This is only "inevitable" if we let it be that way. Just because it can be read does not mean that the government has the right to track every citizen.
You absolutely have every right to not have the government tracking your moves. It's one thing to read the plate and compare it against a list of plates and record and report those. But they have no right to record the movements of the average person. Privacy is not just about when no one can see you. Part of privacy is about the reasonable expectation that it is none of the governments business where and when you go.
What BS. The RIAA/MPAA evidence is very flawed. The only reason they get people to pay is that it is prohibitively expensive to fight this. This is a guilt until proven innocent regime. This is an abuse of the legal system.
Monsanto genetically modifies food so that it can get the farmer both ways, buying the seed and the tons of additional herbicide.
We evolved in the same biosphere as insects, so changes to a plant to prevent the insect from being able to eat them may also have effects on us. These are not properly tested. They should require many years of observation on animals feed these foods for a long time before they should be allowed on
None of these changes are tested properly. Monsanto is one the "Agent Orange" corporations. Their "research" cannot be trusted. They've lied when they knew about grave health issues with their product. They continued to sell it even though it caused substantial harm to thousands of GIs and probably millions of Vietnamese. (And this is the tip of the iceberg concerning Monsanto.)
GMOs are designed for one reason, to make money. They do not care what the long term effect is as long as they can spin it. These foods are not designed to help the worlds poor, but to sell more product, to make farmers dependent on it, to add the food supply to the ever growing list of things that a few corporations control.
This is all marketing hype, there is no need for GMOs.
By the way, starvation is caused mostly by policy, not technology. There is more than sufficient food production. Maybe you should look into how the IMF & World Bank among others force third world countries into producing export crops, often even during times of starvation.
NO, no no no. This will provide the most efficient and cost effective system for the consumer. Not only would the system be easy to maintain, it would allow audits to determine whether a provider is reasonably charging for the semi-monopolized service.
But
By building a huge regulated infrastructure, the comprehension of the system is too difficult. Plus, AT&T knows that consumer will become more and more dependent on the internet. They know that they can get consumers to eventually pay substantially more to get the services they need. The consumer will never know what hit him and he will be "thankful" that AT&T has sorted it all out for him.
This is absolutely true in the abstract sense and if AT&T were charged with making an efficient system it is what they would be trying to do. What they are really try to is make a revenue maximization system. If this costs three times as much to the consumer (in infrastructure, bureaucracy and equipment) so that AT&T can double it's profits then the hell with the consumer.
It is relevant in that this study can be used by the congressman that have been paid for by AT&T to oppose net neutrality.
It is relevant because it will allow AT&T to make a system for which they can charge vastly more than they do now.
It is relevant because it will allow AT&T to reduce your choice more and more over time and to take bigger and bigger pieces of the internet pie.
It is relevant because it will allow AT&T to force more and more companies to deal directly with them for connectivity if their customers want any access to the AT&Ts customers (or shall we call them victims.)
This is just another industry sponsored "proof" for use by lobbyists.
Corporate sponsorship of research doesn't automatically invalidate that research
Right, I'm sure Phillip Morris would agree. Industry doesn't sponsor research that it doesn't already know what the conclusion will be.
i think you mean, the U.S. has gotten in trouble lately trying to defend or liberate oil (or actually raise the price of). The U.S. has rare;y fought to liberate anyone, the motive is always ulterior.
What a load of crap. Because he is wealthy, he could have bought all of this music on CDs, completely DRM free. The wealthier you are the more capability you have to follow your convictions.
If they can't comply by the license in the first place, they should stop selling the software until they get their "legal" issues sorted out. They're probably trying to avoid releasing code by moving it to other modules even though this will violate the license.
Being in the hands of a bunch of nasty lawyers, there is no financially practical way to defend yourself against these lawsuits even thought the evidence would not hold up in court.
The "punishment" is entirely out of proportion for the alleged violations.
Prosecution of things like this should only be handled by government. These are a bunch wild west bounty hunters who have no respect for the rules of evidence and no respect for the rights of those who they investigate.
The music industry has abused both the artists and the buying public for years. The fact is that all of this shows them to be the leaches on society that they are. They know that they are horribly inefficient and now that distribution of their product is becoming easier and easier, they are trying to hold on to a business model that will not work.
Oh you bleeding heart "corporate liberal". I think it's more like MegaCorp doing things for which it is libel, but no one will sue it because unless they win they'll have to pay MC legal fees which could bankrupt most individuals. It is a long a drawn out process to win any case against a large corporation. Many will do anything they can get away with to intimidate. Default forcing the paying of legal fees will embolden these corporations to treat the public even worse than it already does. In addition, it will encourage them to spend tons of frivolous legal fees to further intimidate any challenge to their practices or negligence.
Why push it further? Are you kidding, They should keep pushing it. Each time Microsoft comes up with a remedy, it is so half-assed that it is usually no better than before. They will make it annoying as they can get away with to use any competitor's product. This is exactly what is wrong with a monopolistic business. Their business model has nothing to do with competing for a customer by providing a better product. They use their product to control and limit because most customers do not have another practical choice.
The US interests that you speak of are just the interests of certain elements of the American elite. They are contrary to the interests of the US as a country and especially of the public at large.
If you've ever had your ipod or laptop stolen, you will know that your "easy solution" is not well thought out. You do not want any personal information embedded in music, especially unwittingly. It's one thing to embed a code or whatever into a song, but even that, given the devil may car attitude of the RIAA, puts you at legal risk for getting sued for simply being a victim of a theft or a hack of your computer. Not to mention that if your ipod is stolen, they have your name and email address, which most users will not know.
if a "restriction" reduces the "freedom" to restrict is it really reducing freedom?
Two of the most important "restrictions" in the GPL v3 relate to DRM and Software Patents. These are two of the most restricting features in technology. Restricting them does not reducing overall freedom.
The date a track was written could possibly be analyzed by looking at how it was written at the microscopic level, but this would probably destroy the disk itself. It would be very expensive. As far as I know, this is only theory and has not actually been done. If somebody has a technique, it would hope that it would require a lot of peer reviewed research to verify it's validity.
Anyway, the date a track was written may have nothing to do with the age of the data (file), as the OS may move files around for efficiency. This will not effect the timestamps of a file. The fact is that these timestamps are simply data written on the disk and can easily be changed.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only "inevitable" if we let it be that way. Just because it can be read does not mean that the government has the right to track every citizen.
You absolutely have every right to not have the government tracking your moves. It's one thing to read the plate and compare it against a list of plates and record and report those. But they have no right to record the movements of the average person. Privacy is not just about when no one can see you. Part of privacy is about the reasonable expectation that it is none of the governments business where and when you go.
What BS. The RIAA/MPAA evidence is very flawed. The only reason they get people to pay is that it is prohibitively expensive to fight this. This is a guilt until proven innocent regime. This is an abuse of the legal system.
Monsanto genetically modifies food so that it can get the farmer both ways, buying the seed and the tons of additional herbicide.
We evolved in the same biosphere as insects, so changes to a plant to prevent the insect from being able to eat them may also have effects on us. These are not properly tested. They should require many years of observation on animals feed these foods for a long time before they should be allowed on
None of these changes are tested properly. Monsanto is one the "Agent Orange" corporations. Their "research" cannot be trusted. They've lied when they knew about grave health issues with their product. They continued to sell it even though it caused substantial harm to thousands of GIs and probably millions of Vietnamese. (And this is the tip of the iceberg concerning Monsanto.)
GMOs are designed for one reason, to make money. They do not care what the long term effect is as long as they can spin it. These foods are not designed to help the worlds poor, but to sell more product, to make farmers dependent on it, to add the food supply to the ever growing list of things that a few corporations control.
This is all marketing hype, there is no need for GMOs.
By the way, starvation is caused mostly by policy, not technology. There is more than sufficient food production. Maybe you should look into how the IMF & World Bank among others force third world countries into producing export crops, often even during times of starvation.
Look into
cdbaby
magnatunes
jamendo
I've found some great music from all of the above. I'm sure that there are others.
But
By building a huge regulated infrastructure, the comprehension of the system is too difficult. Plus, AT&T knows that consumer will become more and more dependent on the internet. They know that they can get consumers to eventually pay substantially more to get the services they need. The consumer will never know what hit him and he will be "thankful" that AT&T has sorted it all out for him.
This is absolutely true in the abstract sense and if AT&T were charged with making an efficient system it is what they would be trying to do. What they are really try to is make a revenue maximization system. If this costs three times as much to the consumer (in infrastructure, bureaucracy and equipment) so that AT&T can double it's profits then the hell with the consumer.
This is not about QOS, ii is about control.
It is relevant because it will allow AT&T to make a system for which they can charge vastly more than they do now.
It is relevant because it will allow AT&T to reduce your choice more and more over time and to take bigger and bigger pieces of the internet pie.
It is relevant because it will allow AT&T to force more and more companies to deal directly with them for connectivity if their customers want any access to the AT&Ts customers (or shall we call them victims.)
Corporate sponsorship of research doesn't automatically invalidate that research Right, I'm sure Phillip Morris would agree. Industry doesn't sponsor research that it doesn't already know what the conclusion will be.
i think you mean, the U.S. has gotten in trouble lately trying to defend or liberate oil (or actually raise the price of). The U.S. has rare;y fought to liberate anyone, the motive is always ulterior.
(6) in soviet russia, ...
(7) profit
(8) someone will smugly summarize the whole thing in one post
now don't get pissy about this
What a load of crap. Because he is wealthy, he could have bought all of this music on CDs, completely DRM free. The wealthier you are the more capability you have to follow your convictions.
If they can't comply by the license in the first place, they should stop selling the software until they get their "legal" issues sorted out. They're probably trying to avoid releasing code by moving it to other modules even though this will violate the license.
So all they have to do is send a diver out with a patch cable?
The "punishment" is entirely out of proportion for the alleged violations.
Prosecution of things like this should only be handled by government. These are a bunch wild west bounty hunters who have no respect for the rules of evidence and no respect for the rights of those who they investigate.
The music industry has abused both the artists and the buying public for years. The fact is that all of this shows them to be the leaches on society that they are. They know that they are horribly inefficient and now that distribution of their product is becoming easier and easier, they are trying to hold on to a business model that will not work.
Oh you bleeding heart "corporate liberal". I think it's more like MegaCorp doing things for which it is libel, but no one will sue it because unless they win they'll have to pay MC legal fees which could bankrupt most individuals. It is a long a drawn out process to win any case against a large corporation. Many will do anything they can get away with to intimidate. Default forcing the paying of legal fees will embolden these corporations to treat the public even worse than it already does. In addition, it will encourage them to spend tons of frivolous legal fees to further intimidate any challenge to their practices or negligence.
Are you an apologizer for atrocity?
"Just saying"? State what it is your implying. Is it that because other countries do bad things that it doesn't matter what yours does?
The only way things change is by pointing these things out and by being outraged when your country or your country's allies do these things.
Actually the free market is alive and well, the supply of lawyers has never been better.
Why push it further? Are you kidding, They should keep pushing it. Each time Microsoft comes up with a remedy, it is so half-assed that it is usually no better than before. They will make it annoying as they can get away with to use any competitor's product. This is exactly what is wrong with a monopolistic business. Their business model has nothing to do with competing for a customer by providing a better product. They use their product to control and limit because most customers do not have another practical choice.
The US interests that you speak of are just the interests of certain elements of the American elite. They are contrary to the interests of the US as a country and especially of the public at large.
If you've ever had your ipod or laptop stolen, you will know that your "easy solution" is not well thought out. You do not want any personal information embedded in music, especially unwittingly. It's one thing to embed a code or whatever into a song, but even that, given the devil may car attitude of the RIAA, puts you at legal risk for getting sued for simply being a victim of a theft or a hack of your computer. Not to mention that if your ipod is stolen, they have your name and email address, which most users will not know.
Two of the most important "restrictions" in the GPL v3 relate to DRM and Software Patents. These are two of the most restricting features in technology. Restricting them does not reducing overall freedom.
The date a track was written could possibly be analyzed by looking at how it was written at the microscopic level, but this would probably destroy the disk itself. It would be very expensive. As far as I know, this is only theory and has not actually been done. If somebody has a technique, it would hope that it would require a lot of peer reviewed research to verify it's validity. Anyway, the date a track was written may have nothing to do with the age of the data (file), as the OS may move files around for efficiency. This will not effect the timestamps of a file. The fact is that these timestamps are simply data written on the disk and can easily be changed.