If you're white, educated and already rich, come on in (can you believe that our main source of immigrants is still the UK!?). If you're downtrodden, 'ethnic' or otherwise disabled then try New Zealand:)
...ahem, I mean 'aspirations'. If people decide that their next car will be cheaper, they won't care about the loss of freedom that this deal implies. They won't even give it another thought. If only Australians could get their minds out of their wallets and think about something that actually matters... I mean, look at the most popular shows on tv - home improvement, auctions, win a million dollars, 'lifestyle' programs... I think I'll move to Europe.
Even stranger, it seems that if gays are prevented from marrying they will somehow start having children and get the birth rate up. Of course, at the same time we deny access to reproductive technologies that would allow gays to have kids.
Fuck, are people really this easily manipulated? The best thing that could happen to Australia is if something happens to Howard and he has to step down. I can't take another 3 years...
I work for a Federal Senator, and I *BEG* any Australians reading this to write to their Member of Parliament, Senator and local newspaper to raise awareness of the issues relating to IP laws in this deal.
Australians are extremely apathetic about politics and most of you probably believe that writing to an MP will have no effect, but I assure you that we read everything that comes in and the Senator reads everything personally too. It only takes a few letters to make a real difference.
They say for each letter written to a newspaper there are 30,000 people with the same opinion who don't bother to write. Don't be one of them.
Focus your letter writing on: - the Democrats - the National Party - the ALP
The government is too tightly controlling of its members for anyone to break ranks, except maybe the nationals. The Democrats are probably the most important players, and the Greens are unlikely to deal on this and the ALP will make a strategic decision.
But a significant part of Europe's copyright is the notion that the original creator cannot be entirely stripped of their rights. This seems to me to be a better mechanism for copyright - IP should not just be a commodity, but represents the effort of creation (rather than 'promotion' or 'acquisition').
I would say the problem is American big business, plain and simple.
There is very little chance of the constitution stopping this, because the government can use the external affairs power to implement anything that is explicitly enumerated in a treaty with a foreign power.
More likely is that there will be problems actually implementing the terms of the deal - just signing it has little effect at law in Australia, at best it may make the deal a 'guide' for decision making in the government. To actually have an effect, though, the terms of the treaty must be passed by Parliament, and fortunately the upper house is rarely controlled by the government in this country. I would say that parts of this deal may be shot down by the Senate - but it will mainly hinge on politicking, rather than the actual terms of the deal.
For example, religious freedom. The right to vote. A right against imprisonment without trial except in exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, there is clear scope for significant implied rights, and the High Court has worked hard to uncover these, including limited freedom of speech.
What we don't have are clearly enumerated human rights. And that is what we need, even if they're legislative rather than constitutional.
Actually, this has been enforced before, have a look on Austlii if you're interested. There's a High Court case from about 20 years ago where a guy was prosecuted for encouraging people to donkey vote by placing the major parties equal last on the ballot - this was deemed to be illegal and he lost the case.
Personally I think it is a disgrace to force people to vote for a major party. We basically have a mandated two-party system.
We do have disturbingly bad copyright laws. The same goes for libel/slander and a number of other areas.
As I see it (as a lawyer), the key to this problem is that Australia was formed in peacetime by a group of what were essentially businessmen, or at least people mainly concerned with business and commerce. As such there is virtually nothing in our constitution, or our mentality, to protect the individual from the government. It was essentially left to the parliament to do whatever was deemed necessary in these respects - as the ASIO Bill and similar have shown, this is something far too important to be left to politicians.
IMHO, Australia is in a lot more danger than the US of succumbing to the parental state, not 1984 but definitely Brave New World-ish. People here just don't give a shit, and when it comes down to it it is the acquiescence of the general public that allows governments to behave in an authoritarian manner.
So what happens if, say, a device on which you have placed your music is stolen/broken/dies? Can you somehow convince iTunes to give you your licence back? I'm guessing it's not as easy as asking it nicely.
While everyone hoots and honks about the DRM on Napster/Microsoft/Evil Company X, isn't it also true that those nice-guys-in-turtlenecks at iApple have also put iDRM on iTunes? I mean, they have some sort of computer-locking mechanism, don't they, that means you can't just make copies of music you buy on-line but rather have to use it on a restricted number of machines?
In a way, Apple might really hurt on-line music - they are funding themselves with iPod sales whilst breaking approximately even on music, so they don't really give a damn whether their pure music business model is competitive or realistic - it's a loss leader. Kinda makes it hard for others to break into the market, and makes it hard for anyone to buck the RIAA's royalty harness if Apple's gonna sit there and pump millions of dollars in royalties directly into the studio's veins. I feel a little more skepticism is in order, and a little less of people writing iT|\/|s or whatever the hell that stupid thing is.
I believe the difference in business model is this:
Napster ------- 1. Set up music system with unrealistic price structure due to being the RIAA's gimp 2. ??? 3. Loss!
Apple ----- 1. Set up music system with unrealistic price structure due to being the RIAA's gimp but wear black turtleneck and pretend to be 'the good guy' 2. ??? 3. Profit!
Re:They did (implicitly) encode a right to privacy
on
The Trouble with RFID
·
· Score: 1
Well, at least the supreme court of late has been on a bit of a states' rights march, gradually rolling back assumptions about federal jurisdiction. It will be interesting to see the direction that the court takes when there are a couple of new appointees... despite all the hubbub about abortion, executions etc., this issue is probably of more fundamental importance to the powerful men in Washington.
Even if the attacker can see, say, that 10 ports that are open for knocking, you still have a huge number of combinations available for port knocking, and there's nothing stopping you using a 30-digit combination, or indeed as many digits as you want. Although it is slightly worse than if they could see nothing at all, it's still the equivalent of someone being able to see the numbers on an electronic keypad lock - it doesn't reveal the code, just the range of numbers included in the code.
I would be more worried about someone figuring out a way to sniff out rejection packets - if you could catch them in order you could work out the combination in a snap.
Another popular myth is that the GC is the 'slowest' console around, or at least significantly worse than the X-Box.
In fact, although the XB has faster core processor speeds, the GC has a much higher pixel fill rate, better sound processing (PLII rather than 5.1), a comparable amount of memory and much better multi-texturing and anti-aliasing capabilities, thanks to running on an ATi graphics processor. Plus the GC is in a tiny little box, which has got to count for something in a world where people are constantly building super-micro-mini-ATX PC systems. The X-Box has a faster (although different instruction set) processor, and a faster GPU. It pushes more polygons but less textures per second.
If in doubt, you should try playing games that are available on both platforms, e.g. various sport games. In many cases the GC will look as good or better with the same game, especially if there is heavy texture work involved. Of course the PS2 leaves them both in the dirt for sales, despite being relatively technically puny.
Um... actually if you read the post there is no mention of what you are saying. The post specifically discusses the fact that if the Chinese make their own distro, they will be able to install backdoors in it. The apparent suggestion is that they shouldn't be allowed to make their own distro for this reason.
I was for removing Hussein from power. Even back when the US was one of his major backers. You know, late 1990. I was opposed to attacking Iraq on the basis of lies. The rationale for war was WMDs, and there was no good evidence then and no good evidence now that they existed or that there was any threat whatsoever. Don't rewrite history.
Show me one non-moslem country where the US is planning to launch a major military intervention to remove an 'evil dictator' and free the peace loving villagers. There are plenty to choose from, after all.
Governments would certainly struggle to be oppressive without technology. It's hard to oppress the massess without guns, spying machinery and propaganda. I have a feeling the Chinese government would lose control if they tried punching people, reading the gossip columns and word of mouth instead of using the technologically superior equivalents.
I think ultimately this is not a black or white issue. The whole question of human rights is so multi-faceted that I don't think you can totally blame or exonerate anyone who deals with China indirectly in these circumstances. Of course the final responsibility is with the Chinese, but does that mean that those who aid them, knowingly or not, are totally blameless?
IBM did actually sell technology to the Germans which was used to keep track of Jews. It wasn't modern computer technology, jerkface, it was mechanical data management equipment.
Oh, oh, however did the Chinese build the abacus without vaccuum tubes? Idiot.
Incidentally, if the golf club manufacturer sells the clubs directly to the interior ministry's hit squads do you still think that they are without responsibility?
Hmm... a post about RealPlayer in a discussion about RealPlayer... that's REALLY offtopic. What was I thinking. Fuckin mods... if I had my gun I'd show them...[mutters]
I'm a current member, and you are correct regarding their policies to the best of my knowledge. There is a very strong emphasis on individual human rights, particularly due process, presumption of innocence and the elimination of all torture and use of the death penalty.
I am staggered when people can look at an organisation like AI and react in a hostile manner. It's like saying you hate sunbeams, puppy dogs and rainbows, for god's sake. They have no ulterior motives, they have no shadowy interests, they aren't selling anything. They are a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to protecting the most basic rights of every human on the planet, including the inhabitents of the western world.
They are not anti-trade. They are not anti-sovereignty. They are not anti-business. They are simply anti-violations of human rights, that's pretty much it. Anyone who directly or indirectly contributes to such violations is therefore highlighted as part of their efforts to bring problems to the attention of the world.
Incidentally, I don't think anyone who says Amnesty 'doesn't propose any solutions' is thinking about it very hard. I can propose a generic solution: stop violating human rights. It's really not that hard to implement:
Gradually a fair bit has happened. Not least of which is the hit to Nike's reputation, and the fact that people like you know about it.
Overnight revolutions are a rare thing... gradual changes in perceptions and attitudes are far more common and likely to be successful. In another decade or so sustained, gradual pressure might cause all manner of changes to corporate behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it makes a nice change to Australia.
:)
If you're white, educated and already rich, come on in (can you believe that our main source of immigrants is still the UK!?).
If you're downtrodden, 'ethnic' or otherwise disabled then try New Zealand
...ahem, I mean 'aspirations'. If people decide that their next car will be cheaper, they won't care about the loss of freedom that this deal implies. They won't even give it another thought. If only Australians could get their minds out of their wallets and think about something that actually matters... I mean, look at the most popular shows on tv - home improvement, auctions, win a million dollars, 'lifestyle' programs... I think I'll move to Europe.
Even stranger, it seems that if gays are prevented from marrying they will somehow start having children and get the birth rate up. Of course, at the same time we deny access to reproductive technologies that would allow gays to have kids.
Fuck, are people really this easily manipulated? The best thing that could happen to Australia is if something happens to Howard and he has to step down. I can't take another 3 years...
I work for a Federal Senator, and I *BEG* any Australians reading this to write to their Member of Parliament, Senator and local newspaper to raise awareness of the issues relating to IP laws in this deal.
Australians are extremely apathetic about politics and most of you probably believe that writing to an MP will have no effect, but I assure you that we read everything that comes in and the Senator reads everything personally too. It only takes a few letters to make a real difference.
They say for each letter written to a newspaper there are 30,000 people with the same opinion who don't bother to write. Don't be one of them.
Focus your letter writing on:
- the Democrats
- the National Party
- the ALP
The government is too tightly controlling of its members for anyone to break ranks, except maybe the nationals. The Democrats are probably the most important players, and the Greens are unlikely to deal on this and the ALP will make a strategic decision.
But a significant part of Europe's copyright is the notion that the original creator cannot be entirely stripped of their rights. This seems to me to be a better mechanism for copyright - IP should not just be a commodity, but represents the effort of creation (rather than 'promotion' or 'acquisition').
I would say the problem is American big business, plain and simple.
There is very little chance of the constitution stopping this, because the government can use the external affairs power to implement anything that is explicitly enumerated in a treaty with a foreign power.
More likely is that there will be problems actually implementing the terms of the deal - just signing it has little effect at law in Australia, at best it may make the deal a 'guide' for decision making in the government. To actually have an effect, though, the terms of the treaty must be passed by Parliament, and fortunately the upper house is rarely controlled by the government in this country. I would say that parts of this deal may be shot down by the Senate - but it will mainly hinge on politicking, rather than the actual terms of the deal.
For example, religious freedom. The right to vote. A right against imprisonment without trial except in exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, there is clear scope for significant implied rights, and the High Court has worked hard to uncover these, including limited freedom of speech.
What we don't have are clearly enumerated human rights. And that is what we need, even if they're legislative rather than constitutional.
Actually, this has been enforced before, have a look on Austlii if you're interested. There's a High Court case from about 20 years ago where a guy was prosecuted for encouraging people to donkey vote by placing the major parties equal last on the ballot - this was deemed to be illegal and he lost the case.
Personally I think it is a disgrace to force people to vote for a major party. We basically have a mandated two-party system.
We do have disturbingly bad copyright laws. The same goes for libel/slander and a number of other areas.
As I see it (as a lawyer), the key to this problem is that Australia was formed in peacetime by a group of what were essentially businessmen, or at least people mainly concerned with business and commerce. As such there is virtually nothing in our constitution, or our mentality, to protect the individual from the government. It was essentially left to the parliament to do whatever was deemed necessary in these respects - as the ASIO Bill and similar have shown, this is something far too important to be left to politicians.
IMHO, Australia is in a lot more danger than the US of succumbing to the parental state, not 1984 but definitely Brave New World-ish. People here just don't give a shit, and when it comes down to it it is the acquiescence of the general public that allows governments to behave in an authoritarian manner.
It's very depressing.
So what happens if, say, a device on which you have placed your music is stolen/broken/dies? Can you somehow convince iTunes to give you your licence back? I'm guessing it's not as easy as asking it nicely.
While everyone hoots and honks about the DRM on Napster/Microsoft/Evil Company X, isn't it also true that those nice-guys-in-turtlenecks at iApple have also put iDRM on iTunes? I mean, they have some sort of computer-locking mechanism, don't they, that means you can't just make copies of music you buy on-line but rather have to use it on a restricted number of machines?
In a way, Apple might really hurt on-line music - they are funding themselves with iPod sales whilst breaking approximately even on music, so they don't really give a damn whether their pure music business model is competitive or realistic - it's a loss leader. Kinda makes it hard for others to break into the market, and makes it hard for anyone to buck the RIAA's royalty harness if Apple's gonna sit there and pump millions of dollars in royalties directly into the studio's veins. I feel a little more skepticism is in order, and a little less of people writing iT|\/|s or whatever the hell that stupid thing is.
I believe the difference in business model is this:
Napster
-------
1. Set up music system with unrealistic price structure due to being the RIAA's gimp
2. ???
3. Loss!
Apple
-----
1. Set up music system with unrealistic price structure due to being the RIAA's gimp but wear black turtleneck and pretend to be 'the good guy'
2. ???
3. Profit!
Well, at least the supreme court of late has been on a bit of a states' rights march, gradually rolling back assumptions about federal jurisdiction. It will be interesting to see the direction that the court takes when there are a couple of new appointees... despite all the hubbub about abortion, executions etc., this issue is probably of more fundamental importance to the powerful men in Washington.
Even if the attacker can see, say, that 10 ports that are open for knocking, you still have a huge number of combinations available for port knocking, and there's nothing stopping you using a 30-digit combination, or indeed as many digits as you want. Although it is slightly worse than if they could see nothing at all, it's still the equivalent of someone being able to see the numbers on an electronic keypad lock - it doesn't reveal the code, just the range of numbers included in the code.
I would be more worried about someone figuring out a way to sniff out rejection packets - if you could catch them in order you could work out the combination in a snap.
Another popular myth is that the GC is the 'slowest' console around, or at least significantly worse than the X-Box.
In fact, although the XB has faster core processor speeds, the GC has a much higher pixel fill rate, better sound processing (PLII rather than 5.1), a comparable amount of memory and much better multi-texturing and anti-aliasing capabilities, thanks to running on an ATi graphics processor. Plus the GC is in a tiny little box, which has got to count for something in a world where people are constantly building super-micro-mini-ATX PC systems. The X-Box has a faster (although different instruction set) processor, and a faster GPU. It pushes more polygons but less textures per second.
If in doubt, you should try playing games that are available on both platforms, e.g. various sport games. In many cases the GC will look as good or better with the same game, especially if there is heavy texture work involved. Of course the PS2 leaves them both in the dirt for sales, despite being relatively technically puny.
Um... actually if you read the post there is no mention of what you are saying. The post specifically discusses the fact that if the Chinese make their own distro, they will be able to install backdoors in it. The apparent suggestion is that they shouldn't be allowed to make their own distro for this reason.
Dumbass. Fuck.
Just search for some stats on number of executions per year. USA is 4th.
I was for removing Hussein from power. Even back when the US was one of his major backers. You know, late 1990. I was opposed to attacking Iraq on the basis of lies. The rationale for war was WMDs, and there was no good evidence then and no good evidence now that they existed or that there was any threat whatsoever. Don't rewrite history.
Show me one non-moslem country where the US is planning to launch a major military intervention to remove an 'evil dictator' and free the peace loving villagers. There are plenty to choose from, after all.
Yeah, best if we all stick to US hegemony, right?
I mean, who knows what an unscrupulous country could get up to if it used non-American made technology...
Governments would certainly struggle to be oppressive without technology. It's hard to oppress the massess without guns, spying machinery and propaganda. I have a feeling the Chinese government would lose control if they tried punching people, reading the gossip columns and word of mouth instead of using the technologically superior equivalents.
I think ultimately this is not a black or white issue. The whole question of human rights is so multi-faceted that I don't think you can totally blame or exonerate anyone who deals with China indirectly in these circumstances. Of course the final responsibility is with the Chinese, but does that mean that those who aid them, knowingly or not, are totally blameless?
IBM did actually sell technology to the Germans which was used to keep track of Jews. It wasn't modern computer technology, jerkface, it was mechanical data management equipment.
Oh, oh, however did the Chinese build the abacus without vaccuum tubes? Idiot.
From dictionary.com:
:P
"Should
1. Used to express obligation or duty"
You're right, YANAL.
Incidentally, if the golf club manufacturer sells the clubs directly to the interior ministry's hit squads do you still think that they are without responsibility?
Hmm... a post about RealPlayer in a discussion about RealPlayer... that's REALLY offtopic. What was I thinking. Fuckin mods... if I had my gun I'd show them...[mutters]
I'm a current member, and you are correct regarding their policies to the best of my knowledge. There is a very strong emphasis on individual human rights, particularly due process, presumption of innocence and the elimination of all torture and use of the death penalty.
I am staggered when people can look at an organisation like AI and react in a hostile manner. It's like saying you hate sunbeams, puppy dogs and rainbows, for god's sake. They have no ulterior motives, they have no shadowy interests, they aren't selling anything. They are a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to protecting the most basic rights of every human on the planet, including the inhabitents of the western world.
They are not anti-trade. They are not anti-sovereignty. They are not anti-business. They are simply anti-violations of human rights, that's pretty much it. Anyone who directly or indirectly contributes to such violations is therefore highlighted as part of their efforts to bring problems to the attention of the world.
Incidentally, I don't think anyone who says Amnesty 'doesn't propose any solutions' is thinking about it very hard. I can propose a generic solution: stop violating human rights. It's really not that hard to implement:
1. Stop violating human rights
2. ???
3. Profit!
Show me *anyone* other than the Chinese who would complain if Microsoft refused to sell China censorship tools.
You can set up a straw man and then disagree with it, but it doesn't really prove anything.
Gradually a fair bit has happened. Not least of which is the hit to Nike's reputation, and the fact that people like you know about it.
Overnight revolutions are a rare thing... gradual changes in perceptions and attitudes are far more common and likely to be successful. In another decade or so sustained, gradual pressure might cause all manner of changes to corporate behaviour.