First you'd have to define "right". And the lack of such definition is at the heart of the copyright wars. One side waves around things like "a right to control one's creations", "a right to be paid for my work", and the other side waves around things like "a right to do whatever I want with something I bought", "a right to express myself by producing a derivative work".
Funny how everyone thinks the particular "rights" they wave around are absolute, yet the history of judicial and legislative opinion which deals with the contradictions between these rights is far from deterministic, and varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, or even within the same jurisdiction, over time, or even between various contemporaneous judges.
> But thank you for illustrating my point. What you did is exactly what I hate, you made the definition of "religion" so broad as to be worthless, twice.
Actually, most of the words you just used in that sentence have definitions which are just as broad, so I fail to see what peeves you so.
Natural languages are not designed to be exact, and neither Anubis IV nor you are going to somehow miraculously cause the English language to become either useless or unused.
> people sharing an IP address space with criminals and terrorists?
Possibly, if the space you meant was 0.0.0.0/32 .
Be real, it's probably everyone connected by having sent email to each other, posted on the same threads in any forum, or even possibly just visited the same URL even at different times. Or connected to a connection (by the same criteria). Etc.
> There could be a variety of different things that [airport police] would be looking for to see if there's a rideshare transaction,” Yakel explained.
That sounds great. Guess what's going to happen when the rideshare drivers stop right outside the airport to receive their payment and conceal their rideshare company logos/paraphernalia? "We have to put in license plate readers/etc./etc. to detect illegal rideshare drivers... think of the flying children!"
I will attempt the hopeless: a list of all content I remember being quoted here as meme-ish (not that I've seen/read/heard it all):
Additional movies: Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, The Princess Bride, (This is) Spinal Tap, Fight Club, every Star Trek movie (no matter how good or bad),... (on the more esoteric side: Buckaroo Bonzai, Logan's Run, Tron,...)
TV : All of Dr. Who, every version of Star Trek, Babylon 5, Space 1999 (but usually only in reference to doing something to the Moon. not quotes), Battlestar Galactica (and reboots),...
Books: (Oh, God...) Everything considered science fiction or fantasy, but especially anything written by Heinlein, Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Neal Stephenson, J. R. R. Tolkien; The Wheel of Time;...
> 50% are below average. They are easily swayed by fancy words and shiny objects.
LOL. As if not being tricked has something to do with intelligence or education. Human brains, because of their corner-cutting design via evolution, are easy prey for being tricked --- for example, by professional magicians. To a lesser extent this also applies for advertisers, and propagandists.
Look at the material that the skeptic community publishes and you will understand your own vulnerability, which can somewhat mitigate the reality.
I get the impression that Pauling was simultaneously very smart and very full of himself. He glibly dismissed evidence simply because it didn't agree with his world-view, which is actually a hallmark of a bad scientist.
"People just laughed at me," Shechtman recalled in an interview this year with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noting how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening "crusade" against him, saying: "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists."
Pauling's story shows us that the self-marketing which stemmed from his enormous ego had quite a bit to do with the overall good scientist legacy which still surrounds him (and ditto for some others from his era, like Watson and Crick). I'm not sure what we are supposed to learn from that, though. I get the impression that the really best scientists, when approached by the media about their new breakthrough, would actually say something like "I'm really excited, but let's not forget that this still has to be replicated, and I'm sure that future work will show that I'm not 100% correct, and I couldn't have done this without the work of generations of previous scientists" --- which isn't exactly something which makes for sexy news.
There was no need to download over 100,000 users' data and send copies of it to the media to prove that it could be done.
While I think it was idiotic for him to do that, I'm not totally convinced about the judge's reasoning in this regard. The wholesale downloading confirmed that AT&T didn't have any kind of other defenses which might have limited the damage --- for example, some kind of download limits per IP address. I can't find any justification for the subsequent distribution of the information verbatim to the press, however.
> If it starts to interfere with my use, I simply won't buy the product in question.
This statement as you wrote it doesn't seem to make sense --- how could DRM interfere with your use before you buy the product in question?
So, if I assume that means that you plan ahead, for example, based on historical experience with DRM, I guess that means youdon'tbuyanythingwith DRM. But then your whole post doesn't make sense...
> These people are the reason DRM exists in the first place.
No their not. The content industry's total inability to undergo the withdrawal symptoms from the powerful drug it became addicted to --- (practically) total control over the advertising, supply, and distribution of its product sector --- is the reason for DRM.
> governments will want to be paid tax in the currency of the land. That means that conversion will always have to exist, > and whilst it always exists, they will regulate it. [emphasis mine]
The problem with your argument is the pluralities involved: Government #1 is going to be very unhappy when income, paid to you in bitcoin, is only converted after you move it to Government #2. Unless, of course, you think that all the governments of the world are going to be able to coordinate on this issue (it still wouldn't help them to maintain some of their current business models, e.g., progressive taxes based on total annual income).
If you can't figure that one out yourself, I don't think I'm going to be able to help you via a post on Slashdot.
Or was your meaning more like: it won't make any difference whether we give the finger or pretend to comply (TPB vs. Kickass Torrents), either way we will be eventually "shut down" (and California has the same chance of shutting down bitcoin as Internet governance has of actually shutting down TPB or KAT), so we might as well have some fun first (before we have to dissolve and reform)?
You'd just be undermining his chosen strategy for minimizing the chance he'll "be disappeared". Frankly, what he wants is for all of us to know where he is, all the time.
> Unless we eliminate the situations that motivate terrorists (politically very difficult)
Never mind the politics, it's frankly logically impossible, as far as I can see. What about the people whose ideology is against a society which lacks such situations (linked, of course, to only one such possibility, and not to imply that other possibilities might be much more desirable)?
No, if the changes are done at N locations in the work, you need ~(1+epsilon)*log_2(N) accounts and (preferably) someone willing to go to a library somewhere and look up the correct text out of a printed volume, for all of the N locations (which you find by comparing all of the works).
You might add that it has been reported that when Weev took out his cell phone at his trial after sentencing, someone yelled "He has his cell phone out" and immediately court security jumped on him to pin him to the ground.
Wired said about this, however, that
Auernheimer was reportedly asked to hand the court a mobile phone he had with him during the hearing, and after handing it to his defense attorney instead, court agents cuffed him.
Slashdot Mirror
First you'd have to define "right". And the lack of such definition is at the heart of the copyright wars. One side waves around things like "a right to control one's creations", "a right to be paid for my work", and the other side waves around things like "a right to do whatever I want with something I bought", "a right to express myself by producing a derivative work".
Funny how everyone thinks the particular "rights" they wave around are absolute, yet the history of judicial and legislative opinion which deals with the contradictions between these rights is far from deterministic, and varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, or even within the same jurisdiction, over time, or even between various contemporaneous judges.
Personally, instead of BOFH, I thought about xkcd....
> But thank you for illustrating my point. What you did is exactly what I hate, you made the definition of "religion" so broad as to be worthless, twice.
Actually, most of the words you just used in that sentence have definitions which are just as broad, so I fail to see what peeves you so.
Natural languages are not designed to be exact, and neither Anubis IV nor you are going to somehow miraculously cause the English language to become either useless or unused.
Thanks for reminding me it's just about time for me to reread "The Uplift War"...
Yes, Anonymous Pedant... it should have been /0... ("I'm a mathematician, Jim, not a network guru!")
> people sharing an IP address space with criminals and terrorists?
Possibly, if the space you meant was 0.0.0.0/32 .
Be real, it's probably everyone connected by having sent email to each other, posted on the same threads in any forum, or even possibly just visited the same URL even at different times. Or connected to a connection (by the same criteria). Etc.
> There could be a variety of different things that [airport police] would be looking for to see if there's a rideshare transaction,” Yakel explained.
That sounds great. Guess what's going to happen when the rideshare drivers stop right outside the airport to receive their payment and conceal their rideshare company logos/paraphernalia? "We have to put in license plate readers/etc./etc. to detect illegal rideshare drivers... think of the flying children!"
and also.... comic books!
Which almost brings us full circle and on topic...
> Hudson's "game over, man"
Ouch, you've reminded me that I totally omitted a whole genre: video games.
But there is a loud sound generated by some kind of fast moving object --- maybe somebody shot a spoon out of an air rifle made by a 3D printer?
Yup! I told you it was hopeless (and my LeechBlock timeout didn't help any...)
Thanks for joining in the fun and helping me out...
I will attempt the hopeless: a list of all content I remember being quoted here as meme-ish (not that I've seen/read/heard it all):
Additional movies: Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, The Princess Bride, (This is) Spinal Tap, Fight Club, every Star Trek movie (no matter how good or bad), ... (on the more esoteric side: Buckaroo Bonzai, Logan's Run, Tron, ...)
TV : All of Dr. Who, every version of Star Trek, Babylon 5, Space 1999 (but usually only in reference to doing something to the Moon. not quotes), Battlestar Galactica (and reboots), ...
Books: (Oh, God...) Everything considered science fiction or fantasy, but especially anything written by Heinlein, Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Neal Stephenson, J. R. R. Tolkien; The Wheel of Time; ...
> All hail the Brin and his manly spy glasses!
Ah, but they are countered by the (other) Brin and his kiln-baked doppelgangers!
> 50% are below average. They are easily swayed by fancy words and shiny objects.
LOL. As if not being tricked has something to do with intelligence or education. Human brains, because of their corner-cutting design via evolution, are easy prey for being tricked --- for example, by professional magicians. To a lesser extent this also applies for advertisers, and propagandists.
Look at the material that the skeptic community publishes and you will understand your own vulnerability, which can somewhat mitigate the reality.
I get the impression that Pauling was simultaneously very smart and very full of himself. He glibly dismissed evidence simply because it didn't agree with his world-view, which is actually a hallmark of a bad scientist.
From URL http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/nobel-chemistry-idUSL5E7L51U620111005 :
Pauling's story shows us that the self-marketing which stemmed from his enormous ego had quite a bit to do with the overall good scientist legacy which still surrounds him (and ditto for some others from his era, like Watson and Crick). I'm not sure what we are supposed to learn from that, though. I get the impression that the really best scientists, when approached by the media about their new breakthrough, would actually say something like "I'm really excited, but let's not forget that this still has to be replicated, and I'm sure that future work will show that I'm not 100% correct, and I couldn't have done this without the work of generations of previous scientists" --- which isn't exactly something which makes for sexy news.
> Snowden who step well beyond the legal limits of their roles and violate privacy
Did I miss something? Who's privacy did Snowden violate?
While I think it was idiotic for him to do that, I'm not totally convinced about the judge's reasoning in this regard. The wholesale downloading confirmed that AT&T didn't have any kind of other defenses which might have limited the damage --- for example, some kind of download limits per IP address. I can't find any justification for the subsequent distribution of the information verbatim to the press, however.
> If it starts to interfere with my use, I simply won't buy the product in question.
This statement as you wrote it doesn't seem to make sense --- how could DRM interfere with your use before you buy the product in question?
So, if I assume that means that you plan ahead, for example, based on historical experience with DRM, I guess that means you don't buy anything with DRM. But then your whole post doesn't make sense...
> These people are the reason DRM exists in the first place.
No their not. The content industry's total inability to undergo the withdrawal symptoms from the powerful drug it became addicted to --- (practically) total control over the advertising, supply, and distribution of its product sector --- is the reason for DRM.
> governments will want to be paid tax in the currency of the land. That means that conversion will always have to exist,
> and whilst it always exists, they will regulate it. [emphasis mine]
The problem with your argument is the pluralities involved: Government #1 is going to be very unhappy when income, paid to you in bitcoin, is only converted after you move it to Government #2. Unless, of course, you think that all the governments of the world are going to be able to coordinate on this issue (it still wouldn't help them to maintain some of their current business models, e.g., progressive taxes based on total annual income).
If you can't figure that one out yourself, I don't think I'm going to be able to help you via a post on Slashdot.
Or was your meaning more like: it won't make any difference whether we give the finger or pretend to comply (TPB vs. Kickass Torrents), either way we will be eventually "shut down" (and California has the same chance of shutting down bitcoin as Internet governance has of actually shutting down TPB or KAT), so we might as well have some fun first (before we have to dissolve and reform)?
> I'd rather not know where he is.
You'd just be undermining his chosen strategy for minimizing the chance he'll "be disappeared". Frankly, what he wants is for all of us to know where he is, all the time.
> Unless we eliminate the situations that motivate terrorists (politically very difficult)
Never mind the politics, it's frankly logically impossible, as far as I can see. What about the people whose ideology is against a society which lacks such situations (linked, of course, to only one such possibility, and not to imply that other possibilities might be much more desirable)?
No, if the changes are done at N locations in the work, you need ~(1+epsilon)*log_2(N) accounts and (preferably) someone willing to go to a library somewhere and look up the correct text out of a printed volume, for all of the N locations (which you find by comparing all of the works).
To summarize:
People who denigrate (certain) inanimate objects are pathetic.
People who denigrate (certain, e.g., pathetic) people are insightful.
Gee, Slashdot is getting sooo much more classy as time goes on....
You might add that it has been reported that when Weev took out his cell phone at his trial after sentencing, someone yelled "He has his cell phone out" and immediately court security jumped on him to pin him to the ground.
Wired said about this, however, that
so the reports might be a bit exaggerated.