That allows the attacker to completely root your device
Attacker? Owner! If I pay for a device, it's mine and I shouldn't be regarded as an attacker.
If anything, an attacker has locked me out of my device. These tools are for freedom fighters. The fact that they are also available to attackers is an unavoidable effect of progress.
Even then, "The State" does not own anyone: there's never been deed or title obtained by purchase.
Throughout history many slaves have not been bought but captured. In those cases there is no deed or title obtained by purchase. Furthermore, there have been degrees and different types of slavery. Here in Australia we have had slavery convictions. From the linked article:
Justice Cummins said they had controlled the vulnerable women with ''the ever-present shadow of a minder under the veneer of a helper'', describing the scheme as ''modern slavery, not with physical chains but with mental chains''.
For many people ''the ever-present shadow of a minder under the veneer of a helper'' sounds like a very accurate description of socialist slavery. The fact that it is a form of slavery you are comfortable with doesn't make the word inappropriate.
As someone complaining about the incorrect use of words, you should have responded with the truth rather than propaganda from the "opposite side".
How am I guilty? You yourself said my point was fair enough. There are people that regard the government control of socialism as onerous enough to be called slavery. They are not automatically wrong or stupid just because you disagree with them, with you not being the final arbiter of truth or anything like that.
End of discussion.
That you want to command a discussion to end says something about your philosophy, that you issue such a "edict" on an internet discussion board says something about your intelligence.
Just in case you hadn't noticed, slavery is a form of capitalism
If a private individual or company owns people, that is a capitalist form of slavery. If the state owns people, that is socialist slavery.
The condition of slavery is not confined to any one political or economic system. As someone complaining about the incorrect use of words, you should have responded with the truth rather than propaganda from the "opposite side".
Just because they support one thing you agree with doesn't mean you shouldn't oppose the mechanism by which they do it. They could support it with their internal policies and impact society. We need to break the corporate influence over politics. It will always benefit the few who control the corporations at the expense of the general population.
If people in charge of corporations want laws passed, they should make the case to the public, not directly to our elected representatives. Our corporate overlords do not care what marriage arrangements you have so long as they can rob you of political and economic power. Corporations supporting change you like is just bait for the trap.
Can you explain the thought process behind these statements?
Not the poster you replied to but: Companies paying professional lobbyists to get government to change laws is a bad thing. Some of us regard it as a bad thing in principle, even if we agree with the changes being advocated. MS uses the same process to get bad laws passed.
Showing violent cartoons to kids is bad, not directly because it's violence, but because they don't yet think critically about it. So if they see a mouse achieve something trough violence, they will make the connection violence solves problems.
People ridicule the idea that cartoons or video games affect kids, but it's true. I didn't believe until my eldest dropped a refrigerator out a 7th story window onto a passerby. It opened my eyes but too late. That same week, his brother (who had been playing Ratchet and Clank) shot the neighbors kids with a morph-o-ray, turning them into chickens.
Parents, don't ignore this issue, for your own hearts sake.
Is there some reason that a church can't refuse to religiously marry gay people? What does it matter if the state's civil union is also called "marriage"?
As I see it, equal rights should be enforced by government, culture change should not. Cultural change ought be handled by society at large, not the government, IMO.
Furthermore, marriage should already have been replaced by civil unions in name since that replacement has already happened in deed. Here in Australia, this definition was introduced into law: Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Of the four conditions, (heterosexuality, monogamy, voluntary and lifelong) only two are enforced in our law, heterosexuality and voluntariness. You can be swingers and have a legally valid marriage and no fault divorce is specifically a repudiation of lifelong marriage. As a result, there is no logically consistent concept of marriage in Australian law. What we have that we now call marriage is in reality a civil union. The commitment to lifelong relationship is purely social.
Although I have a marriage certificate, as the years have gone by, I've come to see it as a farce. It is the relationship that makes a marriage, not paperwork filed at the courthouse and not the approval of a preacher. I'm married and the church and the government can piss off if they don't agree. Tell me you are married, friend, and I will take the same attitude.
If you think that people who base their marriage on "being joined by god" don't have a valid marriage because you don't believe there's a god you should be free to say so. If people who believe in god think you don't have a valid marriage because it wasn't approved by their god, they should be free to say so.
Thanks captain obvious but you're splitting hairs, the consumer buys a device, they don't care who makes what part of it, so it doesn't make any difference.
It's about what MS is attempting to do to the market, not about what the average consumer thinks. Most consumers don't put enough thought into it to have an opinion worth knowing. It isn't splitting hairs, it does make a difference.
The difference is that Apple, by deciding on closed devices, controlled the behavior of one company, themselves. No product that was previously existing became unavailable due to backdoor deals Apple made with other companies. MS deciding on closed devices is leading them to attempt to control the behavior of many companies. To the extent they succeed, phones that can run Android will become less available.
You think Windows 8 is going to be so good that everyone will stop using Android?
No. Neither does MS or they wouldn't require devices to be unable to run Android. They are hoping to use their brand recognition and marketing power to make manufacturers drop Android. I don't think they will succeed but they may do a great deal of damage in the attempt.
It is the condition imposed on the population by the government that justifies revolution, not the length of time since the last revolution. I do agree with the concept of having an armed population capable of revolution as a last resort, but reasonable people do not lightly undertake endeavors that will result in the death of a significant number of their population.
I'd even agree that in principle, many of the actions of our governments justify revolution but I have my doubts that the massive bloodshed of a revolution is better than the current situation.
If you have a compelling enough argument to persuade enough people to your side to win an armed revolution, surely you could convince those people to (1) help spread that idea, (2) vote and (3) change spending habits. If your cause isn't popular enough to win an election and you try armed revolt, all you will achieve is to have the government kill you and be remembered in the public record as a domestic terrorist.
What's your opinion: was Timothy McVeigh a domestic terrorist or a national hero? You need to answer that for yourself, because if you take up arms against your government and don't win, that's how you're going to be remembered.
If GPLv3 actually forbids a useful security mechanism, then GPLv3 is broken.
Useful to whom? The GPLv3 does not forbid the owner of a device from anything. It does prevent the seller of the device from securing the device from the new owner. IMO this is as it should be. It seems, though, that there are more companies interested in locking the end user out of the device than companies interested in providing security mechanisms to the end user.
I understand your point but it isn't as though MS is going to be taking away anything that exists now, just like apple when they released the ipad.
Apple sells ipads, MS sells software. Non-Apple hardware manufacturers currently sell hardware capable of running other software than MS. If MS is successful in their strategy they will prevent as many phones being available to run Android, they are definitely trying to take something away.
This a device built for a specific purpose (to run Windows 8), if you want to run other operating systems then buy a device designed to do such things.
That is incorrect. These are devices that are built to be general purpose and are being modified to make them less useful to purchasers in order to benefit MS. I am sure that NONE of the hardware manufacturers have any desire to spend extra time and money engineering their products to be less functional. If they do it will be the result of strong arm tactics by MS.
Once again MS show that they believe their product is not good enough to compete on its merits.
I was just going by what this guy said in the summary: 'Stats can't tell you who the perp is, but they're getting better and better at figuring out where and when the next crime might happen,' writes criminal lawyer Nathaniel Burney
Since I couldn't even be bothered to read TFA, I predict that I won't bother to verify if and how they are doing this:)
"The expected time of the next murder is a distribution of odds along this curve" is not particularly useful in trying to stop a single crime.
[snip] ...it's unlikely to ever allow a profiler to say "stake out this intersection on this night".
Probably not but combined with other information, such as victim profile, MO, knowing a likely area within a couple of suburbs and a time within a couple of months could well be enough for police run undercover operations. I'm sure it would be harder than just dropping down to the corner and picking the murderer up but the police know there will be more work involved than that, I'm sure.
And yes, Congressional officials don't care about whether or not YOU want it, because let's face it, you don't have any stake what so ever in monetization or piracy of IP goods. So you really don't give one shit or another.
We do have a stake in what our laws are and Protect IP will impact every one of us. We have an interest in not being censored.
Yes, the studios and record labels are all greedy bastards, but they're the ones who do have an actual stake in IP rights. When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk.
Will you shut up about every topic that doesn't involve how you make your income? I see you've posted on a number of stories with different topics. How dare you comment on things unrelated to your employment?
The only justification of copyright in US law is the progress of science and useful arts. I don't care how artistic you think you are, you don't get to screw the country over regarding the progress for the sake of your profits. It is more fitting to say that anyone currently working on such "intellectual goods" ipso facto does not require changes to copyright law to provide an incentive as they have demonstrated that the current law is sufficient to motivate them to work in that industry.
Full time professional manipulators can buy detailed information about you. The damage can be limited by learning logic, sales and marketing, but I don't regard that as enough for my own peace of mind.
Take the case of marketing: when you come into contact with marketing, it is a contact between (1) a team of full time professional marketers and (2) a part time amateur consumer. This places you at a distinct disadvantage. If you know anything about marketing, you would know that frequency of exposure is very persuasive (given that there are other conditions to meet also), so to develop sales resistance requires reducing that exposure or reducing it's effectiveness.
Giving all the info on facebook to them will increase the effectiveness of the professional manipulators, whether they are marketing, political, religious or other such organizations. As such it decreases democracy and assists centralized thought control. It's not the only thing that does so and it could be argued that the collective participation means it does it less so than television. TV just tells you at least with the internet you can have your say.
That's the damage.
As to the benefits, it seems to me to be a double edged sword as people use these service to spread word of what governments and corporations, etc are doing too. We read in 1984 about the government watching us with cameras, it didn't mention that we'd be videoing police and uploading to youtube for the world to see.
>> their ancestral homeland
> Ah yes, and there we have it, when people bring their space fairies into the argument, you just know all logic and reason is lost.
You lack basic reading comprehension. The parent did not even imply a religious argument. Ancestral pertains to ancestors, which everyone has, without any reference to "space fairies".
You know all logic and reason is lost when you refer to ancestors and get accused of bringing space fairies into the argument.
As someone not generally affected by copyright issues, can they explain to me what benefits there are to society of reforming copyright? Tangible, measurable benefits.
As the printing press and industrial age was the basis of a massive increase in wealth over the agrarian age, so the information age is a an increase of wealth over the industrial age. Copyright is affecting much more important things than the entertainment industries which I agree could disappear tomorrow without harm to society.
Do you think we should have universal free education? Basic maths, such as learned in primary school, has not changed in the last hundred years yet if you have children you can check their textbooks and they will be protected by copyright. As a society we pay much more for education than we should because we limit supply of educational materials in this way.
I agree with this quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson:
Books constitute capital. A library book lasts as long as a house, for hundreds of years. It is not, then, an article of mere consumption but fairly of capital, and often in the case of professional men, setting out in life, it is their only capital.
Software is also capital, directly used in production. Commodity hardware and software cause capital to be available for everyone. Restricting access to educational materials and productive capital in society seems like something that impacts us all, because we are treating information age productive goods as if they industrial age consumer goods, thereby destroying much of the utility of them.
Slashdot Mirror
That allows the attacker to completely root your device
Attacker? Owner! If I pay for a device, it's mine and I shouldn't be regarded as an attacker.
If anything, an attacker has locked me out of my device. These tools are for freedom fighters. The fact that they are also available to attackers is an unavoidable effect of progress.
A charge for use for a period of time is rent. Renting is not the same as owning.
Even then, "The State" does not own anyone: there's never been deed or title obtained by purchase.
Throughout history many slaves have not been bought but captured. In those cases there is no deed or title obtained by purchase. Furthermore, there have been degrees and different types of slavery. Here in Australia we have had slavery convictions. From the linked article:
Justice Cummins said they had controlled the vulnerable women with ''the ever-present shadow of a minder under the veneer of a helper'', describing the scheme as ''modern slavery, not with physical chains but with mental chains''.
For many people ''the ever-present shadow of a minder under the veneer of a helper'' sounds like a very accurate description of socialist slavery. The fact that it is a form of slavery you are comfortable with doesn't make the word inappropriate.
As someone complaining about the incorrect use of words, you should have responded with the truth rather than propaganda from the "opposite side".
You're equally guilty then. Socialism =/= slavery.
How am I guilty? You yourself said my point was fair enough. There are people that regard the government control of socialism as onerous enough to be called slavery. They are not automatically wrong or stupid just because you disagree with them, with you not being the final arbiter of truth or anything like that.
End of discussion.
That you want to command a discussion to end says something about your philosophy, that you issue such a "edict" on an internet discussion board says something about your intelligence.
Just in case you hadn't noticed, slavery is a form of capitalism
If a private individual or company owns people, that is a capitalist form of slavery. If the state owns people, that is socialist slavery.
The condition of slavery is not confined to any one political or economic system. As someone complaining about the incorrect use of words, you should have responded with the truth rather than propaganda from the "opposite side".
Just because they support one thing you agree with doesn't mean you shouldn't oppose the mechanism by which they do it. They could support it with their internal policies and impact society. We need to break the corporate influence over politics. It will always benefit the few who control the corporations at the expense of the general population.
If people in charge of corporations want laws passed, they should make the case to the public, not directly to our elected representatives. Our corporate overlords do not care what marriage arrangements you have so long as they can rob you of political and economic power. Corporations supporting change you like is just bait for the trap.
That brings up an interesting point: is it right to argue in a way you know is wrong if only because the person you're arguing with will believe you?
Only if there are people observing who will understand what you've done and think it is funny.
Can you explain the thought process behind these statements?
Not the poster you replied to but: Companies paying professional lobbyists to get government to change laws is a bad thing. Some of us regard it as a bad thing in principle, even if we agree with the changes being advocated. MS uses the same process to get bad laws passed.
Showing violent cartoons to kids is bad, not directly because it's violence, but because they don't yet think critically about it. So if they see a mouse achieve something trough violence, they will make the connection violence solves problems.
People ridicule the idea that cartoons or video games affect kids, but it's true. I didn't believe until my eldest dropped a refrigerator out a 7th story window onto a passerby. It opened my eyes but too late. That same week, his brother (who had been playing Ratchet and Clank) shot the neighbors kids with a morph-o-ray, turning them into chickens.
Parents, don't ignore this issue, for your own hearts sake.
Is there some reason that a church can't refuse to religiously marry gay people? What does it matter if the state's civil union is also called "marriage"?
As I see it, equal rights should be enforced by government, culture change should not. Cultural change ought be handled by society at large, not the government, IMO.
Furthermore, marriage should already have been replaced by civil unions in name since that replacement has already happened in deed. Here in Australia, this definition was introduced into law: Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Of the four conditions, (heterosexuality, monogamy, voluntary and lifelong) only two are enforced in our law, heterosexuality and voluntariness. You can be swingers and have a legally valid marriage and no fault divorce is specifically a repudiation of lifelong marriage. As a result, there is no logically consistent concept of marriage in Australian law. What we have that we now call marriage is in reality a civil union. The commitment to lifelong relationship is purely social.
Although I have a marriage certificate, as the years have gone by, I've come to see it as a farce. It is the relationship that makes a marriage, not paperwork filed at the courthouse and not the approval of a preacher. I'm married and the church and the government can piss off if they don't agree. Tell me you are married, friend, and I will take the same attitude.
If you think that people who base their marriage on "being joined by god" don't have a valid marriage because you don't believe there's a god you should be free to say so. If people who believe in god think you don't have a valid marriage because it wasn't approved by their god, they should be free to say so.
Thanks captain obvious but you're splitting hairs, the consumer buys a device, they don't care who makes what part of it, so it doesn't make any difference.
It's about what MS is attempting to do to the market, not about what the average consumer thinks. Most consumers don't put enough thought into it to have an opinion worth knowing. It isn't splitting hairs, it does make a difference.
The difference is that Apple, by deciding on closed devices, controlled the behavior of one company, themselves. No product that was previously existing became unavailable due to backdoor deals Apple made with other companies. MS deciding on closed devices is leading them to attempt to control the behavior of many companies. To the extent they succeed, phones that can run Android will become less available.
You think Windows 8 is going to be so good that everyone will stop using Android?
No. Neither does MS or they wouldn't require devices to be unable to run Android. They are hoping to use their brand recognition and marketing power to make manufacturers drop Android. I don't think they will succeed but they may do a great deal of damage in the attempt.
It is the condition imposed on the population by the government that justifies revolution, not the length of time since the last revolution. I do agree with the concept of having an armed population capable of revolution as a last resort, but reasonable people do not lightly undertake endeavors that will result in the death of a significant number of their population.
I'd even agree that in principle, many of the actions of our governments justify revolution but I have my doubts that the massive bloodshed of a revolution is better than the current situation.
If you have a compelling enough argument to persuade enough people to your side to win an armed revolution, surely you could convince those people to (1) help spread that idea, (2) vote and (3) change spending habits. If your cause isn't popular enough to win an election and you try armed revolt, all you will achieve is to have the government kill you and be remembered in the public record as a domestic terrorist.
What's your opinion: was Timothy McVeigh a domestic terrorist or a national hero? You need to answer that for yourself, because if you take up arms against your government and don't win, that's how you're going to be remembered.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
This is not something to undertake lightly.
This isn't so different from encrypted bootloaders on android devices.
This isn't so different from google requiring hardware manufactures to make android devices unable to run windows. Google doesn't do that though.
If GPLv3 actually forbids a useful security mechanism, then GPLv3 is broken.
Useful to whom? The GPLv3 does not forbid the owner of a device from anything. It does prevent the seller of the device from securing the device from the new owner. IMO this is as it should be. It seems, though, that there are more companies interested in locking the end user out of the device than companies interested in providing security mechanisms to the end user.
I understand your point but it isn't as though MS is going to be taking away anything that exists now, just like apple when they released the ipad.
Apple sells ipads, MS sells software. Non-Apple hardware manufacturers currently sell hardware capable of running other software than MS. If MS is successful in their strategy they will prevent as many phones being available to run Android, they are definitely trying to take something away.
This a device built for a specific purpose (to run Windows 8), if you want to run other operating systems then buy a device designed to do such things.
That is incorrect. These are devices that are built to be general purpose and are being modified to make them less useful to purchasers in order to benefit MS. I am sure that NONE of the hardware manufacturers have any desire to spend extra time and money engineering their products to be less functional. If they do it will be the result of strong arm tactics by MS.
Once again MS show that they believe their product is not good enough to compete on its merits.
I was just going by what this guy said in the summary: 'Stats can't tell you who the perp is, but they're getting better and better at figuring out where and when the next crime might happen,' writes criminal lawyer Nathaniel Burney
Since I couldn't even be bothered to read TFA, I predict that I won't bother to verify if and how they are doing this :)
"The expected time of the next murder is a distribution of odds along this curve" is not particularly useful in trying to stop a single crime.
...it's unlikely to ever allow a profiler to say "stake out this intersection on this night".
[snip]
Probably not but combined with other information, such as victim profile, MO, knowing a likely area within a couple of suburbs and a time within a couple of months could well be enough for police run undercover operations. I'm sure it would be harder than just dropping down to the corner and picking the murderer up but the police know there will be more work involved than that, I'm sure.
No, we don't need more Big Government looking over the shoulders of our job creators. The market will take care of itself if left alone.
You are moderated funny but the article is an example of that exact thing happening.
Someone with marketable skills will move on to something else if you treat them poorly.
Even if you get treated well by a boss you will still have to do what they say. Otherwise why would they hire you?
And yes, Congressional officials don't care about whether or not YOU want it, because let's face it, you don't have any stake what so ever in monetization or piracy of IP goods. So you really don't give one shit or another.
We do have a stake in what our laws are and Protect IP will impact every one of us. We have an interest in not being censored.
Yes, the studios and record labels are all greedy bastards, but they're the ones who do have an actual stake in IP rights. When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk.
Will you shut up about every topic that doesn't involve how you make your income? I see you've posted on a number of stories with different topics. How dare you comment on things unrelated to your employment?
The only justification of copyright in US law is the progress of science and useful arts. I don't care how artistic you think you are, you don't get to screw the country over regarding the progress for the sake of your profits. It is more fitting to say that anyone currently working on such "intellectual goods" ipso facto does not require changes to copyright law to provide an incentive as they have demonstrated that the current law is sufficient to motivate them to work in that industry.
They new about his naughty pictures - even though Weiner thought they were private, only between himself and the women he was cybersexing.
If he was that stupid, it's good to get rid of him.
"What's the damage?"
Full time professional manipulators can buy detailed information about you. The damage can be limited by learning logic, sales and marketing, but I don't regard that as enough for my own peace of mind.
Take the case of marketing: when you come into contact with marketing, it is a contact between (1) a team of full time professional marketers and (2) a part time amateur consumer. This places you at a distinct disadvantage. If you know anything about marketing, you would know that frequency of exposure is very persuasive (given that there are other conditions to meet also), so to develop sales resistance requires reducing that exposure or reducing it's effectiveness.
Giving all the info on facebook to them will increase the effectiveness of the professional manipulators, whether they are marketing, political, religious or other such organizations. As such it decreases democracy and assists centralized thought control. It's not the only thing that does so and it could be argued that the collective participation means it does it less so than television. TV just tells you at least with the internet you can have your say.
That's the damage.
As to the benefits, it seems to me to be a double edged sword as people use these service to spread word of what governments and corporations, etc are doing too. We read in 1984 about the government watching us with cameras, it didn't mention that we'd be videoing police and uploading to youtube for the world to see.
>> their ancestral homeland > Ah yes, and there we have it, when people bring their space fairies into the argument, you just know all logic and reason is lost.
You lack basic reading comprehension. The parent did not even imply a religious argument. Ancestral pertains to ancestors, which everyone has, without any reference to "space fairies".
You know all logic and reason is lost when you refer to ancestors and get accused of bringing space fairies into the argument.
As someone not generally affected by copyright issues, can they explain to me what benefits there are to society of reforming copyright? Tangible, measurable benefits.
As the printing press and industrial age was the basis of a massive increase in wealth over the agrarian age, so the information age is a an increase of wealth over the industrial age. Copyright is affecting much more important things than the entertainment industries which I agree could disappear tomorrow without harm to society.
Do you think we should have universal free education? Basic maths, such as learned in primary school, has not changed in the last hundred years yet if you have children you can check their textbooks and they will be protected by copyright. As a society we pay much more for education than we should because we limit supply of educational materials in this way.
I agree with this quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson:
Books constitute capital. A library book lasts as long as a house, for hundreds of years. It is not, then, an article of mere consumption but fairly of capital, and often in the case of professional men, setting out in life, it is their only capital.
Software is also capital, directly used in production. Commodity hardware and software cause capital to be available for everyone. Restricting access to educational materials and productive capital in society seems like something that impacts us all, because we are treating information age productive goods as if they industrial age consumer goods, thereby destroying much of the utility of them.