You thing the inside of the computer is disgusting because of smoking? How about the enormous amount of dust that collects inside a computer? How about all the hair and skin oil that collects inside the keyboard? If I were working with computers, I would not be particularly disturbed by a thin layer of smoke residue on the parts, since the accumulation of filth inside a computer is routine.
This has me worrying about "vaccines" for other drugs. In a century, maybe nobody in the USA will be able to relax with $drug_of_choice, because of mandatory "vaccination" against the effects of any psychoactives.
I do not know, I am really not a doctor. My point was that people can use tobacco without developing a dependence on it, that's all.
I would be interested in finding out if people with a dependence on both alcohol and tobacco would really be helped by this "vaccine" -- maybe taking the joy out of tobacco could lead to people consuming even more alcohol.
Really, they can glean a whole lot more information, and it may not be information they should be gleaning. You thought that affair was a private matter, but they figured out that there was an extra person in the house; this might be used against you (e.g. as the auto companies tried to send women after Ralph Nader to create a scandal).
There should be explicit privacy built into the smart grid. Oh well, not enough people care.
It would nice if we could exchange tags -- I should be able to email a picture to you, with semantic information, and you should be able to use that information. Of course, the issue here is that sometimes you will send data that should have been kept private...
If you RTFA, you will see that obtaining a paper copy costs 25 per page; the city's charter and administrative code comprise many hundreds of pages, and thus the copying fee becomes expensive too.
I would agree if there was any indication that the restriction technologies were in place in any advertisement or specification for the device. Guess what? I have never, in my entire life, walked into an electronics store and seen any indication that any device has any copy restriction technologies embedded -- even devices that I personally know could not be legally produced without such technologies.
Even if you accept the idea that consumers are voting "with their dollars," they are not being told what they are getting. When a consumer buys a DVD player, they are not consenting to the restriction technology, because they are not ever made aware that the technology is there. It is not a question of poor education, it is a question of incomplete specifications, or if you are a pessimist, false advertising.
There is no legal alternative for DVD players, and there will not be for several more years. The CSS algorithm is patented, and the MPAA holds the patent and licenses it under very restrictive terms. The only thing approaching an alternative is to watch a small minority of movies that are released with CSS restriction, without region encoding, and that is an extremely limited option. Illegal DVD players, such as free/libre software DVD players, are only an option for those consumers who are willing to break the law, or worse, those who are not even aware that it is illegal in the USA.
Not that patents even matter much; the DMCA ensures that we will never actually have any legal choice.
When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies? Did you consent to only be able to play DVDs on special MPAA approved devices? These are forced upon the public by organizations that get propped up by the government with DMCA type laws.
Keeping in mind, of course, that most of the Earth is unpopulated -- in all likelihood the asteroid will strike an ocean (unless a very unlucky ship is hit, nobody would notice this) or a desert/forest (again, someone would have to be very unlucky for this to be noticed). Some of the land impacts may never be discovered -- by the time anyone passes near the impact site, natural forces would probably have erased the crater.
An ISP stands to lose a lot more money if it is shut down than if it pays for the equipment the UK government requires it to buy. As I said, they are afraid -- none of them wants to be the ISP that takes a stand and is shut down, even though they could all stand together and defeat this measure. None of them wants to be the ISP that is shut down for colluding with other ISPs to break the law. The government knows this, and knows that nobody will stand up to them.
Nobody on the other side wants to try it because it would cost them money, and they do not really care if British citizens lose whatever privacy they once had.
You are missing the point. What ISP is going to take the risk of having the government shut them down? The fear of losing their livelihood will keep them all in line; they are not providing Internet access because they think people should have it, they are providing it because it is a way to make money.
Well, they could just pass a law that requires you to surrender your crypto keys on demand. There are not enough people in who would be willing to go to jail just to maintain their privacy.
Good luck with that. All the ISPs simultaneously refusing to implement this? That sounds very unlikely to me, especially if the government just levels an "illegal collusion" charge of some kind. Cutting the UK off from the rest of the Internet? Again, fat chance -- it would cost too much money in lost trade opportunities and whatnot.
Slashdotters are not representative of the average user, and certainly not of the people who are looking for the content (entertainment?) that Murdoch provides.
Slashdot Mirror
You thing the inside of the computer is disgusting because of smoking? How about the enormous amount of dust that collects inside a computer? How about all the hair and skin oil that collects inside the keyboard? If I were working with computers, I would not be particularly disturbed by a thin layer of smoke residue on the parts, since the accumulation of filth inside a computer is routine.
The outgassing from those computers is worse for your health than cigarette smoke residue, I assure you.
All your meme are belong to us!
The legality of drugs has nothing to do with safety, it never really has.
This has me worrying about "vaccines" for other drugs. In a century, maybe nobody in the USA will be able to relax with $drug_of_choice, because of mandatory "vaccination" against the effects of any psychoactives.
I do not know, I am really not a doctor. My point was that people can use tobacco without developing a dependence on it, that's all.
I would be interested in finding out if people with a dependence on both alcohol and tobacco would really be helped by this "vaccine" -- maybe taking the joy out of tobacco could lead to people consuming even more alcohol.
Please. I know plenty of people who only smoke after a night of drinking. Do the cigarettes own them?
To me, it sounds more like the story of Equilibrium...
Really, they can glean a whole lot more information, and it may not be information they should be gleaning. You thought that affair was a private matter, but they figured out that there was an extra person in the house; this might be used against you (e.g. as the auto companies tried to send women after Ralph Nader to create a scandal).
There should be explicit privacy built into the smart grid. Oh well, not enough people care.
I stopped using it a long time ago, because it tended to accumulate errors over time. I have been using top for a long time now.
It would nice if we could exchange tags -- I should be able to email a picture to you, with semantic information, and you should be able to use that information. Of course, the issue here is that sometimes you will send data that should have been kept private...
Pardon the pun, but the record companies need to face the music.
If you RTFA, you will see that obtaining a paper copy costs 25 per page; the city's charter and administrative code comprise many hundreds of pages, and thus the copying fee becomes expensive too.
I would agree if there was any indication that the restriction technologies were in place in any advertisement or specification for the device. Guess what? I have never, in my entire life, walked into an electronics store and seen any indication that any device has any copy restriction technologies embedded -- even devices that I personally know could not be legally produced without such technologies.
Even if you accept the idea that consumers are voting "with their dollars," they are not being told what they are getting. When a consumer buys a DVD player, they are not consenting to the restriction technology, because they are not ever made aware that the technology is there. It is not a question of poor education, it is a question of incomplete specifications, or if you are a pessimist, false advertising.
There is no legal alternative for DVD players, and there will not be for several more years. The CSS algorithm is patented, and the MPAA holds the patent and licenses it under very restrictive terms. The only thing approaching an alternative is to watch a small minority of movies that are released with CSS restriction, without region encoding, and that is an extremely limited option. Illegal DVD players, such as free/libre software DVD players, are only an option for those consumers who are willing to break the law, or worse, those who are not even aware that it is illegal in the USA.
Not that patents even matter much; the DMCA ensures that we will never actually have any legal choice.
"Would any sane person consent to..."
When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies? Did you consent to only be able to play DVDs on special MPAA approved devices? These are forced upon the public by organizations that get propped up by the government with DMCA type laws.
Which copied from CTSS? And let's not forget ITS, from which we get the best text editor ever.
Unless the asteroid is HUGE, hitting water is completely fine.
Keeping in mind, of course, that most of the Earth is unpopulated -- in all likelihood the asteroid will strike an ocean (unless a very unlucky ship is hit, nobody would notice this) or a desert/forest (again, someone would have to be very unlucky for this to be noticed). Some of the land impacts may never be discovered -- by the time anyone passes near the impact site, natural forces would probably have erased the crater.
Perhaps I was wrong, and there is hope yet. I would like to be optimistic...
An ISP stands to lose a lot more money if it is shut down than if it pays for the equipment the UK government requires it to buy. As I said, they are afraid -- none of them wants to be the ISP that takes a stand and is shut down, even though they could all stand together and defeat this measure. None of them wants to be the ISP that is shut down for colluding with other ISPs to break the law. The government knows this, and knows that nobody will stand up to them.
Nobody on the other side wants to try it because it would cost them money, and they do not really care if British citizens lose whatever privacy they once had.
You are missing the point. What ISP is going to take the risk of having the government shut them down? The fear of losing their livelihood will keep them all in line; they are not providing Internet access because they think people should have it, they are providing it because it is a way to make money.
Well, they could just pass a law that requires you to surrender your crypto keys on demand. There are not enough people in who would be willing to go to jail just to maintain their privacy.
Good luck with that. All the ISPs simultaneously refusing to implement this? That sounds very unlikely to me, especially if the government just levels an "illegal collusion" charge of some kind. Cutting the UK off from the rest of the Internet? Again, fat chance -- it would cost too much money in lost trade opportunities and whatnot.
Slashdotters are not representative of the average user, and certainly not of the people who are looking for the content (entertainment?) that Murdoch provides.