Not to mention the fact that this kind of award is definitely not within constitutional limits. Fining somebody more money than they are likely to make in the rest of their lifetime for allegedly sharing 22 songs strikes me as excessive.
The fact that they're designed to target distribution rather than unauthorized possession. Back when those laws were first being formulated pretty much the only way you could infringe on a copyright would be to set up your own printing press and go through the tedious process of copying the work.
So, I think it's a pretty fair assumption that they didn't expect 200+ years later for individuals to be sued by media cartels over small numbers of alleged copies.
Perhaps the solution is for ISPs to stop lying about how much bandwidth they can provide? Seriously, they charge Netflix and me to stream movies to me, if they can't provide the amount of bandwidth they're promising, then they need to do something about it.
Unfortunately that something is going to target the consumer because the government lacks the balls to tell a corporation to go fuck itself and compete for business.
You must be new here. The ISPs sell more bandwidth than what they have, similar to how airlines sell more seats than their plane has. Unlike Airlines which provide perks for being bumped, ISPs respond by giving you less and citing the fact that they only promised to provide up to a certain speed.
That's really not what you want. The cost of bandwidth at the wholesaler level has been going down for years, it's the ISPs that don't pay for enough of it to cover the need that are the problem.
Yes, they can institute caps and raise rates, but all that does is stifle innovation. We wouldn't have youtube at all, if the ISPs had been handling things like this during the Clinton administration. The last time that speeds around here increased by anything significant was in the late 90s. I'm still stuck with a connection that's only 1 Mbps faster than it was in 2000, when it was 4mbps. Meanwhile in other countries it's not unheard of to have speeds that are several times faster. Hell even in this country there's speeds much faster than that available.
Indeed. I think it's more accurate to say that deregulation and a lack of oversight are killing the internet. The companies aren't making the upgrades necessary to keep up with demand and are instead trying to charge more for less. The cost of DSL service here hasn't gone up, but the speed and bandwidth haven't either. With amortization schedules and the cost of bandwidth being what they are, you wouldn't expect that.
Well, you wouldn't expect that if there was any competition and the ISPs actually cared what the consumers wanted. Worse, I live in a major city, it's doubtless much worse outside of major cities.
A frequent use of this sort of technology is to tighten the grip that an abuser has on the abused. It allows the perpetrator to monitor communications and when tied in with GPS and such it makes it possible for the abused to be in society but unable to communicate freely.
There is no legitimate reason for this technology to be used without a court order. If you can't get a judge to sign off on it, then you shouldn't be doing it. There is no grey area involved. We have the 4th amendment for a reason.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While that only applies between the citizens and the government, the government at various levels has passed laws providing that protection to the citizens.
You'd be wrong. If somebody else installs it there's no way of knowing it's there unless you scroll through the list of downloaded apps. That's not something that I do on a regular basis so a person could install it surreptitiously and it might be there for weeks or months without me noticing.
Which is really the problem. An app like that is unlikely to be installed by a person for their own use, it's going to be installed by people that are wanting to stalk or are engaging in domestic violence. Tracking devices and spyware are unfortunately becoming the status quo in domestic violence situations.
Worse still is that in a situation like that the application might not even be hidden.
It doesn't. But on an open platform there's no way of preventing people from installing what they like. They can however refuse to be a party to it and make it so that people have to look elsewhere for it.
What I'd love to see is them add an administrative password feature to certain settings which would allow you to prevent access to certain settings without entering it. By default the Android phones won't install apps from anywhere other than the market. You have to go in and manually enable unknown sources to install other apps.
So, refusing to be an accessory to illegal wiretaps means that the platform isn't really open? What's next the fact that they refuse to give you access to hawt 8 year olds as a violation of your rights?
Not really, what Google does is still legal. What this app does is wiretapping which is illegal without a court order. Doesn't matter whether you're in a one or two party consent state, zero party consent requires a court order and to be performed by law enforcement.
Google almost certainly pulled the app because the expressed purpose of the app is to violate the law. The only question is why it got into the market to begin with. I'd've thought they'd make a quick cursory glance at the summary before putting it in.
No, the biggest problem they have is a lack of credibility. It's worth paying for reliable, fact based reporting. It's just getting harder and harder to find. It's not solely Murdoch's fault, but he has given it a huge shove in that direction, at least in the US.
News is one of the few things which really can't be done by bloggers working independently. You really need support staff, fact checkers, editors and folks to do the lay out in order for it to really work, and that stuff costs money. Not to mention the cost of having somebody waiting at city hall in case something happens.
Newspapers were in a position that was fundamentally stronger than other media in that their primary product was hard to pirate and released on a regular basis. Nobody's going to bother scanning a newspaper in full and distributing it on a large scale because they'd always be behind by enough to make it virtually worthless.
Indeed, that's the main thing that's driving the folks to try and repeal the health reform legislation. The main reason why companies are so afraid of having to offer health benefits is all of a sudden people don't have to work for large corporations to afford health insurance. Small businesses get a tax break to make it more affordable and with the new requirements the prices will start to come down.
It doesn't take a genius to understand why most of the rest of the first world things we're a bunch of hicks and morons looking to blow shit up.
Indeed, he damages every market he enters. I do think that the US needs rules on media ownership precisely to prevent corporations like Newscorp from having an undue influence on politics. There's been way too much consolidation of media outlets and it's really hurt politics.
So in other words this was a rousing success and he should perhaps extend the model to everything else he does. We'll be rid of the wicked bastard within the year.
Children shouldn't be drinking alcohol period. Just because civilized countries allow it does not make it a good idea. Unfortunately alcohol screws with the body's chemistry worse than pretty much anything else and it does do damage. Now in reasonable quantities the harm is negligible to overshadowed by benefits, but the body does adapt to handle it and you really don't want kids developing tolerance before they know how to handle it safely.
And really, kids and young adults ought to be really careful about what they put in their bodies up until their late 20s, because the brain is still developing and those things can still have a significant impact.
What adults do is really their own business, but the negative effects of alcohol are very real.
Sure it does. The reason why we have free speech at all is to ensure that ideas are freely exchanged. Artists tend to push the boundaries of acceptable communication to get the audience to think.
It's really the only way to separate that from inciting violence and other forms of speech which are harmful to society as a whole. Unlimited free speech is just about as dangerous to the individual as no free speech is. Certain things just don't qualify in any sane society regardless of culture.
To be honest modern games are a bit different. And whereas I'd let my kids play doom, Wolfenstein 3D or possibly Quake without a whole lot of concern. I'm not sure that today's games are in the same category. Back then there was little in the way of realism and you'd be hard pressed to forget that it wasn't real.
If you take enough stances on enough issues eventually you'll run out of unreasonable ones to take or otherwise end up with a reasonable one. Remember this is the same Rush that when called out about his drug abuse asserted a right to privacy. After having used however many other people's drug problems for material.
That's the biggest problem with the rating systems, they're a joke, and definitely not enough to make a reasonable decision on. Best case you see a movie advertised that's got an R rating you know that you probably shouldn't take your 10 year old. Realistically you probably already knew that from the advertising materials.
They're fine as a basic guideline, but in terms of actually enforcing it, not going to work. So much of it is subjective. Ever notice how most programming on TV is TV-13 or so? It's not all of similar level of sophistication.
Unfortunately, they're a big enough buyer that they distort the market for other stores. A bit like Texas and school books. Sure you can buy from other sources, but it's a pretty good bet that they've impacted what's available elsewhere as many times people won't or can't recut the album to be acceptable to Walmart.
It's an investment. One of the reasons why the post war period was so cushy was that we had managed to take in all those brilliant scientists that were fleeing the devastation and persecution of WWII and then later on from communist oppression in the USSR and Soviet block.
There was obviously a bit more to it, but we have to pay today for the research that will drive the economy tomorrow. That's the main reason why we're likely to see our asses handed to us in the future. We're cutting back on the research that's likely to drive future improvements in the standard of living.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the fact that this kind of award is definitely not within constitutional limits. Fining somebody more money than they are likely to make in the rest of their lifetime for allegedly sharing 22 songs strikes me as excessive.
The fact that they're designed to target distribution rather than unauthorized possession. Back when those laws were first being formulated pretty much the only way you could infringe on a copyright would be to set up your own printing press and go through the tedious process of copying the work.
So, I think it's a pretty fair assumption that they didn't expect 200+ years later for individuals to be sued by media cartels over small numbers of alleged copies.
Perhaps the solution is for ISPs to stop lying about how much bandwidth they can provide? Seriously, they charge Netflix and me to stream movies to me, if they can't provide the amount of bandwidth they're promising, then they need to do something about it.
Unfortunately that something is going to target the consumer because the government lacks the balls to tell a corporation to go fuck itself and compete for business.
You must be new here. The ISPs sell more bandwidth than what they have, similar to how airlines sell more seats than their plane has. Unlike Airlines which provide perks for being bumped, ISPs respond by giving you less and citing the fact that they only promised to provide up to a certain speed.
That's really not what you want. The cost of bandwidth at the wholesaler level has been going down for years, it's the ISPs that don't pay for enough of it to cover the need that are the problem.
Yes, they can institute caps and raise rates, but all that does is stifle innovation. We wouldn't have youtube at all, if the ISPs had been handling things like this during the Clinton administration. The last time that speeds around here increased by anything significant was in the late 90s. I'm still stuck with a connection that's only 1 Mbps faster than it was in 2000, when it was 4mbps. Meanwhile in other countries it's not unheard of to have speeds that are several times faster. Hell even in this country there's speeds much faster than that available.
Indeed. I think it's more accurate to say that deregulation and a lack of oversight are killing the internet. The companies aren't making the upgrades necessary to keep up with demand and are instead trying to charge more for less. The cost of DSL service here hasn't gone up, but the speed and bandwidth haven't either. With amortization schedules and the cost of bandwidth being what they are, you wouldn't expect that.
Well, you wouldn't expect that if there was any competition and the ISPs actually cared what the consumers wanted. Worse, I live in a major city, it's doubtless much worse outside of major cities.
There is no legitimate reason for this technology to be used without a court order. If you can't get a judge to sign off on it, then you shouldn't be doing it. There is no grey area involved. We have the 4th amendment for a reason.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While that only applies between the citizens and the government, the government at various levels has passed laws providing that protection to the citizens.
You'd be wrong. If somebody else installs it there's no way of knowing it's there unless you scroll through the list of downloaded apps. That's not something that I do on a regular basis so a person could install it surreptitiously and it might be there for weeks or months without me noticing.
Which is really the problem. An app like that is unlikely to be installed by a person for their own use, it's going to be installed by people that are wanting to stalk or are engaging in domestic violence. Tracking devices and spyware are unfortunately becoming the status quo in domestic violence situations.
Worse still is that in a situation like that the application might not even be hidden.
It doesn't. But on an open platform there's no way of preventing people from installing what they like. They can however refuse to be a party to it and make it so that people have to look elsewhere for it.
What I'd love to see is them add an administrative password feature to certain settings which would allow you to prevent access to certain settings without entering it. By default the Android phones won't install apps from anywhere other than the market. You have to go in and manually enable unknown sources to install other apps.
So, refusing to be an accessory to illegal wiretaps means that the platform isn't really open? What's next the fact that they refuse to give you access to hawt 8 year olds as a violation of your rights?
Not really, what Google does is still legal. What this app does is wiretapping which is illegal without a court order. Doesn't matter whether you're in a one or two party consent state, zero party consent requires a court order and to be performed by law enforcement.
Google almost certainly pulled the app because the expressed purpose of the app is to violate the law. The only question is why it got into the market to begin with. I'd've thought they'd make a quick cursory glance at the summary before putting it in.
No, the biggest problem they have is a lack of credibility. It's worth paying for reliable, fact based reporting. It's just getting harder and harder to find. It's not solely Murdoch's fault, but he has given it a huge shove in that direction, at least in the US.
News is one of the few things which really can't be done by bloggers working independently. You really need support staff, fact checkers, editors and folks to do the lay out in order for it to really work, and that stuff costs money. Not to mention the cost of having somebody waiting at city hall in case something happens.
Newspapers were in a position that was fundamentally stronger than other media in that their primary product was hard to pirate and released on a regular basis. Nobody's going to bother scanning a newspaper in full and distributing it on a large scale because they'd always be behind by enough to make it virtually worthless.
Indeed, that's the main thing that's driving the folks to try and repeal the health reform legislation. The main reason why companies are so afraid of having to offer health benefits is all of a sudden people don't have to work for large corporations to afford health insurance. Small businesses get a tax break to make it more affordable and with the new requirements the prices will start to come down.
It doesn't take a genius to understand why most of the rest of the first world things we're a bunch of hicks and morons looking to blow shit up.
Indeed, he damages every market he enters. I do think that the US needs rules on media ownership precisely to prevent corporations like Newscorp from having an undue influence on politics. There's been way too much consolidation of media outlets and it's really hurt politics.
So in other words this was a rousing success and he should perhaps extend the model to everything else he does. We'll be rid of the wicked bastard within the year.
Children shouldn't be drinking alcohol period. Just because civilized countries allow it does not make it a good idea. Unfortunately alcohol screws with the body's chemistry worse than pretty much anything else and it does do damage. Now in reasonable quantities the harm is negligible to overshadowed by benefits, but the body does adapt to handle it and you really don't want kids developing tolerance before they know how to handle it safely.
And really, kids and young adults ought to be really careful about what they put in their bodies up until their late 20s, because the brain is still developing and those things can still have a significant impact. What adults do is really their own business, but the negative effects of alcohol are very real.
Sure it does. The reason why we have free speech at all is to ensure that ideas are freely exchanged. Artists tend to push the boundaries of acceptable communication to get the audience to think.
It's really the only way to separate that from inciting violence and other forms of speech which are harmful to society as a whole. Unlimited free speech is just about as dangerous to the individual as no free speech is. Certain things just don't qualify in any sane society regardless of culture.
To be honest modern games are a bit different. And whereas I'd let my kids play doom, Wolfenstein 3D or possibly Quake without a whole lot of concern. I'm not sure that today's games are in the same category. Back then there was little in the way of realism and you'd be hard pressed to forget that it wasn't real.
If you take enough stances on enough issues eventually you'll run out of unreasonable ones to take or otherwise end up with a reasonable one. Remember this is the same Rush that when called out about his drug abuse asserted a right to privacy. After having used however many other people's drug problems for material.
Dick Cheney brings new meaning to the term "duck hunter."
That's the biggest problem with the rating systems, they're a joke, and definitely not enough to make a reasonable decision on. Best case you see a movie advertised that's got an R rating you know that you probably shouldn't take your 10 year old. Realistically you probably already knew that from the advertising materials.
They're fine as a basic guideline, but in terms of actually enforcing it, not going to work. So much of it is subjective. Ever notice how most programming on TV is TV-13 or so? It's not all of similar level of sophistication.
Unfortunately, they're a big enough buyer that they distort the market for other stores. A bit like Texas and school books. Sure you can buy from other sources, but it's a pretty good bet that they've impacted what's available elsewhere as many times people won't or can't recut the album to be acceptable to Walmart.
The LHC is a bit different. The ISS doesn't come with a small possibility of destroying the world.
It's an investment. One of the reasons why the post war period was so cushy was that we had managed to take in all those brilliant scientists that were fleeing the devastation and persecution of WWII and then later on from communist oppression in the USSR and Soviet block.
There was obviously a bit more to it, but we have to pay today for the research that will drive the economy tomorrow. That's the main reason why we're likely to see our asses handed to us in the future. We're cutting back on the research that's likely to drive future improvements in the standard of living.
Well, that and the lack of functionality changes. XFree86 was having serious issues with stagnation.