The owners of livejournal have the right to do whatever they like with their website, provided that it is within the law. You know, I am getting sick and tired of this bullshit excuse. Google does something that people don't like, just shut the fuck up it's a free service, Myspace does something people don't like, just shut the fuck up it's their business they can run it however they want too, Livejournal... etc, etc.
I call bullshit.
Just as all those companies have the right to do whatever damn thing they please, we have the right to call them on the carpet for it, in public and out loud. Sure, go ahead and vote with your dollars, or your feet, but that doesn't mean people should not speak up for what they believe is right too. In fact, its axiomatic that your vote won't count, your boycott of a handful of dollars won't make an iota of difference, because there are another hundred thousand ignorant people standing in line to take your place.
But one voice speaking the truth can be magnified by the internet so that it makes an impression on millions. None of these companies would exist without us, the little guys, creating the content that they repackage and load up with advertising. Speaking out is the only chance we've got to actively make them sit up and behave like good internet denizens.
Not every protest will make a difference, but acquiescing into silence because it's "their website" is guaranteed to make no difference at all.
It's like saying it's violating your privacy to have your name on your credit cards, because your wallet might be stolen. If you have one of those credit cards that have "custom" pictures on the front and you put a picture of your naked wife having sex with your neighbor on it, then yeah, it would be like saying it's violating your privacy to have your name on your credit cards because your wallet might be stolen.
But you should be aware what happens when you let your highly distilled social circles decide your social norms as opposed to checking out what your average neighbor and townsfolk are thinking about it. -- Support EMI and iTunes Plus, show the big labels that DRM-free music works. Boycott the rest. Considering just how little the average neighbor and townsfolk knows or cares about DRM, I find the juxtaposition of those two sentences quite ironic.
In the second case, it sounds a lot like the attacker needs to run their own tracker, which means they have convince people to come to their tracker in the first place, making it relatively easy to avoid.
But the first case, with Edonkey, sounds like it might only need a naughty client. But they don't go into details, instead referencing an academic paper which I am too lazy to read and suspect it won't answer my ultimate question anyway, which is:
If you are running emule, are there any tell-tale signs to indicate that your emule client is unwittingly participating in a DDOS attack? Like certain verbose log entries or somesuch?
So Honda's logic was that the microwave is not in fact compling with FCC interference regulations, like the sticker on the back says it does? Yeah, because the FCC reguires all microwave ovens to encrypt their emissions to prevent interference from confusing other devices.
Microwave ovens emit on the largely unregulated 2.4GHz band, the fact that crap on that frequency could hork up the Honda car alarm is almost certainly Honda's fault, regardless of if the oven exceeds signal strength limits or not. Especially on a security system, otherwise they've left the car owner a big wide denial of service vulnerability.
Diet Soda, it has been found in a European study (German?) to fuck with your blood sugar level - the body thinks it's getting sugar, pumps you with insulin, and it turns out you aren't getting any. If you want to make an outrageous claim like that, you had better back it up. All of the diabetics I know regularly drink diet soda without any significant impact on their insulin levels. If there was, they would know about it.
It's funny you should mention that. 'The People' get to vote for their government, not their television. It's funny you should mention that. The powers that be present two nearly identical candidates on television and 'the people' get to vote for the one they like the most, really doesn't sound very empowering.
After all that, what makes Americans stand up and say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" but a canceled television show. Perhaps it is because 'the people' feel like they have more chance of changing the cancellation of a TV show than they do have of changing the course of direction that their government takes.
she didn't want any other writer writing substandard work with her characters, diluting her vision I'm pretty sure she doesn't have a leg to stand on with current US copyright law. That sort of right of control is more along the lines of the French definition of copyright which includes "moral rights" aka "droits moraux." US copyright law has almost zero recognition of moral rights on their own, sometimes they ride the coattails of property rights, but that's mostly just a side-effect.
However, it is my understanding that she does have the ability to trademark her characters and other unique creations. Trademarks are infinitely renewable too.
Fair use was made vague for a reason. That reason is that it's extremely difficult to pin down exactly what is fair use. Bullshit.
The legal definition of Fair Use was not made vague because "it's extremely difficult to pin down" - fair use is whatever the hell the guys writing the law wanted it to be. The reason it is open-ended, not vague, is so that it would be flexible enough to be applied to any situation, even ones that did not exist at the time. Fair Use is not about the medium, but about the intended use, which is a lot more useful a definition than some sort of specific ennumeration of exceptions. It's still a pain in the ass, but all the alternatives (except complete revocation of copyright) are even worse.
Expressing yourself however you chose is not listed as an inherent right, "freedom of speech" is Are you seriously trying to lawyer that "freedom of speech" only applies to speech and not other forms of expression?
since when has anyone expected privacy in public? the 2 words are the EXACT oppersite meaning to each other. People routinely expect annoymity in public. They also routinely expect that every single movement they make in public will not be recorded and correlated into an eletronic dossier that profiles them specificly. While we are not quite at the last step yet, we are well along that path and Once Great Britain seems to be leading the way. Kind of funny that, I would have expected China or new old Russia to be at the forefront of that game.
And, your capacity appears self-centered. I really can't see what kind of twisted logic would bring you to that conclusion. Freedom of expression means nothing if it only applies to ideas that we like. Freedom of expression only means something when people are willing to accept expression they dislike because the principle is more important than any specific person's desires.
Supporting unethical activities is unethical in itself. Ethics is the job of every adult, so yes, Virginia, it is their job. Bullshit. Only a self-centered moral absolutist would make that claim, and then they would be in for a rude awakening when someone else applied it to them. For example, pharmacists who refuse to dispense certain medicines because they believe their uses are unethical, are themselves being unethical. Or grocery stores who won't sell to muslims because they think Islam is a religion of terror. Or any number of other ethical beliefs that conflict with others' basic rights.
As pointed out elsewhere, it is their company and they and only they have the right to decide where to put their research and effort. As pointed out elsewhere, THEY are the ones claiming to do no evil. I'm pointing out that as a company that relies solely on the free flow of information, they among all other companies, ought to understand that impeding that free flow is an evil greater than whatever they think they are preventing by censoring themselves.
No one in reality land thinks that 'Do no evil' means anything other than 'Do nothing Eric and those other two guys think is excessively evil'. At its core, that message is an internal marketing effort, And MY point is that if all the people out there in reality land, those guys ought to be at the head of the class that thinks impeding the flow of information is a big E evil, especially information that does not pertain to illegal activities.
Tobacco, drugs and prostitution are not small evils. They cost society a huge amount of money... Only because 'society' has chosen to waste money on those costs. They are all victimless in that the only people who are hurt are those who choose to be hurt. In countries where prostitution is legal, like the majority of the first world, the costs are much less than they are in the USofA.
If I want to run a shop front - which is what Google's paid for advertising basically is - and decide I do not want to promote things with heavy adverse effects on society, that is my right as a citizen. Surely you are not unaware of Google's claim to "do no evil?" If you lack that context, then I can see why you would go off on a tangent about it being their right to do whatever they want. I'm pointing out that their words and their actions are inconsistent.
The question is: "is it immoral for Google to actively support services attempting to help students cheat in exchange for money?". Its beyond my capacity to think up an ethical framework that wouldn't answer that question as firmly YES. Then your capacity is mighty small. The reason Google should not be policing term paper cheaters is the same reason they should not (and are not) involved in policing any of the thousands of other ethicly dubious activities -- It's not their job.
Making Google the police of the internet has so many drawbacks it is hard to know where to start, but here are two big ones - wasted resources that would have gone to doing a better job of providing actual service and questionable decisions about where to "draw the line" as one man's morality is another man's evil.
other items on the banned list such as tobacco, drugs, weapons, and prostitution. What the hell? Tobacco isn't illegal, and not only is prostitution legal in Rhode Island (set your user-agent to googlebot and npr will show you the written transcript) as well as parts of Nevada, Canada, most of Europe and parts of Asia.
Hell, even if you think prostitution goes hand in hand with sex-slavery, the problems of sweat-shop manufacturing slavery in and outside of the US are at least 10x worse and I don't see google banning ads for outsourced manufacturing.
I would expect that if there was one company that understood ultimate importance of free flow of information it would be google. Seems like they've become lost in the forest because they can't get past the trees - tobacco, et al are small evils, censorship is a big Evil.
how would you respond to the argument that (recently) naturalized Japanese during WWII would not feel some sort of loyalty towards their old home country and plot/execute attacks against the American war industry (factories, infrastructure) or simply gather intelligence and perform covert operations? Perhaps I would respond that if they are recently naturalized they must be so for a reason. The vast majority because they prefer the US to their home country? We are a nation of immigrants seeking opportunity and freedom, why would the issei be any different from recent german or italian immigrants? Surely there must be a more efficient method to narrow down the group of people who might pose a danger than to lock up each and every one of them and confiscate(steal) their property?
Would it be worth to risk losing soldiers, battles or possibly even the pacific war? Do these soldiers not fight for American principles - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Is winning a battle worth losing the war?
NBC did a story on filing complaints to police stations. Most of the stations just wanted a verbal report and wouldn't provide him with the anonymous forms required under law. To top it all off, when the report got on the air, the investigator had a BOLO notice posted! For those who want the details, here's a blog with a link to stories about the investigation and subsequent harrasment of the reporter. If the blog is to believed, his recent arrest was totally trumped up as all of the serious charges have been dropped - all he is being charged for is misdemeanor non-violent resisting arrest - he's not even being charged with the bogus reason for the arrest in the first place.
I personally had a friend experience the same thing (dropping all charges except a bogus resisting arrest) in another state when the cops thought she wasn't a local, in her case it was a way to extort money - plead guilty, pay the fine and it won't even go on the record, cheaper than fighting it.
If you want to be scared out of your mind, read John Grisham's The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town, ISBN 0385517238. Which, for the record is non-fiction, despite Grisham's widespread fame and sucess as a writer of pop fiction.
It's as if the only thing received was parity bits (no systematic bits), possibly from different sources, and from those you calculate the message. Which parchive is quite capable of doing, just that no one sends only parity files because the overhead to recalculate the original message is quite high in that case.
A simple form of it is already in use today with great results.
It's Parchive and it is crucial for the transmission of large data files through the usenet network. Usenet is essentially a multicast network, like that in the article and the development of parchive error correction files made it significantly more efficient, essentially bringing the need for retransmits down to nearly zero at a slight cost of 5-10% more data transmitted than would be necessary in a perfectly lossless network.
What the Hell did Negroponte expect? Did he think Intel was just going to roll over the let their biggest competitor sell tens-of-millions of chips without offering their own alternative? I'm sure Intel had the opportunity to bid on the project, just like AMD did.
If AMD was able to sell just the chips cheaper than Intel could, why would Intel think they could sell a completely assembled product that includes components not even part of Intel's core competency for less?
Personally, I have no interest in racing, let alone the Indianapolis 500. Most of my friends who support Linux, also have no interest. Why support advertisement of linux in an event which I also do not support? This is completely different from a stance to mobilize the community about something which is already WITHIN the community (i.e. blender) The point you are missing is the question - why is this project NOW "news for nerds" if it wasn't "news for nerds" during the planning stages?
XM's uber-management is in the process of calling in every US government favor it has...
It fascinates me that this is framed as a "Free Speech" issue. The airwaves that XM uses aren't of the public variety, it has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. So first you say that XM is sucking up to the will of the government by censoring the show and then you say the government is not involved in the very next sentence?
Are you trolling, or did you really not understand that your post was the first one to actually prove the point that this case is precisely one of the government interfering with freedom of speech?
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit.
Just as all those companies have the right to do whatever damn thing they please, we have the right to call them on the carpet for it, in public and out loud. Sure, go ahead and vote with your dollars, or your feet, but that doesn't mean people should not speak up for what they believe is right too. In fact, its axiomatic that your vote won't count, your boycott of a handful of dollars won't make an iota of difference, because there are another hundred thousand ignorant people standing in line to take your place.
But one voice speaking the truth can be magnified by the internet so that it makes an impression on millions. None of these companies would exist without us, the little guys, creating the content that they repackage and load up with advertising. Speaking out is the only chance we've got to actively make them sit up and behave like good internet denizens.
Not every protest will make a difference, but acquiescing into silence because it's "their website" is guaranteed to make no difference at all.
--
Support EMI and iTunes Plus, show the big labels
that DRM-free music works. Boycott the rest. Considering just how little the average neighbor and townsfolk knows or cares about DRM, I find the juxtaposition of those two sentences quite ironic.
So the article mentions two cases:
1) Edonkey/Emule
2) Bittorrent
In the second case, it sounds a lot like the attacker needs to run their own tracker, which means they have convince people to come to their tracker in the first place, making it relatively easy to avoid.
But the first case, with Edonkey, sounds like it might only need a naughty client. But they don't go into details, instead referencing an academic paper which I am too lazy to read and suspect it won't answer my ultimate question anyway, which is:
If you are running emule, are there any tell-tale signs to indicate that your emule client is unwittingly participating in a DDOS attack? Like certain verbose log entries or somesuch?
Microwave ovens emit on the largely unregulated 2.4GHz band, the fact that crap on that frequency could hork up the Honda car alarm is almost certainly Honda's fault, regardless of if the oven exceeds signal strength limits or not. Especially on a security system, otherwise they've left the car owner a big wide denial of service vulnerability.
However, it is my understanding that she does have the ability to trademark her characters and other unique creations. Trademarks are infinitely renewable too.
The legal definition of Fair Use was not made vague because "it's extremely difficult to pin down" - fair use is whatever the hell the guys writing the law wanted it to be. The reason it is open-ended, not vague, is so that it would be flexible enough to be applied to any situation, even ones that did not exist at the time. Fair Use is not about the medium, but about the intended use, which is a lot more useful a definition than some sort of specific ennumeration of exceptions. It's still a pain in the ass, but all the alternatives (except complete revocation of copyright) are even worse.
Making Google the police of the internet has so many drawbacks it is hard to know where to start, but here are two big ones - wasted resources that would have gone to doing a better job of providing actual service and questionable decisions about where to "draw the line" as one man's morality is another man's evil.
Hell, even if you think prostitution goes hand in hand with sex-slavery, the problems of sweat-shop manufacturing slavery in and outside of the US are at least 10x worse and I don't see google banning ads for outsourced manufacturing.
I would expect that if there was one company that understood ultimate importance of free flow of information it would be google. Seems like they've become lost in the forest because they can't get past the trees - tobacco, et al are small evils, censorship is a big Evil.
I personally had a friend experience the same thing (dropping all charges except a bogus resisting arrest) in another state when the cops thought she wasn't a local, in her case it was a way to extort money - plead guilty, pay the fine and it won't even go on the record, cheaper than fighting it.
A simple form of it is already in use today with great results.
It's Parchive and it is crucial for the transmission of large data files through the usenet network. Usenet is essentially a multicast network, like that in the article and the development of parchive error correction files made it significantly more efficient, essentially bringing the need for retransmits down to nearly zero at a slight cost of 5-10% more data transmitted than would be necessary in a perfectly lossless network.
If AMD was able to sell just the chips cheaper than Intel could, why would Intel think they could sell a completely assembled product that includes components not even part of Intel's core competency for less?
It fascinates me that this is framed as a "Free Speech" issue. The airwaves that XM uses aren't of the public variety, it has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. So first you say that XM is sucking up to the will of the government by censoring the show and then you say the government is not involved in the very next sentence?
Are you trolling, or did you really not understand that your post was the first one to actually prove the point that this case is precisely one of the government interfering with freedom of speech?