Doesn't the NSA have copies of everything the guy has been downloading?
That would take a lot of effort to find that data, they'd still have to proceed with the trial and risk him getting off on a technicality, or they may not actually find anything because he might be innocent. From their perspective, why bother when they've already got him locked up indefinitely?
As much as I lack all sympathy for people in possession of child pornography
You might want to be careful about saying that. With all of the vulnerabilities in software these days, it would be relatively easy to have someone take advantage of one of those vulnerabilities to upload some reprehensible images to your computer and leave you with one hot potato on your lap. That's my main problem with any laws of possession: the burden of proof that you willfully obtained the contraband is so low that you're effectively presumed guilty until you prove otherwise.
While this is an interesting concept, I can't help but feel like this props up our predatory privatized health system which focuses more on profits than it does on treatment. If we're all going to pay for each other's medical bills via private insurance and crowdfunding, why not change to a public system rather than expect sick people to become beggars of their family and friends?
That's funny because I just switched ISPs and the sales rep of my new provider was pretty adamant that 50 Mb/s was not going to be enough for a household of one person. At the same time, ISPs are telling senators that households (which likely have more than one person) don't need any more than 25 Mb/s. It sounds like the ISPs are talking out of both sides of their ass.
I know this is technically how the law is supposed to work but the likely consequence of this is that companies will put more effort into covering up the damages than they put into securing their data. It's a lot more expensive to develop a system that is difficult to penetrate than it is to roll the dice and hope that you don't get hacked and if you do, cover up the evidence.
I use an adhesive remover called Goof Off. I haven't tried it on duct tape but it rarely fails on even the stickiest of adhesives and requires almost no effort to wipe off. However, it does have a very strong odor and should only be used in well-ventilated areas.
This is fairly typical of Apple. Although new versions of iOS support older phones, you don't want to run any version of iOS on a phone older than two years from the time it was released. Then you're left with the dilemma of upgrading iOS and likely taking a substantial performance hit or running the old version and leaving yourself open to unpatched vulnerabilities as well as losing the ability to install certain apps as all of the developers start releasing new versions of their apps that only support the new version of iOS (and the older versions of the app are removed from the App Store).
I came here to make the same point but I think you're missing out on one critical thing that the first article brings up: the network effect amplifies the velocity of the rise of winners in a capitalist system and it also makes it that much more difficult to disrupt the monopolies of those winners once they've been established. That likely means that while we're going through a period a rapid expansion and disruption right now with new winners being decided in the technological sector, this ride is probably going to end in a fairly abrupt manner and create a new set of winners that will be even harder than usual for new startups to compete against.
I blame Bill Clinton for repealing the Glass-Seagall Act
Clinton definitely bears some of the blame, but the the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was perpetrated by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act named after the three Republicans who introduced the bill. The bill passed a Republican majority house and senate and was signed by President Clinton, obviously a Democrat. Blaming only Clinton is definitely looking at an extremely small part of the picture: this was the culmination of Republicans working with Democrats, the legislative branch working with the execute branch, and lobbyists of the private sector working with politicians in the public sector. All of these groups came together to ensure that the banks would be able to repeat the same actions that led to the Great Depression and was guaranteed to fuck over everyone at some point in the future. The results were of no surprise to anyone who read a history textbook and had half of a functioning brain.
Because music industry thugs can make life hell for Google if they don't cooperate. Right now, Google makes a ton of money from content hosted by the music industry. If they didn't take the music industry's side by default every time, then the music industry could take off all of their content which would cause a huge loss of revenue for Google. In addition to that, the music industry may be able to hold Google liable for every video that infringed on their content to the tune of $150,000 per view of each infringing video. That would add up extremely quickly so Google doesn't have much of a choice but to give in to the industry's demands.
if licensee claims ownership of the work in any form
Your clause wouldn't work since it was Epic's parent company that made the ownership claim. You would need to put something nice and broad in there about parent companies, partners, or affiliates. I'm sure a lawyer would know exactly how to close that loophole.
The problem is that systemd's functionality spans way beyond an init system or even a daemon management system. Sooner or later, Linux apps are going to be built on top of systemd functionality. Therefore you will be stuck switching over to systemd if you want to use those apps or hope that someone maintains init compatibility within those apps. And then projects based off of that software will start to depend on the systemd functionality, creating multiple layers of mess.
It all boils down to the fact that you can't stop devs from using systemd features despite the fact that they're poorly designed and maintaining forks that are compatible with non-systemd init systems will only work for so long before the task is too overwhelming. That's why there was such a battle against it being adopted by distros but that battle has been lost and resistance is now futile.
Because Wayland is being written with a clean, modular design that doesn't attempt to tightly couple a bunch of unrelated nonsense into it to create a complicated mess. Because Wayland is being written primarily by former X developers who have pushed X to its limits but have no choice but to start from the ground up to get modern features such as tear-free drawing. Because Wayland is capable of running X applications thanks to a compatibility layer. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons that escape me, but these are just a few off of the top of my head.
Allowing less heat in would be good for the summer but bad for the winter. For that, I think the windows lined with e-ink would help. The windows can be set to darken during the day in the summer and clear during the day for the winter. In the winter, when you want privacy, there's a capability to scatter the light coming through to blur the view without blocking a significant amount of the light from getting in. These windows would look nice and they could eliminate the need for blinds or curtains. Set the windows to automatically open up when someone is home and the outside temperature is within a comfortable range (and it's not raining or too windy) and you'd have a significantly more efficient home.
It would be absolutely fantastic if people would be rational about tech news.
With the amount of fearmongering that goes on in the media, it would be great if people would be rational about ALL news. With that said, I can't help but think that in some cases the reason that the proposed regulation isn't as bad as people fear is because the fearful raise some reasonable objections and the government scales back the scope of the new regulations. Therefore, a little paranoia (and more importantly, voicing your concern to the government) can be good at limiting the scope of proposed regulations.
This is absolutely outrageous and the fact that it happens so often is even more maddening. This is way worse than piracy. When a pirate makes an infringing copy of a video, they still leave the original copies behind so that other people can consume them legally. However, in cases like this, companies are having works removed from distribution channels when those companies know that they have absolutely no claim of ownership over that material. Could you imagine the damages the studios would claim if one of their movies was pulled from theaters during the opening weekend because someone made a bogus claim that the movie infringed on their content? There needs to be severe fines for this behavior. Given that this behavior prevents rightsholders from distributing their material over claims that are made in completely bad faith, the penalties should be hundreds of times worse than the penalties for a single case of copyright infringement. And the penalties should scale considerably for repeat offenders on top of that.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Clearly windows is not ready for the desktop!
That would take a lot of effort to find that data, they'd still have to proceed with the trial and risk him getting off on a technicality, or they may not actually find anything because he might be innocent. From their perspective, why bother when they've already got him locked up indefinitely?
You might want to be careful about saying that. With all of the vulnerabilities in software these days, it would be relatively easy to have someone take advantage of one of those vulnerabilities to upload some reprehensible images to your computer and leave you with one hot potato on your lap. That's my main problem with any laws of possession: the burden of proof that you willfully obtained the contraband is so low that you're effectively presumed guilty until you prove otherwise.
Oh, so he'll only be in jail until he develops Alzheimer's.
While this is an interesting concept, I can't help but feel like this props up our predatory privatized health system which focuses more on profits than it does on treatment. If we're all going to pay for each other's medical bills via private insurance and crowdfunding, why not change to a public system rather than expect sick people to become beggars of their family and friends?
That's funny because I just switched ISPs and the sales rep of my new provider was pretty adamant that 50 Mb/s was not going to be enough for a household of one person. At the same time, ISPs are telling senators that households (which likely have more than one person) don't need any more than 25 Mb/s. It sounds like the ISPs are talking out of both sides of their ass.
I know this is technically how the law is supposed to work but the likely consequence of this is that companies will put more effort into covering up the damages than they put into securing their data. It's a lot more expensive to develop a system that is difficult to penetrate than it is to roll the dice and hope that you don't get hacked and if you do, cover up the evidence.
I use an adhesive remover called Goof Off. I haven't tried it on duct tape but it rarely fails on even the stickiest of adhesives and requires almost no effort to wipe off. However, it does have a very strong odor and should only be used in well-ventilated areas.
This is fairly typical of Apple. Although new versions of iOS support older phones, you don't want to run any version of iOS on a phone older than two years from the time it was released. Then you're left with the dilemma of upgrading iOS and likely taking a substantial performance hit or running the old version and leaving yourself open to unpatched vulnerabilities as well as losing the ability to install certain apps as all of the developers start releasing new versions of their apps that only support the new version of iOS (and the older versions of the app are removed from the App Store).
I came here to make the same point but I think you're missing out on one critical thing that the first article brings up: the network effect amplifies the velocity of the rise of winners in a capitalist system and it also makes it that much more difficult to disrupt the monopolies of those winners once they've been established. That likely means that while we're going through a period a rapid expansion and disruption right now with new winners being decided in the technological sector, this ride is probably going to end in a fairly abrupt manner and create a new set of winners that will be even harder than usual for new startups to compete against.
Clinton definitely bears some of the blame, but the the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was perpetrated by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act named after the three Republicans who introduced the bill. The bill passed a Republican majority house and senate and was signed by President Clinton, obviously a Democrat. Blaming only Clinton is definitely looking at an extremely small part of the picture: this was the culmination of Republicans working with Democrats, the legislative branch working with the execute branch, and lobbyists of the private sector working with politicians in the public sector. All of these groups came together to ensure that the banks would be able to repeat the same actions that led to the Great Depression and was guaranteed to fuck over everyone at some point in the future. The results were of no surprise to anyone who read a history textbook and had half of a functioning brain.
Because music industry thugs can make life hell for Google if they don't cooperate. Right now, Google makes a ton of money from content hosted by the music industry. If they didn't take the music industry's side by default every time, then the music industry could take off all of their content which would cause a huge loss of revenue for Google. In addition to that, the music industry may be able to hold Google liable for every video that infringed on their content to the tune of $150,000 per view of each infringing video. That would add up extremely quickly so Google doesn't have much of a choice but to give in to the industry's demands.
Your clause wouldn't work since it was Epic's parent company that made the ownership claim. You would need to put something nice and broad in there about parent companies, partners, or affiliates. I'm sure a lawyer would know exactly how to close that loophole.
Correction: $150,000 per YouTube view after the bogus copyright claim from Sony.
The problem is that systemd's functionality spans way beyond an init system or even a daemon management system. Sooner or later, Linux apps are going to be built on top of systemd functionality. Therefore you will be stuck switching over to systemd if you want to use those apps or hope that someone maintains init compatibility within those apps. And then projects based off of that software will start to depend on the systemd functionality, creating multiple layers of mess.
It all boils down to the fact that you can't stop devs from using systemd features despite the fact that they're poorly designed and maintaining forks that are compatible with non-systemd init systems will only work for so long before the task is too overwhelming. That's why there was such a battle against it being adopted by distros but that battle has been lost and resistance is now futile.
Because Wayland is being written with a clean, modular design that doesn't attempt to tightly couple a bunch of unrelated nonsense into it to create a complicated mess. Because Wayland is being written primarily by former X developers who have pushed X to its limits but have no choice but to start from the ground up to get modern features such as tear-free drawing. Because Wayland is capable of running X applications thanks to a compatibility layer. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons that escape me, but these are just a few off of the top of my head.
I immediately thought of the Winklevoss twins when I read this.
I don't know if it's written in Perl, but I think Inspirobot could replace these guys.
Allowing less heat in would be good for the summer but bad for the winter. For that, I think the windows lined with e-ink would help. The windows can be set to darken during the day in the summer and clear during the day for the winter. In the winter, when you want privacy, there's a capability to scatter the light coming through to blur the view without blocking a significant amount of the light from getting in. These windows would look nice and they could eliminate the need for blinds or curtains. Set the windows to automatically open up when someone is home and the outside temperature is within a comfortable range (and it's not raining or too windy) and you'd have a significantly more efficient home.
With the amount of fearmongering that goes on in the media, it would be great if people would be rational about ALL news. With that said, I can't help but think that in some cases the reason that the proposed regulation isn't as bad as people fear is because the fearful raise some reasonable objections and the government scales back the scope of the new regulations. Therefore, a little paranoia (and more importantly, voicing your concern to the government) can be good at limiting the scope of proposed regulations.
A woman on Slashdot? And you're presumably also from Dirty Jersey? Giggity!
Finally, a proper cure for hangovers!
She swallowed the cow to catch the dog
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat...
Even a child can see how this ends. Best of luck with your censorship, Europe.
This is absolutely outrageous and the fact that it happens so often is even more maddening. This is way worse than piracy. When a pirate makes an infringing copy of a video, they still leave the original copies behind so that other people can consume them legally. However, in cases like this, companies are having works removed from distribution channels when those companies know that they have absolutely no claim of ownership over that material. Could you imagine the damages the studios would claim if one of their movies was pulled from theaters during the opening weekend because someone made a bogus claim that the movie infringed on their content? There needs to be severe fines for this behavior. Given that this behavior prevents rightsholders from distributing their material over claims that are made in completely bad faith, the penalties should be hundreds of times worse than the penalties for a single case of copyright infringement. And the penalties should scale considerably for repeat offenders on top of that.
Wireless charging would be much more convenient but I imagine it can't charge the car as quickly as a Tesla charging cable.