Just because you feel it's inappropriate for a company to "hide" information, doesn't make it right to break copyright laws.
Actually it kind of does. Copyright laws are there to prevent companies from losing profit to competitors and have their ideas stolen, to provide an incentive for the marketplace of ideas to work. It is NOT there to protect corporate secrecy.
It doesn't take going to court to be in violation of the law, just to be proven so.
Wow, this sounds nutty. Proven how and to whom? In the newspapers? For a legal action to be taken, I thought a court was required, unless we are talking about legally appointed officials such as police officers, and I don't think a domain registrar qualifies, despite their official-sounding name.
Thankfully for us most corporations and governments don't realize this. If MS had done nothing the majority of people would have never read this because most people don't visit cryptome or other whistleblowing websites on a regular basis.
I'm not sure it's that they don't realize it. I think it's more complicated than that. First of all, corporations and governments don't "realize" anything, as they are not alive. Anthropomorphizing them leads to errors in analyzing and responding to their actions. "Punishing" them or getting angry at them is a mistake, as they have no feelings.
What is probably happening is that individuals within the corporation responsible for hunting down violations of copyright are not particularly tuned in to the idea of freedom of information for some reason. The only counter-valence to this would be if there were other individuals reviewing their actions who ARE sensitive to that issue or at least the politics of that issue.
This reminds me of the interplay between risk managers and floor traders in large banks, or engineers and managers in large companies, or lots of other examples.
So rather than hoping to make money off the death of an athlete, they're hoping the death of an athlete doesn't damage their profits? I fail to see that much difference between those two possibilities.
It's the difference between hiring a hit man and hushing up a family suicide.
Not everyone understands technology as well as you or even I. Sometimes people make mistakes -- I'm sure that if they knew the risk they would not publish it. It's just plain malicious to "punish them" in this way.
Google also gives quick access to such information.
In theory, but it's not at all the same. This website is advertising the information with the express intent to showcase these individuals' vulnerability to attack. If they actually get their house broken into, well, I guess that's their own damn fault, right?
It's even older than you think. Winston Churchill is quoted as saying "Success is going from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm." And how about the Chinese proverb, "Fall down 7 times get up 8." However, it must be tempered with the following advice, I don't know who said it: "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."
Well, let's see, they are giving a one-stop shopping depot for people who might want to harm another to find someone in their neighborhood to rob. How is that not doing anything wrong? The information is "public" but not easy to find -- these guys made it really really easy. Just not cool. If that website had remained active, it would be only a matter of time before some asshat used it for its advertised purpose. And you don't see a problem with that? Hmm.
Funny, but seriously, this website is going about it all wrong. How about sending messages to those poor souls saying something like "Hey, you know you are making your location known to possibly unfriendly people?" Rushing right to publish the information to said villains is not the right thing to do, in fact, it's an attack in and of itself and frankly this website should be subject to a lawsuit or even criminal action, as its intent is not benign.
Yes, it sucks to be a felon. I have known them as well. Don't get me started on the Drug War -- OMG what a waste of $$ and more importantly human potential. It does not benefit society to lock up drug users. Nonetheless, even dummies dealing drugs know the risk, so your "smart" friend knowingly took a risk there and got stung. Let that be a lesson -- if you live in a police state, you had better respect the police, even if you don't agree with the laws. "I fought the law and the law won." Nobody has to deal drugs, they do so because there's lots of money to be had, all you have to do is assume high risk. So there you go.
There are not lots of applicants for EVERY job opening. And yes, times are tough, especially for convicted felons. Well, pardon me if I don't cry a tear for this guy. I'm not "moralizing," I'm talking about what works. Lying, stealing and making excuses does not work out well. Being honest, contributing yourself and your talents to a worthy cause, and taking responsibility do work well. There is not a shred of morality in what I'm saying, it has nothing to do with heaven and hell or punishing or whatever you are thinking when you think of morality. From how you talk, you either do not know any cons, are married to a con, or are a con yourself, because otherwise you would know that most cons are lazy, whining good-for-nothing losers full of excuses. No need for you to give them any more. This guy does not sound like any exception to the rule, other than that he happens to be a smart rat. There's a damn good reason most people don't hire ex-cons. So it's now his job to find one of the people who does. Will it require hard work? Oh noes!
And of course "I couldn't get work" is often used as a proxy for "they are not handing me the exact job I think I deserve." There ARE jobs out there people. There IS work to be done. Oh, not good enough for you? Yes, I can see your only recourse is to become a thief. Uh huh. The people I've known who were thieves always came up with very good reasons why they just HAD to steal. Bullshit.
Change the word "but" to "and." And you know you can back up your blog, even if it's hosted somewhere else, right people? So trusting all your data to Google is like letting your bank and your broker run your $500,000 401k without any supervision. I mean, who does that, right?
I think you miss an important point and make a mistake many atheists make about religion. It's not just a "Social club" but a network of people that support a person in achieving what is important to them. It's not just about relating with other humans, it's about support and purpose. These two things without a doubt let a person live a more successful and happy life. The person is also expected to contribute to the religion and participate in rituals, both of which have positive and reinforcing psychological effects. A simple social club does not provide such tools and resources usually. In terms of replication, the person also has to parrot the party line and try to accept that it's "true," which is the vector of virus dispersion. I personally do not partake in religion because it's so myth-based, but you can see its powerful constructive effects in the lives of its practitioners if you pay attention. Instead, I'm interested in societies without mythology but containing all the other elements.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you feel it's inappropriate for a company to "hide" information, doesn't make it right to break copyright laws.
Actually it kind of does. Copyright laws are there to prevent companies from losing profit to competitors and have their ideas stolen, to provide an incentive for the marketplace of ideas to work. It is NOT there to protect corporate secrecy.
It doesn't take going to court to be in violation of the law, just to be proven so.
Wow, this sounds nutty. Proven how and to whom? In the newspapers? For a legal action to be taken, I thought a court was required, unless we are talking about legally appointed officials such as police officers, and I don't think a domain registrar qualifies, despite their official-sounding name.
Thankfully for us most corporations and governments don't realize this. If MS had done nothing the majority of people would have never read this because most people don't visit cryptome or other whistleblowing websites on a regular basis.
I'm not sure it's that they don't realize it. I think it's more complicated than that. First of all, corporations and governments don't "realize" anything, as they are not alive. Anthropomorphizing them leads to errors in analyzing and responding to their actions. "Punishing" them or getting angry at them is a mistake, as they have no feelings.
What is probably happening is that individuals within the corporation responsible for hunting down violations of copyright are not particularly tuned in to the idea of freedom of information for some reason. The only counter-valence to this would be if there were other individuals reviewing their actions who ARE sensitive to that issue or at least the politics of that issue.
This reminds me of the interplay between risk managers and floor traders in large banks, or engineers and managers in large companies, or lots of other examples.
Exactly. By definition, a pattern is 100% predictable by looking at its history. Why is this news? Hell no I'm not going to RTFA.
FTFA: The current prototype looks interesting, but I can't believe its chances of ever making it to past the prototype stage are much above slim.
There is a difference between a threat and an action.
Wait? Why am I in hell? God hates a bad luge performance?
I like to think he only had time to hope for the best. If I were him I'd be thinking hmm I wonder where I'll land? Then I'd be dead.
So rather than hoping to make money off the death of an athlete, they're hoping the death of an athlete doesn't damage their profits? I fail to see that much difference between those two possibilities.
It's the difference between hiring a hit man and hushing up a family suicide.
He likely knew he was going to hit the column mere milliseconds before he died.
Actually, thankfully in this case, conscious awareness is even slower than reaction time. He never knew what hit him, I would think.
Not everyone understands technology as well as you or even I. Sometimes people make mistakes -- I'm sure that if they knew the risk they would not publish it. It's just plain malicious to "punish them" in this way.
Google also gives quick access to such information.
In theory, but it's not at all the same. This website is advertising the information with the express intent to showcase these individuals' vulnerability to attack. If they actually get their house broken into, well, I guess that's their own damn fault, right?
It's even older than you think. Winston Churchill is quoted as saying "Success is going from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm." And how about the Chinese proverb, "Fall down 7 times get up 8." However, it must be tempered with the following advice, I don't know who said it: "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."
Well, let's see, they are giving a one-stop shopping depot for people who might want to harm another to find someone in their neighborhood to rob. How is that not doing anything wrong? The information is "public" but not easy to find -- these guys made it really really easy. Just not cool. If that website had remained active, it would be only a matter of time before some asshat used it for its advertised purpose. And you don't see a problem with that? Hmm.
the customers/consumers are the advertisers and they are the ones getting more choice.
God, I'm really trying to get excited about that. It's not working.
I love that a posting that starts out "I refuse to read" is marked up as being "informative." Oh, Slashdot! You make me smile a little.
I'd like to see if Apple ever steps up with a search engine of their own.
Don't hold your breath. Apple sells hardware.
Funny, but seriously, this website is going about it all wrong. How about sending messages to those poor souls saying something like "Hey, you know you are making your location known to possibly unfriendly people?" Rushing right to publish the information to said villains is not the right thing to do, in fact, it's an attack in and of itself and frankly this website should be subject to a lawsuit or even criminal action, as its intent is not benign.
Yes, it sucks to be a felon. I have known them as well. Don't get me started on the Drug War -- OMG what a waste of $$ and more importantly human potential. It does not benefit society to lock up drug users. Nonetheless, even dummies dealing drugs know the risk, so your "smart" friend knowingly took a risk there and got stung. Let that be a lesson -- if you live in a police state, you had better respect the police, even if you don't agree with the laws. "I fought the law and the law won." Nobody has to deal drugs, they do so because there's lots of money to be had, all you have to do is assume high risk. So there you go.
There are not lots of applicants for EVERY job opening. And yes, times are tough, especially for convicted felons. Well, pardon me if I don't cry a tear for this guy. I'm not "moralizing," I'm talking about what works. Lying, stealing and making excuses does not work out well. Being honest, contributing yourself and your talents to a worthy cause, and taking responsibility do work well. There is not a shred of morality in what I'm saying, it has nothing to do with heaven and hell or punishing or whatever you are thinking when you think of morality. From how you talk, you either do not know any cons, are married to a con, or are a con yourself, because otherwise you would know that most cons are lazy, whining good-for-nothing losers full of excuses. No need for you to give them any more. This guy does not sound like any exception to the rule, other than that he happens to be a smart rat. There's a damn good reason most people don't hire ex-cons. So it's now his job to find one of the people who does. Will it require hard work? Oh noes!
The right answer is for employers to do a background check on all applicants and check for felonies.
And of course "I couldn't get work" is often used as a proxy for "they are not handing me the exact job I think I deserve." There ARE jobs out there people. There IS work to be done. Oh, not good enough for you? Yes, I can see your only recourse is to become a thief. Uh huh. The people I've known who were thieves always came up with very good reasons why they just HAD to steal. Bullshit.
Change the word "but" to "and." And you know you can back up your blog, even if it's hosted somewhere else, right people? So trusting all your data to Google is like letting your bank and your broker run your $500,000 401k without any supervision. I mean, who does that, right?
I think you miss an important point and make a mistake many atheists make about religion. It's not just a "Social club" but a network of people that support a person in achieving what is important to them. It's not just about relating with other humans, it's about support and purpose. These two things without a doubt let a person live a more successful and happy life. The person is also expected to contribute to the religion and participate in rituals, both of which have positive and reinforcing psychological effects. A simple social club does not provide such tools and resources usually. In terms of replication, the person also has to parrot the party line and try to accept that it's "true," which is the vector of virus dispersion. I personally do not partake in religion because it's so myth-based, but you can see its powerful constructive effects in the lives of its practitioners if you pay attention. Instead, I'm interested in societies without mythology but containing all the other elements.
Think it over.