Not for classified data - there is no official procedure to declassify a hard disk. 7 wipes may be sufficient in some cases for moving a classified disk from one classified program to another related classified program, but never for complete declassification.
That's nice and all, but no matter how many rules wikipedia has against vandalism, its still going to happen.
I'd rather see all the regular background vandalism plus the occasional high-profile hoax instead of just the regular background vandalism because high profile hoaxes are not experiments (if done right we know what the outcome is going to be), they are learning opportunities for the naive. And there will never be a shortage of the naive.
Better that a few deserving people or companies get caught with their pants down in a very public way so that the general public will have a very vivid and therefore easy to remember and understand example of the pitfalls of wikipedia than a bunch of regular people take too much of wikipedia at face-value.
Take the wars for example. You may have people blogging about things going on here, or the politics of it or maybe the news reports coming out of the area but you're not going to get a whole lot of people live blogging in the middle of a war zone.
There were a handful of iraqi blogs before and during the most recent invasion that were very illuminating. I've stopped following them as my interests have wandered but I remember one in particular broke a story about serious mistreatment of a civilian (US military threw him and his brother in a canal in the middle of the night and he drowned, brother survived or something like that) and it took roughly a year before the US grudgingly investigated the murder. Everybody has their biases, but I think I'd rather hear from bloggers like that than from "embedded" reporters where the entire idea of "embedding" reporters was to get friendly reporters in situations where they could make reports friendly to the military's PR campaigns.
I had a privacy issue that I wanted some info on (and some help with) with my landlord.... it seemed like an invasion of privacy would be something they'd handle.
It's the American Civil Liberties Union. Civil liberties are rights the people have with respect to keeping the government in check, not necessarily other private parties like your landlord.
The logic is not that you have to agree with every issue. In order to support the BNP you have to believe whatever policy you share with them outweighs the "end to non white immigration" policy. Unless the policy you share is that one. Either way it doesn't look good for you.
No, that's a lot of assumptions. For example, one might feel that since every other party's policy is pro equality in immigration, then it doesn't matter that the BNP has that as a policy - they have no chance of being successful with it because all the other parties have it covered. But since none of the other parties cover the other non-racial issues you really care about, like say greenpeace and dog cruelty, you support the BNP.
Who said anything about registered?
You did when you made the analogy between Al Qaeda and the BNP.
By making the official policy "No BNP members" the police cut down on paperwork.
Even then, check the talk page to make sure there's been no serious recent disagreement about the matter (checking the history helps too).
It would be really nice if wikipedia made such historical inquries easy, like a javascript interface where you could highlight a portion of the article and have it return a list of edits to that pertain to that part of the article.
The interviews you see are the ones the subjects agree to be in. They happen on their terms or not at all, so this is to be expected no matter what the state of journalistic integrity.
Absolutely true. But there seems to be a lot less "star" interviewers who aren't willing to play that game than there used to be. If the interviewer is a star in their own right, like say Ted Koppel, then you'll often get the high and mighty to submit themselves to a real interview just for the cachet of being interviewed by a star.
Even if the BNP are the only party that agree with your policy on chewing gum disposal and so you join them, you are still saying you don't have a problem with their bashing immigrants policy.
That's bad logic. Few people agree 100% with the policies of their political parties.
I think you'd find the police would turn down job applications from anyone writing Al Queada under "Political Affiliation" on the form.
Since when is Al Qaeda a registered political party in the UK?
And yet again you turn your face away from the key point - that copyright is an unjustifiable violation of a basic human right - and instead focus on the trivial.
If this is true, then the case is grave indeed. What are these tens or hundreds of thousands of creations? I am not aware of them.
If they weren't ever created or published, then how could you be aware of them? But here's one example that was created and hunted down with extreme prejudice - The Grey Album. Before that the band Negativeland. Want more? One place to get them is www.ChillingEffects.com.
While I agree this is bad, it is not a matter of copyright, it is a matter of signing foolish contracts
It seems like just about everything you've written in this thread has been exceptionally naive. Its kind of like you can only remember one step at a time and really can't connect all the dots. Instead you just reply to the literal words on the screen and ignore all the context that preceded it. I'll say it a second time with context from prior posts included -- The content cartel has leveraged the monopoly of copyright to gain a monopoly on distribution channels - and because of that monopoly good, high quality artists have two choices - either they are kept out of the spotlight or they sign abusive contracts.
Thats like someone calling you and asking "do you order me to commit this murder?" or "do you want these stolen credit card informations?"
No, its like someone calling you and saying, "Here is some stolen credit card information... Did you get it ok?"
Literally that is what happens, the bot hits the server with an http post that contains the information collected over the last 20 minutes or so and then it waits for the server to say, yeah I got that ok.
Because we, as a society, agree it's ok.... it seems to work out fairly well in practice.
That is a NON-ANSWER. You have said, "its OK because that's the way things are." See slavery. Not an acceptable reason when dealing with inalienable human rights.
The huge difference is that people are hurt quite seriously by murder and piracy. I am only aware of one case where copyright itself caused any real problem
Just because no one is directly physically harmed does not mean there is not a great deal of indirect harm done to society at large. Kill one person or poison 200 hundred such that they all lose half a year of lifespan - which is worse? The answer is both are bad, just one is more easily noticed.
that was a case where George Harrison independently wrote a song that was very similar to a song someone else had already written. If my memory is correct, he was sued, and lost, and had to pay some of the royalties for that song. One case in two hundred years is not much pain,
Just because you personally aren't aware of the hundreds of thousands of other cases of a similar nature doesn't make the violation of a basic human right any more tolerable. For example, you apparently aren't aware of the "bright-line rule" for determining maximum sample length before a song is considered a derived work - its less than 2 seconds as established by the sixth circuit court and affirmed by the ninth in a separate case. But lets ignore all the cases that actually made it to court - the real culture-killer is the chilling effect of that and so many other parts of copyright law, for every case that gets tried there are probably tens if not hundreds or thousands of creations that are never made at all for fear of violating copyrights. Make no mistake about it, the cost of copyright is very dear.
In theory that may be possible, but I don't think that is the case: and even less so in the age of the internet. Do you know of any cases where that happened? Usually if there is someone with real talent, record companies seek them out because they know they can make money with them.
That's just ridiculously naive. For one thing the content cartels would much rather have a stable of 10 pop singers who bring in half a billion in revenues each than they would have a stable of 10,000 singers who bring in revenue of $500,000 each. Their business models only scale up, they only care about stars. The industry is rife with stories of artists who sold plenty of albums to be more than self-supporting, but not anywhere enough to keep their record label interested. So the label killed their careers by requiring repayment of advances but not green-lighting any other albums, but not releasing them from their contracts for more albums. Leaving them in limbo. The record companies don't seek out talent they seek out marketability.
Of course it has a lot to do with compensation.....what else are they supposed to do with the privilege granted to them other than try to be compensated?
Around and around you go. You have specifically avoided addressing the point as to WHY creators of ideas should be allowed to violate all of society's right to freedom of expression.
Nor is it a privilege no other group is given......copyright is available to all.
Man that cognitive dissonance must be coming on strong for you to write something so completely out of phase with the question. A certain class of labor, LABOR not any one specific group of laborers.
Very very few people are ever hurt by this minimal limit on self-expression (a limit that should expire after a few years).
Even if it were true -- and I'm pretty sure it isn't given how society suffers hugely from all the money wasted on copyright enforcement and creative restrictions on derivative works -- it's not relevant. You might as well say that slavery is OK as long as its only for a short period, or that murder and piracy are OK as long its restricted to only a few people.
or do better at helping people see that they've created something of value.
You are kind of on to something there. What if the problem is copyright itself - the system that has naturally developed around the copyright monopoly has put a stranglehold on the market for ideas. People can't see that there is value to these creations because people generally only look where the bright spotlights of the content cartel shines.
Slashdot Mirror
even the DoD is fine with 7 passes.
Not for classified data - there is no official procedure to declassify a hard disk. 7 wipes may be sufficient in some cases for moving a classified disk from one classified program to another related classified program, but never for complete declassification.
That's nice and all, but no matter how many rules wikipedia has against vandalism, its still going to happen.
I'd rather see all the regular background vandalism plus the occasional high-profile hoax instead of just the regular background vandalism because high profile hoaxes are not experiments (if done right we know what the outcome is going to be), they are learning opportunities for the naive. And there will never be a shortage of the naive.
Better that a few deserving people or companies get caught with their pants down in a very public way so that the general public will have a very vivid and therefore easy to remember and understand example of the pitfalls of wikipedia than a bunch of regular people take too much of wikipedia at face-value.
Take the wars for example. You may have people blogging about things going on here, or the politics of it or maybe the news reports coming out of the area but you're not going to get a whole lot of people live blogging in the middle of a war zone.
There were a handful of iraqi blogs before and during the most recent invasion that were very illuminating. I've stopped following them as my interests have wandered but I remember one in particular broke a story about serious mistreatment of a civilian (US military threw him and his brother in a canal in the middle of the night and he drowned, brother survived or something like that) and it took roughly a year before the US grudgingly investigated the murder. Everybody has their biases, but I think I'd rather hear from bloggers like that than from "embedded" reporters where the entire idea of "embedding" reporters was to get friendly reporters in situations where they could make reports friendly to the military's PR campaigns.
How many more content-mafia lawyers does he need to appoint to the DoJ before everyone here can admit that you've been sold down the river?
I dunno, how many MAFIAA lawyers has he appointed out of the total appointed?
According to the very link you provide the bill didn't create a czar
Big deal, its the same job. A turd by any other name...
I couldn't find out however Biden his VP is a big supporter of the MP/RIAA.
Yes he is, probably the worst thing about having him as vp.
Whether he would or not, Obama creating it has shown he doesn't value liberty.
Obama did not create the job, it was created before he was elected by a bill passed by congress.
Who knows, he may yet hamstring the office by ignoring the people working in it.
... that all internet communications needs to be done over encrypted connections or sessions
Encryption doesn't protect your right to freedom of association.
I had a privacy issue that I wanted some info on (and some help with) with my landlord. ... it seemed like an invasion of privacy would be something they'd handle.
It's the American Civil Liberties Union. Civil liberties are rights the people have with respect to keeping the government in check, not necessarily other private parties like your landlord.
The logic is not that you have to agree with every issue. In order to support the BNP you have to believe whatever policy you share with them outweighs the "end to non white immigration" policy. Unless the policy you share is that one. Either way it doesn't look good for you.
No, that's a lot of assumptions. For example, one might feel that since every other party's policy is pro equality in immigration, then it doesn't matter that the BNP has that as a policy - they have no chance of being successful with it because all the other parties have it covered. But since none of the other parties cover the other non-racial issues you really care about, like say greenpeace and dog cruelty, you support the BNP.
Who said anything about registered?
You did when you made the analogy between Al Qaeda and the BNP.
By making the official policy "No BNP members" the police cut down on paperwork.
Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Even then, check the talk page to make sure there's been no serious recent disagreement about the matter (checking the history helps too).
It would be really nice if wikipedia made such historical inquries easy, like a javascript interface where you could highlight a portion of the article and have it return a list of edits to that pertain to that part of the article.
The interviews you see are the ones the subjects agree to be in. They happen on their terms or not at all, so this is to be expected no matter what the state of journalistic integrity.
Absolutely true. But there seems to be a lot less "star" interviewers who aren't willing to play that game than there used to be. If the interviewer is a star in their own right, like say Ted Koppel, then you'll often get the high and mighty to submit themselves to a real interview just for the cachet of being interviewed by a star.
So do you think that the karma burn will increase my chances of re-producing?
No, but lots of people will tell you to go fuck yourself.
Maybe there were not lawsuits because no one had a case against the city.
New York City has paid out over 1.5 million dollars to settle over 140 cases related to the city's handle of the republication national convention in 2004.
Even if the BNP are the only party that agree with your policy on chewing gum disposal and so you join them, you are still saying you don't have a problem with their bashing immigrants policy.
That's bad logic. Few people agree 100% with the policies of their political parties.
I think you'd find the police would turn down job applications from anyone writing Al Queada under "Political Affiliation" on the form.
Since when is Al Qaeda a registered political party in the UK?
Where were all these protesters during the last 8 years when Bush was acting like an idiot?
800 of them were arrested at and around the 2008 Republican Convention.
And yet again you turn your face away from the key point - that copyright is an unjustifiable violation of a basic human right - and instead focus on the trivial.
If this is true, then the case is grave indeed. What are these tens or hundreds of thousands of creations? I am not aware of them.
If they weren't ever created or published, then how could you be aware of them? But here's one example that was created and hunted down with extreme prejudice - The Grey Album. Before that the band Negativeland. Want more? One place to get them is www.ChillingEffects.com .
While I agree this is bad, it is not a matter of copyright, it is a matter of signing foolish contracts
It seems like just about everything you've written in this thread has been exceptionally naive. Its kind of like you can only remember one step at a time and really can't connect all the dots. Instead you just reply to the literal words on the screen and ignore all the context that preceded it. I'll say it a second time with context from prior posts included -- The content cartel has leveraged the monopoly of copyright to gain a monopoly on distribution channels - and because of that monopoly good, high quality artists have two choices - either they are kept out of the spotlight or they sign abusive contracts.
It sounds like Spring Source has really acquired lots of Hyperbole.
I'm going to hold out for the fan-service edition.
Thats like someone calling you and asking "do you order me to commit this murder?" or "do you want these stolen credit card informations?"
No, its like someone calling you and saying, "Here is some stolen credit card information ... Did you get it ok?"
Literally that is what happens, the bot hits the server with an http post that contains the information collected over the last 20 minutes or so and then it waits for the server to say, yeah I got that ok.
The server never asks for it.
Lol, suck it up, you are wrong and you apparently know you are wrong and are cherry-picking quotes in order to mislead.
Is the size of your internet penis really so important?
Umm.. no, they deliberately sent a message that said "send me the confidential information you have collected".
Ummmmmmm...... no. All they EVER sent was the string "okn" - no matter what the bot asked for, that's all they ever sent in return.
The first host that sends a reply that identifies it as a valid C&C server is considered genuine,
They sent information.. that means they were illegally accessing a computer system.
If that were true then any webserver replying to a request for a web page would also be illegally accessing the requester's computer system.
Seems legally sound to me that if you ask a question, you've consented to receiving a reply.
Because we, as a society, agree it's ok.
Because we, as a society, agree it's ok. ...
it seems to work out fairly well in practice.
That is a NON-ANSWER. You have said, "its OK because that's the way things are." See slavery. Not an acceptable reason when dealing with inalienable human rights.
The huge difference is that people are hurt quite seriously by murder and piracy. I am only aware of one case where copyright itself caused any real problem
Just because no one is directly physically harmed does not mean there is not a great deal of indirect harm done to society at large. Kill one person or poison 200 hundred such that they all lose half a year of lifespan - which is worse? The answer is both are bad, just one is more easily noticed.
that was a case where George Harrison independently wrote a song that was very similar to a song someone else had already written. If my memory is correct, he was sued, and lost, and had to pay some of the royalties for that song. One case in two hundred years is not much pain,
Just because you personally aren't aware of the hundreds of thousands of other cases of a similar nature doesn't make the violation of a basic human right any more tolerable. For example, you apparently aren't aware of the "bright-line rule" for determining maximum sample length before a song is considered a derived work - its less than 2 seconds as established by the sixth circuit court and affirmed by the ninth in a separate case. But lets ignore all the cases that actually made it to court - the real culture-killer is the chilling effect of that and so many other parts of copyright law, for every case that gets tried there are probably tens if not hundreds or thousands of creations that are never made at all for fear of violating copyrights. Make no mistake about it, the cost of copyright is very dear.
In theory that may be possible, but I don't think that is the case: and even less so in the age of the internet. Do you know of any cases where that happened? Usually if there is someone with real talent, record companies seek them out because they know they can make money with them.
That's just ridiculously naive. For one thing the content cartels would much rather have a stable of 10 pop singers who bring in half a billion in revenues each than they would have a stable of 10,000 singers who bring in revenue of $500,000 each. Their business models only scale up, they only care about stars. The industry is rife with stories of artists who sold plenty of albums to be more than self-supporting, but not anywhere enough to keep their record label interested. So the label killed their careers by requiring repayment of advances but not green-lighting any other albums, but not releasing them from their contracts for more albums. Leaving them in limbo. The record companies don't seek out talent they seek out marketability.
Of course it has a lot to do with compensation.....what else are they supposed to do with the privilege granted to them other than try to be compensated?
Around and around you go. You have specifically avoided addressing the point as to WHY creators of ideas should be allowed to violate all of society's right to freedom of expression.
Nor is it a privilege no other group is given......copyright is available to all.
Man that cognitive dissonance must be coming on strong for you to write something so completely out of phase with the question. A certain class of labor, LABOR not any one specific group of laborers.
Very very few people are ever hurt by this minimal limit on self-expression (a limit that should expire after a few years).
Even if it were true -- and I'm pretty sure it isn't given how society suffers hugely from all the money wasted on copyright enforcement and creative restrictions on derivative works -- it's not relevant. You might as well say that slavery is OK as long as its only for a short period, or that murder and piracy are OK as long its restricted to only a few people.
or do better at helping people see that they've created something of value.
You are kind of on to something there. What if the problem is copyright itself - the system that has naturally developed around the copyright monopoly has put a stranglehold on the market for ideas. People can't see that there is value to these creations because people generally only look where the bright spotlights of the content cartel shines.
Emacs has had a spook function since at least the 80s.