If you buy the car, you OWN the car and everything in it right? if you own those heated seats, its not exactly piracy if you enable them. How would they stop that?
They make it only available on leased models, and refuse to "sell" the vehicle. Similar to how they did that with software.
AT&T could refuse to sign up to the neighborhood infrastructure unless everyone paid for a normal account with AT&T. The HOA (or OP) would have to eat the costs of burying and building all of the mini-ISP's infrastructure.
They could go to the state and get a law passed that HOAs and public interest groups are not allowed to provide ISP service. Like they did in South Carolina to municipalities. Next they'll go to the FCC and get them to reclassify ISPs are common carriers so that it's impossible to make new competitors due to regulatory hurtles.
If you're that concerned about not affecting other users, then either separate hardware or virtualization is the answer. Whether you virtualize or buy new hardware depends on the level of performance required and what else will be running at the same time. If you want to build in the background and continue to maintain your existing audio suite (wich, as you say, needs to take over all reqources on the machine) then you've answered your own question: buy the separate box that you remote into for your development work.
I would note that a lot of the audio editing suites out there do not like it when you install additional products to your system and become more unstable the more you add. This is another vote for separate hardware - keeping stability on your current box (which means more time working and less time debugging the system).
We at Oracle care about you and your data. Thank you for taking this opportunity to comment on . We will take your concerns into account, and will address them in our next release of the circular file.
A Wall Street bank, a top-tier cancer hospital, or a world-class university would have upgraded to Python 3.x years ago. That's just what makes them the best. They don't wait for others to tell them what do to. They know what to do before anyone else does, and then they do it. That includes upgrading to Python 3.x early.
Explain to me why all these folks still have machines running DOS if they're so forward looking?
Technically, investment is commerce. Money is changing hands, with a contract that money will be paid back based on certain parameters. In your view, is all banking is not commerce because there's no physical goods?
"Not unconstitutional (very arguable in this case) != OK."
Absolutely incorrect.
What the other poster was saying is that Legal != Morally "Right". Although the example used is a bit far-fetched; forced government adoption of all children would likely be held unconstitutional for many different reasons (treating persons as property, forced or coerced revocation of parental rights without proof of harm, and several others come to mind immediately).
Terrorism is irrelevant. Whether the programs work or not is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not it's constitutional, and it's not.
Welcome to the invented concept of "Standing". This is the current tool that is used to prevent Constitutional challenges to this law: you're not hurt, so why should we care? And you can't prove you're hurt, go home and pound sand.
The Supreme Court is doing everything it can to NOT decide the Constitutional questions, and is inventing law to make sure it never has to.
It has been used to nullify Federal marijuana laws. It has been used to nullify Federal firearms laws. It has been used (by 26 states!) to nullify the Federal "Real ID Act".
Actually, the Medical Marijuana laws (and Colorado's new law) are not nullifying Federal law. They are a separate set of laws for handling drug cases that come up for prosecution at the state level (or instructing local law enforcement to ignore those cases entirely). If the FBI picks you up for trafficking in those states, you're not going to state court, but federal court. And in those courts, I guarantee you that nullification will not be allowed as a defense. I would not call that "successful" nullification - I'd call that lack of enforcement by the locals.
As for the Fugitive Slave laws, they were a direct response to separate state and federal enforcement of law, and followed a Supreme Court case stating that all enforcement of Federal slave laws must be done by Federal agents (see Prigg v Pennsylvania). They were not nullification in any sense - they were exactly the same as the Medical Marijuana today.
The REAL ID act is more interesting - it's a Federal requirement that states implement a program without any true legal reasoning or real enforcement mechanism. This is the closest we've come to an example of actual nullification, as we have conflicting laws with the same jurisdiction. Last I heard, the states were no longer required to implement it, but their citizens would be required to get federal ID (ie, a Passport) if they needed to prove identity to any Federal agency (including the TSA). At the end, they were handing out administrative waivers like candy, so it might be a moot point now. I'm waiting for that one to pop back up on the radar tho - it's an unanswered question as far as I know.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon was killed in a fiery car wreck early this morning. After the flames we extinguished, the car was discovered to have a special hidden compartment that contained child pornography, cocaine, Al Qaeda literature, plans to bomb Congress and Justin Beiber albums.
When asked, his wife said "no comment".
Fox News reported that this Liberal Activist Judge is the norm for Democratic Presidential nominations and his guilt is obvious.
Sean Hannity states, "This is where Obama has pushed us."
Rush says, "What! What do you expect from a Democrat!"
Stewart makes some jokes...
Colbert makes some jokes...
Mahr makes some jokes...
The Internet talks out of their collective asses....
And we make one more step towards World wide totalitarianism.
It's gonna happen. Just when I get hope of the future more shit happens that shows the dystopian future of scifi authors is coming true.
The only thing? Not so. 'We' did it in 1776, and 'we' can do it again.
Bwahahahaha... (as if)
No, we can't. We'd be branded terrorists and subject to drone strikes and rendition. The major difference between then and now is that we're living in the same land as the oppressors, with instant deployment capability - back then it took a couple months to get troops and intel back and forth.
You are talking about a pen register.
"Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required." --Wikipedia
This is what I think the NSA is referring to when they talk about "meta-data" with regards to cell phone tracking.
The judge attacked the application of that case directly. Smith v Maryland dealt with a few days of calls from one number, with no past history. Not the explicit collection of the entire country's phone records from all providers, and maintaining a daily-updated database of at least 5 years worth of history with instant query capability across the entire time span. Smith was a very limited operation, the NSA's data collectino is by its very construction immense in scope with no justification except "BOO TERROR".
In other words, the States can decide that even the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds, and nullify laws passed by Congress even if the Supreme Court has not struck them down.
That's got to be the funniest post you've made yet. The states will do jack and shit because:
1) It's doubtful any majority of state governments are against this
2) Even if there was such a majority, the Federal government would simply use the threat of cutting off the 10s of billions in funding they give to the states leaving them with huge budget holes.
State nullification of Federal law is not allowed. There was a little thing called slavery that brought that argument (and the succession argument) to the fore. Didn't turn out so well for anyone, but the question was answered for the next hundred years or so. Or are you suggesting that we should put them back on the table?
"But...but...but the amorphous "everyone is going to make them pay!!!"
That isn't what I wrote. Maybe try working on your reading comprehension?
GP: "Who will correct them?"
Me: "Everybody"
I did not write that everybody was "going to make them pay". I wrote that "everyone" would correct them.
People do write about Supreme Court decisions, you know. And some of them have been famously bad. Today's SCOTUS already has a bad reputation, for making bad decisions. They probably can't afford another of same.
Bad decisions by SCOTUS are still in-stone precedent until another case makes it back onto the docket. At which time they can ignore, affirm, or reverse themselves. Once a case is decided (even badly), it usually takes decades for another case to make its way onto the docket. No amount of bad press, riots, or military action with change that (unless you're talking about the complete overthrow of the entire government, along with all laws and case history - good luck with that).
and format the machine every 6-12 months. Keeps things running smoothly.
Is that the sad state of windows these days? Format twice a year to keep it running smoothly? I have a machine running smoothly since 2005 - the only formatting being change of worn-out disks. Never ever reinstalled, only a monthly upgrade of software. But then, Linux is in a different league . ..
... And I'll bet you're not allowing anyone to click on spam/scam ads, or install that latest handy coupon program. For these types of users, yeah, a fresh install every few months is a good thing.
Bottom line: DRM as a hassle means the onus is on content providers to provide users with a suitable value proposition and it leaves greedy or misguided or trend-following content providers who cannot meet that standard out of the web (or else on the web, but free). DRM as an integrated seamless solution flips that around and leaves consumers who seek free content out of the web.
Absolutely false. This is because of two factors: (1) DRM as defined in the HTML standard is not seamless in any way, and (2) Media companies know better than their consumers. Note I do not use the word Customer here - you're not a customer (someone who deserves respect and makes knowledge-based purchasing decisions), you're a consumer (a mindless zombie who will give us your money for whatever reasons we deem good enough).
The DRM scheme is designed to be just like the old Mozilla plugin scheme - if you happen to be on a "supported platform", you have to download and install a module in order to get the content. And every studio and provider is going to roll their own module, thus cluttering up your system with many different modules just to view a single piece of media.
That rationale (as I've heard it explained) is that media (video/audio) content distributors are going to implement DRM, so the Hobson's choice is between giving them a standard interface (HTML EME) or having every distributor create their own proprietary media player (probably platform-specific with embedded rootkit).
The problem here is that they're still going to do the same thing anyway. They're going to introduce just their own proprietary DRM plugin that is platform specific, instead of making the entire player platform specific. This is like saying we're only going to poison the chocolate chips instead of the entire cookie. The user is still dead.
DRM in this standard is actually much worse, because HTML5 with DRM means many different incompatible HTML5 implementations all of which are valid. This makes the entire point of saying that your site complies with "HTML5 standard" meaningless. This is kind of like each media company introducing their own Blu-Ray disks with incompatible encryption - forcing you to buy not just their disks, but also their player. Sony disks would play in the PS4, but not in your computer, while Dreamworks would require you buy a new player and TV just to play their movie. But everyone still calls them Blu-Ray.
So we're going to go back to the bad old days of the plugin wars - only this time there's no incentive to settle on a single standard for everyone because the media giants each own their own implementations now and don't want to lose the investment.
Mbvious Microsoft questioner is obvious (syncing "C:" and "Z:"?). Microsoft shill would have recommended Azure and VS2013 Cloud Services for source and revision control. Which I would never, ever do - give all my source code to another firm? Hells no. I hesitate to put anything in github for the same reason.
Slashdot Mirror
If you buy the car, you OWN the car and everything in it right? if you own those heated seats, its not exactly piracy if you enable them. How would they stop that?
They make it only available on leased models, and refuse to "sell" the vehicle. Similar to how they did that with software.
And by "crush" you mean, what?
AT&T could refuse to sign up to the neighborhood infrastructure unless everyone paid for a normal account with AT&T. The HOA (or OP) would have to eat the costs of burying and building all of the mini-ISP's infrastructure.
They could go to the state and get a law passed that HOAs and public interest groups are not allowed to provide ISP service. Like they did in South Carolina to municipalities. Next they'll go to the FCC and get them to reclassify ISPs are common carriers so that it's impossible to make new competitors due to regulatory hurtles.
I'd like to think I'm paranoid and/or kidding.
If you're that concerned about not affecting other users, then either separate hardware or virtualization is the answer. Whether you virtualize or buy new hardware depends on the level of performance required and what else will be running at the same time. If you want to build in the background and continue to maintain your existing audio suite (wich, as you say, needs to take over all reqources on the machine) then you've answered your own question: buy the separate box that you remote into for your development work. I would note that a lot of the audio editing suites out there do not like it when you install additional products to your system and become more unstable the more you add. This is another vote for separate hardware - keeping stability on your current box (which means more time working and less time debugging the system).
That's what happens when you tell the rover to execute a burn out - sand and rocks fly everywhere!
We at Oracle care about you and your data. Thank you for taking this opportunity to comment on . We will take your concerns into account, and will address them in our next release of the circular file.
A Wall Street bank, a top-tier cancer hospital, or a world-class university would have upgraded to Python 3.x years ago. That's just what makes them the best. They don't wait for others to tell them what do to. They know what to do before anyone else does, and then they do it. That includes upgrading to Python 3.x early.
Explain to me why all these folks still have machines running DOS if they're so forward looking?
Technically, investment is commerce. Money is changing hands, with a contract that money will be paid back based on certain parameters. In your view, is all banking is not commerce because there's no physical goods?
"Not unconstitutional (very arguable in this case) != OK."
Absolutely incorrect.
What the other poster was saying is that Legal != Morally "Right". Although the example used is a bit far-fetched; forced government adoption of all children would likely be held unconstitutional for many different reasons (treating persons as property, forced or coerced revocation of parental rights without proof of harm, and several others come to mind immediately).
Terrorism is irrelevant. Whether the programs work or not is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not it's constitutional, and it's not.
Welcome to the invented concept of "Standing". This is the current tool that is used to prevent Constitutional challenges to this law: you're not hurt, so why should we care? And you can't prove you're hurt, go home and pound sand.
The Supreme Court is doing everything it can to NOT decide the Constitutional questions, and is inventing law to make sure it never has to.
And the guy doesnt even mention current events. Fail.
Read the judge's full ruling.
Where the hell do you think you are? Wikipedia? No references here!
It has been used to nullify Federal marijuana laws. It has been used to nullify Federal firearms laws. It has been used (by 26 states!) to nullify the Federal "Real ID Act".
Actually, the Medical Marijuana laws (and Colorado's new law) are not nullifying Federal law. They are a separate set of laws for handling drug cases that come up for prosecution at the state level (or instructing local law enforcement to ignore those cases entirely). If the FBI picks you up for trafficking in those states, you're not going to state court, but federal court. And in those courts, I guarantee you that nullification will not be allowed as a defense. I would not call that "successful" nullification - I'd call that lack of enforcement by the locals. As for the Fugitive Slave laws, they were a direct response to separate state and federal enforcement of law, and followed a Supreme Court case stating that all enforcement of Federal slave laws must be done by Federal agents (see Prigg v Pennsylvania). They were not nullification in any sense - they were exactly the same as the Medical Marijuana today. The REAL ID act is more interesting - it's a Federal requirement that states implement a program without any true legal reasoning or real enforcement mechanism. This is the closest we've come to an example of actual nullification, as we have conflicting laws with the same jurisdiction. Last I heard, the states were no longer required to implement it, but their citizens would be required to get federal ID (ie, a Passport) if they needed to prove identity to any Federal agency (including the TSA). At the end, they were handing out administrative waivers like candy, so it might be a moot point now. I'm waiting for that one to pop back up on the radar tho - it's an unanswered question as far as I know.
And a Beatles reference. I'm going to start calling random collections of junk facts a "Ringo database".
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon was killed in a fiery car wreck early this morning. After the flames we extinguished, the car was discovered to have a special hidden compartment that contained child pornography, cocaine, Al Qaeda literature, plans to bomb Congress and Justin Beiber albums.
When asked, his wife said "no comment".
Fox News reported that this Liberal Activist Judge is the norm for Democratic Presidential nominations and his guilt is obvious.
Sean Hannity states, "This is where Obama has pushed us."
Rush says, "What! What do you expect from a Democrat!"
Stewart makes some jokes...
Colbert makes some jokes...
Mahr makes some jokes...
The Internet talks out of their collective asses ....
And we make one more step towards World wide totalitarianism.
It's gonna happen. Just when I get hope of the future more shit happens that shows the dystopian future of scifi authors is coming true.
FTFY
The only thing? Not so. 'We' did it in 1776, and 'we' can do it again.
Bwahahahaha... (as if)
No, we can't. We'd be branded terrorists and subject to drone strikes and rendition. The major difference between then and now is that we're living in the same land as the oppressors, with instant deployment capability - back then it took a couple months to get troops and intel back and forth.
You are talking about a pen register. "Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required." --Wikipedia This is what I think the NSA is referring to when they talk about "meta-data" with regards to cell phone tracking.
The judge attacked the application of that case directly. Smith v Maryland dealt with a few days of calls from one number, with no past history. Not the explicit collection of the entire country's phone records from all providers, and maintaining a daily-updated database of at least 5 years worth of history with instant query capability across the entire time span. Smith was a very limited operation, the NSA's data collectino is by its very construction immense in scope with no justification except "BOO TERROR".
In other words, the States can decide that even the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds, and nullify laws passed by Congress even if the Supreme Court has not struck them down.
That's got to be the funniest post you've made yet. The states will do jack and shit because:
1) It's doubtful any majority of state governments are against this 2) Even if there was such a majority, the Federal government would simply use the threat of cutting off the 10s of billions in funding they give to the states leaving them with huge budget holes.
State nullification of Federal law is not allowed. There was a little thing called slavery that brought that argument (and the succession argument) to the fore. Didn't turn out so well for anyone, but the question was answered for the next hundred years or so. Or are you suggesting that we should put them back on the table?
The written word has power. Supreme Court justices do not want to be remembered by history as idiots.
Except that the victors write the history books. So they're not idiots - they're patriots. At least in their heads.
"But...but...but the amorphous "everyone is going to make them pay!!!"
That isn't what I wrote. Maybe try working on your reading comprehension? GP: "Who will correct them?" Me: "Everybody" I did not write that everybody was "going to make them pay". I wrote that "everyone" would correct them. People do write about Supreme Court decisions, you know. And some of them have been famously bad. Today's SCOTUS already has a bad reputation, for making bad decisions. They probably can't afford another of same.
Bad decisions by SCOTUS are still in-stone precedent until another case makes it back onto the docket. At which time they can ignore, affirm, or reverse themselves. Once a case is decided (even badly), it usually takes decades for another case to make its way onto the docket. No amount of bad press, riots, or military action with change that (unless you're talking about the complete overthrow of the entire government, along with all laws and case history - good luck with that).
Yeah, last time this question got to the supreme court, the court's reaction was "you can't prove you're being spied on, go away"
The judge in this case recognized this fact, and explicitly answered it. The answer is: See now unclassified NSA and FISC documents.
Since this is now in the open, can the original case be brought back up?
and format the machine every 6-12 months. Keeps things running smoothly.
Is that the sad state of windows these days? Format twice a year to keep it running smoothly? I have a machine running smoothly since 2005 - the only formatting being change of worn-out disks. Never ever reinstalled, only a monthly upgrade of software. But then, Linux is in a different league . . .
... And I'll bet you're not allowing anyone to click on spam/scam ads, or install that latest handy coupon program. For these types of users, yeah, a fresh install every few months is a good thing.
They're not that new. I welcome our old Asgardian overlords.
Bottom line: DRM as a hassle means the onus is on content providers to provide users with a suitable value proposition and it leaves greedy or misguided or trend-following content providers who cannot meet that standard out of the web (or else on the web, but free). DRM as an integrated seamless solution flips that around and leaves consumers who seek free content out of the web.
Absolutely false. This is because of two factors: (1) DRM as defined in the HTML standard is not seamless in any way, and (2) Media companies know better than their consumers. Note I do not use the word Customer here - you're not a customer (someone who deserves respect and makes knowledge-based purchasing decisions), you're a consumer (a mindless zombie who will give us your money for whatever reasons we deem good enough).
The DRM scheme is designed to be just like the old Mozilla plugin scheme - if you happen to be on a "supported platform", you have to download and install a module in order to get the content. And every studio and provider is going to roll their own module, thus cluttering up your system with many different modules just to view a single piece of media.
That rationale (as I've heard it explained) is that media (video/audio) content distributors are going to implement DRM, so the Hobson's choice is between giving them a standard interface (HTML EME) or having every distributor create their own proprietary media player (probably platform-specific with embedded rootkit).
The problem here is that they're still going to do the same thing anyway. They're going to introduce just their own proprietary DRM plugin that is platform specific, instead of making the entire player platform specific. This is like saying we're only going to poison the chocolate chips instead of the entire cookie. The user is still dead.
DRM in this standard is actually much worse, because HTML5 with DRM means many different incompatible HTML5 implementations all of which are valid. This makes the entire point of saying that your site complies with "HTML5 standard" meaningless. This is kind of like each media company introducing their own Blu-Ray disks with incompatible encryption - forcing you to buy not just their disks, but also their player. Sony disks would play in the PS4, but not in your computer, while Dreamworks would require you buy a new player and TV just to play their movie. But everyone still calls them Blu-Ray.
So we're going to go back to the bad old days of the plugin wars - only this time there's no incentive to settle on a single standard for everyone because the media giants each own their own implementations now and don't want to lose the investment.
Mbvious Microsoft questioner is obvious (syncing "C:" and "Z:"?). Microsoft shill would have recommended Azure and VS2013 Cloud Services for source and revision control. Which I would never, ever do - give all my source code to another firm? Hells no. I hesitate to put anything in github for the same reason.