Except that... you can actually fire them. All it takes is a majority (or even a vocal minority) of citizens. Similarly, one shareholder in a company might not be able to fire the CEO. But a lot of irate shareholders can. And typically, they don't have to burn down City Hall or the corporate headquarters, either. Usually, the offending individual sees the writing on the wall and leaves.
So, public servants ARE employees of each citizen.
Actually, I think any patent lawyer would have advised them NOT to do a patent check. Knowing infringement of a patent results in triple (as in 3x) penalties.
The whole gummy idea doesn't hold water, I'm afraid. The only way to make a fake 'gummy' fingerprint would be to have access to the original, real finger. Making one from a fingerprint is pretty much fiction -- finger prints don't have the depth information, even if they aren't smudged (which they almost always are). And the finger-print to gummy-bear-finger manufacturing process would be pretty difficult.
So, you need the actually finger to use a 'gummy-bear exploit', which generally means you need the full cooperation of the actual person. Not much of an exploit, then.
In Praise of Anger, Unbridled
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
I beg to differ: unbridled anger is a primary (perhaps the primary) change maker.
For example, politics, in general -- some of the time, the nice sensible, sensitive and highly-educated people in the middle come up with happy, consensus driven solutions. When that doesn't work, the hordes/mobs/masses/proletariat/dotters/boston-tea- party types get angry, and if there are enough of them, and they are angry enough, they strangle the king and/or queen with the entrails of the high priest(ess). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution.
Having established the primarly role of unbridled anger in change, I would like to add that Slashdot is a perfect place to enleash a bit of (perferrably well articulated) rage -- minimal damage to infrastructure, no beheadings (I'm thinking France, not Iraq), and everybody forgets all about it after about five minutes anyway.
And getting back to topic at hand, it's lovely to see that this is an issue that (some) people still get hot and bothered about. That means that bright, uncompromising people will continue to attempt to create and deliver technology that consumers can actually use and enjoy -- instead of the DRM-enslaved stuff that amounts to this http://www.mustardweb.org/mustardpics/issue3/pileo fshit.gif (my compliments to the artists/copyright holder of this graphic, BTW).
In the case of phone records, I think it would be more accurate to describe them as historical records, in which the telephone company, the caller and the call recipient have all played a role.
If the telephone company chooses to release the information about the call later, for profit, it doesn't seem like they under a strong ethical bond not to. Yes, it would be more discreet of them not to sell the information, but in this context, I don't think not being discreet should rise to the level of requiring legal penalties.
The reasons that this information gets out in this way would seem fall into two categories: a) the telcos are sloppy and allow access to the information, either directly from the outside, or through employees stealing it from the inside, b) the telcos are profiting directly by selling it to third parties.
If we ignore a) (but hope that the telcos do not) and focus on b), one way to deal with this would be for the telcos to offer a 'discretion' option on your account for a small fee. For example, you pay a dollar (or three or five) a year, and they make sure that nobody without a court order gets a copy of your logs (ignoring spies, the NSA, executive orders, and so on for the moment).
My guess is that the telcos would stand to make a lot more money from a lot of people paying a small amount than a relatively small number occasionally paying a few hundred dollars for records.
The people that paid the 'discretion' fee would feel better because they had a binding agreement with the companies not to reveal their (shared) history, except by court order. The people that don't care don't have to pay the fee and presumably won't feel outraged when their records are purchased by Sixty Minutes or their ex-boyfriend.
Why the small fee? Among other reasons, it would be an incentive for companies to make this a standard option that you can check off on your account, rather than something hidden at the end of the contract in small print, accessible only on obscure web pages, the location of which is traded around in lists by angry consumers.
Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.
Competition between the English and the metric systems, for example, has provided an endless stream of benefits over the years.
And while we're at it, the different standards for power plugs and telephone adapters are really great, too, stimulating the ingenuity of international travelers everywhere, and doubtless provide jobs and livelihoods for tens of thousands of adapter manufactures around the world.
We certainly used to believe that the answer was 'yes'. Many of our ancestors died fighting various oppressors, be they warlike dictators or exploitative bosses or selfish aristocrats or slavers... They believed in freedom, and fought for it, and often died for it. Millions and millions of them.
Quite so. It seems that we are getting a little soft, particularly in the English-speaking portions of the world. There's a great article in last month's Harper's Magazine (November 2005 issue), "The Last of England", by Charles Glass, on the differences between Londoner's reactions the Blitz of WWII and to the London bombing attacks in June of 2005.
To summarize, during the Blitz, shops would stay open unless completely destroyed by bombing; the bars, clubs and theaters were full every night; and "Every morning, no matter how many bombs have been dropped in the night, London's transport runs, letters are delivered, milk and bread come to one's door, confectioners get their supplies, and the fuiterers' windows are filled." And this when hundreds of people were being killed almost every night.
After the June bombings (during which 56 people died in one day of attacks, and none in a second day of attacks two weeks later), shops and restaurants were closed all over London, tube ridership was drastically down, Tony Blair was pushing mandatory biometric ID cards for all and one innocent Brazilian electrician was gunned down in a tube station (and no, he was apparently not wearing a thick jacket, or running away from the police).
Are the motley collection of 21st century terrorists more dangerous that the Wehrmacht? Or have we lost some perspective somewhere?
Engadget has just posted a description of a hardware 'fix', the Spatz DVIMAGIC box:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000230050640/
Given that it specifically breaks the DRM and opens the company up to attack via the DCMA, it seems likely to a limited edition.
Slashdot Mirror
A foxy way to fortify an opinion, e.g. "Some people say the doughnuts at this particularly DD are, well, delicious."
Except that... you can actually fire them. All it takes is a majority (or even a vocal minority) of citizens. Similarly, one shareholder in a company might not be able to fire the CEO. But a lot of irate shareholders can. And typically, they don't have to burn down City Hall or the corporate headquarters, either. Usually, the offending individual sees the writing on the wall and leaves. So, public servants ARE employees of each citizen.
Actually, I think any patent lawyer would have advised them NOT to do a patent check. Knowing infringement of a patent results in triple (as in 3x) penalties.
No, I don't mean this discussion. Aircraft holds are pressurized and generally heated, as least to keep them above 0C.
The whole gummy idea doesn't hold water, I'm afraid. The only way to make a fake 'gummy' fingerprint would be to have access to the original, real finger. Making one from a fingerprint is pretty much fiction -- finger prints don't have the depth information, even if they aren't smudged (which they almost always are). And the finger-print to gummy-bear-finger manufacturing process would be pretty difficult. So, you need the actually finger to use a 'gummy-bear exploit', which generally means you need the full cooperation of the actual person. Not much of an exploit, then.
I beg to differ: unbridled anger is a primary (perhaps the primary) change maker.
For example, politics, in general -- some of the time, the nice sensible, sensitive and highly-educated people in the middle come up with happy, consensus driven solutions. When that doesn't work, the hordes/mobs/masses/proletariat/dotters/boston-tea- party types get angry, and if there are enough of them, and they are angry enough, they strangle the king and/or queen with the entrails of the high priest(ess). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution.
Having established the primarly role of unbridled anger in change, I would like to add that Slashdot is a perfect place to enleash a bit of (perferrably well articulated) rage -- minimal damage to infrastructure, no beheadings (I'm thinking France, not Iraq), and everybody forgets all about it after about five minutes anyway.
And getting back to topic at hand, it's lovely to see that this is an issue that (some) people still get hot and bothered about. That means that bright, uncompromising people will continue to attempt to create and deliver technology that consumers can actually use and enjoy -- instead of the DRM-enslaved stuff that amounts to this http://www.mustardweb.org/mustardpics/issue3/pileo fshit.gif (my compliments to the artists/copyright holder of this graphic, BTW).
My cell phone calls are my personal effects.
In the case of phone records, I think it would be more accurate to describe them as historical records, in which the telephone company, the caller and the call recipient have all played a role.
If the telephone company chooses to release the information about the call later, for profit, it doesn't seem like they under a strong ethical bond not to. Yes, it would be more discreet of them not to sell the information, but in this context, I don't think not being discreet should rise to the level of requiring legal penalties.
The reasons that this information gets out in this way would seem fall into two categories: a) the telcos are sloppy and allow access to the information, either directly from the outside, or through employees stealing it from the inside, b) the telcos are profiting directly by selling it to third parties.
If we ignore a) (but hope that the telcos do not) and focus on b), one way to deal with this would be for the telcos to offer a 'discretion' option on your account for a small fee. For example, you pay a dollar (or three or five) a year, and they make sure that nobody without a court order gets a copy of your logs (ignoring spies, the NSA, executive orders, and so on for the moment).
My guess is that the telcos would stand to make a lot more money from a lot of people paying a small amount than a relatively small number occasionally paying a few hundred dollars for records.
The people that paid the 'discretion' fee would feel better because they had a binding agreement with the companies not to reveal their (shared) history, except by court order. The people that don't care don't have to pay the fee and presumably won't feel outraged when their records are purchased by Sixty Minutes or their ex-boyfriend.
Why the small fee? Among other reasons, it would be an incentive for companies to make this a standard option that you can check off on your account, rather than something hidden at the end of the contract in small print, accessible only on obscure web pages, the location of which is traded around in lists by angry consumers.
Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.
Competition between the English and the metric systems, for example, has provided an endless stream of benefits over the years.
And while we're at it, the different standards for power plugs and telephone adapters are really great, too, stimulating the ingenuity of international travelers everywhere, and doubtless provide jobs and livelihoods for tens of thousands of adapter manufactures around the world.
We certainly used to believe that the answer was 'yes'. Many of our ancestors died fighting various oppressors, be they warlike dictators or exploitative bosses or selfish aristocrats or slavers... They believed in freedom, and fought for it, and often died for it. Millions and millions of them.
Quite so. It seems that we are getting a little soft, particularly in the English-speaking portions of the world. There's a great article in last month's Harper's Magazine (November 2005 issue), "The Last of England", by Charles Glass, on the differences between Londoner's reactions the Blitz of WWII and to the London bombing attacks in June of 2005.
To summarize, during the Blitz, shops would stay open unless completely destroyed by bombing; the bars, clubs and theaters were full every night; and "Every morning, no matter how many bombs have been dropped in the night, London's transport runs, letters are delivered, milk and bread come to one's door, confectioners get their supplies, and the fuiterers' windows are filled." And this when hundreds of people were being killed almost every night.
After the June bombings (during which 56 people died in one day of attacks, and none in a second day of attacks two weeks later), shops and restaurants were closed all over London, tube ridership was drastically down, Tony Blair was pushing mandatory biometric ID cards for all and one innocent Brazilian electrician was gunned down in a tube station (and no, he was apparently not wearing a thick jacket, or running away from the police).
Are the motley collection of 21st century terrorists more dangerous that the Wehrmacht? Or have we lost some perspective somewhere?
Engadget has just posted a description of a hardware 'fix', the Spatz DVIMAGIC box: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000230050640/ Given that it specifically breaks the DRM and opens the company up to attack via the DCMA, it seems likely to a limited edition.