I don't have a comprehensive solution to this problem, but it probably has something to do with getting rid of the automated bots which protect pages. That'd be a decent start.
That is easier said than done, because those bots don't run on Wikipedia's servers. They can run on the editors' machines. It is pretty simple for any programmer who understands HTTP to write a little program to fetch a Web page every few minutes and look for changes; and of course the editor running the bot does not have to know how to write it, but only where to download it.
But, it would be OK if the bots continue to exist -- as long as the editors aren't the sort of people who would want to (ab)use them.
The cost comparison between electric vehicles and fuel-burning vehicles is a lot more complicated than "electricity is cheaper." Those costs are at least as influenced by fuel taxes and electricity-rate regulation as they are by the relative costs of energy production, distribution, and storage.
Color me skeptical -- between the energy losses in electricity generation, transmission to the wireless charger, the wireless charging process, storage in the car's battery, and finally conversion to mechanical energy, it is hard to imagine this being a win in terms of overall energy efficiency or emissions reduction. If NYC had a big surplus of low-cost, zero-carbon energy sources, of course, this would make perfect sense. I suspect they'll instead end up burning more fossil fuels to charge the electric cars than they would to just drive equivalent diesel or internal-combustion vehicles.
I don't see a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for Canada
The city of Vancouver, Washington is in the state of Washington. TFS gives a strong hint to that effect.
Also, it's difficult to charge government organizations for a felony...
That, I think, is GP's point. As a practical matter, the county government doesn't have to worry about complying with the CFAA. We Americans like to think of our country as a nation of laws, but the application of those laws seems increasingly capricious and one-sided.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think attendance at a bank robber conventions is sufficient to arrest someone. You'd need a warrant for that person's arrest, meaning reasonable suspicion he had actually robbed a bank.
Put another way, arresting people just because they chose to attend a gathering *is* an infringement of their right to assembly. The exception being if the gathering itself is criminal, e.g. a conspiracy meeting or a riot.
They cannot treat religions like you would corrupt companies.
Religious freedom does not imply or require that religious institutions be exempt from fraud and racketeering laws. What you're suggesting is not religious freedom -- it's blanket criminal immunity.
Apparently Freedom of Ignorance is more important.
If by that you mean freedom to have different values and priorities than you do, then yes, that does seem pretty important. It's fine by me if you disapprove of faith, but do you seriously think people should not be free to have it?
It is possible that the corruption of the leadership goes so far that the whole institution is basically an organized crime ring. (In fact, I think that is likely true.) In that case, it might be necessary to dismantle the current institution in order to protect society. Nothing, however, should prevent a non-criminal splinter group or successor that preaches Scientologist beliefs from forming and operating.
Tolerance means refraining from using coercion to stop people from doing things that piss you off. An enlightened society tolerates religious differences, but not crime.
Scientology pisses me off, but I am prepared to tolerate its existence. I will speak out against it but I do not want the government (French or my own) to forcibly shut it down or punish people just for following it. What I am not prepared to tolerate is criminal behavior by individual Scientologists. If they defrauded people, lock 'em up like Bernie Madoff. I am not ashamed to be intolerant of fraud.
So I don't think freedom of religion is a bad thing. The fraud is not a result of religious freedom, it's a result of immoral choices by members of a religious organization.
Many Americans pay a comparable amount, but don't realize it because the full costs of health insurance are hidden. Employers pay a big portion of the health-insurance premium. If you combine the premiums, the portion of premiums that employers pay (~80% in my case), out-of-pocket costs like deductibles, plus the Medicare tax, it adds up to more than 20% of my gross income.
I personally think it is crazy to have employers responsible for their employees' health plans, but that's the way we do things here and no one is seriously talking about changing it.
You don't think America can do it better? Why do you hate America?
It's not hating America to recognize that the country is currently being governed incompetently and to distrust the Federal government with expanded authority.
I don't think we'd have to eliminate all copyright, by the way, making something available doesn't mean that it would then be legal to copy it.
You're right, it would be more correct to say a massive reform of copyright would be needed, not its complete elimination.
But this brings me back to the sticky wicket of "everyone needs a device." Specifically, everyone needs a device that can read all the books in the digital (inter)national library. That is, all the digital formats. Present and future. Forever. For free, or close enough to free as makes no practical difference to a homeless person.
This, to me, seems like a big technical hurdle. When people speak of the convenience of e-books, they seem to mean convenience only for themselves, on their current device, of their current reading interests. (This is why I used the word "snob," which was probably a regrettable choice.) On larger time scales and looking at more diverse collections of people and books, I think paper books are FAR more convenient and less susceptible to being banned/burned by short-sighted minority interests.
The solution, in my opinion, is to make sure that digital copies of all books are available to all people.
That would indeed be awesome, but the barriers to achieving that are formidable. First, you'd have to eliminate copyright. Second, you'd have provide universal broadband access and a device for everyone. If you're suggesting that libraries should stay open until those goals are achieved, then we're in full agreement.
Traditional libraries are not the future. The dead tree archives will here after be a curiosity.
The first sentence has the look of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I predict an irreversible downward spiral that goes like this: privileged, middle-class people declare libraries irrelevant because they can get books more conveniently online. Then, they stop going to the libraries. Then, they fail to realize how many books are in the library that aren't discoverable or obtainable online. Then, they vote to de-fund the public library because they don't need it -- and they no longer cross paths with the people who do. Then, a community center and promoter of lifelong learning is gone forever, as the library building gets converted to luxury condos.
All because a bunch of digital snobs are too cool to go borrow a physical book.
I've yet to hear of an ISP cutting off someones connection for running a minecraft server.
Maybe so, but Comcast cut off my friend for running a low-volume mail server. The definition of "server" is intentionally left vague in the TOS. That allows the ISPs to single out users for any reason they want, without having to be specific or consistent.
Wow. Simply wow. You really do believe that Samsung is copying everyone's content so they can browse through it and determine what content users are putting on their devices, and that Samsung has a backdoor into the device so it can delete anything it wants at any time.
Not quite. I believe Samsung can choose to install a back door at any time via a routine OS update. Or do something along the same lines, but less extreme. Or that anyone who can hack Samsung's update server can push a rootkit onto your tablet.
Please tell me how Sony Reader Store or Barnes and Noble are going to modify or remove content I've bought from them that has been handed to calibre to manage.
The simplest method would be to brick your device -- or more to the point, to get Samsung to do it to you. A less crude method would be have a backdoor built into the firmware to provide filesystem access.
How will they even KNOW I put a copy [on my Galaxy Tab]?
Samsung is in a position to know, and if Samsung knows, Samsung can tell.
How have I "tampered" with my Galaxy Tab (or my Xoom, or my LG phone) when the publisher never knew it existed and has never communicated with it in the first place? A felony, you say?
I think you are confusing using an alternative reader app, which you seem to think counts as taking control of your content, with blocking the manufacturer's backdoor access to the file system, which is what I mean.
He did touch on the point but he didn't seem to grasp its implications. For example, he thought only DRM-enabled ebooks are susceptible to remote destruction -- any device on the network is susceptible to malicious tampering.
There's also the subtler point that if someone tries to come to my house and destroy a physical book, that copy is my property and the law is on my side. If I have a copy of an ebook, that copy is the publisher's property and if I tamper with the device to prevent the publisher deleting the book, it is I who commit a felony.
Slashdot Mirror
That is easier said than done, because those bots don't run on Wikipedia's servers. They can run on the editors' machines. It is pretty simple for any programmer who understands HTTP to write a little program to fetch a Web page every few minutes and look for changes; and of course the editor running the bot does not have to know how to write it, but only where to download it.
But, it would be OK if the bots continue to exist -- as long as the editors aren't the sort of people who would want to (ab)use them.
The cost comparison between electric vehicles and fuel-burning vehicles is a lot more complicated than "electricity is cheaper." Those costs are at least as influenced by fuel taxes and electricity-rate regulation as they are by the relative costs of energy production, distribution, and storage.
Color me skeptical -- between the energy losses in electricity generation, transmission to the wireless charger, the wireless charging process, storage in the car's battery, and finally conversion to mechanical energy, it is hard to imagine this being a win in terms of overall energy efficiency or emissions reduction. If NYC had a big surplus of low-cost, zero-carbon energy sources, of course, this would make perfect sense. I suspect they'll instead end up burning more fossil fuels to charge the electric cars than they would to just drive equivalent diesel or internal-combustion vehicles.
The city of Vancouver, Washington is in the state of Washington. TFS gives a strong hint to that effect.
That, I think, is GP's point. As a practical matter, the county government doesn't have to worry about complying with the CFAA. We Americans like to think of our country as a nation of laws, but the application of those laws seems increasingly capricious and one-sided.
Removing the driver would stop the driver complaining about vomit, but removing the vomit is probably a better approach.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think attendance at a bank robber conventions is sufficient to arrest someone. You'd need a warrant for that person's arrest, meaning reasonable suspicion he had actually robbed a bank.
Put another way, arresting people just because they chose to attend a gathering *is* an infringement of their right to assembly. The exception being if the gathering itself is criminal, e.g. a conspiracy meeting or a riot.
Mostly because the First Amendment right to assembly is not restricted to US citizens.
Religious freedom does not imply or require that religious institutions be exempt from fraud and racketeering laws. What you're suggesting is not religious freedom -- it's blanket criminal immunity.
If by that you mean freedom to have different values and priorities than you do, then yes, that does seem pretty important. It's fine by me if you disapprove of faith, but do you seriously think people should not be free to have it?
It is possible that the corruption of the leadership goes so far that the whole institution is basically an organized crime ring. (In fact, I think that is likely true.) In that case, it might be necessary to dismantle the current institution in order to protect society. Nothing, however, should prevent a non-criminal splinter group or successor that preaches Scientologist beliefs from forming and operating.
Tolerance means refraining from using coercion to stop people from doing things that piss you off. An enlightened society tolerates religious differences, but not crime.
Scientology pisses me off, but I am prepared to tolerate its existence. I will speak out against it but I do not want the government (French or my own) to forcibly shut it down or punish people just for following it. What I am not prepared to tolerate is criminal behavior by individual Scientologists. If they defrauded people, lock 'em up like Bernie Madoff. I am not ashamed to be intolerant of fraud.
So I don't think freedom of religion is a bad thing. The fraud is not a result of religious freedom, it's a result of immoral choices by members of a religious organization.
Many Americans pay a comparable amount, but don't realize it because the full costs of health insurance are hidden. Employers pay a big portion of the health-insurance premium. If you combine the premiums, the portion of premiums that employers pay (~80% in my case), out-of-pocket costs like deductibles, plus the Medicare tax, it adds up to more than 20% of my gross income.
I personally think it is crazy to have employers responsible for their employees' health plans, but that's the way we do things here and no one is seriously talking about changing it.
Wrong question. Better question: What are the costs of Obamacare, and how do they shift compare to the current system?
It's not hating America to recognize that the country is currently being governed incompetently and to distrust the Federal government with expanded authority.
You're right, it would be more correct to say a massive reform of copyright would be needed, not its complete elimination.
But this brings me back to the sticky wicket of "everyone needs a device." Specifically, everyone needs a device that can read all the books in the digital (inter)national library. That is, all the digital formats. Present and future. Forever. For free, or close enough to free as makes no practical difference to a homeless person.
This, to me, seems like a big technical hurdle. When people speak of the convenience of e-books, they seem to mean convenience only for themselves, on their current device, of their current reading interests. (This is why I used the word "snob," which was probably a regrettable choice.) On larger time scales and looking at more diverse collections of people and books, I think paper books are FAR more convenient and less susceptible to being banned/burned by short-sighted minority interests.
That would indeed be awesome, but the barriers to achieving that are formidable. First, you'd have to eliminate copyright. Second, you'd have provide universal broadband access and a device for everyone. If you're suggesting that libraries should stay open until those goals are achieved, then we're in full agreement.
The first sentence has the look of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I predict an irreversible downward spiral that goes like this: privileged, middle-class people declare libraries irrelevant because they can get books more conveniently online. Then, they stop going to the libraries. Then, they fail to realize how many books are in the library that aren't discoverable or obtainable online. Then, they vote to de-fund the public library because they don't need it -- and they no longer cross paths with the people who do. Then, a community center and promoter of lifelong learning is gone forever, as the library building gets converted to luxury condos.
All because a bunch of digital snobs are too cool to go borrow a physical book.
It's turtles all the way down! :-)
Health insurance is for the 99%. The 1% pay out-of-pocket for whatever they need.
As a citizen of the USA, I am at least as sick of hearing that as you are. It ain't true, and the US Supreme Court has said so several times.
Maybe so, but Comcast cut off my friend for running a low-volume mail server. The definition of "server" is intentionally left vague in the TOS. That allows the ISPs to single out users for any reason they want, without having to be specific or consistent.
Not quite. I believe Samsung can choose to install a back door at any time via a routine OS update. Or do something along the same lines, but less extreme. Or that anyone who can hack Samsung's update server can push a rootkit onto your tablet.
The simplest method would be to brick your device -- or more to the point, to get Samsung to do it to you. A less crude method would be have a backdoor built into the firmware to provide filesystem access.
Samsung is in a position to know, and if Samsung knows, Samsung can tell.
I think you are confusing using an alternative reader app, which you seem to think counts as taking control of your content, with blocking the manufacturer's backdoor access to the file system, which is what I mean.
He did touch on the point but he didn't seem to grasp its implications. For example, he thought only DRM-enabled ebooks are susceptible to remote destruction -- any device on the network is susceptible to malicious tampering.
There's also the subtler point that if someone tries to come to my house and destroy a physical book, that copy is my property and the law is on my side. If I have a copy of an ebook, that copy is the publisher's property and if I tamper with the device to prevent the publisher deleting the book, it is I who commit a felony.
One person can do it to a hundred million. That's a big difference.