While it may not be recording all the time, it makes it too convenient to record at any time at a moments notice. I don't mind people recording outside in the public or in a mall since I equate it to people who use a camcorder while on vacation for the express purpose of recording their own experiences.
Where I do think it crosses the line is when people use it to specifically record me or my conversations. I consider this eavesdropping no matter my location. Since my remedy for such a situation isn't probably legal anyway, I don't think we need to split hairs about recording versus publishing.
I believe the argument is that the 5th amendment protects you from directly incriminating yourself, but doesn't protect you from being compelled by a court order to allow investigators gather evidence against you.
You not giving instructions on how to access the contents of the hard drive can be argued as contempt since you are preventing investigators from executing their court sanctioned search for evidence.
By the above reasoning, you'd have a 5th amendment right not to disclose the existence of the hard drive but once the authorities have possession of the drive and the court determines enough cause exist to search the contents of the drive you'd have to comply with the search warrant.
Lenovo moving some manufacturing here is an attempt by them to deliberately close one of the big ones, which is what happens to goods in transit between them and their customers.
Two problems with your theory:
1. You assume a chinese company is immune from influence from chinese government. Lenovo is based in Beijing.
2. You are only considering the product that is assembled within the US and not the components that are imported.
What are the odds that the parts that are shipped from China will be extensively checked for malware by the US employee assembling the computer on behalf of the chinese company?
Actually GMT is practically equivalent to UTC and is not adjusted for daylight savings time. In the summer, the UK uses British Summer Time (BST) to distinguish its current time from the GMT.
This has to do with government mandates that discourage purchasing computers manufactured in China. This does nothing to prevent the existence of back doors or spyware, but it makes the politicians feel good.
We measure success with money and we assume that people are really smart because they figured out how to make money.
Despite the fact that the author is whining about people not doing what *he* thinks they should be doing, he is assuming that a person with the skill set to create a popular internet application of the year has the same skill set needed to solve real world problems.
You may want to read up on Trusted Platform Module. It is already present in nearly all PC and notebooks currently in production. Drivers for TPM are already included in the Linux kernel. The output device scenario was called HDCP and I believed that was supported (or circumvented) in Linux a while back.
The HTML 5 spec only standardizes the way DRM is indicated to the client browser. It doesn't actually do anything with your OS or anything outside of your web browser.
Actually TC must control the output of the media. It doesn't actually control the computer. The worse case is like having a media output device except this one "borrows" the use of your video card, sound card, hdmi port, etc. Otherwise, it like a black box which does the decoding.
Being opposed to DRM does not mean that you don't buy anything. For instance, I'll gladly give my money to places such as Good Old Games because their games are DRM-free.
I agree. I was giving possible reasons on why the concept is foreign to you. I also purchase games from GOG for the very same reason. That's because I expect to keep the games I paid for. Renting and Subscribing have no such expectation.
Renting or not, DRM comes at the price of freedom, and that's not something people should be willing to give up so they can be briefly entertained.
Now you reached the point of reductio ad absurdum. You are completely ignoring legitimate uses for DRM in order to support your argument to outright ban it. Just because some people will abuse it doesn't mean it should not exist. Nothing prevents you from voting with your money. If you think the DRM is too restrictive then don't buy it.
I reread the actual bill. It seems vague about the invention part. It seems to do nothing more than force the researcher to make their published paper available for free to the public. This is pretty much the norm for the people I work with so I don't see it changing that much. Except, I did notice the requirement to publish the paper even if it isn't peer-reviewed in 12 months. So I do see a possible side effect of non-peer reviewed work being posted by universities and possibly being used by the general press to make a case against something that has peer-reviewed material support. I don't expect the news to make the distinction apparent to their viewers.
It's called saving face. The coach didn't have much faith in his skill and encouraged scuffing the ball to improve his performance. In the end, he did right thing. Instead of resorting to cheating to improve his chances of making it to the major leagues, he realized his limitations and chose a new career path instead. He decided to become a lawyer. Lawyers know how to put a positive spin on anything, and he demonstrates how he is a natural.
I don't know why it is foreign to you. Maybe because I actually pay for my stuff or maybe the concept of renting or subscribing to a media service is beyond your comprehension. It's very simple concept to grasp. I pay a reduced price with the full understanding that the media will either need to be returned or will become unplayable after a certain amount of time.
I agree scientists are open by nature. There are other projects that are government funded that do not involve "pure" science. An example would be a project that solves a problem and in the process creates a widget that makes it possible. Normally the results are open and the widget is commercialized. The CA proposal would reduce those requests in favor of more science.
How many times do you have to lose your entire music, e-book, or game collection, have your systems root kitted, and even be accused of piracy and shaken down, before you'll refuse to ever knowingly consent to this invasive DRM again?
I have yet to have any of that happen to me. Why? Well because I purchased non-DRM EPUB files from independent publishers like PragProg. I purchase non-DRM MP3 files from people who sell them. I do not buy single player games that require me to login to use, and I do not own a XBOX or any game console that locks my games to a particular console. I vote with my money and I suggest you do the same.
I do use video and music subscription services but I expect the content to "disappear" as soon as I cancel my subscription.
This will save California money by reducing the number of grant requests. This is a great way to get the same result!
Despite how I feel about the openness of public funded research there will be those that will seek other sources of funding. In this case, you'd say "good riddance!"
Now if California was to openly state that they wanted to cut funding to research grants by 20%, you'd be very angry right now.
What's wrong with you people? How many times do you have to lose your entire music, e-book, or game collection, have your systems root kitted, and even be accused of piracy and shaken down, before you'll refuse to ever knowingly consent to this invasive DRM again?
Which part of " Personally I see nothing wrong with DRM for subscription based content. It's when it prevents my viewing of content that I purchased (non-subcriber based content) I think it can be too excessive. Especially when it only seems to deter the honest folks." do you not understand?
The topic is DRM to view subscription based media using a web browser. You appeared to be starting a new topic which concerns DRM of purchased media. Please try to stay on topic.
I view hardware based DRM as far worse. It means I literally cannot trust my computer to be mine anymore.
Now we are talking about a separate matter altogether. I believe DRM should be limited to media and prefer it to be limited to subscription based media.
The idea that the TC platform being used to control which OS I use is something I didn't agree too. I also don't see anything wrong with TC hardware used as a peripheral to facility media playing. I didn't say TC should be used to control the use of the actual computer.
Slashdot Mirror
While it may not be recording all the time, it makes it too convenient to record at any time at a moments notice. I don't mind people recording outside in the public or in a mall since I equate it to people who use a camcorder while on vacation for the express purpose of recording their own experiences.
Where I do think it crosses the line is when people use it to specifically record me or my conversations. I consider this eavesdropping no matter my location. Since my remedy for such a situation isn't probably legal anyway, I don't think we need to split hairs about recording versus publishing.
IANAL and it should be evident by my opinion.
I believe the argument is that the 5th amendment protects you from directly incriminating yourself, but doesn't protect you from being compelled by a court order to allow investigators gather evidence against you.
You not giving instructions on how to access the contents of the hard drive can be argued as contempt since you are preventing investigators from executing their court sanctioned search for evidence.
By the above reasoning, you'd have a 5th amendment right not to disclose the existence of the hard drive but once the authorities have possession of the drive and the court determines enough cause exist to search the contents of the drive you'd have to comply with the search warrant.
Two problems with your theory:
1. You assume a chinese company is immune from influence from chinese government. Lenovo is based in Beijing.
2. You are only considering the product that is assembled within the US and not the components that are imported.
What are the odds that the parts that are shipped from China will be extensively checked for malware by the US employee assembling the computer on behalf of the chinese company?
Actually GMT is practically equivalent to UTC and is not adjusted for daylight savings time. In the summer, the UK uses British Summer Time (BST) to distinguish its current time from the GMT.
This has to do with government mandates that discourage purchasing computers manufactured in China. This does nothing to prevent the existence of back doors or spyware, but it makes the politicians feel good.
I think the better question is why the need to watch the watcher is greatest when the watcher actually watches those who deserve watching?
Mozilla will purchase some computer devices from OEM supplier Foxconn, load Mozilla OS on them and make them available for resale.
We measure success with money and we assume that people are really smart because they figured out how to make money.
Despite the fact that the author is whining about people not doing what *he* thinks they should be doing, he is assuming that a person with the skill set to create a popular internet application of the year has the same skill set needed to solve real world problems.
You may want to read up on Trusted Platform Module. It is already present in nearly all PC and notebooks currently in production. Drivers for TPM are already included in the Linux kernel. The output device scenario was called HDCP and I believed that was supported (or circumvented) in Linux a while back.
One more thing:
The HTML 5 spec only standardizes the way DRM is indicated to the client browser. It doesn't actually do anything with your OS or anything outside of your web browser.
I just noticed we have travelled off topic.
Actually TC must control the output of the media. It doesn't actually control the computer. The worse case is like having a media output device except this one "borrows" the use of your video card, sound card, hdmi port, etc. Otherwise, it like a black box which does the decoding.
I agree. I was giving possible reasons on why the concept is foreign to you. I also purchase games from GOG for the very same reason. That's because I expect to keep the games I paid for. Renting and Subscribing have no such expectation.
Now you reached the point of reductio ad absurdum. You are completely ignoring legitimate uses for DRM in order to support your argument to outright ban it. Just because some people will abuse it doesn't mean it should not exist. Nothing prevents you from voting with your money. If you think the DRM is too restrictive then don't buy it.
s/their/there
Sometimes I hate auto-correct.
If their is money to be made, I assume it's from their employer commercializing their work and not from creating or peer reviewing papers.
I reread the actual bill. It seems vague about the invention part. It seems to do nothing more than force the researcher to make their published paper available for free to the public. This is pretty much the norm for the people I work with so I don't see it changing that much. Except, I did notice the requirement to publish the paper even if it isn't peer-reviewed in 12 months. So I do see a possible side effect of non-peer reviewed work being posted by universities and possibly being used by the general press to make a case against something that has peer-reviewed material support. I don't expect the news to make the distinction apparent to their viewers.
It's called saving face. The coach didn't have much faith in his skill and encouraged scuffing the ball to improve his performance. In the end, he did right thing. Instead of resorting to cheating to improve his chances of making it to the major leagues, he realized his limitations and chose a new career path instead. He decided to become a lawyer. Lawyers know how to put a positive spin on anything, and he demonstrates how he is a natural.
I don't know why it is foreign to you. Maybe because I actually pay for my stuff or maybe the concept of renting or subscribing to a media service is beyond your comprehension. It's very simple concept to grasp. I pay a reduced price with the full understanding that the media will either need to be returned or will become unplayable after a certain amount of time.
I agree scientists are open by nature. There are other projects that are government funded that do not involve "pure" science. An example would be a project that solves a problem and in the process creates a widget that makes it possible. Normally the results are open and the widget is commercialized. The CA proposal would reduce those requests in favor of more science.
One more thing.
I have yet to have any of that happen to me. Why? Well because I purchased non-DRM EPUB files from independent publishers like PragProg. I purchase non-DRM MP3 files from people who sell them. I do not buy single player games that require me to login to use, and I do not own a XBOX or any game console that locks my games to a particular console. I vote with my money and I suggest you do the same.
I do use video and music subscription services but I expect the content to "disappear" as soon as I cancel my subscription.
This will save California money by reducing the number of grant requests. This is a great way to get the same result!
Despite how I feel about the openness of public funded research there will be those that will seek other sources of funding. In this case, you'd say "good riddance!"
Now if California was to openly state that they wanted to cut funding to research grants by 20%, you'd be very angry right now.
Which part of " Personally I see nothing wrong with DRM for subscription based content. It's when it prevents my viewing of content that I purchased (non-subcriber based content) I think it can be too excessive. Especially when it only seems to deter the honest folks." do you not understand?
The topic is DRM to view subscription based media using a web browser. You appeared to be starting a new topic which concerns DRM of purchased media. Please try to stay on topic.
Isn't it a little early in the thread to devolve into Reductio ad absurdum?
Now we are talking about a separate matter altogether. I believe DRM should be limited to media and prefer it to be limited to subscription based media.
The idea that the TC platform being used to control which OS I use is something I didn't agree too. I also don't see anything wrong with TC hardware used as a peripheral to facility media playing. I didn't say TC should be used to control the use of the actual computer.
Because it enables it to exist. The whole idea of subscriber based content is to limit distribution to those who paid.