I agree that this is potentially dangerous, but for different reasons. Granting this "right" would presumably be written in such a way that it prohibits the government from passing laws that infringe on our ability to use the communication medium that we call the internet. As you said, we already have the right to internet access, but this just protects that right from future government actions. Unfortunately, this amendment may come with unintended consequences. For instance, it may actually prohibit the government from bringing about any sort of net neutrality efforts as that may infringe on the rights of the ISPs.
The request of the petition is vague, but I believe that you are misunderstanding the intent which is to only limit the power of the government, particularly the federal government. This would be in the mold of most of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For instance, Freedom of Speech does not allow you to get access to air time on CBS because you have something important to say because other private parties are not compelled to support you in your free speech endeavors. The amendment only prohibits the government from passing laws that infringe on your rights to free speech. I would expect a proposed amendment to be similar. Like the first amendment, it would say something along the lines of "Congress shall make no law..."
And I'm sorry, while I may agree with some of what the pirate party stand for , the access or not of content on the internet is irrelevant compared to the ecomonic crisis affecting most of europe. This isn't the time or the place for grandstanding an insignificant issue such as this and while she may be very bright there is no way a 24 year old has enough life experience to deal with the issues that need resolving before europe collapses into an economic black hole.
Very few politicians acquire their positions based on their intelligence and ability to understand complex issues such as economic problems. The problem is that most voters cannot distinguish between an honest expert on economic issues and a politician who is a hand puppet for special interests that has learned how to recite a handful of easily digestable talking points on camera. And life experience does not do anything for you when it comes to understanding economics. It requires intelligence and education. I am not saying that she is well equipped to handle this issue, just that she may be no worse equipped in comparison to the most senior member of the most popular party.
When I go to the store and purchase something, I own it. But I do not own the copyright and therefore do not have the right to copy and distribute any type of creative work that is associated with this purchase. However EULAs limit usage rights (hence the name End User Licensing Agreement), not copying rights. I would therefore like to understand where this control over product usage rights is derived from (in the U.S.A or any country for that matter) and to what types of products does it apply? Do I require usage rights for the loaf of bread that I purchased from the grocery? Just items also covered by copyright? If so, what about a coloring book? Can a manufacturer attach an EULA to a coloring book restricting the use of certain colors or types of coloring instruments?
Any Lawyers out there? please tell me, what are product usage rights? Where do the come from? To what types of products do they apply?
But sticking a poison pill in your product to make it unusable to the owner who does not agree to a contract presented after the time of purchase is not fraud?
In addition to copyright and general ownership, does german law provide developers, manufacturers or retailers with "usage rights" that allows them to control how their products are used?
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are fairly short considering the extent of ground they cover. Turns out that some previous US Politicians felt that laws should be understandable to the general populace.
I would like to add the further point to the parent that EULA are typically bartering with something that it does not own or control. That is "Usage Rights". As the software developer and distributor they own the copyrights and they own the physical media. When they sell it, they give up their ownership of the physical object and still retain copyright. If the user of the software is not asking to copy and distribute, then copyright is not at issue. Granted for a service company like Facebook, usage rights makes sense, as they are providing you with a service that you are using and the terms of that usage need to be clear, but for the vast majority of software available in stores, a person should be able to to purchase the software, not accept the EULA, and then continue to use the software without penalty. Denying a customer the ability to use the product because they did not accept this meaningless contract should be called what it actually is and that is a scam.
Filler classes exist to take students money. If these courses were so critical to producing well rounded individuals then they could have been provided in the previous 12 years of publicly funded education. I find it hard to swallow the idea that it is necessary for a science major to take an entire years worth of history courses following the previous ten years that the already took in their primary and secondary education.
There is no way that curly brackets make code more easily to read than perfect indentation. It is stands to reason that as your eyes take in a new piece of code and track from right to left across a body of text, indentation levels stand out and make the separation of code very apparent.
Piracy is not unnecessary, it is practically unavoidable. 99% of the adult population has committed copyright infringement, but only around 25% realize that they have. That is because the law is poorly written with a lot of grey area. The populace deserves to have crystal clear laws that they can understand. Copyright law is immoral in the US because it is the result bribery of public officials and is intentionally vague so that it can be selectively enforced.
Actually, I think it takes more than 8 to 10 years. More like 20 or 30 if you look at it from the perspective of "when do I know enough about the basic science to hypothesize a potential use". Each firm will want to file as soon as possible to prevent their competition from getting the patent before them. After initial conception of the technology idea, it has to go through a number of stages. Each important component has to be proven feasible, then each component has to be verified in a laboratory demonstration, then each component verified in a relevant environment, and finally, a prototype needs to be verified in a relevant environment. Chances are less than 50% that a technology will successfully transition from one stage to the next in a way that would allow the original technology idea to be realized in the final prototype. Under these new rules, I could see drug companies filing way more patents because they will want to cover any drug that they think there is a even slim possibility of working, however, over 90% of these ideas will never be proven feasible and alternate research that could generate a working solution may not be invested in if it is at risk of infringing on the first-to-file patent.
The US needs to encourage small businesses to grow if they want a stronger economy and right now patent law is discouraging a lot of would be entreprenuers from developing new products. This law makes things worse for every entreprenuer whose business model does not involve being a patent troll.
I am sick of this whole game with the major cell service carriers in the US. Verizon's whole attitude towards their customer is 'you need us', not 'what can we do to make you be/remain our customer'. I am waiting for my contract to expire in two months, but unfortunately my phone bit the dust over the weekend and I decided to reconsider getting a new contract in order to get a discounted phone, so I go to the local Verizon store and had an experience that completely reinforced this perception that I have of them.
Upon entering the store I observe that there is only one other customer and he is at the back of the store being assisted by a Verizon salesperson. Eight feet to the left is a desk with two Verizon employees behind it, neither is currently involved in any task. Four feet in front of me is a small round table where two girls, not in any type of uniform. They are using iPads and have computer stations. The closer girl asks how she can help me and I let her know that I am interested in looking at new phones and discussing my current plan and options. She says "I will need to check you in, and someone will be able to help you shortly. I look to the left a the salespersons behind the desk. They are looking straight at me. My internal voice is saying, "You have got to be kidding me". I look back to the girl... "Okay". "What is your name?". I tell here my name and she writes it down on a pad and then hits some keys on the computer. I look to my left, one of the sales associates looks at the monitor in front of them, walks around the desk to the small table, picks up the notepad, looks at me and says "Are you ?". Once again, my internal voice kicks in with "You know that is my name, you just stood there and listened to me and say it" and "You do not know me. You should refer to me as Mr....". From my perspective, the whole scenario was setup to reinforce the idea that I need them,not that I am a valued customer and I immediately resigned myself to not staying with Verizon and waiting out my contract.
Once I am out of contract, I will switch to a no-contract carrier and I will be upgrading to an Android phone and I do not anticipate needing more than 100 MB of data per month, so my total cost will be less than my Voice only plan that I currently have with Verizon.
I do not agree that it is the same as a software developer working for a company as an employee. Many artists create their works before they are ever signed by a label, so they cannot always be thought of as an employee, but a subcontractor might be a closer analog. If my knowledge is correct, a software development contract basically has to spell out "this is work for hire" or it is not considered work for hire.
The only answer is to spend less (on the government side) in the first place.
By defininition, the deficit = money_out - money_in... How can you argue that the only way to reduce the deficit is by decreasing the money out? You can also increase revenues by taxing at a higher rate. I do not like paying taxes, but I also realize that the real tax rate that I pay is relatively low in comparison to the last 50 years. I am in the top 10% of household incomes in this country and I only pay 12% to federal income tax. I am all for cutting spending, but you cannot cut spending in drastic ways overnight. There are enormous side-effects to doing so.
I am not advocating taxing anyone 100%, but I find your claim hard to believe, although it is hard to say since their are very few americans making $1M or more per year and the number of people would vary greatly depending on how you count those earnings (ie. are we counting earnings earned on assets held in a trust?, are we counting capital gains on investments?). Accepting that what you say can be backed up with hard data, there is still a lot of potential for raising revenue by raising taxes on the group that makes $100K - $999K. If you combine some additional revenue there, mainly that revenue lost to the Bush tax cuts, and decrease spending on 4 unnecessary wars, stop spying on our own people, stop violating them at airports, bring balance to social security, and bring some sanity to healthcare laws... there is the potential to not only balance the budget, but actually run a surplus. It can be done, but it is going to take a balanced approach of increased taxes and reduced spending.
The bill of rights was intentionally written in plain English so that people like you could not argue that the word "speech" does not mean "speech". Clearly they underestimated you.
Does tallest building really impress anyone anymore? How about doing something interesting with that money like doing something in space or starting new research laboratories. Skyscrapers are boring.
But back to his point... DDoS is not technically a computer intrusion nor unauthorized use of a computer, and therefore may not even be illegal. So you are right that intent is important when there is actually a written law defining something like this as illegal, but to my knowledge, no such law exists in the US. It may however violate agreements with your ISP or Paypal.
I think you are taking the sit-in analogy a little too far. There are no doors blocked in a DDOS attack. In fact, nothing is blocked, it is simply a matter of a servers ability to handle a surge in traffic.
Seriously, If you cannot afford a lawyer, just wait and see if it goes away. Don't write to them, don't talk to them.
As you said, it could be a disgruntled employee, and even they have to be thinking that it is an angry employee or customer. Who else would bother to write such a letter?
They also do not know that you are tight for money and can't hire a lawyer to counter-sue, so this is most likely a shakedown to see if they can get any handouts. You don't need to hurry out and get a lawyer until they are actually suing you.
Yes, I am sure that we have all observed instances of this in every organization, but there is a big difference between policies and lack of communication driving these poor decision and the threat of jail time, because that would be what a military or federal worker could face if violating government laws on procurement. It is totally different.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that this is potentially dangerous, but for different reasons. Granting this "right" would presumably be written in such a way that it prohibits the government from passing laws that infringe on our ability to use the communication medium that we call the internet. As you said, we already have the right to internet access, but this just protects that right from future government actions. Unfortunately, this amendment may come with unintended consequences. For instance, it may actually prohibit the government from bringing about any sort of net neutrality efforts as that may infringe on the rights of the ISPs.
The request of the petition is vague, but I believe that you are misunderstanding the intent which is to only limit the power of the government, particularly the federal government. This would be in the mold of most of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For instance, Freedom of Speech does not allow you to get access to air time on CBS because you have something important to say because other private parties are not compelled to support you in your free speech endeavors. The amendment only prohibits the government from passing laws that infringe on your rights to free speech. I would expect a proposed amendment to be similar. Like the first amendment, it would say something along the lines of "Congress shall make no law ..."
And I'm sorry, while I may agree with some of what the pirate party stand for , the access or not of content on the internet is irrelevant compared to the ecomonic crisis affecting most of europe. This isn't the time or the place for grandstanding an insignificant issue such as this and while she may be very bright there is no way a 24 year old has enough life experience to deal with the issues that need resolving before europe collapses into an economic black hole.
Very few politicians acquire their positions based on their intelligence and ability to understand complex issues such as economic problems. The problem is that most voters cannot distinguish between an honest expert on economic issues and a politician who is a hand puppet for special interests that has learned how to recite a handful of easily digestable talking points on camera. And life experience does not do anything for you when it comes to understanding economics. It requires intelligence and education. I am not saying that she is well equipped to handle this issue, just that she may be no worse equipped in comparison to the most senior member of the most popular party.
The fact you called MWI "scientifically plausible" should be the first sign you don't have the first clue what you're going on about.
the wavefunction may or may not be real...But it appears that Dr. Sheldon Cooper is real!!
When I go to the store and purchase something, I own it. But I do not own the copyright and therefore do not have the right to copy and distribute any type of creative work that is associated with this purchase. However EULAs limit usage rights (hence the name End User Licensing Agreement), not copying rights. I would therefore like to understand where this control over product usage rights is derived from (in the U.S.A or any country for that matter) and to what types of products does it apply? Do I require usage rights for the loaf of bread that I purchased from the grocery? Just items also covered by copyright? If so, what about a coloring book? Can a manufacturer attach an EULA to a coloring book restricting the use of certain colors or types of coloring instruments?
Any Lawyers out there? please tell me, what are product usage rights? Where do the come from? To what types of products do they apply?
But sticking a poison pill in your product to make it unusable to the owner who does not agree to a contract presented after the time of purchase is not fraud?
In addition to copyright and general ownership, does german law provide developers, manufacturers or retailers with "usage rights" that allows them to control how their products are used?
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are fairly short considering the extent of ground they cover. Turns out that some previous US Politicians felt that laws should be understandable to the general populace.
I would like to add the further point to the parent that EULA are typically bartering with something that it does not own or control. That is "Usage Rights". As the software developer and distributor they own the copyrights and they own the physical media. When they sell it, they give up their ownership of the physical object and still retain copyright. If the user of the software is not asking to copy and distribute, then copyright is not at issue. Granted for a service company like Facebook, usage rights makes sense, as they are providing you with a service that you are using and the terms of that usage need to be clear, but for the vast majority of software available in stores, a person should be able to to purchase the software, not accept the EULA, and then continue to use the software without penalty. Denying a customer the ability to use the product because they did not accept this meaningless contract should be called what it actually is and that is a scam.
Filler classes exist to take students money. If these courses were so critical to producing well rounded individuals then they could have been provided in the previous 12 years of publicly funded education. I find it hard to swallow the idea that it is necessary for a science major to take an entire years worth of history courses following the previous ten years that the already took in their primary and secondary education.
There is no way that curly brackets make code more easily to read than perfect indentation. It is stands to reason that as your eyes take in a new piece of code and track from right to left across a body of text, indentation levels stand out and make the separation of code very apparent.
Piracy is not unnecessary, it is practically unavoidable. 99% of the adult population has committed copyright infringement, but only around 25% realize that they have. That is because the law is poorly written with a lot of grey area. The populace deserves to have crystal clear laws that they can understand. Copyright law is immoral in the US because it is the result bribery of public officials and is intentionally vague so that it can be selectively enforced.
The US needs to encourage small businesses to grow if they want a stronger economy and right now patent law is discouraging a lot of would be entreprenuers from developing new products. This law makes things worse for every entreprenuer whose business model does not involve being a patent troll.
I am sick of this whole game with the major cell service carriers in the US. Verizon's whole attitude towards their customer is 'you need us', not 'what can we do to make you be/remain our customer'. I am waiting for my contract to expire in two months, but unfortunately my phone bit the dust over the weekend and I decided to reconsider getting a new contract in order to get a discounted phone, so I go to the local Verizon store and had an experience that completely reinforced this perception that I have of them.
Upon entering the store I observe that there is only one other customer and he is at the back of the store being assisted by a Verizon salesperson. Eight feet to the left is a desk with two Verizon employees behind it, neither is currently involved in any task. Four feet in front of me is a small round table where two girls, not in any type of uniform. They are using iPads and have computer stations. The closer girl asks how she can help me and I let her know that I am interested in looking at new phones and discussing my current plan and options. She says "I will need to check you in, and someone will be able to help you shortly. I look to the left a the salespersons behind the desk. They are looking straight at me. My internal voice is saying, "You have got to be kidding me". I look back to the girl... "Okay". "What is your name?". I tell here my name and she writes it down on a pad and then hits some keys on the computer. I look to my left, one of the sales associates looks at the monitor in front of them, walks around the desk to the small table, picks up the notepad, looks at me and says "Are you ?". Once again, my internal voice kicks in with "You know that is my name, you just stood there and listened to me and say it" and "You do not know me. You should refer to me as Mr. ...". From my perspective, the whole scenario was setup to reinforce the idea that I need them ,not that I am a valued customer and I immediately resigned myself to not staying with Verizon and waiting out my contract.
Once I am out of contract, I will switch to a no-contract carrier and I will be upgrading to an Android phone and I do not anticipate needing more than 100 MB of data per month, so my total cost will be less than my Voice only plan that I currently have with Verizon.
I do not agree that it is the same as a software developer working for a company as an employee. Many artists create their works before they are ever signed by a label, so they cannot always be thought of as an employee, but a subcontractor might be a closer analog. If my knowledge is correct, a software development contract basically has to spell out "this is work for hire" or it is not considered work for hire.
The only answer is to spend less (on the government side) in the first place.
By defininition, the deficit = money_out - money_in ... How can you argue that the only way to reduce the deficit is by decreasing the money out? You can also increase revenues by taxing at a higher rate. I do not like paying taxes, but I also realize that the real tax rate that I pay is relatively low in comparison to the last 50 years. I am in the top 10% of household incomes in this country and I only pay 12% to federal income tax. I am all for cutting spending, but you cannot cut spending in drastic ways overnight. There are enormous side-effects to doing so.
I am not advocating taxing anyone 100%, but I find your claim hard to believe, although it is hard to say since their are very few americans making $1M or more per year and the number of people would vary greatly depending on how you count those earnings (ie. are we counting earnings earned on assets held in a trust?, are we counting capital gains on investments?). Accepting that what you say can be backed up with hard data, there is still a lot of potential for raising revenue by raising taxes on the group that makes $100K - $999K. If you combine some additional revenue there, mainly that revenue lost to the Bush tax cuts, and decrease spending on 4 unnecessary wars, stop spying on our own people, stop violating them at airports, bring balance to social security, and bring some sanity to healthcare laws... there is the potential to not only balance the budget, but actually run a surplus. It can be done, but it is going to take a balanced approach of increased taxes and reduced spending.
The bill of rights was intentionally written in plain English so that people like you could not argue that the word "speech" does not mean "speech". Clearly they underestimated you.
Does tallest building really impress anyone anymore? How about doing something interesting with that money like doing something in space or starting new research laboratories. Skyscrapers are boring.
irrelevant. That is not illegal.
But back to his point... DDoS is not technically a computer intrusion nor unauthorized use of a computer, and therefore may not even be illegal. So you are right that intent is important when there is actually a written law defining something like this as illegal, but to my knowledge, no such law exists in the US. It may however violate agreements with your ISP or Paypal.
I think you are taking the sit-in analogy a little too far. There are no doors blocked in a DDOS attack. In fact, nothing is blocked, it is simply a matter of a servers ability to handle a surge in traffic.
Of course DDoS attacks cost money, but then by that same logic, so does it cost money every time I go to a stores website and do not buy anything.
Seriously, If you cannot afford a lawyer, just wait and see if it goes away. Don't write to them, don't talk to them. As you said, it could be a disgruntled employee, and even they have to be thinking that it is an angry employee or customer. Who else would bother to write such a letter? They also do not know that you are tight for money and can't hire a lawyer to counter-sue, so this is most likely a shakedown to see if they can get any handouts. You don't need to hurry out and get a lawyer until they are actually suing you.
Yes, I am sure that we have all observed instances of this in every organization, but there is a big difference between policies and lack of communication driving these poor decision and the threat of jail time, because that would be what a military or federal worker could face if violating government laws on procurement. It is totally different.