Long before Firefox existed, IE6 allowed blocking 3rd party cookies. However, it would display an icon on the status-bar and when I clicked on it, it would show me a list of blocked items and allow me to white-list them.
Why can't FF do the same? Or is there an extension to do it?
I bet you that they have immunity of some sort. That is the problem
Of course they do. The laws are different for "important people".
If people who make such decisions knew it could really bite them in the ass (as in fines and jail), they would think twice or thrice on these decisions.
There is no personal responsibility in government. Jail is out of the question and fines will ultimately be passed on to the taxpayers (i.e., you).
Another poster suggested an alternative way to deal with those miscreants, but the government does not look kindly on those who infringe on it's monopoly on violence so it is not very practical.
However, there is a way to show these crooks that actions have consequences: Find out who the representatives responsible for those decisions are. Organize a group of people to go door to door in their ridings, distribute flyers headlined "Do not let kill our children for profit" or suchlike (carefully constructed to not constitute libel) with information how shortening yellow raises accident rates and fatalities, especially among pedestrians, and politely urge the residents to vote them out of office because they cannot be trusted not to pull such a fast one again ("we're non-partisan, vote for anyone you like except this person"). Call the media. Radio stations work best because you can sometimes go live on air so your message won't get edited, but newspapers are also good if you can interest a reporter in this story. Try to arrange for actual parents (mothers work best) to be interviewed ("I was a staunch supported for but this is atrocious! What kind of a deal with the devil it takes to put city/county profits ahead of our children's safety? I will never vote for him again, even if he makes a shoe of recanting. Fool me once..." carefully constructed to avoid actual slander).
Make sure that the public associates those people with the vilest stereotypes. Make "think of the children" work for you for once.
I doubt GP meant "evolves" in the darwinian sense of the word. It does have other meanings though, and is appropriately used to describe anything that gradually develops over time. As a part of our social evolution, we've become capable of accumulating a vast amount of knowledge. So vast. in fact, that the breadth of disciplines that it is possible to become very knowledgeable about is shrinking. We're surely a long ways off from this, but one could foresee a point in the future where it takes a lifetime just to come up to speed on a discipline and it is impossible for humans, without increasing lifespan or increasing the speed of knowledge acquisition, to make any further discovery or contribution in any field.
I do not contest that greater specialization is currently driving societal evolution. The OP, however, wrote "As the human species evolves" (emphasis mine), which prompted my response.
Ah, the tried and true slippery slope argument. Still as invalid as ever.
Is it still a "slippery slope" if it already happened?
I live in Canada. We recently got the Copyright Modernization Act (formerly known as Bill C-11), courtesy of Steven Harper. This sweet little piece of legislation contains an interesting provision: it makes it is illegal to circumvent DRM for any purpose whatsoever. In effect, the presence of DRM trumps any and all "fair dealing" rights (somewhat similar to the American concept of "fair use") that we otherwise have. Even if no copyright infringement has taken place.
Regarding (A): It is totally worth fighting laws that would force DRM on the entire market. This AC (same one who started this thread) never said not to fight that aspect of it.
While the above is technically not "force[ing] DRM on the entire market", it is close enough for practical purposes.
Regarding (B): You and others like you are perfectly free to offer a DRM free alternative in the absence of (A).
Again see above. Suppose a young contemporary artist (say, composer) creates an unsurpassed masterpiece. The work is offered in a DRMed format only. Several generations later, the copyright expired and you want to distribute the work. Unfortunately, it was never offered in an unencumbered format, breaking DRM is illegal and the company that has the key either doen't have any incentive to share it with you or no longer exists.
If there really is a market for something, that market will be served. It's a fundamental axiom of capitalism. BUT: Be prepared to pay significantly more for your DRM free products Be prepared for significantly lower availability of the latest, most premium or in-demand products. Be prepared for the 90% of people who just want to pay a buck for the latest stupid Angry Birds derivative to laugh in your face or just ignore your ramblings.
So what you're saying is that it is practically guaranteed that there will be no market for it.
Regarding being an AC: I've been commenting/reading slashdot since the beginning (more than a decade). I have yet to find it useful to create an account here.
Imagine holding an IM, email or forum conversation with a person. There are arguments, examples, points, counterpoints, exchange of opinions, presentation of facts, sometimes (hopefully) re-evaluation of positions...
Now imagine that every reply that you receive may be made by a different person who may, but most likely may not, share the same point of view as one of the previous participants. Moreover, this person may self-identify as the one you were previously conversing with, but you have no way of knowing for sure.
In short, if holding a meaningful conversation with me, or with others like me, is of no value to you, by all means remain an AC. Otherwise, you are making it harder and less convenient for us to converse with you.
I think the link between more production and better chances of survival is obvious
Actually, no, it needs to be demonstrated. If you can point me to research that shows a causative relation between specialization in a modern society (you did mention "global trade" and "technological advances") and better chances of survival to procreation, I will consider your explanation. Until then, I have to respectfully disagree.
"Digital restrictions management (DRM) creates damaged goods that users cannot control or use freely." Then DON'T BUY THEM. No one has forced you at gunpoint to use iTunes. Buy DRM free good.
What do you do when the following happens?
(a) DRM-free products become illegal (due to captured regulation)
or
(b) DRM-free products become unavailable (due to corporations realizing that 90% of the population are similar to the AC parent: either ignorant of the issue or are happy to give up their rights for a discount at the cash register)
"Intentionally abusing a process in bad faith can be a crime," no.
"and should be a crime" never. If this is the case the consumer becomes responsible for every possible mistake. That is a path I don't want to travel.
Do you want a bill for a product you got charged the wrong price for? Do you want to be responsible for any possible mistake a store/corporation might do?
What is this idiotic "charged as an adult" thing about anyway?
Children are treated as such because it is commonly understood that they are not mentally and emotionally mature enough to have full responsibility for their decisions and actions.
If a child is charged as an adult, it is an admission that they do possess the required maturity and therefore should be treated as adults for all other purposes as well (driving, drinking, smoking, voting, sex, etc.)
From the page: Now the Conservative government has a majority and can reinstate the measures on its own, but the Liberals say they will support the bill. The NDP opposes the bill and is questioning the timing of the government suddenly moving the bill into an emergency-like debate, accusing it of "being asleep since December."
At least there is one major party in Canadian Parliament that's concerned about personal rights and liberties. Such behaviour should be rewarded.
Personal opinion and disclosure: I came to Canada since 2000 and tried to be "politically aware" even before I got the citizenship. I never aimed to benefit any single political party but rather aspired to get people to think critically about the parties and candidates, as well as establish dialogs with elected representatives in my riding to try to sway them toward the "personal rights and liberties" side. Unfortunately I have grown so disappointed with both the Liberal and Conservative parties and their candidates (on both the federal and provincial levels) that I now advocate voting for any candidate unaffiliated with those two (independents, NDP, Green, Pirate, hell - even Rhino).
Slashdot Mirror
Long before Firefox existed, IE6 allowed blocking 3rd party cookies.
However, it would display an icon on the status-bar and when I clicked on it, it would show me a list of blocked items and allow me to white-list them.
Why can't FF do the same? Or is there an extension to do it?
Remember the online poker craze? It basically died without access to the USD.
The corpse looks surprisingly active.
I bet you that they have immunity of some sort. That is the problem
Of course they do. The laws are different for "important people".
If people who make such decisions knew it could really bite them in the ass (as in fines and jail), they would think twice or thrice on these decisions.
There is no personal responsibility in government. Jail is out of the question and fines will ultimately be passed on to the taxpayers (i.e., you).
Another poster suggested an alternative way to deal with those miscreants, but the government does not look kindly on those who infringe on it's monopoly on violence so it is not very practical.
However, there is a way to show these crooks that actions have consequences:
Find out who the representatives responsible for those decisions are.
Organize a group of people to go door to door in their ridings, distribute flyers headlined "Do not let kill our children for profit" or suchlike (carefully constructed to not constitute libel) with information how shortening yellow raises accident rates and fatalities, especially among pedestrians, and politely urge the residents to vote them out of office because they cannot be trusted not to pull such a fast one again ("we're non-partisan, vote for anyone you like except this person").
Call the media. Radio stations work best because you can sometimes go live on air so your message won't get edited, but newspapers are also good if you can interest a reporter in this story. Try to arrange for actual parents (mothers work best) to be interviewed ("I was a staunch supported for but this is atrocious! What kind of a deal with the devil it takes to put city/county profits ahead of our children's safety? I will never vote for him again, even if he makes a shoe of recanting. Fool me once..." carefully constructed to avoid actual slander).
Make sure that the public associates those people with the vilest stereotypes. Make "think of the children" work for you for once.
Why does name matter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9w0YSMLHY
You just don't grasp how fucked up the carriers in the US are.
Not much, when you compare them to Canadian ones.
Go forth and prosper.
I'm not an expert, but shouldn't it be .
Forth go prosper and
The problem is, how can you trust it (or other "solutions") to be free from malware?
[W]e want our government to be nervous. We want our police officers to be polite and cautious.
You forgot the pony.
See my response to one of you ACs.
Basically, sloppy phrasing creates misunderstanding.
I doubt GP meant "evolves" in the darwinian sense of the word. It does have other meanings though, and is appropriately used to describe anything that gradually develops over time. As a part of our social evolution, we've become capable of accumulating a vast amount of knowledge. So vast. in fact, that the breadth of disciplines that it is possible to become very knowledgeable about is shrinking. We're surely a long ways off from this, but one could foresee a point in the future where it takes a lifetime just to come up to speed on a discipline and it is impossible for humans, without increasing lifespan or increasing the speed of knowledge acquisition, to make any further discovery or contribution in any field.
I do not contest that greater specialization is currently driving societal evolution.
The OP, however, wrote "As the human species evolves" (emphasis mine), which prompted my response.
Ah, the tried and true slippery slope argument. Still as invalid as ever.
Is it still a "slippery slope" if it already happened?
I live in Canada. We recently got the Copyright Modernization Act (formerly known as Bill C-11), courtesy of Steven Harper.
This sweet little piece of legislation contains an interesting provision: it makes it is illegal to circumvent DRM for any purpose whatsoever. In effect, the presence of DRM trumps any and all "fair dealing" rights (somewhat similar to the American concept of "fair use") that we otherwise have. Even if no copyright infringement has taken place.
Regarding (A):
It is totally worth fighting laws that would force DRM on the entire market. This AC (same one who started this thread) never said not to fight that aspect of it.
While the above is technically not "force[ing] DRM on the entire market", it is close enough for practical purposes.
Regarding (B):
You and others like you are perfectly free to offer a DRM free alternative in the absence of (A).
Again see above. Suppose a young contemporary artist (say, composer) creates an unsurpassed masterpiece. The work is offered in a DRMed format only. Several generations later, the copyright expired and you want to distribute the work. Unfortunately, it was never offered in an unencumbered format, breaking DRM is illegal and the company that has the key either doen't have any incentive to share it with you or no longer exists.
If there really is a market for something, that market will be served. It's a fundamental axiom of capitalism. BUT:
Be prepared to pay significantly more for your DRM free products
Be prepared for significantly lower availability of the latest, most premium or in-demand products.
Be prepared for the 90% of people who just want to pay a buck for the latest stupid Angry Birds derivative to laugh in your face or just ignore your ramblings.
So what you're saying is that it is practically guaranteed that there will be no market for it.
Regarding being an AC: I've been commenting/reading slashdot since the beginning (more than a decade). I have yet to find it useful to create an account here.
Imagine holding an IM, email or forum conversation with a person. There are arguments, examples, points, counterpoints, exchange of opinions, presentation of facts, sometimes (hopefully) re-evaluation of positions...
Now imagine that every reply that you receive may be made by a different person who may, but most likely may not, share the same point of view as one of the previous participants. Moreover, this person may self-identify as the one you were previously conversing with, but you have no way of knowing for sure.
In short, if holding a meaningful conversation with me, or with others like me, is of no value to you, by all means remain an AC.
Otherwise, you are making it harder and less convenient for us to converse with you.
I think the link between more production and better chances of survival is obvious
Actually, no, it needs to be demonstrated. If you can point me to research that shows a causative relation between specialization in a modern society (you did mention "global trade" and "technological advances") and better chances of survival to procreation, I will consider your explanation. Until then, I have to respectfully disagree.
The problem is, their constituents are corporations, not meat citizens.
Now, I finally understand what this story was about...
As the human species evolves and our technology advances, our ability to be a "jack of all trades" decreases.
Please explain the evolutionary pressure (i.e., natural selection) that, in your opinion, drives this alleged process.
"Digital restrictions management (DRM) creates damaged goods that users cannot control or use freely."
Then DON'T BUY THEM. No one has forced you at gunpoint to use iTunes. Buy DRM free good.
What do you do when the following happens?
(a) DRM-free products become illegal (due to captured regulation)
or
(b) DRM-free products become unavailable (due to corporations realizing that 90% of the population are similar to the AC parent: either ignorant of the issue or are happy to give up their rights for a discount at the cash register)
"Intentionally abusing a process in bad faith can be a crime,"
no.
"and should be a crime"
never. If this is the case the consumer becomes responsible for every possible mistake. That is a path I don't want to travel.
Do you want a bill for a product you got charged the wrong price for? Do you want to be responsible for any possible mistake a store/corporation might do?
I think you missed the "in bad faith" part.
Suppose that she had been a he, had been white, had been the star quarterback and was expelled and charged as an adult for exactly the same act.
Suppose also that Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are real.
What is this idiotic "charged as an adult" thing about anyway?
Children are treated as such because it is commonly understood that they are not mentally and emotionally mature enough to have full responsibility for their decisions and actions.
If a child is charged as an adult, it is an admission that they do possess the required maturity and therefore should be treated as adults for all other purposes as well (driving, drinking, smoking, voting, sex, etc.)
Doing otherwise is disingenuous.
I voted for the the Green...much good it did, but there it is.
That's your problem right here. Should have voted for the Purple.
Out of mod points, but would like to thank the AC for his synopsis.
Better, actually.
The police don't have a right to run the tech world.
Actually, they do.
Those rights are called guns, tazers, clubs, "stop resisting" and so on.
DRM does not have fair use exceptions, nor does it expire.
The difference is that this time Harper got handed a de-facto dictatorship over Canada.
Coincidence?
From the page:
Now the Conservative government has a majority and can reinstate the measures on its own, but the Liberals say they will support the bill. The NDP opposes the bill and is questioning the timing of the government suddenly moving the bill into an emergency-like debate, accusing it of "being asleep since December."
At least there is one major party in Canadian Parliament that's concerned about personal rights and liberties.
Such behaviour should be rewarded.
Personal opinion and disclosure:
I came to Canada since 2000 and tried to be "politically aware" even before I got the citizenship. I never aimed to benefit any single political party but rather aspired to get people to think critically about the parties and candidates, as well as establish dialogs with elected representatives in my riding to try to sway them toward the "personal rights and liberties" side. Unfortunately I have grown so disappointed with both the Liberal and Conservative parties and their candidates (on both the federal and provincial levels) that I now advocate voting for any candidate unaffiliated with those two (independents, NDP, Green, Pirate, hell - even Rhino).