There is *way* too much money to be made by having access to these keys. Every government in the world will demand them.
Funny you should say that. Cue the NSA (plus some more daring entrepreneurs) getting access to the Chinese backdoors, and thus p0wning every device in China. Lots and lots of money to be made, easily enough to pay huge bribes to whatever government official can sell you the backdoor.
The Democrats want to spy on us to get more power, without losing too many votes from Democrat voters. The Republicans want to spy on us to get more power, without losing too many votes from Republican voters. Thus, the justification for the spying is different because it has to appeal to different demographics.
Standards are the basis of a free market, and proprietary "standards" are the basis of proprietary lock-in.
Government mandated standards may or may not be a good idea, but they are certainly not "the basis of a free market" because they represent an intervention by government in the forces of supply and demand.
He's pretty much right. The "Free Market" has no monopolies (including no patents, no copyrights, and no proprietary standards -- obviously, since all of those are "you can't make/sell this" restrictions) and an infinite number of competing companies producing any particular product, such that the price of an item is based on the supply and demand. Having a single standard means more competition, so it is much closer to the Free Market ideal than multiple proprietary standards.
While governments can sometimes interfere with the price of goods, monopolies are guaranteed to interfere because they can set the supply (and therefore the price) to whatever is most profitable.
Both the Democans and Republicrats want to kill encryption, albeit for different ultimate purposes. (Amusingly, both you and AC just below had the same thought simultaneously.)
There's no reason to make the software non-free. It's not like the code will have some SacrificeBusfullOfChildrenToSaveDriver variable that some idiot can change, and even if there were hardly anyone capable of reprogramming the car would be stupid enough to risk their lives on their own untested edits to the program.It would probably be a good idea to have signed software for security purposes, but that's different and compatible with free software.
There is no need to worry about the moral dilemma of choosing who to sacrifice. The answer is simple and obvious to everyone -- pick the driver who never drives drunk, never drives sleepy or otherwise impaired, never gets distracted, has lightning reflexes, always drives carefully, and is less likely to kill everyone. Morally speaking, we want to start using self-driving cars, even if they are worse than the average driver, starting first with replacing arthritic old grandma with failing eyesight*.
* Roughly speaking, the morally correct thing to do is replace any driver who's insurance premiums (aka professional estimate of actual driving ability) are higher than those of a self-driving car.
its still censorship, its just legal censorship. they have the right to set the rules on their site that is 100% correct. but its not fair to claim its not censorship
How do you know it's legal censorship? Do you have any way of knowing that government agents aren't quietly encouraging certain acts of private censorship? For example, they might get a National Security Letter with a gag order instructing them to censor some subversive, hate-speech, or pro-terrorist speech. Then it would be illegal government censorship masquerading as legal private censorship.
That's called Crapware. It's not necessarily nefarious, just unwanted and unnecessary. If the developers are paying people to pre-install it, it's almost certainly crapware at the least or maybe even adware or other malware.
Their goal is probably to be pricks and make a name for themselves. However, they also are performing a valuable service: reminding Joe WhyShouldIcareAboutDRM that their gaming experience is subject to the whim of game servers, possibly even for offline games, and they will be unable to play should the game company decide to drop support or get overloaded.
Non-DRM games are immune to this. Note that for some games, the only non-DRM versions are the pirated ones.
The people bad at math are being taxed when they try to do math. How do we tax people bad a music only when they try to play?
When they buy overpriced "professional" musical equipment thinking they'll strike it rich as a rock star? Or is that yet another tax on people who are bad at statistics?
I don't even know who "The Slants" is disparaging against. Also, who gets to decide what's disparaging or not? What if someone decides that words like "Christian" are disparaging?
Slashdot Mirror
But does the viewer?
It's quite interesting actually because now we get to see what sort of price Apple places upon its principles and core values.
An Apple's core is the part you throw out.
Am I the only one who thinks the name has a subtle reminder of words like discredit? "de" is a bad prefix for "decentralized", IMO.
There is *way* too much money to be made by having access to these keys. Every government in the world will demand them.
Funny you should say that. Cue the NSA (plus some more daring entrepreneurs) getting access to the Chinese backdoors, and thus p0wning every device in China. Lots and lots of money to be made, easily enough to pay huge bribes to whatever government official can sell you the backdoor.
The Democrats want to spy on us to get more power, without losing too many votes from Democrat voters.
The Republicans want to spy on us to get more power, without losing too many votes from Republican voters.
Thus, the justification for the spying is different because it has to appeal to different demographics.
Standards are the basis of a free market, and proprietary "standards" are the basis of proprietary lock-in.
Government mandated standards may or may not be a good idea, but they are certainly not "the basis of a free market" because they represent an intervention by government in the forces of supply and demand.
He's pretty much right. The "Free Market" has no monopolies (including no patents, no copyrights, and no proprietary standards -- obviously, since all of those are "you can't make/sell this" restrictions) and an infinite number of competing companies producing any particular product, such that the price of an item is based on the supply and demand. Having a single standard means more competition, so it is much closer to the Free Market ideal than multiple proprietary standards.
While governments can sometimes interfere with the price of goods, monopolies are guaranteed to interfere because they can set the supply (and therefore the price) to whatever is most profitable.
Both the Democans and Republicrats want to kill encryption, albeit for different ultimate purposes. (Amusingly, both you and AC just below had the same thought simultaneously.)
Wait, if the Chinese are doing it, doesn't that mean that it's an evil commie tactic that no God-fearing American would ever even suggest using?
There's no reason to make the software non-free. It's not like the code will have some SacrificeBusfullOfChildrenToSaveDriver variable that some idiot can change, and even if there were hardly anyone capable of reprogramming the car would be stupid enough to risk their lives on their own untested edits to the program.It would probably be a good idea to have signed software for security purposes, but that's different and compatible with free software.
There is no need to worry about the moral dilemma of choosing who to sacrifice. The answer is simple and obvious to everyone -- pick the driver who never drives drunk, never drives sleepy or otherwise impaired, never gets distracted, has lightning reflexes, always drives carefully, and is less likely to kill everyone. Morally speaking, we want to start using self-driving cars, even if they are worse than the average driver, starting first with replacing arthritic old grandma with failing eyesight*.
* Roughly speaking, the morally correct thing to do is replace any driver who's insurance premiums (aka professional estimate of actual driving ability) are higher than those of a self-driving car.
its still censorship, its just legal censorship. they have the right to set the rules on their site that is 100% correct. but its not fair to claim its not censorship
How do you know it's legal censorship? Do you have any way of knowing that government agents aren't quietly encouraging certain acts of private censorship? For example, they might get a National Security Letter with a gag order instructing them to censor some subversive, hate-speech, or pro-terrorist speech. Then it would be illegal government censorship masquerading as legal private censorship.
That's called Crapware. It's not necessarily nefarious, just unwanted and unnecessary. If the developers are paying people to pre-install it, it's almost certainly crapware at the least or maybe even adware or other malware.
Lazy people sitting on their asses complaining instead of going out and doing something about it. #GetOffYourAss
There, you can consider that my contribution for today in the fight against lazy activism.
The metal is mostly (86%) magnesium
Not sure I want anything made of this material in my house or vehicle.
Thank you for your part in the fight against encroaching authoritarians. We'll be cheering for you from our mothers' basements.
Whats the goal? Is to just be pricks?
Their goal is probably to be pricks and make a name for themselves. However, they also are performing a valuable service: reminding Joe WhyShouldIcareAboutDRM that their gaming experience is subject to the whim of game servers, possibly even for offline games, and they will be unable to play should the game company decide to drop support or get overloaded.
Non-DRM games are immune to this. Note that for some games, the only non-DRM versions are the pirated ones.
Ask a politician or CEO or salesman. They routinely pull information out of a "black hole".
That champion skier was headed downhill anyways.
The United States then had a huge advantage over the Soviet Union, with a nuclear arsenal about 10 times as big.
Yes, we could have killed them all 100 times over, they could only have killed us all 10 times over.
The people bad at math are being taxed when they try to do math.
How do we tax people bad a music only when they try to play?
When they buy overpriced "professional" musical equipment thinking they'll strike it rich as a rock star? Or is that yet another tax on people who are bad at statistics?
the Catholic Church pointed out that gambling was a sin.
Bingo!
I don't even know who "The Slants" is disparaging against. Also, who gets to decide what's disparaging or not? What if someone decides that words like "Christian" are disparaging?
Never attribute to a National Security Letter what can adequately be explained by incompetence. Or was it something else?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for not obeying it.
Not anymore, if a cop is ignorant of the law there's no punishment for that and too bad for the other guy.
you know you can trust the accuracy of the information in those books at face value
Nope.
information requires validation.
Correct (but verify for yourself that I am right about this).
Next up, a pornstar decides she changed her mind and all those pictures must be destroyed...