I've found more information on this as well, actually.
Not to be an ass or anything, but if you just dug up this information in the time since your previous posting, perhaps you could share the links with the rest of us?
This entire subsidy and ETF thing on your phone reminds me of old MA Bell.
Indeed, the situation wrt to cell phone usage and billing is what we can look forward to if net neutrality is loses. The tariffs that provided net neutrality in the US until the 1996 Telecom Act enabled the Brand X ruling were written as part of the ATT break-up.
I've long argued, especially when it comes to games and entertainment related media, there's absolutely NO justification in copyright infringement EVER.
Then, if you are consistent, you must have exactly the same belief regarding the various copyright extensions through the years. Just because they are laws doesn't make them justified.
I carry this around in my wallet, sure my password is on there, but with no real frame of reference its hard to decipher and make a guess.
But, if that ever falls into the hands of someone who wants to crack one of your accounts, it makes for a really small dictionary to work from. Even simple character transpositions won't significantly increase the search space. You better hope that any account for which those are passwords has a policy of locking the account after too many wrong passwords. Otherwise, even with a enforced delay like Solaris has, you will find your accounts cracked in a day or two.
Not having much luck. It can't find/etc/passwd,/etc/group or/etc/hosts. All of which do exist. I'm inserting fmt.Fprintf statements to attempt to figure out why it is having problems.
Is there no debugger support? Printfs are PainAss.
But what about all that helium? Won't that cause global warming or cooling or some other disastrous consequence for humanity?
That's the global chipmunking phenomenon and you can already observe its effect by listening to modern urban music - the cover story is that they are just turning their autotune pitch-corrector up to 11, but in fact they just haven't been able to keep the massive amounts of helium from flooding their recording studios.
So, what happened to google being responsible for what browser makers do?
Google isn't responsible
Good. Glad we cleared that up.
I was using Google primarily as a nexus to bring United States law into the discussion, in order to rule out "I'm not in the United States; sucks to be you" responses.
AKA a red herring. Thank you for playing.
Re:Is there any viable (non-console) alternative?
on
MythTV 0.22 Released
·
· Score: 1
Are you a lawyer? If you aren't, shut up. If you are, offer to defend Isaac and the other US-based Myth devs for free when they get sued. Let's face it, even if they have a legal leg to stand on and would win in court, getting sued is an expensive proposition. Some lawsuits are (unfortunately) won by default because the defendant doesn't have the money to fight it out.
That's bullshit. Myth takes all kinds of so-called legal risks. Hell - myth enables essentially permanent archival of recordings. The Sony Betamax case explicitly did not rule that fair use goes beyond short term time shifting to permanent archival. Yet myth has gone to great extremes to make it dirt simple, just plug in a disk in the mountpoint of a storage pool and viola! myth automagically figures out what recordings are there, cross references them in the database and makes them immediately available.
The guy pussied out on one 'risk,' but is happy to take others and nobody can criticize him for it? Bullshit.
So, what happened to google being responsible for what browser makers do?
Re:Is there any viable (non-console) alternative?
on
MythTV 0.22 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
MythTV seems stagnated in development, even with this release, and seems bulky and awkward. Are there any other viable alternatives for home TV boxes/media boxes, that *don't* include a console in any way (xbox media centre, PS3, Wii, etc...)
I'm pretty happy with myth, but you are right, forward progress has slowed. To the point of ridiculousness.
For example, the devs recently refused to accept patches for the support of R5000-modified tuners - tuners which are perfectly legal under the DMCA because they only modify the tuners that do not include access control (if the box has access control, typically 4C on firewire, the company will refuse to make the modification because of the DMCA.)
Sure, so long as you're not the poor bastard who has to come up with $250k to stay out of jail (and probably still loses all his neighbor friends). I know I couldn't pull that kind of cash out of my ass - can you?
What's the difference between someone falsely accused because of this trojan and someone falsely accused like Commodore White?
You have such a thing as a "thought crime" in US law? If not, then by your logic, nothing is a 'thought crime'. Could you please make up your mind if you want to discuss current US law, or how you want the law to be?
Distributing kiddie porn is a CRIME in the USA. Distributing rape porn is NOT a crime in the USA. What is so difficult to understand here?
How does this argument differ from the punishment of the crime of rape itself? How does making the crime of [insert any crime that injures someone] illegal make the victim feel any less injured?
You seem unable to distinguish between a crime and the recording of a crime. Raping someone causes injury, therefore it is reasonable to make rape illegal in order to reduce the injury. But someone you don't know showing a recording of that rape to someone else whom you also do not know does not cause injury. Capiche?
Whether they are passed around to a million people or just two, the original victim will never know.
Well, I have to call a [citation needed] on that one.
Are you serious? It is by definition - right now a million people could have read your post or only one person may have read it. You have NO WAY to tell. The same goes for the copying of any information when the act of copying - not creating, just copying - does not involve you.
Insurance is to INSURE against truely unlikely events. If you BECOME seriously ill, that is where insurance kicks in.
That's what health insurance was, maybe 20 or 30 years ago. But its no longer that, in fact it is very difficult to get true catastrophic coverage, I've been told that the laws have been written to discourage it. What you call health insurance is no longer actual insurance, its just medical care. If it were otherwise, this whole system of copayments and prescription benefits that pretty much apply to any doctor's visit and any prescription would not be the norm today.
Please, everyone, when you see a new doctor, bring your medications, lab results (you should request copies and keep this information anyways), and your previous records.
The obvious, at least to me, solution to that problem is that the patient holds the records. Go ahead and standardize them, but design the system such that the only permanent copy is maintained by the patient. Go ahead and make it a medical id card - just make it "smart" so that it has tons of encrypted storage - any new procedures and results are copied to the card and whenever the patient visits a new doctor, he examines the contents of the card. All the benefits of universal records with very little of the risk of universal records.
You can worry about the patient losing his ID card - no biggee, just let every medical facility he visits keep a fully encrypted opaque image as a backup for maybe 1 year - lose the card, he just goes back to the last place he visited and gets a backup restored to the new card.
Imagine your having a girlfriend, and her being raped. Sharing pictures of that after the fact - just a thought crime?
Well, for one thing, viewing and distribution of pictures of a typical rape is not a crime in the US. Ergo, not a thought crime.
But, for the sake of argument, lets say that you really meant "it injures them" rather than being a full-blown crime - if they don't know it's happening, it doesn't hurt them. For all you know, the last time you got drunk and passed out someone sodomized you with a beer bottle and the pictures of that are all over the net. Feeling injured?
Ok, that's not quite fair, most people who are raped know they were raped and they probably know if they were recorded. So, in that case, maybe they do feel injured but how does making it illegal make them any less injured? It doesn't actually stop every one from passing around the pictures, it just reduces the number of people who will do it, So, rape pics, the only thing you know for certain is that they are out there. Whether they are passed around to a million people or just two, the original victim will never know. Therefore she is just as injured whether or not it is made illegal. So, what's the benefit of making it illegal?
Ever since that one girl had to Register after having naked pics of herself on her cell phone when underage, then charged as an adult, I've had basically zero respect for these laws, even as the thought of CP makes me sick.
It is a testament to how crazy society is that the result of all these bullshit kiddie porn sexting prosecutions has not been to fix the law, but rather to happily fuck over the children themselves.
Secretly downloading porn to someones computer to create a cover is hardly moral.
Never said it was.
But life is not black and white, and all of your examples are either whacko (like the US government would be mad that we download secret information from their enemies) or totally missing the point of thought crimes (planting weapons).
If everyone downloads kiddie porn, then that makes it really hard to pick out and prosecute the people who do it deliberately. This case was kinda stupid in that it went faster than humanly possible. I expect that newer versions will be a bit more subtle.
Personally I think trojans like this are a good idea precisely because they make it difficult to prosecute someone for having a copy of the stuff -- possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy. The politicians like it because it is 1000x easier to prosecute someone for having a copy of kiddie porn than it is to catch and prosecute the people manufacturing it. The politicians get their public back-slapping for a job well done, meanwhile the children who are really being hurt by the creation of the stuff aren't any better off than they were before.
Its a case of the politicians deliberately not thinking of the children at all, only their careers, but proclaiming that they are protecting children -- 100% hypocrisy.
do you want an inferior standard or do you want an open standard that you need to pay royalties to implement?
I would rather have a superior open standard because if there is a standard, that is a goal to work to. But without the standard, it is an excuse to avoid implementation. After all, software patents aren't enforceable in all countries - some browsers would be able to implement everything without paying royalties, might even draw attention to how software patents suck.
Meanwhile, we've gone years, probably decades now, with various flavors of the HTML and javascript standards that have almost never been 100% implemented in any one browser, much less all browsers. I don't see why the video tag should have to be any different.
If you have an expectation to bill $10K/month in healthcare expenses, I as a fellow premium-payer would expect you to kick a bit more in the pot than I do, since you are certain to pull more out.
And why does anyone besides my doctor and me need to know what those $10K/month in expense are spent on if I'm going to be "kicking in" with higher premiums? They only need to know the total costs in order to do what you suggest. You've just supported my point, not disputed it despite your angry tone.
If the goal of universal healthcare is get people to use this system of benefits then giving them a damn good reason NOT to use it isn't really the smartest move.
Slashdot Mirror
What the fuck is your problem?
I've found more information on this as well, actually.
Not to be an ass or anything, but if you just dug up this information in the time since your previous posting, perhaps you could share the links with the rest of us?
This entire subsidy and ETF thing on your phone reminds me of old MA Bell.
Indeed, the situation wrt to cell phone usage and billing is what we can look forward to if net neutrality is loses. The tariffs that provided net neutrality in the US until the 1996 Telecom Act enabled the Brand X ruling were written as part of the ATT break-up.
I've long argued, especially when it comes to games and entertainment related media, there's absolutely NO justification in copyright infringement EVER.
Then, if you are consistent, you must have exactly the same belief regarding the various copyright extensions through the years.
Just because they are laws doesn't make them justified.
I carry this around in my wallet, sure my password is on there, but with no real frame of reference its hard to decipher and make a guess.
But, if that ever falls into the hands of someone who wants to crack one of your accounts, it makes for a really small dictionary to work from. Even simple character transpositions won't significantly increase the search space. You better hope that any account for which those are passwords has a policy of locking the account after too many wrong passwords. Otherwise, even with a enforced delay like Solaris has, you will find your accounts cracked in a day or two.
Not having much luck. It can't find /etc/passwd, /etc/group or /etc/hosts. All of which do exist. I'm inserting fmt.Fprintf statements to attempt to figure out why it is having problems.
Is there no debugger support? Printfs are PainAss.
But what about all that helium? Won't that cause global warming or cooling or some other disastrous consequence for humanity?
That's the global chipmunking phenomenon and you can already observe its effect by listening to modern urban music - the cover story is that they are just turning their autotune pitch-corrector up to 11, but in fact they just haven't been able to keep the massive amounts of helium from flooding their recording studios.
So, what happened to google being responsible for what browser makers do?
Google isn't responsible
Good. Glad we cleared that up.
I was using Google primarily as a nexus to bring United States law into the discussion, in order to rule out "I'm not in the United States; sucks to be you" responses.
AKA a red herring. Thank you for playing.
Are you a lawyer? If you aren't, shut up. If you are, offer to defend Isaac and the other US-based Myth devs for free when they get sued. Let's face it, even if they have a legal leg to stand on and would win in court, getting sued is an expensive proposition. Some lawsuits are (unfortunately) won by default because the defendant doesn't have the money to fight it out.
That's bullshit. Myth takes all kinds of so-called legal risks. Hell - myth enables essentially permanent archival of recordings. The Sony Betamax case explicitly did not rule that fair use goes beyond short term time shifting to permanent archival. Yet myth has gone to great extremes to make it dirt simple, just plug in a disk in the mountpoint of a storage pool and viola! myth automagically figures out what recordings are there, cross references them in the database and makes them immediately available.
The guy pussied out on one 'risk,' but is happy to take others and nobody can criticize him for it? Bullshit.
None, so far as I can tell.
Precisely. So accelerating the process only brings an end to the stupidity that much sooner.
I'd say that the investigations should be confidential,
Confidential investigations are the neighbor of secret courts.
Making arrests and trials public is a primary check on law enforcement.
So, what happened to google being responsible for what browser makers do?
MythTV seems stagnated in development, even with this release, and seems bulky and awkward. Are there any other viable alternatives for home TV boxes/media boxes, that *don't* include a console in any way (xbox media centre, PS3, Wii, etc...)
I'm pretty happy with myth, but you are right, forward progress has slowed. To the point of ridiculousness.
For example, the devs recently refused to accept patches for the support of R5000-modified tuners - tuners which are perfectly legal under the DMCA because they only modify the tuners that do not include access control (if the box has access control, typically 4C on firewire, the company will refuse to make the modification because of the DMCA.)
The reason the devs refused to accept the patches?
Assumption of violation of ToS and DMCA - when neither is the case.
some browsers would be able to implement everything without paying royalties
But they might have to use geolocation to exclude some major countries in the developed world.
And they might have to restrict users who believe in the flying spaghetti monster too.
Both are red herrings.
YouTube must license the H.264 encoder in order to transcode uploaded videos to H.264 for streaming.
So? YouTube ALREADY uses h264 video all over.
YouTube's parent company has its fingers in just about every web browser pie
Yeah... that's a ridiculous stretch of the imagination and if you don't know it, you aren't playing with a full deck.
Sure, so long as you're not the poor bastard who has to come up with $250k to stay out of jail (and probably still loses all his neighbor friends). I know I couldn't pull that kind of cash out of my ass - can you?
What's the difference between someone falsely accused because of this trojan and someone falsely accused like Commodore White?
You have such a thing as a "thought crime" in US law? If not, then by your logic, nothing is a 'thought crime'. Could you please make up your mind if you want to discuss current US law, or how you want the law to be?
Distributing kiddie porn is a CRIME in the USA.
Distributing rape porn is NOT a crime in the USA.
What is so difficult to understand here?
How does this argument differ from the punishment of the crime of rape itself? How does making the crime of [insert any crime that injures someone] illegal make the victim feel any less injured?
You seem unable to distinguish between a crime and the recording of a crime. Raping someone causes injury, therefore it is reasonable to make rape illegal in order to reduce the injury. But someone you don't know showing a recording of that rape to someone else whom you also do not know does not cause injury. Capiche?
Whether they are passed around to a million people or just two, the original victim will never know.
Well, I have to call a [citation needed] on that one.
Are you serious? It is by definition - right now a million people could have read your post or only one person may have read it. You have NO WAY to tell. The same goes for the copying of any information when the act of copying - not creating, just copying - does not involve you.
Insurance is to INSURE against truely unlikely events. If you BECOME seriously ill, that is where insurance kicks in.
That's what health insurance was, maybe 20 or 30 years ago. But its no longer that, in fact it is very difficult to get true catastrophic coverage, I've been told that the laws have been written to discourage it. What you call health insurance is no longer actual insurance, its just medical care. If it were otherwise, this whole system of copayments and prescription benefits that pretty much apply to any doctor's visit and any prescription would not be the norm today.
Please, everyone, when you see a new doctor, bring your medications, lab results (you should request copies and keep this information anyways), and your previous records.
The obvious, at least to me, solution to that problem is that the patient holds the records. Go ahead and standardize them, but design the system such that the only permanent copy is maintained by the patient. Go ahead and make it a medical id card - just make it "smart" so that it has tons of encrypted storage - any new procedures and results are copied to the card and whenever the patient visits a new doctor, he examines the contents of the card. All the benefits of universal records with very little of the risk of universal records.
You can worry about the patient losing his ID card - no biggee, just let every medical facility he visits keep a fully encrypted opaque image as a backup for maybe 1 year - lose the card, he just goes back to the last place he visited and gets a backup restored to the new card.
Imagine your having a girlfriend, and her being raped. Sharing pictures of that after the fact - just a thought crime?
Well, for one thing, viewing and distribution of pictures of a typical rape is not a crime in the US. Ergo, not a thought crime.
But, for the sake of argument, lets say that you really meant "it injures them" rather than being a full-blown crime - if they don't know it's happening, it doesn't hurt them. For all you know, the last time you got drunk and passed out someone sodomized you with a beer bottle and the pictures of that are all over the net. Feeling injured?
Ok, that's not quite fair, most people who are raped know they were raped and they probably know if they were recorded. So, in that case, maybe they do feel injured but how does making it illegal make them any less injured? It doesn't actually stop every one from passing around the pictures, it just reduces the number of people who will do it, So, rape pics, the only thing you know for certain is that they are out there. Whether they are passed around to a million people or just two, the original victim will never know. Therefore she is just as injured whether or not it is made illegal. So, what's the benefit of making it illegal?
Ever since that one girl had to Register after having naked pics of herself on her cell phone when underage, then charged as an adult, I've had basically zero respect for these laws, even as the thought of CP makes me sick.
It is a testament to how crazy society is that the result of all these bullshit kiddie porn sexting prosecutions has not been to fix the law, but rather to happily fuck over the children themselves.
The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.
Uh yeah, what do you think a thought crime is - something that is not a crime?
There are ways to catch the manufacturer, but what other freedoms will be lost in the balance. Shall we have to provide ID to buy a Camera?
So, your argument is that because it is too hard to actually save any children from abuse, we should just fuck with people we think are gross?
Secretly downloading porn to someones computer to create a cover is hardly moral.
Never said it was.
But life is not black and white, and all of your examples are either whacko (like the US government would be mad that we download secret information from their enemies) or totally missing the point of thought crimes (planting weapons).
If everyone downloads kiddie porn, then that makes it really hard to pick out and prosecute the people who do it deliberately.
This case was kinda stupid in that it went faster than humanly possible. I expect that newer versions will be a bit more subtle.
Personally I think trojans like this are a good idea precisely because they make it difficult to prosecute someone for having a copy of the stuff -- possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy. The politicians like it because it is 1000x easier to prosecute someone for having a copy of kiddie porn than it is to catch and prosecute the people manufacturing it. The politicians get their public back-slapping for a job well done, meanwhile the children who are really being hurt by the creation of the stuff aren't any better off than they were before.
Its a case of the politicians deliberately not thinking of the children at all, only their careers, but proclaiming that they are protecting children -- 100% hypocrisy.
do you want an inferior standard
or do you want an open standard that you need to pay royalties to implement?
I would rather have a superior open standard because if there is a standard, that is a goal to work to. But without the standard, it is an excuse to avoid implementation. After all, software patents aren't enforceable in all countries - some browsers would be able to implement everything without paying royalties, might even draw attention to how software patents suck.
Meanwhile, we've gone years, probably decades now, with various flavors of the HTML and javascript standards that have almost never been 100% implemented in any one browser, much less all browsers. I don't see why the video tag should have to be any different.
If you have an expectation to bill $10K/month in healthcare expenses, I as a fellow premium-payer would expect you to kick a bit more in the pot than I do, since you are certain to pull more out.
And why does anyone besides my doctor and me need to know what those $10K/month in expense are spent on if I'm going to be "kicking in" with higher premiums? They only need to know the total costs in order to do what you suggest. You've just supported my point, not disputed it despite your angry tone.
If the goal of universal healthcare is get people to use this system of benefits then giving them a damn good reason NOT to use it isn't really the smartest move.