> This isn't a balancing act; people actually believe the bilge these papers and others like them print.
Quite. And it's not as if people actually read the Daily Mail and then think, oh... I need to keep a balanced perspective, I must get a copy of the Morning Star from the newsagent on my way home.
People don't read these news sources because they want to be informed in a fair and balanced manner (fuck you and your bogus trademark, Murdoch!)... ahem... (sorry - it's a compulsion)... they read these newspapers because they re-inforce their prejudices and make them feel cosy and justified in their world-view.
As of, I don't know when, the above hack is no longer working. I found this out by trying it before following the link to mydigitallife.info, which says, well, what I've just said:
Latest Update: The patch no longer working. For complete listing of more ways to bypass the new WGA update, check it out here.
The stuff about renaming/disabling wgatray also seems to be redundant now.
> Well, at least in Britain, the basic idea behind fair use is protected. In America, you have the right to fair use except when you circumvent measures intended to prevent you from exercising fair use.
Someone hasn't heard of the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD)!
> All else being equal, the bad guys win more often than the good guys because they are willing to cheat and use tactics that are out of bounds for the good guys.
You forgot to cite: - 'A Rebuplican Guide to Getting and Staying in Power'
SECRET LUST OF REDS IN THE BED
Will Stewart In Moscow
RUSSIAN Communists passed a law to "nationalise" all wives, it was revealed yesterday.
They complained: "All the best species of the finer sex are owned by the bourgeoisie which inhibits mankind's development."
And they passed an edict entitled "Nationalisation of Females" which meant women were no longer "owned" by husbands.
The edict, which amounted to officially-sanctioned rape, declared all women over 18 State property.
Men were allowed sex with any of them but not more than three times a week and only after giving proof they were from working-class families.
Full details of the shameful 1919 edict in a district of remote Simbirsk emerged only after a telegram from revolutionary leader Lenin was discovered.
In it he told his secret police: "Strictly check and if confirmed true arrest culprits. We need to punish the [bastards] then announce it to population."
The decree-makers were shot by the secret service and the women returned to their husbands.
Historian Ivan Sivoplys, who discovered the telegram, said: "Children born as a result of this revolutionary sex were to be raised by the state.
"But angry women wrote to Lenin, who came from the region, and demanded he stop the law."
Russia is this week marking the 136th anniversary of Lenin's birth.
Microsoft are not being penalised for becoming successful in the marketplace, they're being penalised for what they've done to the marketplace once they've become 'successful'.
You're so right. In fact, I always thought minidisks would have made the ideal replacement for the floppy. Imagine Sony's delight to have one in every PC in the world. Instead they screwed it all up with their lack of imagination and their self-crippling content-protectionism.
>> allofmp3.com has them un-DRMed and at very reasonable prices
> Yeah, and if you open up Kazaa or the latest P2P system, you'll find them at even more reasonable prices!
AllofMP3.com, does, however, protect you from the prospect, however large or small, of a music/movie industry lawyer-attack for distributing their copyright stuff.
Maybe some people consider that's worth paying for.
Or better still... create a.christ, a.kids, or a.inoffensive domain where people who don't want to see certain stuff, can surf in (realtively) absolute safety, worry-free, without it affecting everyone else.
In other words, regulation should be for those who want it or need it (in the case of children), leaving everyone else the hellalone.
So you tell those people, who stare at you blankly, when you tell them of the Sony Rootkit et al. in a simple and easy to understand manner what it is, and... get this... you educate them!
And they tell their friends, and slowly the pool of available knowledge of these matters, and people's awareness of them, is increased.
And the snowflake becomes a snowball, and the snowball becomes an avalanche.
Saying "we don't count" is apathy bordering on self-pity.
Stop it! And instead do what little you're able! It all adds up.:-)
"Pursuit of economic interests is exactly what one would expect from a publically traded corporation (which has an obligation to maximize profit potential for its shareholders). Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is the law of the corporate jungle."
But these structures you speak of as if they were impersonal entities are not impersonal entities.
They are people.
And as such are subject to moral scrutiny.
I believe it's the mantra of the mafia to say "It's only business."
"The day is going to come where the bill of rights is going to have to be forced on the corporate world the same way it is forced on the government or it will stop meaning anything."
If you believe Bill Hicks (and I'm not entirely disinclined to disagree with him on this point) the advertising industry is inherently evil. If you believe some recent psychological theory on the matter, the reason people are more depressed and unhappy in western developed societies, is the promotion of the "have" culture, over the more positively beneficial "be" culture.
Rampant consumerism is the champion of the "have" culture. it's tool of choice is advertising.
Google say they're comitted to doing no evil (and I'm prepared to believe that this is a genuinely held intent).
Is it possible to ultimately square this with being involved in the advertising industry, and the promotion of the "have" consumerist society?
A little note to all, from January the 1st 2006 all offences in the UK will be arrestable. Previously, offences were categorised into arrestable and non-arrestable offences - such as littering. Now EVERYTHING from motoring offences to loitering will see you hauled down to the local police station to have your fingerprints and DNA taken (by force, if necessary).
It breaches your right to silence and your right not to incriminate yourself, both of which are central tennets of a fair trial under the EU Human Rights Act.
It does seem strange that the judge effectively exonnerated him of the crime of malicious intrusion, but convicted of him of that very same crime solely because he lied to the police. Sounds like grounds for appeal, to me (IANAL).
I quite agree with you about not talking to the police, but remember in this wonderful country, the law says that it may affect your case if you later mention something in court, in your defence, that you didn't mention at the time you were questioned by police.
Personally, I'd like to see that nastly little assault on our right to silence thrown out, but there we are.
Slashdot Mirror
> what if... (big if), somehow the religious extreme right gets into power and decides that all donkey-sex lovers are perverts and deviants.
Donkey-sex lovers aren't perverts and deviants???
With those statistics, maybe it's a War on Stairs and Wobbly Ladders we need instead of this bogus War on Terrorism.
Quite. And it's not as if people actually read the Daily Mail and then think, oh ... I need to keep a balanced perspective, I must get a copy of the Morning Star from the newsagent on my way home.
People don't read these news sources because they want to be informed in a fair and balanced manner (fuck you and your bogus trademark, Murdoch!) ... ahem ... (sorry - it's a compulsion) ... they read these newspapers because they re-inforce their prejudices and make them feel cosy and justified in their world-view.
We don't particularly need not to see it. So, why not?
Someone hasn't heard of the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD)!
Bragging about paying for Half-Life 2: $35.00
Claiming that a bundled t-shirt is free: er ... priceless.
For everything else, there's Pirate Bay.
:-)
What harm was done?
You forgot to cite: - 'A Rebuplican Guide to Getting and Staying in Power'
Truer than you realise:
Source ArticleMicrosoft are not being penalised for becoming successful in the marketplace, they're being penalised for what they've done to the marketplace once they've become 'successful'.
You're so right. In fact, I always thought minidisks would have made the ideal replacement for the floppy. Imagine Sony's delight to have one in every PC in the world. Instead they screwed it all up with their lack of imagination and their self-crippling content-protectionism.
> Yeah, and if you open up Kazaa or the latest P2P system, you'll find them at even more reasonable prices!
AllofMP3.com, does, however, protect you from the prospect, however large or small, of a music/movie industry lawyer-attack for distributing their copyright stuff.
Maybe some people consider that's worth paying for.
In other words, regulation should be for those who want it or need it (in the case of children), leaving everyone else the hellalone.
+X/M7En87xo=
And they tell their friends, and slowly the pool of available knowledge of these matters, and people's awareness of them, is increased.
And the snowflake becomes a snowball, and the snowball becomes an avalanche.
Saying "we don't count" is apathy bordering on self-pity.
Stop it! And instead do what little you're able! It all adds up. :-)
But these structures you speak of as if they were impersonal entities are not impersonal entities.
They are people.
And as such are subject to moral scrutiny.
I believe it's the mantra of the mafia to say "It's only business."
Never has a truer word been spoken.
If you believe Bill Hicks (and I'm not entirely disinclined to disagree with him on this point) the advertising industry is inherently evil. If you believe some recent psychological theory on the matter, the reason people are more depressed and unhappy in western developed societies, is the promotion of the "have" culture, over the more positively beneficial "be" culture.
Rampant consumerism is the champion of the "have" culture. it's tool of choice is advertising.
Google say they're comitted to doing no evil (and I'm prepared to believe that this is a genuinely held intent).
Is it possible to ultimately square this with being involved in the advertising industry, and the promotion of the "have" consumerist society?
Now EVERYTHING from motoring offences to loitering will see you hauled down to the local police station to have your fingerprints and DNA taken (by force, if necessary).
Observer Article - 'A law the Stasi would have loved'
Because a Catholic school, or any type of private school, should not be allowed to treat children as it's posessions.
There's plenty of time for that when the student graduates and is owned by their employer.
It breaches your right to silence and your right not to incriminate yourself, both of which are central tennets of a fair trial under the EU Human Rights Act.
Doesn't work for me with XP Pro and Firefox. Keeps saying the Vividas Player has not finished loading - even when it obviously should have.
It does seem strange that the judge effectively exonnerated him of the crime of malicious intrusion, but convicted of him of that very same crime solely because he lied to the police. Sounds like grounds for appeal, to me (IANAL).
I quite agree with you about not talking to the police, but remember in this wonderful country, the law says that it may affect your case if you later mention something in court, in your defence, that you didn't mention at the time you were questioned by police.
Personally, I'd like to see that nastly little assault on our right to silence thrown out, but there we are.
That's the value today, in real terms - accounting for the deprectaion due to inflation - since the last time this story was posted on /. two days ago.