I imagine the idea is that smaller companies will just pay up because it's cheaper than fighting it.
Either that, or they're shooting for a number of small victories to help buttress the arguments against a future giant with a load of small precedences.
Unfortunately, they are apparently operating on the assumption that these smaller companies exist in a communication free environment, and that they wouldn't dare discuss the case with anyone else in the world. This shows a SCO level of ignorance that alone should be enough to get the entire board of Channel Intelligence fired.
As the article notes, there's a ton of large companies like Amazon that use such wish lists, and it might be in their best interest to sign on to any litigation with an amicus brief in favor of stomping the shit out of Channel Intelligence on principle alone. At the very least, it would send a very strong signal to any other dumbasses contemplating similar moves.
For me, there was really only one point in the film where I wish the writing had been better
During the "social experiment" with the ferries, you'd think there would have been a livelier debate amongst the "normal" passengers over the fates of the "criminal" passengers. Surely there would have been someone to stand up and make the point that, just because the other ferry was full of criminals, they ["normal" society] had no right to condemn them to death.
That could have been a much livelier and more interesting sociological debate than just the collection of votes. I would have loved to have seen that explored more thoroughly.
As an aside though, how many of you were thinking the remotes were actually for the ships they were on?
Politicians rarely write these big laws. They're written by special interests and given to their own bought & paid for congressmen to pass.
So, come election day, keep this thought in mind and ask yourself do you want to see this sorry state of affairs persist, or do you want change?
I've proposed it before, and I'll do so again. Congress has an approval rating in the single digits. They have demonstrated time and again, by actions both active and passive that they are the real threat to our freedoms. This applies equally to either party.
The solution is simple: Remove the incumbents.
Keep your party affiliations, if that's what's important to you, but clean house all the same. And let it be known that if conditions do not change immediately, the process will repeat until the lesson is learned.
Ok, think of the/. effect. Now take that on almost any website who's servers aren't as strong.
It's not just server strength or robustness that's affected, it's bandwidth consumption, which is especially disturbing for smaller sites that pay per traffic. AVG is eating bandwidth, and site owners are eating charges.
Don't forget about all those clauses to the effect of (emphasis mine):
We reserve the right to update this policy at any time and to notify you, the customer, by making changes to this web page.
It's perfectly legal, but what if they change the terms for say, one hour, sell their entire customer database, then change it back? Unless you're refreshing that page 24-7, you will be screwed. Remember when Yahoo did this?
Ponemon notes that despite their differences, the two groups [marketeers and privacy officials] tend to agree about the privacy value of another kind of information: their own. Ninety-three percent of marketers and 99% of privacy officers surveyed said their own privacy was "an important personal issue."
Translation:
"I don't give a shit about my customer's privacy, but nobody better ever fuck with mine.
looks like all us "four-eyes" are going to have an extra modicum of privacy.
Naw, you'll just get put on the terror list first.
Think about it. You wear glasses because you are correcting your vision, possibly because you enjoy reading. While reading, you might be exposed to materials that are critical of plans to implement things such as iris scanners. Reading these critiques might cause you to begin thinking the government maybe exceeded its authority.
This kind of "thinking" is a strict no-no. True patriots never question; they obey.
I've seen plenty of coverage on this, but no technical details on how it would actually be implemented beyond there being a mysterious "box" at the ISP. Is it, or will it be, possible to block or restrict this device from tampering with traffic? Or are we pretty much at the mercy of the providers here?
You might want to read this article over at the Register.
Over at Telco 2.0, the blog of analysts STL Partners, we learn that networks who partner with Apple must install Apple gear at the data centre to support its services - specifically, the Push Notification service that wakes up the Jesus Phone. Forget the revenues from sales of extra server gear - the key point is that Apple now sits in the middle of the data stream, capturing the customer's data. The analyst outfit describes the iPhone as a potential "poison" for the networks.
Sounds an awful like Apple might be positioning itself to do some eavesdropping of its own.
Why's he moaning about what time it starts at when people have a whole twenty-four hours to find a suitable time to download the thing?
Because a lot of people won't wait for a reasonable time, and will rush the gates like iPhone disciples on release day. Never underestimate the power of "new" to undermine bandwidth sensibility.
Maybe its true. Maybe they hired the CIA to spy on those two Congressman to make sure they weren't going to do anything to embarrass the Chinese Government during the Olympics.
More likely that our intrepid congressmen were engaged in a lengthy session of viewing some "non-work-related sites" (i.e., "browsing porn") and managed to snag a worm. Rather than demonstrate any personal responsibility, they picked the first easy target.
Seriously. Here's the headline and teaser text from the same story as presented by ArsTechnica, which is painted in a vastly different light:
UK ISP bows to record industry, to send P2P warning letters:
British ISP Virgin Media has come to an agreement with the BPI, which represents the record industry, to warn filesharers on its network about the dangers of copyright infringement.
HP printer driver division has a place on my list too.
And here I was, having a giggle, when suddenly this comment brought me crashing back to the depressing reality that is my everyday life.
HP printer drivers. Why do they hate America?
I'm particularly fond, in a Ted Bundy kind of way, of the host-based drivers that require you to locate and install a specific version number in order to print certain types of PDFs in a manner that won't crash the print spooler. Oh my, that was an indelible experience; kinda like your first root canal, or urinary tract infection.
I'm curious about something: where IS the MPAA in this story?
I mean, all we ever hear from them is bootlegging = "terrorism". How come they're not lining up soldier subpoenas and lawsuits for such "Un-American" activity?
Slashdot Mirror
The crocodiles would.
You know we have reached the dark days when you realize that this could very well be the case.
Either that, or they're shooting for a number of small victories to help buttress the arguments against a future giant with a load of small precedences.
Unfortunately, they are apparently operating on the assumption that these smaller companies exist in a communication free environment, and that they wouldn't dare discuss the case with anyone else in the world. This shows a SCO level of ignorance that alone should be enough to get the entire board of Channel Intelligence fired.
As the article notes, there's a ton of large companies like Amazon that use such wish lists, and it might be in their best interest to sign on to any litigation with an amicus brief in favor of stomping the shit out of Channel Intelligence on principle alone. At the very least, it would send a very strong signal to any other dumbasses contemplating similar moves.
For me, there was really only one point in the film where I wish the writing had been better
During the "social experiment" with the ferries, you'd think there would have been a livelier debate amongst the "normal" passengers over the fates of the "criminal" passengers. Surely there would have been someone to stand up and make the point that, just because the other ferry was full of criminals, they ["normal" society] had no right to condemn them to death.
That could have been a much livelier and more interesting sociological debate than just the collection of votes. I would have loved to have seen that explored more thoroughly.
As an aside though, how many of you were thinking the remotes were actually for the ships they were on?
So, come election day, keep this thought in mind and ask yourself do you want to see this sorry state of affairs persist, or do you want change?
I've proposed it before, and I'll do so again. Congress has an approval rating in the single digits. They have demonstrated time and again, by actions both active and passive that they are the real threat to our freedoms. This applies equally to either party.
The solution is simple: Remove the incumbents.
Keep your party affiliations, if that's what's important to you, but clean house all the same. And let it be known that if conditions do not change immediately, the process will repeat until the lesson is learned.
I know for a fact that he killed Bob. Where's the outrage?
Oh wait . . . never mind . . . he killed Bob.
It's not just server strength or robustness that's affected, it's bandwidth consumption, which is especially disturbing for smaller sites that pay per traffic. AVG is eating bandwidth, and site owners are eating charges.
Oooh . . . that is a sublimely evil idea. I like it!
It's perfectly legal, but what if they change the terms for say, one hour, sell their entire customer database, then change it back? Unless you're refreshing that page 24-7, you will be screwed. Remember when Yahoo did this?
. . . in this little gem from the Forbes article:
Translation:
No kidding. I framed three of my torched trousers and have them hanging on the wall of my office.
I consider them a sensitive critique of the postmodern ideal of fashion slavery vis-a-vis modern technology.
Naw, you'll just get put on the terror list first.
Think about it. You wear glasses because you are correcting your vision, possibly because you enjoy reading. While reading, you might be exposed to materials that are critical of plans to implement things such as iris scanners. Reading these critiques might cause you to begin thinking the government maybe exceeded its authority.
This kind of "thinking" is a strict no-no. True patriots never question; they obey.
TMZ bemoans the loss of basic human decency.
Paris Hilton sheds tears over a decline in moral values.
Justice Department employees stage uproar over personal privacy invasions.
I've seen plenty of coverage on this, but no technical details on how it would actually be implemented beyond there being a mysterious "box" at the ISP. Is it, or will it be, possible to block or restrict this device from tampering with traffic? Or are we pretty much at the mercy of the providers here?
My thoughts exactly. Congrats and good luck to the DOJ for being voluntary beta testers!
I'd take it, but I'd have to move some of my stuff, or, buy bigger place to put my stuff and his stuff together.
You gotta love a chain that puts a restaurant on both sides of a freeway exit.
You might want to read this article over at the Register.
Sounds an awful like Apple might be positioning itself to do some eavesdropping of its own.
Because a lot of people won't wait for a reasonable time, and will rush the gates like iPhone disciples on release day. Never underestimate the power of "new" to undermine bandwidth sensibility.
More likely that our intrepid congressmen were engaged in a lengthy session of viewing some "non-work-related sites" (i.e., "browsing porn") and managed to snag a worm. Rather than demonstrate any personal responsibility, they picked the first easy target.
Seriously. Here's the headline and teaser text from the same story as presented by ArsTechnica, which is painted in a vastly different light:
.I had actually filled out the patent application. That damn dog is going to pay . . .
And here I was, having a giggle, when suddenly this comment brought me crashing back to the depressing reality that is my everyday life.
HP printer drivers. Why do they hate America?
I'm particularly fond, in a Ted Bundy kind of way, of the host-based drivers that require you to locate and install a specific version number in order to print certain types of PDFs in a manner that won't crash the print spooler. Oh my, that was an indelible experience; kinda like your first root canal, or urinary tract infection.
Ummm . . . three?
Dude, we're talking about the Pentagon; the same group that buys $400 hammers, $600 toilet seats, and $20 ice trays.
;-)
I'm curious about something: where IS the MPAA in this story?
I mean, all we ever hear from them is bootlegging = "terrorism". How come they're not lining up soldier subpoenas and lawsuits for such "Un-American" activity?
Oh, wait. It's the guns, isn't it?