Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jul 2011 @ 6:30am
Re:
Didn't Google collect encrypted data too?
I don't think they did, but it's kind of a moot point, as it would still be encrypted. Unless they spent time and significant compute resources to crack it (which they didn't).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jul 2011 @ 6:28am
Re: Re: Government Designed Systems
Most of the time, contractors do everything in their power to chase ever moving, ever changing requirements. At the same time, restrictions on code development methodologies force them into continual modifications of increasingly cryptic code bases, until there is just no hope.
and...
There seems to be a continual inability of the client to accurately specify their requirements...
And how is this any different than in private business?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jul 2011 @ 6:20am
Re:
Jury nullification: The ultimate in the minority telling the majority what to do. You only need 1 out 12 to make it happen.
How do you feel about 537 people telling 311 million people what to do?
Does it make it better or worse that the 311 million only have the tiniest way to influence 5 of 537?
No, wait, that's arguably 4 since 2 of the 5 go together.
Well, if we want to be technical, a large portion of the 311 million's votes also don't count since some states only end up one way, and most still have a winner take all electoral vote system. So its down to 3.
Oh, and almost forgot about district gerrymandering, so that further reduces many's votes. Looks like many are down to 2 votes, and they can only exercise them 2 out of 3 election cycles.
And I didn't even have to mention lobbyists yet. What's so great about representative democracy now?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Jul 2011 @ 11:22am
Re: Re: Re:
while the information wants to be free, it's freeness harms the ability for it to be made.
[citation needed]
What will continue to be the long term problem is that the creation of high end content is done mostly through invested / seeded money.
Just because it used to be done that way doesn't mean it has to be done that way. Just look at Kickstarter.
When you take the economics away, when you make it into a zero income game, you take away the ability for labels to invest.
Strawman argument alert! Or is this today's talking point? "Free" doesn't break the laws of economics, it never has, it never will.
They won't intentionally make product and put it online if they cannot get a return on it. If piracy reaches a point where they no longer make enough to justify their investments, they will just stop. Then you are back to your free information problem, as the lack of information means there is nothing free.
You can't fight free. Learn to use free. You'll make tons more money.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Jul 2011 @ 10:50am
Re: "Pushing"
The record exec is looking for the same thing,
Well, then in internet meme fashion:
He's doing it WRONG.
building a marketplace that can actually sell the products they are pushing.
And this is a perfect example of why they're doing it wrong. Why the recording industry is burning up faster than the Hindenburg. (I'm sick of Titanic and ship comparisons.)
They want to sell ("push") things in ways their customers do not want them.
If I go to the bank and try to get a small business loan, and it involves "trying to sell things to customers they do not want", can you guess how fast I'd be laughed out?
Secret to success: You sell things to customers that they want at prices they are willing to pay.
Not-so-secret to failure: Trying to sell things to customers they don't want at prices they wouldn't pay even if they wanted it.
If customers aren't willing to pay for something (recorded music) at a non-zero price, then you sell things they are willing to pay for (concerts, access, merchandise, exclusives, subscriptions, etc) and still make a profit.
The mutual acceptable middle ground
The recording industry has no concept of "mutually acceptable" - they have controlled talent search, production, post-production, marketing and promotion, distribution, and sales for far too long to realize there are better ways to do every one of those now, and they're not willing to give up any of them. if they can't own and control it all, its not acceptable to them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 9:07am
Re:
Heck, if they continue to use it, the government could sue them for millions for violating trademark, and that would likely stick! Imagine that.
Awesome, twisting laws way beyond what their stated purpose is makes me proud to be an American. /sarc
The government got Capone on tax evasion without having to twist the law. Yet, Lori Drew was acquitted because the prosecutors tried to twist the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act far beyond what it was designed for.
On a scale of 1-10, please rate Al Capone, and Lori Drew. 1 being the stupid criminal who tries to rob a convenience store and gets stuck in the ventilation duct, and 10 being criminal mastermind.
We (supposedly) live in a free country with limited government. Even criminal suspects are presumed innocent and have rights that the government cannot violate. A government that respects the rights of its enemies, dissidents, and criminals shows enlightenment. Brutal suppression without regard for collateral damage shows nothing more than barbarism.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 6:28am
Re:
Maybe those "vengeful" lawyers are pissed off because the fraud that Righthaven is perpetrating is exactly why ordinary people hate lawyers, and that it brings into disrepute the practice of law?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 4:37am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if the officer said "Can I look in the briefcase?" and the driver said no, it would be reason enough for the officer to further question the person.
Suppose I wish to exercise my Constitutional rights against unreasonable searches. How would I go about that in this situation?
Routine traffic stop. Was going 10mph over the speed limit. Didn't see the sign that changed the limit. My car is properly tagged and inspected. My license is current, my insurance is active. The only law that was broken was the speed limit. The officer sees my backpack on the passenger seat, which has my laptop in it, and asks if he can look in it. Do I:
-say "Yes" and give up my rights against an obvious unreasonable search?
-say "No" and (in your bizarre opinion) somehow give him reason to question me further?
-ask for a warrant, as in the post above yours noted seems to be obsolete?
-ask for his "reasons" for wanting to look into it after he has already proved his unreasonableness in asking?
Please enlighten me in how I exercise and protect my Constitutional right against an obvious unreasonable search and governmental intrusion into my personal life.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 5:01pm
Re: Re: Re:
A cell phone / laptop is just a digital representation of a stack of paper, and that stack of paper would be in plain view. It's hard to imagine a court running the other way because of the method used to carry the information.
-a locked diary
-a locked briefcase filled with legal documents
-an itinerary of everywhere you've been recently
-a database of everyone you know
-a record of interactions with your spouse and kids
-conversations you've had with your lawyer and doctors
Each of those things can be in a stack of paper. Are all of them treated identically in the eyes of what a police officer can just pick up and read without a warrant when they have no reasonable suspicion that it was involved in whatever caused them to have an interest in you?
A laptop or phone can not only be each of those, it can be every one of them, and more, all at once.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 11:52am
Re: Re: Re:
I predict that workable quantum computers that can perform orders of magnitude faster than standard computers will be "10 years away" once we have workable fusion power generators that supply significant power to the world.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 11:38am
Re: Re: Re: "NO ONE CAN FIX IT"
Regardless, keeping up with the car example, you do own it once you buy it. You can rip it apart and build it back up.
So anyone can say, tune the computer controlled fuel injectors of many modern cars when there's a problem? Nope. Need a special tool to interface with the onboard computer, and its encrypted and won't respond unless it gets the right response.
You remember back when Toyotas were having issues with the brakes and accelerators? Would it surprise you that there was only one single diagnosing machine in the entire US that could read what the data recorder said?
So why aren't tools that can read that stuff available? The manufacturers won't sell them publicly. Anyone else who tries making and supplying them gets slapped with a DMCA anti-circumvention copyright lawsuit.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 10:57am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The diamond market is anything other than a free market.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that conflict diamonds aren't an issue, but it is in De Beer's best interest to support Kimberly certification, as it further restricts the supply of diamonds.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 10:18am
Re: Wow
This.
Mike can take the high road and say he doesn't support the harassment, but what other choice do individuals have? We can't depend on the government to look out for our interests; lawmakers won't fix copyright laws when they're being corrupted by lobbyists from big business. Mob justice isn't pretty, and it isn't preferable, but if its the only justice that can be found, so be it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 7:25am
Re: Re:
13 years of monopoly protection? Insane.
13 years ago very few people had mobile phones.
13 years ago, if you had a brand new computer, it had a Pentium 2 (or slower) processor, ran Windows 98 (first edition), and was unlikely to have USB ports.
13 years ago, if you were online, you were using a 28.8k dial up modem with AOL.
On the post: Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
According to some quantum mechanics perspectives, the entire universe is just a collapsing waveform.
Yes, this is entirely irrelevant to the actual topic. But fun!
On the post: Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
Re:
I don't think they did, but it's kind of a moot point, as it would still be encrypted. Unless they spent time and significant compute resources to crack it (which they didn't).
On the post: Mayor Bloomberg Demands SAIC Pay Back $600 Million In Cost Overruns For NYC Computer System
Re: Re: Government Designed Systems
and...
There seems to be a continual inability of the client to accurately specify their requirements...
And how is this any different than in private business?
On the post: Artist Behind 'Go The F**k To Sleep' Gives Away Free Illustrated Book On Jury Nullification
Re:
How do you feel about 537 people telling 311 million people what to do?
Does it make it better or worse that the 311 million only have the tiniest way to influence 5 of 537?
No, wait, that's arguably 4 since 2 of the 5 go together.
Well, if we want to be technical, a large portion of the 311 million's votes also don't count since some states only end up one way, and most still have a winner take all electoral vote system. So its down to 3.
Oh, and almost forgot about district gerrymandering, so that further reduces many's votes. Looks like many are down to 2 votes, and they can only exercise them 2 out of 3 election cycles.
And I didn't even have to mention lobbyists yet. What's so great about representative democracy now?
On the post: Music Exec Says Too Many Silly Things To Put In This Headline
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
What will continue to be the long term problem is that the creation of high end content is done mostly through invested / seeded money.
Just because it used to be done that way doesn't mean it has to be done that way. Just look at Kickstarter.
When you take the economics away, when you make it into a zero income game, you take away the ability for labels to invest.
Strawman argument alert! Or is this today's talking point? "Free" doesn't break the laws of economics, it never has, it never will.
They won't intentionally make product and put it online if they cannot get a return on it. If piracy reaches a point where they no longer make enough to justify their investments, they will just stop. Then you are back to your free information problem, as the lack of information means there is nothing free.
You can't fight free. Learn to use free. You'll make tons more money.
On the post: Music Exec Says Too Many Silly Things To Put In This Headline
Re: "Pushing"
Well, then in internet meme fashion:
He's doing it WRONG.
building a marketplace that can actually sell the products they are pushing.
And this is a perfect example of why they're doing it wrong. Why the recording industry is burning up faster than the Hindenburg. (I'm sick of Titanic and ship comparisons.)
They want to sell ("push") things in ways their customers do not want them.
If I go to the bank and try to get a small business loan, and it involves "trying to sell things to customers they do not want", can you guess how fast I'd be laughed out?
Secret to success: You sell things to customers that they want at prices they are willing to pay.
Not-so-secret to failure: Trying to sell things to customers they don't want at prices they wouldn't pay even if they wanted it.
If customers aren't willing to pay for something (recorded music) at a non-zero price, then you sell things they are willing to pay for (concerts, access, merchandise, exclusives, subscriptions, etc) and still make a profit.
The mutual acceptable middle ground
The recording industry has no concept of "mutually acceptable" - they have controlled talent search, production, post-production, marketing and promotion, distribution, and sales for far too long to realize there are better ways to do every one of those now, and they're not willing to give up any of them. if they can't own and control it all, its not acceptable to them.
On the post: Feds Still Trying To Abuse Trademark Law (?!?) To Stop Motorcycle Gang
Re:
Awesome, twisting laws way beyond what their stated purpose is makes me proud to be an American. /sarc
The government got Capone on tax evasion without having to twist the law. Yet, Lori Drew was acquitted because the prosecutors tried to twist the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act far beyond what it was designed for.
On a scale of 1-10, please rate Al Capone, and Lori Drew. 1 being the stupid criminal who tries to rob a convenience store and gets stuck in the ventilation duct, and 10 being criminal mastermind.
We (supposedly) live in a free country with limited government. Even criminal suspects are presumed innocent and have rights that the government cannot violate. A government that respects the rights of its enemies, dissidents, and criminals shows enlightenment. Brutal suppression without regard for collateral damage shows nothing more than barbarism.
On the post: Claim That Righthaven Engaged In Unauthorized Practice Of Law Moves To Nevada
Re:
On the post: Danish Law Enforcement Would Like To Outlaw Anonymous Use Of The Internet
Re: Re: Terrorism?
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re: Re:
On the post: Arizona Police Told To Search Arrestee iPhones For Anti-Police Apps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Suppose I wish to exercise my Constitutional rights against unreasonable searches. How would I go about that in this situation?
Routine traffic stop. Was going 10mph over the speed limit. Didn't see the sign that changed the limit. My car is properly tagged and inspected. My license is current, my insurance is active. The only law that was broken was the speed limit. The officer sees my backpack on the passenger seat, which has my laptop in it, and asks if he can look in it. Do I:
-say "Yes" and give up my rights against an obvious unreasonable search?
-say "No" and (in your bizarre opinion) somehow give him reason to question me further?
-ask for a warrant, as in the post above yours noted seems to be obsolete?
-ask for his "reasons" for wanting to look into it after he has already proved his unreasonableness in asking?
Please enlighten me in how I exercise and protect my Constitutional right against an obvious unreasonable search and governmental intrusion into my personal life.
On the post: Arizona Police Told To Search Arrestee iPhones For Anti-Police Apps
Re: Re: Re:
-a locked diary
-a locked briefcase filled with legal documents
-an itinerary of everywhere you've been recently
-a database of everyone you know
-a record of interactions with your spouse and kids
-conversations you've had with your lawyer and doctors
Each of those things can be in a stack of paper. Are all of them treated identically in the eyes of what a police officer can just pick up and read without a warrant when they have no reasonable suspicion that it was involved in whatever caused them to have an interest in you?
A laptop or phone can not only be each of those, it can be every one of them, and more, all at once.
On the post: So The FBI Can Just Take A Copy Of All Instapaper User Data With No Recourse?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Locked Up Technology Is Broken Technology
Re: Re: Re: "NO ONE CAN FIX IT"
So anyone can say, tune the computer controlled fuel injectors of many modern cars when there's a problem? Nope. Need a special tool to interface with the onboard computer, and its encrypted and won't respond unless it gets the right response.
You remember back when Toyotas were having issues with the brakes and accelerators? Would it surprise you that there was only one single diagnosing machine in the entire US that could read what the data recorder said?
So why aren't tools that can read that stuff available? The manufacturers won't sell them publicly. Anyone else who tries making and supplying them gets slapped with a DMCA anti-circumvention copyright lawsuit.
On the post: Locked Up Technology Is Broken Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously I'm not suggesting that conflict diamonds aren't an issue, but it is in De Beer's best interest to support Kimberly certification, as it further restricts the supply of diamonds.
On the post: Everything Is A Remix: The Invention Edition
Re:
The word copyright is dishonest in and of itself, since it is about restrictions rather than rights.
On the post: Everything Is A Remix: The Invention Edition
Re:
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Wow
Mike can take the high road and say he doesn't support the harassment, but what other choice do individuals have? We can't depend on the government to look out for our interests; lawmakers won't fix copyright laws when they're being corrupted by lobbyists from big business. Mob justice isn't pretty, and it isn't preferable, but if its the only justice that can be found, so be it.
On the post: Everything Is A Remix: The Invention Edition
Re: Er, no, let's go back to first principles.
Its about how they are used.
On the post: Did Congressional Debate Over Patent Reform Bill Open Up A Backdoor For An Independent Inventor Defense?
Re: Re:
13 years ago very few people had mobile phones.
13 years ago, if you had a brand new computer, it had a Pentium 2 (or slower) processor, ran Windows 98 (first edition), and was unlikely to have USB ports.
13 years ago, if you were online, you were using a 28.8k dial up modem with AOL.
Next >>