According to TFA, these voting machines have a large number of problems and no audit trail. Who's to say this wasn't just a fuckup, rather than deliberate malice on anyone's part?
If this shows anything, though, it's the need for a non-electronic audit trail. I've often had people find it odd, given that I'm a programmer, that I'm so against purely electronic voting. I don't find it odd-I know exactly how easy it is to manipulate data on a large scale, even data that's supposedly secure and tamper-resistant. It's a whole lot harder to tamper with thousands or millions of paper ballots than it is to tamper with thousands or millions of electronic records.
That doesn't mean electronics have no place. An electronically generated human-readable ballot would be fine. In that case, the speed and reduced human error of electronic voting could be realized, but the voter would still have the ability to verify their choices after printing, and if wrong, go to an election judge, say "I didn't intend to vote this way", and have their ballot scrapped and recast. Backup paper systems should always be available at every precinct in case of a total failure of the machines, electrical failure, or just people who are not comfortable using them.
Having that type of mechanism in place would prevent exactly this type of scenario. It would allow for the result either to be overturned, or to say with certainty that, while unlikely, it is indeed the outcome.
I thought I pretty clearly stated that I do not think "whatever government does is right. Let's see...
I didn't say a duly elected government had the right to do whatever the hell it wants, and genocide is certainly well outside those boundaries. On the other hand, taxation is widely considered to be a legitimate function of government.
Wait, I did very explicitly say that. Helps to read what you're responding to.
As to calling Godwin, that type of hyperbole fits to the definition what Godwin's Law was made for-hysterical references to Nazism and the Holocaust as analogies to things that are nothing like genocide.
As to why taxation is not theft, let's look at what the definition of theft is. We'll start with Princeton Wordnet:
larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International"
Alright, let's try Merriam-Webster then:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
Note the common thread here: theft is an unlawful taking. Taxation is a lawful taking. Therefore, taxation is not theft. I'm not arguing at all that that makes it right by definition-one can certainly argue that taxes are too high and have a legitimate position. But by the definition of theft, taxation is not theft. By the definition of government, taxation is considered a legitimate function of government, even in the freest of liberal democracies. Genocide is not. To compare the two is ludicrous.
I think our copyright laws are ridiculous -- not in principle, in my case, but in terms of the punishments for violating them, and in the duration of the copyrights. I would like it very much if the laws changed to make them more reasonable. But I'm convinced that piracy on my part would contribute to making things worse for me, worse for you, worse for everyone.
In a lot of cases, the only real way to get a law changed is to ignore it on a very wide scale. Even then it takes a lot of time, but it does work-right now, the marijuana laws are being changed, not on the principle that it's more against the public interest to outlaw marijuana than to legalize and regulate it (though a strong case may be made that this is true), but because it's impossible to realistically do so.
I think the same may be true for copyright. Only the "industries" who produce imaginary property (commonly known as IP) can buy Congresspeople to pretend that shit they make up is not only real but is "property" of some kind. Copyright etc. was never intended as a property right, at least not in the US-the Constitution states not only that it may be taken away after a specified time period, but that it must be. Contrast that with its treatment of real property, where it may never be taken away without just compensation. Its purpose was also clearly specified-"To promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts." Not to pay anyone, not to protect or establish a property right, not to advance anyone's private interest. Only to advance a public interest-promotion of science and art. If science and art would be best served with no copyright or patent law, this clause would not only allow but mandate that these laws be repealed at once.
I'm not sure that's true. I'd support a genuinely limited time (no longer than 10 years), commercial-use-only copyright, in the interest of said promotion of science and art. On the other hand, suing people for making a remix of a song or movie scene does not advance science or art, it diminishes it. Copyright terms so long that they exceed a normal lifespan do not promote science and art, but diminish it. Ridiculous scope of patentability, from software to genes, does not advance science and art, it diminishes it.
And at this point, no one's around to throw as many bribes, erm, excuse me, "free speech contributions" at reducing the excesses of these laws as at making them worse. The only real chance at reform is to make them untenable and unenforceable, and the only way I can see to do that is to ignore them. By all means, be smart about it-use a VPN, use encryption, use smaller trackers. But the only way I'll voluntarily comply with copyright law is when it comes within reason. I already do that where individuals choose to exercise reasonable terms-I'm happy to pay for music at Magnatune or donate to open source projects. For anything else, you betcha I'll download it, and not feel a single twinge of guilt. If you're going to attempt ridiculous terms and artificial scarcity, I don't feel in the slightest bad about subverting you. Quite, in fact, the opposite.
And to answer an argument so common it's nearly inevitable anymore, such a universe may mean that some business models go obsolete. But if that's the case, they already are obsolete, and we're just propping them up with laws pretending they're not. C'est la vie, so to speak-business models go obsolete all the time. We shouldn't force everyone to pretend the world works in a way it no longer does to prop up an outdated model, we should find new ones that work with the new technology and reality. If that means the end of certain video games, or Hollywood movies, or what have you, well, somehow, the human race survived without those for some time. And it's not like our desire for such things will go away-someone will find a workable way to do them, whether that's raising funds in advance, doing them collaboratively, or what have you, and those who are aficionados will likely pay or participate. If not, they die out, and so their time came like so many things before them.
And if they're smart, they'll do their homework at home, put it on a flash drive (or email it to themself), and stick it on the school computer the next morning.
Teaching kids how and when to circumvent stupidity really is a skill we probably could do with a bit more of. Internet filtering in school, locking down school-issued laptops, and things like that are great ways to teach how to tinker with something and circumvent an artificial barrier. I'm not sure that's the intended result, but in my experience, it teaches it very effectively nonetheless.
Did you really just Godwin this thread by comparing taxation to genocide?
I didn't say a duly elected government had the right to do whatever the hell it wants, and genocide is certainly well outside those boundaries. On the other hand, taxation is widely considered to be a legitimate function of government.
Glad to hear you've got a job that makes you that much money. I didn't know we had any CEOs on here, that's about what it'd take.
$10,000 hospital stay? You mean one night for observation, without many tests done and with little to no treatment needed? That'd about cover that. Most treatment for serious conditions requires more money than most of us make in several years, sometimes more than you'll make in your entire life. (Or at least more than the vast majority of us will, if I got that CEO bit wrong.)
And due to cost, a lot of people avoid preventative care (which could've handled the problem far more cheaply) until it's a life-threatening condition that will get treated no matter what, and that you have no hope in hell of paying for. Well, guess what? Now, we all pay for it anyway-the hospital writes off the cost, and it contributes to higher prices.
And finally, words have meanings. No, you do not have the right to raid your neighbor's wallet. Yes, that's theft-if you do it. On the other hand, a duly elected government does have the authority to collect taxes. You have the right to disagree with the tax, to express your disagreement, to vote for those who do not wish for it to be imposed, etc., and you're doing two of those things (and I imagine it's a safe enough bet you'll be doing the third come election time). But it's not theft, and people really need to quit misappropriating that word. It has a meaning.
I believe I'd much rather have a fine for not having health insurance then live in the world you apparently envision, thank you very much.
I don't know where you get the idea that the government forces chemo over palliative care in hopelessly terminal cases. That's why we have the terms "palliative care" and "hospice". Many people make that choice when their prognosis does not have a chance of survival, so that at least their final days are more comfortable. That would almost certainly be one of the choices offered to Timmy's parents.
On the other hand, if little Timmy can survive, why the hell shouldn't we do everything we can for him? With all the resources we have in our society, what more noble thing could we possibly put them toward than to save the lives of those we share a society with? It's one thing to overuse "think of the children" to support ridiculous censorship laws, but it's quite another to actually suggest we deny chemo to a kid who could benefit from it and survive because Mom and Dad don't have deep enough pockets.
I'm pretty sure my doctor keeps patient files in a locked cabinet. I hope I would've noticed if he didn't-I might have mentioned it, or be looking for a different doctor.
That being said, leaving a public-facing web service open to anyone to read is like leaving a patient file open and on the counter, not like someone cracking into a cabinet. So, yes, here, I'm still going to say, if you don't want the public to look at stuff, don't leave it where anyone can look at it! There are always curious people about. And there's certainly no excuse for sloppy security when you're handling someone else's sensitive information.
Right now, I'm using it on a dead standard HP Probook. Horrible configuration. For the wireless, you have to click on the "wireless" icon, click on the appropriate network, and put in the network password. I have a lot of technical skill-if it took me twenty seconds to figure that out, I bet your average user could have a painful minute and a half process on their hands! Dual monitors were also a terrible pain, like I've heard sometimes. I plugged the second monitor in, the menu for the two monitor setup popped up, and I dragged it to the appropriate side. I don't know how your average non-technical user would even have a prayer of figuring out such an arcane, unintuitive interface. They would just have to resort to a forum, if they could even find help there.
I also use it on a desktop machine at home, but that was a machine I built myself, so I doubt that would meet your qualification of "standard". Worked just as easily there as well, though.
Both of them have, at this point, been updated when needed with regular version/package management updates, undergone 2 (laptop) or 3 (desktop) OS version upgrades, and nothing's been broken whatsoever. You click the button, you move on with things. Hell of a lot easier than upgrading your WIndows version, you ever tried that? It keeps me working, but it's sure not as simple as "Click upgrade button, allow to run, reboot". Even if I did at some point have to check forums for a fix on something, it'd be easier than a full clean format and reinstall (and half the time on a new Windows install, drivers are missing too).
But if you really want a slog, try cleaning crapware off a Windows machine sometimes. A shining example of "just works"-it's capable of getting all the malware you want, and don't, right out of the box. Getting rid of it, on the other hand...Well, it keeps me making money, right?
How would they make sure you don't download it from your favorite Bittorrent tracker, bypassing the need to shell script at all and still giving you a copy to watch whenever you like?
"Make sure the paid service is less functional and portable than the free one" is probably not the correct answer to that question. It sure hasn't been so far.
Not only a poor analogy, but not applicable. A private home or car is considered to be a private, exclusive area unless you explicitly know otherwise. A website is the exact opposite-it's like a storefront, or a restaurant, which a reasonable person would presume to be open to the public unless explicitly marked or set up otherwise.
And if you leave the door to your store unlocked after closing time, and I wander in, yes, that's totally acceptable, and I'm not trespassing unless I stay after you explicitly tell me to leave. Until you do, I'm making a reasonable assumption that a normally public place (a website on the public Internet, or a store) is open to the public (no access control mechanism is in place, or the front door of the store is not locked). If you accidentally leave confidential business records laying on the front counter of the store, and I see them there, I'm also doing nothing wrong-you left them in a public area, I just saw what was there.
At some point, yes, you are responsible to take reasonable security precautions. If you leave things in an area that the public is allowed to access, you can hardly yowl and scream when it becomes publicly known. Now, if you keep it in an area that is not normally accessible to the public and clearly is secured, and someone deliberately cracks in, you are much more likely to have a legitimate grievance. But only then, and this is not such a case. It was laying right out in the open for anyone at all to look at, and someone did.
The tethering fee is due to the added value of the data going to your computer instead of your phone. It is far mare convenient to access the Internet on your laptop than on your phone so why shouldn't you pay for it? I'm not saying I like it but that's how capitalism works.
Bullshit. Utter bullshit.
If I buy something, I can use it however I like. You can't have it both ways. If you want to give me a limited amount of data, I should be able to do absolutely whatever I want with that data allowance. You're selling me 2 GB per month to use up in any way I see fit. THAT, is how capitalism works-you sell me something, it's mine now, and I do with it whatever in the hell I like without owing you another nickel.
It doesn't matter that there's an "added value". If I buy flour, you get money for the amount of flour you sold me at the price you asked, and that is the end of you having any say or interest in that portion of flour. You don't get to come back later and say "Wow, that's a nice loaf of bread you baked. That added some value to that flour, let's talk about what you owe me now...". The moment you got paid, you no longer should have any control over what you sold me or how I choose to use it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a rabid capitalism supporter, either. But capitalism involves a transfer of ownership being a transfer of ownership, period. Government-protected monopolies rent-seeking every penny they can get their greedy little mitts on is not a "free" market in any meaningful sense of the word.
Don't demean the word "rights." Everyone is free to write the software (DRM or otherwise) as they see fit - that is a right.
I will agree with that statement if and only if one concurrently has the right to write and distribute software that easily cracks said DRM. "However you like" goes both ways, in such a case. If my rights to break it can be restricted, yours to use it can be too. If either of us can write software however we like, you can write your DRM, and I can crack it. The problem occurs when that "right" only applies to one side.
I didn't RTFA but I'd be curious to know whether it is illegal to walk down the specific highway that she walked on. If so, she might have a case against Google for suggesting to do something that was illegal to begin with.
That wouldn't matter a bit. What if she were using a paper map rather than Google Maps? Would the manufacturer of the paper map be responsible for not specifying every conceivable law that could apply to the road in question, rather than saying "There is a road that goes from this point to this point along this route", and leaving it up to the map reader how to safely, legally, and correctly use the road? I think that would make for a very difficult to read map, at the very least. It is not Google's responsibility to know the local law in your jurisdiction or read the road signs-it is yours.
What are you talking about? Facebook's goal is to make money for their investors. If they think taking the page down will be more profitable over some period of time, then of course that's what they will do.
The question is, "what period of time"? If some advertisers return tomorrow, sure, it could be short-term profitable. But what about when Facebook develops the reputation that it will take a page down the moment it offends someone? I don't honestly think that will enhance their profitability long term. Do you?
The problem with the "damn the torpedoes, only exists to make money for the investors" concept is that it is ultimately harmful even to the business and the investors. Ultimately, a bad reputation is corrosive to a business. It may take years for the damage to manifest (especially in arenas where there is a high degree of lock-in), but eventually, if everyone loves to hate you (even if they have to stay with you today), at some point, someone will come along with an alternative, and your customers will stampede out the door. You may also find yourself hit with regulations that are actually harsher than what you would've had to do on your own. Ultimately, it is society, through government, that grants the limited liability corporations enjoy, and society has every right to restrict or revoke such grants if an entity granted such is acting so as to damage the public for the enrichment of its shareholders. I wish we exercised that right more.
Doing the right thing and acting decently may cost a little more today, but it pays off in terms of long term sustainability of a company. Ultimately, "being evil" has a cost. Preserving your company's reputation long term is something you can do for your investors, and that's only done by setting clear principles and then steadfastly sticking to them. For a site like Facebook, one of those principles should clearly be "We will not interfere with what our users want to post, unless they are doing something illegal", and then pointing any critic of any page to an FAQ clearly stating that they do not write or approve the content of anyone's page, just as no one from Slashdot wrote or approved this comment. If you find it offensive, then, I offended you, not Slashdot.
Then again, that's why I would tend to say to avoid crap like Facebook, and if you want to put something up on the web, build it and do it. It's not that hard to build a basic website. If you want something done right (and to stick around even if someone doesn't like it), do it yourself.
No, it's not "stealing". He referred only to P2P, which makes copies. Making a copy of something cannot by definition steal it, since the original owner is not deprived of the possession.
It is, on the other hand, copyright infringement, if the copyright holder did not agree to the making of the copy and does not license under a license which blanket allows it. But words have meanings. What the poster up there described is copyright infringement, and calling it stealing, rape, murder, drunk driving, or anything else that makes it sound "worse" in lieu of using the perfectly good and precise term that describes it exactly is dishonest.
And you're "correcting" a common misconception with a slightly less common one. You can't plead the Fifth to avoid civil liability. One can, however, plead the Fifth during any court proceeding, including a civil case, if it is possible that the testimony given could possibly subject the person making it to criminal prosecution.
As an example, a doctor being sued for malpractice could not refuse to testify-the issue is a civil, not a criminal, one. On the other hand, if a hospital administrator is summoned to court and was involved in a potentially criminal coverup of malpractice, (s)he certainly could plead the Fifth in such a situation, as the issue in that case is potentially criminal and not just civil.
Is making a better movie somehow going to keep people from stealing it?
Doubt that would have any effect, but since the studio is generally not selling physical items in a setting where they can be stolen directly, I think their control over any theft is limited. They could encourage retailers to keep their DVDs in a locked display case, I suppose, and if they're really concerned about it, maybe offer them some assistance in setting up security cameras. That generally tends to deter theft. I'm not sure what that has to do with the article though, since it was entirely about copying and had nothing to do with theft.
If they would want to deter copying, though, that's harder if not impossible. Probably the best thing they can do there is just figure it's going to happen, but only as a proportion. Better movies mean more copying and more sales. So, while it will not stop copying, it will make them more money. Most of the money a movie makes is in the theater, and that experience cannot be downloaded. A lot of people also find it easier or more convenient to purchase "official" versions. There will always be some who cannot or will not pay, and who are willing to copy. You can't stop that. May as well worry about how you could stop traffic jams or natural disasters from occurring on your opening night. That might hurt your profits, but there's nothing you can do about it.
How many thousands of dollars per patent, do you expect patent examiners to spend in their search for prior art?
As many as it takes to find it if it exists. But the bill should be footed by the person applying for the patent, not by the taxpayer.
As a side benefit, forcing the person to apply to foot the bill might just slow this "Try for a patent on EVERYTHING!!!!" mania way down. You'd see people thinking very hard about whether it's worthwhile to apply for a patent, with the possible risk of spending tens of thousands only to have the patent office say "Sorry, someone already did this a couple years ago."
Of course, the person/entity paying for the search would be free to call it off at any time, preventing further costs to them above what's already been spent. Of course, in this case, they don't get a patent.
Little late to be practicing the "sacrament of forgiveness" for Copernicus, at least outside the framework of some ridiculous story about how we actually have invisible immortal bits.
But if the Catholic Church wants to do some good today, there are plenty of things it can help right out with. It could, say, help with promoting condom use in Africa. It could even improve the situation by shutting up about it and at least not hindering it.
They could take action against the sexual abuse of kids. For that matter, they could even improve that situation by not actively hindering investigations, and maybe even reporting such crimes to the appropriate authorities (hint: the appropriate authorities are NOT located in the Vatican) when committed by its own members.
Any organization that makes its living deliberately promoting delusion and superstition is not worthy of any respect of any type. Maybe they should try the "sacrament of reality" someday. Causes a lot less problems than trying to live by things that are not real, amazingly enough.
Slashdot Mirror
But if they write marketese (like, you know, "productize"), fuck 'em.
Anyone who uses marketese should not be "well-respected". I echo the condemnation for it.
According to TFA, these voting machines have a large number of problems and no audit trail. Who's to say this wasn't just a fuckup, rather than deliberate malice on anyone's part?
If this shows anything, though, it's the need for a non-electronic audit trail. I've often had people find it odd, given that I'm a programmer, that I'm so against purely electronic voting. I don't find it odd-I know exactly how easy it is to manipulate data on a large scale, even data that's supposedly secure and tamper-resistant. It's a whole lot harder to tamper with thousands or millions of paper ballots than it is to tamper with thousands or millions of electronic records.
That doesn't mean electronics have no place. An electronically generated human-readable ballot would be fine. In that case, the speed and reduced human error of electronic voting could be realized, but the voter would still have the ability to verify their choices after printing, and if wrong, go to an election judge, say "I didn't intend to vote this way", and have their ballot scrapped and recast. Backup paper systems should always be available at every precinct in case of a total failure of the machines, electrical failure, or just people who are not comfortable using them.
Having that type of mechanism in place would prevent exactly this type of scenario. It would allow for the result either to be overturned, or to say with certainty that, while unlikely, it is indeed the outcome.
I thought I pretty clearly stated that I do not think "whatever government does is right. Let's see...
Wait, I did very explicitly say that. Helps to read what you're responding to.
As to calling Godwin, that type of hyperbole fits to the definition what Godwin's Law was made for-hysterical references to Nazism and the Holocaust as analogies to things that are nothing like genocide.
As to why taxation is not theft, let's look at what the definition of theft is. We'll start with Princeton Wordnet:
Alright, let's try Merriam-Webster then:
Note the common thread here: theft is an unlawful taking. Taxation is a lawful taking. Therefore, taxation is not theft. I'm not arguing at all that that makes it right by definition-one can certainly argue that taxes are too high and have a legitimate position. But by the definition of theft, taxation is not theft. By the definition of government, taxation is considered a legitimate function of government, even in the freest of liberal democracies. Genocide is not. To compare the two is ludicrous.
In a lot of cases, the only real way to get a law changed is to ignore it on a very wide scale. Even then it takes a lot of time, but it does work-right now, the marijuana laws are being changed, not on the principle that it's more against the public interest to outlaw marijuana than to legalize and regulate it (though a strong case may be made that this is true), but because it's impossible to realistically do so.
I think the same may be true for copyright. Only the "industries" who produce imaginary property (commonly known as IP) can buy Congresspeople to pretend that shit they make up is not only real but is "property" of some kind. Copyright etc. was never intended as a property right, at least not in the US-the Constitution states not only that it may be taken away after a specified time period, but that it must be. Contrast that with its treatment of real property, where it may never be taken away without just compensation. Its purpose was also clearly specified-"To promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts." Not to pay anyone, not to protect or establish a property right, not to advance anyone's private interest. Only to advance a public interest-promotion of science and art. If science and art would be best served with no copyright or patent law, this clause would not only allow but mandate that these laws be repealed at once.
I'm not sure that's true. I'd support a genuinely limited time (no longer than 10 years), commercial-use-only copyright, in the interest of said promotion of science and art. On the other hand, suing people for making a remix of a song or movie scene does not advance science or art, it diminishes it. Copyright terms so long that they exceed a normal lifespan do not promote science and art, but diminish it. Ridiculous scope of patentability, from software to genes, does not advance science and art, it diminishes it.
And at this point, no one's around to throw as many bribes, erm, excuse me, "free speech contributions" at reducing the excesses of these laws as at making them worse. The only real chance at reform is to make them untenable and unenforceable, and the only way I can see to do that is to ignore them. By all means, be smart about it-use a VPN, use encryption, use smaller trackers. But the only way I'll voluntarily comply with copyright law is when it comes within reason. I already do that where individuals choose to exercise reasonable terms-I'm happy to pay for music at Magnatune or donate to open source projects. For anything else, you betcha I'll download it, and not feel a single twinge of guilt. If you're going to attempt ridiculous terms and artificial scarcity, I don't feel in the slightest bad about subverting you. Quite, in fact, the opposite.
And to answer an argument so common it's nearly inevitable anymore, such a universe may mean that some business models go obsolete. But if that's the case, they already are obsolete, and we're just propping them up with laws pretending they're not. C'est la vie, so to speak-business models go obsolete all the time. We shouldn't force everyone to pretend the world works in a way it no longer does to prop up an outdated model, we should find new ones that work with the new technology and reality. If that means the end of certain video games, or Hollywood movies, or what have you, well, somehow, the human race survived without those for some time. And it's not like our desire for such things will go away-someone will find a workable way to do them, whether that's raising funds in advance, doing them collaboratively, or what have you, and those who are aficionados will likely pay or participate. If not, they die out, and so their time came like so many things before them.
And if they're smart, they'll do their homework at home, put it on a flash drive (or email it to themself), and stick it on the school computer the next morning.
Teaching kids how and when to circumvent stupidity really is a skill we probably could do with a bit more of. Internet filtering in school, locking down school-issued laptops, and things like that are great ways to teach how to tinker with something and circumvent an artificial barrier. I'm not sure that's the intended result, but in my experience, it teaches it very effectively nonetheless.
Did you really just Godwin this thread by comparing taxation to genocide?
I didn't say a duly elected government had the right to do whatever the hell it wants, and genocide is certainly well outside those boundaries. On the other hand, taxation is widely considered to be a legitimate function of government.
But still...really???
Glad to hear you've got a job that makes you that much money. I didn't know we had any CEOs on here, that's about what it'd take.
$10,000 hospital stay? You mean one night for observation, without many tests done and with little to no treatment needed? That'd about cover that. Most treatment for serious conditions requires more money than most of us make in several years, sometimes more than you'll make in your entire life. (Or at least more than the vast majority of us will, if I got that CEO bit wrong.)
And due to cost, a lot of people avoid preventative care (which could've handled the problem far more cheaply) until it's a life-threatening condition that will get treated no matter what, and that you have no hope in hell of paying for. Well, guess what? Now, we all pay for it anyway-the hospital writes off the cost, and it contributes to higher prices.
And finally, words have meanings. No, you do not have the right to raid your neighbor's wallet. Yes, that's theft-if you do it. On the other hand, a duly elected government does have the authority to collect taxes. You have the right to disagree with the tax, to express your disagreement, to vote for those who do not wish for it to be imposed, etc., and you're doing two of those things (and I imagine it's a safe enough bet you'll be doing the third come election time). But it's not theft, and people really need to quit misappropriating that word. It has a meaning.
I believe I'd much rather have a fine for not having health insurance then live in the world you apparently envision, thank you very much.
I don't know where you get the idea that the government forces chemo over palliative care in hopelessly terminal cases. That's why we have the terms "palliative care" and "hospice". Many people make that choice when their prognosis does not have a chance of survival, so that at least their final days are more comfortable. That would almost certainly be one of the choices offered to Timmy's parents.
On the other hand, if little Timmy can survive, why the hell shouldn't we do everything we can for him? With all the resources we have in our society, what more noble thing could we possibly put them toward than to save the lives of those we share a society with? It's one thing to overuse "think of the children" to support ridiculous censorship laws, but it's quite another to actually suggest we deny chemo to a kid who could benefit from it and survive because Mom and Dad don't have deep enough pockets.
I'm pretty sure my doctor keeps patient files in a locked cabinet. I hope I would've noticed if he didn't-I might have mentioned it, or be looking for a different doctor.
That being said, leaving a public-facing web service open to anyone to read is like leaving a patient file open and on the counter, not like someone cracking into a cabinet. So, yes, here, I'm still going to say, if you don't want the public to look at stuff, don't leave it where anyone can look at it! There are always curious people about. And there's certainly no excuse for sloppy security when you're handling someone else's sensitive information.
Wow, why didn't I think of that? Now there's a strategy that's reliably worked.* Never mind then, carry on ignoring the customers.
*Reliable except every time actually tried.
Right now, I'm using it on a dead standard HP Probook. Horrible configuration. For the wireless, you have to click on the "wireless" icon, click on the appropriate network, and put in the network password. I have a lot of technical skill-if it took me twenty seconds to figure that out, I bet your average user could have a painful minute and a half process on their hands! Dual monitors were also a terrible pain, like I've heard sometimes. I plugged the second monitor in, the menu for the two monitor setup popped up, and I dragged it to the appropriate side. I don't know how your average non-technical user would even have a prayer of figuring out such an arcane, unintuitive interface. They would just have to resort to a forum, if they could even find help there.
I also use it on a desktop machine at home, but that was a machine I built myself, so I doubt that would meet your qualification of "standard". Worked just as easily there as well, though.
Both of them have, at this point, been updated when needed with regular version/package management updates, undergone 2 (laptop) or 3 (desktop) OS version upgrades, and nothing's been broken whatsoever. You click the button, you move on with things. Hell of a lot easier than upgrading your WIndows version, you ever tried that? It keeps me working, but it's sure not as simple as "Click upgrade button, allow to run, reboot". Even if I did at some point have to check forums for a fix on something, it'd be easier than a full clean format and reinstall (and half the time on a new Windows install, drivers are missing too).
But if you really want a slog, try cleaning crapware off a Windows machine sometimes. A shining example of "just works"-it's capable of getting all the malware you want, and don't, right out of the box. Getting rid of it, on the other hand...Well, it keeps me making money, right?
How would they make sure you don't download it from your favorite Bittorrent tracker, bypassing the need to shell script at all and still giving you a copy to watch whenever you like?
"Make sure the paid service is less functional and portable than the free one" is probably not the correct answer to that question. It sure hasn't been so far.
Not only a poor analogy, but not applicable. A private home or car is considered to be a private, exclusive area unless you explicitly know otherwise. A website is the exact opposite-it's like a storefront, or a restaurant, which a reasonable person would presume to be open to the public unless explicitly marked or set up otherwise.
And if you leave the door to your store unlocked after closing time, and I wander in, yes, that's totally acceptable, and I'm not trespassing unless I stay after you explicitly tell me to leave. Until you do, I'm making a reasonable assumption that a normally public place (a website on the public Internet, or a store) is open to the public (no access control mechanism is in place, or the front door of the store is not locked). If you accidentally leave confidential business records laying on the front counter of the store, and I see them there, I'm also doing nothing wrong-you left them in a public area, I just saw what was there.
At some point, yes, you are responsible to take reasonable security precautions. If you leave things in an area that the public is allowed to access, you can hardly yowl and scream when it becomes publicly known. Now, if you keep it in an area that is not normally accessible to the public and clearly is secured, and someone deliberately cracks in, you are much more likely to have a legitimate grievance. But only then, and this is not such a case. It was laying right out in the open for anyone at all to look at, and someone did.
Bullshit. Utter bullshit.
If I buy something, I can use it however I like. You can't have it both ways. If you want to give me a limited amount of data, I should be able to do absolutely whatever I want with that data allowance. You're selling me 2 GB per month to use up in any way I see fit. THAT, is how capitalism works-you sell me something, it's mine now, and I do with it whatever in the hell I like without owing you another nickel.
It doesn't matter that there's an "added value". If I buy flour, you get money for the amount of flour you sold me at the price you asked, and that is the end of you having any say or interest in that portion of flour. You don't get to come back later and say "Wow, that's a nice loaf of bread you baked. That added some value to that flour, let's talk about what you owe me now...". The moment you got paid, you no longer should have any control over what you sold me or how I choose to use it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a rabid capitalism supporter, either. But capitalism involves a transfer of ownership being a transfer of ownership, period. Government-protected monopolies rent-seeking every penny they can get their greedy little mitts on is not a "free" market in any meaningful sense of the word.
If I asked you to do a favor, like spelling "your" properly since this is not a teenage SMS message, would it help if I said please?
Wasn't sure what you meant, but if that's what it is, I absolutely agree with you.
I will agree with that statement if and only if one concurrently has the right to write and distribute software that easily cracks said DRM. "However you like" goes both ways, in such a case. If my rights to break it can be restricted, yours to use it can be too. If either of us can write software however we like, you can write your DRM, and I can crack it. The problem occurs when that "right" only applies to one side.
That wouldn't matter a bit. What if she were using a paper map rather than Google Maps? Would the manufacturer of the paper map be responsible for not specifying every conceivable law that could apply to the road in question, rather than saying "There is a road that goes from this point to this point along this route", and leaving it up to the map reader how to safely, legally, and correctly use the road? I think that would make for a very difficult to read map, at the very least. It is not Google's responsibility to know the local law in your jurisdiction or read the road signs-it is yours.
The question is, "what period of time"? If some advertisers return tomorrow, sure, it could be short-term profitable. But what about when Facebook develops the reputation that it will take a page down the moment it offends someone? I don't honestly think that will enhance their profitability long term. Do you?
The problem with the "damn the torpedoes, only exists to make money for the investors" concept is that it is ultimately harmful even to the business and the investors. Ultimately, a bad reputation is corrosive to a business. It may take years for the damage to manifest (especially in arenas where there is a high degree of lock-in), but eventually, if everyone loves to hate you (even if they have to stay with you today), at some point, someone will come along with an alternative, and your customers will stampede out the door. You may also find yourself hit with regulations that are actually harsher than what you would've had to do on your own. Ultimately, it is society, through government, that grants the limited liability corporations enjoy, and society has every right to restrict or revoke such grants if an entity granted such is acting so as to damage the public for the enrichment of its shareholders. I wish we exercised that right more.
Doing the right thing and acting decently may cost a little more today, but it pays off in terms of long term sustainability of a company. Ultimately, "being evil" has a cost. Preserving your company's reputation long term is something you can do for your investors, and that's only done by setting clear principles and then steadfastly sticking to them. For a site like Facebook, one of those principles should clearly be "We will not interfere with what our users want to post, unless they are doing something illegal", and then pointing any critic of any page to an FAQ clearly stating that they do not write or approve the content of anyone's page, just as no one from Slashdot wrote or approved this comment. If you find it offensive, then, I offended you, not Slashdot.
Then again, that's why I would tend to say to avoid crap like Facebook, and if you want to put something up on the web, build it and do it. It's not that hard to build a basic website. If you want something done right (and to stick around even if someone doesn't like it), do it yourself.
No, it's not "stealing". He referred only to P2P, which makes copies. Making a copy of something cannot by definition steal it, since the original owner is not deprived of the possession.
It is, on the other hand, copyright infringement, if the copyright holder did not agree to the making of the copy and does not license under a license which blanket allows it. But words have meanings. What the poster up there described is copyright infringement, and calling it stealing, rape, murder, drunk driving, or anything else that makes it sound "worse" in lieu of using the perfectly good and precise term that describes it exactly is dishonest.
And you're "correcting" a common misconception with a slightly less common one. You can't plead the Fifth to avoid civil liability. One can, however, plead the Fifth during any court proceeding, including a civil case, if it is possible that the testimony given could possibly subject the person making it to criminal prosecution.
As an example, a doctor being sued for malpractice could not refuse to testify-the issue is a civil, not a criminal, one. On the other hand, if a hospital administrator is summoned to court and was involved in a potentially criminal coverup of malpractice, (s)he certainly could plead the Fifth in such a situation, as the issue in that case is potentially criminal and not just civil.
Doubt that would have any effect, but since the studio is generally not selling physical items in a setting where they can be stolen directly, I think their control over any theft is limited. They could encourage retailers to keep their DVDs in a locked display case, I suppose, and if they're really concerned about it, maybe offer them some assistance in setting up security cameras. That generally tends to deter theft. I'm not sure what that has to do with the article though, since it was entirely about copying and had nothing to do with theft.
If they would want to deter copying, though, that's harder if not impossible. Probably the best thing they can do there is just figure it's going to happen, but only as a proportion. Better movies mean more copying and more sales. So, while it will not stop copying, it will make them more money. Most of the money a movie makes is in the theater, and that experience cannot be downloaded. A lot of people also find it easier or more convenient to purchase "official" versions. There will always be some who cannot or will not pay, and who are willing to copy. You can't stop that. May as well worry about how you could stop traffic jams or natural disasters from occurring on your opening night. That might hurt your profits, but there's nothing you can do about it.
As many as it takes to find it if it exists. But the bill should be footed by the person applying for the patent, not by the taxpayer.
As a side benefit, forcing the person to apply to foot the bill might just slow this "Try for a patent on EVERYTHING!!!!" mania way down. You'd see people thinking very hard about whether it's worthwhile to apply for a patent, with the possible risk of spending tens of thousands only to have the patent office say "Sorry, someone already did this a couple years ago."
Of course, the person/entity paying for the search would be free to call it off at any time, preventing further costs to them above what's already been spent. Of course, in this case, they don't get a patent.
Little late to be practicing the "sacrament of forgiveness" for Copernicus, at least outside the framework of some ridiculous story about how we actually have invisible immortal bits.
But if the Catholic Church wants to do some good today, there are plenty of things it can help right out with. It could, say, help with promoting condom use in Africa. It could even improve the situation by shutting up about it and at least not hindering it.
They could take action against the sexual abuse of kids. For that matter, they could even improve that situation by not actively hindering investigations, and maybe even reporting such crimes to the appropriate authorities (hint: the appropriate authorities are NOT located in the Vatican) when committed by its own members.
Any organization that makes its living deliberately promoting delusion and superstition is not worthy of any respect of any type. Maybe they should try the "sacrament of reality" someday. Causes a lot less problems than trying to live by things that are not real, amazingly enough.