Both you and the poster immediately above you make excellent points. First, I'm not entirely sure how an unannounced wiretap is different from forcing a person to testify against himself/herself; and, as such have a problem with the idea of them in general, although I'm sure much more qualified Constitutional scholars than myself have made a thoroughly convincing case otherwise.
Secondly, mindstrm raises an interesting concern, if I invent a new communications protocol, how is it my responsibility to make sure someone can crack it and intercept communiques? If, in fact, we do accept the Constitutionality of wiretaps, is it not fair to say that the burden of interception should lie with the government?
I feel safer already. Bob Terrorist can send coded messages just about any way he wants to get around this (the apocryphal "coded eBay auction" stories, PGP or any number of other encryption standards, smoke signals, fucking microfiche under a stamp), but the feds can listen to mom swapping corn muffin recipes. Anyone else get the feeling the only "terrorists" caught this way will be the ones too stupid to have really caused any damage to begin with?
People don't want to switch because they think they need office. Simple as that.
You're not kidding, I used to work for one of the big-box style electronics places, and just about every average computer shopper was convinced they needed MS Office. Supposedly, I should have pushed them towards buying said fantastically overpriced suite. Generally, I asked them what they'd use it for... 9 out of 10 just wanted to be able to type a letter.
Yes, if you tell this anonymous stranger to bring on the unwashed masses, you get what's coming to you. If you invite an acquaintace who's tattooed some sort of dense legalese-filled EULA on his left buttock allowing the same... well that's different, innit?
Let's not stretch things too far, though...
Fair reply, and I never meant to imply that it wasn't happening, just hoping to provoke a little bit of debate. You're right about lots of folks turning a blind eye, or actually supporting such acts, but I'd find it difficult to refer to them as people of conscience.
That's completely different, and you know it. This is software specifically created for the purpose of denying information in a controlled manner. The issue isn't whether the software is being used by regimes we dislike, it's the purpose of said software, which is a horse of a different color.
That said, I'm not sure trade embargoes help anything, though I do agree with another poster who suggested a public shaming of these companies. People of conscience wouldn't support American companies building torture devices or weapons for oppressive regimes, but we'll turn a blind eye to the censorship of their people? Why is that?
Fair enough, but in most cases (from my understanding), these embryos are being harvested for the purpose of being used in stem cell research. It's not a matter of "who would they become?" - they wouldn't.
welcome our new Jovian methane lake-dwelling overlords. Seriously though, I wonder what (if any) implications this has for our knowedge of the other planets in the solar system...
That's a fair enough question, but ultimately I suppose it boils down to what one values more... customization vs. number of potential users. These days, it's not asking much to require a dvd-rom in a computer...
It's not precisely apples to apples, but isn't this rather a bit like arguments bouncing around at the emergence of CD as a common distribution medium?
Slashdot Mirror
"First Post" a full four minutes after the article was posted? On Slashdot? You're "special," aren't ya?
I'd pay a nickel to see what the rackets are like!
I think it'd be better in Dubly.
Secondly, mindstrm raises an interesting concern, if I invent a new communications protocol, how is it my responsibility to make sure someone can crack it and intercept communiques? If, in fact, we do accept the Constitutionality of wiretaps, is it not fair to say that the burden of interception should lie with the government?
The world is once again safe for democracy.
Cheers.
You're not kidding, I used to work for one of the big-box style electronics places, and just about every average computer shopper was convinced they needed MS Office. Supposedly, I should have pushed them towards buying said fantastically overpriced suite. Generally, I asked them what they'd use it for... 9 out of 10 just wanted to be able to type a letter.
Oy.
You must be new here.
Yes, if you tell this anonymous stranger to bring on the unwashed masses, you get what's coming to you. If you invite an acquaintace who's tattooed some sort of dense legalese-filled EULA on his left buttock allowing the same... well that's different, innit? Let's not stretch things too far, though...
No, I'm not sure that it is, DeCSS has legitimate, ethical uses. I'm not sure that censoring internet access does.
Fair reply, and I never meant to imply that it wasn't happening, just hoping to provoke a little bit of debate. You're right about lots of folks turning a blind eye, or actually supporting such acts, but I'd find it difficult to refer to them as people of conscience.
That said, I'm not sure trade embargoes help anything, though I do agree with another poster who suggested a public shaming of these companies. People of conscience wouldn't support American companies building torture devices or weapons for oppressive regimes, but we'll turn a blind eye to the censorship of their people? Why is that?
Fair enough, but in most cases (from my understanding), these embryos are being harvested for the purpose of being used in stem cell research. It's not a matter of "who would they become?" - they wouldn't.
O, Learned one... school us in the ways of computers!
Well, you must be new here.
Oops, I probably should have RTFA again... meh.
Saturnian?
welcome our new Jovian methane lake-dwelling overlords. Seriously though, I wonder what (if any) implications this has for our knowedge of the other planets in the solar system...
Heck, did he even think about bringing his tinfoil hat along?
That's a fair enough question, but ultimately I suppose it boils down to what one values more... customization vs. number of potential users. These days, it's not asking much to require a dvd-rom in a computer... It's not precisely apples to apples, but isn't this rather a bit like arguments bouncing around at the emergence of CD as a common distribution medium?