Mr Wozniak said he would probably use the adaptor to connect his existing earphones to his next iPhone, and said that, like many other users he is attached to the accessories that he uses alongside the phone.
Anyone else spot the problem here? "His next iPhone." The guy has already made up his mind, independent of whether it's good or bad. This is the economic equivalent of someone who votes party line.
He doesn't give a single fuck, so there is no reason Apple (or anyone else) should listen to him. He has announced his irrelevancy. I'm not projecting that onto him; he's saying it!
All the funnier that he's "attached" to his nonstandard accessories. The guy is a classic lock-in victim, except with the bonus that's he's already sworn to never do anything about it.
A lot of people, including the EFF, are mentioning Facebook and Twitter for some reason. Those sites are said to be fairly popular, so they might be good examples if you're trying to explain the issue to the mainstream.
But if you actually click through to the.gov site's proposal, they don't say anything specifically about those two sites. They say "social media identifier." The page's only mention of Facebook is that the page has a Facebook-sharing widget.
So: "social media identifier." For people who use Facebook, their facebook id would, indeed, happen to be something the government would be interested in. But if you don't use Facebook, then that's not what they're asking for. The presumption is that you socialize (to at least some degree) somehow. That may or may not be correct, but for 100.0% of the people who are reading this comment, it happens to be an accurate assumption.
One good answer to their question might be: what's your Slashdot identifier? Well, if you log in, then it's your login name. Using that combined with some really large logs (presumably where the https was broken) they can see all the pages you requestedwhich uses that cookie, and infer what kinds of things you're interested in. And Slashdot already helpfully shows your posts, so they'll know what you're often saying. And that will happen to work fairly well for you, sirber.
If you don't log in, then they might like to know your ISP accounts (home and mobile) so they can check logs to see your IP address at certain times, to either directly tie it to Slashdot activity, or indirectly through, say, Google Analytics cookies or something like that. At some point, this crosses the line into the impractical, but let's remember: if you don't login to Slashdot, then the value of whatever identifies you on Slashdot is significantly lessened, since you're probably not maintaining persistent communications anyway, so they're less likely to care. They'd ask you about some other site.
Other "site" presumes HTTP, though, and of course social media is far larger than just the web. Email might still possibly the biggest social media network of all, where your identifier would be your email address. IRC? Usenet? (Ok, we're sounding very old here. But maybe someone knows how to investigate old people.)
If there's really nothing, then you probably are somewhat unusual (no, not a "terrorist," just unusual), so they might need to talk to you instead of just read about you in the other room. The presumption isn't Facebook and Twitter: it's just something.
Something online. Maybe you spend all your time chatting people up in bars, in the real world, without a computer network. Then I suppose a photograph of your face is your social media identifier. No?
What if the rest of society is really worried over the fact that a sophisticated adversary is meddling into your domestic affairs
I'm more worried that parts of my society might actually see exposing political parties' communications, as being akin to "meddling in our affairs" or even more absurdly as "intervening in our elections."
I hope that these people are lying, faux-outraged in an attempt to get their crappy party an emotional edge over another crappy party, but I fear they're being honest, every bit as disconnected as they claim to be.
For my routine driving, I never have to worry about "stopping to fill up" because I am doing that every night at home.
This is like saying smartphones don't ever run out of battery, because we plug them in every day at work and every night at home, whereas ten years ago our phones worked for two weeks between charges and then sometimes we forgot to charge them so we ran out. Now you don't ever run out anymore, because you're obsessively charging all the time.
I am amused that you listed this under "pro." I think you made a wise decision which worked out for you, so I'm totally not calling you stupid or some bullshit like that. But.. pro? No, it's a con that you successfully mitigated by adapting your life to the limitations.
I think.
Hm. I am getting confused about whether or not a mitigated con can actually maybe really be a pro. Hey everyone: help with the analysis. Is this guy wrong, or am I? He's right that he's not having to stop to refuel as an exception, but OTOH he's constantly putting in extra effort that internal combustion people don't have to think about very often. Is that a pro or a con?
Should I be summing up all the annoyances and comparing them over a long period of time (e.g. a year)? Yes, I think that's the correct way to figure this out.
This makes me want to coin a new word which means "amortized annoyance." Ammoyance? Annoytization strategy?
So congratulations, New York: you elected total fucking morons to your senate, who think government power should be used whimsically and without thought for whether or not it makes any sense. I bet this little anti-pedo law will be the only consequence, though.
No. If that were the goal, then it would merely require that drivers be signed by the machine's admin or whatever parties they have signed as delegates, not such a distant third party as Microsoft.
The story does use a lot of funny wording which implies that they had been donated to the Public Domain, but if you click through to sources, it looks more like they were still under copyright, offered through some kind of free-as-in-beer license.
Looks like. It's really hard to see WTF the actual status is. What shitty, lazy reporting! But my guess is they're not PD, because the lawyer would have checked before he sued, that being the responsible and common sense thing to d-- why is everyone laughing at me?
Exact location? Sign me up for non-emergency use, please.
I never realized how shitty my phone's GPS was (it was always good enough for driving), until I started playing this fucking new game (you know the one). I can literally touch a certain gym's real-world counterpart with my hand, but in the game, I'm running back and forth from one side of it to the other, always "too far away."
I revile hatred and bigotry. Yet I love the internet.
Can you perhaps take joy in your own hate, or some of the causes of hate?
Did any part of Inglourious Basterds amuse you? If so, then look: joy.
Imagine you're watching pretty much any of today's comedy TV shows. They do a bit on Trump, by showing part of one of his speeches. Is it not funny? Look, there it is again: joy.
Imagine you're reading Order of the Stick. Xykon, a totally deplorable character that you have to hate if you immerse yourself into the story, makes a joke at Redcloak's expense. Joy.
Love the Internet, dude. It is performing for you.
That's the way I'm tempted to look at it too. If John Deere is going to do this, you've got to be an idiot to pay money to John Deere. Surely someone else makes tractors too?!? Don't be an idiot!
The problem here is just that not everyone knows that John Deere is doing this. John Deere might be reaping the benefits of fraud, from people who aren't really stupid and trying-to-lose, but simply ignorant of the DRM's presence, and therefore they buy it anyway.
I think the upshot is that until DMCA is repealed, no legitimate business is ever going to use a "technological measure that prevents access." There probaby ought to be mandatory labelling for products with DRM, if the vendors don't want courts to think they're attempting to deceive buyers.
"Pause" is an even better time, though. And strangely, it's always exactly the correct amount of time, and happens exactly when you want it to.
Ads are a surprisingly shitty time to do something else, because they don't happen on demand and don't happen for the correct duration. On top of that, they make annoying noise.
This just in: expert software developers invent the idea of using a unique key to look things up in a database, instead of just the thing's name. Users cheer.
"I can't believe it! They figured out I had bought song 0xDEADBEEF instead of the Beastie Boys' cover of a Foghat ripoff of a Muddy Waters song. I'm glad, because seriously: fuck Foghat and the Beastie Boys!"
"OMG, when I got my 'I Am The Man' with the naughty words restored, I knew: these guys were database experts. I bet they're using Oracle instead of MySQL now."
"All the previous version of iTunes knew, was that I had bought that Led Zeppelin where Plant sings "baby, baby, baby." Every time I played that track, a different song came up. But then Apple invented the unsigned long integer. I suppose Google will be copying them soon. Second place luuuuzers!"
You make the incorrect assumption that if UBI were to function properly, the other agencies would shut down.
"Assumption" is the poor choice of word; it's a condition for UBI. You may be right that the American people would choose to retain that waste instead of UBI, but doing that means they would be saying no to UBI. The premise is: what if Americans said yes to UBI and also no to retaining the other programs?
If you think that wouldn't happen, fine. But: what if?
(What if we had faster-than-light travel? That you and I think FTL travel is impossible, doesn't matter. We're hypothesizing it.)
Yeah, the invention of the sun has changed things a lot since back then. On the bright side, at least we get "free" sunlight to help balance out our shorter lives, instead of everyone having to carry around a burning tree branch all the time. I, for one, think this tech advance was worth it.
(Anyone else WTFing over this weird "EM radiation" phobia that the unusually-stupid sub-faction of the fearmongers made up? It's often interesting, the kinds of hobgoblins that people-who-want-to-panic invent, but this one is downright weird. Why did they think it would take off? And then how is it that they were they right that it would take off?!? Why are so many people, who you'd think are only slightly stupid, adopting this religion? What's the appeal?)
Ugh. Sobering link. What pieces of shit these people are!
Even when this thing tries to make them look "good" by putting them on the right side, it shows them to be deplorable people who should not ever hold any policy-making office in government.
Raise wages, increase jobs, yadda yadda. Where the fuck is the talk about civil rights? Basic fairness and justice? These are totally irrelevant issues for the leading Republicrat candidates, and it shows in every damn word they say about almost any issue. All they care about is bribing you, never ever protecting your rights.
The federalist papers are not law not official documentation of any kind.
WTF does the word "official" mean in this context?
Are you really saying that if contemporaries explain what they were thinking, but don't bother getting their printout notarized, and they also don't point a gun at your face while saying "this is the LAW!!" then you refuse whatever information they're offering about what they were thinking?
It is irrelevant whether they are law. HELL YES the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are extremely valuable documentation.
Your position is anti-knowledge. You're religious.
You're right; I don't think they'll lose many existing customers over this. I'm saying that this probably isn't enough for them to gain customers either.
I don't subscribe to Netflix yet. If they start selling files that I can play, then there's a really good chance that I will, because on paper their service looks like a great deal. That's basically what I have been waiting for (and by "waiting" I mean that I've found alternative means to scratch the itch, but these alternatives have a certain downsides, ranging from legal risk to not being able to patronize the arts that I enjoy).
But if they start selling files that I can't play, then their offer of "fuck you" will get a similar-sounding reply.
I guess that's the big question: is Netflix considering this because they want more customers? Or are they looking for ways to keep from losing customers to services like Amazon?
As is usual in stupid arguments on the Internet about the meaning of words, I'm right and you're wrong. That's just how it is, always. You are probably thinking the same thing, as if you are the keeper of the language, instead of me! (Ok, do we all understand how stupid this flamewar is? Good. Now, let's have the flamewar.)
What you use to define "downloading" many of us call "saving" (or possibly "recording" if the data arrives by means other than IP, such as an OTA TV antenna, camera/microphone, etc). Downloading is what happens in both scenarios. In one scenario, it is "saved" to local media, and in another scenario, it isn't. That second one (where you elect to use the data immediately and don't save it), we call streaming (if the data is AV), but it's viewed as a special case within downloading, not a separate and distinct thing from downloading.
There are a lot of reasons that computer-oriented people use this terminology, but it basically comes down to the fact that we use various programs to get things, where that program doesn't care what happens to the data after it is transported. curl and wget are curl and wget regardless of if you save the data for many years, or just save it to a ramdisk for just a few seconds prior to deleting it, or if you pipe curl right into some other program's stdin eithout ever writing to a file at all. In all these use cases, curl downloaded the data.
That you anti-computer media people would barge into computer peoples' domain and think you can change the meaning of words, has many ha-- oops, you already took "hacker." Well, then: NEVER AGAIN!!
It's not like Netflix is different than the other 100% of the cases. If they decide to tell those customers "fuck you" then those customers will say "ok, fuck you."
Either way, people will (and currently already do) play the video on whatever device that they want, DRM or not. DRM just means that they won't be paying Netflix for it, since Netflix has rejected the offer of money.
It's not that it would be a bad thing to do that; it's that it would be an unreasonable thing.
Wait, you're still confused. Oh, now I get it: you're using a bland definition of "reasonable."
You need to think in terms of what that word means when someone like Vito Corleone says it. A prosecutor who did what you suggest wouldn't be reasonable; he wouldn't be protecting the interest of himself and his family.
1) Think about why you post to Twitter. (Are you reaching anyone? If there actually is someone, is this the only way you can reach them? Is this an easy or convenient way to communicate? Does it help you express your ideas?)
2) Draw a total blank. Stare into space a while. Make sure. (Hmm.. nope, still nothing.)
3) Delete account.
Twitter is one of the dumbest and least-useful ideas ever. Even Facebook is a good idea, a model of interactivity and convenient expression and dialog, compared to Twitter.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else spot the problem here? "His next iPhone." The guy has already made up his mind, independent of whether it's good or bad. This is the economic equivalent of someone who votes party line.
He doesn't give a single fuck, so there is no reason Apple (or anyone else) should listen to him. He has announced his irrelevancy. I'm not projecting that onto him; he's saying it!
All the funnier that he's "attached" to his nonstandard accessories. The guy is a classic lock-in victim, except with the bonus that's he's already sworn to never do anything about it.
Who is the "they" doing the believing? EFF?
A lot of people, including the EFF, are mentioning Facebook and Twitter for some reason. Those sites are said to be fairly popular, so they might be good examples if you're trying to explain the issue to the mainstream.
But if you actually click through to the .gov site's proposal, they don't say anything specifically about those two sites. They say "social media identifier." The page's only mention of Facebook is that the page has a Facebook-sharing widget.
So: "social media identifier." For people who use Facebook, their facebook id would, indeed, happen to be something the government would be interested in. But if you don't use Facebook, then that's not what they're asking for. The presumption is that you socialize (to at least some degree) somehow. That may or may not be correct, but for 100.0% of the people who are reading this comment, it happens to be an accurate assumption.
One good answer to their question might be: what's your Slashdot identifier? Well, if you log in, then it's your login name. Using that combined with some really large logs (presumably where the https was broken) they can see all the pages you requestedwhich uses that cookie, and infer what kinds of things you're interested in. And Slashdot already helpfully shows your posts, so they'll know what you're often saying. And that will happen to work fairly well for you, sirber.
If you don't log in, then they might like to know your ISP accounts (home and mobile) so they can check logs to see your IP address at certain times, to either directly tie it to Slashdot activity, or indirectly through, say, Google Analytics cookies or something like that. At some point, this crosses the line into the impractical, but let's remember: if you don't login to Slashdot, then the value of whatever identifies you on Slashdot is significantly lessened, since you're probably not maintaining persistent communications anyway, so they're less likely to care. They'd ask you about some other site.
Other "site" presumes HTTP, though, and of course social media is far larger than just the web. Email might still possibly the biggest social media network of all, where your identifier would be your email address. IRC? Usenet? (Ok, we're sounding very old here. But maybe someone knows how to investigate old people.)
If there's really nothing, then you probably are somewhat unusual (no, not a "terrorist," just unusual), so they might need to talk to you instead of just read about you in the other room. The presumption isn't Facebook and Twitter: it's just something.
Something online. Maybe you spend all your time chatting people up in bars, in the real world, without a computer network. Then I suppose a photograph of your face is your social media identifier. No?
I'm more worried that parts of my society might actually see exposing political parties' communications, as being akin to "meddling in our affairs" or even more absurdly as "intervening in our elections."
I hope that these people are lying, faux-outraged in an attempt to get their crappy party an emotional edge over another crappy party, but I fear they're being honest, every bit as disconnected as they claim to be.
Wait, you're saying a staggering 6% of Rs, 8% of Ds, and 15% of Is have been swayed at least once? I'd call that amazingly effective.
This is like saying smartphones don't ever run out of battery, because we plug them in every day at work and every night at home, whereas ten years ago our phones worked for two weeks between charges and then sometimes we forgot to charge them so we ran out. Now you don't ever run out anymore, because you're obsessively charging all the time.
I am amused that you listed this under "pro." I think you made a wise decision which worked out for you, so I'm totally not calling you stupid or some bullshit like that. But .. pro? No, it's a con that you successfully mitigated by adapting your life to the limitations.
I think.
Hm. I am getting confused about whether or not a mitigated con can actually maybe really be a pro. Hey everyone: help with the analysis. Is this guy wrong, or am I? He's right that he's not having to stop to refuel as an exception, but OTOH he's constantly putting in extra effort that internal combustion people don't have to think about very often. Is that a pro or a con?
Should I be summing up all the annoyances and comparing them over a long period of time (e.g. a year)? Yes, I think that's the correct way to figure this out.
This makes me want to coin a new word which means "amortized annoyance." Ammoyance? Annoytization strategy?
So congratulations, New York: you elected total fucking morons to your senate, who think government power should be used whimsically and without thought for whether or not it makes any sense. I bet this little anti-pedo law will be the only consequence, though.
No. If that were the goal, then it would merely require that drivers be signed by the machine's admin or whatever parties they have signed as delegates, not such a distant third party as Microsoft.
I'd love to hear you try to explain that to Gerald Ford.
The story does use a lot of funny wording which implies that they had been donated to the Public Domain, but if you click through to sources, it looks more like they were still under copyright, offered through some kind of free-as-in-beer license.
Looks like. It's really hard to see WTF the actual status is. What shitty, lazy reporting! But my guess is they're not PD, because the lawyer would have checked before he sued, that being the responsible and common sense thing to d-- why is everyone laughing at me?
I have like one post from 4 or 5 years ago. Now I'm going to start tweeting about the olympics. Because fuck you.
Exact location? Sign me up for non-emergency use, please.
I never realized how shitty my phone's GPS was (it was always good enough for driving), until I started playing this fucking new game (you know the one). I can literally touch a certain gym's real-world counterpart with my hand, but in the game, I'm running back and forth from one side of it to the other, always "too far away."
Can you perhaps take joy in your own hate, or some of the causes of hate?
Did any part of Inglourious Basterds amuse you? If so, then look: joy.
Imagine you're watching pretty much any of today's comedy TV shows. They do a bit on Trump, by showing part of one of his speeches. Is it not funny? Look, there it is again: joy.
Imagine you're reading Order of the Stick. Xykon, a totally deplorable character that you have to hate if you immerse yourself into the story, makes a joke at Redcloak's expense. Joy.
Love the Internet, dude. It is performing for you.
You didn't look at the pictures of what's underneath his explosive consoles? Dude, RTFA!
That's the way I'm tempted to look at it too. If John Deere is going to do this, you've got to be an idiot to pay money to John Deere. Surely someone else makes tractors too?!? Don't be an idiot!
The problem here is just that not everyone knows that John Deere is doing this. John Deere might be reaping the benefits of fraud, from people who aren't really stupid and trying-to-lose, but simply ignorant of the DRM's presence, and therefore they buy it anyway.
I think the upshot is that until DMCA is repealed, no legitimate business is ever going to use a "technological measure that prevents access." There probaby ought to be mandatory labelling for products with DRM, if the vendors don't want courts to think they're attempting to deceive buyers.
"Pause" is an even better time, though. And strangely, it's always exactly the correct amount of time, and happens exactly when you want it to.
Ads are a surprisingly shitty time to do something else, because they don't happen on demand and don't happen for the correct duration. On top of that, they make annoying noise.
This just in: expert software developers invent the idea of using a unique key to look things up in a database, instead of just the thing's name. Users cheer.
"I can't believe it! They figured out I had bought song 0xDEADBEEF instead of the Beastie Boys' cover of a Foghat ripoff of a Muddy Waters song. I'm glad, because seriously: fuck Foghat and the Beastie Boys!"
"OMG, when I got my 'I Am The Man' with the naughty words restored, I knew: these guys were database experts. I bet they're using Oracle instead of MySQL now."
"All the previous version of iTunes knew, was that I had bought that Led Zeppelin where Plant sings "baby, baby, baby." Every time I played that track, a different song came up. But then Apple invented the unsigned long integer. I suppose Google will be copying them soon. Second place luuuuzers!"
"Assumption" is the poor choice of word; it's a condition for UBI. You may be right that the American people would choose to retain that waste instead of UBI, but doing that means they would be saying no to UBI. The premise is: what if Americans said yes to UBI and also no to retaining the other programs?
If you think that wouldn't happen, fine. But: what if?
(What if we had faster-than-light travel? That you and I think FTL travel is impossible, doesn't matter. We're hypothesizing it.)
Yeah, the invention of the sun has changed things a lot since back then. On the bright side, at least we get "free" sunlight to help balance out our shorter lives, instead of everyone having to carry around a burning tree branch all the time. I, for one, think this tech advance was worth it.
(Anyone else WTFing over this weird "EM radiation" phobia that the unusually-stupid sub-faction of the fearmongers made up? It's often interesting, the kinds of hobgoblins that people-who-want-to-panic invent, but this one is downright weird. Why did they think it would take off? And then how is it that they were they right that it would take off?!? Why are so many people, who you'd think are only slightly stupid, adopting this religion? What's the appeal?)
Ugh. Sobering link. What pieces of shit these people are!
Even when this thing tries to make them look "good" by putting them on the right side, it shows them to be deplorable people who should not ever hold any policy-making office in government.
Raise wages, increase jobs, yadda yadda. Where the fuck is the talk about civil rights? Basic fairness and justice? These are totally irrelevant issues for the leading Republicrat candidates, and it shows in every damn word they say about almost any issue. All they care about is bribing you, never ever protecting your rights.
WTF does the word "official" mean in this context?
Are you really saying that if contemporaries explain what they were thinking, but don't bother getting their printout notarized, and they also don't point a gun at your face while saying "this is the LAW!!" then you refuse whatever information they're offering about what they were thinking?
It is irrelevant whether they are law. HELL YES the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are extremely valuable documentation.
Your position is anti-knowledge. You're religious.
You're right; I don't think they'll lose many existing customers over this. I'm saying that this probably isn't enough for them to gain customers either.
I don't subscribe to Netflix yet. If they start selling files that I can play, then there's a really good chance that I will, because on paper their service looks like a great deal. That's basically what I have been waiting for (and by "waiting" I mean that I've found alternative means to scratch the itch, but these alternatives have a certain downsides, ranging from legal risk to not being able to patronize the arts that I enjoy).
But if they start selling files that I can't play, then their offer of "fuck you" will get a similar-sounding reply.
I guess that's the big question: is Netflix considering this because they want more customers? Or are they looking for ways to keep from losing customers to services like Amazon?
As is usual in stupid arguments on the Internet about the meaning of words, I'm right and you're wrong. That's just how it is, always. You are probably thinking the same thing, as if you are the keeper of the language, instead of me! (Ok, do we all understand how stupid this flamewar is? Good. Now, let's have the flamewar.)
What you use to define "downloading" many of us call "saving" (or possibly "recording" if the data arrives by means other than IP, such as an OTA TV antenna, camera/microphone, etc). Downloading is what happens in both scenarios. In one scenario, it is "saved" to local media, and in another scenario, it isn't. That second one (where you elect to use the data immediately and don't save it), we call streaming (if the data is AV), but it's viewed as a special case within downloading, not a separate and distinct thing from downloading.
There are a lot of reasons that computer-oriented people use this terminology, but it basically comes down to the fact that we use various programs to get things, where that program doesn't care what happens to the data after it is transported. curl and wget are curl and wget regardless of if you save the data for many years, or just save it to a ramdisk for just a few seconds prior to deleting it, or if you pipe curl right into some other program's stdin eithout ever writing to a file at all. In all these use cases, curl downloaded the data.
That you anti-computer media people would barge into computer peoples' domain and think you can change the meaning of words, has many ha-- oops, you already took "hacker." Well, then: NEVER AGAIN!!
It's not like Netflix is different than the other 100% of the cases. If they decide to tell those customers "fuck you" then those customers will say "ok, fuck you."
Either way, people will (and currently already do) play the video on whatever device that they want, DRM or not. DRM just means that they won't be paying Netflix for it, since Netflix has rejected the offer of money.
It's not that it would be a bad thing to do that; it's that it would be an unreasonable thing.
Wait, you're still confused. Oh, now I get it: you're using a bland definition of "reasonable."
You need to think in terms of what that word means when someone like Vito Corleone says it. A prosecutor who did what you suggest wouldn't be reasonable; he wouldn't be protecting the interest of himself and his family.
1) Think about why you post to Twitter. (Are you reaching anyone? If there actually is someone, is this the only way you can reach them? Is this an easy or convenient way to communicate? Does it help you express your ideas?)
2) Draw a total blank. Stare into space a while. Make sure. (Hmm.. nope, still nothing.)
3) Delete account.
Twitter is one of the dumbest and least-useful ideas ever. Even Facebook is a good idea, a model of interactivity and convenient expression and dialog, compared to Twitter.