I still maintain that your scant knowledge of Australian politics inhibits your ability to say anything intelligent about our politics.
First this is an invalid statement as you have no idea as to my knowledge level. Second the statement is irrelevant because my position has nothing to do with a particular government but government in general.
Government filtering is nonsensical. It can't work. By trying to appeal to the "majority", which doesn't actually exist unless you're in a direct democracy, you end up being overly broad in your banning to the point where it can't work well for anyone.
People are very diverse in what they think is should be filtered. What A thinks should be filtered B thinks is ok and what B thinks should be filtered A thinks is ok. So if the government filters then no one wins. Either A is unhappy, B is unhappy, or both A and B are unhappy. It is impossible to make both A and B happy. This unhappiness comes at a cost to taxpayers.
Now if we instead leave the government out of filtering both A and B are free to customize the filter so it is exactly right. Both A and B are happy. The cost to government, and thus taxpayer, is little to none depending on how hands off the government wants to be.
More money spent for less happiness or less money spent for more happiness.
I am curious though how allowing South Australia's 7.2% of the population to inflict their filtering views on the rest of the country is democratic.
But I didn't assume that. Which is why I asked for relevance.
I made two points. The first was that it's impossible for the school district to intrude on computers it owns.
The second point was asking if there was an agreement signed. If there was an agreement was this remote access mentioned? If so we could have solved this problem before the school district commit a crime rather than after. Thus simplifying the whole situation.
"Except all the devices that don't run off of grid power."
So what do the zambonies run on? Pixie dust?
"Anyway, you should be recycling your batteries, not disposing of them."
Oh yeah I forgot that recycling uses no hazardous chemicals and 100% of the components are
You are aware that with the exception of aluminum recycling uses more energy and thus fossil fuels than creating a new product right?
I'm just trying to point out that we need to take a closer look at these things. Making something electric or recycled does not *waves hands* magically make it better.
Green? *chuckle* They're still fossil fuel powered. The grid is not magic. The electricity doesn't magically come from the hole in the wall. There's a whole infrastructure behind that hole and that infrastructure runs on fossil fuels.
Clean the source and every single electrical device you own becomes green with zero work on your part. You also have to replace nothing. Batteries are horrible for the environment. What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?
Can't we get over this fear of nuclear power yet? Please? For the good of humanity.
Nice dodge but I don't see how your location in validates the question. Please answer it. Feel free to replace random party name with a random party name of your choice.
So you agree completely with the government. You agree with all republicans and all Democrats. You agree with the homosexual ones and the straight ones?
You want no control over what you watch? Internet filtering software is a great thing. The government should provide a high quality version for free. But configuring it should be up to each person.
Read my sig. It's impossible to make these decisions on anything beyond a personal level.
Apples and oranges. The solution space for a DVR is tiny. Development is effectively done. The device has exited the innovation cycle and has become commodity. They're fucking toasters. The only new features are more storage and more tuners (more recordings at once).
At this point the only innovative addition you could make to a DVR is to have it create new content, turn it into a DVC.
Those aren't the same thing at all. Murder is not a form of death. Murder is an intent. People do not die of 'murder'.
Which is exactly my contention of your post. Snapping a record in half and agreeing to let a company come into your house and remove what you paid for are not the same thing.
Act of God occurrences are completely off topic for two reasons. You can't plan for them. They affect both of our positions equally.
Actually what it comes down to for me is I don't want to have to care about Steam. I don't want to have to know if they are in a good position. I don't want to worry about if they're going to stick around. I want the control. I don't want to be at the whim of some cable contractor making a mistake, some city worker under the road, some newb using a back hoe or powered auger for the first time. As you said shit happens. With Steam both shit happening to them and shit happening to you affects you.
There's also legal issues. What happens when something happens accidentally and your subscription is revoked. How do you go about correcting this when they did nothing wrong? Sure if it happened all the time they'd have bad press blah blah blah I don't care. It only has to happen to you for it to be a big deal.
Being unable to download and install a game from Steam because Steam is dead is exactly the same as being unable to install a game because your DVD copy is broken.
This is just silly. One is completely out of your control the other is completely in your control. Sure the end the result is the same but you're completely ignoring the cause. You're saying murder and natural causes are the same thing because they both end with the person dead.
There is no EULA for NCAA 09. Not on the package. Not in the package. Not presented on the screen that I must agree to before I am able to play. I was never presented with those terms. I never agreed to those terms.
Slashdot Mirror
China called. They'd like to compare notes on internet filtering.
I still maintain that your scant knowledge of Australian politics inhibits your ability to say anything intelligent about our politics.
First this is an invalid statement as you have no idea as to my knowledge level. Second the statement is irrelevant because my position has nothing to do with a particular government but government in general.
Government filtering is nonsensical. It can't work. By trying to appeal to the "majority", which doesn't actually exist unless you're in a direct democracy, you end up being overly broad in your banning to the point where it can't work well for anyone.
People are very diverse in what they think is should be filtered. What A thinks should be filtered B thinks is ok and what B thinks should be filtered A thinks is ok. So if the government filters then no one wins. Either A is unhappy, B is unhappy, or both A and B are unhappy. It is impossible to make both A and B happy. This unhappiness comes at a cost to taxpayers.
Now if we instead leave the government out of filtering both A and B are free to customize the filter so it is exactly right. Both A and B are happy. The cost to government, and thus taxpayer, is little to none depending on how hands off the government wants to be.
More money spent for less happiness or less money spent for more happiness.
I am curious though how allowing South Australia's 7.2% of the population to inflict their filtering views on the rest of the country is democratic.
But I didn't assume that. Which is why I asked for relevance.
I made two points. The first was that it's impossible for the school district to intrude on computers it owns.
The second point was asking if there was an agreement signed. If there was an agreement was this remote access mentioned? If so we could have solved this problem before the school district commit a crime rather than after. Thus simplifying the whole situation.
Where did I mention signing away rights?
Relevance or point?
If the school district owns the computer the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act may not apply.
Also what agreement was signed to get the laptop? Could this all have been prevented if someone had read it?
The National Information Infrastructure as codified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
"Except all the devices that don't run off of grid power."
So what do the zambonies run on? Pixie dust?
"Anyway, you should be recycling your batteries, not disposing of them."
Oh yeah I forgot that recycling uses no hazardous chemicals and 100% of the components are
You are aware that with the exception of aluminum recycling uses more energy and thus fossil fuels than creating a new product right?
I'm just trying to point out that we need to take a closer look at these things. Making something electric or recycled does not *waves hands* magically make it better.
Green? *chuckle* They're still fossil fuel powered. The grid is not magic. The electricity doesn't magically come from the hole in the wall. There's a whole infrastructure behind that hole and that infrastructure runs on fossil fuels.
Clean the source and every single electrical device you own becomes green with zero work on your part. You also have to replace nothing. Batteries are horrible for the environment. What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?
Can't we get over this fear of nuclear power yet? Please? For the good of humanity.
Nice dodge but I don't see how your location in validates the question. Please answer it. Feel free to replace random party name with a random party name of your choice.
That's still DRM. If you can't publicly distribute without approval it's a closed system.
So you agree completely with the government. You agree with all republicans and all Democrats. You agree with the homosexual ones and the straight ones?
You want no control over what you watch? Internet filtering software is a great thing. The government should provide a high quality version for free. But configuring it should be up to each person.
Read my sig. It's impossible to make these decisions on anything beyond a personal level.
DRM? Where, EXACTLY?
It will only run binaries that Apple approves.
Apples and oranges. The solution space for a DVR is tiny. Development is effectively done. The device has exited the innovation cycle and has become commodity. They're fucking toasters. The only new features are more storage and more tuners (more recordings at once).
At this point the only innovative addition you could make to a DVR is to have it create new content, turn it into a DVC.
It's impossible for for the future to be a vendor locked in device. The lock in slows down innovation to much.
Also in your version of the future there's no multitasking? That's going to be a problem.
I'm slightly insulted that it can't be both.
It's a variation of what I've felt and heard for ages. *shrug* I'm not quoting a specific person it's just yet another iteration of the idea.
Free speech is only free if the speech you hate is free.
Those aren't the same thing at all. Murder is not a form of death. Murder is an intent. People do not die of 'murder'.
Which is exactly my contention of your post. Snapping a record in half and agreeing to let a company come into your house and remove what you paid for are not the same thing.
My point is that if people shift from planes to trains because planes are seen as more of a target then trains will be seen as more of a target.
They are a better target. More disruption than planes.
If they don't figure out some way, how likely is it that the game publishers might step in and help with the problem?
Could be illegal. Might fall under the circumvention device provisions of the DMCA since Valve is located in the states.
Act of God occurrences are completely off topic for two reasons. You can't plan for them. They affect both of our positions equally.
Actually what it comes down to for me is I don't want to have to care about Steam. I don't want to have to know if they are in a good position. I don't want to worry about if they're going to stick around. I want the control. I don't want to be at the whim of some cable contractor making a mistake, some city worker under the road, some newb using a back hoe or powered auger for the first time. As you said shit happens. With Steam both shit happening to them and shit happening to you affects you.
There's also legal issues. What happens when something happens accidentally and your subscription is revoked. How do you go about correcting this when they did nothing wrong? Sure if it happened all the time they'd have bad press blah blah blah I don't care. It only has to happen to you for it to be a big deal.
So you're saying that we should treat murder and death by natural causes the same?
Why would you expect this? No one has ever said they would do this. It's not in the contract you signed when you subscribed to the product.
Why would a third party make a Steam game work without Steam? That's _illegal_. It's a circumvention device under the DMCA.
Being unable to download and install a game from Steam because Steam is dead is exactly the same as being unable to install a game because your DVD copy is broken.
This is just silly. One is completely out of your control the other is completely in your control. Sure the end the result is the same but you're completely ignoring the cause. You're saying murder and natural causes are the same thing because they both end with the person dead.
You are making things up.
There is no EULA for NCAA 09. Not on the package. Not in the package. Not presented on the screen that I must agree to before I am able to play. I was never presented with those terms. I never agreed to those terms.
What you say is simply not true.
Analogy fail fail.
Why should it be "never ever heard about" when in the first analogy he sets the scope to himself and his direct experiences.
He's never been on the receiving end of bad DRM becomes he's never been killed.
How does he's never been on the receiving end become he's never heard of anyone being on the receiving end? That's a change in scope.