Re:seems to make sense to me
on
Fox Hacks Fark
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
> any sheepishness, avoidance, or reticence on the reporter's part would pretty much spell doom for the guy's reputation"
What, more than stating that the guy works for Murdoch? What do you have to do to have a worse rep than that of people who've taken the Murdoch shilling? Dig up Ghandi's corpse and skull fuck it, live on national TV?
My mum. She has a hell of a time trying to read her emails in hotmail because of the distracting flashing and moving advertisements.
I installed Firefox for her (after explaining what a web browser was of course), hid Explorer away and told her to forget about it, and installed Adblock.
Now she can read and reply to her friends without getting a friggin' headache, and beign distracted from the task at hand - it's a much more pleasant experience for her. Thanks AdBlock.
It's interesting, I think, that telling stories isn't copyrightable - verbal regurgitation of a story - but when you put it in a 'tangible' form, it becomes copyrightable.
Well, that was fine at a time in history when in order to put something in a tangible form required great effort - a printing press or whatever and a physical distribution network- but now - it's a matter of CTRL-C > CTRL-V > SEND/PUBLISH (etc).
The 'fixed and tangible form' is as near to the fluidity of verbal communication as makes next to no goddamn difference.
We write now, as we used to talk; we disseminate our communication as much electronically as physically (at the water cooler or whatever); we e-mail stories and clippings to that wider electronic social sphere - and it's no more difficult - in fact easier - than opening our meatholes and flapping our lips.
Our communications have changed; our means and modes of social interaction. Laws covering our communications have not kept pace (and have in fact retrogressed).
We do not need to abolish copyright to achive this, we need sane copyright reform that ACCEPTS and EMBRACES and works with our new means of mass-instant-digital-remix-sample-communication without seeking to penalise us for using it; that doesn't seek to punish us for using one of the greatest and most useful technolocial and social developments.
Not a 'predator' - but a hacker: she tried to hack the system - by registering as a regular attendee and thereby bypassing the legal agreement). OK, so she failed - miserably - but at least she deserves the tag of 'hack' on/.:-)
Bruce Schneier has a nice piece on this sort of thing - the risks of data re-use - in his latest newsletter.
We learned the news in March: Contrary to decades of denials, the U.S. Census Bureau used individual records to round up Japanese-Americans during World War II.
The Census Bureau normally is prohibited by law from revealing data that could be linked to specific individuals; the law exists to encourage people to answer census questions accurately and without fear. And while the Second War Powers Act of 1942 temporarily suspended that protection in order to locate Japanese-Americans, the Census Bureau had maintained that it only provided general information about neighborhoods.
New research proves they were lying.
It's worth bearing in mind these sort of things, especially when the British government is still pressing, full-steam ahead with the invasive and unwarranted National Identity Register (and ID Card).
>"yesterday a message was put in Spam that shouldn't have been, the first such occurrence in over a year."
Interesting - I have a couple of gmail accounts and the same thing happened to them - last week, one message that should have been in the inbox. It was particularly strange because one of the messages had a filter on it, to give it both a label AND a star (you would have thought ther'd be a rule saying that nothing with a star or a label should ever go into the spam folder unless the filter tells it to).
It would seem that something strange happened with Gmail's spam filters last week.
The one I like:
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - Cardinal Richelieu
>"It's not so much a matter of Police competence as it is paperwork. Twenty years ago, the Police didn't have to fill in an hours worth of paperwork for an arrest for a minor offence which is why they were on the streets doing their job in the first place. For each minor arrest, a copper can be kept off the streets for a minimum of 1 hour documenting every detail of the incident. If a kid vandalises a car, robs someone and is picked up on a description the reaction is more likely to be "fuck off you can't prove it" than "I won't do it again"."
Except that now, they get a little gold star for arresting a couple of kids having a scuffle in a school playground - adds to their detection statistics - and so everything petty and minor which would have been dealt with by a quiet word, gets those involved a criminal record, and the copper involved a nice boost to his stats.
>"I think one of the main reasons for the lesser (but not absent)violence of Women's Sufferage is that all participants are the wives and daughters of voting men."
The sufragettes used bombs - they blew stuff up. I can't imagine them standing the slightest of chances now - they'd be off the gitmo, or having their torture outsourced to some brutal third world dictatorship.
As I understand it, basic Hindu philosophy on the matter of spiritual freedom is similar: through a spiritual practice, you gain greater freedom, but some of the things you can do with your freedom will take away that freedom: crude example - taking addictive drugs: you're free to take them but your freedom will be reduced if you exercise your freedom in this manner.
It's the philosopohy that to preserve freedom you have to refrain from doing things which reduce that freedom. Looking at it from the other side - how free are you if you exercise freedoms that reduce your freedom?
That's what the GPL (v.n) seems to be all about.
Just to add a clarification, now that I've remembered it - the actual reason the older entrepeneurs lost out to the inexperienced enthusiasm of younger ones, was that they dismissed the 'next new thing' as a "passing fad". The younger entrepeneurs did not - their inexperience and lack of perspective lead them to leap on the trend/development - and this was seen to be the deciding factor in major success; jumping on the one of many things that turned out to be a multi-million dollar cash cow as opposed to missing that ONE SINGLE thing.
I recall redaing somethign about this relating to the ages of various entrepeneurs (I can't find the link).
Basically the study concluded that young entrepeneurs were more successful than older entrepeneurs because the elders were more risk averse. A young entrepeneur would tend to see everything as the next big thing, leading to lots of mistakes, of course, the older entrepeneur would have more experience and perspective, and so wouldn't fall into that trap.
The problem for the older entrepeneur was that they would tend to overlook the next big thing, whereas, through sheer youthful ebulliance, the younger entrepeneur would jump at it, and that fact alone was seen to be the deciding factor in success in this area - noticing the next big thing, and jumping on it.
That it happened to be because of the recklessness of youthful over-enthusiasm, didn't take away fromthe success and profit derived from it.
Translate that into businessess which need the next new thing to continue to grow and evolve, and companies that have been around a long time, unless they listen to the voice of inexperience, will miss the next new thing.
>"Since when did Copyright Infringement become an issue for Homeland Security to work directly with a specific corporation?"
Since America became a Neo-Corporatist State?
I think it's just the Milgram's Experiment effect in operation; an authority telling a person what to do, and that person submitting to that percieved authrority, even in defiance of their own eyes, ears and conscience, and doing what they're told.
In this case the percieved authority is a little electronic box.
>If a Colbert Report clip were pulled at Viacom's request, for example, MySpace's filter would block all other forms of the file from MPEG to AVI, all various degrees of quality, and even video clips that contained only part of the content from the piece that had been taken down.
Translation: In Rupert'sSpace there is no Fair Use.
If the fake ID had a photograph in it (I couldn't ascertain whether it did or didn't from the article) then, regardless of the entire document being illegal, or the document being derivative of the us government's original document template, the photograph would be copyright (it may have originally been taken for a purpose other than for inclusion in an illegal document), so, IANAL, but it seems like a DMCA takedown would be legit if it was regarding the reproduction of that photo without permission (not that I consider the DMCA to be legit).
Slashdot Mirror
What, more than stating that the guy works for Murdoch? What do you have to do to have a worse rep than that of people who've taken the Murdoch shilling? Dig up Ghandi's corpse and skull fuck it, live on national TV?
As long as the RI.... Record Companies lose, I'm OK with that.
My mum. She has a hell of a time trying to read her emails in hotmail because of the distracting flashing and moving advertisements.
I installed Firefox for her (after explaining what a web browser was of course), hid Explorer away and told her to forget about it, and installed Adblock.
Now she can read and reply to her friends without getting a friggin' headache, and beign distracted from the task at hand - it's a much more pleasant experience for her. Thanks AdBlock.
And I remember the Oric 1, what's your point? :-)
Well, that was fine at a time in history when in order to put something in a tangible form required great effort - a printing press or whatever and a physical distribution network- but now - it's a matter of CTRL-C > CTRL-V > SEND/PUBLISH (etc).
The 'fixed and tangible form' is as near to the fluidity of verbal communication as makes next to no goddamn difference.
We write now, as we used to talk; we disseminate our communication as much electronically as physically (at the water cooler or whatever); we e-mail stories and clippings to that wider electronic social sphere - and it's no more difficult - in fact easier - than opening our meatholes and flapping our lips.
Our communications have changed; our means and modes of social interaction. Laws covering our communications have not kept pace (and have in fact retrogressed).
We do not need to abolish copyright to achive this, we need sane copyright reform that ACCEPTS and EMBRACES and works with our new means of mass-instant-digital-remix-sample-communication without seeking to penalise us for using it; that doesn't seek to punish us for using one of the greatest and most useful technolocial and social developments.
We need Sane Copyright Reform.
-Blue Stone.
Not a 'predator' - but a hacker: she tried to hack the system - by registering as a regular attendee and thereby bypassing the legal agreement). OK, so she failed - miserably - but at least she deserves the tag of 'hack' on /. :-)
Corporations with money/power will not stand for this.
I forget - is it supposed to be Gusty or Gutsy Gibbon?
Maybe he starts out as Gutsy, but after the 'release', he's Gusty?
Interesting - I have a couple of gmail accounts and the same thing happened to them - last week, one message that should have been in the inbox. It was particularly strange because one of the messages had a filter on it, to give it both a label AND a star (you would have thought ther'd be a rule saying that nothing with a star or a label should ever go into the spam folder unless the filter tells it to).
It would seem that something strange happened with Gmail's spam filters last week.
The one I like: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - Cardinal Richelieu
it may not be, but it contains the goatse image.
You must be one of the lucky ones. I uninstalled it as unusable after enless lock-ups due to the updater portion of the program.
*prints this /. article out and puts it through the shredder*
Then why did they not just say that?
>"It's not so much a matter of Police competence as it is paperwork. Twenty years ago, the Police didn't have to fill in an hours worth of paperwork for an arrest for a minor offence which is why they were on the streets doing their job in the first place. For each minor arrest, a copper can be kept off the streets for a minimum of 1 hour documenting every detail of the incident. If a kid vandalises a car, robs someone and is picked up on a description the reaction is more likely to be "fuck off you can't prove it" than "I won't do it again"."
Except that now, they get a little gold star for arresting a couple of kids having a scuffle in a school playground - adds to their detection statistics - and so everything petty and minor which would have been dealt with by a quiet word, gets those involved a criminal record, and the copper involved a nice boost to his stats.
>"I think one of the main reasons for the lesser (but not absent)violence of Women's Sufferage is that all participants are the wives and daughters of voting men."
The sufragettes used bombs - they blew stuff up. I can't imagine them standing the slightest of chances now - they'd be off the gitmo, or having their torture outsourced to some brutal third world dictatorship.
As I understand it, basic Hindu philosophy on the matter of spiritual freedom is similar: through a spiritual practice, you gain greater freedom, but some of the things you can do with your freedom will take away that freedom: crude example - taking addictive drugs: you're free to take them but your freedom will be reduced if you exercise your freedom in this manner. It's the philosopohy that to preserve freedom you have to refrain from doing things which reduce that freedom. Looking at it from the other side - how free are you if you exercise freedoms that reduce your freedom? That's what the GPL (v.n) seems to be all about.
Just to add a clarification, now that I've remembered it - the actual reason the older entrepeneurs lost out to the inexperienced enthusiasm of younger ones, was that they dismissed the 'next new thing' as a "passing fad". The younger entrepeneurs did not - their inexperience and lack of perspective lead them to leap on the trend/development - and this was seen to be the deciding factor in major success; jumping on the one of many things that turned out to be a multi-million dollar cash cow as opposed to missing that ONE SINGLE thing.
I recall redaing somethign about this relating to the ages of various entrepeneurs (I can't find the link).
Basically the study concluded that young entrepeneurs were more successful than older entrepeneurs because the elders were more risk averse. A young entrepeneur would tend to see everything as the next big thing, leading to lots of mistakes, of course, the older entrepeneur would have more experience and perspective, and so wouldn't fall into that trap.
The problem for the older entrepeneur was that they would tend to overlook the next big thing, whereas, through sheer youthful ebulliance, the younger entrepeneur would jump at it, and that fact alone was seen to be the deciding factor in success in this area - noticing the next big thing, and jumping on it.
That it happened to be because of the recklessness of youthful over-enthusiasm, didn't take away fromthe success and profit derived from it.
Translate that into businessess which need the next new thing to continue to grow and evolve, and companies that have been around a long time, unless they listen to the voice of inexperience, will miss the next new thing.
Or so the theory goes.
BBC Scratch Article with Flash Video
>"Since when did Copyright Infringement become an issue for Homeland Security to work directly with a specific corporation?" Since America became a Neo-Corporatist State?
In this case the percieved authority is a little electronic box.
Translation: In Rupert'sSpace there is no Fair Use.
If the fake ID had a photograph in it (I couldn't ascertain whether it did or didn't from the article) then, regardless of the entire document being illegal, or the document being derivative of the us government's original document template, the photograph would be copyright (it may have originally been taken for a purpose other than for inclusion in an illegal document), so, IANAL, but it seems like a DMCA takedown would be legit if it was regarding the reproduction of that photo without permission (not that I consider the DMCA to be legit).