The responses to this are a whole lot of hot air and legal advice from non-lawyers. The issue is far, far simpler if we just strip it right back to basics.
Q/ My roommate pulls shit is going to cause both of us hassle someday. I've asked him to stop, but he's a being a dick about it. What should I do? A/ Get a new roommate.
Last time I watched TV or read a magazine I did not have to tell either anything about myself. It did not record anything about me. The company behind both media have no idea of my existence, never mind my opinions, preferences, social habits or appearance. All they know is that someone is out there.
This is the radical difference between the old and new "packaging" of customers. You now come individually wrapped. And the packaging and labelling is not for your convenience. In fact it could be distinctly inconvenient to you if your label suggests you are not the kind of product that advertisers wish. Targeted advertising is just as effective a way to exclude.
You are spot on. If the password had been random then it most certainly wouldn't have been mentioned. But the password used gives "insight" into how those handling it were treating it. Someone was being smart-arse. Someone was saying "I can encrypt this with a straight-forward description of what I regard this to be". Someone was making a statement in saying "This is no big secret, it's just a history".
But of course, the fact they encrypted it immediately demonstrates the reverse. They were saying one thing, yet doing the other, and in doing so managed to fail completely at both.
To me it shows that the whole Wikileaks/Guardian set up was a gaggle of amateurs dabbling in information that they did not know how to handle.
Either this data is highly sensitive and needs great care in handling, which they demonstrated they were unable to do, or it isn't and there is no need for the encryption etc. Wikileak's claim that it is mostly not sensitive, should be public, and they are the self-appointing ones to set it free. This debacle demonstrates that they handled it like it was entirely sensitive, shouldn't be made public, and they are not the ones to be trusted to do it.
Their own actions make a nonsense of their claims.
Step 1: Take a random selection of clearly labelled and ordered commands off your menus. Step 2: Give each an opaque icons of varying sizes. Step 3: Mix them up in a goo made from the tears of a frustrated users Step 4: Spread them evenly over your Windows (TM) interface like sick on toast. Step 5: Laugh like an evil genius at the millions of wasted hours spent trying to find things.
I'm offended by your insensitive reference to hearing in a medium reliant only on sight. What makes you think your reader can hear anything? Why exclude deaf people? Insensitive clod.
If it's a communication site, instant, free form or whatever, then "communication" is important to it. If you're going to write garbage that is confusing or senseless, then you are not "communicating". You are failing at communicating. The fact that you see other's problem about this as "pedantic crap" just demonstrates that you are also totally failing to understand communication from people. Does it not worry you that you are misunderstanding so much that goes on here? Are you not concerned that no-one follows everything you want to say?
In case you were not aware.. Spending all your time correcting other peoples text i can imagine how you missed it.
Case in point. Your failure at punctuation leaves the reader unable to follow your above effort. I can count at least five different ways of correctly punctuating this, all producing different meanings. They all pretty much suck as far as clarity is concerned, but I assume you mean one of them Which one is it?
"In case you were not aware, spending all your time. Correcting other people's text, I can imagine how you missed it."
"In case you were not aware; spending all your time correcting other people's text. I can imagine how you missed it."
"In case you were not aware, spending all your time correcting other peoples. Text, I can imagine how you missed it."
"In case you were not aware, spending all your time correcting. Other people's text, I can imagine how you missed it."
"In case you were not aware. [By] spending all your time correcting other people's text, I can imagine how you [may have] missed [the fact that only spelling/grammar nazis give a damn]."
If you link to a web page that contains illegal content, you are abetting in a crime.
This is a fair suggestion, but in this case nothing has been proven to be illegal about this content. RealNetworks claim patent infringement, but has this been proven in a court of law? Until it has, how is anyone supposed to know if it's illegal or not? If I lay claim to patents on iPods, does that mean the entire internet has to sit up, take notice, and stop linking to Apple's website?
Besides that, it is unreasonable to demand that every website owner to be fully acquainted to the legal status of the software they may link to. If it appears to be genuine freeware, how are they supposed to know?
Lastly, and this really should be taken into consideration; RealNetworks were giving their software away for free, with an entirely reasonable business model financed in other ways. All they had to do was ensure their end-users liked it and found it useful. But instead they turned it into a sucky, monstrously bloated, intrusive piece of crap that people (and their computers) hated. They only have themselves to blame if users sought out an alternative.
Because a large number of christian people do not regard the pope as being the authority of anything at all. Indeed a fair proportion of them regard the pope as being an instrument of the devil.
But never mind, it's always a source of amazement just how many tangles people will get into in order to match religious belief up to scientific knowledge. They just can't face up to the fact that 90% of religious beliefs are inventions developed to address centuries old concerns using centuries old understandings. Naturally they don't hold water any more, we've moved on.
That's not to say there's still not plenty to be had in the remaining 10% of philosophical "what's it all about, then?". But as long as people remain hung up on fairy tales about talking snakes they're just going to look like idiots.
The message here is if you're gonna commit a crime, make it a white collar crime.
That must be a very difficult message to get across in a case that doesn't involve white collar crime, and where no one even mentions white collar crime.
By that same logic I'm guessing the real message here is "Brush your teeth twice a day". Or is it "Starve a fever, feed a cold"? It's hard to tell, could be either.
The Judge himself is pretty much saying here... that Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan should be punished more because the legal system doesn't want to bother with the rest of the criminals.
Not so. The punishment of criminals has always had the important function of deterring other (potential) criminals. That's why justice being seen to be done is just as important as it being done. In that way they are certainly being made an example of, like all convicted criminals. The message is here is if you pull stupid crap like this there are uncomfortable consequences to be faced.
It may be an excessive sentence, and they probably will win an appeal, but I'm fine with that if it gives them a scare and something for everyone else to think about before acting.
I'd further suggest "a job" is not something they've ever encountered before, far less the worrying about losing one.
It must be difficult for people in their position to imagine a situation where anyone gives a damn about what they say or, for the most extent, do. And everyone knows that you can say anything you like on the internet without any consequences, cos it's not as if it's real life, right?
otherwise the new policy will be to install at least 4 toolbars for IE 6 on every Compaq computer.
This is typical of the kind of elitist attitude we're up against. I installed 18 toolbars on my internet and found that it made my printer's ink cartridges last longer. Obviously more internet toolbars means better printer mileage. But when I suggest this to our computer people at work they treated me like an idiot, as if I didn't know what I was talking about.
I also recently turned off my computer's anti-virus program, because I've found that stops those annoying little windows when you open pdfs off the internet. You'd think they'd be interested in my discovery, but all I got was shouting and them complaining to my boss.
It's high time the computer industry listened to the experience of people and stop pretending they know everything!
And all this just for the sake of the likes of Justin Bieber and Shakira and Hollywood so they can profit for the crap they do.
You call it crap, and yet people still want it and people still listen to/watch it. So much so that they will, if given no other choice, pay for it. Otherwise there'd be no point to attempting to protect their copyright, would there? No one goes to war to protect that which no one wants.
If you want to fight censorship
You're going to have to explain how being prevented from redistributing a track by your favourite artist, against their wishes, is "censorship". Much like how we are always being reminded that copyright infringement is not stealing, copyright enforcement is not censorship.
why they work MAFIAA thats trying to fuck our internet.
They work for the "MAFIAA" because they pay them. If a fair proportion of "your" internet consists of copies of their work, then why do you think they should have no say in determining what happens?
To sum up, your position is;
- you decide what's crap and what's worth having, regardless of how much demand there is for it. - it's your internet, so you get to say what should happen on it. - artists (unlike any one else) must give away their work for nothing, or they will be made of public example of. - only people who agree with you are to be afforded the same rights as you
Remind me, who's the one that's behaving unreasonably here?
Amazon are misleading the app downloaders into thinking that 20% of the list price is going to the developer. It isn't. And what's more they forbid the developer from telling anyone this. If that isn't a "secret back-door deal" I don't know what is.
You may, or may not, have a point. But the fact that you also think deliberately spelling someone's name incorrectly is a neat way to express your disapproval immediately invalidates all you have to say. It's rhetoric that'd be fitting coming from an 8 year old.
Facebook users are not Facebook's customers. Facebook's customers are their advertisers. Their users is what Facebook is selling.
If more Facebook users were clear on this they'd be less likely to gift their information to them, and more aware of exactly where Facebook's loyalties lie.
Why are you hiding your mother and sister behind the name of their relationship to you?
What are their names? These can't be a secret, after all they have nothing to hide.
Please also post their medical histories, especially their mental health, people should know these before evaluating their opinions. These can't be a secret, after all they have nothing to hide.
Slashdot Mirror
The responses to this are a whole lot of hot air and legal advice from non-lawyers. The issue is far, far simpler if we just strip it right back to basics.
Q/ My roommate pulls shit is going to cause both of us hassle someday. I've asked him to stop, but he's a being a dick about it. What should I do?
A/ Get a new roommate.
They won't believe even then. It will only be proof that you nipped out and put that stuff there just before they landed.
It is impossible to prove anything to someone who first makes up their mind what they wish to believe, and then constructs reality around that.
Last time I watched TV or read a magazine I did not have to tell either anything about myself. It did not record anything about me. The company behind both media have no idea of my existence, never mind my opinions, preferences, social habits or appearance. All they know is that someone is out there.
This is the radical difference between the old and new "packaging" of customers. You now come individually wrapped. And the packaging and labelling is not for your convenience. In fact it could be distinctly inconvenient to you if your label suggests you are not the kind of product that advertisers wish. Targeted advertising is just as effective a way to exclude.
Mod parent up.
You are spot on. If the password had been random then it most certainly wouldn't have been mentioned. But the password used gives "insight" into how those handling it were treating it. Someone was being smart-arse. Someone was saying "I can encrypt this with a straight-forward description of what I regard this to be". Someone was making a statement in saying "This is no big secret, it's just a history".
But of course, the fact they encrypted it immediately demonstrates the reverse. They were saying one thing, yet doing the other, and in doing so managed to fail completely at both.
To me it shows that the whole Wikileaks/Guardian set up was a gaggle of amateurs dabbling in information that they did not know how to handle.
Either this data is highly sensitive and needs great care in handling, which they demonstrated they were unable to do, or it isn't and there is no need for the encryption etc. Wikileak's claim that it is mostly not sensitive, should be public, and they are the self-appointing ones to set it free. This debacle demonstrates that they handled it like it was entirely sensitive, shouldn't be made public, and they are not the ones to be trusted to do it.
Their own actions make a nonsense of their claims.
Step 1: Take a random selection of clearly labelled and ordered commands off your menus.
Step 2: Give each an opaque icons of varying sizes.
Step 3: Mix them up in a goo made from the tears of a frustrated users
Step 4: Spread them evenly over your Windows (TM) interface like sick on toast.
Step 5: Laugh like an evil genius at the millions of wasted hours spent trying to find things.
G+ and Google Search are not tied into the iPhone. I'm pretty sure they can be used on other platforms as well.
Stop me if you've heard this one
I'm offended by your insensitive reference to hearing in a medium reliant only on sight. What makes you think your reader can hear anything? Why exclude deaf people? Insensitive clod.
If it's a communication site, instant, free form or whatever, then "communication" is important to it. If you're going to write garbage that is confusing or senseless, then you are not "communicating". You are failing at communicating. The fact that you see other's problem about this as "pedantic crap" just demonstrates that you are also totally failing to understand communication from people. Does it not worry you that you are misunderstanding so much that goes on here? Are you not concerned that no-one follows everything you want to say?
In case you were not aware.. Spending all your time correcting other peoples text i can imagine how you missed it.
Case in point. Your failure at punctuation leaves the reader unable to follow your above effort. I can count at least five different ways of correctly punctuating this, all producing different meanings. They all pretty much suck as far as clarity is concerned, but I assume you mean one of them Which one is it?
"In case you were not aware, spending all your time. Correcting other people's text, I can imagine how you missed it."
"In case you were not aware; spending all your time correcting other people's text. I can imagine how you missed it."
"In case you were not aware, spending all your time correcting other peoples. Text, I can imagine how you missed it."
"In case you were not aware, spending all your time correcting. Other people's text, I can imagine how you missed it."
"In case you were not aware. [By] spending all your time correcting other people's text, I can imagine how you [may have] missed [the fact that only spelling/grammar nazis give a damn]."
If you link to a web page that contains illegal content, you are abetting in a crime.
This is a fair suggestion, but in this case nothing has been proven to be illegal about this content. RealNetworks claim patent infringement, but has this been proven in a court of law? Until it has, how is anyone supposed to know if it's illegal or not? If I lay claim to patents on iPods, does that mean the entire internet has to sit up, take notice, and stop linking to Apple's website?
Besides that, it is unreasonable to demand that every website owner to be fully acquainted to the legal status of the software they may link to. If it appears to be genuine freeware, how are they supposed to know?
Lastly, and this really should be taken into consideration; RealNetworks were giving their software away for free, with an entirely reasonable business model financed in other ways. All they had to do was ensure their end-users liked it and found it useful. But instead they turned it into a sucky, monstrously bloated, intrusive piece of crap that people (and their computers) hated. They only have themselves to blame if users sought out an alternative.
Because a large number of christian people do not regard the pope as being the authority of anything at all. Indeed a fair proportion of them regard the pope as being an instrument of the devil.
But never mind, it's always a source of amazement just how many tangles people will get into in order to match religious belief up to scientific knowledge. They just can't face up to the fact that 90% of religious beliefs are inventions developed to address centuries old concerns using centuries old understandings. Naturally they don't hold water any more, we've moved on.
That's not to say there's still not plenty to be had in the remaining 10% of philosophical "what's it all about, then?". But as long as people remain hung up on fairy tales about talking snakes they're just going to look like idiots.
Copper man looks more like Copper lady. Either that, or he's had his electrodes removed.
The message here is if you're gonna commit a crime, make it a white collar crime.
That must be a very difficult message to get across in a case that doesn't involve white collar crime, and where no one even mentions white collar crime.
By that same logic I'm guessing the real message here is "Brush your teeth twice a day". Or is it "Starve a fever, feed a cold"? It's hard to tell, could be either.
Research has shown again and again that harsh penalties simply do not work as a deterrent to other offenders
Well, duh! If it had been a deterrent to those other offenders then they wouldn't be, by definition, offenders.
How about asking those who are not offenders what deterred them?
The Judge himself is pretty much saying here ... that Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan should be punished more because the legal system doesn't want to bother with the rest of the criminals.
Not so. The punishment of criminals has always had the important function of deterring other (potential) criminals. That's why justice being seen to be done is just as important as it being done. In that way they are certainly being made an example of, like all convicted criminals. The message is here is if you pull stupid crap like this there are uncomfortable consequences to be faced.
It may be an excessive sentence, and they probably will win an appeal, but I'm fine with that if it gives them a scare and something for everyone else to think about before acting.
I'd further suggest "a job" is not something they've ever encountered before, far less the worrying about losing one.
It must be difficult for people in their position to imagine a situation where anyone gives a damn about what they say or, for the most extent, do. And everyone knows that you can say anything you like on the internet without any consequences, cos it's not as if it's real life, right?
otherwise the new policy will be to install at least 4 toolbars for IE 6 on every Compaq computer.
This is typical of the kind of elitist attitude we're up against. I installed 18 toolbars on my internet and found that it made my printer's ink cartridges last longer. Obviously more internet toolbars means better printer mileage. But when I suggest this to our computer people at work they treated me like an idiot, as if I didn't know what I was talking about.
I also recently turned off my computer's anti-virus program, because I've found that stops those annoying little windows when you open pdfs off the internet. You'd think they'd be interested in my discovery, but all I got was shouting and them complaining to my boss.
It's high time the computer industry listened to the experience of people and stop pretending they know everything!
If only he'd explained in TFA how;
"Obtaining this information through command prompt must be done before the domain is censored. "
But I guess even if he had done that, he's still be relying on readers with a tiny, tiny attention span to read to the end of the entry.
And all this just for the sake of the likes of Justin Bieber and Shakira and Hollywood so they can profit for the crap they do.
You call it crap, and yet people still want it and people still listen to/watch it. So much so that they will, if given no other choice, pay for it. Otherwise there'd be no point to attempting to protect their copyright, would there? No one goes to war to protect that which no one wants.
If you want to fight censorship
You're going to have to explain how being prevented from redistributing a track by your favourite artist, against their wishes, is "censorship". Much like how we are always being reminded that copyright infringement is not stealing, copyright enforcement is not censorship.
why they work MAFIAA thats trying to fuck our internet.
They work for the "MAFIAA" because they pay them. If a fair proportion of "your" internet consists of copies of their work, then why do you think they should have no say in determining what happens?
To sum up, your position is;
- you decide what's crap and what's worth having, regardless of how much demand there is for it.
- it's your internet, so you get to say what should happen on it.
- artists (unlike any one else) must give away their work for nothing, or they will be made of public example of.
- only people who agree with you are to be afforded the same rights as you
Remind me, who's the one that's behaving unreasonably here?
Amazon are misleading the app downloaders into thinking that 20% of the list price is going to the developer. It isn't. And what's more they forbid the developer from telling anyone this. If that isn't a "secret back-door deal" I don't know what is.
Again? You're the one making the mistake. The OP most probably hasn't RTFA.
You may, or may not, have a point. But the fact that you also think deliberately spelling someone's name incorrectly is a neat way to express your disapproval immediately invalidates all you have to say. It's rhetoric that'd be fitting coming from an 8 year old.
Ergo; your opinion has no value.
I guess I must have been living under a rock then. Along with billions of others.
I call my rock "The Earth". Living "under" it is reliant really on which way you regards as "up".
Mod parent up.
Facebook users are not Facebook's customers. Facebook's customers are their advertisers. Their users is what Facebook is selling.
If more Facebook users were clear on this they'd be less likely to gift their information to them, and more aware of exactly where Facebook's loyalties lie.
Why are you hiding your mother and sister behind the name of their relationship to you?
What are their names? These can't be a secret, after all they have nothing to hide.
Please also post their medical histories, especially their mental health, people should know these before evaluating their opinions. These can't be a secret, after all they have nothing to hide.