Would a 20-year old news article about getting into a bar fight really need removal? That isn't going to keep the person from getting a job or something. Someone who judges people from 20-year old charges isn't worth working for.
The power to arbitrarily remove someone else's published works is horrible - it's like the 1st amendment in reverse. There's no legitimate reason for that, and this example of a wealthy person trying to hide their laundry is proof.
You are welcome. Are you using Slashdot Beta? I am on the old one. I tried it in IN, FF, and Chrome and it did the same thing. But somehow it always serves me the old-skool design even though I am not logged-in on 2 of those 3 browsers.
Stop using the picture taking analogy. It doesn't work because there are specifically laws forbidding taking pictures of the inside of someone's house.
Below the video is a button that it says "Hide/Show Transcript." Clicking on that shows me the transcript. Thinking it was something Firefoxy, I just tried it in Chrome and IE too.
That is not particularly useful, though. The Hide/Show transcript button displays the transcript in real-time, with the video
No it doesn't. It displays this:
Tim: Larry, one of our readers has asked: What do you think if you reach all the goals that you have right now for the Mayday PAC, what will prevent lawmakers from finding other loopholes in laws that do something that’s similar but not quite the same as campaign contributions. We’ve seen it with FISA and DMCA that people can’t necessarily get some sort of legislative advantage—they’ll try it again and try it again the next year. So if you get rid of all corporate money in government, do you think that’s the only avenue for undue influence? What is the answer to someone who says that this isn’t enough to really remove that sort of influence in government?
Larry: So there is an idea good enough for government work that I think we need to embrace and understand. It is a standard way below the standard of typical technologists. It is a standard that’s hard for, I think, technologists to accept—but here’s the idea: If we change the way elections are funded, we will give Congress a chance to actually think of something other than what the big funders care about, when they make a decision. Now they could still make the wrong decision—they could still make a stupid decision. They can still make a completely biased or ill-informed decision. There is no guarantee that this creates good government. But what it does do is give them the freedom, ‘the freedom to lead’, as Buddy Roemer used to say. Because they are no longer focused on what this tiny tiny fraction of the 1% care about. So nothing we are offering is about perfection. We are offering the first necessary step. To get us out of the pathology that we are in right now.
Tim: Okay. So another critical and this one is a slightly different type of critical questions that a lot of our readers have, and I think this is also widespread, is they object to the idea of regulating the money that can be given to a political campaign, and they say that that is equivalent to speech; one reader asks, and I am going to say that this is somewhat facetiously, that aren’t you in that way, also calling for a prohibition of documentaries of the political bench, or books written by politicians who are in favor of a particular candidate? Distinguish the way money per se as a campaign contribution in that form is different from other forms of material support, and why it is that it is okay to limit contributions to a certain dollar amount for a person or group as opposed to other ways that people influence political campaigns themselves.
Larry: Great question. So the Mayday PAC is aiming at changing the way elections are funded. And the proposals that we pointed to don’t necessarily do anything directly about limiting people’s capacity to spend their money to speak.
Tim: But then we already have such restrictions anyhow with campaign contribution limits.
Larry: Right. But we are not focused on restrictions—we are focused on increasing the range of people who participate in the funding of elections. So there are two basic models that we’ve got: One is the voucher program—you can see it at reform.to—a voucher proposal, where every voter is given a voucher that they use to fund small dollar elections. The other is matching grant where you give a small contribution—it’s matched up to 9:1—that’s John Sarbanes’ proposal. Those two proposals don’t restrict anybody’s ability to contribute anything. Or don’t restrict people’s ability to spend their money speaking at all. All this is doing is making it, so candidates don’t spend all of their time literally 30% to 70% of their time, focused on the tiniest fraction of the 1%. So there are lots of people out there who are talking about much more r
At first I thought this was retaliation for the wiretapping of Angela Merkel. But DER SPIEGEL says that the wiretap was setup by CIA and NSA employees from the roof of the US embassy, and had nothing to do with Verizon.
So are they saying that because Verizon let the US Government spy on Americans in America, they won't let Verizon operate in Germany? That seems odd to me. Verizon in Germany should be operated by German employees and is subject to German law. What Verizon did in the US seems unrelated.
Personally, I welcome them sanctioning multinational companies for bad behavior. But it is surprising.
Then I think, based on ArcadeMan's definition of "public transmitting" they are not. I think your example illustrates his point quite well. The definition of "public transmitting" is based on a dated definition of "public." Based on what another poster said in another thread, it is based on the fact that anyone from the public can purchase it. Not based on whether the stream is specific to an individual.
ahhhh! So just let me restate this so I undertsand.
CBS intentionally does not want their transmissions covering a certain area because the lack of content is leverage they can use against cable companies. So by Aereo solving that problem, they lose their bargaining chip.
I posted a big thing about advertising, but I see VTBlue's reply saying that they don't make enough money off the ads any longer. So that explains the licensing fees thing.
I've never understood why anyone would want to sue Aereo. They increase the transmission range of local broadcasts. They don't strip the ads, so the advertisers still profit. The stations get increased viewership, which they could as a selling point to advertises. "Hey, not only do we reach 50,000 people in this area, but Aereo increases that by another 10,000 people!" Why would a TV station complain if someone could increase their broadcast range without charging them anything for it? If the station wanted to do that themselves, they would have to buy towers, increase power, deal with FCC regs, etc. Aereo does it for free!
Thanks for the clarification. I'm still unclear on 2 things though.
1) While they may have obtained a second warrant: did they search the drives before they got that second warrant? If so, getting the second warrant was really just an administrative step so they could use the evidence. That makes it parallel reconstruction which is indeed against the 4th.
2) Why did they even have the data? If the data was not part of the first warrant, then they should have deleted the data. Merely separating the data should not meet the requirements of the 4th amendment.
This solidifies a fundamental shift in the way we use web sites:
While Google Domains won’t include hosting, website building providers Squarespace, Wix, Weebly and Shopify have signed on as partners.
So we have a domain registrar now, who only lets you use certain predefined hosting services. This is part of a trend:
Computers used to be general purpose machines that could be used to create and run any software. Now, they are increasingly used to run only software sanctioned by the device manufacturer. Similarly, network software used to use standard W3C file transfer protocols, but instead they now integrate with proprietary file transfer web sites. So instead of FTP that works anywhere, software uses DropBox, OneDrive, and Google Drive. Rather than make a web site or customize a MySpace page, you use the predefined Facebook or Google + format.
Google is just taking this idea to the next level.
Thanks. That's the clarification I was missing. I have always been under the impression there were no patents on that stuff. Still, I wonder if they had patented the software with the density that it is patented today. if Compaq would have been able to do that.
The charging both sides isn't actually that insane.
What you say makes sense, but I don't see you tie it into that particular statement. In your example, Comcast is not charging the end-user for inbound traffic. Can you clarify?
Using your example, the ISP can guarantee that their network is not the cause of the download speed limitations. If they claim 50Mbps inbound, then they need to have 1) pipes within their network capable of 50MBps, and 2) their side of the peering connections should be at least that good. They can't guarantee the other side is that good though. So yes, you may not see 50MBps inbound. But they made good on their claims.
There is an easy fix to this law. Just reprogram the Google van to connect to every open wifi and download something illicit. Make sure the van drives to affluent neighborhoods where politicians live.
I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it once I've paid for it is none of my ISP's goddamned business.
You signed a contract that said you won't share it with another residence. There might even be local laws around it too, since it is local laws that gave the ISP the right to run the cables. If the contract did not state that, then one person one the street could run a cable to neighboring houses and cut the ISPs revenue significantly. Similarly, you can't run a cable TV wire to your neighbors house either, for the same reason.
When you say "I ALREADY PAID FOR IT" that isn't necessarily true. You didn't pay for "it" where "it" is a connection that can be shared. You paid for "it" where "it" is a connection to a single residence. If you do want to pay for a connection you can actually share outside your home, you can buy one, but they are a more money. Such subscriptions are mostly for hotels, motels, marinas, country clubs, etc.
With that said, ISPs don't really care much about wireless sharing since it usually isn't good enough to reach another residence. It could be a problem in close apartments, but there really isn't a way to limit the signal to one apartment anyway.
So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do
Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, Cablevision, AT&T, and Cavalier Telephone do. The last one was my DLS ISP around 2008. I got email notifications from them for downloading with bittorrent.
Slashdot Mirror
What foundations do that? The Apache foundation doesn't. I don't know anything about Yorba.
Would a 20-year old news article about getting into a bar fight really need removal? That isn't going to keep the person from getting a job or something. Someone who judges people from 20-year old charges isn't worth working for.
The power to arbitrarily remove someone else's published works is horrible - it's like the 1st amendment in reverse. There's no legitimate reason for that, and this example of a wealthy person trying to hide their laundry is proof.
What foundations do that? I agree that they are not non-profits if they are charging support or consulting fees. Usually they don't do that.
You are welcome. Are you using Slashdot Beta? I am on the old one. I tried it in IN, FF, and Chrome and it did the same thing. But somehow it always serves me the old-skool design even though I am not logged-in on 2 of those 3 browsers.
Stop using the picture taking analogy. It doesn't work because there are specifically laws forbidding taking pictures of the inside of someone's house.
Below the video is a button that it says "Hide/Show Transcript." Clicking on that shows me the transcript. Thinking it was something Firefoxy, I just tried it in Chrome and IE too.
That is not particularly useful, though. The Hide/Show transcript button displays the transcript in real-time, with the video
No it doesn't. It displays this:
Tim: Larry, one of our readers has asked: What do you think if you reach all the goals that you have right now for the Mayday PAC, what will prevent lawmakers from finding other loopholes in laws that do something that’s similar but not quite the same as campaign contributions. We’ve seen it with FISA and DMCA that people can’t necessarily get some sort of legislative advantage—they’ll try it again and try it again the next year. So if you get rid of all corporate money in government, do you think that’s the only avenue for undue influence? What is the answer to someone who says that this isn’t enough to really remove that sort of influence in government?
Larry: So there is an idea good enough for government work that I think we need to embrace and understand. It is a standard way below the standard of typical technologists. It is a standard that’s hard for, I think, technologists to accept—but here’s the idea: If we change the way elections are funded, we will give Congress a chance to actually think of something other than what the big funders care about, when they make a decision. Now they could still make the wrong decision—they could still make a stupid decision. They can still make a completely biased or ill-informed decision. There is no guarantee that this creates good government. But what it does do is give them the freedom, ‘the freedom to lead’, as Buddy Roemer used to say. Because they are no longer focused on what this tiny tiny fraction of the 1% care about. So nothing we are offering is about perfection. We are offering the first necessary step. To get us out of the pathology that we are in right now.
Tim: Okay. So another critical and this one is a slightly different type of critical questions that a lot of our readers have, and I think this is also widespread, is they object to the idea of regulating the money that can be given to a political campaign, and they say that that is equivalent to speech; one reader asks, and I am going to say that this is somewhat facetiously, that aren’t you in that way, also calling for a prohibition of documentaries of the political bench, or books written by politicians who are in favor of a particular candidate? Distinguish the way money per se as a campaign contribution in that form is different from other forms of material support, and why it is that it is okay to limit contributions to a certain dollar amount for a person or group as opposed to other ways that people influence political campaigns themselves.
Larry: Great question. So the Mayday PAC is aiming at changing the way elections are funded. And the proposals that we pointed to don’t necessarily do anything directly about limiting people’s capacity to spend their money to speak.
Tim: But then we already have such restrictions anyhow with campaign contribution limits.
Larry: Right. But we are not focused on restrictions—we are focused on increasing the range of people who participate in the funding of elections. So there are two basic models that we’ve got: One is the voucher program—you can see it at reform.to—a voucher proposal, where every voter is given a voucher that they use to fund small dollar elections. The other is matching grant where you give a small contribution—it’s matched up to 9:1—that’s John Sarbanes’ proposal. Those two proposals don’t restrict anybody’s ability to contribute anything. Or don’t restrict people’s ability to spend their money speaking at all. All this is doing is making it, so candidates don’t spend all of their time literally 30% to 70% of their time, focused on the tiniest fraction of the 1%. So there are lots of people out there who are talking about much more r
There's a Hide/Show transcript button just below the video.
I'm confused.
At first I thought this was retaliation for the wiretapping of Angela Merkel. But DER SPIEGEL says that the wiretap was setup by CIA and NSA employees from the roof of the US embassy, and had nothing to do with Verizon.
So are they saying that because Verizon let the US Government spy on Americans in America, they won't let Verizon operate in Germany? That seems odd to me. Verizon in Germany should be operated by German employees and is subject to German law. What Verizon did in the US seems unrelated.
Personally, I welcome them sanctioning multinational companies for bad behavior. But it is surprising.
Aereo doesn't sell outside of the broadcast range. So people from LA cannot use Aereo to watch a NY broadcast.
Actually the CHARGE for this service
I was talking from the viewpoint of the broadcaster. They don't charge the broadcaster.
But yes, I see your point.
Then I think, based on ArcadeMan's definition of "public transmitting" they are not. I think your example illustrates his point quite well. The definition of "public transmitting" is based on a dated definition of "public." Based on what another poster said in another thread, it is based on the fact that anyone from the public can purchase it. Not based on whether the stream is specific to an individual.
No, that is not a retransmission. But it is a copyright violation.
ahhhh! So just let me restate this so I undertsand.
CBS intentionally does not want their transmissions covering a certain area because the lack of content is leverage they can use against cable companies. So by Aereo solving that problem, they lose their bargaining chip.
I posted a big thing about advertising, but I see VTBlue's reply saying that they don't make enough money off the ads any longer. So that explains the licensing fees thing.
Are all the decryption key cards the same?
I've never understood why anyone would want to sue Aereo. They increase the transmission range of local broadcasts. They don't strip the ads, so the advertisers still profit. The stations get increased viewership, which they could as a selling point to advertises. "Hey, not only do we reach 50,000 people in this area, but Aereo increases that by another 10,000 people!" Why would a TV station complain if someone could increase their broadcast range without charging them anything for it? If the station wanted to do that themselves, they would have to buy towers, increase power, deal with FCC regs, etc. Aereo does it for free!
Sounds like we need to add an additional brake light every few years.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm still unclear on 2 things though.
1) While they may have obtained a second warrant: did they search the drives before they got that second warrant?
If so, getting the second warrant was really just an administrative step so they could use the evidence. That makes it parallel reconstruction which is indeed against the 4th.
2) Why did they even have the data?
If the data was not part of the first warrant, then they should have deleted the data. Merely separating the data should not meet the requirements of the 4th amendment.
This solidifies a fundamental shift in the way we use web sites:
While Google Domains won’t include hosting, website building providers Squarespace, Wix, Weebly and Shopify have signed on as partners.
So we have a domain registrar now, who only lets you use certain predefined hosting services. This is part of a trend:
Computers used to be general purpose machines that could be used to create and run any software. Now, they are increasingly used to run only software sanctioned by the device manufacturer. Similarly, network software used to use standard W3C file transfer protocols, but instead they now integrate with proprietary file transfer web sites. So instead of FTP that works anywhere, software uses DropBox, OneDrive, and Google Drive. Rather than make a web site or customize a MySpace page, you use the predefined Facebook or Google + format.
Google is just taking this idea to the next level.
1. Reserve all the conference rooms in the building for the next 10 years
2. Build an app to auction conference rooms
3. $$$ Profit!!!! $$$
Thanks. That's the clarification I was missing. I have always been under the impression there were no patents on that stuff. Still, I wonder if they had patented the software with the density that it is patented today. if Compaq would have been able to do that.
The charging both sides isn't actually that insane.
What you say makes sense, but I don't see you tie it into that particular statement. In your example, Comcast is not charging the end-user for inbound traffic. Can you clarify?
Using your example, the ISP can guarantee that their network is not the cause of the download speed limitations. If they claim 50Mbps inbound, then they need to have 1) pipes within their network capable of 50MBps, and 2) their side of the peering connections should be at least that good. They can't guarantee the other side is that good though. So yes, you may not see 50MBps inbound. But they made good on their claims.
There is an easy fix to this law. Just reprogram the Google van to connect to every open wifi and download something illicit. Make sure the van drives to affluent neighborhoods where politicians live.
I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it once I've paid for it is none of my ISP's goddamned business.
You signed a contract that said you won't share it with another residence. There might even be local laws around it too, since it is local laws that gave the ISP the right to run the cables. If the contract did not state that, then one person one the street could run a cable to neighboring houses and cut the ISPs revenue significantly. Similarly, you can't run a cable TV wire to your neighbors house either, for the same reason.
When you say "I ALREADY PAID FOR IT" that isn't necessarily true. You didn't pay for "it" where "it" is a connection that can be shared. You paid for "it" where "it" is a connection to a single residence. If you do want to pay for a connection you can actually share outside your home, you can buy one, but they are a more money. Such subscriptions are mostly for hotels, motels, marinas, country clubs, etc.
With that said, ISPs don't really care much about wireless sharing since it usually isn't good enough to reach another residence. It could be a problem in close apartments, but there really isn't a way to limit the signal to one apartment anyway.
So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do
Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, Cablevision, AT&T, and Cavalier Telephone do. The last one was my DLS ISP around 2008. I got email notifications from them for downloading with bittorrent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://www.dailydot.com/news/c...