You can't allow "researching facts" without at the same time allowing "researching the case" by the same mechanism. (Unless your mechanism is the Encyclopedia Brittanica-dead tree edition, or the like.)
To take it a step further, professional knowledge is placed under limits as well. The question is one of "becoming a defacto unsworn expert witness", and unduly swaying the jury.
If, in the jury room, I stand up and announce myself as "Dr Science!", an expert on epistemological ontology, and I *know* the defendant is innocent "because, in my experience, blah, blah, blah", the other jurors may well ignore evidence given in the trial. I'm "an expert", after all.
And in any case, lawyers get success by picking jurors who they think might be sympathetic to their case, not ones most likely to intuit "the truth".
You point out that the path you can take is a determining factor of distance. I'd point out that other factors than mere geometric can determine "distance". For instance, "freeway miles" vs "bulldozer miles".
Also, it can be useful to use time, not space, as the "distance" between two points. For instance, the distance from work to home is 2 hours by bus, but only 30 minutes if I walk. A velocity equivalent can be a bit tricky to work out, though...
He just would have to sign his copyright over to The Space Exploration Archive. They, in turn, would release it to the public domain.
That still a vastly better deal. He would earn just as much money (IE nada), but he could show a copy of his own movie to anyone he wanted without having to pay 'the label'.
I think it's more likely that the data they are getting is skewed:
"No officer! I wasn't texting while driving!"
The time between the accident and the officer arriving on the scene is more than long enough to press "send" or "delete". I really doubt that officers collect driver's cell phone numbers to correlate phone records against the time of the accident. The only other option is if the driver is incapacitated or killed in the accident...
> We told you that any government-mandated net neutrality was going to be a lot of fun. >...the monopolies...
So was government inaction. When the monopoly makes the decision, there is no recourse, is there?
> Not to mention the whole net neutrality debate was mostly paranoia anyway.
It's only paranoia if it is delusional or excessive. The fears HAVE exceeded the current reality, as most pessimistic predictions will. The Neutrality fears have put the issue on the political table. I submit that the fears of regulation - caused by precisely that 'paranoia' making it an issue - have worked to suppress excesses.
That is, the only reason we don't have more real neutrality infringements is because of the concern and the resultant scrutiny and political discussions.
> You actually don't own the games you buy physically either. You're getting a license to use them, like with any other software.
This fails the duck test.
Despite having "License" information inside the package, you have already purchased the software (media and materials) before being presented with a license. Further, the company has no expectation of reclaiming the software.
There have been a few indirect challenges to "software licensing", "shrinkwrap licensing", and EULAs; not all in favor of the customer, not all in favor of the "licensor". Some have even been covered here on Slashdot.
Interestingly, they don't really need to. This works by essentially saturating the template and analyzing the results.
That is, for each template they want to block, they need to get a very large sample of the possible messages that spam generator can write, and analyze it.
This means that the spam writers only need to change the template to break free of that filter.
This new development just shortens the cycle a bit.
There are several practical issues that you've simply hand-waved off. For instance, there's no "person" there to "throw in jail". The best you can do is force the company to immediately cease business.
On the other hand, if you can prove particular violations of civil or criminal law, people who control the company can be vulnerable. For instance, the HP "pretexting" issue, Enron failures, etc.
Consider too, what benefit one can get by causing a service company (say... AT&T or Verizon) to stop business for some period, or forever. Who actually benefits from this happening? Other companies, perhaps. The armchair lawyers, probably. But not necessarily the customer.
> It isn't censorship to restrict time, plane and manner of speech. Thus, for example, saying you can't scream your views at 2 AM in a residential neighborhood isn't censorship by any reasonable definition.
So... Free Speech Zones are not censorship? Perhaps you are right, but only in the way they are implemented.
Today, a game like System Shock would fail because I doubt even 20% of the current market would have the cerebrum to get through the first 2 levels, let alone have a chance of finishing it.
Here's another suggestion: A helmet-mounted camera-transmitter setup, sending to your computer at home, and biking with friends. Digital evidence of harassment, complete with license plates.... assuming you aren't road-pizza yourself.
Sure, it's possible to uncover someone's account details from things they've done at work. The system administrator is in a perfect position to intercept anything between the employee's computer and the rest of the world.
1) Check for facebook/myspace pages. The information may be right out there for the world to see. 2) Check the connection log for their computer's IP address. (Ah, they visited the wow forums, and the armory.) 3) Fire up their browser (you do have admin password, don't you? And it's company property, isn't it?), check for saved web login information. 3b) Track non-secured wowarmory access. What pages do they go back to regularly? High probability that some of those are characters of theirs. 4) Track other related site browsing information (do they have a guild page? perhaps a critter corner profile?)
Most folks don't regularly browse with TOR, or even use elementary privacy hygiene practices. Sure these things are invasive. But it's not like you weren't looking for an excuse to fire the person anyway...
Mind... you're putting precious IT staff time to a task that is often as simple as "I don't like your face. Take your coffee cup and go."
Logging in from work, even on a break, is probably a bad idea. Your break is, what, 15 minutes? 30 minutes? Just enough time to get immersed in things when you have to log off. You're better off with Bejeweled or something.
Slashdot Mirror
...Their kids, though, consider themselves Canadians first and foremost, and their language preferences (they know both...
Ah, you're not in Quebec, I'm guessing, else you'd call it three (French being the third).
But then, how much immigration does Quebec get, compared to (for instance) Brittish Columbia?
That you are correct makes me more concerned about "company censorship", rather than less.
Been there, done that. The critical element of the device fell out. The only question is, "How long until the planet disappears"?
You can't allow "researching facts" without at the same time allowing "researching the case" by the same mechanism. (Unless your mechanism is the Encyclopedia Brittanica-dead tree edition, or the like.)
To take it a step further, professional knowledge is placed under limits as well. The question is one of "becoming a defacto unsworn expert witness", and unduly swaying the jury.
If, in the jury room, I stand up and announce myself as "Dr Science!", an expert on epistemological ontology, and I *know* the defendant is innocent "because, in my experience, blah, blah, blah", the other jurors may well ignore evidence given in the trial. I'm "an expert", after all.
And in any case, lawyers get success by picking jurors who they think might be sympathetic to their case, not ones most likely to intuit "the truth".
You point out that the path you can take is a determining factor of distance. I'd point out that other factors than mere geometric can determine "distance". For instance, "freeway miles" vs "bulldozer miles".
Also, it can be useful to use time, not space, as the "distance" between two points. For instance, the distance from work to home is 2 hours by bus, but only 30 minutes if I walk. A velocity equivalent can be a bit tricky to work out, though...
... and don't mind that my 1,000 lb checked-luggage in the hold was ticking...
He just would have to sign his copyright over to The Space Exploration Archive. They, in turn, would release it to the public domain.
That still a vastly better deal. He would earn just as much money (IE nada), but he could show a copy of his own movie to anyone he wanted without having to pay 'the label'.
To paraphrase xkcd:
Movies: "Look, you can clearly see the O-ring giving way there!"
Reality: "We can continue blowing this up and interpolating pixels, but anything we saw would be just our imagination."
I think it's more likely that the data they are getting is skewed:
"No officer! I wasn't texting while driving!"
The time between the accident and the officer arriving on the scene is more than long enough to press "send" or "delete". I really doubt that officers collect driver's cell phone numbers to correlate phone records against the time of the accident. The only other option is if the driver is incapacitated or killed in the accident...
Oho! So THAT's why none of the used cars I've bought have included missiles!
> We told you that any government-mandated net neutrality was going to be a lot of fun. ...the monopolies...
>
So was government inaction. When the monopoly makes the decision, there is no recourse, is there?
> Not to mention the whole net neutrality debate was mostly paranoia anyway.
It's only paranoia if it is delusional or excessive. The fears HAVE exceeded the current reality, as most pessimistic predictions will. The Neutrality fears have put the issue on the political table. I submit that the fears of regulation - caused by precisely that 'paranoia' making it an issue - have worked to suppress excesses.
That is, the only reason we don't have more real neutrality infringements is because of the concern and the resultant scrutiny and political discussions.
By subtly changing where the errors occur (and which ones are reported), they can correlate your slashdot post with the attempted page fetch...
I was going to reply with some amusing-but-pithy comment, but I don't have the activation key.
> You actually don't own the games you buy physically either. You're getting a license to use them, like with any other software.
This fails the duck test.
Despite having "License" information inside the package, you have already purchased the software (media and materials) before being presented with a license. Further, the company has no expectation of reclaiming the software.
There have been a few indirect challenges to "software licensing", "shrinkwrap licensing", and EULAs; not all in favor of the customer, not all in favor of the "licensor". Some have even been covered here on Slashdot.
Interestingly, they don't really need to. This works by essentially saturating the template and analyzing the results.
That is, for each template they want to block, they need to get a very large sample of the possible messages that spam generator can write, and analyze it.
This means that the spam writers only need to change the template to break free of that filter.
This new development just shortens the cycle a bit.
There are several practical issues that you've simply hand-waved off. For instance, there's no "person" there to "throw in jail". The best you can do is force the company to immediately cease business.
On the other hand, if you can prove particular violations of civil or criminal law, people who control the company can be vulnerable. For instance, the HP "pretexting" issue, Enron failures, etc.
Consider too, what benefit one can get by causing a service company (say... AT&T or Verizon) to stop business for some period, or forever. Who actually benefits from this happening? Other companies, perhaps. The armchair lawyers, probably. But not necessarily the customer.
> It isn't censorship to restrict time, plane and manner of speech. Thus, for example, saying you can't scream your views at 2 AM in a residential neighborhood isn't censorship by any reasonable definition.
So... Free Speech Zones are not censorship? Perhaps you are right, but only in the way they are implemented.
That is, selectively.
Killer latency, dude. Maybe your hearth point should be in Ironforge, not Dalaran...
Today, a game like System Shock would fail because I doubt even 20% of the current market would have the cerebrum to get through the first 2 levels, let alone have a chance of finishing it.
Man, that's some powerful skepticism!
Sorry, never played those games... but "Ogre" and "Battle" do bring up another memory for me: a tabletop game from Steve Jackson Games.
It ain't a real Ogre unless it's a continental siege unit! ... Unless it's a Bolo instead...
Here's another suggestion: A helmet-mounted camera-transmitter setup, sending to your computer at home, and biking with friends. Digital evidence of harassment, complete with license plates. ... assuming you aren't road-pizza yourself.
TSA ID requirements such a big deal? You can always, you know, just quit flying.
Sure, it's possible to uncover someone's account details from things they've done at work. The system administrator is in a perfect position to intercept anything between the employee's computer and the rest of the world.
1) Check for facebook/myspace pages. The information may be right out there for the world to see.
2) Check the connection log for their computer's IP address. (Ah, they visited the wow forums, and the armory.)
3) Fire up their browser (you do have admin password, don't you? And it's company property, isn't it?), check for saved web login information.
3b) Track non-secured wowarmory access. What pages do they go back to regularly? High probability that some of those are characters of theirs.
4) Track other related site browsing information (do they have a guild page? perhaps a critter corner profile?)
Most folks don't regularly browse with TOR, or even use elementary privacy hygiene practices. Sure these things are invasive. But it's not like you weren't looking for an excuse to fire the person anyway...
Mind... you're putting precious IT staff time to a task that is often as simple as "I don't like your face. Take your coffee cup and go."
But wait! Slowjoe on the Muradin server is mine, not on Bronzebeard!
You'll want to be careful of the facts, doing that sort of thing.
Logging in from work, even on a break, is probably a bad idea. Your break is, what, 15 minutes? 30 minutes? Just enough time to get immersed in things when you have to log off. You're better off with Bejeweled or something.