DCMA is a violation of my privacy and publishing rights as a Canadian citizen in the US under the US/Canada Data Treaty, which is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights (which was adopted in the 1980s so it has greater rights than Americans do).
What DCMA calls a pirate is a treaty violation. DCMA is subject to treaty rights, not the other way around.
You can't steal my rights by calling them piracy.
Cool post, but I'm not sure it'll hold up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if turn breaking bad and start making Meth in my house, I'm pretty sure the police can get a warrant and burst my door open and arrest me (which is a violation of a lot of civil right ASAIK). As soon a you become recognized as a criminal, you kinda lose your civil right.
Perhaps we will get bigger population. However, history shows, that once electricity, television and contraceptives are introduced, population growth slows down significantly. Once population becomes richer population growth turns negative.
Yeah....let's see how that argument hold when we'll find a cure to, let's say, double the life expectancy (and double the fertility time) of a human being.
Um, small or not, have they considered how the craft is going to be shielded against collisions at that speed? Even something as small as a grain of sand at 0.2C packs quite a wallop. Also, is radiation an issue at that velocity?
Collisions at 0.2C? Hell, even at 100 MPH (160Km/h) the probe will be pretty much destroyed.
The magic is that most of the universe is, well, empty. I didn't do the math for this particular case, but I remember one of NASA scientist that made such calculation of the probability of a collision of the voyager probe for the next millennium. It was several digit after the decimal point.
I got a gaming PC with two screen, LG G3 cellphone (for 200 bucks on the second hand market from a mom whose son wanted a iPhone, best value for money imo), a roku, a Nest thermostat and a lot of tech stuff, you get the picture.
Still, I couldn't smell any of those Smartwatch because of a simple point, it fail at what it's supposed to be : "a watch".
I mean, a watch that you need to "wake up" to see the time? Something that you need to plug in every night? And worst, something that look like a gadget and shout "Look at me, I'm a nerds"? No thanks.
Still, my GF, thinking I wanted one, bought me a smartwatch for my anniversary I never heard of, a Pebble Steel. And I must say, she got it right.
Still, it's not perfect. It lack all of the little sensor the competition have and the black & white low resolution make most watchfaces look bad, but it's probably the only "SmartWatch" I won't mind taking to an interview in a suit.
For now it does the job, but call me back when they make a good looking watch that stay open all the time and doesn't need to be connected on a USB port every night (Yeah, unless there's a major improvement in OLED screen energy use, it won't be anytime.soon).
Don't give me your "but capitalism" bullshit, capitalism is at the core of corruption in the financial world and regulation IS needed to keep them in order.
Stopped reading there.
All you need to do is a quick review of the Quality Of Life of the population's lower and middle class during the last 5000 years to conclude that, while capitalism isn't perfect, it's the best system humanity have come up with so far.
With "Nobody" you mean the about 33% electric energy, that comes from renewables for instance in Germany, the 80% in Austria and Switzerland and the 90% in Norway?
I don't know for sure, but it's likely that many in the FBI take an oath to protect the Constitution.. That includes the Bill of Rights, which expresses a large part of our freedoms.
You're talking about protecting the freedom and the population. That other guy talked about standing up for people's freedom. My interpretation is that he expect the FBI to publicly position themselves to defend the freedoms of the population. To take position on debate in the media or something.
Imagine that the police suspect I am the culprit in a string of bank robberies. If that is true, then my phone/computer/tablet may have information that would lead to my arrest and conviction. Of course, my phone/computer/tablet may not have that information and I may still be guilty. Or it may not have that information and I may be still be innocent. Is giving up your privacy worth catching a possible bank robber?
Here's where I find there's a major difference.
AFAIK, "One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty!"
So, until proven guilty, I don't think we should hack into your phone. But, if you are proven guilty, I think the police should have the right to build a case to get a warren from a judge to hack into your phone if there's solid evidence that the said phone could hold information to block another bank robberies.
Still, I know there's a major flaw in my logic. Let's take Belgium terrorist attack. We arrested a culprit that could hold information about a potential terrorist attack. They doesn't have the time to wait that the terrorist is declared guilty to act. And it's where common sense should come in. If they found a cellphone in a apartment with explosive and kalashnikovs, they should discard it "to protect civil right"? I mean, they already busted their door open and shoot themthat's quite again civil right in my book don't you think so?
In all of your exemple, it's mostly about adult willingly deciding to take those risk.
No different here. I'm well aware I could be killed by a drunk driver tomorrow (FAR more likely than a terrorist incidentally) and yet I think it would be inappropriate of us to ban alchohol. In fact we tried that and it didn't go well...
In this exemple, we're talking about potentially stopping terrorist attack
I'm an adult willing to take the risk of a terrorist attack in order to protect my civil rights. I value my civil rights more than I fear any terrorist or terrorist group. If that makes the FBI have to work harder to convict a criminal then so be it.
I'm still not convinced. Drunk driving is illegal after all.
And I agree about protecting your civil rights (After all, it took wars to have them), but saving the civil rights of an actual terrorist....
Unless of course you're insinuating that allowing the FBI to force Apple for a terrorism will mean that tomorrow they'll hack every single cellphone in the USA. But if it take a warren for the FBI to crack a phone each time, I think the justice system could handle it (I think I'll regret writing this...).
So, you think the national speed limit should be 35 mph?
That would save lots of lives.
Or making cigarettes and alcohol completely illegal.
Again, life is precious, gotta save every last one of them.
"Every sperm is sacred... "
I don't see how you could make this comparaison.
In all of your exemple, it's mostly about adult willingly deciding to take those risk. Nobody is stopping you from not smoking, drinking alcohol, driving safely to extent your life expectancy. The way you say it, why should we have a speed limit at all? Your exemples are basically a critic of all safety laws.
In this exemple, we're talking about potentially stopping terrorist attack (And I'm talking in general, from what I heard from this specific case, the iPhone was a work phone with about zero change to have any useful data).
Meanwhile, the cynical half of my brain is waiting for the FBI to tell us how many thousands of lives this saved.
Well, that's the heart of the question isn't?
Here on/. we seem to focus a lot on the negative from the FBI, the NSA and the likes (unsurprising considering the only tech news about them are, most of the time, about privacy void on their part). But I actually wonder how much good they do. How many lives they directly and indirectly saved. And I guess keeping their accomplishment secret is part of their work.
It's in my nature, but I want to think those people too take their job to heart.
Is the potential lost of privacy of everyone worth the potential lives of a few.
To the opposite of many people here, I value human lives a lot and each preventable death is a death too many. So if helping the FBI could save even one person, in my eyes it'll be worth it. And I know some people will put it to the extreme and ask me if a human live worth living in a "v for vendetta" society, but I found it hard to draw the line.
An abstention to draw a line is not an abstention of opinion, it simply mean that I make a clear difference between an animal life and a human life.
But you, if you're no coward and you disagree with me, do draw a line and tell me how many animal lives worth an human one.
If you're going to drag Einstein into your pinheaded world, at least read some of what the man wrote. It might go over the point on your head, though. Not sure they teach anything more than wires and CEGEP-level math at ETS...
You're doing a little far for a simple use of Einstein name as an expression. But I'm sorry if I vexed you by using his name. And if you took the time to know me (don't worry, I'm sure you're not interested), I think you'll find me quite knowledgeable of human history especially for my age.
How's the screw-tightening and board swaping business going these days?
Actually none of that since I recently graduated and I immediately got a PCB Design job in Montreal. I've convinced my company to switch to Altium and we're hiring somebody to work under me right now (seriously). Interested?
OK. So, until we end child starvation and things like that, we should keep animals captive in horrible conditions. Because that's moral. That's what you're saying?
I mean, how about owe stop keeping animals captive, AND ALSO try and help suffering people? Why do you want to insist on being assholes to animals until every human is fed?
It's a different way to say it, but yeah exactly. Any action to save an animal that could be used to save a child instead is immoral in my eye.
But I prefer my way : "Why save an animal why you could save a child instead?"
Or even better : "If you save an animal, then go explain to one of those starving child why you rater save an orca than is miserable life"
Yeah, because a burger is different than an "amusement" for the mouth.
Uhm... really? You didn't know what happens if animals don't eat?
You're really going to go with the argument that food is optional, it is just entertainment?
Wow, that is just exceptionally daft. There are perhaps issues relating to food choices that would be relevant in other discussions, but the difference between hunting animals and torturing animals is actually really clear and stark. We can just concede that many humans eat meat and then proceed to the rest of the analysis. It isn't the sort of blocking issue that you pretend it is.
I hope, for the sake of your education, that you experience hunger at some point in your life. You'll learn the difference between food, and amusement.
Plain wrong, I'm saying that eating "meat" is optional, difference!
I'm saying that putting animal in a cage for entertainment or putting animal in a cage for food is not much different. And if you feel that we're torturing those orca, then I'l asking you why aren't you defending those chicken that lay eggs all day too?
Firstly, all farmed cattle have been bred to be farmed. They are similar to bovines from several thousand years ago but certainly not the same any more. Breeding will have included selection for being relatively sedentary and not needing to roam a great deal. Cattle in fields do not suffer from the kind of mental issues that afflict Orcas.
The tank for an orca is significantly smaller than the equivalent field for a cow. Tanks have got bigger but they are still small for a fast moving and powerful animal.
Because you think all the meat that end up in your plate had a big beautiful field to play during his lifetime? Oh my sweet summer child...
Orcas are predators, cows are not.
So your reasoning would be different if it was herbivore? Predator have more right? So it's wrong to have a lion in a zoo but giraffe are ok because, fuck them they eat fruit?
Ultimately, whilst cows do have a short life, they are generally treated quite well until the point at which they are killed.
To be honest, a comparison between the way we treat cattle and the way we treat orcas is not great as they are really quite different animals.
Let me ask you this single question, are you absolutely certain that orca are so badly treated compared to all animal we eat? And I'm not talking about your neighbourhood little family farm, I'm talking about the huge industrial one. And if cattle is long enough, why not talk about lamb of male chicks that we send to the grinder?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no animal defender and I eat meat a lot. But a lot of people here are acting as if the world just got a little better when we, in my eye, only saved a fish that was more efficiently used in his lifetime than the lamb I've eat last night.
Still struggling finding a PCB design job in Montreal?
I'm quite sure I'll regret it but...the hell with it. Care to elaborate your point? Why I'm a coward? Why are you asking me to go play with machine? Why should I read Einstein?
No, they're not killing orcas to survive. That is just an insane justification that implies you have a serious internal moral disagreement.
Quite a bold claim (and a little sad since it's from a 5 digit elder)
Maybe it is perfectly ok to kill an orca to survive, but still barbaric to kill them for amusement? Perhaps that would solve your internal conflict.
I suggest you read my comment again. Here's my point, we don't need to kill any animal to survive since we can survive on other food source than meat. So, in my point of view, using orca for amusement is no more barbaric than killing cattle at 1½ years old as a source of food.
Notice that nothing that I said about the comparison of lifespan in captivity to in the wild would leave any room for mistake that I was making a general moral argument against utilization of animal resources. You just brought your weird baggage along while arguing that animal torture is OK, because some people find cows entertaining. Fail.
I've never made such claim. I suggest you read my comment again. I don't give a fuck about orca or cattle, it's the way of life. What pissed me off if that we discuss about saving orca instead of saving children that need it.
Slashdot Mirror
Which, I mean, who hasn't accidentally done that? The keys are like right next to each other.
I'm quite sure this is from an old bash.org post.
DCMA is a violation of my privacy and publishing rights as a Canadian citizen in the US under the US/Canada Data Treaty, which is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights (which was adopted in the 1980s so it has greater rights than Americans do).
What DCMA calls a pirate is a treaty violation. DCMA is subject to treaty rights, not the other way around.
You can't steal my rights by calling them piracy.
Cool post, but I'm not sure it'll hold up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if turn breaking bad and start making Meth in my house, I'm pretty sure the police can get a warrant and burst my door open and arrest me (which is a violation of a lot of civil right ASAIK). As soon a you become recognized as a criminal, you kinda lose your civil right.
Perhaps we will get bigger population. However, history shows, that once electricity, television and contraceptives are introduced, population growth slows down significantly. Once population becomes richer population growth turns negative.
Yeah....let's see how that argument hold when we'll find a cure to, let's say, double the life expectancy (and double the fertility time) of a human being.
Um, small or not, have they considered how the craft is going to be shielded against collisions at that speed? Even something as small as a grain of sand at 0.2C packs quite a wallop. Also, is radiation an issue at that velocity?
Collisions at 0.2C? Hell, even at 100 MPH (160Km/h) the probe will be pretty much destroyed.
The magic is that most of the universe is, well, empty. I didn't do the math for this particular case, but I remember one of NASA scientist that made such calculation of the probability of a collision of the voyager probe for the next millennium. It was several digit after the decimal point.
I'm a tech enthusiast.
I got a gaming PC with two screen, LG G3 cellphone (for 200 bucks on the second hand market from a mom whose son wanted a iPhone, best value for money imo), a roku, a Nest thermostat and a lot of tech stuff, you get the picture.
Still, I couldn't smell any of those Smartwatch because of a simple point, it fail at what it's supposed to be : "a watch".
I mean, a watch that you need to "wake up" to see the time? Something that you need to plug in every night? And worst, something that look like a gadget and shout "Look at me, I'm a nerds"? No thanks.
Still, my GF, thinking I wanted one, bought me a smartwatch for my anniversary I never heard of, a Pebble Steel. And I must say, she got it right.
Still, it's not perfect. It lack all of the little sensor the competition have and the black & white low resolution make most watchfaces look bad, but it's probably the only "SmartWatch" I won't mind taking to an interview in a suit.
For now it does the job, but call me back when they make a good looking watch that stay open all the time and doesn't need to be connected on a USB port every night (Yeah, unless there's a major improvement in OLED screen energy use, it won't be anytime.soon).
Siemens and Airbus just formed a partnership to develop a 4000 mile long power cord.
Ha rats.....I was hoping they''ll be shooting power laser at it...
Don't give me your "but capitalism" bullshit, capitalism is at the core of corruption in the financial world and regulation IS needed to keep them in order.
Stopped reading there.
All you need to do is a quick review of the Quality Of Life of the population's lower and middle class during the last 5000 years to conclude that, while capitalism isn't perfect, it's the best system humanity have come up with so far.
Wo. After watching the pulse jet video, I have to say that's one of the most annoying people I have ever seen.
You misspelled "awesome"......and funny.
Actually, he's more an engineer but anyway, not my favorite video of him.
I'm was more impressed when he hydroformed a pulse jet
With "Nobody" you mean the about 33% electric energy, that comes from renewables for instance in Germany, the 80% in Austria and Switzerland and the 90% in Norway?
You don't have to go that far. You got neighbour in the north where ~96% of all energy produced come from hydro power and ~99% come from renewable source
I don't know for sure, but it's likely that many in the FBI take an oath to protect the Constitution.. That includes the Bill of Rights, which expresses a large part of our freedoms.
You're talking about protecting the freedom and the population. That other guy talked about standing up for people's freedom. My interpretation is that he expect the FBI to publicly position themselves to defend the freedoms of the population. To take position on debate in the media or something.
The FBI is not standing up for anyone's freedom either.
I don't think it's their job to protect the population's freedom. No more than it's the job of a dentist.
An interesting argument. Just one little thing.
Imagine that the police suspect I am the culprit in a string of bank robberies. If that is true, then my phone/computer/tablet may have information that would lead to my arrest and conviction. Of course, my phone/computer/tablet may not have that information and I may still be guilty. Or it may not have that information and I may be still be innocent. Is giving up your privacy worth catching a possible bank robber?
Here's where I find there's a major difference.
AFAIK, "One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty!"
So, until proven guilty, I don't think we should hack into your phone. But, if you are proven guilty, I think the police should have the right to build a case to get a warren from a judge to hack into your phone if there's solid evidence that the said phone could hold information to block another bank robberies.
Still, I know there's a major flaw in my logic. Let's take Belgium terrorist attack. We arrested a culprit that could hold information about a potential terrorist attack. They doesn't have the time to wait that the terrorist is declared guilty to act. And it's where common sense should come in. If they found a cellphone in a apartment with explosive and kalashnikovs, they should discard it "to protect civil right"? I mean, they already busted their door open and shoot themthat's quite again civil right in my book don't you think so?
so that the government can spy on it's own people.
....aren't you going a little too far?
In all of your exemple, it's mostly about adult willingly deciding to take those risk.
No different here. I'm well aware I could be killed by a drunk driver tomorrow (FAR more likely than a terrorist incidentally) and yet I think it would be inappropriate of us to ban alchohol. In fact we tried that and it didn't go well...
In this exemple, we're talking about potentially stopping terrorist attack
I'm an adult willing to take the risk of a terrorist attack in order to protect my civil rights. I value my civil rights more than I fear any terrorist or terrorist group. If that makes the FBI have to work harder to convict a criminal then so be it.
I'm still not convinced. Drunk driving is illegal after all.
And I agree about protecting your civil rights (After all, it took wars to have them), but saving the civil rights of an actual terrorist....
Unless of course you're insinuating that allowing the FBI to force Apple for a terrorism will mean that tomorrow they'll hack every single cellphone in the USA. But if it take a warren for the FBI to crack a phone each time, I think the justice system could handle it (I think I'll regret writing this...).
So, you think the national speed limit should be 35 mph?
That would save lots of lives.
Or making cigarettes and alcohol completely illegal.
Again, life is precious, gotta save every last one of them.
"Every sperm is sacred ... "
I don't see how you could make this comparaison.
In all of your exemple, it's mostly about adult willingly deciding to take those risk. Nobody is stopping you from not smoking, drinking alcohol, driving safely to extent your life expectancy. The way you say it, why should we have a speed limit at all? Your exemples are basically a critic of all safety laws.
In this exemple, we're talking about potentially stopping terrorist attack (And I'm talking in general, from what I heard from this specific case, the iPhone was a work phone with about zero change to have any useful data).
Meanwhile, the cynical half of my brain is waiting for the FBI to tell us how many thousands of lives this saved.
Well, that's the heart of the question isn't?
Here on /. we seem to focus a lot on the negative from the FBI, the NSA and the likes (unsurprising considering the only tech news about them are, most of the time, about privacy void on their part). But I actually wonder how much good they do. How many lives they directly and indirectly saved. And I guess keeping their accomplishment secret is part of their work.
It's in my nature, but I want to think those people too take their job to heart.
Ok let's reword this :
Is the potential lost of privacy of everyone worth the potential lives of a few.
To the opposite of many people here, I value human lives a lot and each preventable death is a death too many. So if helping the FBI could save even one person, in my eyes it'll be worth it. And I know some people will put it to the extreme and ask me if a human live worth living in a "v for vendetta" society, but I found it hard to draw the line.
Concrete balloon, huh? That should go over well.
Why? You expect it to fly?
Coward : "You want to draw a line? I won't."
An abstention to draw a line is not an abstention of opinion, it simply mean that I make a clear difference between an animal life and a human life.
But you, if you're no coward and you disagree with me, do draw a line and tell me how many animal lives worth an human one.
If you're going to drag Einstein into your pinheaded world, at least read some of what the man wrote. It might go over the point on your head, though. Not sure they teach anything more than wires and CEGEP-level math at ETS...
You're doing a little far for a simple use of Einstein name as an expression. But I'm sorry if I vexed you by using his name. And if you took the time to know me (don't worry, I'm sure you're not interested), I think you'll find me quite knowledgeable of human history especially for my age.
How's the screw-tightening and board swaping business going these days?
Actually none of that since I recently graduated and I immediately got a PCB Design job in Montreal. I've convinced my company to switch to Altium and we're hiring somebody to work under me right now (seriously). Interested?
OK. So, until we end child starvation and things like that, we should keep animals captive in horrible conditions. Because that's moral. That's what you're saying?
I mean, how about owe stop keeping animals captive, AND ALSO try and help suffering people? Why do you want to insist on being assholes to animals until every human is fed?
It's a different way to say it, but yeah exactly. Any action to save an animal that could be used to save a child instead is immoral in my eye.
But I prefer my way : "Why save an animal why you could save a child instead?"
Or even better : "If you save an animal, then go explain to one of those starving child why you rater save an orca than is miserable life"
Yeah, because a burger is different than an "amusement" for the mouth.
Uhm... really? You didn't know what happens if animals don't eat?
You're really going to go with the argument that food is optional, it is just entertainment?
Wow, that is just exceptionally daft. There are perhaps issues relating to food choices that would be relevant in other discussions, but the difference between hunting animals and torturing animals is actually really clear and stark. We can just concede that many humans eat meat and then proceed to the rest of the analysis. It isn't the sort of blocking issue that you pretend it is.
I hope, for the sake of your education, that you experience hunger at some point in your life. You'll learn the difference between food, and amusement.
Plain wrong, I'm saying that eating "meat" is optional, difference!
I'm saying that putting animal in a cage for entertainment or putting animal in a cage for food is not much different. And if you feel that we're torturing those orca, then I'l asking you why aren't you defending those chicken that lay eggs all day too?
There are several issues with your comments.
Firstly, all farmed cattle have been bred to be farmed. They are similar to bovines from several thousand years ago but certainly not the same any more. Breeding will have included selection for being relatively sedentary and not needing to roam a great deal. Cattle in fields do not suffer from the kind of mental issues that afflict Orcas.
The tank for an orca is significantly smaller than the equivalent field for a cow. Tanks have got bigger but they are still small for a fast moving and powerful animal.
Because you think all the meat that end up in your plate had a big beautiful field to play during his lifetime? Oh my sweet summer child...
Orcas are predators, cows are not.
So your reasoning would be different if it was herbivore? Predator have more right? So it's wrong to have a lion in a zoo but giraffe are ok because, fuck them they eat fruit?
Ultimately, whilst cows do have a short life, they are generally treated quite well until the point at which they are killed.
To be honest, a comparison between the way we treat cattle and the way we treat orcas is not great as they are really quite different animals.
Let me ask you this single question, are you absolutely certain that orca are so badly treated compared to all animal we eat? And I'm not talking about your neighbourhood little family farm, I'm talking about the huge industrial one. And if cattle is long enough, why not talk about lamb of male chicks that we send to the grinder?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no animal defender and I eat meat a lot. But a lot of people here are acting as if the world just got a little better when we, in my eye, only saved a fish that was more efficiently used in his lifetime than the lamb I've eat last night.
Hello BTU_BBQ, been some time.
Still struggling finding a PCB design job in Montreal?
I'm quite sure I'll regret it but...the hell with it. Care to elaborate your point? Why I'm a coward? Why are you asking me to go play with machine? Why should I read Einstein?
No, they're not killing orcas to survive. That is just an insane justification that implies you have a serious internal moral disagreement.
Quite a bold claim (and a little sad since it's from a 5 digit elder)
Maybe it is perfectly ok to kill an orca to survive, but still barbaric to kill them for amusement? Perhaps that would solve your internal conflict.
I suggest you read my comment again. Here's my point, we don't need to kill any animal to survive since we can survive on other food source than meat. So, in my point of view, using orca for amusement is no more barbaric than killing cattle at 1½ years old as a source of food.
Notice that nothing that I said about the comparison of lifespan in captivity to in the wild would leave any room for mistake that I was making a general moral argument against utilization of animal resources. You just brought your weird baggage along while arguing that animal torture is OK, because some people find cows entertaining. Fail.
I've never made such claim. I suggest you read my comment again. I don't give a fuck about orca or cattle, it's the way of life. What pissed me off if that we discuss about saving orca instead of saving children that need it.