If you accept the premise that most telemarketing, especially most shady telemarketing, is for rip-offs and other kinds of crap, then "looking the other way" as you suggest, is just a variation on the broken-window fallacy.
I suspect a trip to most countries in Africa would refresh the mind as to what it means to do what one needs to do to survive. It certainly has nothing to do with putting a pirated song on your knockoff iPod.
But it does have a hell of a lot to do with selling a CD of pirated songs for 5 yuan to somebody who can afford an ipod. Try not to automatically assume someone is an idiot just because you don't immediately see where they are coming from.
(A) No DRM of any significance can survive, it is mathematically impossible to both give a secret to a person and simultaneously keep the secret from them which is what DRM does at its core. (B) Fair use has NOTHING to do with the DMCA in any fashion, you are just hand-waving. Do some research. 10 minutes with google would have been enough for you to reconsider almost every word you wrote.
The right of first sale loses badly to the combination of DRM and the DMCA.
Not for "Most of the culture of the 20th century" which is not stored in a DRM'd format.
Not even for recent creations that are stored in a DRM'd format because so far all DRM of any significance has been cracked and the DMCA includes an educational exception to cracking DRM.
Most of the culture of the 20th century is unavailable because the copyright holders have carte blanche to suppress it so it doesn't compete with their latest offerings.
Hardly. The right of first sale is a quick end to your carte blanche.
We worked out that it would be a CHEAPER, AND FASTER, process, if I had come here as a tourist, breach my visa and marry my wife, apply for permission to stay anyway. What fun.
That's really no surprise - the legal system here considers the "crime" of over-staying a tourist visa as roughly on the level of jaywalking. Few people would expect that a single case of jaywalking should impact that ability to get a driver's license. Same sort of thing is going on here with immigration, it is just easier to do whether you are validly in country or not.
The thing to remember is that you came from australia, if you had come from one of the countries from which there are a large surplus of immigrants (not that I agree with the INS's definition of surplus, but that's another thread) you would have found it extremely difficult to come here on a tourist visa to begin with. The only people from a 3rd world country that can come to the US on a tourist visa are those from the upper class, who have so many assets at home that they have very little incentive to over stay the visa.
So, yes, I probably wouldn't do well at all in a prison. Guess what? So I don't break the law.
I'll bet you a hundred dollars you've violated the laws of other countries, should you be extradited to them for trial and incarceration? Why not? Why is Mckinnon any more special than you?
I don't think any condition should be a blanket ticket to break any laws without punishment.
Why do you keep saying that? You are lying by assumption. I've already told you that Mckinnon is NOT using aspergers as a defense against punishment. He has confessed to the crime and has made absolutely no defense against being prosecuted for it in his home country. Quit making shit up don Quixote.
I'm not sure that's really the issue. I'll admit a little bit of ignorance on the issue, but what would happen to your upload rates if Comcast opened those VOIP channels to normal data? Or what if they allowed VOIP to travel on those channels whether they were the VOIP provider or not?
The same thing that would happen if they opened their digital televisions channels to "normal data."
Did you read the part in the summary which said that Comcast VOIP was unaffected by this problem?
What was not mentioned is that Comcast's VOIP is out of band. I'm no comcast apologist (comcast's policies were the straw that broke the came'ls back and got me to move to a new house where I could get verizon FIOS) but this is less of an issue that it has been made out to be. From day one, comcast's VOIP has used seperate channels from their internet services. Their VOIP is limited to connecting to POTS or other comcast VOIP customers. It is not on the internet, it is only on a comcast private intranet.
With all that inability to detect social cues, just how well do you think you would do in a supermax prison?
THAT is what the entire defense is about -- the cruelty of extraditing a UK citizen to the US to face punishment he would never face in his home country for committing a crime in his home country. It isn't like he fled the US, and is hiding out in the UK. He went UFO searching on some US computers via the internet and now the US wants to extradite for it.
Think of it this way. If, from the comfort of your own home, you found some pr0n on a saudi web server and consequently the saudi government was able to get you extradited to saudi arabia to stand trial for the crime of accessing pr0n on the internet with the death penalty as a likely option, would you consider that a violation of human rights law or not?
And blaming it on Asperger's Syndrome does a disservice to everyone.
So quit it, because Gary McKinnon sure isn't doing that. Why are you?
the aspie "I am stubborn and if I don't find something acceptable to me then I choose to ignore it" defence harms those whose mental illness genuinely prevents them from being in control of themselves. The end result is that more people are denied suitable rehabilitative care.
Gee, that's insightful and all... not.
His appeal has NOTHING to do with why he did what he did, it has to do with the US prosecutor literally threatening to have him "turned over to New Jersey authorities to see him fry" if he didn't accept a plea bargain. The UK judicial system has chosen to not read that as a threat, so far. McKinnon's appeal is based on the US carrying out that threat on a person with aspergers, who is much less capable of fending for himself in such a hostile environment, as being literally a violation of human rights. And the problem is not US law per se, it is UK law permitting the extradition to another country which has threatened to punish him in a way that would be illegal in the UK.
Somebody tends to speak up in nearly any situation. Whether anyone listens to them or not is another matter, but very few secrets are maintained. Yet everyone in BSG has the necessary personality traits to keep even the smallest of secrets. That's realistic?
I dunno, it took me about 3 seconds to come up with a counter-example - without too much spoilage - a certain person discovered they were a cylon and ultimately confessed it to Adama. Sure it took that person a couple of episodes to decide what they were going to do about their self-discovery, but deliberating over such an enormous and self-destructive revelation seems pretty realistic too me.
Same with the example of Baltar's situation.... Then when Roselin "remembered" him being with the six, no one (including Roselin) would have been able to find personal fault there.
That's a terrible example, you are arguing about human nature - for which there are no cut and dried rules - and you are using foreknowledge that he would even be found out. It is just as reasonable to say that he chose to gamble that he would never be found out, considering just how few surviors there were AND just how few political survivors there were (wasn't roselyn like 47th in line for the presidency?) it seems like a plenty reasonable gamble to me.
My point was simply that becoming director does not necessarily correlate to being a good manager. Kind of like becoming president does not necessarily correlate to being a good president,
It's a nice change from the previous high level government officials of the Bush Administration, who were appointed not based on their knowledge and experience in a given field, but their willingness to bend the truth according to the Bush administration dogma.
That was my initial reaction. But at that level of responsibility I much prefer someone being appointed for their competency to manage well rather than their ability to do technical work. I have no idea if Chu is a good manager or not, just saying that the Peter Principle is something to be avoided.
I make the assumption that most patients, without medical training, aren't qualified to make edits to their medical record. I equate that with haphazardly edit.
Doctors who can't accept that the patient is in the driver's seat are obsolete.
Look, legally, even a patient's physician isn't supposed to "edit" a medical record. It's like a file that you only have append privileges to. Why does it make any bit of sense to allow someone with no medical knowledge whatsoever to make edits?
You do understand the concept of audit trails, right?...digital signatures to keep track of who is updating the record is exactly that.
I'm still waiting for an answer. do you even know what a medical record is?
It is fundamentally irrelevant whether I can regurgitate a specific definition. What matters is that the record is the property of the patient and the patient bears the ultimate responsibility for its contents.
And exactly how would letting patients haphazardedly edit their medical record going to do a thing to prevent that?
Gee, I don't see any words to the effect of "haphazrdly edit" anywhere in "MS is taking the position that patients should be able to see their own records, and even correct their own medical records. (But with digital signatures to keep track of who is updating the record.)" Perhaps you can point them out?
Who has the most to lose if somebody fucks up a medical record? That's the person who should have the final say about the contents. Authority without responsibility is a major part of what has fucked up our medical system today.
By that logic, passengers on a flight should be allowed to edit the contents of the flight data recorder.
Only if you are more interested in making specious arguments.
Look, I'll re-iterate my point. If a person's medical record gets fucked up, they could end up dying as a result. Nothing trumps that. Nothing.
(Most medical records today aren't things that patients get--MS is taking the position that patients should be able to see their own records, and even correct their own medical records. (But with digital signatures to keep track of who is updating the record.))
IANAD (but I will be one in 5 months or so). If that is Microsoft's position, that is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. Worse than Clippy. Worse than Bob. Look, a patient's medical record is supposed to be an OBJECTIVE documentation of a patient's health status and treatment. How, exactly, is a patient qualified to make an objective assessment of their medical problems, diagnostic workups and treatment regimens?
Who has the most to lose if somebody fucks up a medical record? That's the person who should have the final say about the contents. Authority without responsibility is a major part of what has fucked up our medical system today.
What would be really cool is to find a way to change short-stroked drives into using the entire platter. IT would be like over-clocking your hard disk and getting more space instead of making it go faster.
South Korean authorities have arrested a blogger for saying the won will fall after he predicted that Lehman Brothers would implode. Apparently he is being charged with "spreading false information" -- which seems funny to me, if the guy is predicting the future, how does the government know it is false? Are they claiming to be able to see the future?
Slashdot Mirror
If you accept the premise that most telemarketing, especially most shady telemarketing, is for rip-offs and other kinds of crap, then "looking the other way" as you suggest, is just a variation on the broken-window fallacy.
... only they weren't anonymous. I know this is Slashdot and no one RTFAs, but did you even read the posting?
Not anonymous, but incompetent. It is like the pointy-haired-manager's version of an astroturf campaign.
I suspect a trip to most countries in Africa would refresh the mind as to what it means to do what one needs to do to survive. It certainly has nothing to do with putting a pirated song on your knockoff iPod.
But it does have a hell of a lot to do with selling a CD of pirated songs for 5 yuan to somebody who can afford an ipod.
Try not to automatically assume someone is an idiot just because you don't immediately see where they are coming from.
(A) No DRM of any significance can survive, it is mathematically impossible to both give a secret to a person and simultaneously keep the secret from them which is what DRM does at its core.
(B) Fair use has NOTHING to do with the DMCA in any fashion, you are just hand-waving. Do some research. 10 minutes with google would have been enough for you to reconsider almost every word you wrote.
The right of first sale loses badly to the combination of DRM and the DMCA.
Not for "Most of the culture of the 20th century" which is not stored in a DRM'd format.
Not even for recent creations that are stored in a DRM'd format because so far all DRM of any significance has been cracked and the DMCA includes an educational exception to cracking DRM.
Most of the culture of the 20th century is unavailable because the copyright holders have carte blanche to suppress it so it doesn't compete with their latest offerings.
Hardly. The right of first sale is a quick end to your carte blanche.
We worked out that it would be a CHEAPER, AND FASTER, process, if I had come here as a tourist, breach my visa and marry my wife, apply for permission to stay anyway. What fun.
That's really no surprise - the legal system here considers the "crime" of over-staying a tourist visa as roughly on the level of jaywalking. Few people would expect that a single case of jaywalking should impact that ability to get a driver's license. Same sort of thing is going on here with immigration, it is just easier to do whether you are validly in country or not.
The thing to remember is that you came from australia, if you had come from one of the countries from which there are a large surplus of immigrants (not that I agree with the INS's definition of surplus, but that's another thread) you would have found it extremely difficult to come here on a tourist visa to begin with. The only people from a 3rd world country that can come to the US on a tourist visa are those from the upper class, who have so many assets at home that they have very little incentive to over stay the visa.
So, yes, I probably wouldn't do well at all in a prison. Guess what? So I don't break the law.
I'll bet you a hundred dollars you've violated the laws of other countries, should you be extradited to them for trial and incarceration?
Why not? Why is Mckinnon any more special than you?
I don't think any condition should be a blanket ticket to break any laws without punishment.
Why do you keep saying that? You are lying by assumption. I've already told you that Mckinnon is NOT using aspergers as a defense against punishment. He has confessed to the crime and has made absolutely no defense against being prosecuted for it in his home country. Quit making shit up don Quixote.
I'm not sure that's really the issue. I'll admit a little bit of ignorance on the issue, but what would happen to your upload rates if Comcast opened those VOIP channels to normal data? Or what if they allowed VOIP to travel on those channels whether they were the VOIP provider or not?
The same thing that would happen if they opened their digital televisions channels to "normal data."
Did you read the part in the summary which said that Comcast VOIP was unaffected by this problem?
What was not mentioned is that Comcast's VOIP is out of band. I'm no comcast apologist (comcast's policies were the straw that broke the came'ls back and got me to move to a new house where I could get verizon FIOS) but this is less of an issue that it has been made out to be. From day one, comcast's VOIP has used seperate channels from their internet services. Their VOIP is limited to connecting to POTS or other comcast VOIP customers. It is not on the internet, it is only on a comcast private intranet.
With all that inability to detect social cues, just how well do you think you would do in a supermax prison?
THAT is what the entire defense is about -- the cruelty of extraditing a UK citizen to the US to face punishment he would never face in his home country for committing a crime in his home country. It isn't like he fled the US, and is hiding out in the UK. He went UFO searching on some US computers via the internet and now the US wants to extradite for it.
Think of it this way. If, from the comfort of your own home, you found some pr0n on a saudi web server and consequently the saudi government was able to get you extradited to saudi arabia to stand trial for the crime of accessing pr0n on the internet with the death penalty as a likely option, would you consider that a violation of human rights law or not?
And blaming it on Asperger's Syndrome does a disservice to everyone.
So quit it, because Gary McKinnon sure isn't doing that. Why are you?
the aspie "I am stubborn and if I don't find something acceptable to me then I choose to ignore it" defence harms those whose mental illness genuinely prevents them from being in control of themselves. The end result is that more people are denied suitable rehabilitative care.
Gee, that's insightful and all... not.
His appeal has NOTHING to do with why he did what he did, it has to do with the US prosecutor literally threatening to have him "turned over to New Jersey authorities to see him fry" if he didn't accept a plea bargain. The UK judicial system has chosen to not read that as a threat, so far. McKinnon's appeal is based on the US carrying out that threat on a person with aspergers, who is much less capable of fending for himself in such a hostile environment, as being literally a violation of human rights. And the problem is not US law per se, it is UK law permitting the extradition to another country which has threatened to punish him in a way that would be illegal in the UK.
Somebody tends to speak up in nearly any situation. Whether anyone listens to them or not is another matter, but very few secrets are maintained. Yet everyone in BSG has the necessary personality traits to keep even the smallest of secrets. That's realistic?
I dunno, it took me about 3 seconds to come up with a counter-example - without too much spoilage - a certain person discovered they were a cylon and ultimately confessed it to Adama. Sure it took that person a couple of episodes to decide what they were going to do about their self-discovery, but deliberating over such an enormous and self-destructive revelation seems pretty realistic too me.
Same with the example of Baltar's situation. ... Then when Roselin "remembered" him being with the six, no one (including Roselin) would have been able to find personal fault there.
That's a terrible example, you are arguing about human nature - for which there are no cut and dried rules - and you are using foreknowledge that he would even be found out. It is just as reasonable to say that he chose to gamble that he would never be found out, considering just how few surviors there were AND just how few political survivors there were (wasn't roselyn like 47th in line for the presidency?) it seems like a plenty reasonable gamble to me.
The man sat on his thumbs while energy prices trebled during Bush's time.
Despite the name "Dept of Energy" it really has very little to do with energy commodities and a lot more to do with nukes.
My point was simply that becoming director does not necessarily correlate to being a good manager.
Kind of like becoming president does not necessarily correlate to being a good president,
Don't make that assumption. I've worked for other DOE labs and some directors were not particularly well respected.
It's a nice change from the previous high level government officials of the Bush Administration, who were appointed not based on their knowledge and experience in a given field, but their willingness to bend the truth according to the Bush administration dogma.
That was my initial reaction. But at that level of responsibility I much prefer someone being appointed for their competency to manage well rather than their ability to do technical work. I have no idea if Chu is a good manager or not, just saying that the Peter Principle is something to be avoided.
I make the assumption that most patients, without medical training, aren't qualified to make edits to their medical record. I equate that with haphazardly edit.
Doctors who can't accept that the patient is in the driver's seat are obsolete.
Look, legally, even a patient's physician isn't supposed to "edit" a medical record. It's like a file that you only have append privileges to. Why does it make any bit of sense to allow someone with no medical knowledge whatsoever to make edits?
You do understand the concept of audit trails, right? ...digital signatures to keep track of who is updating the record is exactly that.
I'm still waiting for an answer. do you even know what a medical record is?
It is fundamentally irrelevant whether I can regurgitate a specific definition.
What matters is that the record is the property of the patient and the patient bears the ultimate responsibility for its contents.
And exactly how would letting patients haphazardedly edit their medical record going to do a thing to prevent that?
Gee, I don't see any words to the effect of "haphazrdly edit" anywhere in "MS is taking the position that patients should be able to see their own records, and even correct their own medical records. (But with digital signatures to keep track of who is updating the record.)" Perhaps you can point them out?
Who has the most to lose if somebody fucks up a medical record? That's the person who should have the final say about the contents. Authority without responsibility is a major part of what has fucked up our medical system today.
By that logic, passengers on a flight should be allowed to edit the contents of the flight data recorder.
Only if you are more interested in making specious arguments.
Look, I'll re-iterate my point. If a person's medical record gets fucked up, they could end up dying as a result.
Nothing trumps that. Nothing.
(Most medical records today aren't things that patients get--MS is taking the position that patients should be able to see their own records, and even correct their own medical records. (But with digital signatures to keep track of who is updating the record.))
IANAD (but I will be one in 5 months or so). If that is Microsoft's position, that is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. Worse than Clippy. Worse than Bob. Look, a patient's medical record is supposed to be an OBJECTIVE documentation of a patient's health status and treatment. How, exactly, is a patient qualified to make an objective assessment of their medical problems, diagnostic workups and treatment regimens?
Who has the most to lose if somebody fucks up a medical record? That's the person who should have the final say about the contents. Authority without responsibility is a major part of what has fucked up our medical system today.
Have you bothered to look on the upper left side of the Google front page, where those services are clearly linked?
Really, it's all there.
They aren't all there. Grandcentral is not listed there. And that's just the first one I thought to check for.
Now if someone wants to go from logs to making a settlement offer to the potential offender, that is just stupid.
That is pretty much how ever RIAA case has ever gone.
What would be really cool is to find a way to change short-stroked drives into using the entire platter. IT would be like over-clocking your hard disk and getting more space instead of making it go faster.
South Korean authorities have arrested a blogger for saying the won will fall after he predicted that Lehman Brothers would implode. Apparently he is being charged with "spreading false information" -- which seems funny to me, if the guy is predicting the future, how does the government know it is false? Are they claiming to be able to see the future?