it is not about the browser's request, it's about a human's request that is relayed through the browser. this relaying or translation will always be imperfect. However, by misrepresenting your advertising as part of the content requested you lie to me in order to get your message on my screen.
I did not ask for them, but in some cases my browser will request them. now if ads were labelled as ads, this misrepresentation would not occur. Oh, and yes.. I do block most ads, adblock is my friend:)
we are the companies. we determine what you will and will not see. we determine what you can and cannot know. You are a consumer, so you will consume our goods.
doesn't seem to be a guarantee. it's normal to check the temperature of fresh (or just bought) coffee, yet you can win a lawsuit for pouring hot coffee over yourself and trying to blame the restaurant.
>In a Real World(tm) private place, you'd expect the owner to be able to exercise control over visitors;
you'd expect the owner to be able to exercise control in a limited manner. i.e. no matter what the owner says, there will be no slavery in this private place(yes, that's an extreme example). in a real world private place, control is heavily restricted and not completely on the owner's side. how much control do we want to give owners? in the end, the private control is only that which is allowed by the public.
well... prostitution IS legal in the netherlands(this had nothing to do with business interests, there are now less brothels than before legalisation. it was done to stop human trafficking..
>I can see corporations claiming right to privacy on business data and the like.
they already do, usually claiming "company secrets". privacy is no more than the right to have a secret, but privacy is a HUMAN right. and companies are not human.
not for the american version. the spelling police wouldn't be able to cope with the load.
Re:Broadcaster/Advertizer hacks for this
on
Smart Billboards
·
· Score: 1
or maybe I'm just a consumer trying to fuck up business for advertisers... put a radio next to it so it keeps showing the same commercial over and over. everyone gets sick of it, and if you're lucky, the advertised company gets the bill.
I agree that nobody has been able to stick those charges, mainly because it hasnt been in front of a judge of the ICC or an equivalent (which could be in the country of origin. but let's not go into the legality of the ICC, that's another story.) if it's not been in court, it cant have stuck.
anyway... here's some links and discussions and stuff.
>Eye for an eye, life for a life. This is how many people look at it, and have for centuries.
that's how many people do not look at it, and THAT is why there is no death-penalty in my country. fact is that the US acted in Iraq against international law, and I have a big problem with that. especially for a country that claims to protect the interest of others, the freedom of others, and/or justice.
as for your question: yes, I am against war, but I think it is inevitable sometimes, and the lesser of 2(or more) evils. it should be viewed on a case by case basis. in the case of iraq I disagree with the choice made by the US.
>"when is it that the embryo becomes a human" (for which my answer is, it has always been human, even before the sperm meets the egg)
yes, the baby/foetus/whatever is definately human. but not necessarily A human... an individual. a single cell can be a human cell, but it cannot be a human.
the chemical term 'organic' doesn't have much to do with life.
Organic chemistry: [n] the chemistry of compounds containing carbon (originally defined as the chemistry of substances produced by living organisms but now extended to substances synthesized artificially)
a silicon-based lifeform would not be 'organic' in chemical terms.
yes, but where soundproofing an entire building will take quite a few bricks and other stuff, the cat-lady and the corpsecart-guy's noise can be solved with a halfbrick each, applied to the head.
>Do you think open source developers could come up with this kind(DRM) of innovation?
yes, they could. but OS developers like to scratch an itch, not create an itch. Why create something to restrict legal access to information? in most cases, DRM is meant to stop legal actions. restricting access to information by technological means is not in line with the very idea of open source.
the designers also proposed the name "koeieuier" (cow's udder), which is a very nice dutch word. mainly because to non-dutch speakers it looks like its already encrypted.
Slashdot Mirror
nobody thinks they cant live without nukes...
it is not about the browser's request, it's about a human's request that is relayed through the browser. this relaying or translation will always be imperfect. However, by misrepresenting your advertising as part of the content requested you lie to me in order to get your message on my screen.
:)
I did not ask for them, but in some cases my browser will request them. now if ads were labelled as ads, this misrepresentation would not occur. Oh, and yes.. I do block most ads, adblock is my friend
>That night, I removed every attorney and legal aide off the list, and within a year I totally ceased operation.
see? sometimes the law DOES work.
actually, that's 1 school of thought:
we are the companies. we determine what you will and will not see. we determine what you can and cannot know. You are a consumer, so you will consume our goods.
doesn't seem to be a guarantee. it's normal to check the temperature of fresh (or just bought) coffee, yet you can win a lawsuit for pouring hot coffee over yourself and trying to blame the restaurant.
>Visiting a site is giving them implicit permission to bother you with their ads or whatever they're throwing at you.
there is no such permission, not implicit, not explicit. by not viewing some ads, I have implicitly withdrawn ALL permissions to view ads.
make sure to get the vocal chords too. Voice recognition software may not be perfect, but most spam uses 'innovative' spelling anyway...
>In a Real World(tm) private place, you'd expect the owner to be able to exercise control over visitors;
you'd expect the owner to be able to exercise control in a limited manner. i.e. no matter what the owner says, there will be no slavery in this private place(yes, that's an extreme example). in a real world private place, control is heavily restricted and not completely on the owner's side. how much control do we want to give owners? in the end, the private control is only that which is allowed by the public.
all depends on size of wallet and cheapness of the ho, innit..
well... prostitution IS legal in the netherlands(this had nothing to do with business interests, there are now less brothels than before legalisation. it was done to stop human trafficking..
bullshit arguement. may as well blame microsoft, or some other competitor.
>I can see corporations claiming right to privacy on business data and the like.
they already do, usually claiming "company secrets". privacy is no more than the right to have a secret, but privacy is a HUMAN right. and companies are not human.
I still prefer less bush on Holly..
not for the american version. the spelling police wouldn't be able to cope with the load.
or maybe I'm just a consumer trying to fuck up business for advertisers... put a radio next to it so it keeps showing the same commercial over and over. everyone gets sick of it, and if you're lucky, the advertised company gets the bill.
I agree that nobody has been able to stick those charges, mainly because it hasnt been in front of a judge of the ICC or an equivalent (which could be in the country of origin. but let's not go into the legality of the ICC, that's another story.) if it's not been in court, it cant have stuck.
anyway... here's some links and discussions and stuff.
>Eye for an eye, life for a life. This is how many people look at it, and have for centuries.
that's how many people do not look at it, and THAT is why there is no death-penalty in my country.
fact is that the US acted in Iraq against international law, and I have a big problem with that. especially for a country that claims to protect the interest of others, the freedom of others, and/or justice.
as for your question: yes, I am against war, but I think it is inevitable sometimes, and the lesser of 2(or more) evils. it should be viewed on a case by case basis. in the case of iraq I disagree with the choice made by the US.
murdering a killer is still murder.
>"when is it that the embryo becomes a human" (for which my answer is, it has always been human, even before the sperm meets the egg)
yes, the baby/foetus/whatever is definately human. but not necessarily A human... an individual. a single cell can be a human cell, but it cannot be a human.
if people bring in gods, others can bring in superman. or batman. or the easter bunny.
the chemical term 'organic' doesn't have much to do with life.
Organic chemistry: [n] the chemistry of compounds containing carbon (originally defined as the chemistry of substances produced by living organisms but now extended to substances synthesized artificially)
a silicon-based lifeform would not be 'organic' in chemical terms.
not too high, and don't make the noose too tight. we have to be able to pelt him with rotten tomatoes and roadkill hedgehogs for at least a day.
yes, but where soundproofing an entire building will take quite a few bricks and other stuff, the cat-lady and the corpsecart-guy's noise can be solved with a halfbrick each, applied to the head.
>Do you think open source developers could come up with this kind(DRM) of innovation?
yes, they could. but OS developers like to scratch an itch, not create an itch. Why create something to restrict legal access to information? in most cases, DRM is meant to stop legal actions. restricting access to information by technological means is not in line with the very idea of open source.
the designers also proposed the name "koeieuier" (cow's udder), which is a very nice dutch word. mainly because to non-dutch speakers it looks like its already encrypted.