plateauing at a level where they can afford everything they want to consume,"
There is no such plateau. Right now, I want a private jet. Really. And if I get that, I want my own planet, too. And a star. I can't get those, but I want them. And if I get all that, then I want love. There is no limit to what people want.
The Soviet Union had rooms full of people trying to calculate these things and build the correct amounts, etc, but it's not just a linear equation, it's a linear equation where the variables (constants, actually) change, new variables appear, and old ones disappear; and even the target goals can change.
This is one of those things that sounds good on paper.....as long as you simplify and ignore enough things. It's like taking physics 101 and saying, "motion is easy to model, you just need to know the coefficient of friction."
Incidentally, a lot of "security" consultants use this trick.....they set up a fake wireless access point in an office, and when a lot of people accidentally connect to it, thy sniff some passwords. After that, they show it to the boss and say, "look how insecure you are!" The boss is shocked and they send a bill, even though they've done nearly nothing.
If they're a level up, they might have an automated Metasploit script to throw at servers.
That is not being a moron. There is no way to be sure that a particular SSID belongs to who it claims (unless you do some kind of certificate exchange).
Here's the section from the speech, notice the reactions from the crowd, too. Trump says the letters "LGBTQ" rather awkwardly, but he also opposed the bathroom bills in Carolina, for example. Whether he is or not, being "anti-gay" is a losing proposition for a national politician these days, so he has to at least pretend he is in favor.
Jim Webb is basically a Republican in the Democrat party. He is heavily focused on process and protocol, but those aren't going to solve the problems of the nation.
The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate.
Anyone who knows about super-delegates knows that's not the case.
The concept of gerrymandering wouldn't exist and wouldn't work if most people were actually independent and voted along anything other than party lines.
Because people have it worse than you, you can't have criticism?
You can always criticize, everyone has free speech. Just be aware that in some cases, you'll seem like a whiny little brat. This might be because you are.
Verizon recently bought AOL, too. Verizon's goal is to build a video ad network that rivals Google's and Facebook's. So now if you ever had an account at Yahoo or AOL (or Huffington Post or any of the other numerous web properties owned by AOL), Verizon has your info too. And they can sell it to advertisers, and combine it with your phone account information.
So, for the sake of fleshing that out, can you tell me how exactly does DRM prevent people from expressing themselves?
The complaint gives some practical examples:
*) If you want to check a TPM for malicious software, you can't do that.
*) If you want to change mobile carriers, you can't do that
*) If you want to use a portion of DRM proctected film in your own film (as part of a narrative etc), you can't do that
*) Format shifting is not prevented
*) Matthew Green is a security researcher, and has written books on the topic. He wants to research vulnerabilities in medical devices, but can't do so because of the DMCA.
*) The complaint alleges that numerous times, such research has been prevented by lawsuits (although it doesn't enumerate them here, that isn't required in a complaint)
*) These lawsuits prevent Green from writing a book telling other people how to do this kind of research
*) Bunny wants to decrypt the HDMI signal. They gave many examples, but here is one that gives the flavor: you could decrypt the signal, overlay live commentary text from a blogger live-blogging the event, then send the signal on to the TV. Right now that is illegal.
It's worth mentioning that the DMCA has a provision for "fair use" sorts of things, which is that the library of congress (every three years) will review what you want to do, and then approve it or disapprove it. So they had to wait until the Library of Congress actually met, and then disapproved something that is quite reasonable and likely to win a case.
So finally, in 2015, the Library of Congress met and rejected certain things that seem quite reasonable and defensible under the first amendment. In response, the EFF is not only asking that those things be approved, but also that the entire "Library of Congress as gatekeeper" thing be ruled unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
plateauing at a level where they can afford everything they want to consume,"
There is no such plateau. Right now, I want a private jet. Really. And if I get that, I want my own planet, too. And a star. I can't get those, but I want them. And if I get all that, then I want love. There is no limit to what people want.
The Soviet Union had rooms full of people trying to calculate these things and build the correct amounts, etc, but it's not just a linear equation, it's a linear equation where the variables (constants, actually) change, new variables appear, and old ones disappear; and even the target goals can change.
This is one of those things that sounds good on paper.....as long as you simplify and ignore enough things. It's like taking physics 101 and saying, "motion is easy to model, you just need to know the coefficient of friction."
Incidentally, a lot of "security" consultants use this trick.....they set up a fake wireless access point in an office, and when a lot of people accidentally connect to it, thy sniff some passwords. After that, they show it to the boss and say, "look how insecure you are!" The boss is shocked and they send a bill, even though they've done nearly nothing.
If they're a level up, they might have an automated Metasploit script to throw at servers.
That is not being a moron. There is no way to be sure that a particular SSID belongs to who it claims (unless you do some kind of certificate exchange).
Milktoast centrist put in vice president status. Courage required: 0
Hillary doesn't need to make a display of courage. She wins: that is what matters.
Here's the section from the speech, notice the reactions from the crowd, too. Trump says the letters "LGBTQ" rather awkwardly, but he also opposed the bathroom bills in Carolina, for example. Whether he is or not, being "anti-gay" is a losing proposition for a national politician these days, so he has to at least pretend he is in favor.
I don't know why people fail to understand the problem with immigration isn't the people who legally come here to work.
A bunch of people complaining about H1B visas (or Indians right before claiming it's not racism) all are worried about legals.
Nope, "first world problems" are actually important and should be respected more.
Respected more? Brown people's problems don't matter as much to you, I guess. What a great human being you are, you deserve so much. :/
So you're voting for Hillary.
Maybe he favors Hillary over Trump. Did you think of that?
Mike Pence has some good lines too.
Their last reasonable prospect was Jim Webb
Jim Webb is basically a Republican in the Democrat party. He is heavily focused on process and protocol, but those aren't going to solve the problems of the nation.
Dilbert called it
Home is where you don't have to explain yourself.
Interesting thought.
The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate.
Anyone who knows about super-delegates knows that's not the case.
anti-abortion.......pro-Putin
Really?? (overall he's kind of a weird mix, tbh)
The concept of gerrymandering wouldn't exist and wouldn't work if most people were actually independent and voted along anything other than party lines.
That's a really good point.
Because people have it worse than you, you can't have criticism?
You can always criticize, everyone has free speech. Just be aware that in some cases, you'll seem like a whiny little brat. This might be because you are.
Verizon recently bought AOL, too. Verizon's goal is to build a video ad network that rivals Google's and Facebook's. So now if you ever had an account at Yahoo or AOL (or Huffington Post or any of the other numerous web properties owned by AOL), Verizon has your info too. And they can sell it to advertisers, and combine it with your phone account information.
Nah, things can only get better or stay the same. It won't be like Oracle vs Google where copyright law will be basically written from thin air.
a court that finds things Constitutional or not based on what corporations want
tbh I don't think that's true for the supreme court.....or for most lower courts either. It's not like they need to win a re-election.
Really though that's been capable of web access for almost as long as the web's existed
This video clip from your link is kind of great
Wonder if they have anything to do with Betamax
I found out lol, it's the company owned by Bunny.
So, for the sake of fleshing that out, can you tell me how exactly does DRM prevent people from expressing themselves?
The complaint gives some practical examples:
*) If you want to check a TPM for malicious software, you can't do that.
*) If you want to change mobile carriers, you can't do that
*) If you want to use a portion of DRM proctected film in your own film (as part of a narrative etc), you can't do that
*) Format shifting is not prevented
*) Matthew Green is a security researcher, and has written books on the topic. He wants to research vulnerabilities in medical devices, but can't do so because of the DMCA.
*) The complaint alleges that numerous times, such research has been prevented by lawsuits (although it doesn't enumerate them here, that isn't required in a complaint)
*) These lawsuits prevent Green from writing a book telling other people how to do this kind of research
*) Bunny wants to decrypt the HDMI signal. They gave many examples, but here is one that gives the flavor: you could decrypt the signal, overlay live commentary text from a blogger live-blogging the event, then send the signal on to the TV. Right now that is illegal.
It's worth mentioning that the DMCA has a provision for "fair use" sorts of things, which is that the library of congress (every three years) will review what you want to do, and then approve it or disapprove it. So they had to wait until the Library of Congress actually met, and then disapproved something that is quite reasonable and likely to win a case.
So finally, in 2015, the Library of Congress met and rejected certain things that seem quite reasonable and defensible under the first amendment. In response, the EFF is not only asking that those things be approved, but also that the entire "Library of Congress as gatekeeper" thing be ruled unconstitutional.