Yeah, you've got to look out for that horrible Liberal Ruling Class that controls everything despite bing in the minority of all three branches of government.
I sincerely apologize for oppressing you, oh pitiful right wingers.
You think some toy company is going to want to market toys based on a short film no one but a bunch of geeks has seen rather than toys based on a movie that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and was seen by every kid in the country, all of whom will whine to their parents that they want the toys involved with it?
I'm absolutely shocked that you're not the CEO of Mattel by now, with brilliant thinking like that.
Whatever. The thousands of low budget copyrighted short films produced before this "open" short film didn't kill Hollywood, and neither will this one. If you think Pixar and Dreamworks are worried, you're seriously deluded.
Especially when those 2 countries used to be part of the same nation.
I recently heard a sports announcer who said "[Czech player] will be playing in the World Championships for Czechoslovakia, and [3 American players] will be on the US Team. Also, [Slovak player] was named to the Slovak team." It's all the more confusing when the guy seems to know that Slovakia is now a separate country, but can't grasp that when that happened, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist.
It probably doesn't help in this case that few Americans before the collapse of the Soviet Union would be able to distinguish between "USSR" and "Russia". For that matter, I doubt many today could distinguish between "UK" and "England".
So are the MP3s on the P2P networks, and RIAA goes after the people making those available.
I think the objection is more to the fact that the Inno makes it convenient to easily save specific songs from start to finish as a separate file, letting the user get something RIAA can sell on iTunes without giving RIAA money for each song saved.
On the other hand, it wouldn't shock me too much if they turned around and tried to sue Creative as well as anyone making Betamax-era boomboxes with tape decks that can record radio broadcasts, even though it's obvious they'd lose.
The fact that the Inno can record a digital copy of an entire song, and is designed specifically to grab whole songs even if you choose you save the song in the middle of listening to it seems to me to be more specifically designed for an infringing use than just allowing the recording of FM broadcast quality radio signals.
At the very least, it seems more likely to fail to meet the standards set in Sony v. Universal, while I can't see any possible way a device that can just record ordinary broadcasts wouldn't meet those standards, since that was exactly what the case was about.
I don't think RIAA's correct in the XM case, but I'm sure they wouldn't be in a case against Creative, and I think they're sure of it too.
However, there must obviously be an effective way to avoid both Air Force and Navy, because otherwise Osama, Al-Zawahiri, and Al-Zarqawi would all be smoking craters.
Yes, and that effective way is to hide so the Air Force and the Navy can't find you.
Of course, if you're hiding where they can't find you, it's extremely difficult to also violently overthrow a government. See, when you've got armed people marching on government buildings, they're really easy to find.
Simple. Creative has been publically saying since at least December that they were planning to sue Apple for patent violations, and when they actually filed the lawsuit they put out a press release about they want the attention. Apple isn't making a big deal about their countersuit, since they've got a new sleek black laptop to get attention.
Dogs can be trained to respond to their master's voice. Dolphins actually communicate with one another using names that aren't assigned by humans, which takes a lot more intelligence.
I think you're giving modern safety way too much credit. If stupid people were really at an evolutionary disadvantage from the time homo sapiens first appeared until 100 years ago, and stupidity was caused primarily by genetic factors rather than by environment, the genes for stupidity would have disappeared long before seatbelts (or, for that matter, the wheel) were invented.
Now that's just ridiculous. The odds of that happening a second time during the lifetime of the first human would be staggeringly small.
Obviously the first human had the ability to reproduce asexually through budding from the rib as well as to reproduce sexually, and the budding ability evolved away after homo erectus realized that more sexual reproduction led to more desire to create art, which is a basic biological need of humans. Case closed.
1. Non-human animals evolved into their present forms and were not created as-is by some magical force.
2. At no point did a non-human species evolve into humanity.
3. Humans exist.
We can only conclude that you believe that at some point in the past, humans came into being by the same sort of process that brought the first single-celled animals into being, whether that process was a biochemical accident in the primordial soup or the fiat of a magical being. Given those 2 choices, I think the Creationists have a much more plausible story of where humans came from, since you're never going to convince me a bolt of lightning hit some collection of random proteins and created a fully-formed human capable of art and culture. Although it also seems a lot more likely that your second premise is flawed.
It is statistically relevant that in all the history of every species, I am the only being who has ever experienced the exact circumstances I find myself in at this very moment.
This proves conclusively that I and I alone was created by God for a special purpose, that anyone who claims I was decended from two human parents is a deluded secular humanist with no grasp of logic, and that you, a mere human, are ininitely less loved by God than I am.
Sound crazy? It's functionally identical to your argument. We're smarter than other apes and therefore do interesting things. So what? A dolphin can recognize its name, unlike every other nonhuman animal. Do you therefore conclude that the rest of the animal kingdom evolved but that dolphins, like humans, were created by God?
Considering the program ceased to exist before the NSA started deciding to bypass the FISA court, I'm not sure your objection is at all relevant. The technology was created to allow oversight by the FISA court. Whether it would, in other circumstances, be abused by moving the oversight to the Executive branch or just removing it altogether is tangental to the issue of whether the system, with its safeguards, is better than what replaced it.
If a police department went from a system where drugs and cash it seized were stored in a locked vault to a system where they were all just kept in an open break room, I don't think "But what if they guy with the key to the vault was corrupt" is a very useful way to look at the real problem.
First of all, the article does not refer to any sort of wiretapping of Americans in the 90s, it refers to the tracking of information about those calls which didn't include the content of the calls.
More importantly, no one cared about that program then and people do care about a similar (but with fewer safeguards) program now because no one knew about the program then and they do know about it now.
In other news, there was absolutely no outrage about the Tuskegee study throughout the 1960s, but in 1972 everyone was suddenly outraged and shocked about the program. Would it be more logical to attribute this change in level of outrage to the fact that people actually found out that the study existed, or should I attribute it to the terrorist attack on the 1972 Olympics or something else completely irrelevant?
Well, obviously if we find out that some people in Kenya are falsifying passports, we should launch a full-scale invasion which will guarantee that we catch them.
By the way, how effective has the invasion of Afghanistan been in catching Osama so far?
I'm not even going to bother answering your straw man argument about how no one cared that the NSA was spying on people in Kenya so they shouldn't care if they're spying on Americans.
a) care if the evidence they're collecting is admissible in court, because they actually want the people they're collecting evidence on to be prosecuted in a court, and
b) might actually be prosecuted themselves for illegal actions they take, because they inconveniently don't have the power to deny prosecutors and/or Internal Affairs officers the security clearances they need to investigate.
I think the point is to keep the NSA from knowing whose phone records it's looking at, not to protect them in case they fall into the "wrong hands".
If you think it's more likely that the records are going to be stolen from the NSA than from your phone company, you're probably vastly overestimating the security and hiring practices at the phone company.
If you want to be a strict Federalist interpretist of the Constitution, you better send your women back to the kitchen and keep your negroes in line...can't have them out, you know, voting and owning property.
Oh please. Even the looniest right wing member of the Federalist Society isn't going to claim that Article V and by extension the 15th and 19th Amendments are invalid.
Do they also have the ability to rule on any matter they want to get into?
No, they have the "ability" to rule on any federal case in which one of the parties appeals to them after having a Circuit Court rule against them.
If you think the only function (or even the primary function) of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutionality, you have no grasp whatsoever of how the American legal system works, and if you're a US citizen I recommend you re-enroll in a middle school civics class.
I like how you link to an article about how British police want it to be illegal to not hand over your keys, which didn't mention US law at all, in order to "prove" that it's already a crime not to hand over those keys in the US.
Using encryption in the US is not by any means "essentially illegal", and you cannot be forced to hand over your keys without probable cause that you've committed an actual crime.
As for using any technology to try to cover up evidence of another crime, encryption is completely irrelevant to the issue. Obstruction of justice is a crime regardless of how you do it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't like living in a paranoid society run by a paternalistic Government, move to North Korea, you dirty Commie!
The Constitution itself has a very different definition of what constitutes treason in the US than you do. Ow! Paradox!
I sincerely apologize for oppressing you, oh pitiful right wingers.
I'm absolutely shocked that you're not the CEO of Mattel by now, with brilliant thinking like that.
Whatever. The thousands of low budget copyrighted short films produced before this "open" short film didn't kill Hollywood, and neither will this one. If you think Pixar and Dreamworks are worried, you're seriously deluded.
I recently heard a sports announcer who said "[Czech player] will be playing in the World Championships for Czechoslovakia, and [3 American players] will be on the US Team. Also, [Slovak player] was named to the Slovak team." It's all the more confusing when the guy seems to know that Slovakia is now a separate country, but can't grasp that when that happened, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist.
It probably doesn't help in this case that few Americans before the collapse of the Soviet Union would be able to distinguish between "USSR" and "Russia". For that matter, I doubt many today could distinguish between "UK" and "England".
You, sir, should be running the State Department. You're a freakin' genius. Or a shill for the bomb shelter industry.
So are the MP3s on the P2P networks, and RIAA goes after the people making those available.
I think the objection is more to the fact that the Inno makes it convenient to easily save specific songs from start to finish as a separate file, letting the user get something RIAA can sell on iTunes without giving RIAA money for each song saved.
On the other hand, it wouldn't shock me too much if they turned around and tried to sue Creative as well as anyone making Betamax-era boomboxes with tape decks that can record radio broadcasts, even though it's obvious they'd lose.
At the very least, it seems more likely to fail to meet the standards set in Sony v. Universal, while I can't see any possible way a device that can just record ordinary broadcasts wouldn't meet those standards, since that was exactly what the case was about.
I don't think RIAA's correct in the XM case, but I'm sure they wouldn't be in a case against Creative, and I think they're sure of it too.
Yes, and that effective way is to hide so the Air Force and the Navy can't find you.
Of course, if you're hiding where they can't find you, it's extremely difficult to also violently overthrow a government. See, when you've got armed people marching on government buildings, they're really easy to find.
Simple. Creative has been publically saying since at least December that they were planning to sue Apple for patent violations, and when they actually filed the lawsuit they put out a press release about they want the attention. Apple isn't making a big deal about their countersuit, since they've got a new sleek black laptop to get attention.
Because RIAA doesn't have a patent on recording radio broadcasts, and the product has significant non-infringing uses.
Dogs can be trained to respond to their master's voice. Dolphins actually communicate with one another using names that aren't assigned by humans, which takes a lot more intelligence.
I think you're giving modern safety way too much credit. If stupid people were really at an evolutionary disadvantage from the time homo sapiens first appeared until 100 years ago, and stupidity was caused primarily by genetic factors rather than by environment, the genes for stupidity would have disappeared long before seatbelts (or, for that matter, the wheel) were invented.
Obviously the first human had the ability to reproduce asexually through budding from the rib as well as to reproduce sexually, and the budding ability evolved away after homo erectus realized that more sexual reproduction led to more desire to create art, which is a basic biological need of humans. Case closed.
1. Non-human animals evolved into their present forms and were not created as-is by some magical force.
2. At no point did a non-human species evolve into humanity.
3. Humans exist.
We can only conclude that you believe that at some point in the past, humans came into being by the same sort of process that brought the first single-celled animals into being, whether that process was a biochemical accident in the primordial soup or the fiat of a magical being. Given those 2 choices, I think the Creationists have a much more plausible story of where humans came from, since you're never going to convince me a bolt of lightning hit some collection of random proteins and created a fully-formed human capable of art and culture. Although it also seems a lot more likely that your second premise is flawed.
This proves conclusively that I and I alone was created by God for a special purpose, that anyone who claims I was decended from two human parents is a deluded secular humanist with no grasp of logic, and that you, a mere human, are ininitely less loved by God than I am.
Sound crazy? It's functionally identical to your argument. We're smarter than other apes and therefore do interesting things. So what? A dolphin can recognize its name, unlike every other nonhuman animal. Do you therefore conclude that the rest of the animal kingdom evolved but that dolphins, like humans, were created by God?
If a police department went from a system where drugs and cash it seized were stored in a locked vault to a system where they were all just kept in an open break room, I don't think "But what if they guy with the key to the vault was corrupt" is a very useful way to look at the real problem.
More importantly, no one cared about that program then and people do care about a similar (but with fewer safeguards) program now because no one knew about the program then and they do know about it now.
In other news, there was absolutely no outrage about the Tuskegee study throughout the 1960s, but in 1972 everyone was suddenly outraged and shocked about the program. Would it be more logical to attribute this change in level of outrage to the fact that people actually found out that the study existed, or should I attribute it to the terrorist attack on the 1972 Olympics or something else completely irrelevant?
By the way, how effective has the invasion of Afghanistan been in catching Osama so far?
I'm not even going to bother answering your straw man argument about how no one cared that the NSA was spying on people in Kenya so they shouldn't care if they're spying on Americans.
a) care if the evidence they're collecting is admissible in court, because they actually want the people they're collecting evidence on to be prosecuted in a court, and
b) might actually be prosecuted themselves for illegal actions they take, because they inconveniently don't have the power to deny prosecutors and/or Internal Affairs officers the security clearances they need to investigate.
If you think it's more likely that the records are going to be stolen from the NSA than from your phone company, you're probably vastly overestimating the security and hiring practices at the phone company.
Oh please. Even the looniest right wing member of the Federalist Society isn't going to claim that Article V and by extension the 15th and 19th Amendments are invalid.
No, they have the "ability" to rule on any federal case in which one of the parties appeals to them after having a Circuit Court rule against them.
If you think the only function (or even the primary function) of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutionality, you have no grasp whatsoever of how the American legal system works, and if you're a US citizen I recommend you re-enroll in a middle school civics class.
Using encryption in the US is not by any means "essentially illegal", and you cannot be forced to hand over your keys without probable cause that you've committed an actual crime.
As for using any technology to try to cover up evidence of another crime, encryption is completely irrelevant to the issue. Obstruction of justice is a crime regardless of how you do it.