Speaking as someone from a land that has a surplus of FFS and a deficit of WTF, I can say in no uncertain terms, thank you Japan for your wonderful, ludicrous exports.
He or she tracks them down through other means and finds their address through a map. Do you want to ban maps? The telephone that allowed him or her to place inquiries leading to their victim's details? The car or the bus or the train or the tram, the bike or his shoes that allowed them to travel to the various places where they sought out information while stalking and tracking the person they want to victimise?
What use is a Google Streetview image of a house at an address without all the other information? How is it more useful than a map - or just physically travelling there - in respect to harassing someone at that address?
Google Streetview doesn't give you all the information of people living at an address and live video streams inside people's houses. It's no more of value for stalkign a victim than a map - you need to have already acquired information elsewhere for it to have any use - you would need to HAVE ALREADY FOUND YOUR VICTIM in order for streetview to have any use - and then it's only a cursory use - 'oh I turn left when I see that tree'.
Your argument is a straw man (and flamebait to boot.)
So... if I wish that you would stop posting to slashdot, you would be morally bound to respect my wishes? After all, to do otherwise would be to "completely override a person's wishes" and I have registered my desire that you NOT post anymore and you'd explicitly post anyway? Is that "the right way to deal with people?"
You'd be overriding my wishes not to see your posts here, in my own home! Not just in public - IN MY OWN HOME - invading it with your unwanted posts! How outrageous of you!
Of course I have no desire to see anyone stop posting to slashdot, let alone you, just pointing out that the crux of your argument - that someone's wishes (whether they register them or not) is a ludicrous basis for restricting the actions of another in and of itself (and where no harm is inflicted).
With respect, maybe you should "think very carefully" and a little more deeply about the matter yourself (and before you instruct others to).
Not exactly mandatory, and much cruder, but: Jarvis Cocker:
Well did you hear, there’s a natural order. Those most deserving will end up with the most. That the cream cannot help but always rise up to the top, Well I say: Shit floats. If you thought things had changed, Friend you’d better think again, Bluntly put in the fewest of words, Cunts are still running the world, Cunts are still running the world.
You really ever believed that the US authorities never had access to blackberry data as and when they wanted it?
Why do you hold the US government to any higher degree of respect than that of the UAE? It's not like either of them believes that strongly in freedom, liberty or human rights.
>it would still be illegal for them to give the software solution to anyone else
>the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in [...] circumvention technology
They used the software to *use* the locked-down content, not to violate the copyright, therefore the software is not a circumvention tool (for violating copyright) and can be distributed without breaching the DMCA.
It seems that Motorola, like Apple before them, want to keep us all as digital serfs in their mobile fiefs (assuming you're foolish enough to buy one of their devices). That Apple want to control their system from hardware to OS is one thing; to see any mobile manufacturer, however, pissing all over the openness that Android supposedly grants is quite another.
Sandboxie, though excellent is nagware once its 30 day trial expires (a small delay before launching is hardly nagging, but, nevertheless...)
Comodo Firewall has a sandboxing app built into it (along with AV and anti-malware) without any nagging (although you have to remember to un-tick some bundled app (yahoo?) during install.
Gun down a bunch of people you don't like and you're a dangerous madman on a rampage, who must be stopped at all costs.
Do the same thing, but following the government's objectives rather than your own (generally in a foreign country) and your violence-loving tendencies will earn you the title of 'brave hero and defender of democracy' and possibly a shiny medal.
They don't have a problem recruiting to the army. Maybe they just need a program and boot camps (root camps?).
You say the term 'bricked' got warped, which is true enough etymologically, but the reality is also that it got appropriated to fill a gap.
There isn't a punchy little word that's quite as appealing and new and appropriate to technology (specifically) that describes a device getting temporarily but catastrophically... um.... hosed/trashed/corrupted.
People were wanting a word to fill that gap and they grabbed the handiest, sweetest-sounding one around. If there's a beter sounding (and definitionally more sound) word for catastrophically failed tech, we better start using it before it's too late!
All links get opened in tabs, so my tab bar becomes a readily-accessible history trail all immediately visible at any time. Using 'click'+'back' feels too much like wandering along a dark tunnel.
>People claim this is a First Amendment issue, but I can't see how. Free Speech isn't about publishing other people's works; it's about protecting people's right to disagree with the government.
1. "publishing other people's works" - nope - if it's in the public domain it belongs to no one and everyone.
2. "protecting people's right to disagree with the government." - if the public domain work is a screed of political speech and people are using that to criticise the government, then taking ownership and preventing distribution = censorship.
3. "More to the point, though: Copyright law is not part of the Constitution."
I am not American, have never read the US contitution, but I can tell you that even more to the point, you are entirely and wholeheartedly wrong.
I thought it was bad enough having to install their getPlusPlus plugin into Firefox, but on trying to install this latest Flash update they also insisted that I install the "Adobe DLM (powered by GetPlusPlus)".
WTF? Just give me an.xpi or an exe or something, not all this crap.
And while I'm at it, quit tryignt o get me to install the Akami Download Manager when I download a trial of ytour products, too. FFS!
I'm sure you've heard the quote often attributed to the artist Pablo Picaaso, that "good artists borrow, great artists steal."?
The fact is that any artist is a giant milling machine - in goes ideas and concepts and styles and techniques and disparate things (like banana cereal and dogs peeing against trees) and they all churn and ferment and process and grind and beak down and clump together and then... ping... up pops an idea, which because the milling machine is an artist of some description, needs to get expressed in some manner (the non-artist merely stalls at the last step - the process is not unique to artists).
The expression in turn becomes more grist for the mills of others.
Rip people off? No. Tuck into the feast of ideas and creativity? Yes!
The only bad thing is when people simply plagarise - but just because somone's expressing an idea that someone else has, does not mean that they're trying to pass those ideas off as their own for the sake of appearances; you can't assume that they haven't had those ideas slosh about inside them and find affinity with them and become caught in the current of that need for expression. I mean - we all know this - people say things that express how we feel about something and we take the bits we like, pass it through the filter of ourselves and express the same basic idea in a different manner.
No one OWNS ideas. It's all a big ocean full of plankton and we're like basking sharks swimming through it's currents and eddys, breathing it in, filtering it, pissing and shitting it out and releasing our spawn into it. (And that's why copyright - walls in a constantly churning ocean - is a fundementally awkward thing doomed to imperfect implementation and why the IP Monopolists are fated to much unhappiness (by equating it to real tangible property)).
Even if you sit in a cave and never encounter other people's ideas, the chances of you coming up with an idea that's not already been manifested by people swimming throght the ocean of ideas and expression, is slim to none.
And why the hell would you want to do that? It doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.
Then the onus should be on the casino to ONLY allow functional machines to operate and be played.
If the machine is on the floor, the casino is stating that the machine has been tested and is fit-for-purpose. Otherwise they're essentially saying, these machines might be broken; where the error would result in OUR loss we will void your winnings; where the error might be your loss, that's tough cheese.
That's basically a scam. The law should be changed, or they should basically admit that 'anything goes' and the casino can always weasel out of any situation. (Maybe in big neon letters above the door).
What's the difference between a tablet and a netbook apart from a physical keyboard? Why do they need completely different operating systems?
Never having used either of these OSs, my impression of Android is pretty favourable - it's like a open iPhone OS - whereas my impression of Chrome is that it's some ridiculous attempt to enable a vision of cloud computing (using Google's services) and pushing that service-as-a-platform idea down people's throats, than having a good operating system that is principally about doing what people want their device to do and doing it well.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as someone from a land that has a surplus of FFS and a deficit of WTF, I can say in no uncertain terms, thank you Japan for your wonderful, ludicrous exports.
>How stupid do these people think we are, anyway?
Very.
Along with the movie and record industries - all the copyright cartels, basically.
On the upside, they don't think we're as stupid as the politicians they lie to to get favourable legislation to protect and grow their profits.
OK, so there's an abusive spouse.
He or she tracks them down through other means and finds their address through a map. Do you want to ban maps? The telephone that allowed him or her to place inquiries leading to their victim's details? The car or the bus or the train or the tram, the bike or his shoes that allowed them to travel to the various places where they sought out information while stalking and tracking the person they want to victimise?
What use is a Google Streetview image of a house at an address without all the other information? How is it more useful than a map - or just physically travelling there - in respect to harassing someone at that address?
Google Streetview doesn't give you all the information of people living at an address and live video streams inside people's houses. It's no more of value for stalkign a victim than a map - you need to have already acquired information elsewhere for it to have any use - you would need to HAVE ALREADY FOUND YOUR VICTIM in order for streetview to have any use - and then it's only a cursory use - 'oh I turn left when I see that tree'.
Your argument is a straw man (and flamebait to boot.)
So ... if I wish that you would stop posting to slashdot, you would be morally bound to respect my wishes? After all, to do otherwise would be to "completely override a person's wishes" and I have registered my desire that you NOT post anymore and you'd explicitly post anyway? Is that "the right way to deal with people?"
You'd be overriding my wishes not to see your posts here, in my own home! Not just in public - IN MY OWN HOME - invading it with your unwanted posts! How outrageous of you!
Of course I have no desire to see anyone stop posting to slashdot, let alone you, just pointing out that the crux of your argument - that someone's wishes (whether they register them or not) is a ludicrous basis for restricting the actions of another in and of itself (and where no harm is inflicted).
With respect, maybe you should "think very carefully" and a little more deeply about the matter yourself (and before you instruct others to).
Not exactly mandatory, and much cruder, but: Jarvis Cocker:
Well did you hear, there’s a natural order.
Those most deserving will end up with the most.
That the cream cannot help but always rise up to the top,
Well I say: Shit floats.
If you thought things had changed,
Friend you’d better think again,
Bluntly put in the fewest of words,
Cunts are still running the world,
Cunts are still running the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=monyiOsoKxg
You really ever believed that the US authorities never had access to blackberry data as and when they wanted it?
Why do you hold the US government to any higher degree of respect than that of the UAE? It's not like either of them believes that strongly in freedom, liberty or human rights.
Whenever I see 'ASCAP' after reading their ridiculous attack on Copyleft and free culture I now see 'ASSHAT'.
It's completely automatic now and I don't think I could stop even if I wanted to.
Which I don't. :)
>it would still be illegal for them to give the software solution to anyone else
>the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in [...] circumvention technology
They used the software to *use* the locked-down content, not to violate the copyright, therefore the software is not a circumvention tool (for violating copyright) and can be distributed without breaching the DMCA.
It seems that Motorola, like Apple before them, want to keep us all as digital serfs in their mobile fiefs (assuming you're foolish enough to buy one of their devices). That Apple want to control their system from hardware to OS is one thing; to see any mobile manufacturer, however, pissing all over the openness that Android supposedly grants is quite another.
>Stealing a car to look for stolen cars doesn't make you a cop.
Making false comparisons between copyable abundant data and non-abundant physical goods does not make you a good analogist.
Sandboxie, though excellent is nagware once its 30 day trial expires (a small delay before launching is hardly nagging, but, nevertheless...)
Comodo Firewall has a sandboxing app built into it (along with AV and anti-malware) without any nagging (although you have to remember to un-tick some bundled app (yahoo?) during install.
Gun down a bunch of people you don't like and you're a dangerous madman on a rampage, who must be stopped at all costs.
Do the same thing, but following the government's objectives rather than your own (generally in a foreign country) and your violence-loving tendencies will earn you the title of 'brave hero and defender of democracy' and possibly a shiny medal.
They don't have a problem recruiting to the army. Maybe they just need a program and boot camps (root camps?).
You say the term 'bricked' got warped, which is true enough etymologically, but the reality is also that it got appropriated to fill a gap.
There isn't a punchy little word that's quite as appealing and new and appropriate to technology (specifically) that describes a device getting temporarily but catastrophically ... um .... hosed/trashed/corrupted.
People were wanting a word to fill that gap and they grabbed the handiest, sweetest-sounding one around. If there's a beter sounding (and definitionally more sound) word for catastrophically failed tech, we better start using it before it's too late!
I rarely us the back button either.
All links get opened in tabs, so my tab bar becomes a readily-accessible history trail all immediately visible at any time. Using 'click'+'back' feels too much like wandering along a dark tunnel.
(I don't think anyone got the joke).
>People claim this is a First Amendment issue, but I can't see how. Free Speech isn't about publishing other people's works; it's about protecting people's right to disagree with the government.
1. "publishing other people's works" - nope - if it's in the public domain it belongs to no one and everyone.
2. "protecting people's right to disagree with the government." - if the public domain work is a screed of political speech and people are using that to criticise the government, then taking ownership and preventing distribution = censorship.
3. "More to the point, though: Copyright law is not part of the Constitution."
I am not American, have never read the US contitution, but I can tell you that even more to the point, you are entirely and wholeheartedly wrong.
As if all the wrongs of mankind can be layed at the feet of religion.
As if, if there were godless people, they wouldn't just find another belief system or philosophy to justify doing the same things.
Thanks. It's all so bloody ridiculous though! :)
I thought it was bad enough having to install their getPlusPlus plugin into Firefox, but on trying to install this latest Flash update they also insisted that I install the "Adobe DLM (powered by GetPlusPlus)".
WTF? Just give me an .xpi or an exe or something, not all this crap.
And while I'm at it, quit tryignt o get me to install the Akami Download Manager when I download a trial of ytour products, too. FFS!
>When you buy and/or install Windows, you explicitly (although in very small print) give Microsoft permission to do exactly this
I don't think the word 'explicitly' means what you think it means. Even more so in very small print.
>"in reality, it's computing made usable."
Until you want to do something other than what the owners/manufacturers allow you to do with it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/07/ipad_file_transfer/
I'm sure you've heard the quote often attributed to the artist Pablo Picaaso, that "good artists borrow, great artists steal."?
The fact is that any artist is a giant milling machine - in goes ideas and concepts and styles and techniques and disparate things (like banana cereal and dogs peeing against trees) and they all churn and ferment and process and grind and beak down and clump together and then ... ping ... up pops an idea, which because the milling machine is an artist of some description, needs to get expressed in some manner (the non-artist merely stalls at the last step - the process is not unique to artists).
The expression in turn becomes more grist for the mills of others.
Rip people off? No. Tuck into the feast of ideas and creativity? Yes!
The only bad thing is when people simply plagarise - but just because somone's expressing an idea that someone else has, does not mean that they're trying to pass those ideas off as their own for the sake of appearances; you can't assume that they haven't had those ideas slosh about inside them and find affinity with them and become caught in the current of that need for expression. I mean - we all know this - people say things that express how we feel about something and we take the bits we like, pass it through the filter of ourselves and express the same basic idea in a different manner.
No one OWNS ideas. It's all a big ocean full of plankton and we're like basking sharks swimming through it's currents and eddys, breathing it in, filtering it, pissing and shitting it out and releasing our spawn into it. (And that's why copyright - walls in a constantly churning ocean - is a fundementally awkward thing doomed to imperfect implementation and why the IP Monopolists are fated to much unhappiness (by equating it to real tangible property)).
Even if you sit in a cave and never encounter other people's ideas, the chances of you coming up with an idea that's not already been manifested by people swimming throght the ocean of ideas and expression, is slim to none.
And why the hell would you want to do that? It doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.
Then the onus should be on the casino to ONLY allow functional machines to operate and be played.
If the machine is on the floor, the casino is stating that the machine has been tested and is fit-for-purpose. Otherwise they're essentially saying, these machines might be broken; where the error would result in OUR loss we will void your winnings; where the error might be your loss, that's tough cheese.
That's basically a scam. The law should be changed, or they should basically admit that 'anything goes' and the casino can always weasel out of any situation. (Maybe in big neon letters above the door).
What's the difference between a tablet and a netbook apart from a physical keyboard? Why do they need completely different operating systems?
Never having used either of these OSs, my impression of Android is pretty favourable - it's like a open iPhone OS - whereas my impression of Chrome is that it's some ridiculous attempt to enable a vision of cloud computing (using Google's services) and pushing that service-as-a-platform idea down people's throats, than having a good operating system that is principally about doing what people want their device to do and doing it well.
It's like waking round town with your fly undone and your penis hanging out and complaining about all the 'voyeurs' and 'peeping toms'.