I Don't play GTA, so I don't know the answer. But if I could mod the game to include my own models (perhaps modeling the hookers and hoods after senators and congresscritters), Then I just might buy it.
I don't disagree with your facts, but with your interpretation. Most of what the US did, was done either with the explicit (UN Resolutions on Iraq) or tacit approval of the UN (deliberate non-action on their part in Cambodia). A UN that is the puppet of the USA is not likely to be any better as a puppet of (say) China. Has the UN got any kind of track record of honesty, commitment (not words) to civil liberties, or commitment to freedom? The UN serves as a useful way to deflect responsibility from the puppetier. Wouldn't it be better to just be rid of the puppet, and deal directly with the one behind the curtain?
Not true. UN actions (and careful inactions) were and are of great help to tyrants the world over. Look at Ruanda, Tibet, Bosnia, Cambodia, etc. Saddam Hussain grew rich (at least in part) from UN policies. So lots of people, mostly government rulers, have greatly benefited from UN oversight. We can expect similar benefits when the UN takes over the internet.
The (US) government does not (YET) require licences for race cars [thanks for bringing this oversight to our attention], but the various racing associations (Formula One, NASCAR) certainly do.
That being said, I certainly agree with the rest of your comments. The trouble is, your comments are reasonable and thoughtful, governments rarely so.
Unlike French, which is guarded by the French Academy, there is no "official", or "regular" English language. Instead, there are about 500 Million Plus individual languages, each varying in the number of common elements, which are all collectively called the "English Language".
Unless I have a bigger gun than you, your version of English is just as "correct" as mine.
OK, NASA is giving prizes.
Does this mean that they will then own the rights? If so, why would I give something worth much more than $50K to them. So they can have one of their industry buddies "develop" it? Whether or not NASA will take ownership, I'll be better off ignoring NASA and patenting my stuff on my own. The prize only serves to provide free publicity.
Truer words were never spoken. The original purpose of patents was to encourage innovation. The modern purpose is to build monopoly and to discourage innovation because it threatens existing monopolies.
A "good" use of DRM is to identify the true source of a file, payment being only one of the reasons to so. But the "modern" purpose is to deliberately infringe on fair-use rights, ultimately denying them.
Probably few will make a switch from whichever Linux distro(s) or Windows(!) version(s) we are using. We probably still have an investment in those computers that we are unlikely to dump completely - at least not in the next 12 months.
Most of us do have multiple computers and will just add one more - an Apple this time. I will and I don't think I am atypical in that regard.
I'm still running my SGI boxes occasionally, and my old NeXT Cube still works!
The real reason not to have a plan is that if you have a plan, you risk feeling obligated to follow it even when conditions change and the plan no longer makes sense. By being adaptable, and taking advantage of opportunities when they appear, you can take over the world without a "plan". Of course, you still need to have done all the preparation so you can sieze the opportunities when they appear, but since you can't know ahead of time what or when, let your people work on their own stuff 20% of the time. By the laws of chance, some of them will be doing what you will need.
Profit!!
We let the courts decide who is(not) journalist???
on
Is Blogging Journalism?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How is this different from licencing journalists. Remember, requiring licences means licences can be denied by a branch of the goverment. Is this what Ben Franklin would want, or do these modern judges think they are wiser than the founding fathers. That's a facetious question - of course they do. And this judge has, by his ruling, denied a journalist license to defendant. Is Slashdot journalism? Sure it is, as long as you say what we want you to.
You forgot to mention the TV news stations who beam lurid descriptions of crimes and violence into our homes. Surely they must be responsible for putting ideas into the heads of criminals, right. The existance of copycat crimes proves this, so lets sue KOMO. Maybe they will stop this fearmongering and "save the children" hysteria.
Just like software patents in Europe, the forces behind this (well-funded forces) will not give up until they succeed in implementing the lockdown of all media. A court ruling is just a minor speedbump in the process.
In Europe, even after near-unanamous votes against software patents, they are still about to become reality.
The court merely ruled that the FCC did not have the implicit authority to order the flag. All that is needed is a lay giving the FCC the explicit authority. That kind of law is easy to purchase.
The patent holders will do just fine, money-wise. It will take them many years to realize that patents may have a downside for them too, and many more before they admit it to themselves. They will never admit it publicly. Just look at the **AA, still clinging desprately to a business model they must know has failed.
We can still sue you for possible DMCA violations and watch you impoverish yourself trying to defend yourself. It is the (not-so-new) common strategy to shut people up. Whether or not this is an actual DMCA violation does not matter.
These companies don't get paid to be secure, and in the related Choicepoint case, Choicepoint only makes money by selling your data. The more people they sell to, the more money they make. In this case, keeping your data secure costs money, so it just doesn't pay.
Oh, you think they should care about you? For a price, maybe they will...:-)
It's been said before, but apparently bears repeating, that corporations are required by their fiduciary duty and by law to increase value for their shareholders. For a non-profit corp., that "value" may or may not be monetary, but for nearly all the rest, it certainly IS.
This naturally discourages corporations from squandering resources on moral issues that do not contribute to the bottom line. Parent's "amoral" characterization is right on target.
The bigger problem comes from the focus on QUARTERLY results. If they were somehow forced to take the longer (10+ years) view, then a moral sense might emerge naturally. Lumber companies, for example, might do more planting and less clear-cutting, maintaining customer goodwill over the long haul would be more highly prized, etc.
According to the DOD definition a "Trusted System" is a system with the ability to BREAK your security settings.
You (maybe are forced to) TRUST that the trusted system will do so only in your(?) best interests. You don't trust anyone else.
Trusted systems are not normally systems that have earned your trust from years of service to you, they are by nature, hierarchical systems to which you surrender your trust.
Is there anyone or anything you really trust that much?
Slashdot Mirror
I Don't play GTA, so I don't know the answer. But if I could mod the game to include my own models (perhaps modeling the hookers and hoods after senators and congresscritters), Then I just might buy it.
I don't disagree with your facts, but with your interpretation. Most of what the US did, was done either with the explicit (UN Resolutions on Iraq) or tacit approval of the UN (deliberate non-action on their part in Cambodia). A UN that is the puppet of the USA is not likely to be any better as a puppet of (say) China. Has the UN got any kind of track record of honesty, commitment (not words) to civil liberties, or commitment to freedom? The UN serves as a useful way to deflect responsibility from the puppetier. Wouldn't it be better to just be rid of the puppet, and deal directly with the one behind the curtain?
Exactly like this but different..
This carrier offers better bandwidth.
Not true. UN actions (and careful inactions) were and are of great help to tyrants the world over. Look at Ruanda, Tibet, Bosnia, Cambodia, etc. Saddam Hussain grew rich (at least in part) from UN policies. So lots of people, mostly government rulers, have greatly benefited from UN oversight. We can expect similar benefits when the UN takes over the internet.
We now need to build a new internet - a kind of 'darknet' but open to all, and independent of the rest. One with wireless as a designed-in option.
The (US) government does not (YET) require licences for race cars [thanks for bringing this oversight to our attention], but the various racing associations (Formula One, NASCAR) certainly do.
That being said, I certainly agree with the rest of your comments. The trouble is, your comments are reasonable and thoughtful, governments rarely so.
Unlike French, which is guarded by the French Academy, there is no "official", or "regular" English language.
Instead, there are about 500 Million Plus individual languages, each varying in the number of common elements, which are all collectively called the "English Language".
Unless I have a bigger gun than you, your version of English is just as "correct" as mine.
OK, NASA is giving prizes.
Does this mean that they will then own the rights? If so, why would I give something worth much more than $50K to them. So they can have one of their industry buddies "develop" it?
Whether or not NASA will take ownership, I'll be better off ignoring NASA and patenting my stuff on my own.
The prize only serves to provide free publicity.
"That will never happen"
Truer words were never spoken. The original purpose of patents was to encourage innovation. The modern purpose is to build monopoly and to discourage innovation because it threatens existing monopolies.
A "good" use of DRM is to identify the true source of a file, payment being only one of the reasons to so. But the "modern" purpose is to deliberately infringe on fair-use rights, ultimately denying them.
Probably few will make a switch from whichever Linux distro(s) or Windows(!) version(s) we are using. We probably still have an investment in those computers that we are unlikely to dump completely - at least not in the next 12 months.
Most of us do have multiple computers and will just add one more - an Apple this time. I will and I don't think I am atypical in that regard.
I'm still running my SGI boxes occasionally, and my old NeXT Cube still works!
"after all MS does not have it's own army yet."
Sure they do.
Here's their web address:
Microsoft's Army
The real reason not to have a plan is that if you have a plan, you risk feeling obligated to follow it even when conditions change and the plan no longer makes sense.
By being adaptable, and taking advantage of opportunities when they appear, you can take over the world without a "plan".
Of course, you still need to have done all the preparation so you can sieze the opportunities when they appear, but since you can't know ahead of time what or when, let your people work on their own stuff 20% of the time. By the laws of chance, some of them will be doing what you will need.
Profit!!
How is this different from licencing journalists. Remember, requiring licences means licences can be denied by a branch of the goverment. Is this what Ben Franklin would want, or do these modern judges think they are wiser than the founding fathers.
That's a facetious question - of course they do.
And this judge has, by his ruling, denied a journalist license to defendant.
Is Slashdot journalism?
Sure it is, as long as you say what we want you to.
Bender(asleep): "Kill all humans. Must kill all humans."
Bender(awakened by Fry): "I was having the most wonderful dream. You were in it."
Are humans defective because so many of us find this funny, or do we just appreciate irony?
You forgot to mention the TV news stations who beam lurid descriptions of crimes and violence into our homes. Surely they must be responsible for putting ideas into the heads of criminals, right.
;-)
The existance of copycat crimes proves this, so lets sue KOMO.
Maybe they will stop this fearmongering and "save the children" hysteria.
How likely is that?
Misspelt law not lay, tho that may be another way to get what you want... :)
Just like software patents in Europe, the forces behind this (well-funded forces) will not give up until they succeed in implementing the lockdown of all media. A court ruling is just a minor speedbump in the process.
In Europe, even after near-unanamous votes against software patents, they are still about to become reality.
The court merely ruled that the FCC did not have the implicit authority to order the flag. All that is needed is a lay giving the FCC the explicit authority. That kind of law is easy to purchase.
The patent holders will do just fine, money-wise. It will take them many years to realize that patents may have a downside for them too, and many more before they admit it to themselves. They will never admit it publicly.
Just look at the **AA, still clinging desprately to a business model they must know has failed.
We know it's not SCO
We can still sue you for possible DMCA violations and watch you impoverish yourself trying to defend yourself. It is the (not-so-new) common strategy to shut people up.
Whether or not this is an actual DMCA violation does not matter.
These companies don't get paid to be secure, and in the related Choicepoint case, Choicepoint only makes money by selling your data.
:-)
The more people they sell to, the more money they make.
In
this case, keeping your data secure costs money, so it just doesn't pay.
Oh, you think they should care about you? For a price, maybe they will...
It's been said before, but apparently bears repeating, that corporations are required by their fiduciary duty and by law to increase value for their shareholders. .
For a non-profit corp., that "value" may or may not be monetary, but for nearly all the rest, it certainly IS
This naturally discourages corporations from squandering resources on moral issues that do not contribute to the bottom line. Parent's "amoral" characterization is right on target.
The bigger problem comes from the focus on QUARTERLY results. If they were somehow forced to take the longer (10+ years) view, then a moral sense might emerge naturally. Lumber companies, for example, might do more planting and less clear-cutting, maintaining customer goodwill over the long haul would be more highly prized, etc.
Surely I am entitled to my own personal opinion of what constitues evil, right?
and of course, for this to work at all, the trust must be irrevokable.
Are you really, really sure you trust anyone that much?
According to the DOD definition a "Trusted System" is a system with the ability to BREAK your security settings.
You (maybe are forced to) TRUST that the trusted system will do so only in your(?) best interests. You don't trust anyone else.
Trusted systems are not normally systems that have earned your trust from years of service to you, they are by nature, hierarchical systems to which you surrender your trust.
Is there anyone or anything you really trust that much?