't got a prayer.
If you dom't realize that the United States went to war to protect its economic interests several times in the last century and has already done so once in the young current century you are fooling yourself.
Who says? perhaps there IS no solution - or no solution we are willing to live with. DRM is not a solution any more than law is a solution to crime. Law is merely a tool used in the attempt to stop crime - enforcement and punishment are also parts of this attempt to "solve" crime. Yet we still have rampant crime, if you include white-collar and low-level non-violent crimes. Why? Because we are unwilling to give government the power to use these tools effectively enough to "solve" crime. Unwilling, because to live under a government with such power would be intolerable. We are willing to accept a certain level of crime in order to live relatively freely. In fact, given the basis of certain Constitutional rights, it can reasonably be argued that we have decided that ACCEPTING a certain amount of crime is a solution, the solution to totalitarianism.
I could argue that the original position of our government was that information naturally belongs to all and that rights to it being held by individuals was intended as a temporary, artificial incentive.
But forget that. Forget morality, forget law, they are completely irrelevant. We are living in a time when a 10-year old can, with virtually no effort, consuming no raw materials, at no expense, in virtually no time, can with a $200 home appliance "manufacture" and "distribute" tens or hundreds of thousands of copies of a copyrighted work. There are tens if not hundreds of millions of people currently able to do so. The number of people able to do so could conceivably be in the billions eventually.
How can that be stopped, even with DRM? Education and change of attitude can only do so much - who would pay a farmer for an apple when they could make a copy for free with the twitch of a finger? Some perhaps. Not enough.
There is only one way to stop this - give government the power to totally control technology to completely prevent its development in certain ways - and to turn back advances already made... make such tech illegal and use in certain ways illegal, and give government the power to not only know when hundreds of millions or billions of people have made the "illegal" kind of mouse-click, but to physically prevent them from doing so.
I'm not sure I know all of the names for a government with such power, but I know its not one I want to live under.
And so what happens if we DON'T give government such power? Perhaps the movie and music manufacture and reproduction industries collapse. Perhaps more - perhaps we discover that moving away from an economy based on real goods to an "information economy," one based on the privitization of thoughts and ideas, the monetization and control of culture and human interaction, was not a sustainable idea... millions lose their jobs, the economy collapses, and we suffer through a depression as musicians sing about apples on the streets for ten cents, while manufacturing economies such as China's take the lead in the world.
Sound bleak? Maybe, but I'll take it over living under a government with the power to prevent it, if the former is what that government will resemble.
Where's the battering ram taking down the door? Where are the flash-bang grenades? Instead we got a group of very slow moving, bored guys shuffling about aimlessly, looking like they haven't got a clue, once in a while jotting something down or taking a photo, smiling at their friends, but mostly looking like my grandma would at the server racks.
For example if Pizza Hut came out with some new improvement similar to their stuffed crust thing of a few years ago, and called it "Pizza 2.0" they could trademark that and it would probably stick. Also, trademark is unlike patent, in that "prior art" doesn't generally count.
I repeat this process 35 times to ensure Guttman level erasure.
well... I suppose if you were going to post an entire tract, the runs WOULD prevent that!
Not 20. 30 at least, and perhaps never.
The next five years are always interesting.
It's was only after government began chipping away at Bell's monopoly that you got small interesting phones from 3rd parties becoming available... and what else? MODEMS.
The web grew because of dial-up availability. It's beyond that now, but would not have existed without it. If people had not been able to use non-Bell equipment on their phone lines to get non-Bell content, then there would be no web. there *MIGHT* be an AOL-like service provided by Bell, but don't count on that either - all of those kinds of attempts failed in the past.
It was only until government came along and interfered that we got actual competition, which gave rise to innovation, which gave rise to the web (not to mention cell phones connected to the main phone infrastructure, etc.)
People these days, forgetting the experience of the era of the Trusts, seem to think that deregulation fosters competition. Just another lie drilled into their heads by corporate interests who want monopolies.
hmmm. school as "common carrier." I like it!
I hate feinstein's position, but you have to understand that since hollywood is in her state, as are many music labels, as far as she is concerned, she IS representing her constituency.
whoopsie. ENtrenched.
It's very simple - they learned that people don't want DRM, won't buy DRM. So, sell them something without DRM. Don't mention DRM. Then, years down the road when the tech is intrenched, when it's the standard, flip your little secret DRM switch.
This is literally an industry that has decided to screw its customers. Fuck them.
Another Republican!!!! Is there no end to their treachery?!?!?!