Devices should never be outlawed. Unless their only purpose is to cause damage, and I mean damage to humans, then it's legal. Outlaw certain uses, but never the device itself. Otherwise you're just as bad as the people who outlaw devices that can circumvent DRM measures.
I've done some QA work for a company that upgraded old Powerhouse databases to the newer version of Powerhouse or to.NET framework, though I mostly worked on the Powerhouse side. I'm also currently working developing a model for a larger simulator of a spectrometer planned to go up in about 10 years. That being said, I'm a co-op student working with a university, and I'm using a programming language developed by a physics professor (IDL).
However, stupid as the PHBs can and will be, even they'll understand something: money. Using this system will cost more in both time and money and make their market smaller.
If they get their way, people will resort to any means necessary. If this boils down to breaking the law, then people will do so. Hell, if it means going back to wax cylinders, it will be done.
One: is this practical from a manufacturing perspective? If it isn't, this'll never take off the ground.
Two: how much does this complicate programming? Is it possible to program for all variants at once? Can you make an interpreter to do so? If this makes the life of a programmer too goddamn difficult, it won't get off the ground.
Yes, but in the legal world, it's easy to convolute things to the point where you need Captain Obvious to point things out. I know for a fact that I've overcomplicated things by thinking too hard, when the answer was right in front of me. And the real issue isn't that their victories are so blindingly obvious, it's that if they lost these issues, we'd live in a world where things were incredibly obscure and difficult to navigate. A spade is a spade, and we need to call it that, especially when there are people calling it a "manual earth removal and placement device". Plugging up these loopholes makes it so that the law can be obvious, especially in the places it needs to be.
"Here's a paper clip, a marshmallow, and a match. Make a stand out of the paper clip, attach the marshmallow and peanut, then burn both. Now write down your observations."
This was great, because it taught me to look for things without being told exactly what to look for. His point ended up being that fatty things burn slower than sugary things. The next day he showed us more differences in combustion of solids (acid+pure sugar), liquids (pure ethanol on an nonflammable desk), and gases (I think it was methane in a large container). The point is, he got us interested in noticing things.
1. Support every third-party candidate you can stand. If it is close, I go with third-party.
What is the good of voting for a candidate with no chance of winning? To "send a message"? Does that really have an effect?
The good is that if more people do it, we get more parties in power. Your vote doesn't matter because no one thinks their vote matters. Send that message to them. If enough people stop thinking like you, then your vote will have an effect.
3. Write your officials and let them know.
I should do this more often, I know. Honestly my cynicism gets in the way here. I just don't believe writing is going to have a real effect. However, if it does have an effect I want to do it. I need to research this more.
If you don't do it, they'll never know you're opposed to it. You have to let them know, and more importantly, you have to let them know that your vote hinges on these issues.
I told you to fuck off, twitter. While this does have far reaching effects, including that of free software and alternative operating systems, this is not a MSFT issue. They have much less power in Canadian politics, due to their inability to donate directly to politicians. This is Canada, not the US. We do things differently here, and that includes the way we treat lobbyists. So again, this is not a MSFT issue. It is a rights issue. Get your facts straight.
1. The anti-circumvention measures. Look at Michael Geist's website, or one of the other websites linked in the discussion.
2. The fact that this bill does not cover the laptop seizure, but is in fact ACTA. This is FUD by misdirection.
3. Bring up the lack of consumer protection.
4. Most importantly, tell them that this is the thing deciding your vote. Make sure that your MP knows that he will lose your vote to another party if he does not vote against this. This is the only thing that will change their mind.
5. As others have mentioned, send them some snail mail. Mailing your MP does not require postage, and they tend to take letters more seriously than e-mail.
Umm, we already have the right to sing a song and record it. We are paying for the right to download and format shift media. At least, that is the Supreme Court's current ruling.
Is it really too complicated for the average person to understand the significance of these laws? Or do they just not care?
Neither. They don't know about these laws. That's the issue, we just don't know what's happening with regards to this. Unless it's front page news, no one really knows what's going on.
Slashdot Mirror
He was counting in an array, you insensitive clod.
Nah. Nuke it from orbit.
Devices should never be outlawed. Unless their only purpose is to cause damage, and I mean damage to humans, then it's legal. Outlaw certain uses, but never the device itself. Otherwise you're just as bad as the people who outlaw devices that can circumvent DRM measures.
I've done some QA work for a company that upgraded old Powerhouse databases to the newer version of Powerhouse or to .NET framework, though I mostly worked on the Powerhouse side. I'm also currently working developing a model for a larger simulator of a spectrometer planned to go up in about 10 years. That being said, I'm a co-op student working with a university, and I'm using a programming language developed by a physics professor (IDL).
However, stupid as the PHBs can and will be, even they'll understand something: money. Using this system will cost more in both time and money and make their market smaller.
If they get their way, people will resort to any means necessary. If this boils down to breaking the law, then people will do so. Hell, if it means going back to wax cylinders, it will be done.
One: is this practical from a manufacturing perspective? If it isn't, this'll never take off the ground.
Two: how much does this complicate programming? Is it possible to program for all variants at once? Can you make an interpreter to do so? If this makes the life of a programmer too goddamn difficult, it won't get off the ground.
Yes, but in the legal world, it's easy to convolute things to the point where you need Captain Obvious to point things out. I know for a fact that I've overcomplicated things by thinking too hard, when the answer was right in front of me. And the real issue isn't that their victories are so blindingly obvious, it's that if they lost these issues, we'd live in a world where things were incredibly obscure and difficult to navigate. A spade is a spade, and we need to call it that, especially when there are people calling it a "manual earth removal and placement device". Plugging up these loopholes makes it so that the law can be obvious, especially in the places it needs to be.
But what if you live in Quebec? They use a different traffic light than most places in Canada.
*Whooosh*
I liked by grade 11 Biology course even better.
"Here's a paper clip, a marshmallow, and a match. Make a stand out of the paper clip, attach the marshmallow and peanut, then burn both. Now write down your observations."
This was great, because it taught me to look for things without being told exactly what to look for. His point ended up being that fatty things burn slower than sugary things. The next day he showed us more differences in combustion of solids (acid+pure sugar), liquids (pure ethanol on an nonflammable desk), and gases (I think it was methane in a large container). The point is, he got us interested in noticing things.
Actually, they just sent a take down notice. No lawsuits...yet...
I personally suggest neorhino.ca. If they're not running in your riding, then join the party and run there yourself!
Scratch that, reverse it. Conservatives ~ Republicans (right wing), and Liberals ~ Democrats (left wing).
I told you to fuck off, twitter. While this does have far reaching effects, including that of free software and alternative operating systems, this is not a MSFT issue. They have much less power in Canadian politics, due to their inability to donate directly to politicians. This is Canada, not the US. We do things differently here, and that includes the way we treat lobbyists. So again, this is not a MSFT issue. It is a rights issue. Get your facts straight.
1. The anti-circumvention measures. Look at Michael Geist's website, or one of the other websites linked in the discussion.
2. The fact that this bill does not cover the laptop seizure, but is in fact ACTA. This is FUD by misdirection.
3. Bring up the lack of consumer protection.
4. Most importantly, tell them that this is the thing deciding your vote. Make sure that your MP knows that he will lose your vote to another party if he does not vote against this. This is the only thing that will change their mind.
5. As others have mentioned, send them some snail mail. Mailing your MP does not require postage, and they tend to take letters more seriously than e-mail.
Not necessarily. If they aren't defeated in a confidence motion, they will rule straight through till 2010, under the new rules.
Do you mind if I use this letter to e-mail to my MP? It's very well thought out, and points out many of the major issues.
Umm, we already have the right to sing a song and record it. We are paying for the right to download and format shift media. At least, that is the Supreme Court's current ruling.
Excellent speaking point. That's going to turn a lot of heads, if you can make sure someone hears it.
You know what else is politically stupid? Being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and capitulating on every single belief you claim to hold.
Not only that, but if this bill gets passed, you just broke the law by saying that.