Quill v North Dakota is a case regarding out-of-state Use Tax standards, as applied to mail order companies. This might have some influence on issues of Jurisdiction on internet companies.
So you conflate my pure and utter distain for DRM into a "you must be against copyright" argument,...
(From the GP:)
The ideal of DRM is, in its own right, the idea of building a wall around a public good.
I rather thought you had stated an anti-copyright position. Or did you mean something other than "property that belongs to the public" when you said "public good"?
You are quite correct. That is, in fact, my point: as the destination web site, any information you give them will be just as usable - and abusable - by Google as it ever was. And similarly, anyone who can put the thumbscrews to Google can still do so.
To be honest, I think your post is a "troll expressing a popular sentiment". Nonetheless, I feel you are inaccurate. (And thus, I am trolled...)
All "content" is based on common ideas and techniques. Be they musical, lyrical, dramatic, or technological ideas and techniques, they come from us, the general populace, and the previous authors, musicians etc.
So, you believe that, for instance, authors should not be paid by publishers, because the authors produce the "content" of the books that publishers print? The authors are abusing public cultural knowledge etc, while the publishers are making a physical good, right?
I find that an author paid is an author more prolific, since they can (ideally) use the time they'd otherwise spend earning their crust in writing more words. Since I desire more books (by authors I favor), I favor their being paid for their work.
The ideal of DRM is, in its own right, the idea of building a wall around a public good.
This only applies if you think, as you have implied, that a creator may never have control of his creation: that in the instant of creation, it becomes a "public good". It is where the public definition of how a creative work transitions from being a "private good" to being a "public good" that copyright law and patent law are all about. How you distinguish between the creation of a painting or statue (which produces a physical object, presumably with property rights), with the creation of a digital image (which exists as patterns of electrons) is unclear. Are you saying that anyone may duplicate my painting and sell it, even labeling it as my work, without my having a right to complain? After all, it was a work of "creation, based on common ideas and techniques". If not a painting, how less a digital image? Or a series of them?
But that argument is to a degree dishonest, conflating property rights to an object with creative rights (right to distribute). However, the painting analogy remains: if the creative work is a "public good" without restriction, I could not complain about your duplicating it, nor even with your passing the copy off as my work. No restriction, remember?
Personally, I feel that yes, copyright terms have been extended much, much too far. I view this as a lobbying failure on OUR part. (Note, the congressmen's pockets... er, ears... are still available.)
And yes, I feel that software should not be patented. I'll point out, however, that patents cover processes (read: techniques), something you railed at in your first sentence but ignored thereafter. Perhaps you'd like to add something about how taking out a patent - regardless of inventive merits - is a similar "taking of a public good"?
Investigative reporting costs money. Lack of investigative reporting is a result of dwindling revenues. If they can't afford to keep the "see this cute puppy" reporter on, how are they going to justify the reporter that breaks the next watergate scandal, but takes 6 months to do it? That, of course, is assuming that the reporter's story pans out, isn't scooped by some other service, etc...
So yeah, investigative reporting is a market he's already been largely forced out of already.
Alternately, you get a lot of increased lifespan for the same treatments. Can't spend that pension if you're not alive. It's only when quality of life degrades past a certain point that people would be willing to take the cash instead.
What this means, I believe, is that your web browsing might be immune to man-in-the-middle interception.
Interception by Google (and thus by anyone with the power to compel Google, IE USA, China, etc) will be the same as before. As well, you're still connecting TO Google, so you're still likely to be blocked from the site by the Great Firewall arrangements, even if your search terms themselves might be encrypted.
And not to forget that China has a tame certificate authority...
Cars where the battery is dead and need to be left running to get to the garage could wind up stopped with no power in the lane of traffic just before an intersection.
Even better, if you've got problems starting your car (automatically or otherwise), the light might decide that the sensor was "stuck" for some reason, and cycle again. Potentially shutting your car off again just as you get it started...
Naw, that'll merely mean that you come down under the wheels of the 18-wheeler behind you - who was ALSO running the yellow, but doesn't have the fancy computer ejection seat controls...
Accepting the pain of a workout in order to finish a marathon. Working long hours to get a promotion. Laboring in the hot sun to create a beautiful garden.
...grinding Darkmoon Faire rep to get the title "The Insane"...
What are the odds, though, that the traffic light sensors being proposed are going to be better? And that's disregarding any condition of the car itself.
I've driven cars (particularly, to "the shop") under conditions where if the engine stopped, it would not start again. (Alternator/battery issues, primarily.) The same people who insist you drive with your headlights under automatic control aren't going to allow for that situation either.
A driver isn't merely someone who tells the car where to go. The driver is the one who is responsible for getting/keeping the vehicle running correctly, or deciding when it is not safe to do so. (It is unlikely, for instance, for automated devices to detect that the windshield has gone milky-white opaque/crazed, for instance...)
That's not controlling the apps, or controlling what you can do with your phone. It's controlling what you *can't* do. It takes an extremely warped view of reality to define things you *can't* do as controlling the things you *can* do, unless the list of thing you can't do are disproportionately large (in which case it's the other way around, and saying it *isn't* control is the absurd notion).
Might brush up on your set theory. According to you, Apple is making a "set of things you can't do on the iPhone". By definition, what is left is the "set of things apple does not prohibit you to do on the iPhone".
You are wrong in how you constructed that set, though. It specifically approval, not denial that is going on here. The App approval process is specifically "Apple allowing you to do X with the iPhone". If they don't approve the app, they don't list it, you can't buy it.
That is, anything not expressly approved is prohibited.
It does not matter that the number of rejections are small. The number of rejections does not change the nature of the set. Only the process by with the set is formed matters.
As for the absolute number of rejections... They've listed some things categorically as "we won't approve applications of this type". Is it surprising that authors have self-selected for apps that are not pre-prohibited? And, where do you get your information on the absolute number of rejected apps, anyway? Is there a ticker somewhere showing the Apple approval process, "this many approved, that many rejected"? Or are you relying on media stories?
When you talk about control, but people can freely and easily bypass your prime example, that doesn't really help your case.
Freely and easily?... and nobody has ever had problems with their jailbroken phone bricking up, for example?
The superintendent made a point of bringing up the state nutritional policies. If they were irrelevant, why did he bring them up?
Dismissing them now is easy, since the state agriculture department did as well. But did they play a part in the policy decision? Since he brought the state policies up, I'd say "yes".
... in the same way that shooting yourself in to foot is preferable to shooting yourself in the head.
The least evil here is NO DRM, not "acceptable" DRM.
You can always compare the "conservative right" opinion with the "wingnut right" opinion to get something that sounds liberal. But only by comparison.
Civ IV eventually came out in a DRM-free version. I want to support the game. I'll wait for Civ V to come out the same way, rather than pirate (or even threaten to pirate) the game.
In this case, both their first and second backup plans failed: The blowout prevention valve failed, and the attempts to manually close it with remotely operated vehicles also failed.
Exxon Valdez Bhopal Chernobyl Microsoft Vista Lehman Brothers Greece
It doesn't matter what industry you're in. It doesn't matter how prepared you are. Idiot-proofing your work is helping nature evolve more clever idiots.
To make matters worse, the hospital is now demanding that any machine that is used to check email (via email clients or webmail directly) be encrypted, including desktop-style machines at home,...
Perhaps there are. However, perhaps you missed the implications of this plan.
Humanoid robot. Complex action. Manipulation.
To achieve the goal of "drawing a flag" it seems reasonable that the robot would a) have both sensors and manipulators, and probably b) be updateable, or even teleoperation/telefactor.
At that point, what it can do once it gets there is only really limited by what you send with it, or what you can assemble once you get there.
For all that Hong Kong people may have the right to demonstrate, have a separate judiciary, there are still companies operating in Hong Kong that are being pressured to conform to mainland laws...
A Hong Kong Internet company, called TOM Online, announced it had stopped using Google's search mechanism. "TOM reiterated that as a Chinese company, we adhere to rules and regulations in China where we operate our businesses," the company's parent, Hong Kong-based TOM Group, said in a statement Tuesday.
Companies owned by people/companies subject to Chinese laws, or wishing to do business in China proper, will certainly have to make decisions based on the relations they want to keep with the Chinese government. I can well imagine employees of a HK company being denied visas based on the ire of some Chinese bureaucrat. Or Chinese citizens who own an obstreperous HK company getting harassed because of the behavior of that company.
Slashdot Mirror
Quill v North Dakota is a case regarding out-of-state Use Tax standards, as applied to mail order companies. This might have some influence on issues of Jurisdiction on internet companies.
So you conflate my pure and utter distain for DRM into a "you must be against copyright" argument,...
(From the GP:)
The ideal of DRM is, in its own right, the idea of building a wall around a public good.
I rather thought you had stated an anti-copyright position. Or did you mean something other than "property that belongs to the public" when you said "public good"?
You are quite correct. That is, in fact, my point: as the destination web site, any information you give them will be just as usable - and abusable - by Google as it ever was. And similarly, anyone who can put the thumbscrews to Google can still do so.
To be honest, I think your post is a "troll expressing a popular sentiment". Nonetheless, I feel you are inaccurate. (And thus, I am trolled...)
All "content" is based on common ideas and techniques. Be they musical, lyrical, dramatic, or technological ideas and techniques, they come from us, the general populace, and the previous authors, musicians etc.
So, you believe that, for instance, authors should not be paid by publishers, because the authors produce the "content" of the books that publishers print? The authors are abusing public cultural knowledge etc, while the publishers are making a physical good, right?
I find that an author paid is an author more prolific, since they can (ideally) use the time they'd otherwise spend earning their crust in writing more words. Since I desire more books (by authors I favor), I favor their being paid for their work.
The ideal of DRM is, in its own right, the idea of building a wall around a public good.
This only applies if you think, as you have implied, that a creator may never have control of his creation: that in the instant of creation, it becomes a "public good". It is where the public definition of how a creative work transitions from being a "private good" to being a "public good" that copyright law and patent law are all about. How you distinguish between the creation of a painting or statue (which produces a physical object, presumably with property rights), with the creation of a digital image (which exists as patterns of electrons) is unclear. Are you saying that anyone may duplicate my painting and sell it, even labeling it as my work, without my having a right to complain? After all, it was a work of "creation, based on common ideas and techniques". If not a painting, how less a digital image? Or a series of them?
But that argument is to a degree dishonest, conflating property rights to an object with creative rights (right to distribute). However, the painting analogy remains: if the creative work is a "public good" without restriction, I could not complain about your duplicating it, nor even with your passing the copy off as my work. No restriction, remember?
Personally, I feel that yes, copyright terms have been extended much, much too far. I view this as a lobbying failure on OUR part. (Note, the congressmen's pockets... er, ears... are still available.)
And yes, I feel that software should not be patented. I'll point out, however, that patents cover processes (read: techniques), something you railed at in your first sentence but ignored thereafter. Perhaps you'd like to add something about how taking out a patent - regardless of inventive merits - is a similar "taking of a public good"?
Investigative reporting costs money. Lack of investigative reporting is a result of dwindling revenues. If they can't afford to keep the "see this cute puppy" reporter on, how are they going to justify the reporter that breaks the next watergate scandal, but takes 6 months to do it? That, of course, is assuming that the reporter's story pans out, isn't scooped by some other service, etc...
So yeah, investigative reporting is a market he's already been largely forced out of already.
Alternately, you get a lot of increased lifespan for the same treatments. Can't spend that pension if you're not alive. It's only when quality of life degrades past a certain point that people would be willing to take the cash instead.
What this means, I believe, is that your web browsing might be immune to man-in-the-middle interception.
Interception by Google (and thus by anyone with the power to compel Google, IE USA, China, etc) will be the same as before. As well, you're still connecting TO Google, so you're still likely to be blocked from the site by the Great Firewall arrangements, even if your search terms themselves might be encrypted.
And not to forget that China has a tame certificate authority...
Cars where the battery is dead and need to be left running to get to the garage could wind up stopped with no power in the lane of traffic just before an intersection.
Even better, if you've got problems starting your car (automatically or otherwise), the light might decide that the sensor was "stuck" for some reason, and cycle again. Potentially shutting your car off again just as you get it started...
Naw, that'll merely mean that you come down under the wheels of the 18-wheeler behind you - who was ALSO running the yellow, but doesn't have the fancy computer ejection seat controls...
Accepting the pain of a workout in order to finish a marathon. Working long hours to get a promotion. Laboring in the hot sun to create a beautiful garden.
...grinding Darkmoon Faire rep to get the title "The Insane"...
What are the odds, though, that the traffic light sensors being proposed are going to be better? And that's disregarding any condition of the car itself.
I've driven cars (particularly, to "the shop") under conditions where if the engine stopped, it would not start again. (Alternator/battery issues, primarily.) The same people who insist you drive with your headlights under automatic control aren't going to allow for that situation either.
A driver isn't merely someone who tells the car where to go. The driver is the one who is responsible for getting/keeping the vehicle running correctly, or deciding when it is not safe to do so. (It is unlikely, for instance, for automated devices to detect that the windshield has gone milky-white opaque/crazed, for instance...)
That's not controlling the apps, or controlling what you can do with your phone. It's controlling what you *can't* do. It takes an extremely warped view of reality to define things you *can't* do as controlling the things you *can* do, unless the list of thing you can't do are disproportionately large (in which case it's the other way around, and saying it *isn't* control is the absurd notion).
Might brush up on your set theory. According to you, Apple is making a "set of things you can't do on the iPhone". By definition, what is left is the "set of things apple does not prohibit you to do on the iPhone".
You are wrong in how you constructed that set, though. It specifically approval, not denial that is going on here. The App approval process is specifically "Apple allowing you to do X with the iPhone". If they don't approve the app, they don't list it, you can't buy it.
That is, anything not expressly approved is prohibited.
It does not matter that the number of rejections are small. The number of rejections does not change the nature of the set. Only the process by with the set is formed matters.
As for the absolute number of rejections... They've listed some things categorically as "we won't approve applications of this type". Is it surprising that authors have self-selected for apps that are not pre-prohibited? And, where do you get your information on the absolute number of rejected apps, anyway? Is there a ticker somewhere showing the Apple approval process, "this many approved, that many rejected"? Or are you relying on media stories?
When you talk about control, but people can freely and easily bypass your prime example, that doesn't really help your case.
Freely and easily? ... and nobody has ever had problems with their jailbroken phone bricking up, for example?
Until it's been approved, it's not even a law, just a bill. And bills don't make things illegal.
I dunno, a nuke could keep you pretty warm.
Yup. For the rest of your life, in fact.
The superintendent made a point of bringing up the state nutritional policies. If they were irrelevant, why did he bring them up?
Dismissing them now is easy, since the state agriculture department did as well. But did they play a part in the policy decision? Since he brought the state policies up, I'd say "yes".
Seriously. I had only a short time to play the other night, so I chose WoW over Civ IV, because I could stop playing WoW easier.
You got dirt? I had to make my dirt out of raw pixels! And I was grateful for those pixels!
... in the same way that shooting yourself in to foot is preferable to shooting yourself in the head.
The least evil here is NO DRM, not "acceptable" DRM.
You can always compare the "conservative right" opinion with the "wingnut right" opinion to get something that sounds liberal. But only by comparison.
Civ IV eventually came out in a DRM-free version. I want to support the game. I'll wait for Civ V to come out the same way, rather than pirate (or even threaten to pirate) the game.
School Administration: "Hey, activate the anti-theft program on XXXXX due to non-payment."
School IT: "If we do that, we could become liable for privacy violations, lawsuits, and widespread protest. Have you sought a legal opinion on this?"
School Administration: "Just do it, okay?"
School IT: "(mail history enclosed) I will do so, but only under protest. (cc: School Board ... cc: State Attorney General)"
School Administration: "Bye Bye"
Former School IT: "I got your 'Bye Bye' right here, baby."
Fixed that for ya.
Lock up anyone who might become a child abuser?
Possibly.
In a word, no.
By the same rationale, you would lock up every male on the planet for being a potential rapist.
In this case, both their first and second backup plans failed: The blowout prevention valve failed, and the attempts to manually close it with remotely operated vehicles also failed.
Exxon Valdez
Bhopal
Chernobyl
Microsoft Vista
Lehman Brothers
Greece
It doesn't matter what industry you're in. It doesn't matter how prepared you are. Idiot-proofing your work is helping nature evolve more clever idiots.
I don't think they're logging in from home.
FTFA:
To make matters worse, the hospital is now demanding that any machine that is used to check email (via email clients or webmail directly) be encrypted, including desktop-style machines at home, ...
Is 2^4339 bits actually 1337 code granules? c00lz!
Perhaps there are. However, perhaps you missed the implications of this plan.
Humanoid robot. Complex action. Manipulation.
To achieve the goal of "drawing a flag" it seems reasonable that the robot would a) have both sensors and manipulators, and probably b) be updateable, or even teleoperation/telefactor.
At that point, what it can do once it gets there is only really limited by what you send with it, or what you can assemble once you get there.
For all that Hong Kong people may have the right to demonstrate, have a separate judiciary, there are still companies operating in Hong Kong that are being pressured to conform to mainland laws...
A Hong Kong Internet company, called TOM Online, announced it had stopped using Google's search mechanism. "TOM reiterated that as a Chinese company, we adhere to rules and regulations in China where we operate our businesses," the company's parent, Hong Kong-based TOM Group, said in a statement Tuesday.
Companies owned by people/companies subject to Chinese laws, or wishing to do business in China proper, will certainly have to make decisions based on the relations they want to keep with the Chinese government. I can well imagine employees of a HK company being denied visas based on the ire of some Chinese bureaucrat. Or Chinese citizens who own an obstreperous HK company getting harassed because of the behavior of that company.