No matter how we might feel about music sharing and copyright, the important thing about this is the increase in government power vis-à-vis the citizen.
They can still subpoena information from an ISP; you cannot.
Traditionally criminal and civil suits have been considered to be parallel: one is filed against someone by the government, the other is filed against someone by the average citizen. It was a brilliant insight by the framers of the US constitution when they realized that the government had too much power and had to be limited by restrictions such as the fourth and sixth amendments. Here, the situation is the reverse: the citizen is restricted but the government is not.
He doesn't understand your definition of privacy. You've enlarged the term so much so as to be synonymous with 'boundary'. He prefers a narrower definition. ( Mind you, I'm not saying that your definition is wrong, just different. )
He would - I think - consider privacy to be a subset of boundaries. The other sibling subset is propery rights. The distinction lies in whether or not the thing infinged upon is data. Acquiring the data of your telephone conversation violates your privacy. Acquiring your car violates your property rights. ( BTW, shoving you is also a property rights violation of the ultimate property - oneself. )
So, are all boundaries privacy, or are some privacy and some property rights?
In an immediate, practical sense, either view works. Both you and he would agree that the government should not be taping your phone conversation nor stealing your car. The only difference would only be how the indictment is worded when the car thief goes on trial.
Ultimately, I prefer his distinction. I prefer it because there can be multiple copies of data, but only one copy of your car. When you get your car back, the harm done to you is thereby terminated. When you get your data back, other copies can - and probably do - exist. The potential extent of the harm is theoretically unlimited. If there are different types of harm done, there should be different words to describe them.
( It is like having different words 'libel' and 'slander'. They are similar offenses, but radically different in their potential effects, so different words are used. )
Privacy though anonominity in public is a relatively recent phenomenon, and we seem to take it for granted. But most of the world's population for most of its history - including the folks who wrote the US constitution - have not lived that way. Most people spent the majority of thier lives in a radius of a few miles, and were recognized on a daily or even hourly basis by someone who knew them.
We are used to having privacy in public even though we have neither earned it nor voted for it. It is a totally unrealistic expectation that we should be able to maintain it. It is just a freak of timing that we have it at all - the technology that made big cieies possible happened before the technology that made cheap cameras possible.
As long as they stay out of my property, it's ok with me.
...the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, "it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed."
The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. I think that his honor missed something here. He seems to be saying that knowing the address of a web page is like knowing the address on an envelope, and in either case the contents is not being snooped upon. In the case of the letter he would be right, for a letter can contain anything ( I could mail a recipe for braised goat's eyes to Bin Laden ).
But a web address often has a 1-to-1 corespondence with its contents. Knowing the address is one simple - and undetectable - step from knowing the contents. They are doing an unconstitutional search here.
Slashdot has 10-20 [ articles/day ]. But know this: that's how we like it. And we don't even mind having slow news days where there are only 5 front page articles. I could be happy with merely 5 good articles per day - and fewer on the slow news days. I don't have time to read all the good comments on 20 articles per day.
And there is a nice side effect to it: the editors would have time to do their job properly. No more BS stories, no spelling errors, and no dupes.
Yep, if my only choices were celibacy, goats, or blowing myself to kingdom come, I'd probably opt for the bomb. ( Even then the poor bastards get cheated: who wants 72 women who don't know anything about sex? )
You probably sit a little further away from your 20" screen than you did your 9" one. True. At least twice as far I think. Sorry, I should have stated that clearly in the first post. Implicit in the use of ratios in my first post is the assumption that I am using a constant field of vision ( about 30 degrees, FWIW ).
Seriouslly, IIRC, there still may be lots of old printers still functioning out there that use 132 columns.
Let's check that for ergnomics...my first computer had a 9-inch screen ( an old Kaypro, BTW ) and used 80 columns. 80/9 is about 9, so now with my 20 inch screen, 20 * 9 = 180... then scale things up a bit to allow for the eye fatigue that comes with age and 132 looks ok.
35 was necesary so that no group, race,gender, color, programming lanuage, etc would be left out. She ask for more because in her heart she is sure that she has unconsciously discriminated against somebody.
It doesn't reduce the memories, it reduces the physiological stress associated with them. You can still remember, but your blood pressure doesn't go up to unhealthy levels when you do. Seems better to me...
There seems to be a misunderstanding by some people - including Gates himself - that Bill Gates is hated because he is rich. This is not true. We envy him because he is rich.
We hate him because he produces crappy software and uses unethical techniques to promote it. Being surpassed in the richest person list does not change this.
Were I to rewrite parent in a less flamebaitish manner, I would say that it is difficult to feel sorry for a guy who 1) Works for a company that is a direct partner with MS 2) Publicly criticises MS, and 3) Is surprised when his employer is unhappy with his actions.
Now his employer's behavior may not be fair or right or legal, but it most certainly can be expected.
It is particularly disappointing because I, like the majority on this forum, agree with his goals. I'd like to take him seriously and support him, but it is difficult to do so when he seems completely clueless about how people are going to respond.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how we might feel about music sharing and copyright, the important thing about this is the increase in government power vis-à-vis the citizen.
They can still subpoena information from an ISP; you cannot.
Traditionally criminal and civil suits have been considered to be parallel: one is filed against someone by the government, the other is filed against someone by the average citizen. It was a brilliant insight by the framers of the US constitution when they realized that the government had too much power and had to be limited by restrictions such as the fourth and sixth amendments. Here, the situation is the reverse: the citizen is restricted but the government is not.
Natives? No, it's only the immigrants who steal stuff on Mars.
But he's already done the experiment. Didn't you read the dupe a few years ago?
He doesn't understand your definition of privacy. You've enlarged the term so much so as to be synonymous with 'boundary'. He prefers a narrower definition. ( Mind you, I'm not saying that your definition is wrong, just different. )
He would - I think - consider privacy to be a subset of boundaries. The other sibling subset is propery rights. The distinction lies in whether or not the thing infinged upon is data. Acquiring the data of your telephone conversation violates your privacy. Acquiring your car violates your property rights. ( BTW, shoving you is also a property rights violation of the ultimate property - oneself. )
So, are all boundaries privacy, or are some privacy and some property rights?
In an immediate, practical sense, either view works. Both you and he would agree that the government should not be taping your phone conversation nor stealing your car. The only difference would only be how the indictment is worded when the car thief goes on trial.
Ultimately, I prefer his distinction. I prefer it because there can be multiple copies of data, but only one copy of your car. When you get your car back, the harm done to you is thereby terminated. When you get your data back, other copies can - and probably do - exist. The potential extent of the harm is theoretically unlimited. If there are different types of harm done, there should be different words to describe them. ( It is like having different words 'libel' and 'slander'. They are similar offenses, but radically different in their potential effects, so different words are used. )
No
Privacy though anonominity in public is a relatively recent phenomenon, and we seem to take it for granted. But most of the world's population for most of its history - including the folks who wrote the US constitution - have not lived that way. Most people spent the majority of thier lives in a radius of a few miles, and were recognized on a daily or even hourly basis by someone who knew them.
We are used to having privacy in public even though we have neither earned it nor voted for it. It is a totally unrealistic expectation that we should be able to maintain it. It is just a freak of timing that we have it at all - the technology that made big cieies possible happened before the technology that made cheap cameras possible.
As long as they stay out of my property, it's ok with me.
Big waves?
...the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, "it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed."The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. I think that his honor missed something here. He seems to be saying that knowing the address of a web page is like knowing the address on an envelope, and in either case the contents is not being snooped upon. In the case of the letter he would be right, for a letter can contain anything ( I could mail a recipe for braised goat's eyes to Bin Laden ).
But a web address often has a 1-to-1 corespondence with its contents. Knowing the address is one simple - and undetectable - step from knowing the contents. They are doing an unconstitutional search here.
And there is a nice side effect to it: the editors would have time to do their job properly. No more BS stories, no spelling errors, and no dupes.
Yep, if my only choices were celibacy, goats, or blowing myself to kingdom come, I'd probably opt for the bomb. ( Even then the poor bastards get cheated: who wants 72 women who don't know anything about sex? )
Ooops! Please ignore the above post. It has silly errors in it.
Which moron modded parent 'troll'? He has a relevant point. Vigorously expressed, perhaps, but not enough so as to be a troll.
80 columns ought to be enough for anybody.
Seriouslly, IIRC, there still may be lots of old printers still functioning out there that use 132 columns.
Let's check that for ergnomics...my first computer had a 9-inch screen ( an old Kaypro, BTW ) and used 80 columns. 80/9 is about 9, so now with my 20 inch screen, 20 * 9 = 180... then scale things up a bit to allow for the eye fatigue that comes with age and 132 looks ok.
35 was necesary so that no group, race,gender, color, programming lanuage, etc would be left out. She ask for more because in her heart she is sure that she has unconsciously discriminated against somebody.
They should call it Cmdr Tako
Either way, I won't mess with one. I hear that they are armed to the teeth.
Linux is the OS of the future, and always will be.
They are more familar with the idea of secrecy and control than ideas like cooperation and standards.
So...which is worse, the migrants being 'exploited', or being displaced by robots so that they can't be exploited any more?
So I pay some chinese peasant to ride the tractor.
Ergo, you must not be a dominant male.
It doesn't reduce the memories, it reduces the physiological stress associated with them. You can still remember, but your blood pressure doesn't go up to unhealthy levels when you do. Seems better to me...
There seems to be a misunderstanding by some people - including Gates himself - that Bill Gates is hated because he is rich. This is not true. We envy him because he is rich.
We hate him because he produces crappy software and uses unethical techniques to promote it. Being surpassed in the richest person list does not change this.
Were I to rewrite parent in a less flamebaitish manner, I would say that it is difficult to feel sorry for a guy who 1) Works for a company that is a direct partner with MS 2) Publicly criticises MS, and 3) Is surprised when his employer is unhappy with his actions.
Now his employer's behavior may not be fair or right or legal, but it most certainly can be expected.
It is particularly disappointing because I, like the majority on this forum, agree with his goals. I'd like to take him seriously and support him, but it is difficult to do so when he seems completely clueless about how people are going to respond.