I don't see this increasing public "support" in the way the manufacturers want, which is more money. Your suggestions dilute the market. Sure, there may be competition on printers, but the big manufacturers aren't losing sleep to crap third party printers. So, increased competition there doesn't change anything for them. Not that I expect there will be much innovation in consumer printers anyway - they're going the way of digital cameras.
Having printer carts that work everywhere just increases the good competition they already have from refills - they'd lose money since it'll be pretty hard to innovate on ink to the point where I'd prefer $$$ Lexmark black to $ ebay black.
“I was telling [Fox host] Steve [Doocy] on the way in here, if he knew what I knew about terrorism, he’d never leave the house in the morning,” Kelly said on “Fox & Friends.”
To be fair, he may not be spreading fear wholesale. It could be what he "knows" is of a credible threat to Steve Doocy.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 18th, 2017 @ 11:08am
This comment is a copy of another earlier. It is commentary on the original argument, suggesting that since this was a derivative work, the OP should no longer respond since we've taken away his reason for creating comments.
>I mean, if a ransomware program is intended to collect money, whether it be electronic transfer or bitcoin or whatever, surely the programs can be disassembled and the location the money's being sent to located?
Given that the code isn't transferring the money, how would disassembling it show you where money is being sent? I think you don't understand how electronic transfers or bitcoin works.
Saying that "My expression of X may seem out of place to you, but it is motivated by my humanity and forces me to discard appearances or decorum and complaints that I shouldn't say this here just show us where your priorities are" isn't the same as saying "disagreeing with me means your are in-human".
Trying to silence someone speaking out about a humanitarian issue, because it will get in the way of your enjoyment of tech issues, at a blog which you were not forced to read and where you don't expend any effort to write - that is callous and perhaps inhuman.
So, if what you are saying is "shut up Mike about this issue and get back to tech blogging", then yes, you might be in-human. And if you're saying that the reason Trump won is because in-human people were called out on it, then, while that sucks, it doesn't change anything.
But, if you are saying that someone thinks disagreeing with Mike on this particular makes you in-human, that is different and I've not yet read anything that suggests other points of view may not have validity or come from a different view or priority of humanity. And if you are saying that Trump was elected because people ignored the very real, though different, expressions of humanity of their fellow citizens, then, you'd be right but confusing since that's a good thing - assuming Trump is what's required to improve how we interact with our fellow citizens.
So, if I create a website with terms of use that forbid anyone from reading any document on my website titled "Top Secret", and I place a prominent link on every page to said "Top Secret" document, along with text somewhere on the page that says "clicking links on this site constitutes acceptance of the TOS", can I then sue everyone who reads the publicly linked unprotected document?
So, what would be the non-commercial way to use a third party device/app to listen to the podcasts? Does CBC make their own free computers, phones, internet service? Free podcast apps? Otherwise, to satisfy my desire to listen to their podcast, someone somewhere is making money.
I'm guessing it (request that requests go through an official channel) is a neat way to funnel requests through a single source where sequesters can be told "sorry" by someone with legal authority over them.
Now, instead of every single police office, government agency, etc all making requests and threats when they don't get fulfilled, just one single agency acts as gatekeeper for requests and threats.
They are in fact "bad apples". These are bad apples that show us there is something rotten with our criminal justice system.
There seems of late an active forgetfulness of where the term "bad apples" comes from. Kinda like what ultimately happened with "uncle tom". I wonder if I'm going to see the complete change within my lifetime.
Backpage filters out certain terms, as you can see from reading this article. I don't know what "alteration" to ads you mean, but I suspect at one point, Backpage filtered/replaced/removed "banned" words without notifying the user (CL used to do this).
So, from the POV of an eager prosecutor, this is backpage altering ads to hide their explicit nature. This is likely why they now just reject the post and force the user to remove the offending terms themselves.
The only people concerned are those who apparently didn't know that Facebook *always* had this power. Since day one.
Facebook is not a phone company. If Facebook "disconnects" you, you can still communicate with your friends and family. You can still post things online in a forum you completely control with the same level of effort you spent creating your Facebook account.
Even phone companies today are not the Bells of yesteryear. If AT&T blacklists me, I can use T-Mobile, or Sprint, or Verizon. It's not like I'd be completely cut out from being able to communicate with anyone.
Hey advocate, can you describe another example of a "social necessity" that's currently provided by private companies but has the kind of first amendment protections claimed here?
Your advocacy attempts to make this into "this is an example of something else that's protected by the first amendment" but conveniently fails to explain what that other thing is...like I'll just take your word for it or something.
One doesn't need empathy to know that smashing someone's face with a hammer will cause them harm.
The law is saying, you can't criminalize something simply because it made someone feel bad, an actual crime needs to occur. That's the "intent" that's to be proved - that the person actually did something wrong.
Waving at someone is not necessarily a crime or wrong. You feeling harassed doesn't automatically turn waving into stalking. The intent you prove that turns the waving into stalking is demonstrating that unwanted letters were sent to you, your private home address/phone numbers are found and the person showed up there, they talked to your friends about where you work, then they showed up and waved. Now you've got intent that the waving was criminal (stalking) regardless of how empathetic the stalker may be.
Re: Re: That's why contracts aren't written in code
You misunderstood my meta-code portion.
Contracts now are written in a language whose goal is to eliminate the ambiguities introduced by natural language. Where someone attempts to exploit ambiguity discovered after the contract has gone into effect, it's usually resolved by having to go back and determine what both parties understood the contract to mean at the time they signed it.
What these smart contracts are trying to solve are: 1. Using a language that a computer can evaluate and so you don't need a judge or arbitration or lawyers to determine whether one party is in breach. 2. Not allowing for new behavior which while technically allowed under the language of the contract when signed materially differs from what both parties agreed to. 3. Having to completely enumerate everything individually allowed (or disallowed).
They failure is with #2 and #3. The meta-code idea is a first pass at addressing #2 at the expense of throwing #3 in the trash.
It is hard to write code that defines behavior A and only allows A. Well, it's easy, but A is typically very trivial, and ensuring the only A part requires a lot of code as well.
You're better off writing it in natural or legalese and enforcing it as a legal contract, where things like what both parties understood the agreement to mean become important and not what one party later to leverage the literal words on paper to mean.
Essentially, a smart contract needs to be both code + unit tests + regression tests + acceptance tests. And it needs to have a non-code meta layer that essentially says, if it does something other than what we've agreed because the code is flawed, that action is outside the contract.
It appears right now it's just the code portion. Unit tests let you know that your building blocks do what you want and only that one thing (mostly). Regression tests let you know that if you make a slight change somewhere, everything still works *like you already validated even if it doesn't seem like the change you made should affect anything else*. Acceptance tests essentially are the "everyone understands that X means ..." part of the contract. All of these "tests" are code BTW.
Then when a contract violates this, you can easily point to the behavior that's outside the acceptance test, and thus in violation of the "contract" even though the current smart contract as written would let it happen.
What's hilarious is that there's a whole "programming by contract" field which seems to have been ignored here.
This makes no sense at all. Trade secrets are *not* the problem that patents were invented to solve. I don't have hard numbers, but I suspect most (as in greater than 50%) trade secrets are not patent-able.
In fact, that they gave this info to the city suggests it's not a trade secret at all.
Trade secrets are just the excuse for getting this information hidden. They could have claimed copyright. Does that mean we should abolish that too? Because reading techdirt, I see report after report of problems "caused" by companies suing over copyright.
"So in the same way I’d argue we legalize drugs, why not have a careful, legal pathway to break into a phone?"
This reads to me as: Many would argue that legalizing drugs is generally bad. Not only can illegal drugs screw you up, illegal drugs helps enriches criminals and leads to increased criminal activity, due to the vast sums of money involved. Legalizing illegal drugs, while perhaps not that palatable to many, is a good idea because it helps combat the criminal activity made possible by illegal drugs.
Replace "illegal drugs" with "encryption" and "legalizing" with "backdooring".
On the post: Strike Three: Lexmark Can't Use Patents, Trademarks Or Copyright To Block Third Party Ink Cartridges
Re:
Having printer carts that work everywhere just increases the good competition they already have from refills - they'd lose money since it'll be pretty hard to innovate on ink to the point where I'd prefer $$$ Lexmark black to $ ebay black.
On the post: DHS, TSA To Make Boarding A Plane Even More Of A Pain In The Ass
To be fair, he may not be spreading fear wholesale. It could be what he "knows" is of a credible threat to Steve Doocy.
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 18th, 2017 @ 11:08am
On the post: Ransomware Attack Left DC Police Surveillance Blind Shortly Before The Innauguration
Re: I have a question:
Given that the code isn't transferring the money, how would disassembling it show you where money is being sent? I think you don't understand how electronic transfers or bitcoin works.
On the post: Ransomware Attack Left DC Police Surveillance Blind Shortly Before The Innauguration
Locked inside rooms?
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: Re: Well...
Trying to silence someone speaking out about a humanitarian issue, because it will get in the way of your enjoyment of tech issues, at a blog which you were not forced to read and where you don't expend any effort to write - that is callous and perhaps inhuman.
So, if what you are saying is "shut up Mike about this issue and get back to tech blogging", then yes, you might be in-human. And if you're saying that the reason Trump won is because in-human people were called out on it, then, while that sucks, it doesn't change anything.
But, if you are saying that someone thinks disagreeing with Mike on this particular makes you in-human, that is different and I've not yet read anything that suggests other points of view may not have validity or come from a different view or priority of humanity. And if you are saying that Trump was elected because people ignored the very real, though different, expressions of humanity of their fellow citizens, then, you'd be right but confusing since that's a good thing - assuming Trump is what's required to improve how we interact with our fellow citizens.
On the post: Court Tells Nursing Home Company That Law Firm's Ads Targeting It Are Not A Form Of Trademark Infringement
I wonder
On the post: CBC Threatens Podcast Apps For Letting People Listen To CBC Podcasts
Another question
On the post: CBC Threatens Podcast Apps For Letting People Listen To CBC Podcasts
Hmm
On the post: Thai Government Demands Popular Chat App Reveal Any Time Any User Insults The King
Now, instead of every single police office, government agency, etc all making requests and threats when they don't get fulfilled, just one single agency acts as gatekeeper for requests and threats.
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Not bad apples
There seems of late an active forgetfulness of where the term "bad apples" comes from. Kinda like what ultimately happened with "uncle tom". I wonder if I'm going to see the complete change within my lifetime.
On the post: Details Of Charges Against Backpage Execs For 'Pimping' Look Totally Bogus
Re: Material Contribution ...
So, from the POV of an eager prosecutor, this is backpage altering ads to hide their explicit nature. This is likely why they now just reject the post and force the user to remove the offending terms themselves.
On the post: Daily Deal: Radix '.tech' Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Caveat emptor
On the post: Pam Geller Sues The US Gov't Because Facebook Blocked Her Page; Says CDA 230 Violates First Amendment
Re: At what point does Facebook go too far?
Facebook is not a phone company. If Facebook "disconnects" you, you can still communicate with your friends and family. You can still post things online in a forum you completely control with the same level of effort you spent creating your Facebook account.
Even phone companies today are not the Bells of yesteryear. If AT&T blacklists me, I can use T-Mobile, or Sprint, or Verizon. It's not like I'd be completely cut out from being able to communicate with anyone.
Your analogy does not apply.
On the post: Pam Geller Sues The US Gov't Because Facebook Blocked Her Page; Says CDA 230 Violates First Amendment
Re:
Your advocacy attempts to make this into "this is an example of something else that's protected by the first amendment" but conveniently fails to explain what that other thing is...like I'll just take your word for it or something.
On the post: Illinois Court Says State's Cyberstalking Law Is Unconstitutional
Re:
One doesn't need empathy to know that smashing someone's face with a hammer will cause them harm.
The law is saying, you can't criminalize something simply because it made someone feel bad, an actual crime needs to occur. That's the "intent" that's to be proved - that the person actually did something wrong.
Waving at someone is not necessarily a crime or wrong. You feeling harassed doesn't automatically turn waving into stalking. The intent you prove that turns the waving into stalking is demonstrating that unwanted letters were sent to you, your private home address/phone numbers are found and the person showed up there, they talked to your friends about where you work, then they showed up and waved. Now you've got intent that the waving was criminal (stalking) regardless of how empathetic the stalker may be.
On the post: Lessons From The Downfall Of A $150M Crowdfunded Experiment In Decentralized Governance
Re: Re: That's why contracts aren't written in code
Contracts now are written in a language whose goal is to eliminate the ambiguities introduced by natural language. Where someone attempts to exploit ambiguity discovered after the contract has gone into effect, it's usually resolved by having to go back and determine what both parties understood the contract to mean at the time they signed it.
What these smart contracts are trying to solve are:
1. Using a language that a computer can evaluate and so you don't need a judge or arbitration or lawyers to determine whether one party is in breach.
2. Not allowing for new behavior which while technically allowed under the language of the contract when signed materially differs from what both parties agreed to.
3. Having to completely enumerate everything individually allowed (or disallowed).
They failure is with #2 and #3. The meta-code idea is a first pass at addressing #2 at the expense of throwing #3 in the trash.
On the post: Lessons From The Downfall Of A $150M Crowdfunded Experiment In Decentralized Governance
That's why contracts aren't written in code
It is hard to write code that defines behavior A and only allows A. Well, it's easy, but A is typically very trivial, and ensuring the only A part requires a lot of code as well.
You're better off writing it in natural or legalese and enforcing it as a legal contract, where things like what both parties understood the agreement to mean become important and not what one party later to leverage the literal words on paper to mean.
Essentially, a smart contract needs to be both code + unit tests + regression tests + acceptance tests. And it needs to have a non-code meta layer that essentially says, if it does something other than what we've agreed because the code is flawed, that action is outside the contract.
It appears right now it's just the code portion. Unit tests let you know that your building blocks do what you want and only that one thing (mostly). Regression tests let you know that if you make a slight change somewhere, everything still works *like you already validated even if it doesn't seem like the change you made should affect anything else*. Acceptance tests essentially are the "everyone understands that X means ..." part of the contract. All of these "tests" are code BTW.
Then when a contract violates this, you can easily point to the behavior that's outside the acceptance test, and thus in violation of the "contract" even though the current smart contract as written would let it happen.
What's hilarious is that there's a whole "programming by contract" field which seems to have been ignored here.
On the post: 'Smart Grid' Company Demands MuckRock Turn Over Info On Anyone Who Might Have Seen Public Records Docs Involving It
Re:
In fact, that they gave this info to the city suggests it's not a trade secret at all.
Trade secrets are just the excuse for getting this information hidden. They could have claimed copyright. Does that mean we should abolish that too? Because reading techdirt, I see report after report of problems "caused" by companies suing over copyright.
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Making Sense
This reads to me as: Many would argue that legalizing drugs is generally bad. Not only can illegal drugs screw you up, illegal drugs helps enriches criminals and leads to increased criminal activity, due to the vast sums of money involved. Legalizing illegal drugs, while perhaps not that palatable to many, is a good idea because it helps combat the criminal activity made possible by illegal drugs.
Replace "illegal drugs" with "encryption" and "legalizing" with "backdooring".
Next >>