It's still a strawman to conflate the two even if both are mentioned at the same time.
Just last week, didn't we all get up in arms about the FCC's "Net Neutrality" proposition because it was net neutrality in name only? That's the problem, their definition exists only to suit whatever policy they're currently trying to push.
And you need to remember how Windows help did exactly what you're describing since (at least) Windows 98. A 12 year old features getting patented now seems to support the 'software patents are shitty' theory.
I find that message from Gawker amusing because they don't even secure their login form with SSL. They're concerned about the database getting stolen with unreadable passwords that might be cracked with enough time, but they turn a blind eye to the fact that authentication information is sent in the clear from the form...
I don't know, Zuck's had some pretty bad things said about him, and if they're true, he's a pretty damn shady human being. Supposedly, he made his fortune illicitly, he's a cocky asshole, and he's destroying your standards of privacy while expanding his fortune doing so.
However, as I said, it's all anecdotal so far - He's settled out of court for one lawsuit, currently has another in progress, and the movie about him didn't paint him in a decent light (I hear). Add the chat transcripts that've been release (calling your customer base "dumb fucks" because they use your product), and you've got a person who's probably not going to be the moral pillar of society, either online or off.
I don't give a whit about Julian or his leaking wikis, and the idiots trying to kill the messenger.
If you're an American, you should care because of our government's reaction, and more importantly, their actions as a result of it. We're not somehow magically impervious since we're American citizens. Also, us, as citizens, are becoming increasingly hated around the world as a result of their actions, despite having no influence on what our government does.
If you're not an American, you should care because my government has a really nasty habit of forcing your government into doing things (regardless if US citizens condone the action... most of us don't). Also, my government doesn't care if its actions are good or bad for your government's citizens, because they only believe in their own self-interests..
All you have to do is look at how that post was modded to know why you don't see opposing opinions on the matter (unless you browse at -1).
There are some valid points on both sides, and my personal beliefs on the matter tend run in line with Wikileaks. However, anything brought up here that may look at this with any negative light on Wikileaks are usually censored with mod points (and, based on my experience, met with anti-American insults).
In this case, instead of making a law, they're just suppressing speech by strongly suggesting to the corporations that it would be in their best interest to comply.
So it's not a free speech violation, but a RICO Act violation. Even better.
He has done nothing illegal, or at least, nothing that is illegal in the US or UK.
Maybe. Last I heard, his lawyer was looking into if Assange actually violated any espionage laws just to be sure. I haven't been following this every waking moment, so I don't know if she is still looking or reached a conclusion -
She added they would be seeking advice from U.S. lawyers about the U.S. Espionage Act, saying a possible prosecution there was "of grave concern."
Devil's advocate from the other side - That risk was (supposedly) dramatically increased as a result of the document's leak. Instead of randomly guessing at a location doing the same thing as your facility, now they know exactly which facility is important.
Of course, if this list were so critical to national security, why is it simple listed as a "noforn" document, and not something more classified?
Depends on what software he was installing. If he was just modding the Xbox and reselling them, there should be no beef. However, I also know modders sometimes preload the modded boxes with a bunch of games as well, which puts them on the wrong side of the law. I'm not sure if that's the case here.
Her electability is completely based on who she's running against. A lot of people would have said Bush was unelectable in 2004, but Kerry was apparently more unelectable.
Sort of. It's been my understanding that Net Neutrality would still allow ISPs to throttle traffic based on type, but not based on the endpoint. For example, Comcast would still be permitted to prioritize web traffic over torrent traffic, but not be allowed to throttle Netflix traffic in favor "Comcast Online Video Service" unless Netflix pays Comcast some kind of fee.
Oh, they've been throwing around the terrorist line around as well. I think they're using this for character assassination, and they'll use the terrorist reasoning to pass restrictive net censorship laws in the US.
The reason for the "Anti-US" statements on here was because the site pulled all old articles and watered it down to only Iraq War and "Cable Gate" docs. I'm going to wait a day or two to see if they did it to mitigate the DDoS attack and reinstate the old articles, or if they're just picking their fights (which would lend itself more to the Anti-US statements).
It also doesn't help stealth plug-in installations. Not to mention Firefox has no method to remove installed plug-ins, only disable them. Mozilla's official method is to hunt down the file on your system and delete it.
Needless to say, Mozilla's Plug-in handling leaves a lot to be desired.
Fallout:NV is even worse. I bought a physical copy because I don't fully trust digital distribution to let me install it in, say, 5-10 years. The game forced me to install and use Steam. When I run the game, I need to have both the physical media in the drive as well as be logged into Steam to play.
There was a time that the main rallying cry of the console gamers who didn't want to play on PC was "it just works" when they put the disc into the console.
It's funny how the roles have reversed. I chat with my friends who purchased Fallout: New Vegas for their consoles, and we trade stories about bugs. The "release now, patch later" mentality has resulted in bugs getting fixed quicker for the PC since there's no certification process. Combine that with the bugs can be fixed via entering console commands on the PC, and the PC version of the game ends up being more playable than the console counterparts.
I don't understand where all the hate is coming from.
Because their EULA states that you didn't purchase the game, and they retain 100% ownership of it (as well as specifying what you are allowed to do with it) while it is installed on your system. The SC2 EULA is extremely bad when it comes to my rights as a consumer. Their claim of copyright infringement stems from that because the "illegal copy" is the game running in RAM.
I'm all for Blizzard policing its network from cheaters, zeroing achievement scores from glitching, etc. The second they start dictating what I can and cannot do with my purchased software on my own system, and litigating against me as a result, they crossed the line.
Here's some reading about how Blizzard's EULA works.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still a strawman to conflate the two even if both are mentioned at the same time.
Just last week, didn't we all get up in arms about the FCC's "Net Neutrality" proposition because it was net neutrality in name only? That's the problem, their definition exists only to suit whatever policy they're currently trying to push.
And you need to remember how Windows help did exactly what you're describing since (at least) Windows 98. A 12 year old features getting patented now seems to support the 'software patents are shitty' theory.
They gave us William Shatner rapping the life of Julius Caeser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yerCiByca4
Once you see it, you can never unsee it. You've been warned.
I find that message from Gawker amusing because they don't even secure their login form with SSL. They're concerned about the database getting stolen with unreadable passwords that might be cracked with enough time, but they turn a blind eye to the fact that authentication information is sent in the clear from the form...
I don't know, Zuck's had some pretty bad things said about him, and if they're true, he's a pretty damn shady human being. Supposedly, he made his fortune illicitly, he's a cocky asshole, and he's destroying your standards of privacy while expanding his fortune doing so.
However, as I said, it's all anecdotal so far - He's settled out of court for one lawsuit, currently has another in progress, and the movie about him didn't paint him in a decent light (I hear). Add the chat transcripts that've been release (calling your customer base "dumb fucks" because they use your product), and you've got a person who's probably not going to be the moral pillar of society, either online or off.
I don't give a whit about Julian or his leaking wikis, and the idiots trying to kill the messenger.
If you're an American, you should care because of our government's reaction, and more importantly, their actions as a result of it. We're not somehow magically impervious since we're American citizens. Also, us, as citizens, are becoming increasingly hated around the world as a result of their actions, despite having no influence on what our government does.
If you're not an American, you should care because my government has a really nasty habit of forcing your government into doing things (regardless if US citizens condone the action... most of us don't). Also, my government doesn't care if its actions are good or bad for your government's citizens, because they only believe in their own self-interests..
Or maybe he's trying to atone for some things.
All you have to do is look at how that post was modded to know why you don't see opposing opinions on the matter (unless you browse at -1).
There are some valid points on both sides, and my personal beliefs on the matter tend run in line with Wikileaks. However, anything brought up here that may look at this with any negative light on Wikileaks are usually censored with mod points (and, based on my experience, met with anti-American insults).
In this case, instead of making a law, they're just suppressing speech by strongly suggesting to the corporations that it would be in their best interest to comply.
So it's not a free speech violation, but a RICO Act violation. Even better.
He has done nothing illegal, or at least, nothing that is illegal in the US or UK.
Maybe. Last I heard, his lawyer was looking into if Assange actually violated any espionage laws just to be sure. I haven't been following this every waking moment, so I don't know if she is still looking or reached a conclusion -
She added they would be seeking advice from U.S. lawyers about the U.S. Espionage Act, saying a possible prosecution there was "of grave concern."
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
Devil's advocate from the other side - That risk was (supposedly) dramatically increased as a result of the document's leak. Instead of randomly guessing at a location doing the same thing as your facility, now they know exactly which facility is important.
Of course, if this list were so critical to national security, why is it simple listed as a "noforn" document, and not something more classified?
Depends on what software he was installing. If he was just modding the Xbox and reselling them, there should be no beef. However, I also know modders sometimes preload the modded boxes with a bunch of games as well, which puts them on the wrong side of the law. I'm not sure if that's the case here.
I said "simply use sftp", but that was not acceptable.
A better suggestion for the average user would be going FTPS. No tunneling required, it's built right into the protocol.
She is unelectable
Her electability is completely based on who she's running against. A lot of people would have said Bush was unelectable in 2004, but Kerry was apparently more unelectable.
Sort of. It's been my understanding that Net Neutrality would still allow ISPs to throttle traffic based on type, but not based on the endpoint. For example, Comcast would still be permitted to prioritize web traffic over torrent traffic, but not be allowed to throttle Netflix traffic in favor "Comcast Online Video Service" unless Netflix pays Comcast some kind of fee.
Oh, they've been throwing around the terrorist line around as well. I think they're using this for character assassination, and they'll use the terrorist reasoning to pass restrictive net censorship laws in the US.
I take that back, just went to the site and the "Cable Gate" stuff is gone, so it's just down to Iraq War articles. Interesting...
The reason for the "Anti-US" statements on here was because the site pulled all old articles and watered it down to only Iraq War and "Cable Gate" docs. I'm going to wait a day or two to see if they did it to mitigate the DDoS attack and reinstate the old articles, or if they're just picking their fights (which would lend itself more to the Anti-US statements).
It also doesn't help stealth plug-in installations. Not to mention Firefox has no method to remove installed plug-ins, only disable them. Mozilla's official method is to hunt down the file on your system and delete it.
Needless to say, Mozilla's Plug-in handling leaves a lot to be desired.
So cats are more intelligent because dogs are more likely to fall for simple misdirection?
Tornadoes have a tendency to blow up in what seems to be "decent weather" conditions.
Fallout:NV is even worse. I bought a physical copy because I don't fully trust digital distribution to let me install it in, say, 5-10 years. The game forced me to install and use Steam. When I run the game, I need to have both the physical media in the drive as well as be logged into Steam to play.
That would make interstate driving very interesting...
There was a time that the main rallying cry of the console gamers who didn't want to play on PC was "it just works" when they put the disc into the console.
It's funny how the roles have reversed. I chat with my friends who purchased Fallout: New Vegas for their consoles, and we trade stories about bugs. The "release now, patch later" mentality has resulted in bugs getting fixed quicker for the PC since there's no certification process. Combine that with the bugs can be fixed via entering console commands on the PC, and the PC version of the game ends up being more playable than the console counterparts.
I don't understand where all the hate is coming from.
Because their EULA states that you didn't purchase the game, and they retain 100% ownership of it (as well as specifying what you are allowed to do with it) while it is installed on your system. The SC2 EULA is extremely bad when it comes to my rights as a consumer. Their claim of copyright infringement stems from that because the "illegal copy" is the game running in RAM.
I'm all for Blizzard policing its network from cheaters, zeroing achievement scores from glitching, etc. The second they start dictating what I can and cannot do with my purchased software on my own system, and litigating against me as a result, they crossed the line.
Here's some reading about how Blizzard's EULA works.