This is Unintelligent Design at work. Become one of the unbelievers! These articles are like hunks of meat thrown in the 'gator tank. Don't complain about the cut of the meat, just get out the tank.
Look, stop thinking like a litigious sheep and think simply, logically. Why do we have fences? What is their absolute, bare-fucking-minimum purpose for existing? To demarcate an area to define it's boundaries. This is LOGICALLY the minimum you must do in a CAPITALIST environment to protect something valuable, simply define the point at which someone "stole" property. Define the line that was crossed.
Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It
on
A Look at Google DRM
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
DRM has always been a joke (of competing definitions). It is like a fence with a "no trespassing" sign. (The RIAA has a "trespassers will be shot" sign). As an owner of property (intellectual or otherwise) you must show a minimum of effort in protecting your asset(s), lest they be considered "free-for-all" or in the public domain. TFA acts like Google is taking it's ball and going home. Either you steal content, and DRM bothers you, or you're worried about the trouble of accessing your rightfully paid for content. Neither of these issues is necessarily tied up in the format the DRM decides to come in.
From TFA:
Google has a long history of keeping its technology mechanisms and intentions private. It won't say a lot about how Page Rank works. It's never provided a policy on how it picks Google News stories. Heck, it won't even let Register reporters visit the company's campus, and one of our staff lives right down the street.
I live above a strip club in San Francisco and they won't let me hang out in the dressing room. What gives?
The unfortunate Internet has only one peer when it comes to obfuscation due to an inundation of excessive punditry, and that peer is religion.
If by that opening sentence he means that you have to believe what he is saying despite much observable evidence to the contrary, then yes, it is like religion. (Not a troll, I swear)
IMHO you should not even link to the site. Just the concept of open source software... the concept- is enough to refute his first arguement that software is inflexable and unable to adapt. What a totally moron thing to say. I actually am holding out hope for a supremely subtle jab at internet puditry. If this is it, I can't tell.
10. They always leave something essential out
9. They do it on purpose to generate "buzz"
8. Even David Letterman doesn't hit the mark everytime
7. Should be titled "9 things that didn't win and the one that did"
6. They include URL's like this: http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/12/psp-licker-vows- to-rub-games-on-her-butt/ (from TFA)
5. 9 times out of 10 you don't agree with their number one pick
4. 47.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot
3. Jack Thompson will argue that top ten list are terrorist training for suicide bombers (counting backwards like a bomb timer)
2. The woman sitting next to me on the bus read "suicide bomber" on my laptop and is notifying the police
1. People love arbitrary catagorizing. We're all winners! Uh, no the police have surrounded the bus...
What a stupid assumption. I read TFA. I didn't know I was restricted to only use phrases or words contained in TFA. What would you consider it if not an invasion of privacy? Moron.
What would be the difference between a website displaying a "security bulletin" versus a website asking for "opensource virus collaboration"? I think there is a fine line between warning the public and informing virus authors. said Alexander Kornbrust, CEO of Red-Database-Security GmbH. "If you're running a large company with hundreds of valuable databases, a worm can be very destructive. It is very possible to use this code to release a worm. I can do this right now if I wanted to." The easier a bug is to exploit, the more carefully it should be handled in the press. IMHO.
Breaking news! People conducting surveys report other people freely giving away personal information! That could be an article from http://www.theonion.com/. Shocking. Call it a "wishlist" not a "voluntary survey about what you like" and it's an amazing invasion of privacy.
You are still calling the same numbers. Your destination is what they will be watching to trace your call back (like just about every single cop movie ever).
Yeah, but you are still calling the same numbers at the same times. When a warrant is issued, it is usually to access the records and audio from a specific sub-station, thus exercising due diligence in making the intrusive governmental access as specific to the warrant as possible. When arressting a dangerous criminal in an apartment building, the police will block off as little an area as is reasonable to take the criminal into custody. They don't shut down entire blocks at a time for petty criminals. The same can be taken to show your reasoning. If your switching phones is like switching cars (color, make, year), then they will just be watching for you to travel to the same houses (phone numbers you call) to catch you or record your actions. And just because they don't need a warrant now, doesn't change how easy it is to fool them. Their methods are so transparent and have been for years. That is why I reference a disguise and traffic cameras. I am pointing out that you should always act like you are on camera and you'll never be caught slipping up.
Unless you believe in Intelligent Design (not an insult), I would have to say that you should be using this information in exactly the way you describe. Exercise your Darwinian right to take advantage of the competition, or perish. Cry about it all you want. If you find this information (or the access of it) threatening, then is that like realizing you are one of the slower gazelles?
So what? Phone records have long been a way to track unorganized, unplanned crimes. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Cell phones have made it soooo tempting to make all your calls (legal, and possibly illegal) whenever you fancy, that it is certainly scary to unorganized, undiciplined criminals. Why would this even be an issue with the Patriot Act still out there? Obviously mere phone records aren't enough to catch Al Qaeda, so what do you have to worry about? Just run down to a different payphone, at different times, in disguise from the traffic cameras.
I for one, welcome our new... (this is so old I can't even finish the joke, please make it stop)
Yeah, next Slashdot will be displaying articles about how the BIOS is old and unnecessary. Yeah, boot loaders weren't initially designed for Multiple OS'es. Big whoop. Where's the story? Or are/. readers so stupid that they need this article to inform them?
Uh... could someone download and share the article via another P2P system? I'm having trouble downloading the new extention due to the Slashdot effect.
Thanks.
Real Players sucks and anyone using it is a idiotic consumer that is incapable of independent thoughts. All I had to see is that the video was in Real Player format to know that the Dolls are totally stupid products for exactly the type of people who use Real Player.
Go Slashdot! Keep those stupid ads (articles?) coming!
Slashdot Mirror
This is Unintelligent Design at work. Become one of the unbelievers! These articles are like hunks of meat thrown in the 'gator tank. Don't complain about the cut of the meat, just get out the tank.
The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.
And I always thought it was something in my eye!
Look, stop thinking like a litigious sheep and think simply, logically. Why do we have fences? What is their absolute, bare-fucking-minimum purpose for existing? To demarcate an area to define it's boundaries. This is LOGICALLY the minimum you must do in a CAPITALIST environment to protect something valuable, simply define the point at which someone "stole" property. Define the line that was crossed.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. -Will S.
I totally agree.
DRM has always been a joke (of competing definitions). It is like a fence with a "no trespassing" sign. (The RIAA has a "trespassers will be shot" sign). As an owner of property (intellectual or otherwise) you must show a minimum of effort in protecting your asset(s), lest they be considered "free-for-all" or in the public domain. TFA acts like Google is taking it's ball and going home. Either you steal content, and DRM bothers you, or you're worried about the trouble of accessing your rightfully paid for content. Neither of these issues is necessarily tied up in the format the DRM decides to come in.
From TFA:
Google has a long history of keeping its technology mechanisms and intentions private. It won't say a lot about how Page Rank works. It's never provided a policy on how it picks Google News stories. Heck, it won't even let Register reporters visit the company's campus, and one of our staff lives right down the street.
I live above a strip club in San Francisco and they won't let me hang out in the dressing room. What gives?
If by that opening sentence he means that you have to believe what he is saying despite much observable evidence to the contrary, then yes, it is like religion. (Not a troll, I swear)
IMHO you should not even link to the site. Just the concept of open source software... the concept- is enough to refute his first arguement that software is inflexable and unable to adapt. What a totally moron thing to say. I actually am holding out hope for a supremely subtle jab at internet puditry. If this is it, I can't tell.
Q. What is the legal drinking age in Canada?
A. In Ontario (the provice that Ottawa is in) the legal drinking age is 19. (from TFA's site FAQ)
Here, here. Good show. Nice link.
10. They always leave something essential out- to-rub-games-on-her-butt/ (from TFA)
9. They do it on purpose to generate "buzz"
8. Even David Letterman doesn't hit the mark everytime
7. Should be titled "9 things that didn't win and the one that did"
6. They include URL's like this: http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/12/psp-licker-vows
5. 9 times out of 10 you don't agree with their number one pick
4. 47.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot
3. Jack Thompson will argue that top ten list are terrorist training for suicide bombers (counting backwards like a bomb timer)
2. The woman sitting next to me on the bus read "suicide bomber" on my laptop and is notifying the police
1. People love arbitrary catagorizing. We're all winners! Uh, no the police have surrounded the bus...
Is fast, online organization the new nuclear bomb? IMHO, it is. Watch out big business, or you'll be suffering from a DOR (Denial Of Requests) attack.
What a stupid assumption. I read TFA. I didn't know I was restricted to only use phrases or words contained in TFA. What would you consider it if not an invasion of privacy? Moron.
What would be the difference between a website displaying a "security bulletin" versus a website asking for "opensource virus collaboration"? I think there is a fine line between warning the public and informing virus authors. said Alexander Kornbrust, CEO of Red-Database-Security GmbH. "If you're running a large company with hundreds of valuable databases, a worm can be very destructive. It is very possible to use this code to release a worm. I can do this right now if I wanted to." The easier a bug is to exploit, the more carefully it should be handled in the press. IMHO.
Breaking news! People conducting surveys report other people freely giving away personal information! That could be an article from http://www.theonion.com/. Shocking. Call it a "wishlist" not a "voluntary survey about what you like" and it's an amazing invasion of privacy.
No, I'm saying mandatory "peer review before press release".
You are still calling the same numbers. Your destination is what they will be watching to trace your call back (like just about every single cop movie ever).
Is this the Enron of Biomed research? Do we need better accounting (of data and methods) like Sarbanes-Oxley? Just a thought.
Yeah, but you are still calling the same numbers at the same times. When a warrant is issued, it is usually to access the records and audio from a specific sub-station, thus exercising due diligence in making the intrusive governmental access as specific to the warrant as possible. When arressting a dangerous criminal in an apartment building, the police will block off as little an area as is reasonable to take the criminal into custody. They don't shut down entire blocks at a time for petty criminals. The same can be taken to show your reasoning. If your switching phones is like switching cars (color, make, year), then they will just be watching for you to travel to the same houses (phone numbers you call) to catch you or record your actions. And just because they don't need a warrant now, doesn't change how easy it is to fool them. Their methods are so transparent and have been for years. That is why I reference a disguise and traffic cameras. I am pointing out that you should always act like you are on camera and you'll never be caught slipping up.
Unless you believe in Intelligent Design (not an insult), I would have to say that you should be using this information in exactly the way you describe. Exercise your Darwinian right to take advantage of the competition, or perish. Cry about it all you want. If you find this information (or the access of it) threatening, then is that like realizing you are one of the slower gazelles?
So what? Phone records have long been a way to track unorganized, unplanned crimes. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Cell phones have made it soooo tempting to make all your calls (legal, and possibly illegal) whenever you fancy, that it is certainly scary to unorganized, undiciplined criminals. Why would this even be an issue with the Patriot Act still out there? Obviously mere phone records aren't enough to catch Al Qaeda, so what do you have to worry about? Just run down to a different payphone, at different times, in disguise from the traffic cameras.
Well, at the risk of being labeled a traitor... ***THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED***
I for one, welcome our new... (this is so old I can't even finish the joke, please make it stop) Yeah, next Slashdot will be displaying articles about how the BIOS is old and unnecessary. Yeah, boot loaders weren't initially designed for Multiple OS'es. Big whoop. Where's the story? Or are /. readers so stupid that they need this article to inform them?
Uh... could someone download and share the article via another P2P system? I'm having trouble downloading the new extention due to the Slashdot effect. Thanks.
Real Players sucks and anyone using it is a idiotic consumer that is incapable of independent thoughts. All I had to see is that the video was in Real Player format to know that the Dolls are totally stupid products for exactly the type of people who use Real Player. Go Slashdot! Keep those stupid ads (articles?) coming!