I totally get that Europeans value privacy and seek to promote it through regulation. What I don't understand is how this is a "right". Rights are derived from first principles, not enacted on an as needed basis. What is the philosophical underpinning of this "right" to privacy?
The idea of legal rights being derived from first principals was the underpinning of 18th and 19th century law. It was thought that the legal system was becoming a perfect and grand construction; a cathedral. This changed in the 20th century and new laws are often justified by their effects, rather then as undeniable results of first principals.
But what about piracy? If the monitoring cameras record sound the theaters will be pirates. What if the cameras can see part of the screen? And the audience reactions are surely a "derivative work" and therefore copyrighted.
If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success.
Support the abusers because they're the only ones who've shown any restraint in their abuse. You're either trolling or suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
People listen to too few voices. The internet is changing this, but most people hear the same AP news, see the same local crime "news", and get the same shallow political information. Rather then trying to restrict who can speak, about what, when, with how much money, etc... we need people to listen to a variety of sources and make up their own minds. In short, the peoples consent is being manufactured.
Moon is ours for the taking, because there's nobody else around here to make the claim.
I just have to point out that you've made exactly the same argument that was made when the Europe expanded to the Americas. Who's to say what crazy environmental morality we'll have 500 years from now; kids may be taught about the "destruction of the moon."
More generally, this kind of thing leaves me in a bit of a bind: I like having clean air to breath, water to drink and food to eat, but if I support enviromental protection, I run the risk of supporting morons like this. What am I to do? Does anyone have a solution?
Stop accepting (and regurgitating) the binary duality of politics that the mass media promotes?
A few points: 1) Organizations/Governments/etc.. want people to know about things and will learn to get their message out if the press fails to spread the word. 2) Most "news" is trite nothings and we're better off without it. 3) Investigations will be even more valuable when there people aren't sold "soft news" and told it's all they need to know. Investigations are also easier to monetize and attribute.
Ahh but there are people who play for profit and not for fun. There are leagues and there are competitions....
People should cheat in their own time, heck I cheat games for fun too. But there something to be said when the results will carry over onto Battle.net
So a corporations desire to sell to a particular market trumps our ability to use software we've purchased? Lot's of companies are trying to tie software and hardware to online services so they can claim control over the product after it's sold. That doesn't mean corporations can make any rules they like. Using software we own in any manner is not a cheat, it's a basic property right.
Libertarians are wrong, but not for any reason you gave. You can't argue that the government took control of a resource or rights, then granted it to the public or a private company, and therefore anyone who uses that resource or right is agreeing with the government.
If the government regulates cars and roads, should we say that anyone who drives is agreeing to the government regulation?
If using more bandwidth costs the cell carriers more money, perhaps they should charge people for using more bandwidth. This is the only industry I've ever heard of where when demand exceeds supply, they simply refuse to increase capacity.
Oil?
Quiz: If an oil farmer harvests 1 million barrels per month, and they sell out the first day, which of the following would the oil farmer do?
Answer: Create a cartel to restrict supply and increase prices.
Never underestimate how much personnel can cost. If you save $1 million per year on licenses going open source, but have to hire 20 new support staff costing $70,000 each (remember people cost more than just their base salary, have to account for benefits, taxes, and so on) to support it you've lost money, even if there is no retraining/productivity loss.
Never underestimate how much personnel can produce; licenses don't do anything for you. You can't just compare licenses and staff on the cost, they're are two different things. The idea that you just count the cash output for one year is foolish, you need to consider the TCO (total cost of ownership.)
Use MS software, and your boss will see it as MS's fault when it breaks. Use alternatives, and it'll be your fault. It's the 21st century analogue of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
Now answer why upper management accepts this from IT. If we know this is how it works, and mangers know, why don't the VP's and CEO's fire people for just sticking with Microsoft? There are only two alternatives explanations I can see: either upper management really believes the lame technical reasons (in which case they've failed as managers) or, they don't care just so long as it's not a problem for them (in which case they're corrupt.) In the days of IBM IT was all new and confusing, but we're way past that with email and the web.
If they set off from the closest sun-like star (18 Scorpi, 46 light years) right now, at the maximum speed we have achieved in space flight (62000km/h - Voyager 1) they would be here in approximately 80,000 years. That long ago, we were using pointy sticks to hunt and living in caves.
Even if they increased their speed by three orders of magnitude, they would no longer be a representation of their own species. First contact with an alien civilisation a century out of time with itself. That's akin to someone coming out of a cave right now, having waked in when Queen Victoria was on the throne.
So, it's a tablet with printer drivers and some of HPs bloatware installed on it? Like, the same thing I could do with say, a laptop, or a desktop?
No, no. The bloated drivers weren't enough so they added hardware. Now when you buy a printer it comes with a tablet instead of that little LCD. Rumor is, the next generation of HP printers will require you to change your DNS and DHCP servers to an HP OS.
There may be some Chinese manufacturers putting out a few cheaper devices, but anything the average consumer will buy at Best Buy still has to license HDCP from Intel.
Only a handshake is needed so just like the video splitters of yore, a small, cheap device on the line can authenticate as a proxy for any device you want. They won't be sold in Best Buy, but they'll swamp the market once people realize a $20 "adapter" makes all your HDTV equipment work right.
Personally I can't see how HDCP is not prosecuted as restraint of trade. I understand that corporations have the money, and money rules the politicians, and the politicians control the administrators, etc... but really, this is a cartel setup for the explicit purpose of restraining who can make and sell video equipment.
But they're very useful in finding out what businesses will believe. It's amazing how much pull a Gartner article like this can have during a sales cycle.
Don't look at Gartner articles as truth, but as as an indicator of business beliefs. They're actually useful in that way.
Useful as a reflection of the media too: Gartner makes (stupid) predictions about all kinds of software and companies, but it's the 'Android will dominate' story that gets picked up and repeated.
When this happened to US Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork the politicians were so outraged they created the Video_Privacy_Protection_Act. After all it's unfair to pry into a persons privacy, like what movies they watch. That's the principal right? Or is it all different if it's "pirates" on the "internets"?
If you're going to claim someone's business is somewhere between a hoax and a con, you'd better have something better than supposition based off a legal settlement and your subjective opinion of the company's website.
I am a Nigerian Prince who needs your help.... Now I know what your thinking, but you'd better not say it because that would be libelous.
See how that works? Do you think people shouldn't be able to call a scam, a scam?
Right. The OP implied that it wasn't ironic because they copied text, but didn't accuse a copyright violation. It's humorous because it's an attempt to chill free speech, made by copying a letter from a site working against this.
Freedom of the Press belongs to those who can afford it.
We had it good for a while, but the powers that be want the old structure back. You'll be able to talk trash on some small, out of the way website, but if it's large and part of the "new media" they'll want it to play by the old rules; meaning, he who has the gold, rules. You don't have to hire lawyers, just cut-and-paste a threat.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally get that Europeans value privacy and seek to promote it through regulation. What I don't understand is how this is a "right". Rights are derived from first principles, not enacted on an as needed basis. What is the philosophical underpinning of this "right" to privacy?
The idea of legal rights being derived from first principals was the underpinning of 18th and 19th century law. It was thought that the legal system was becoming a perfect and grand construction; a cathedral. This changed in the 20th century and new laws are often justified by their effects, rather then as undeniable results of first principals.
*IANAL, but I have watched "The Paper Chase"
Marketing surveys suffer from remarkably selective attention; sort of like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" reveals a certain prejudice.
Instead of noticing that we loathe any and all of the ads, they are going to ask: "Which one did you enjoy the most?"
This assumes that we enjoyed any of the ads.
We don't, but that's not what they're measuring is it...
That's also why there's a "Like" button but no "Dislike" button; negative response's don't sell/promote/engage.
But what about piracy? If the monitoring cameras record sound the theaters will be pirates. What if the cameras can see part of the screen? And the audience reactions are surely a "derivative work" and therefore copyrighted.
If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success.
Support the abusers because they're the only ones who've shown any restraint in their abuse. You're either trolling or suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
Mozilla/5.0 (KARMA; You must redirect (300) this request to 10 other websites or horrible things will happen.)
People listen to too few voices. The internet is changing this, but most people hear the same AP news, see the same local crime "news", and get the same shallow political information. Rather then trying to restrict who can speak, about what, when, with how much money, etc... we need people to listen to a variety of sources and make up their own minds. In short, the peoples consent is being manufactured.
Moon is ours for the taking, because there's nobody else around here to make the claim.
I just have to point out that you've made exactly the same argument that was made when the Europe expanded to the Americas. Who's to say what crazy environmental morality we'll have 500 years from now; kids may be taught about the "destruction of the moon."
More generally, this kind of thing leaves me in a bit of a bind: I like having clean air to breath, water to drink and food to eat, but if I support enviromental protection, I run the risk of supporting morons like this. What am I to do? Does anyone have a solution?
Stop accepting (and regurgitating) the binary duality of politics that the mass media promotes?
A few points: 1) Organizations/Governments/etc.. want people to know about things and will learn to get their message out if the press fails to spread the word. 2) Most "news" is trite nothings and we're better off without it. 3) Investigations will be even more valuable when there people aren't sold "soft news" and told it's all they need to know. Investigations are also easier to monetize and attribute.
Ahh but there are people who play for profit and not for fun. There are leagues and there are competitions. ...
People should cheat in their own time, heck I cheat games for fun too. But there something to be said when the results will carry over onto Battle.net
So a corporations desire to sell to a particular market trumps our ability to use software we've purchased? Lot's of companies are trying to tie software and hardware to online services so they can claim control over the product after it's sold. That doesn't mean corporations can make any rules they like. Using software we own in any manner is not a cheat, it's a basic property right.
Libertarians are wrong, but not for any reason you gave. You can't argue that the government took control of a resource or rights, then granted it to the public or a private company, and therefore anyone who uses that resource or right is agreeing with the government.
If the government regulates cars and roads, should we say that anyone who drives is agreeing to the government regulation?
If using more bandwidth costs the cell carriers more money, perhaps they should charge people for using more bandwidth. This is the only industry I've ever heard of where when demand exceeds supply, they simply refuse to increase capacity.
Oil?
Quiz: If an oil farmer harvests 1 million barrels per month, and they sell out the first day, which of the following would the oil farmer do?
Answer: Create a cartel to restrict supply and increase prices.
Never underestimate how much personnel can cost. If you save $1 million per year on licenses going open source, but have to hire 20 new support staff costing $70,000 each (remember people cost more than just their base salary, have to account for benefits, taxes, and so on) to support it you've lost money, even if there is no retraining/productivity loss.
Never underestimate how much personnel can produce; licenses don't do anything for you. You can't just compare licenses and staff on the cost, they're are two different things. The idea that you just count the cash output for one year is foolish, you need to consider the TCO (total cost of ownership.)
Use MS software, and your boss will see it as MS's fault when it breaks. Use alternatives, and it'll be your fault. It's the 21st century analogue of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
Now answer why upper management accepts this from IT. If we know this is how it works, and mangers know, why don't the VP's and CEO's fire people for just sticking with Microsoft? There are only two alternatives explanations I can see: either upper management really believes the lame technical reasons (in which case they've failed as managers) or, they don't care just so long as it's not a problem for them (in which case they're corrupt.) In the days of IBM IT was all new and confusing, but we're way past that with email and the web.
If they set off from the closest sun-like star (18 Scorpi, 46 light years) right now, at the maximum speed we have achieved in space flight (62000km/h - Voyager 1) they would be here in approximately 80,000 years. That long ago, we were using pointy sticks to hunt and living in caves.
Even if they increased their speed by three orders of magnitude, they would no longer be a representation of their own species. First contact with an alien civilisation a century out of time with itself. That's akin to someone coming out of a cave right now, having waked in when Queen Victoria was on the throne.
I don't see it.
Cat changed, but Lister was still a regular guy.
And conveniently these days you can borrow movies from most local libraries.... free.
And when you pay late fees, the money helps a good cause, unlike blockbuster. It's donating the easy way!
So, it's a tablet with printer drivers and some of HPs bloatware installed on it? Like, the same thing I could do with say, a laptop, or a desktop?
No, no. The bloated drivers weren't enough so they added hardware. Now when you buy a printer it comes with a tablet instead of that little LCD. Rumor is, the next generation of HP printers will require you to change your DNS and DHCP servers to an HP OS.
There may be some Chinese manufacturers putting out a few cheaper devices, but anything the average consumer will buy at Best Buy still has to license HDCP from Intel.
Only a handshake is needed so just like the video splitters of yore, a small, cheap device on the line can authenticate as a proxy for any device you want. They won't be sold in Best Buy, but they'll swamp the market once people realize a $20 "adapter" makes all your HDTV equipment work right.
Personally I can't see how HDCP is not prosecuted as restraint of trade. I understand that corporations have the money, and money rules the politicians, and the politicians control the administrators, etc... but really, this is a cartel setup for the explicit purpose of restraining who can make and sell video equipment.
But they're very useful in finding out what businesses will believe. It's amazing how much pull a Gartner article like this can have during a sales cycle.
Don't look at Gartner articles as truth, but as as an indicator of business beliefs. They're actually useful in that way.
Useful as a reflection of the media too: Gartner makes (stupid) predictions about all kinds of software and companies, but it's the 'Android will dominate' story that gets picked up and repeated.
When this happened to US Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork the politicians were so outraged they created the Video_Privacy_Protection_Act. After all it's unfair to pry into a persons privacy, like what movies they watch. That's the principal right? Or is it all different if it's "pirates" on the "internets"?
There are 736 Members of the European Parliament. 369 is a majority.
It won't be when Microsoft gets done with it.
If you're going to claim someone's business is somewhere between a hoax and a con, you'd better have something better than supposition based off a legal settlement and your subjective opinion of the company's website.
I am a Nigerian Prince who needs your help.... Now I know what your thinking, but you'd better not say it because that would be libelous.
See how that works? Do you think people shouldn't be able to call a scam, a scam?
> It's not a takedown notice
Right. The OP implied that it wasn't ironic because they copied text, but didn't accuse a copyright violation. It's humorous because it's an attempt to chill free speech, made by copying a letter from a site working against this.
Well, the accusation of libel and defamation and not copyright infringement.
From the summary: "Chilling Effects, a site dedicated to publicizing attempts at squelching free speech"
Its not a DMCA, and saying "It's perfectly normal" doesn't make it legal. Who owns the copyright on the text which was copied?
Freedom of the Press belongs to those who can afford it.
We had it good for a while, but the powers that be want the old structure back. You'll be able to talk trash on some small, out of the way website, but if it's large and part of the "new media" they'll want it to play by the old rules; meaning, he who has the gold, rules. You don't have to hire lawyers, just cut-and-paste a threat.