I drive while talking on the cell phone all the time. I know the road like the back of my hand, and I keep a longer stopping distance to compensate for the extended reaction time. When I see vehicles encroaching on that stopping distance or changing lanes rapidly in front of me or braking, I say "hold on" and I switch my focus fully over to the road until road conditions improve.
That is exactly the argument that drink drivers always use.
Or be's a passenger in a car. Thanks Amouth, now my wife won't be able to phone ahead to the hospital when I'm driving her there to give birth, smart thinking.
So you ask someone to phone the hospital before you start your journey. If she starts to go into labour, you'll have to stop the car anyway, so you can get out and ring up for further instructions.
It doesn't help to rationalize stupid lawmaking, I hear enough of that on television. And, since we're making up suppositions, let's further suppose that the GP has someone else in the car (say, his wife's sister or her best friend) and he doesn't have stop, but would still like to communicate with her physician. Look, this is not a rational, justifiable way to deal with the problem of "distracted driving" which is, when you get right down to it, a misnomer.
What you truly have (and this applies to drunken driving as well, if the driver isn't a true alcoholic or recidivist) is incompetent driving. People who make poor decisions before they get behind the wheel, and then compound their errors with more bad decisions after they get on the road. People that do not understand what they are doing, or the consequences of their actions. Do you really believe that the stupid fucks flying around at a thousand miles an hour with a cell phone jammed in their ears will magically become better drivers if you remove that one "distraction"? Of course not: the mere fact that they drive that way in the first place indicates that they have real issues with poor judgment, and removing the phone will not change that. Neither will big tickets: that's been pretty conclusively demonstrated as well. About the only thing that will help is proper training, but I can't see our government being willing to invest the funds. All that matters, as always, is that our leaders are seen to be "responding" to a serious "issue" with the voting public.
Whether that response is effective at dealing with the actual problem is irrelevant, and in this case I can guarantee it will cause a raft of other problems, also requiring a "response".
it's arguably more retarded. however, both ideas are extremely retarded, so it's not even worth arguing.
Actually it's not since the phone's self-disabling could itself be disabled if the user is trying to call an emergency number (911 isn't the only such number).
I believe that hldn is correct. It's retarded, and to such a degree that it leads to me to believe that the elected officials responsible for it should undergo immediate psychological evaluation. Whether it be megalomania, ignorance, or just plain stupidity, they just clearly demonstrated that they are not qualified for any position of authority over the American people.
Let's think about this for a moment, outside the realm of purely technological. Do you really want your cell phone, at the behest of the Federal Government and a few drain-bamaged Congressjerks, making the decision as to when you may, or may not, make a fucking phone call? Does this not define the term "nanny state"? Does the word "paternalism" mean anything to you?
My GOD, why are we even discussing this as if it were a rational, intelligent way to deal with what is, I agree, a real problem. A problem, I might add, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cellular phones, but everything to do with improperly-trained or otherwise unqualified drivers! This is just a patch at best, a band-aid, and a very, very poorly thought out one at that. Jamming all road-borne cellular devices will in no way compensate for a very simple fact: it's not the phone that's at fault, but the driver, and if you take away their phones, those drivers who can't handle the job will find other, equally dangerous ways to express their fundamental incompetence. Fact is, stupid people have been finding ways to use vehicular transport to cause death and destruction since the invention of the wheel.
If you're a danger to yourself and others, it's not the cell phone that makes you that way. The phone may, under certain conditions, amplify your own insufficiencies but take away the phone... and you are still inadequate! Still, just try getting a politician to deal with that, the fact that the State has allowed millions of sociopaths, bumblers and aggressive menaces to drive motor vehicles. Ha... not in a million years. They want an easy fix.
About the only positive thing I can see coming out of something so abusive is that it would be very hard for some future OBD technology to use the cellular system to squeal on you. Unless, of course, it had the power to temporarily disable the jamming while it transmits the fact that your check engine light is on to the appropriate authorities.
The part that really sheds light is that the oft maligned leech, a blood sucking parasite, is far more likely to provide benefit to us than the *AA. The leech is also far less likely to damage the foundations of our government for the People.
Absolutely, and not only that, but the leech (unlike either of the American **AA organizations) will tend to lower one's blood pressure, and can even help prevent blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. If these "industry trade groups" could do that, I'd almost say they were worth keeping around. The thing is, just about every time I read an article about those little bloodsuckers my blood pressure goes up. So, not only are they a disaster from a legal, moral and ethical perspective, they're also a health risk for any American aware of the issues.
The leech can, at least when used therapeutically, can be considered more of a symbiote than a parasite, so in that sense I'd say my analogy breaks down. But leeches, useful as they can be in certain contexts, are still pretty gross.
And media companies and their mouthpieces are still bloodsuckers, no matter to what parasitic organism they are compared.
Postdata. I keep forgetting that its "PS" when writing english. Another slashdotter already explained below:)
I wasn't trying to be pedantic, and I gathered from context that it was probably equivalent to "post-script". I was just curious to know if it was a typo or a legitimate expression. Well, I learned something today.
Why would I ever buy a DVD? The last one I bought had a new idiotic 'mangled index' DRM scheme requiring me to get a patched dvd player to play it....
Until I get a workable online distribution system for movies I'll just spend my time doing something else.. Like playing games or *gasp* borrowing dvds from friends. Hell, here in Norway I'm legally allowed to make copies of media for close friends and family. DRM doesnt matter, I'm allowed to break it:D
So... fuck you RIAA and MPAA, I'm not giving you any more money until you cut this shit out.
Well, I wouldn't get too comfortable. Our Canadian friends used to think that way, until the media companies started pouring money and influence into their government. Believe me, if your country's people consume cartel-generated media, they'll eventually get around to you. My advice? Be ready for them.
Uh...what? The "grown-ups" (who I assume you do not number yourself among) have decided that more government intervention is better? Are you nuts? The question is not whether or not we need to reduce the size of Federal Government... but what parts to cut.
Don't presume to speak for your betters.
Yes, and the kind of "control" that these people are planning on instituting has effects far beyond the United States and its people. That's the fundamental problem here: the U.S.-centric thinking. Grishnakh, below, compared Congress to Kim Jong Il, he's not wrong in that sense, but it's not the same situation. NOBODY CARES if Kim Jong Il wants to screw around with whatever passes for Internet in his country. EVERYBODY cares when the U.S. does anything untoward with DNS, or even makes noises about doing so. In a way, it's the fault of other countries for making their economies just as depending upon the Internet and DNS as we have, but that's where we are.
So yes, I understand very clearly that our august Congress is composed largely of hypocritical, self-centered foolish people who think that the Universe revolves are them and their stupid decisions, but it does not. Not now, not ever, but the fact is that U.S.-based entities are responsible for all thirteen root servers, and a lot of people are (rightly or wrongly) very nervous about that. Congress, if it had even half of a functioning collective frontal lobe, would think long and hard before even proposing to screw with the roots.
The problem is, control of (or even perceived control of) the root servers is power, and while many people and governments around the world wouldn't care if our government is jerking us around, they will certainly see the writing on the wall, and will expect the Feds to eventually jerk them around too. It's inevitable: incrementalism at work, and our government is famous for it.
PD: another interesting matter is what would happen if someone would make an android version that runs apps that aren't compatible with other android versions because they don't fulfill the OHA criteria and/or tests. In that instance I'd say that isn't Android anymore and could not be regarded as such, even if it was a fork of it.
In which case maybe Google would sue that someone for dilution of trademark or other issues.
Do you really expect the founding fathers to have anticipated computing devices that can encrypt data?
And furthermore, there's a reason that the Founders didn't try to enumerate specific communications technologies: they figured (apparently incorrectly, given your statements) that we would be able to logically extend our legal system to accommodate new technology, without requiring the citizenry to give up hard-won civil liberties as enshrined in the Constitution. It looks like some people are just unable to grasp that "personal papers and effects" might, I mean, just might, include a personal computer, and that that would indeed be in the spirit of the Constitution.
Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that the Founding Fathers, if they were alive today, would consider a hard drive full of a citizen's personal and confidential files to be in any way less deserving of the same legal protections afforded someone's wallet or their file cabinet? Do you really? Or are you one of these people who believes that the government should have the right to snoop into anyone's private business, for any reason, because they might have something to hide?
Spare me. This artificial dichotomy that is being presented to us by the government, that the "Internet" and "computing" are so intrinsically different from printed materials that the Constitution some how magically doesn't apply is disingenuous at best, treasonous at worst.
The constitution is a set of principles, which laws are then written to implement
No, I'm pretty sure the Constitution is a set of rules, indeed an enumeration of what powers the Federal Government may have... and which it may not. The rest of those powers are reserved for We the People. You should get used to the phrase "Congress Shall Make No Law...". It will give you an idea that the Constitution is not, and was not ever, intended to be a mere set of "principles."
Your cavalier attitude towards the Supreme Law of our Land is a major part of why things have been going from bad to worse lately.
isn't this the outright manufacture of child porn?
You are being obtuse. Intent is 90% of the law. There is a clear and obvious difference between a security guard seeing an x-ray of someone naked while searching for weapons, and a person taking nude pictures for fun or profit. The law instructs judges to consider what a "reasonable person" would think of a situation.
You're being well, naive, I'm afraid. Yes, if the relevant laws and the Justice System were fully functional and rational regarding child pornography, you might well be correct. But they're not, you know that, in fact they've gone completely 'round the bend, friend. And let me ask you this: what's going to happen when a few hundred thousand of those images show up as torrents? You know it's going to happen: 90% of Slashdot will download them immediately, just to see what the fuss is all about. However, the companies that make those machines, and the ultimate culprit, the TSA itself, are not going to want to take the heat. But after all the hoo-rah the Feds have been making about child porn lately, they're going to have to be seen doing something.
This a serious cluster-fuck just waiting to happen. I mean, come on... you have a machine capable of generating nude imagery of the public en masse, and then storing those pictures indefinitely. The ONLY thing that prevents them from being a liability are underpaid private-sector employees and a government organ that cannot be trusted, period, under any conditions.. Those pics are going to get out, sooner or later, and in fact they're already being improperly if not illegally stored.
They say they're against regulation, but then they say they want some government interference.
Make up your mind already.
The grown-ups have already decided that more government intervention is better than less government intervention.
Uh...what? The "grown-ups" (who I assume you do not number yourself among) have decided that more government intervention is better? Are you nuts? The question is not whether or not we need to reduce the size of Federal Government... but what parts to cut.
It's they who are pouring billions into campaign coffers
Hardly, and that's the crux of the problem: congresspeople work too cheap. It doesn't take billions of dollars to get the laws you want, only a few million, in many cases only a few hundred thousand, or even just a nice house. Maybe, if we raised the price of our elected officials into the billions, bribing them wouldn't be seen as so cost-effective. It would also be much harder for corporations to hide their "contributions" from their stockholders and campaign-finance regulators.
They'll be offline until they can prove to the court that they didn't do anything wrong.
That's not even the point. If you have a site that truly is criminal in nature (for example, a site that sells malware toolkits) and the court blocks access... well, maybe. Personally I don't the Feds should be blocking anything, period. But it gets worse, as others have pointed out. When you have a site that may host some infringing content but also has non-infringing content that qualifies as protected speech, now what do you do? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? I'm sure will begin to hear the "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" argument rear its ugly head in Washington, but this goes very much against our most cherished legal principles. And in any event I don't particularly care for omelets.
What are they going to do when everyone starts using offshore DNS servers? Using a different DNS server is trivial.
Besides, the Domain Name System is a convenience, a layer on top of the underlying packet-switched network. It's a lot tougher to globally block specific IP addresses. But in the end, the network works as well as it does, because DNS can be depended upon to work the same way, everywhere. I hate to say it, as an American (and because I really didn't want to believe that our leaders are, frankly, so fucking stupid) but I will accept that this kind of irrational "we run the Internet" mindset just makes us into a liability. DNS is a service that the United States (under the dubious auspices of Network Solutions and Verisign) have provided the world for free, and which has offered incalculable political and economic benefits for everyone. Why our leaders can't understand that, and realize that the trillions of dollars of raw economic value alone that the Internet has provided to date, far outweigh the needs of a couple of criminal cartels.
And, as you point out, switching to a different server is trivial (so long as your ISP hasn't been ordered to block such access) but the benefits of a centralized, coherent Domain Name System will be lost if everyone in the world begins setting up their own DNS clones.
These assholes are playing with fire. I hope they realize that.
Being blocked from accessing foreign websites (for any reason) is tantamount to censorship in my view.
Being blocked from accessing websites by government action is censorship, so far as First Amendment protections are concerned. That's what irritates the fuck out of me about all of this: if you couldn't block it from being published on traditional media, why do you think you have some special right to do so on the Internet. The Constitution doesn't specify what communications media are or are not deserving of protection, there's no clause saying, "Okay, anything that comes from a printing press is untouchable, but anything else is fair game." Listen up, Congress, time to start paying attention to the Founders. They were a hell of a lot smarter than all of you put together, and actually did have the best interests of the Union at heart. Keep that in mind, and meanwhile keep your mitts off our speech.
To take the work of others and then reproduce it and give that reproduction to others is NOT free speech.
Didn't say it was, and I think you took the wrong idea from my post. I'm rather sorry you spent so much effort trying to refute a point that I wasn't actually making.
The mere fact that our lawmakers could even propose such a law indicates that "speech" on the Internet is not considered the same as identical speech reproduced through more traditional (i.e., easily-controllable) means. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't be so cavalier about the collateral damage that will invariably be created by this stupid law.
Regardless of your stand on copyright and file-sharing issues, I hope you can understand one important point. From the "what's best for everyone" point of view, eliminating one of our most cherished Constitutionally-guaranteed rights from our most powerful communications medium, merely to protect the revenue streams of a half-dozen foreign-owned and operated corporations is a mistake, and one that is of not merely Biblical proportions.
The uncomfortable truth is that we've allowed these corporations to exert a very powerful, dangerous influence upon critical sectors of our legal system, and the only ones benefiting from it are like-minded litigious companies. Take the DMCA: it's been used to suppress all sorts of speech, ideas and technologies that were (ostensibly at least) never intended to come under its purview, yet did anyway. Do you really think that this law, which has infinitely greater disruptive power, won't be misused in a similar fashion?
Those of you who know me will remember that I've been defending my government's position regarding Internet governance for some time now, largely because that position has been, for the most part, hands-off. Specifically I'm talking about the Domain Name System. Now, what's astounding to me is that this kind of law can be tabled without the slightest thought for what the rest of the world is going to think. I'm starting to realize just how far out-of-touch with basic reality that Congress has become. Sorry guys, you don't own the Internet, we just have control over one critical subsystem, DNS. Other countries have allowed that to continue because we gave them no real reason to try and take it over, but this law will make us into a definite liability.
Talk about poking a stick into a nest of fire ants, this is just asking for trouble, both here and elsewhere.
People have been driving for over 50 years without having cell phones. If you think this is too heinous, then you're far too addicted to your phone.
-1000 Missed Point.
The belief that people should not communicate via cell phone while driving is not in dispute here. What is being is argued is that the Federal Government should not be in the dubious business of forcibly eliminating a communications channel used by millions of people, and that if they're going to do that, they'd better have a damn sight better justification.
If distracted driving is truly causing such an incredible amount of death and destruction as to warrant mandating jamming devices in every single automobile on the road... well, I'd say we have a much greater problem. That is, millions of human beings who are so incapable of exercising restraint and good judgment while operating a motor vehicle that they shouldn't really have been granted driver's licenses in the first place. That problem, however, would require far more intestinal fortitude that any politician would be capable of mustering, because everyone feels that they are, at worst, an average driver and that they are entitled to a driver's license even if they are a danger to themselves and others.
Fact is, distracted driving is a symptom of that larger problem, that of drivers who are poorly-trained and almost completely unaware of the consequences of their actions. These are members of the same drain-bamaged subset of the human species who were causing fatal accidents back when the horse and buggy ruled the road. You have to fix the people before you can fix the problem, and banning, nay jamming cellular communication is a band-aid at best, and as is typical with much high-profile safety-related regulation nowadays, it will cause as much harm as it prevents. The people responsible will never own up to that, of course.
I'm waiting for MADD to spin off MADD (Mother's Against Distracted Driving) and get another Constitutional Exception rammed through, so that our supposedly guaranteed due-process rights can be violated for simply using a cell phone. You laugh, but as of right now NHTSA inflates drunk-driving statistics by counting an accident as "alcohol-related" even if the driver was stone-cold sober, and you are essentially convicted by the cop as soon as you submit to a breathalyzer test. MADD uses those "numbers" to justify their near-fascist agenda, and if you think the same thing couldn't happen here you're fooling yourself, and in fact I'm thinking that this is exactly what this is all about: removing yet another cornerstone from the Constitution.
Stupid is as stupid does, and fascists never seem to understand that nobody likes them, and that we wish they would all just go away and die a painful, lonely death.
What has this got to do with Communism? I don't follow?
What has this got to do with Communism? I don't follow?
I think you understood his intent perfectly, as did I. He meant totalitarian, and the fact is all Communist states are totalitarians. For the purposes of this discussion it was sufficient.
You will end with a situation similar to Star Trek's teleporters. You are killing yourself and hopefully create something elsewhere that believes (for some definition of "believes", maybe behaves is a better approach for that) that is you. And you won't be exactly like before, as with teleporters, to have extra confidence.
In Caprica they were starting to explore the meaning of such thing and then the show got cancelled.
Yes, but if you're at the end of your existence anyway... and besides, you're assuming the ultimately implementation of such a technology would be inherently fatal to the original brain. That's not necessarily true.
Slashdot Mirror
Pay for it through auctioning off confiscated cell phones discovered through the service.
Just think for a minute how most of the cell phones were transported into the prisons and I think I might have found a flaw in your business plan...
That was a shitty thing to say.
I drive while talking on the cell phone all the time. I know the road like the back of my hand, and I keep a longer stopping distance to compensate for the extended reaction time. When I see vehicles encroaching on that stopping distance or changing lanes rapidly in front of me or braking, I say "hold on" and I switch my focus fully over to the road until road conditions improve.
That is exactly the argument that drink drivers always use.
Nay, they say "Officer, I can quit anytime!"
Okay, that's pretty much the same thing.
Or be's a passenger in a car. Thanks Amouth, now my wife won't be able to phone ahead to the hospital when I'm driving her there to give birth, smart thinking.
So you ask someone to phone the hospital before you start your journey. If she starts to go into labour, you'll have to stop the car anyway, so you can get out and ring up for further instructions.
It doesn't help to rationalize stupid lawmaking, I hear enough of that on television. And, since we're making up suppositions, let's further suppose that the GP has someone else in the car (say, his wife's sister or her best friend) and he doesn't have stop, but would still like to communicate with her physician. Look, this is not a rational, justifiable way to deal with the problem of "distracted driving" which is, when you get right down to it, a misnomer.
What you truly have (and this applies to drunken driving as well, if the driver isn't a true alcoholic or recidivist) is incompetent driving. People who make poor decisions before they get behind the wheel, and then compound their errors with more bad decisions after they get on the road. People that do not understand what they are doing, or the consequences of their actions. Do you really believe that the stupid fucks flying around at a thousand miles an hour with a cell phone jammed in their ears will magically become better drivers if you remove that one "distraction"? Of course not: the mere fact that they drive that way in the first place indicates that they have real issues with poor judgment, and removing the phone will not change that. Neither will big tickets: that's been pretty conclusively demonstrated as well. About the only thing that will help is proper training, but I can't see our government being willing to invest the funds. All that matters, as always, is that our leaders are seen to be "responding" to a serious "issue" with the voting public.
Whether that response is effective at dealing with the actual problem is irrelevant, and in this case I can guarantee it will cause a raft of other problems, also requiring a "response".
I wish they would just leave us alone.
it's arguably more retarded. however, both ideas are extremely retarded, so it's not even worth arguing.
Actually it's not since the phone's self-disabling could itself be disabled if the user is trying to call an emergency number (911 isn't the only such number).
I believe that hldn is correct. It's retarded, and to such a degree that it leads to me to believe that the elected officials responsible for it should undergo immediate psychological evaluation. Whether it be megalomania, ignorance, or just plain stupidity, they just clearly demonstrated that they are not qualified for any position of authority over the American people.
... and you are still inadequate! Still, just try getting a politician to deal with that, the fact that the State has allowed millions of sociopaths, bumblers and aggressive menaces to drive motor vehicles. Ha ... not in a million years. They want an easy fix.
Let's think about this for a moment, outside the realm of purely technological. Do you really want your cell phone, at the behest of the Federal Government and a few drain-bamaged Congressjerks, making the decision as to when you may, or may not, make a fucking phone call? Does this not define the term "nanny state"? Does the word "paternalism" mean anything to you?
My GOD, why are we even discussing this as if it were a rational, intelligent way to deal with what is, I agree, a real problem. A problem, I might add, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cellular phones, but everything to do with improperly-trained or otherwise unqualified drivers! This is just a patch at best, a band-aid, and a very, very poorly thought out one at that. Jamming all road-borne cellular devices will in no way compensate for a very simple fact: it's not the phone that's at fault, but the driver, and if you take away their phones, those drivers who can't handle the job will find other, equally dangerous ways to express their fundamental incompetence. Fact is, stupid people have been finding ways to use vehicular transport to cause death and destruction since the invention of the wheel.
If you're a danger to yourself and others, it's not the cell phone that makes you that way. The phone may, under certain conditions, amplify your own insufficiencies but take away the phone
About the only positive thing I can see coming out of something so abusive is that it would be very hard for some future OBD technology to use the cellular system to squeal on you. Unless, of course, it had the power to temporarily disable the jamming while it transmits the fact that your check engine light is on to the appropriate authorities.
The part that really sheds light is that the oft maligned leech, a blood sucking parasite, is far more likely to provide benefit to us than the *AA. The leech is also far less likely to damage the foundations of our government for the People.
Absolutely, and not only that, but the leech (unlike either of the American **AA organizations) will tend to lower one's blood pressure, and can even help prevent blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. If these "industry trade groups" could do that, I'd almost say they were worth keeping around. The thing is, just about every time I read an article about those little bloodsuckers my blood pressure goes up. So, not only are they a disaster from a legal, moral and ethical perspective, they're also a health risk for any American aware of the issues.
The leech can, at least when used therapeutically, can be considered more of a symbiote than a parasite, so in that sense I'd say my analogy breaks down. But leeches, useful as they can be in certain contexts, are still pretty gross.
And media companies and their mouthpieces are still bloodsuckers, no matter to what parasitic organism they are compared.
Postdata. I keep forgetting that its "PS" when writing english. Another slashdotter already explained below :)
I wasn't trying to be pedantic, and I gathered from context that it was probably equivalent to "post-script". I was just curious to know if it was a typo or a legitimate expression. Well, I learned something today.
Why would I ever buy a DVD? The last one I bought had a new idiotic 'mangled index' DRM scheme requiring me to get a patched dvd player to play it....
Until I get a workable online distribution system for movies I'll just spend my time doing something else.. Like playing games or *gasp* borrowing dvds from friends. Hell, here in Norway I'm legally allowed to make copies of media for close friends and family. DRM doesnt matter, I'm allowed to break it :D
So... fuck you RIAA and MPAA, I'm not giving you any more money until you cut this shit out.
Well, I wouldn't get too comfortable. Our Canadian friends used to think that way, until the media companies started pouring money and influence into their government. Believe me, if your country's people consume cartel-generated media, they'll eventually get around to you. My advice? Be ready for them.
Uh .. .what? The "grown-ups" (who I assume you do not number yourself among) have decided that more government intervention is better? Are you nuts? The question is not whether or not we need to reduce the size of Federal Government ... but what parts to cut.
Don't presume to speak for your betters.
Must...not...feed...the...trolls... Ah, hell, why not.
Don't you presume to speak for those of us who have actually thought about things, pal. Yes, we're right; you're wrong.
A cogent argument. Very well, I capitulate. Funny, I was the one who was feeding a troll, now that I think of it.
is is not about benefits. it is about control.
Yes, and the kind of "control" that these people are planning on instituting has effects far beyond the United States and its people. That's the fundamental problem here: the U.S.-centric thinking. Grishnakh, below, compared Congress to Kim Jong Il, he's not wrong in that sense, but it's not the same situation. NOBODY CARES if Kim Jong Il wants to screw around with whatever passes for Internet in his country. EVERYBODY cares when the U.S. does anything untoward with DNS, or even makes noises about doing so. In a way, it's the fault of other countries for making their economies just as depending upon the Internet and DNS as we have, but that's where we are.
So yes, I understand very clearly that our august Congress is composed largely of hypocritical, self-centered foolish people who think that the Universe revolves are them and their stupid decisions, but it does not. Not now, not ever, but the fact is that U.S.-based entities are responsible for all thirteen root servers, and a lot of people are (rightly or wrongly) very nervous about that. Congress, if it had even half of a functioning collective frontal lobe, would think long and hard before even proposing to screw with the roots.
The problem is, control of (or even perceived control of) the root servers is power, and while many people and governments around the world wouldn't care if our government is jerking us around, they will certainly see the writing on the wall, and will expect the Feds to eventually jerk them around too. It's inevitable: incrementalism at work, and our government is famous for it.
PD: another interesting matter is what would happen if someone would make an android version that runs apps that aren't compatible with other android versions because they don't fulfill the OHA criteria and/or tests. In that instance I'd say that isn't Android anymore and could not be regarded as such, even if it was a fork of it.
In which case maybe Google would sue that someone for dilution of trademark or other issues.
PS: What does "PD" mean?
I also wonder if Americans realise how much bad will they gained from British public in doing such a thing.
Just remember, it's this continent that is bearing the brunt of BP's corporate incompetence. So, you know, the ill will is, unfortunately, bi-lateral.
Do you really expect the founding fathers to have anticipated computing devices that can encrypt data?
And furthermore, there's a reason that the Founders didn't try to enumerate specific communications technologies: they figured (apparently incorrectly, given your statements) that we would be able to logically extend our legal system to accommodate new technology, without requiring the citizenry to give up hard-won civil liberties as enshrined in the Constitution. It looks like some people are just unable to grasp that "personal papers and effects" might, I mean, just might, include a personal computer, and that that would indeed be in the spirit of the Constitution.
Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that the Founding Fathers, if they were alive today, would consider a hard drive full of a citizen's personal and confidential files to be in any way less deserving of the same legal protections afforded someone's wallet or their file cabinet? Do you really? Or are you one of these people who believes that the government should have the right to snoop into anyone's private business, for any reason, because they might have something to hide?
Spare me. This artificial dichotomy that is being presented to us by the government, that the "Internet" and "computing" are so intrinsically different from printed materials that the Constitution some how magically doesn't apply is disingenuous at best, treasonous at worst.
The constitution is a set of principles, which laws are then written to implement
No, I'm pretty sure the Constitution is a set of rules, indeed an enumeration of what powers the Federal Government may have ... and which it may not. The rest of those powers are reserved for We the People. You should get used to the phrase "Congress Shall Make No Law ...". It will give you an idea that the Constitution is not, and was not ever, intended to be a mere set of "principles."
Your cavalier attitude towards the Supreme Law of our Land is a major part of why things have been going from bad to worse lately.
isn't this the outright manufacture of child porn?
You are being obtuse. Intent is 90% of the law. There is a clear and obvious difference between a security guard seeing an x-ray of someone naked while searching for weapons, and a person taking nude pictures for fun or profit. The law instructs judges to consider what a "reasonable person" would think of a situation.
You're being well, naive, I'm afraid. Yes, if the relevant laws and the Justice System were fully functional and rational regarding child pornography, you might well be correct. But they're not, you know that, in fact they've gone completely 'round the bend, friend. And let me ask you this: what's going to happen when a few hundred thousand of those images show up as torrents? You know it's going to happen: 90% of Slashdot will download them immediately, just to see what the fuss is all about. However, the companies that make those machines, and the ultimate culprit, the TSA itself, are not going to want to take the heat. But after all the hoo-rah the Feds have been making about child porn lately, they're going to have to be seen doing something.
... you have a machine capable of generating nude imagery of the public en masse, and then storing those pictures indefinitely. The ONLY thing that prevents them from being a liability are underpaid private-sector employees and a government organ that cannot be trusted, period, under any conditions.. Those pics are going to get out, sooner or later, and in fact they're already being improperly if not illegally stored.
This a serious cluster-fuck just waiting to happen. I mean, come on
They don't know what they want.
They say they're against regulation, but then they say they want some government interference.
Make up your mind already.
The grown-ups have already decided that more government intervention is better than less government intervention.
Uh .. .what? The "grown-ups" (who I assume you do not number yourself among) have decided that more government intervention is better? Are you nuts? The question is not whether or not we need to reduce the size of Federal Government ... but what parts to cut.
Don't presume to speak for your betters.
It's they who are pouring billions into campaign coffers
Hardly, and that's the crux of the problem: congresspeople work too cheap. It doesn't take billions of dollars to get the laws you want, only a few million, in many cases only a few hundred thousand, or even just a nice house. Maybe, if we raised the price of our elected officials into the billions, bribing them wouldn't be seen as so cost-effective. It would also be much harder for corporations to hide their "contributions" from their stockholders and campaign-finance regulators.
These morons never heard of FTP/SFTP, NNTP, Telnet, SSH or any of the older deprecated protocols.
They've never heard of an IP address.
They'll be offline until they can prove to the court that they didn't do anything wrong.
That's not even the point. If you have a site that truly is criminal in nature (for example, a site that sells malware toolkits) and the court blocks access ... well, maybe. Personally I don't the Feds should be blocking anything, period. But it gets worse, as others have pointed out. When you have a site that may host some infringing content but also has non-infringing content that qualifies as protected speech, now what do you do? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? I'm sure will begin to hear the "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" argument rear its ugly head in Washington, but this goes very much against our most cherished legal principles. And in any event I don't particularly care for omelets.
What are they going to do when everyone starts using offshore DNS servers? Using a different DNS server is trivial.
Besides, the Domain Name System is a convenience, a layer on top of the underlying packet-switched network. It's a lot tougher to globally block specific IP addresses. But in the end, the network works as well as it does, because DNS can be depended upon to work the same way, everywhere. I hate to say it, as an American (and because I really didn't want to believe that our leaders are, frankly, so fucking stupid) but I will accept that this kind of irrational "we run the Internet" mindset just makes us into a liability. DNS is a service that the United States (under the dubious auspices of Network Solutions and Verisign) have provided the world for free, and which has offered incalculable political and economic benefits for everyone. Why our leaders can't understand that, and realize that the trillions of dollars of raw economic value alone that the Internet has provided to date, far outweigh the needs of a couple of criminal cartels.
And, as you point out, switching to a different server is trivial (so long as your ISP hasn't been ordered to block such access) but the benefits of a centralized, coherent Domain Name System will be lost if everyone in the world begins setting up their own DNS clones.
These assholes are playing with fire. I hope they realize that.
Being blocked from accessing foreign websites (for any reason) is tantamount to censorship in my view.
Being blocked from accessing websites by government action is censorship, so far as First Amendment protections are concerned. That's what irritates the fuck out of me about all of this: if you couldn't block it from being published on traditional media, why do you think you have some special right to do so on the Internet. The Constitution doesn't specify what communications media are or are not deserving of protection, there's no clause saying, "Okay, anything that comes from a printing press is untouchable, but anything else is fair game." Listen up, Congress, time to start paying attention to the Founders. They were a hell of a lot smarter than all of you put together, and actually did have the best interests of the Union at heart. Keep that in mind, and meanwhile keep your mitts off our speech.
To take the work of others and then reproduce it and give that reproduction to others is NOT free speech.
Didn't say it was, and I think you took the wrong idea from my post. I'm rather sorry you spent so much effort trying to refute a point that I wasn't actually making.
The mere fact that our lawmakers could even propose such a law indicates that "speech" on the Internet is not considered the same as identical speech reproduced through more traditional (i.e., easily-controllable) means. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't be so cavalier about the collateral damage that will invariably be created by this stupid law.
Regardless of your stand on copyright and file-sharing issues, I hope you can understand one important point. From the "what's best for everyone" point of view, eliminating one of our most cherished Constitutionally-guaranteed rights from our most powerful communications medium, merely to protect the revenue streams of a half-dozen foreign-owned and operated corporations is a mistake, and one that is of not merely Biblical proportions.
The uncomfortable truth is that we've allowed these corporations to exert a very powerful, dangerous influence upon critical sectors of our legal system, and the only ones benefiting from it are like-minded litigious companies. Take the DMCA: it's been used to suppress all sorts of speech, ideas and technologies that were (ostensibly at least) never intended to come under its purview, yet did anyway. Do you really think that this law, which has infinitely greater disruptive power, won't be misused in a similar fashion?
Those of you who know me will remember that I've been defending my government's position regarding Internet governance for some time now, largely because that position has been, for the most part, hands-off. Specifically I'm talking about the Domain Name System. Now, what's astounding to me is that this kind of law can be tabled without the slightest thought for what the rest of the world is going to think. I'm starting to realize just how far out-of-touch with basic reality that Congress has become. Sorry guys, you don't own the Internet, we just have control over one critical subsystem, DNS. Other countries have allowed that to continue because we gave them no real reason to try and take it over, but this law will make us into a definite liability.
Talk about poking a stick into a nest of fire ants, this is just asking for trouble, both here and elsewhere.
Frankly, a much better use of some derivative of this technology would be to scan a human brain and map it into a computer space.
You are assuming that if you copy the brain's hardware onto a computer you will end up with something indistinguishable from the original person.
I will believe that when I see it.
Doesn't need to be "indistinguishable" to be useful, especially if we're talking about government employees.
People have been driving for over 50 years without having cell phones. If you think this is too heinous, then you're far too addicted to your phone.
-1000 Missed Point.
... well, I'd say we have a much greater problem. That is, millions of human beings who are so incapable of exercising restraint and good judgment while operating a motor vehicle that they shouldn't really have been granted driver's licenses in the first place. That problem, however, would require far more intestinal fortitude that any politician would be capable of mustering, because everyone feels that they are, at worst, an average driver and that they are entitled to a driver's license even if they are a danger to themselves and others.
The belief that people should not communicate via cell phone while driving is not in dispute here. What is being is argued is that the Federal Government should not be in the dubious business of forcibly eliminating a communications channel used by millions of people, and that if they're going to do that, they'd better have a damn sight better justification.
If distracted driving is truly causing such an incredible amount of death and destruction as to warrant mandating jamming devices in every single automobile on the road
Fact is, distracted driving is a symptom of that larger problem, that of drivers who are poorly-trained and almost completely unaware of the consequences of their actions. These are members of the same drain-bamaged subset of the human species who were causing fatal accidents back when the horse and buggy ruled the road. You have to fix the people before you can fix the problem, and banning, nay jamming cellular communication is a band-aid at best, and as is typical with much high-profile safety-related regulation nowadays, it will cause as much harm as it prevents. The people responsible will never own up to that, of course.
I'm waiting for MADD to spin off MADD (Mother's Against Distracted Driving) and get another Constitutional Exception rammed through, so that our supposedly guaranteed due-process rights can be violated for simply using a cell phone. You laugh, but as of right now NHTSA inflates drunk-driving statistics by counting an accident as "alcohol-related" even if the driver was stone-cold sober, and you are essentially convicted by the cop as soon as you submit to a breathalyzer test. MADD uses those "numbers" to justify their near-fascist agenda, and if you think the same thing couldn't happen here you're fooling yourself, and in fact I'm thinking that this is exactly what this is all about: removing yet another cornerstone from the Constitution.
Stupid is as stupid does, and fascists never seem to understand that nobody likes them, and that we wish they would all just go away and die a painful, lonely death.
What has this got to do with Communism? I don't follow?
What has this got to do with Communism? I don't follow?
I think you understood his intent perfectly, as did I. He meant totalitarian, and the fact is all Communist states are totalitarians. For the purposes of this discussion it was sufficient.
You will end with a situation similar to Star Trek's teleporters. You are killing yourself and hopefully create something elsewhere that believes (for some definition of "believes", maybe behaves is a better approach for that) that is you. And you won't be exactly like before, as with teleporters, to have extra confidence. In Caprica they were starting to explore the meaning of such thing and then the show got cancelled.
Yes, but if you're at the end of your existence anyway ... and besides, you're assuming the ultimately implementation of such a technology would be inherently fatal to the original brain. That's not necessarily true.