Wait, so the problem was that people who attended anti-war rallies found that they were in a database indicating that they were....at an anti-war rally!? The devil you say! So the DoD wants to keep track of who is at what rally? In what way does that infringe on civil rights anymore than video monitoring of street corners in Baltimore, for instance? Or red light cameras? Attending a rally is by definition not an act of someone desiring privacy.
Seriously, anyone who believes in vast government conspiracies has obviously never worked for the government or been around government employees. Or watched C-SPAN. Monitoring anti-war activists in order to sabotage their lives I just don't buy. Too complex. Kicking the door in to an old lady's apartment and hucking a flashbang at her because someone typed "Apartment B" instead of "Apartment D" on the warrant, that I believe. Bureaucracy isn't sneaky and pervasive like, well, like a sneaky and pervasive thing, it's more like a bull: big, dumb, and hard to stop once it get's going.
My girlfriend teaches elementary school in Maryland, and while she likes the idea of standardized benchmarks she hates NCLB. Not only do kids get promoted whether they pass or not, but schools that don't meet NCLB standards get their funding reduced. In other words, schools that have overpopulated classes and aren't getting enough money as it is end up with even less money. In Annapolis, the local high school had some issues with NCLB this past year. As a result, EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL WAS LET GO. Everyone, including maintenance staff, had to reapply for their jobs. Needless to say a number of them did not. No wonder schools feel pressured to teach to these tests.
I mean, I think it's great that Wal-Mart is ditching DRM; I think every music retailer should follow suit. But how many people who buy music online do it from the Wal-Mart website, or would? The content is edited, and people who go to Wal-Mart to shop are gonna go to the brick-and-mortar store for music as well, so there's not a lot of draw there I think. Besides, hasn't Apple started doing some sort of DRM-free iTunes thing?
Anyway, as I understand it DRM removal software is pretty easy to find...
Look, I believe that natural selection explains speciation and evolution. I also know that just because you don't believe in gravity doesn't mean that you'll go flying off in to space, although I've tried. The fact is that there are perfectly reasonable and intelligent people that believe, as an article of faith, that the Bible is literally true, despite the fact that it's basically a Reader's Digest of jewish and christian writers that's been translated and transcribed and edited all to heck. There are people who believe all sorts of things as a matter of faith in the absence or even in the face of contrary evidence. That's ok.
I happen to be Christian, more or less. There are a lot of points where I differ from other Christians, but I go with the core beliefs. The purpose of faith, religion, what have you, is not to provide an explanation of why water boils or why cats cough balls of hair. For the religious or semireligious it gives a kind of moral guidance, a sense of being a part of some larger purpose, a sense of fellowship, things like that. It's an attempt to understand things that can't be understood with science or even with reason, things and concepts which extend beyond humanity. If that's not your bag, cool. I don't care if you're an atheist, an agnostic, or whatever. I don't presume to know a person based on the beliefs they subscribe to. You should extend that courtesy to those of us who do hold religious beliefs.
Now, are there zealots? Sure. There are people like Huckabee who believe that "Creationism" should be taught alongside evolutionary theory. Obviously that's dumb. The one has nothing to do with science, cannot be proven or disproven scientifically, and therefore has no place in a science curriculum. But zealotry exists outside of the religious sphere, as well. People who discredit and attack other people because they hold ANY religious belief are as bad as people who do so because they hold a DIFFERENT religious belief.
So if you want to go after a politician because of policies they favor or disfavor based on their own beliefs, go right ahead, but to lambaste someone because they happen to hold a particular belief is intolerance, not reason.
Without owning the actual lines himself, all he can do is guarantee that Copowi will not itself grant more bandwidth to certain customers, right? As I understand it, Copowi buys a certain amount of bandwidth from Verizon, say, and then guarantees that none of that bandwidth will be "favoritized", for lack of a better term, downstream. That's a fine idea, but for real net neutrality he'd have to buy all of the bandwidth available (assuming of course that he could), or run his own lines (same assumption). Neither are possible, let alone cost effective. So running with this, let's say that up until it hits Copowi, MSNBC gets favorable bandwidth allocation over, say, the YMCA. What's Copowi gonna do, throttle back access to MSNBC to "level the playing field"? Plus, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole issue, but if MSNBC pays more for bandwidth, shouldn't they get it? I mean, that's the whole free market deal, no? And how would bandwidth be adjusted for traffic? I assume more people visit the MSNBC site per hour than, say, IHOP's. Shouldn't MSNBC have more bandwidth to work with?
This really has little to nothing to do with the DMCA. What's happening is that some clown decided to try and scam a malware company and is now having the book thrown at him. Applying DMCA to the case is obviously just a prosecutorial tactic, i.e. the "shotgun" approach. The idea is that if you charge this guy with 75 different offenses at least ONE of them is gonna stick. What this is NOT is some Orwellian nightmare where the FBI will arrest you and torture your cats if you uninstall Half-Life. Seriously, the DMCA stinks, but you're better off attacking it using real examples of its abuse rather than going in to hysterics whenever it's mentioned.
P.S. However, I did hear about a case in D.C. where a guy dropped his iPod while a song was playing and then got tasered by a mounted cop. True story. RIAA.
Great example with the fire alarm, but I would argue that disabling the alarm is never illegal, even when your intent is insurance fraud. What it does in that case is demonstrate intent. In other words, you couldn't be charged with "tampering with one's own fire alarm", but it could be provided as evidence that you intended to burn your own house down for the dough.
As I understand it Chinese users are already on proxies. It's like Prohibition apparently; the Chinese authorities can't keep up, the penalties aren't that stiff anymore, and many of them don't really want to enforce the censorship that strictly anyway. Basically, as the Chinese economy grows more computers are available, infrastructure improves, education improves, and suddenly you have a swarm of Chinese 17-year-olds looking for free pr0n. It makes me proud to be an American.
Actually, I've heard a revised theory about capitalism and democracy. It's not the classic "free markets make free people" deal, because China is a great example of that. People in China have tremendous access to markets and pretty considerable economic freedoms given the state that they live in. However, political freedom is still pretty much nonexistent, although that's beginning to change for the following reason: the presence of a middle class. The newish idea is that there isn't a direct link between capitalism and democracy so much as the growth of a substantial middle class and democracy. It may seem like a distinction without a difference but the important implications are that a.) you can't just institute market reform and have a functioning democracy the next week, and b.) you don't necessarily need to adopt a capitalist system as long as resources can be distributed in such a way as to allow the formation of a middle class (although it seems to help).
What does he have to gain? Well, the fact that people are talking seriously about Gore as a viable nominee for the next election, for one. And he's defined his political career by his environmentalism. Look, I'm all for carpooling and recycling and squirrels and all, and I think even if the human side of global warming isn't the whole story being more environmentally responsible can't hurt, but it's silly to assume that anyone who advocates environmentalism as a response to global warming is on the side of the angels and helps old ladies cross busy streets in their spare time while anyone who is skeptical regarding human causes of global warming and the severity of it is in the pockets of "Big Oil" and pokes kittens with sticks for fun. So my point is that Gore absolutely gains by putting that movie out. Prior to release he was a has-been; now he's back in the political landscape and has a shot at getting the democratic nomination. And good for him. There's nothing wrong with profiting by doing something you believe in. And politicians can only accomplish things by gaining power, so if this movie nets him a spot in the next election and some change for the campaign fund, good on him. All I'm saying is don't agree or disagree with Gore's movie based on his personal motivations.
So what they're basically saying is that when you buy a CD, what you're really doing is buying the physical media and sort of leasing the actual data on the CD. In other words, your $15-$20 gets you a shiny new CD and the right to listen to whatever's on it using anything that will play a CD. However, if the $.04 CD is scratched, and you lose the ability to play it, you also lose the $14.96 - $19.96 right to listen to the music. Basically, a seat license without the backup rights. Yeesh, I hope they don't find out about the mix tapes I made in high school...
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so the problem was that people who attended anti-war rallies found that they were in a database indicating that they were....at an anti-war rally!? The devil you say! So the DoD wants to keep track of who is at what rally? In what way does that infringe on civil rights anymore than video monitoring of street corners in Baltimore, for instance? Or red light cameras? Attending a rally is by definition not an act of someone desiring privacy.
Seriously, anyone who believes in vast government conspiracies has obviously never worked for the government or been around government employees. Or watched C-SPAN. Monitoring anti-war activists in order to sabotage their lives I just don't buy. Too complex. Kicking the door in to an old lady's apartment and hucking a flashbang at her because someone typed "Apartment B" instead of "Apartment D" on the warrant, that I believe. Bureaucracy isn't sneaky and pervasive like, well, like a sneaky and pervasive thing, it's more like a bull: big, dumb, and hard to stop once it get's going.
My girlfriend teaches elementary school in Maryland, and while she likes the idea of standardized benchmarks she hates NCLB. Not only do kids get promoted whether they pass or not, but schools that don't meet NCLB standards get their funding reduced. In other words, schools that have overpopulated classes and aren't getting enough money as it is end up with even less money. In Annapolis, the local high school had some issues with NCLB this past year. As a result, EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL WAS LET GO. Everyone, including maintenance staff, had to reapply for their jobs. Needless to say a number of them did not. No wonder schools feel pressured to teach to these tests.
I mean, I think it's great that Wal-Mart is ditching DRM; I think every music retailer should follow suit. But how many people who buy music online do it from the Wal-Mart website, or would? The content is edited, and people who go to Wal-Mart to shop are gonna go to the brick-and-mortar store for music as well, so there's not a lot of draw there I think. Besides, hasn't Apple started doing some sort of DRM-free iTunes thing?
Anyway, as I understand it DRM removal software is pretty easy to find...
The only safe MMORPG is abstinence.
Look, I believe that natural selection explains speciation and evolution. I also know that just because you don't believe in gravity doesn't mean that you'll go flying off in to space, although I've tried. The fact is that there are perfectly reasonable and intelligent people that believe, as an article of faith, that the Bible is literally true, despite the fact that it's basically a Reader's Digest of jewish and christian writers that's been translated and transcribed and edited all to heck. There are people who believe all sorts of things as a matter of faith in the absence or even in the face of contrary evidence. That's ok.
I happen to be Christian, more or less. There are a lot of points where I differ from other Christians, but I go with the core beliefs. The purpose of faith, religion, what have you, is not to provide an explanation of why water boils or why cats cough balls of hair. For the religious or semireligious it gives a kind of moral guidance, a sense of being a part of some larger purpose, a sense of fellowship, things like that. It's an attempt to understand things that can't be understood with science or even with reason, things and concepts which extend beyond humanity. If that's not your bag, cool. I don't care if you're an atheist, an agnostic, or whatever. I don't presume to know a person based on the beliefs they subscribe to. You should extend that courtesy to those of us who do hold religious beliefs.
Now, are there zealots? Sure. There are people like Huckabee who believe that "Creationism" should be taught alongside evolutionary theory. Obviously that's dumb. The one has nothing to do with science, cannot be proven or disproven scientifically, and therefore has no place in a science curriculum. But zealotry exists outside of the religious sphere, as well. People who discredit and attack other people because they hold ANY religious belief are as bad as people who do so because they hold a DIFFERENT religious belief.
So if you want to go after a politician because of policies they favor or disfavor based on their own beliefs, go right ahead, but to lambaste someone because they happen to hold a particular belief is intolerance, not reason.Without owning the actual lines himself, all he can do is guarantee that Copowi will not itself grant more bandwidth to certain customers, right? As I understand it, Copowi buys a certain amount of bandwidth from Verizon, say, and then guarantees that none of that bandwidth will be "favoritized", for lack of a better term, downstream. That's a fine idea, but for real net neutrality he'd have to buy all of the bandwidth available (assuming of course that he could), or run his own lines (same assumption). Neither are possible, let alone cost effective. So running with this, let's say that up until it hits Copowi, MSNBC gets favorable bandwidth allocation over, say, the YMCA. What's Copowi gonna do, throttle back access to MSNBC to "level the playing field"? Plus, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole issue, but if MSNBC pays more for bandwidth, shouldn't they get it? I mean, that's the whole free market deal, no? And how would bandwidth be adjusted for traffic? I assume more people visit the MSNBC site per hour than, say, IHOP's. Shouldn't MSNBC have more bandwidth to work with?
This really has little to nothing to do with the DMCA. What's happening is that some clown decided to try and scam a malware company and is now having the book thrown at him. Applying DMCA to the case is obviously just a prosecutorial tactic, i.e. the "shotgun" approach. The idea is that if you charge this guy with 75 different offenses at least ONE of them is gonna stick. What this is NOT is some Orwellian nightmare where the FBI will arrest you and torture your cats if you uninstall Half-Life. Seriously, the DMCA stinks, but you're better off attacking it using real examples of its abuse rather than going in to hysterics whenever it's mentioned. P.S. However, I did hear about a case in D.C. where a guy dropped his iPod while a song was playing and then got tasered by a mounted cop. True story. RIAA.
Great example with the fire alarm, but I would argue that disabling the alarm is never illegal, even when your intent is insurance fraud. What it does in that case is demonstrate intent. In other words, you couldn't be charged with "tampering with one's own fire alarm", but it could be provided as evidence that you intended to burn your own house down for the dough.
As I understand it Chinese users are already on proxies. It's like Prohibition apparently; the Chinese authorities can't keep up, the penalties aren't that stiff anymore, and many of them don't really want to enforce the censorship that strictly anyway. Basically, as the Chinese economy grows more computers are available, infrastructure improves, education improves, and suddenly you have a swarm of Chinese 17-year-olds looking for free pr0n. It makes me proud to be an American.
Actually, I've heard a revised theory about capitalism and democracy. It's not the classic "free markets make free people" deal, because China is a great example of that. People in China have tremendous access to markets and pretty considerable economic freedoms given the state that they live in. However, political freedom is still pretty much nonexistent, although that's beginning to change for the following reason: the presence of a middle class. The newish idea is that there isn't a direct link between capitalism and democracy so much as the growth of a substantial middle class and democracy. It may seem like a distinction without a difference but the important implications are that a.) you can't just institute market reform and have a functioning democracy the next week, and b.) you don't necessarily need to adopt a capitalist system as long as resources can be distributed in such a way as to allow the formation of a middle class (although it seems to help).
What does he have to gain? Well, the fact that people are talking seriously about Gore as a viable nominee for the next election, for one. And he's defined his political career by his environmentalism.
Look, I'm all for carpooling and recycling and squirrels and all, and I think even if the human side of global warming isn't the whole story being more environmentally responsible can't hurt, but it's silly to assume that anyone who advocates environmentalism as a response to global warming is on the side of the angels and helps old ladies cross busy streets in their spare time while anyone who is skeptical regarding human causes of global warming and the severity of it is in the pockets of "Big Oil" and pokes kittens with sticks for fun.
So my point is that Gore absolutely gains by putting that movie out. Prior to release he was a has-been; now he's back in the political landscape and has a shot at getting the democratic nomination. And good for him. There's nothing wrong with profiting by doing something you believe in. And politicians can only accomplish things by gaining power, so if this movie nets him a spot in the next election and some change for the campaign fund, good on him. All I'm saying is don't agree or disagree with Gore's movie based on his personal motivations.
So what they're basically saying is that when you buy a CD, what you're really doing is buying the physical media and sort of leasing the actual data on the CD. In other words, your $15-$20 gets you a shiny new CD and the right to listen to whatever's on it using anything that will play a CD. However, if the $.04 CD is scratched, and you lose the ability to play it, you also lose the $14.96 - $19.96 right to listen to the music. Basically, a seat license without the backup rights. Yeesh, I hope they don't find out about the mix tapes I made in high school...