It's fascinating to me that this mischaracterization of the meaning of "steal" has hung around for as long as it has.
IS it a mischaractarization, really? I mean, look we're talking about something that in the physical world has a very specific meaning, AND a very specific set of psychological and physical effects that fail to be present when something is digitally copied . I doubt, for example, that you'd have the same sort of horror if someone copied your laptop, and walked away with it, than you would if they actually just outright stole it. I realize I am not the best at articulating my thoughts, so if I am unclear as to what I am tying to say, say so.:D
Of course, this is about the entire generation, and not a case of some subset of the group, and an example of usual government stupidity. Right. *facepalms*
This is why I hate a trend I've been noticing more and more of making it so mobile versions of a site doesn't have all the features of the normal site unless you subscribe/pay up... it's pointless.
This isn't Apple's ridiculous refusal to decrypt data when the owner of the phone had consented.
Wait, I thought it wasn't an outright refusal, but an appeal (not the same thing), and that they had been willing to cooperate until a certain point, namely the way the FBI wanted to handle the decryption...? I'm so lost now.
Does requesting the desktop version of the page (instead of staying on the mobile version) in your browser still allow you to check messages, send/reply to messages?
Who said anything about disobeying court orders? If you're referring to the Apple/FBI flap, they were appealing the ruling, which could hardly reasonably be considered disobedience, since it is something they had a right to do.
What would that do to airflow over the wing?
If you only have one, attacked at the wing, wouldn't any impact to airflow become asymetrical - happening on only one wing, not the other, and if so, what would that do for flight dynamics?
... or might have a moment and doesn't want to be bothered to log in, or is on a public computer... and it's not exactly like a user name that is not a real name is making any kind of grand stance by calling get out ACs.
Exactly. Privacy, irrespective of if used for good or bad, is hiding, and something everyone uses (not sharing SSID #s for example, keeping locks on your doors, making sure valuables left in cars, if that needs to happen, are kept out of view to throw off car thieves, etc).
People, when talking about the matter, need to stop focusing on the act of hiding itself, given the common uses for bad AND good that EVERYBODY uses it for, and focus on the WHY moreso, as that can be more pinpointed, if you get what I kinda am trying to mean. XD
particularly in the mainstream entertainment industry â" is indeed biased against the "little guys," and Google's YouTube must obey the laws as written.
Um... OK, so.... how the hell does the law impact things like being able to get in touch with higher ups, being able to dispute false Content ID claims, etc? Content ID is Youtube, it's not the DMCA, or any other laws, so I find it hard to believe there is any legal ground for slow responsiveness in regards to that....
Because killing 2,606 in the WTC should just be forgotten.
Because brnging sanity to how we do things is sanity... because obsessing, and citing 9-11 as an excuse for unwarranted encroachment is remembering, and not unhealthy obsession...
These mindsets are scary, and bloody idiotic to boot.
$949/week... pfft, the computer camp I used to work at was $1200/week, irrespective of if campers were overnighting or commuting, + $400 additional to overnight, which makes sense when you consider that it's in a neighborhood where the clientele that can pay for that will, and on a college campus that probably jacks up rates figuring they can make money off of the numerous camps that want to have their activities there.
Seriously, it's an undue burden to check to make sure the law is actually being broken? Are these fucking morons kidding, or has their ego + sense of undue entitlement really gotten as big as I think it has?
Yes, but most of us do our "reputation management" by, you know, behaving properly rather than going around trying to erase any record of our misdeeds.
Sounds like a lot of presumptions (that only the "misbehaving" use these services, that good, behaved businesses aren't/can't be targeted by bad reviewers falsely, etc.
These notions are tripe. It does happen, fairly often, people being wrongly targeted, having their reputations tarnished I mean.
If you're honestly conflating the statement, which I interpreted as "security was inadequate, they should have upgraded it before the issue got worse" with some idea that they can't be hacked because they were throwing money at it, without proof that is actually what is being implied, congratulations, you're an idiot.
That makes no sense at all. Seriously. IF someone owned a CD that was stolen, person B likes it, buys it off of them thinking it was legitimately theirs (a CD is innocuous, but just an example), then it was stolen, they can get in trouble just on that alone? I've been Googling penal laws for various states on the matter, and they seem to support the assertion I am making... that you get in trouble if you obtain it knowing it was stolen, or keep it/refuse to turn it in after it was revealed to be stolen.
That makes no sense at all. What I am saying is that - based on the research I have done - you can't just get in trouble if you own property if you obtain it, and then find out it is stolen - you have to know it was stolen beforehand, or not turn it on/whatnot after it was discovered that the property was n fact stolen - and most of the penal codes I have been googling up support this idea.
Yeah, and if the car was stolen, your sister would be in jail for receiving stolen property.
Maybe I am missing something, but if you're saying the sister would be in trouble just because of the purchase, that might not be correct - if I recall, you have to have knowingly engaged in the purchase, but IANAL. (seems logical though, why get someone in trouble if they, in good faith, thought they were buying something legitimately that later turned out to be stolen?)
I see what you mean, and learned quite a bit from your post. I never considered that before. Been a while since I actually learned things from a conversation on Slashdot (versus bickering over mindless crap).
Slashdot Mirror
It's fascinating to me that this mischaracterization of the meaning of "steal" has hung around for as long as it has.
IS it a mischaractarization, really? I mean, look we're talking about something that in the physical world has a very specific meaning, AND a very specific set of psychological and physical effects that fail to be present when something is digitally copied . I doubt, for example, that you'd have the same sort of horror if someone copied your laptop, and walked away with it, than you would if they actually just outright stole it. I realize I am not the best at articulating my thoughts, so if I am unclear as to what I am tying to say, say so. :D
Of course, this is about the entire generation, and not a case of some subset of the group, and an example of usual government stupidity. Right. *facepalms*
Considering the size of the age group within one can be considered a "Millennial," what makes this typical besides a potential generalization?
So ... stupid question, what's stopping people from obtaining the ransomware, and messing around with it, modifying it?
This is why I hate a trend I've been noticing more and more of making it so mobile versions of a site doesn't have all the features of the normal site unless you subscribe/pay up... it's pointless.
This isn't Apple's ridiculous refusal to decrypt data when the owner of the phone had consented.
Wait, I thought it wasn't an outright refusal, but an appeal (not the same thing), and that they had been willing to cooperate until a certain point, namely the way the FBI wanted to handle the decryption...? I'm so lost now.
Does requesting the desktop version of the page (instead of staying on the mobile version) in your browser still allow you to check messages, send/reply to messages?
Who said anything about disobeying court orders? If you're referring to the Apple/FBI flap, they were appealing the ruling, which could hardly reasonably be considered disobedience, since it is something they had a right to do.
What would that do to airflow over the wing? If you only have one, attacked at the wing, wouldn't any impact to airflow become asymetrical - happening on only one wing, not the other, and if so, what would that do for flight dynamics?
... or might have a moment and doesn't want to be bothered to log in, or is on a public computer... and it's not exactly like a user name that is not a real name is making any kind of grand stance by calling get out ACs.
Believe it or not, parody IS a defense for alleged trademark infringement, not just copyright.
Exactly. Privacy, irrespective of if used for good or bad, is hiding, and something everyone uses (not sharing SSID #s for example, keeping locks on your doors, making sure valuables left in cars, if that needs to happen, are kept out of view to throw off car thieves, etc).
People, when talking about the matter, need to stop focusing on the act of hiding itself, given the common uses for bad AND good that EVERYBODY uses it for, and focus on the WHY moreso, as that can be more pinpointed, if you get what I kinda am trying to mean. XD
particularly in the mainstream entertainment industry â" is indeed biased against the "little guys," and Google's YouTube must obey the laws as written.
Um... OK, so .... how the hell does the law impact things like being able to get in touch with higher ups, being able to dispute false Content ID claims, etc? Content ID is Youtube, it's not the DMCA, or any other laws, so I find it hard to believe there is any legal ground for slow responsiveness in regards to that....
Fermi's Paradox ... at it's face, makes so many errors in assumption, fallacy riddled statements, it seems... dunno why anyone'd take it seriously.
Because killing 2,606 in the WTC should just be forgotten.
Because brnging sanity to how we do things is sanity... because obsessing, and citing 9-11 as an excuse for unwarranted encroachment is remembering, and not unhealthy obsession...
These mindsets are scary, and bloody idiotic to boot.
$949/week... pfft, the computer camp I used to work at was $1200/week, irrespective of if campers were overnighting or commuting, + $400 additional to overnight, which makes sense when you consider that it's in a neighborhood where the clientele that can pay for that will, and on a college campus that probably jacks up rates figuring they can make money off of the numerous camps that want to have their activities there.
Since when did /. become a hangout for politically correct BS?
I'm a little lost, which is the 'politically correct BS?"
An implausible **hypothetical** situation, and assuming the potential reaction creates a contradiction... is your idea of a defense?
It's nothing more than fallacy-filled tosh!
Seriously, it's an undue burden to check to make sure the law is actually being broken? Are these fucking morons kidding, or has their ego + sense of undue entitlement really gotten as big as I think it has?
Yes, but most of us do our "reputation management" by, you know, behaving properly rather than going around trying to erase any record of our misdeeds.
Sounds like a lot of presumptions (that only the "misbehaving" use these services, that good, behaved businesses aren't/can't be targeted by bad reviewers falsely, etc.
These notions are tripe. It does happen, fairly often, people being wrongly targeted, having their reputations tarnished I mean.
If you're honestly conflating the statement, which I interpreted as "security was inadequate, they should have upgraded it before the issue got worse" with some idea that they can't be hacked because they were throwing money at it, without proof that is actually what is being implied, congratulations, you're an idiot.
That makes no sense at all. Seriously. IF someone owned a CD that was stolen, person B likes it, buys it off of them thinking it was legitimately theirs (a CD is innocuous, but just an example), then it was stolen, they can get in trouble just on that alone? I've been Googling penal laws for various states on the matter, and they seem to support the assertion I am making... that you get in trouble if you obtain it knowing it was stolen, or keep it/refuse to turn it in after it was revealed to be stolen.
That makes no sense at all. What I am saying is that - based on the research I have done - you can't just get in trouble if you own property if you obtain it, and then find out it is stolen - you have to know it was stolen beforehand, or not turn it on/whatnot after it was discovered that the property was n fact stolen - and most of the penal codes I have been googling up support this idea.
Yeah, and if the car was stolen, your sister would be in jail for receiving stolen property.
Maybe I am missing something, but if you're saying the sister would be in trouble just because of the purchase, that might not be correct - if I recall, you have to have knowingly engaged in the purchase, but IANAL. (seems logical though, why get someone in trouble if they, in good faith, thought they were buying something legitimately that later turned out to be stolen?)
I see what you mean, and learned quite a bit from your post. I never considered that before. Been a while since I actually learned things from a conversation on Slashdot (versus bickering over mindless crap).