Poland tries to drag us into a new cold war with Russia together with the US and the fascist Kiev coup junta.No thanks, let the poles first grow up and get over their grudges.
Hi Vladimir! Protip: wear a shirt, you're not in your 20s anymore.
Finally, proof that we are the product. But if we are the product, can we sue for our share of the payout?
From the FTC's perspective, you're not the product, but your information is a business asset.
Your information would already go along with the business in any change of control or merger -- the privacy policy did not preclude that. And yes, your information has value in that context, just like any customer list, but you do not have any claim upon that value. You gave the business the right to use it in its business.
The FTC's perspective is that your information should not have independent value from the business as a separable asset. They're seeking to substantially enforce the promise in the privacy policy -- that the asset is tied to the business and its operations, and not freely alienable to anyone willing to pay for it.
Since only coprorations are now people and people are not people, we'll all have to form little corporations of course, in order ot get our due.
Forming a corporation won't save you from the consequences of your negotiating skills (or lack thereof).
No, I do not. People have families. People work jobs to pay for undergrad tuition. People transfer between schools.
As for your "I have a right to know everything if they ask me for crowdfunding" approach - no. You have the right not to offer funds. The rest of us have the right to deem your request unreasonable given that, again, this was a baseline credential earned 20 years ago.
Disclose your professional history for the past 28 years and I'll reconsider.
I wonder how this is relevant when it concerns a baseline credential earned 20 years ago and you seemingly have no issue with the MS, MA, and PhD earned from 1996-03, much less her positions at Brown and UC Boulder.
The point is that we don't want anyone to _have_ to use DRM.
The user does not _have_ to use DRM. The user is free to download versions of Firefox that implement the capability or not.
DRM is not a capability in the traditional sense. It's not a way for your software to do something. It's a way to prevent the user from using the software as they please, as directed by the content provider.
It certainly is a capability. It's a capability for the user who happens to be a content provider. It's a capability for users who believe that the content provider's directions are permissible. It's merely not a capability for a "once it has been created it immediately becomes mine for any purpose" user. All three stereotypes also run along a spectrum... content providers and users alike may believe that DRM associated with a subscription is fine, but not DRM that locks content to a single, specific hardware device.
You don't want anyone to be _able_ to use DRM through Firefox, whether as a producer or consumer. That's an ends-justify-the-means approach to open culture, not an "open" method of lobbying for "open culture" as a valuable norm. That's also an absolutist view since DRM would be required to impose any restriction, not simply the extreme restrictions that would offend the typical user.
Open culture cannot be said to be "open" if it cannot countenance pragmatists.
. It's a sad day for Mozilla, the w3c, the web as a whole, and open culture. At least there's still the iceweasel fork that doesn't come with this...
You say that as if it's the only option.
We also recognize that not everybody wants DRM, so we are also offering a separate Firefox download without the CDM enabled by default for those users who would rather not have the CDM downloaded to their browser on install.
I can only conclude that the issue is not that you don't want to use that capability, it's that you don't want anyone else to be able to use that capability. The contradiction in wanting "open culture" to deny some users options that they desire never crosses your mind, does it?
You do realize that most Western government have donated millions of dollars to nearly every international relief effort, right? And that money comes from the taxpayers, whether they like it or not. To attempt to shame someone because they have not contributed a second time is morally unsound.
Friggin typos. If a fraction of the effort put into beta was put into the comment interface, I wouldn't be faced with the tri-horned dilemma of not commenting, being careless, or committing to preparing a treatise when I'm trying to make a 60 second point.
it's not a good theory, or practice, even if it did apply to everyone. we live in a society, not some dog-eat-dog nightmare-fantasy hellhole.
The sentence was not advocating the theory as a good theory... just one that would have to be equally applied to all. If the rule applies to all you have the possibility of the masses deciding that it is a bad rule - a Lockean apprach, if you will. If the rule applies only to most (those not in power), while protecting those who have wealth and/or power, you're living in a Hobbesian dytpoia already. The soverign is simply a cabal of power interests rather than a single monarch.
"i'm alright, fuck you jack" is not a sustainable ethos for any individual and certainly not for a civilisation. it's a psychopath's creed and psychopaths are at best parasitic on society if not outright destructive to it.
Now you've run completely off the rails. Of course it's a sustainable ethos, at least for historical measures of sustainability. That is the basis of countries, states, municipalities, and neighborhoods. Sure, you can build some social network to mitigate it, and there may be some charitable efforts to compat it, but reality is still still "we're alright, fuck you jack" to an astoundingly large degree.
Feel free to disprove that by donating deveral hundred dollars to Nepali relief efforts. Or any international relief effort for that matter.
Everybody wants cheaper stuff. Are you ashamed of yourself when buying a cheaper consumer article ?
I'll accept that argument the moment that I'm given the legal ability to purchase something from any nation on the planet, legally import it, and legally use it within the United States.
Instead, U.S. workers must compete against foreign workers in labor, while U.S. corporations are protected from foreign corporations (or themselves) in sales through geographically segreated licenses, import restrictions, and digital rights management schemes. If publishers are willing to sell their goods in Brataslava for 25% of US retail, we should be able to buy it for that price. If manufactures want to sell electronics to the UK at UKP-USD parity, the brits and northern irish should be able to simply buy those products out of the US.
"Nobody's going to hold you up and carry you around..." is a good theory only if it applies to all. But it most certainly does not.
Kromtech continues to market the program aggressively and participated at the Macworld conference last year and the Consumer Electronics Show in January in Las Vegas.
I'm guessing Kromtech would like to continue to market in the United States, not have its representatives entangled in in hearings for violating the injunction(s) that will inevitably be sought, and not have any property that enters into or is within the U.S. seized in attempts to satisfy a default judgment against them.
When the electrical substation providing external power to your nuclear power reactor fails, you shut down the reactor because your principal source of constant backup power has failed. Your secondary source, generators, are not intended to allow the plant to continue to operate, but to shut down cleanly.
When a tranformer blows, your risks are fire and, if it's an old transformer, PCB contamination from the old-generation transformer oils. Certainly not radiation.
Seriously are we back in the 90's? Some of the most valuable things on earth only exist in the digital realm, see microsoft office and windows, google, and everything produced by the television and movie industries.
We get it. You have an enormous hard-on for Bitcoin.
Too bad I cannot use Bitcoin to pay my taxes, my mortgage, my children's school fees, my grocery bill, any gas station, the parking meter, or anything else that requires interaction with the physical realm around me.
The value of Bitcoin is what I can buy with it, which is very little beyond mail-order luxuries that, let's face it, are better ordered via and protected by my credit card.
We do not care whether you have some anrcho-capitalist obsession with Bitcoin. Counterfeiting does not affect us. Inflation and a central bank is not a concern when compared with a "currency" whos value fluctuates far more against real world goods than the US dollar has in decades, if not longer. Using Bitcoin to trade with the Chinese has the fundamental problem that nobody in the private sphere wants a public and de-anonymizable record of all curreny flows in international and intrastate trade -- it's a surveillance state's dream, but a citizen's and a business' nightmare.
Of course the huge difference is that progressives are concerned about real problems, and the ignorant conservatives are concerned about imaginary enemies and preserving superstition. There's really no comparison with the conservatives completely off the rails from hate-radio, wingnut blogs, and Fox News.
Exactly. progressives are right, conservatives are wrong, and there's absolutely no need to address anyone else's issues because Truth. Which is exactly what the GP was complaining of, but with respect to both extremes.
Meanwhile the people actually involved purchased a hybrid before switching to an SUV, which suggests that they're neither stereotypically conservative nor stereotypically progressive. There's valuable objective information embedded in that problem, yet you want to focus on which of the stereotypes is superior to the other.
Way to miss the point, as well as a shining opportunity to address the real world concerns and behavior of the 'middle.'
Although thought by some to be an acronym of Light Detection And Ranging, the term lidar was actually created as a portmanteau of "light" and "radar."
Go fuck yourself.
Although expressly used by many as an acronym of Light Detection And Ranging, the first usage of a term magically enshrines that usage, and no other, as the exclusive meaning of that series of letters for all time.
Or not. Portmanteau, noun, plural portmanteaus, portmanteaux [pawrt-man-tohz, -toh, pohrt-, pawrt-man-tohz, -toh, pohrt-] (Show IPA). Chiefly British 1. a case or bag to carry clothing in while traveling, especially a leather trunk or suitcase that opens into two halves. 2. Also called portmanteau word. Linguistics, blend (def 10).
Lidar was certainly not created as a case or bag of "light" and "radar," and your intended reference to a second meaning is obviously irrelevant because FIRST!
By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.
I cannot fault your analysis of that particular sentence since I'm certain that some lawyer somewhere will eventually argue that when the "not in general public use" criterion is absent it somehow becomes a "reasonable" search.
If you consider that merely listening to something that people voluntarily broadcast, in the clear, was deemed illegal, what do you think the reaction is going to be to your nosy neighbor bathing your home in artificial radiation for the purpose of peeping at things going on that are not ordinarily visible from the outside? That everyone will accept that shielding their home is impractical and simply shrug? Not once some git uses the technology to surveil a politician it won't.
He submitted the book voluntarily for review. What did you expect the people who reviewed it to do? Declassify stuff just because he had it in his book? Why did he do that? I'm guessing Streisand Effect.
He submitted the book for review because if the book was cleared, the government would have a very difficult time prosecuting him for anything included in the book after it was published.
However, he was not actually obligated to follow the recommendations made in the review, nor can the government prevent initial publication of the material by his publisher regardless of whether he followed those recommendations.
What the government can do is attempt to prosecute him after the manuscript is disclosed or published by proving that the book violated the law or the non-disclosure agreement that he signed for his pre-1953 government work. The fact that the information is already publicly known would greatly affect that. There's also very little that the government could practically do to his publisher. You should read up on the Pentagon Papers to see how this works in the real world.
Even if withholding that information only slows down a terrorist by mere days or hours, it's worth it.
No, it's not.
In addition, our Constitution lets the author make that decision, not the government. We have a whole theory concerning "prior restraint" that cannot simply be tossed away because "why make it any easier for a would-be terrorist bomb maker to find it and make use of it." You only get to challenge the author for allegedly disclosing critical secrets after they're published. That helpfully prevents the government from suppressing embarrasing, non-secret information by fiat.
The First Ammendment doesn't trump and never has trumped public safety.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. The author would have to be inciting imminent lawless action. Reporting on the history of the hydrogen bomb is neither inciting nor likely to produce imminent 'safety' effects.
Companies in other states that buy CA produced crops should have to send the watere equivalent back to CA.
Yes, because California imports nothing from other states, and there's no logical way that other states could 'charge' for rest-of-US produced products, CA is sure to come out a winner.
Hint: CA had better become even more vegan, since it's only 4th in beef, and pretty much in the bottom tier of poultry and pork.
First they invented SecureBoot, but that was OK, because you could turn it off.
Then they prevented disabling it, but that was OK...
Because they didn't. "No worries, because Microsoft also mandated that every system must have a UEFI configuration setting to turn the protection off, allowing booting other operating systems. This situation may now change. At its WinHEC hardware conference in Shenzhen, China, Microsoft said the setting to allow Secure Boot to be turned off will become optional when Windows 10 arrives."
They didn't prevent disabling it. They no longer mandated providing the option to disable it. If your device manufacturer suddenly decides to remove the previously mandatory "off" setting option, that's on them, not Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi Vladimir! Protip: wear a shirt, you're not in your 20s anymore.
From the FTC's perspective, you're not the product, but your information is a business asset.
Your information would already go along with the business in any change of control or merger -- the privacy policy did not preclude that. And yes, your information has value in that context, just like any customer list, but you do not have any claim upon that value. You gave the business the right to use it in its business.
The FTC's perspective is that your information should not have independent value from the business as a separable asset. They're seeking to substantially enforce the promise in the privacy policy -- that the asset is tied to the business and its operations, and not freely alienable to anyone willing to pay for it.
Forming a corporation won't save you from the consequences of your negotiating skills (or lack thereof).
No, I do not. People have families. People work jobs to pay for undergrad tuition. People transfer between schools. As for your "I have a right to know everything if they ask me for crowdfunding" approach - no. You have the right not to offer funds. The rest of us have the right to deem your request unreasonable given that, again, this was a baseline credential earned 20 years ago. Disclose your professional history for the past 28 years and I'll reconsider.
I wonder how this is relevant when it concerns a baseline credential earned 20 years ago and you seemingly have no issue with the MS, MA, and PhD earned from 1996-03, much less her positions at Brown and UC Boulder.
In other words, it's none of your damn business.
The user does not _have_ to use DRM. The user is free to download versions of Firefox that implement the capability or not.
It certainly is a capability. It's a capability for the user who happens to be a content provider. It's a capability for users who believe that the content provider's directions are permissible. It's merely not a capability for a "once it has been created it immediately becomes mine for any purpose" user. All three stereotypes also run along a spectrum... content providers and users alike may believe that DRM associated with a subscription is fine, but not DRM that locks content to a single, specific hardware device.
You don't want anyone to be _able_ to use DRM through Firefox, whether as a producer or consumer. That's an ends-justify-the-means approach to open culture, not an "open" method of lobbying for "open culture" as a valuable norm. That's also an absolutist view since DRM would be required to impose any restriction, not simply the extreme restrictions that would offend the typical user.
Open culture cannot be said to be "open" if it cannot countenance pragmatists.
You say that as if it's the only option.
I can only conclude that the issue is not that you don't want to use that capability, it's that you don't want anyone else to be able to use that capability. The contradiction in wanting "open culture" to deny some users options that they desire never crosses your mind, does it?
I doubt that.
Under some very particular definitions of morality. Values of morality that I and others reject.
Friggin typos. If a fraction of the effort put into beta was put into the comment interface, I wouldn't be faced with the tri-horned dilemma of not commenting, being careless, or committing to preparing a treatise when I'm trying to make a 60 second point.
The sentence was not advocating the theory as a good theory... just one that would have to be equally applied to all. If the rule applies to all you have the possibility of the masses deciding that it is a bad rule - a Lockean apprach, if you will. If the rule applies only to most (those not in power), while protecting those who have wealth and/or power, you're living in a Hobbesian dytpoia already. The soverign is simply a cabal of power interests rather than a single monarch.
Now you've run completely off the rails. Of course it's a sustainable ethos, at least for historical measures of sustainability. That is the basis of countries, states, municipalities, and neighborhoods. Sure, you can build some social network to mitigate it, and there may be some charitable efforts to compat it, but reality is still still "we're alright, fuck you jack" to an astoundingly large degree.
Feel free to disprove that by donating deveral hundred dollars to Nepali relief efforts. Or any international relief effort for that matter.
I'll accept that argument the moment that I'm given the legal ability to purchase something from any nation on the planet, legally import it, and legally use it within the United States.
Instead, U.S. workers must compete against foreign workers in labor, while U.S. corporations are protected from foreign corporations (or themselves) in sales through geographically segreated licenses, import restrictions, and digital rights management schemes. If publishers are willing to sell their goods in Brataslava for 25% of US retail, we should be able to buy it for that price. If manufactures want to sell electronics to the UK at UKP-USD parity, the brits and northern irish should be able to simply buy those products out of the US.
"Nobody's going to hold you up and carry you around..." is a good theory only if it applies to all. But it most certainly does not.
I'm guessing Kromtech would like to continue to market in the United States, not have its representatives entangled in in hearings for violating the injunction(s) that will inevitably be sought, and not have any property that enters into or is within the U.S. seized in attempts to satisfy a default judgment against them.
But what do I know...
Those are some impressive detectors, especially since electrical transformers are a standard part of all power distribution networks and have absolutely nothing to do with radiation.
When the electrical substation providing external power to your nuclear power reactor fails, you shut down the reactor because your principal source of constant backup power has failed. Your secondary source, generators, are not intended to allow the plant to continue to operate, but to shut down cleanly.
When a tranformer blows, your risks are fire and, if it's an old transformer, PCB contamination from the old-generation transformer oils. Certainly not radiation.
We get it. You have an enormous hard-on for Bitcoin.
Too bad I cannot use Bitcoin to pay my taxes, my mortgage, my children's school fees, my grocery bill, any gas station, the parking meter, or anything else that requires interaction with the physical realm around me.
The value of Bitcoin is what I can buy with it, which is very little beyond mail-order luxuries that, let's face it, are better ordered via and protected by my credit card.
We do not care whether you have some anrcho-capitalist obsession with Bitcoin. Counterfeiting does not affect us. Inflation and a central bank is not a concern when compared with a "currency" whos value fluctuates far more against real world goods than the US dollar has in decades, if not longer. Using Bitcoin to trade with the Chinese has the fundamental problem that nobody in the private sphere wants a public and de-anonymizable record of all curreny flows in international and intrastate trade -- it's a surveillance state's dream, but a citizen's and a business' nightmare.
Go troll somewhere else.
Troll somewhere else.
Exactly. progressives are right, conservatives are wrong, and there's absolutely no need to address anyone else's issues because Truth. Which is exactly what the GP was complaining of, but with respect to both extremes.
Meanwhile the people actually involved purchased a hybrid before switching to an SUV, which suggests that they're neither stereotypically conservative nor stereotypically progressive. There's valuable objective information embedded in that problem, yet you want to focus on which of the stereotypes is superior to the other.
Way to miss the point, as well as a shining opportunity to address the real world concerns and behavior of the 'middle.'
Although expressly used by many as an acronym of Light Detection And Ranging, the first usage of a term magically enshrines that usage, and no other, as the exclusive meaning of that series of letters for all time.
Or not.
Portmanteau, noun, plural portmanteaus, portmanteaux [pawrt-man-tohz, -toh, pohrt-, pawrt-man-tohz, -toh, pohrt-] (Show IPA). Chiefly British
1. a case or bag to carry clothing in while traveling, especially a leather trunk or suitcase that opens into two halves.
2. Also called portmanteau word. Linguistics, blend (def 10).
Lidar was certainly not created as a case or bag of "light" and "radar," and your intended reference to a second meaning is obviously irrelevant because FIRST!
I cannot fault your analysis of that particular sentence since I'm certain that some lawyer somewhere will eventually argue that when the "not in general public use" criterion is absent it somehow becomes a "reasonable" search.
On the other hand, simply because a technology becomes available to monitor something formerly private does not mean that that technology will stay available and become something in "general public use." The now classic evolution-begets-prohibition example is radio frequency scanners. Making or using scanners to listen to analog phone transmissions for fun or profit became a bad idea, not something in general public use.
If you consider that merely listening to something that people voluntarily broadcast, in the clear, was deemed illegal, what do you think the reaction is going to be to your nosy neighbor bathing your home in artificial radiation for the purpose of peeping at things going on that are not ordinarily visible from the outside? That everyone will accept that shielding their home is impractical and simply shrug? Not once some git uses the technology to surveil a politician it won't.
He submitted the book for review because if the book was cleared, the government would have a very difficult time prosecuting him for anything included in the book after it was published.
However, he was not actually obligated to follow the recommendations made in the review, nor can the government prevent initial publication of the material by his publisher regardless of whether he followed those recommendations.
What the government can do is attempt to prosecute him after the manuscript is disclosed or published by proving that the book violated the law or the non-disclosure agreement that he signed for his pre-1953 government work. The fact that the information is already publicly known would greatly affect that. There's also very little that the government could practically do to his publisher. You should read up on the Pentagon Papers to see how this works in the real world.
Be miffed at yourself, and the fool who thinks that properly researching your own major purchases is a "libertarian bromide."
So sayeth this democrat to the fool.
No, it's not.
In addition, our Constitution lets the author make that decision, not the government. We have a whole theory concerning "prior restraint" that cannot simply be tossed away because "why make it any easier for a would-be terrorist bomb maker to find it and make use of it." You only get to challenge the author for allegedly disclosing critical secrets after they're published. That helpfully prevents the government from suppressing embarrasing, non-secret information by fiat.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. The author would have to be inciting imminent lawless action. Reporting on the history of the hydrogen bomb is neither inciting nor likely to produce imminent 'safety' effects.
You bought a Haswell-based MBP knowing full well that Broadwell had been released and would work its way into the MBP line shortly.
You also ignored the fact that Apple has been updating the Retina MacBook Pros like clockwork.
If you're miffed, be miffed at yourself. Nobody hid this from you.
Yes, because California imports nothing from other states, and there's no logical way that other states could 'charge' for rest-of-US produced products, CA is sure to come out a winner.
Hint: CA had better become even more vegan, since it's only 4th in beef, and pretty much in the bottom tier of poultry and pork.
Because they didn't. "No worries, because Microsoft also mandated that every system must have a UEFI configuration setting to turn the protection off, allowing booting other operating systems. This situation may now change. At its WinHEC hardware conference in Shenzhen, China, Microsoft said the setting to allow Secure Boot to be turned off will become optional when Windows 10 arrives."
They didn't prevent disabling it. They no longer mandated providing the option to disable it. If your device manufacturer suddenly decides to remove the previously mandatory "off" setting option, that's on them, not Microsoft.
We're still back at "first."
Shouldn't have said molten. This is what I was thinking of. Partial melts. You have to get to the base of the inner mantle to reach molten.