Exactly why this would be awful. I am not happy about Microsoft having bought Hotmail. Imagine what horrible things would occur to Yahoo! if they acquired them.
Unlike bar codes, RFID chips could label an item as specific, making it easier to do inventory by doing a scan without double counting.
However, if someone purchases it out at the register, do they remove the code from their database, or keep it in their system? Do they purge it after so many days (the concept of 90 day returns, or whatever store policy), or do they keep it indefinitely?
What happens if the store kept it indefinitely, thus making the unique item specific to you. Meaning, if the RFID chip is physically attatched to the item in such a way it cannot easily be removed, and you say, give it to someone who "then" commits a crime with it, are you going to be seen as partially responsible?
1. If they try to implement this, perhaps we all need to write to the FCC complaining about this. Or would there be a better government organization?
2. Threaten to go to another ISP. It isn't like all ISPs will automatically jump on the bandwagon.
3. If we allow them to do this, what prevents things going one step further and Microsoft implementing anti-piracy measures in future versions of Windows (or perhaps current versions with patches)? Can you imagine if Windows had something to check whether the file you're trying to play had the right permissions? (More so than DRM.) I mean, if they can tell whether you're downloading unauthorized copyrighted material, what prevents operating systems checking to see whethering you're doing the same thing, but "running" them as opposed to downloading?
And hence why we need to do why people commit crimes, instead of trying to outright prevent them through any means necessary. I mean, for example, if we truly wanted to prevent pick pockets from stealing, we could simply mandate all people born have their hands surgically removed at birth.
Wouldn't it be easier for them to switch to a pay-per-gigabyte-downloaded scheme? So instead of paying $X/month for unlimited access, you'd be paying something less than $X per month. Perhaps $10 less. But you'd get charged $1/GB downloaded, which, I think with most people, wouldn't be that much anyways.
And while we're add it, let us apply this same logic to other things. Drunk driving, or smuggling of drugs, on our nations roads, is a serious problem in real life. So why don't we set up mandatory checkpoints where each and every person going through it gets searched without cause?
They won't solve piracy with this. There are better ways. Such as addressing WHY people pirate, instead of just trying to crack down on it. You know what might discourage piracy? If ISPs start charging for bandwidth. So instead of charging like $45/month for unlimited bandwidth, perhaps $35/month plus $1/GB downloaded.
I guess if they're going to ignore the 4th Amendment when it comes to suitcases, they might as well ignore it when it comes to laptops. After all, who is to say what it means for "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"
One idea is to sell licenses, and allow people to rip their CDs. So if they want to rip their CD to their computer, they must have a license to do it, for each and every copy. We could even apply this to stoves. Want to cook bacon and eggs using your stove? You must purchase a license from the stove creator. Want to fry french toast on one's stove? Same thing. Want to use it to cook for friends and family? Same thing, must have a separate license there too.
2. Ripping music one has bought does no harm. It has been paid for.
Logically, the music bought can only be used one at a time, with the exception of doing a round. In other words, if you buy a CD, regardless of whether you're listening to it on a CD player, or listening to a ripped mp3 of it, you're listening to one copy at a time. If two copies are being used at the same time, then that would have to be seen as copyright theft since an individual CD copy is unable to do that.
3. Extortion by license. If made, or is, illegal, by license, to have (to listen) to more than one copy at a time (spaceshifting), then more money is going to the record labels. Money should be construed as a finite resource. Therefore, they're getting a larger chunk of the finite resource, money, for no "real" extra work done. Analogy: Think about if the federal government increased income taxes, without increasing what they provide to the public.
Solution: The people have the power to change the laws and to fight back when in court. If a law seems unjust, the jury can always vote in favour of the defendent.
Disclaimer: None of what I said in this comment shall be construed as legal advise in any shape or form. This comment is the expressed opinion of myself, and in no way am I condoning illegal activites.
And that is exactly why this law can be very bad. It has no effect on the crime committed.
I mean, it would be one thing to ban someone form using the Net who committed DDoS attacks. But it would be entirely different to ban a sex offender, who may not have ever used a computer, from using the Net.
Can judges ban sex offenders from using the Internet as part of the punishment? Or would they need to legislate that as an option?
We're in the age of broadband. So why don't we do rental downloads? No DRM needed. Just make the file an executable that will delete itself after so many plays, somehow. But don't try to force it on the consumer. Trust their honesty.
Personally, I find it annoying when "morality" is forced upon us. I'd rather see something like, "You have paid to rent this video for X amount of times. This is your Y time playing it. When this reaches the maximum number of times, please delete or stop viewing this video and purchase it. Thank you." at the beginning of the video.
The earmark makes it sound like there is a connection between youth crime and video games.
Remove the earmark, and put the funds into the general fund. Then use more of the general fund to help fund what they wish they fund, allowing 17-year olds to go to juvenile court.
By trying to make this connection between youth crime and video games, they're opening up a mess of problems.
I think this will create problems for those who don't want to buy or hunt for heat bulbs, so they just use 100 watt bulbs instead. I am sure they make 100 watt heat bulbs, but for the most part, I think when someone needs one, they'll just go and grab a 100 watt bulb.
I oppose legislating environmentalist in such a way. Instead of a ban, I'd prefer a tax. 25 cents per inefficient bulb. And perhaps a 20% federal sales tax on inefficient appliances. I am just throwing out numbers.
1. True pirates aren't those sharing recorded TV shows and TV movies on fileservers. True pirates are those who sell the recordings for money, perhaps on eBay or somewhere else. They're taking money away from sales that very well could have been if the rights-holder were to do the same thing (assuming they're not).
2. There is the issue of whether to illegally download the show or movie you want to watch, or go out and buy the DVD. But the DVDs aren't exactly cheap. Plus, why buy something you may only watch a few times?
Instead of selling a movie for $10 to $20 in a store, they could sell a rental DVD for $1 to $2 which will expire on its own. They have those DVDs now, don't they? They stop working after a number of uses.
3. Most importantly, illegally downloading TV shows and movies proves how popular it is. If people truly loved it, they'll go out and buy the actual DVD itself. More importantly, the illegal downloads don't have full quality, do they?
[My above comments in no way, no how, support illegal activities. My above comments are just my opinion on the situation regardless of legality of said actions. Do not take my comments as any legal advice.]
to simply have a spare computer to do all things secure. A cheap, old computer should do it. Just do format then fresh install of your OS, and only use it for banking, paying bills, etc.
1. If you report child pornography, can the person reporting it get in trouble for technically viewing it? Or does someone have to have pocession of it?
2. By the way. Is this akin to getting one's vehicle fixed at a mechanic's shop, them hopping into the car to get the car started to test to see if it works, only to discover by chance someone stashed drugs in there, and so on? It sounds like if the material was discovered in the process of doing the job, with no intent to invade the customer's privacy, there is no foul against Circuit City.
I think you took what I said out of context. I don't know if it was intentional on your part.
I am saying students should respect the school's PRIORITIZATION when it comes to different types. Priorizing doesn't mean preventing or halting. It means that if there are other things ahead, filesharing would get throttled or slown down until those other things are finished.
Imagine if you will, a highway. And on that highway are vehicles. Those vehicles represent data. Take cars to be faster vehicles, whereas semi-trucks tend to be slower vehicles. Imagine a semi going down a highway, and that semi is holding a bunch of cars up behind. That semi could continue on its path, or simply pull over for a moment, and allow the 5 or 6 cars behind to pass him/her up. The semi will eventually reach its destination, but to pull over from time to time, allows the other traffic to get there faster. In other instances, I would imagine gaming is like emergency vehicles. For these vehicles to go slow causes problems. The lag experienced in online gaming. However, these vehicles, although important in the game play, yet few in numbers, it would be okay to give them a higher priority over other traffic.
Here is the way I see it. College universities can set it up so filesharing, and other heavy bandwidth activities, get lower prioritization. I don't know how this is done, if some universities do it by port number.
Of course, there isn't a catch-all sort of thing. Of course some will figure out a way around prioritizations. For the most part, if a university does have that kind of policy and filters set up, I would hope students respect their decision. Either that or get their own Internet access and get off the school's network.
I'm a bit on the tired side, so let me organize my thoughts this way.
1. If you cannot get enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot, then there is another problem in society where people are this apathetic, possibly.
2. How did your government block the law?
3. Medical marijuana is illegal, plain and simple, due to a SCOTUS ruling in years past. So state law doesn't override federal drug laws. I don't agree with this, but I'm just saying.
4. If you don't like how the Electoral College handles your vote, then have your state change how the EC votes are handled. Here is an idea. Do what some states do, make it illegal for EC members to vote against the public's wishes. Would an EC member be willing to be incarcerated by voting against the public's wishes? Well, I would hope so, if they truly felt that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly why this would be awful. I am not happy about Microsoft having bought Hotmail. Imagine what horrible things would occur to Yahoo! if they acquired them.
Unlike bar codes, RFID chips could label an item as specific, making it easier to do inventory by doing a scan without double counting.
However, if someone purchases it out at the register, do they remove the code from their database, or keep it in their system? Do they purge it after so many days (the concept of 90 day returns, or whatever store policy), or do they keep it indefinitely?
What happens if the store kept it indefinitely, thus making the unique item specific to you. Meaning, if the RFID chip is physically attatched to the item in such a way it cannot easily be removed, and you say, give it to someone who "then" commits a crime with it, are you going to be seen as partially responsible?
1. If they try to implement this, perhaps we all need to write to the FCC complaining about this. Or would there be a better government organization?
2. Threaten to go to another ISP. It isn't like all ISPs will automatically jump on the bandwagon.
3. If we allow them to do this, what prevents things going one step further and Microsoft implementing anti-piracy measures in future versions of Windows (or perhaps current versions with patches)? Can you imagine if Windows had something to check whether the file you're trying to play had the right permissions? (More so than DRM.) I mean, if they can tell whether you're downloading unauthorized copyrighted material, what prevents operating systems checking to see whethering you're doing the same thing, but "running" them as opposed to downloading?
And hence why we need to do why people commit crimes, instead of trying to outright prevent them through any means necessary. I mean, for example, if we truly wanted to prevent pick pockets from stealing, we could simply mandate all people born have their hands surgically removed at birth.
Wouldn't it be easier for them to switch to a pay-per-gigabyte-downloaded scheme? So instead of paying $X/month for unlimited access, you'd be paying something less than $X per month. Perhaps $10 less. But you'd get charged $1/GB downloaded, which, I think with most people, wouldn't be that much anyways.
And while we're add it, let us apply this same logic to other things. Drunk driving, or smuggling of drugs, on our nations roads, is a serious problem in real life. So why don't we set up mandatory checkpoints where each and every person going through it gets searched without cause?
They won't solve piracy with this. There are better ways. Such as addressing WHY people pirate, instead of just trying to crack down on it. You know what might discourage piracy? If ISPs start charging for bandwidth. So instead of charging like $45/month for unlimited bandwidth, perhaps $35/month plus $1/GB downloaded.
I guess if they're going to ignore the 4th Amendment when it comes to suitcases, they might as well ignore it when it comes to laptops. After all, who is to say what it means for "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"
Which voting method do you use for non-partisan elections? Plurality or IRV?
That is why I feel elections should probably go non-partisan. (A side note. Not all places in the USA use plurality. Some places here use IRV.)
RIAA is as silly as...
One idea is to sell licenses, and allow people to rip their CDs. So if they want to rip their CD to their computer, they must have a license to do it, for each and every copy. We could even apply this to stoves. Want to cook bacon and eggs using your stove? You must purchase a license from the stove creator. Want to fry french toast on one's stove? Same thing. Want to use it to cook for friends and family? Same thing, must have a separate license there too.
1. Can someone request a jury in civil trials?
2. Ripping music one has bought does no harm. It has been paid for.
Logically, the music bought can only be used one at a time, with the exception of doing a round. In other words, if you buy a CD, regardless of whether you're listening to it on a CD player, or listening to a ripped mp3 of it, you're listening to one copy at a time. If two copies are being used at the same time, then that would have to be seen as copyright theft since an individual CD copy is unable to do that.
3. Extortion by license. If made, or is, illegal, by license, to have (to listen) to more than one copy at a time (spaceshifting), then more money is going to the record labels. Money should be construed as a finite resource. Therefore, they're getting a larger chunk of the finite resource, money, for no "real" extra work done. Analogy: Think about if the federal government increased income taxes, without increasing what they provide to the public.
Solution: The people have the power to change the laws and to fight back when in court. If a law seems unjust, the jury can always vote in favour of the defendent.
Disclaimer: None of what I said in this comment shall be construed as legal advise in any shape or form. This comment is the expressed opinion of myself, and in no way am I condoning illegal activites.
And that is exactly why this law can be very bad. It has no effect on the crime committed.
I mean, it would be one thing to ban someone form using the Net who committed DDoS attacks. But it would be entirely different to ban a sex offender, who may not have ever used a computer, from using the Net.
Can judges ban sex offenders from using the Internet as part of the punishment? Or would they need to legislate that as an option?
I think the real issue here is whether Egypt's economy is so bad they have to resort to copyright royalties on something so "silly" to survive.
We're in the age of broadband. So why don't we do rental downloads? No DRM needed. Just make the file an executable that will delete itself after so many plays, somehow. But don't try to force it on the consumer. Trust their honesty.
Personally, I find it annoying when "morality" is forced upon us. I'd rather see something like, "You have paid to rent this video for X amount of times. This is your Y time playing it. When this reaches the maximum number of times, please delete or stop viewing this video and purchase it. Thank you." at the beginning of the video.
The earmark makes it sound like there is a connection between youth crime and video games.
Remove the earmark, and put the funds into the general fund. Then use more of the general fund to help fund what they wish they fund, allowing 17-year olds to go to juvenile court.
By trying to make this connection between youth crime and video games, they're opening up a mess of problems.
I think this will create problems for those who don't want to buy or hunt for heat bulbs, so they just use 100 watt bulbs instead. I am sure they make 100 watt heat bulbs, but for the most part, I think when someone needs one, they'll just go and grab a 100 watt bulb.
I oppose legislating environmentalist in such a way. Instead of a ban, I'd prefer a tax. 25 cents per inefficient bulb. And perhaps a 20% federal sales tax on inefficient appliances. I am just throwing out numbers.
I think there are a few issues here.
1. True pirates aren't those sharing recorded TV shows and TV movies on fileservers. True pirates are those who sell the recordings for money, perhaps on eBay or somewhere else. They're taking money away from sales that very well could have been if the rights-holder were to do the same thing (assuming they're not).
2. There is the issue of whether to illegally download the show or movie you want to watch, or go out and buy the DVD. But the DVDs aren't exactly cheap. Plus, why buy something you may only watch a few times?
Instead of selling a movie for $10 to $20 in a store, they could sell a rental DVD for $1 to $2 which will expire on its own. They have those DVDs now, don't they? They stop working after a number of uses.
3. Most importantly, illegally downloading TV shows and movies proves how popular it is. If people truly loved it, they'll go out and buy the actual DVD itself. More importantly, the illegal downloads don't have full quality, do they?
[My above comments in no way, no how, support illegal activities. My above comments are just my opinion on the situation regardless of legality of said actions. Do not take my comments as any legal advice.]
Days ago I was reading about this. Is this only 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
to simply have a spare computer to do all things secure. A cheap, old computer should do it. Just do format then fresh install of your OS, and only use it for banking, paying bills, etc.
Some thoughts on this...
1. If you report child pornography, can the person reporting it get in trouble for technically viewing it? Or does someone have to have pocession of it?
2. By the way. Is this akin to getting one's vehicle fixed at a mechanic's shop, them hopping into the car to get the car started to test to see if it works, only to discover by chance someone stashed drugs in there, and so on? It sounds like if the material was discovered in the process of doing the job, with no intent to invade the customer's privacy, there is no foul against Circuit City.
Will the site be mirrored into an archive somewhere else?
I think you took what I said out of context. I don't know if it was intentional on your part.
I am saying students should respect the school's PRIORITIZATION when it comes to different types. Priorizing doesn't mean preventing or halting. It means that if there are other things ahead, filesharing would get throttled or slown down until those other things are finished.
Imagine if you will, a highway. And on that highway are vehicles. Those vehicles represent data. Take cars to be faster vehicles, whereas semi-trucks tend to be slower vehicles. Imagine a semi going down a highway, and that semi is holding a bunch of cars up behind. That semi could continue on its path, or simply pull over for a moment, and allow the 5 or 6 cars behind to pass him/her up. The semi will eventually reach its destination, but to pull over from time to time, allows the other traffic to get there faster. In other instances, I would imagine gaming is like emergency vehicles. For these vehicles to go slow causes problems. The lag experienced in online gaming. However, these vehicles, although important in the game play, yet few in numbers, it would be okay to give them a higher priority over other traffic.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.
Here is the way I see it. College universities can set it up so filesharing, and other heavy bandwidth activities, get lower prioritization. I don't know how this is done, if some universities do it by port number.
Of course, there isn't a catch-all sort of thing. Of course some will figure out a way around prioritizations. For the most part, if a university does have that kind of policy and filters set up, I would hope students respect their decision. Either that or get their own Internet access and get off the school's network.
I'd rather see universities do bandwidth priorization, where file sharing receives the lowest priority amongst all traffic.
I'm a bit on the tired side, so let me organize my thoughts this way.
1. If you cannot get enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot, then there is another problem in society where people are this apathetic, possibly.
2. How did your government block the law?
3. Medical marijuana is illegal, plain and simple, due to a SCOTUS ruling in years past. So state law doesn't override federal drug laws. I don't agree with this, but I'm just saying.
4. If you don't like how the Electoral College handles your vote, then have your state change how the EC votes are handled. Here is an idea. Do what some states do, make it illegal for EC members to vote against the public's wishes. Would an EC member be willing to be incarcerated by voting against the public's wishes? Well, I would hope so, if they truly felt that way.