You're hired, congratulations. Here's a W-4 to fill out. Give it to Julie when you're done and she'll also need to photocopy your driver's license.
Oh, and you'll need to choose an authentication provider. If you choose Blue Cross for your logins, you get 3% off your first month of health insurance premiums, but if you choose Facebook, you get three months of free TV service. I think Google doesn't have a deal right now, but if you already have an account there, it might be more convenient. Bank of America is a good option too, but the terms are that you have to carry your phone, running their app, everywhere and they'll penalize you with failed logins if you ever turn it off, so don't do that or we'll have no choice to fire you because you have to be able to log in. Subway's login system gets you loyalty points good for lunch purchases; that's a popular one. Southwest gets you a frequent flyer mile with every login. And I'm sure you saw in the news, our PR division said we had to cancel our NRA login agreement but the legislature is probably going to make us undo that in a few weeks.
"But I just don't buy the claim that it's impossible"
Ok, fine. Don't believe it.
But if you're honest, you'll definitely recognize that everyone else believes it. Apparently you're the one smart person in America, and you're surrounded by fools and so-called "experts" who lack your insight.
Now prove everyone else wrong, inventor Christopher Wray.
The big WTF-are-they-talking-about clue was revealed in this line of nonsense: "Cookies don't really work on mobile." (Wut?) The paragraph basically goes on to explain they're expecting many users to stop using web browsers altogether, and just run native apps that request ads by user id. Basically, the problems that cookies were invented to solve, are already solved by the apps having their owmn version of local storage (and without all those pesky controls and options that web browsers give to users).
That the user went back to their cell is inferred. Obviously the GPS trail stops in the sewer beneath the cell, in that little room (and tunnel nexus) beneath the bunks where Hogan and his people store the radio, boxes of weapons, etc.
why would I expect tracking of my every movement because I subscribe to something?
Whoa there. Subscribe is the least that you did. I looked up MoviePass and it's an "app" that you download, install and execute on your own computer; it's not just some remote service. It's not merely a website.
The normal expectations for commercial "apps" on phones and tablets these days are that they're malware. They request lots of permissions that always bewilder. The user knows it's dangerous and that the software's primary purpose is to exploit them.
If someone doesn't want to be tracked, they won't install someone else's code, no way. (If this were really just about buying a movie ticket, why would you run their code on your machine?) If they do that, then they're opting in.
The news of the day is that people are offended by the possibility that you might be wrong. It's not only ok that Facebook is doing what you say, it'd be intolerable if they didn't!
BTW, one of the things that's so disappointing about the objectors, is that they missed something so obvious: Facebook is asking these questions because they're trying to set priorities. This is going to come down to whether or not you want Facebook to be spending money on having AIs read private messages, vs leaving policing to someone else (government, users, whatever). The outrage seems to have as its premise, that Facebook should be a cop, rather than cooperating with warrant-wielding cops like everyone else is expected to.
Facebook should have an elevated position compared to, say, you.
I hope these fuckwits realize what they're asking for, because pedophiles are going to be less than a percent of what they just asked Facebook to hunt for.
Of course, yes, I do realize what Facebook's "mistake" was. They trusted people to think. They trusted evil, lazy, arrogant, stupid people to think, and misplaced trust is indeed a mistake.
Yvette Cooper MP, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, condemned the survey. âoeThis is a stupid and irresponsible survey,â she said. âoeAdult men asking 14-year-olds to send sexual images is not only against the law, it is completely wrong and an appalling abuse and exploitation of children.
Interesting that Cooper is not only weighing in with the opinion that Facebook shouldn't have asked people for their opinions, but also weighs in on what everyone's opinion should be.
It sounds like Cooper is saying that it would be ok for Facebook to ask her; the problem is that she doesn't want Facebook to ask anyone else.
If that's too extreme, then just starting Knowing Your Customer. Have direct sales instead of selling through intermediaries. The upside of this is that they could also have sales contracts, where the purchaser agrees to a license as a condition of obtaining the disc. Do that and everything is solved. It's how every other contract-based business works. Maybe Disney should stop trying to be a weird, shady exception.
Absolutely nothing wrong can happen when someone else can randomly change the link to where you are trying to get.
It won't be random unless it's being done as a prank.
Best guess is that they have some universal rules (e.g. remove utm_* GET params) and some specialized URL-rewriters by domain for well-known/popular sites (article shows amazon.com as an example).
The [LINE NOISE] are ubiquitous, and everyone is [LINE NOISE]. Is clicking a button a creative process?
D'oh! My mom picked up the phone while I was trying to use the Internet (she's supposed to come down to the basement and ask first), so I missed parts of your post. Were you talking about typing letters and words and thoughts and algorithms and novels on keyboards?
Dear insufferably-stupid fuckwits whose obviously-stupid choices create the network effects that retard all progress and make everything worse for everyone,
You all chose your app before your protocol. If you had chosen an open documented protocol and then chosen from the competing (and interoperable) implementations of that protocol, then you would have the UI that you want. You would be using an app that would be designed to serve you instead of whoever wrote it. You would not be locked in. You would be a hostage to no one. You would have everything you want, and your computer would be your tool, exclusively.
But you chose to SUCK. You chose lameness and suffering.
So go fuck yourselves. Fuck yourself hard, right up the ass, without lube, and as brutally as you would wish on your most despised enemy to which you would never even allow the slightest amount of dignity or even admit personhood. And keep fucking yourselves until you learn this incredible simple, obvious, easy lesson that anyone who reflects for a few minutes has always been able to learn.
DMCA prohibits circumventing copy protection, which is an end-around the fair use law.
More precisely, DMCA prohibits circumventing techological measures which limit access. We lost way more than just fair use copying. Copying involves accessing plus doing something else. But merely making use of something (i.e. reading it), requires access. For example, you can't watch a movie on DVD without accessing the plaintext. With that in mind...
Since a browser plugin runs in the browser, the endpoint that must decrypt and display any encrypted content such as ads, how is the DMCA relevant even if web sites start delivering encrypted content?
If the site delivers encrypted copyrighted content, it is using a "technological measure that limits access to a work protected under this title" in DMCA-speak. That makes it illegal to decrypt the web page without authorization from the copyright owner. Judge Kaplan upheld all of that in the 2600-vs-MPAA DVD CSS case.
The copyright owner can impose whatever conditions that they wish, for granting that authorization. And if they don't grant it, you ain't got it. That's enough to make sure you get the ads (unless you're going to surf the web illegally) and we haven't even gotten to the manufacturing provisions that would outlaw writing or distributing the browser that you'd use.
Please tell me which candidates that have an actual chance at being elected to office want to repeal the DMCA
(Oy. Ok, I'm going to try explaining this a whole other way.)
So far, I haven't found much evidence that America intends to take the upcoming election seriously. I am hoping to persuade people to choose otherwise. Are you running for anything? Need help getting on a ballot? Of course, before I support you, I should ask: do you intend to try to repeal or repair DMCA?
I will admit that I am not running for anything. Shame on me. I suck. What's your excuse?;-) Know anyone better than us? Know anyone who might want our votes? Join me and start talking shit about everyone who isn't running on this issue. People certainly run on dumber and less important issues than this one. In fact, I'd say they usually do.
And you can not prove 100% that the wtc towers did not fell because of the explosives.
I also can't prove that gravity or electrons exist. Nevertheless, all the evidence (so far) suggests they do, or are at least excellent descriptions for what's happening.
You are only talking because you can not get the idea that a government can tell a big lie with a straight face.
The government is irrelevant; even if you assume they lie, you would never notice because their words are a minority. For the towers to have been demolished, every fireman (whoops, those are goverment employees, so you got me there), every structural engineer, and every architect has to be lying or deluded about the properties of steel. Your high school chemistry teacher had to have joined The Great Conspiracy decades before the operation's trigger was finally pulled, as well as every single person who ever worked in a steel mill. Every person who was there, was coerced or tricked. Every video clip was faked. Most of the people who were in New York on that day, are part of The Great Conspiracy.
A person can keep a secret. Ten people can keep a secret if they are well disciplined and also you start assassinating them ASAP. Your conspiracy theory requires millions of people to keep a secret, and for many years. Most New Yorkers are in on it. (But what do you expect from a city full of left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers?)
My conspiracy theory requires 20 people keep a secret for a short time and then die in the act. My theory, unlike yours, allows that you can ask people-who-design-buildings what would happen if you used the WTC design and lit a hot fire in it, and you can accept a diverse array of honest, un-choreographed, improvised opinions without worrying about that someone will slip up and accidentally give away the scam. Somehow, "they" got to every single engineer, the whole world over. My answer allows me to ignore whatever the government happens to say, whereas yours requires that many thousands of people in the government have to remember to always consistently lie about everything, and for the rest of their lives. Your theory requires that nobody be interested in whistle-blowing even though it would bring them immense fame.
Best of all: Your theory requires that the architect of the attack, once they thought up the brilliant idea of crashing jets into WTC as a cover for the demolition charges, didn't suddenly blurt out "holy crap, let's scrap plan A (demolition charges) because this plan B (crashing fuel-laden planes) is going to be more reliable, more spectacular, cheaper to perform, and safer from advanced detection." Thus, your theory requires that everyone in the operation (the millions of them) not only be unprecedentedly brilliant at keeping secrets, but absolute morons at performing the operation itself, such that they have this complex unreliable rube-goldberg design.
Your conspiracy was truly an act of the gods. Mine merely required humans.
DMCA most certainly does prohibit writing code of certain functionality. That's one of the reasons nearly 100% of computer programmers hate it. "No person shall manufacture..." I don't think people could make a good case for how it would prevent writing a web browser that blocks ads on pages as we currently know them. But it's definitely illegal to write, say, a DVD player that blocks ads (since your DVD player would need to be able to play the DVDs too). All they have to do is somehow have the ads combined with content within the same DRM wrapper and your web ad blocker would be illegal. You damn well know it is coming.
(BTW, fellow Americans, I just wanna remind you that this is another election year. Last one, almost nobody took seriously. If you also don't take this election seriously too, then that's another 2 years with no chance of repealing DMCA, instead of a terribly slim chance.)
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, I think this is about your employer subsidizing Facebook during your paid time.
You're hired, congratulations. Here's a W-4 to fill out. Give it to Julie when you're done and she'll also need to photocopy your driver's license.
Oh, and you'll need to choose an authentication provider. If you choose Blue Cross for your logins, you get 3% off your first month of health insurance premiums, but if you choose Facebook, you get three months of free TV service. I think Google doesn't have a deal right now, but if you already have an account there, it might be more convenient. Bank of America is a good option too, but the terms are that you have to carry your phone, running their app, everywhere and they'll penalize you with failed logins if you ever turn it off, so don't do that or we'll have no choice to fire you because you have to be able to log in. Subway's login system gets you loyalty points good for lunch purchases; that's a popular one. Southwest gets you a frequent flyer mile with every login. And I'm sure you saw in the news, our PR division said we had to cancel our NRA login agreement but the legislature is probably going to make us undo that in a few weeks.
A magical pony ought to be able to exist in spite of magic not existing, because it can use its magic to circumvent the lack-of-magic.
Ok, fine. Don't believe it.
But if you're honest, you'll definitely recognize that everyone else believes it. Apparently you're the one smart person in America, and you're surrounded by fools and so-called "experts" who lack your insight.
Now prove everyone else wrong, inventor Christopher Wray.
The big WTF-are-they-talking-about clue was revealed in this line of nonsense: "Cookies don't really work on mobile." (Wut?) The paragraph basically goes on to explain they're expecting many users to stop using web browsers altogether, and just run native apps that request ads by user id. Basically, the problems that cookies were invented to solve, are already solved by the apps having their owmn version of local storage (and without all those pesky controls and options that web browsers give to users).
That the user went back to their cell is inferred. Obviously the GPS trail stops in the sewer beneath the cell, in that little room (and tunnel nexus) beneath the bunks where Hogan and his people store the radio, boxes of weapons, etc.
Whoa there. Subscribe is the least that you did. I looked up MoviePass and it's an "app" that you download, install and execute on your own computer; it's not just some remote service. It's not merely a website.
The normal expectations for commercial "apps" on phones and tablets these days are that they're malware. They request lots of permissions that always bewilder. The user knows it's dangerous and that the software's primary purpose is to exploit them.
If someone doesn't want to be tracked, they won't install someone else's code, no way. (If this were really just about buying a movie ticket, why would you run their code on your machine?) If they do that, then they're opting in.
The news of the day is that people are offended by the possibility that you might be wrong. It's not only ok that Facebook is doing what you say, it'd be intolerable if they didn't!
BTW, one of the things that's so disappointing about the objectors, is that they missed something so obvious: Facebook is asking these questions because they're trying to set priorities. This is going to come down to whether or not you want Facebook to be spending money on having AIs read private messages, vs leaving policing to someone else (government, users, whatever). The outrage seems to have as its premise, that Facebook should be a cop, rather than cooperating with warrant-wielding cops like everyone else is expected to.
Facebook should have an elevated position compared to, say, you.
I hope these fuckwits realize what they're asking for, because pedophiles are going to be less than a percent of what they just asked Facebook to hunt for.
Of course, yes, I do realize what Facebook's "mistake" was. They trusted people to think. They trusted evil, lazy, arrogant, stupid people to think, and misplaced trust is indeed a mistake.
Interesting that Cooper is not only weighing in with the opinion that Facebook shouldn't have asked people for their opinions, but also weighs in on what everyone's opinion should be.
It sounds like Cooper is saying that it would be ok for Facebook to ask her; the problem is that she doesn't want Facebook to ask anyone else.
Nice.
That's easy to do. Just stop selling discs.
If that's too extreme, then just starting Knowing Your Customer. Have direct sales instead of selling through intermediaries. The upside of this is that they could also have sales contracts, where the purchaser agrees to a license as a condition of obtaining the disc. Do that and everything is solved. It's how every other contract-based business works. Maybe Disney should stop trying to be a weird, shady exception.
They lack Americans' initiative and can-do attitude. What do you expect from criminals, rapists, and I assume, some good people?
He's trying to bring unconstitutional laws. He's a criminal. He's a rapist. And sometimes, I assume, he's a good person.
Problem solved. They don't need a license. Why would they want one?
Ok, let's just get this over with. Are you accusing him of being a politician, or a journalist?
It won't be random unless it's being done as a prank.
Best guess is that they have some universal rules (e.g. remove utm_* GET params) and some specialized URL-rewriters by domain for well-known/popular sites (article shows amazon.com as an example).
D'oh! My mom picked up the phone while I was trying to use the Internet (she's supposed to come down to the basement and ask first), so I missed parts of your post. Were you talking about typing letters and words and thoughts and algorithms and novels on keyboards?
Those are who we always vote for.
Oh crap, you're right. Afternoons.. hours since coffee .. mind weak. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!
"Proactive?" Even if this weren't a stupid (in multiple dimensions) idea, wouldn't legislating it be illegal on 1st Amendment grounds?
Dear insufferably-stupid fuckwits whose obviously-stupid choices create the network effects that retard all progress and make everything worse for everyone,
You all chose your app before your protocol. If you had chosen an open documented protocol and then chosen from the competing (and interoperable) implementations of that protocol, then you would have the UI that you want. You would be using an app that would be designed to serve you instead of whoever wrote it. You would not be locked in. You would be a hostage to no one. You would have everything you want, and your computer would be your tool, exclusively.
But you chose to SUCK. You chose lameness and suffering.
So go fuck yourselves. Fuck yourself hard, right up the ass, without lube, and as brutally as you would wish on your most despised enemy to which you would never even allow the slightest amount of dignity or even admit personhood. And keep fucking yourselves until you learn this incredible simple, obvious, easy lesson that anyone who reflects for a few minutes has always been able to learn.
Yours Truly, Cajun Hell
More precisely, DMCA prohibits circumventing techological measures which limit access. We lost way more than just fair use copying. Copying involves accessing plus doing something else. But merely making use of something (i.e. reading it), requires access. For example, you can't watch a movie on DVD without accessing the plaintext. With that in mind...
If the site delivers encrypted copyrighted content, it is using a "technological measure that limits access to a work protected under this title" in DMCA-speak. That makes it illegal to decrypt the web page without authorization from the copyright owner. Judge Kaplan upheld all of that in the 2600-vs-MPAA DVD CSS case.
The copyright owner can impose whatever conditions that they wish, for granting that authorization. And if they don't grant it, you ain't got it. That's enough to make sure you get the ads (unless you're going to surf the web illegally) and we haven't even gotten to the manufacturing provisions that would outlaw writing or distributing the browser that you'd use.
(Oy. Ok, I'm going to try explaining this a whole other way.)
So far, I haven't found much evidence that America intends to take the upcoming election seriously. I am hoping to persuade people to choose otherwise. Are you running for anything? Need help getting on a ballot? Of course, before I support you, I should ask: do you intend to try to repeal or repair DMCA?
I will admit that I am not running for anything. Shame on me. I suck. What's your excuse? ;-) Know anyone better than us? Know anyone who might want our votes? Join me and start talking shit about everyone who isn't running on this issue. People certainly run on dumber and less important issues than this one. In fact, I'd say they usually do.
I also can't prove that gravity or electrons exist. Nevertheless, all the evidence (so far) suggests they do, or are at least excellent descriptions for what's happening.
The government is irrelevant; even if you assume they lie, you would never notice because their words are a minority. For the towers to have been demolished, every fireman (whoops, those are goverment employees, so you got me there), every structural engineer, and every architect has to be lying or deluded about the properties of steel. Your high school chemistry teacher had to have joined The Great Conspiracy decades before the operation's trigger was finally pulled, as well as every single person who ever worked in a steel mill. Every person who was there, was coerced or tricked. Every video clip was faked. Most of the people who were in New York on that day, are part of The Great Conspiracy.
A person can keep a secret. Ten people can keep a secret if they are well disciplined and also you start assassinating them ASAP. Your conspiracy theory requires millions of people to keep a secret, and for many years. Most New Yorkers are in on it. (But what do you expect from a city full of left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers?)
My conspiracy theory requires 20 people keep a secret for a short time and then die in the act. My theory, unlike yours, allows that you can ask people-who-design-buildings what would happen if you used the WTC design and lit a hot fire in it, and you can accept a diverse array of honest, un-choreographed, improvised opinions without worrying about that someone will slip up and accidentally give away the scam. Somehow, "they" got to every single engineer, the whole world over. My answer allows me to ignore whatever the government happens to say, whereas yours requires that many thousands of people in the government have to remember to always consistently lie about everything, and for the rest of their lives. Your theory requires that nobody be interested in whistle-blowing even though it would bring them immense fame.
Best of all: Your theory requires that the architect of the attack, once they thought up the brilliant idea of crashing jets into WTC as a cover for the demolition charges, didn't suddenly blurt out "holy crap, let's scrap plan A (demolition charges) because this plan B (crashing fuel-laden planes) is going to be more reliable, more spectacular, cheaper to perform, and safer from advanced detection." Thus, your theory requires that everyone in the operation (the millions of them) not only be unprecedentedly brilliant at keeping secrets, but absolute morons at performing the operation itself, such that they have this complex unreliable rube-goldberg design.
Your conspiracy was truly an act of the gods. Mine merely required humans.
DMCA most certainly does prohibit writing code of certain functionality. That's one of the reasons nearly 100% of computer programmers hate it. "No person shall manufacture..." I don't think people could make a good case for how it would prevent writing a web browser that blocks ads on pages as we currently know them. But it's definitely illegal to write, say, a DVD player that blocks ads (since your DVD player would need to be able to play the DVDs too). All they have to do is somehow have the ads combined with content within the same DRM wrapper and your web ad blocker would be illegal. You damn well know it is coming.
(BTW, fellow Americans, I just wanna remind you that this is another election year. Last one, almost nobody took seriously. If you also don't take this election seriously too, then that's another 2 years with no chance of repealing DMCA, instead of a terribly slim chance.)