Elsevier adds value by putting a 'protecting' the content behind a troll gate paywall. Since you must pay to access the research, it must now (somehow) have become more valuable.
But I suppose Elsevier is lazy. If they wanted to add even more value, the research papers would have DRM and you would only be able to view them on special viewer software that runs on Windows. (Don't all scientists run only Windows?)
Copy / Paste and the ability to make screenshots would enable thieving pirates to read the research without paying through the nose.
I say that taking research papers, often written by overworked underpaid scientists, and often funded by public money, and locking them up behind a troll gate paywall for your own private enrichment . . .
The evidence that would convince an intelligence community is the same evidence that would convince the congress which is controlled by that intelligence community.
Let me get my checkbook out . . . . now how much evidence would you be needing today?
If it works for the Congress, why wouldn't it work for the bosses of congress: the intelligence community?
This kind of evidence always convinces. For example. Smoking does not cause cancer. Global warming is a myth.
Today we can crack yesterday's ciphers easily. But ciphers have always been used. Without computers, yesterday's ciphers were useful.
With computers, the ciphers have become stronger along with the ability to attack them. Key sizes make brute force attacks impossible. So attacks focus on weaknesses in the algorithm, or key, or random number generators.
You can only police the public to the extent they want to be policed.
There are a range of choices from a perfectly safe and secure society, to a do anything you want without policing society.
At the first extreme, you have a police state. Those at the top quickly grab power and become tyrants. In the second extreme, you have anarchy and vigilante justice.
There is probably a value in between the two extremes that most of the public wants.
(and no, this post, I would not intend to have a /sarc tag, unlike most of my others.)
Only after a fifteen year nap did the FCC recently announce it was going to pre-empt such laws in Tennessee and North Carolina, something that was immediately met with hand-wringing and lawsuits from the broadband industry and its allies.
So who should be the target of the lawsuits this time? The voters?
Copyright is the hammer to reach for to censor and silence things you don't want to hear. Especially if they need to make fair use clips of what you said.
If TVEyes is allowed to continue to operate, it allows critics to be able to fact check Fox News reports.
Further, it would allow critics to compare past Fox News statements with: * current Fox News statements * newly revealed facts * existing facts at the time of Fox News statements * common sense
Fair Use was never intended to allow someone to criticize Fox News.
On the post: Illinois Magistrate Judge Lays Down Ground Rules For Stingray Device Warrants
This is a horrible precedent
Think of the poor doughnut vendors!
On the post: Elsevier Says Downloading And Content-Mining Licensed Copies Of Research Papers 'Could Be Considered' Stealing
Re: Re:
Elsevier adds value by putting a 'protecting' the content behind a troll gate paywall. Since you must pay to access the research, it must now (somehow) have become more valuable.
But I suppose Elsevier is lazy. If they wanted to add even more value, the research papers would have DRM and you would only be able to view them on special viewer software that runs on Windows. (Don't all scientists run only Windows?)
Copy / Paste and the ability to make screenshots would enable thieving pirates to read the research without paying through the nose.
On the post: Elsevier Says Downloading And Content-Mining Licensed Copies Of Research Papers 'Could Be Considered' Stealing
Could Be Considered Stealing
COULD BE CONSIDERED STEALING
On the post: Is There Any Evidence In The World That Would Convince Intelligence Community That More Surveillance Isn't The Answer?
Evidence That Will Convince
Let me get my checkbook out . . . . now how much evidence would you be needing today?
If it works for the Congress, why wouldn't it work for the bosses of congress: the intelligence community?
This kind of evidence always convinces. For example.
Smoking does not cause cancer.
Global warming is a myth.
On the post: Insanity Rules: Disgusting Politicians Push For More Surveillance And Less Encryption... Based On Nothing
Encryption has been around for thousands of years
Today we can crack yesterday's ciphers easily. But ciphers have always been used. Without computers, yesterday's ciphers were useful.
With computers, the ciphers have become stronger along with the ability to attack them. Key sizes make brute force attacks impossible. So attacks focus on weaknesses in the algorithm, or key, or random number generators.
Didn't the founding fathers of the US use encryption?
Why is encryption suddenly bad?
use a frictionless PRNG to avoid wear on parts
On the post: FBI's Top Lawyer Says Locking Law Enforcement Out Of Cellphones Is The Public's Choice To Make
Re: Re: Policing the public
It is possible to have the best of both worlds.
On the post: Hacked Data Obtained By The Intercept Highlights Wholesale Spying On Inmate, Attorney Privileged Communications
Re: A technically accurate statement
On the post: Hacked Data Obtained By The Intercept Highlights Wholesale Spying On Inmate, Attorney Privileged Communications
A technically accurate statement
While technically accurate, it would be even more accurate to append . . .
". . . as soon as it is discovered that we might get into trouble for this."
On the post: FBI's Top Lawyer Says Locking Law Enforcement Out Of Cellphones Is The Public's Choice To Make
Re: Seen in this article
On the post: FBI's Top Lawyer Says Locking Law Enforcement Out Of Cellphones Is The Public's Choice To Make
Policing the public
There are a range of choices from a perfectly safe and secure society, to a do anything you want without policing society.
At the first extreme, you have a police state. Those at the top quickly grab power and become tyrants. In the second extreme, you have anarchy and vigilante justice.
There is probably a value in between the two extremes that most of the public wants.
(and no, this post, I would not intend to have a /sarc tag, unlike most of my others.)
On the post: Comcast Keeps Scolding Me For Calling Its Top Lobbyist A Lobbyist
Re:
My best guess was that percent diverse might mean percent non-white?
But what does it actually mean?
Comcast could clarify a word like that. But chose not to.
On the post: Colorado Residents Vote Overwhelmingly In Favor Of Municipal Broadband
Who should be the new target of lawsuits?
So who should be the target of the lawsuits this time? The voters?
On the post: Colorado Residents Vote Overwhelmingly In Favor Of Municipal Broadband
Re:
I'm sure municipal run ISPs will be just as horrible as municipal water projects.
At least people demand competition in the important area of municipal water. Oh, wait.
Maybe a municipal ISP would be like municipal water. Good ISP service for all at a reasonable price.
On the post: TVEyes Hit With Incredibly Restrictive Permanent Injunction By Court
Re:
On the post: TVEyes Hit With Incredibly Restrictive Permanent Injunction By Court
Re: Re: Fox News has a reasonable argument against TVEyes
But I like it to start out sounding like it is serious and then devolve into clearly, beyond any possible doubt, being /sarc.
On the post: Starting From Next Year, China Wants Music Services To Vet Every Song Before It Goes Online
Re: the USA (not China) sets the standard for new forms of censorship
On the post: Starting From Next Year, China Wants Music Services To Vet Every Song Before It Goes Online
Please redirect your question
The Ministry of Culture is not the appropriate agency to answer your question.
Please redirect your question to the Ministry of Censorship.
On the post: TVEyes Hit With Incredibly Restrictive Permanent Injunction By Court
Fox News has a reasonable argument against TVEyes
Further, it would allow critics to compare past Fox News statements with:
* current Fox News statements
* newly revealed facts
* existing facts at the time of Fox News statements
* common sense
Fair Use was never intended to allow someone to criticize Fox News.
On the post: Connecticut Police Announce Plan To Open Unlocked Vehicles And Seize Valuables
This plan would have set a good precedent
And then . . .
ta da . . .
your digital devices.
And if a golden key is needed for digital devices, why not your home and car as well?
On the post: TSA: Terrible At Security But Finally Willing To Work On Its Problems
Re: More Theater
But why can't the government just put its theater on film instead of forcing it upon us in real life.
Next >>