It depends on how you define the problem. If the problem is "this computer has malware", then buying a new computer is not a solution. If the problem is "the computer I use most of the time has malware", then it is.
I wish some of my professors would have done this. Sometimes it would be because I missed a class, but mostly it would be because I would have an easier time demanding that the professor's lectures be coherent. I took many courses where the lectures were incomprehensible, but most people still passed because the professor was too lazy to make unique exams, so people just memorized the exam questions from previous years. (And most seemed to be happy about that, and complained about the professors who actually taught useful information and expected their students to understand it. Fricking children.)
What is it with people thinking that knives aren't dangerous weapons? If I have a gun, and somebody comes after me with a knife, I'm damn well going to shoot him, and it would be foolish for me to do otherwise. The only major disadvantage a knife has is that it has a limited range.
Hell, knives can rip through A good many bullet-proof vests!
I am just pointing out that way too many people are afraid of any concept of legislation, when in fact it can be quite effective.
I think they're afraid of legislation, because bad legislation takes forever to get fixed. The U.S. STILL has the DMCA and crypto export laws, for example.
If they listed the 100 most influential people in gaming, there wouldn't be any women to make the list.
I don't know if that's true or not, but it's certainly the view that's promoted by making these lists that discriminate by sex. Why else would you exclude men from your list?
I can understand the segregation in sports where people of one sex have an inherent physical advantage over those of the other. But for purely intellectual things, like any sort of high technology, it just promotes the nonsensical "you're good for a woman" mentality.
your assertion that this implies that they are likely targets for potential censorship by the chinese government is demonstrably wrong, since you can easily access this information from inside china, and strikes me as deliberatly misleading.
You've only mislead yourself. I never asserted that. Your interests don't have to be "likely targets for potential censorship" to be adversely affected by that censorship.
Criticizing the government over patent/copyright/professional law (and, particularly, the corrupt enforcement of the law) can get you into serious trouble in a country where where 'only' political speech is censored. If you're interested in getting technical specifications for, say, DVDCSS---or if you want to use the technical specifications for, say, RFC 2440---in such a country, you're screwed. Political censorship is particularly bad, because it means you can't even find out why something is censored.
China has a huge problem with corruption. The laws that the top-level government creates often aren't enforced, or they are enforced arbitrarily. Exposing corruption (which is political speech) puts people at risk, so it doesn't happen with any regularity. Do you think that the corruption enabled by 'only' censoring political speech doesn't affect people in their everyday lives?
Freedom of speech (and freedom in general) aren't just principles to make citizens of elite first-world countries feel good about themselves. They have far-reaching consequences, and it is those consequences that people sometimes fight and die for.
I'm not interested in your straw-man argument. The point is that "politics" is not an isolated topic that can reasonably be narrowly categorized and then summarily dismissed, as you have done.
it doesn't actually matter whether or not you knew that company had permission to sell the book.
You see, copyright protects the right to copy. When you're buying a book, you're not making a copy of the book. Someone else is. And that person, company, whatever, is the one who bears the legal liability for making the copy, not you.
Regulation of the medical profession and medical claims...
Did you have a specific example in mind?
No, but your statement leads the reader to conclude that censorship is okay because it's only censoring political topics, as if political topics don't ultimately affect a ton of other things.
Heh. I forgot to mention my main point, which was actually that you'd have to be an idiot to think that I was somehow advocating war with China over this. Talk about an endless war with no exit strategy and no prospect of winning!
Regardless of what you think my opinion about Iraq might be, it's still idotic to just assume that anyone would advocate starting a war against China. Think: Why does a nuclear-weapons state maintain their nuclear weapons in the first place?
Actually, on that topic, I find it kind of odd that people choose to criticize Bush about the invasion itself of Iraq. The invasion was essentially to remove a corrupt dictator that the USA played a large role in installing in the first place. Regardless of the reasons for invading (real or imagined; terrorists, oil, WMDs, or whatever), it isn't such a black-and-white issue as "invading a sovereign nation".
I became a Bush non-fan the moment he said "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists". The allegations of his administration censoring (or at least censuring) science, disregard for the the environment, disregard for due process, software patents, the DMCA (any law that is still in effect is the responsibility of those currently in power, IMHO), broadcast flags, ineffective "security" measures, the Microsoft slap-on-the-wrist, and endless childish rhetoric don't help either.
Freedom isn't free, but it seems to have been cheapened.
Is it just me, or is it completely unacceptable that the thoughts of over one-sixth of the world's population are being controlled by an unelected committee of 150 people?
Hence the limited distribution. He's well aware that his mechanism is not foolproof. The underlying assumption is that even though you can defeat this detection mechanism, you won't.
Slashdot Mirror
No, He didn't.
It depends on how you define the problem. If the problem is "this computer has malware", then buying a new computer is not a solution. If the problem is "the computer I use most of the time has malware", then it is.
I still don't care, because they still won't give me the information I need in order to use the card.
It might be in Canada. The trick is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they did so "fraudulently and without colour of right".
Is this the same "antitrust chief" that killed U.S. vs Microsoft when the Bush administration came into power?
Wow. I'm amazed that somebody on Slashdot actually understands the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement.
I wish some of my professors would have done this. Sometimes it would be because I missed a class, but mostly it would be because I would have an easier time demanding that the professor's lectures be coherent. I took many courses where the lectures were incomprehensible, but most people still passed because the professor was too lazy to make unique exams, so people just memorized the exam questions from previous years. (And most seemed to be happy about that, and complained about the professors who actually taught useful information and expected their students to understand it. Fricking children.)
What is it with people thinking that knives aren't dangerous weapons? If I have a gun, and somebody comes after me with a knife, I'm damn well going to shoot him, and it would be foolish for me to do otherwise. The only major disadvantage a knife has is that it has a limited range.
Hell, knives can rip through A good many bullet-proof vests!
I think they're afraid of legislation, because bad legislation takes forever to get fixed. The U.S. STILL has the DMCA and crypto export laws, for example.
I thought this was an article about physics/astronomy when I saw the headline.
I don't know if that's true or not, but it's certainly the view that's promoted by making these lists that discriminate by sex. Why else would you exclude men from your list?
I can understand the segregation in sports where people of one sex have an inherent physical advantage over those of the other. But for purely intellectual things, like any sort of high technology, it just promotes the nonsensical "you're good for a woman" mentality.
You've only mislead yourself. I never asserted that. Your interests don't have to be "likely targets for potential censorship" to be adversely affected by that censorship.
Criticizing the government over patent/copyright/professional law (and, particularly, the corrupt enforcement of the law) can get you into serious trouble in a country where where 'only' political speech is censored. If you're interested in getting technical specifications for, say, DVDCSS---or if you want to use the technical specifications for, say, RFC 2440---in such a country, you're screwed. Political censorship is particularly bad, because it means you can't even find out why something is censored.
China has a huge problem with corruption. The laws that the top-level government creates often aren't enforced, or they are enforced arbitrarily. Exposing corruption (which is political speech) puts people at risk, so it doesn't happen with any regularity. Do you think that the corruption enabled by 'only' censoring political speech doesn't affect people in their everyday lives?
Freedom of speech (and freedom in general) aren't just principles to make citizens of elite first-world countries feel good about themselves. They have far-reaching consequences, and it is those consequences that people sometimes fight and die for.
For further clarity: You listed a bunch of topics that you claim are isloated from politics, and I have shown that they are not.
I'm not interested in your straw-man argument. The point is that "politics" is not an isolated topic that can reasonably be narrowly categorized and then summarily dismissed, as you have done.
Hmm, yes. I actually meant to point to the entire chapter, not just section 117.
What do the courts say about that?
Hoo boy...
Only if the copy was lawfully made. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
Patent law...
Patents, copyrights...
Regulation of the medical profession and medical claims...
No, but your statement leads the reader to conclude that censorship is okay because it's only censoring political topics, as if political topics don't ultimately affect a ton of other things.
Yup. I figure that any sufficiently advanced religion is indistinguishable from satire.
Unlike Slashdot, which exists so that people can easily tell each other off. Moron.
Heh. I forgot to mention my main point, which was actually that you'd have to be an idiot to think that I was somehow advocating war with China over this. Talk about an endless war with no exit strategy and no prospect of winning!
Regardless of what you think my opinion about Iraq might be, it's still idotic to just assume that anyone would advocate starting a war against China. Think: Why does a nuclear-weapons state maintain their nuclear weapons in the first place?
Thank you.
Actually, on that topic, I find it kind of odd that people choose to criticize Bush about the invasion itself of Iraq. The invasion was essentially to remove a corrupt dictator that the USA played a large role in installing in the first place. Regardless of the reasons for invading (real or imagined; terrorists, oil, WMDs, or whatever), it isn't such a black-and-white issue as "invading a sovereign nation".
I became a Bush non-fan the moment he said "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists". The allegations of his administration censoring (or at least censuring) science, disregard for the the environment, disregard for due process, software patents, the DMCA (any law that is still in effect is the responsibility of those currently in power, IMHO), broadcast flags, ineffective "security" measures, the Microsoft slap-on-the-wrist, and endless childish rhetoric don't help either.
Freedom isn't free, but it seems to have been cheapened.
Is it just me, or is it completely unacceptable that the thoughts of over one-sixth of the world's population are being controlled by an unelected committee of 150 people?
Hence the limited distribution. He's well aware that his mechanism is not foolproof. The underlying assumption is that even though you can defeat this detection mechanism, you won't.
Depending on who is doing the tampering, that doesn't necessarily work.
You can thank the Chinese for blabbing it to everyone.