It's more complicated than that. If I had access to the perpetrators, I would absolutely tell them not to be so "rapey". If I only have access to my daughter, then I will teach her how to protect herself on the assumption that nobody else has gotten around to asking the perpetrators to behave, either.
Society is a shared thing, and we can only influence the behaviour of those who we interact with.
The 'natural copyright' to intimate and/or sexual images is one of perpetual prerogative, the subject has an inalienable right to change their mind at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
Even if we have permission at one time to post an image, the subject still maintains the right to demand it be removed at any time. This might make it difficult to run a website or other business that uses these sorts of images as a product, but oh well.
On what possible basis do you make this claim? What is the test for an "intimate and/or sexual image"? Would a picture of someone's face showing some intimate emotion (sadness, love, despair) qualify? What about a silhouette that has no identifying features?
As discussed above, just because you can't imagine how such a law would be misused, or perhaps because you imagine that it will provide greater good than harm, doesn't make it a good law.
Posting an intimate or private image of a person without that person's direct permission should be a much more serious crime than posting a copy of a song that has already been sold ten thousand times to ten thousand others, no comparison. Perhaps it should, but copyright is not the law you're looking for.
I'm not suggesting rights to digital depictions of ones body (DNA, iris, fingerprints included) are the only rights we have, I'm suggesting that this is where our natural Human rights should start in the new digital domain.
Now this is a very interesting discussion tangential to the topic of the article, but I'll limit it to: Why do you think you should have rights to digital depictions of these things, when you don't obviously have any rights to their analog depictions? Every day, every single one of us leaves behind tens of thousands of copies of many parts of our body - fingerprints, hair, skin cells, mucous, footprints, people seeing us as we cross the street and remembering what we look like.
Can you share an imagined an harmful unintended consequence? If a picture of a person appeared in a news article, and the person didn't like how they were portrayed in the article, they might retract the license for the picture from the news source. If the news source was a newspaper and the printed paper was already distributed, that would be difficult for the paper to handle.
What about if an actor/actress didn't like how they were portrayed in the final edit of a movie they performed in? What are the implications if they can retract their permission for their likeness in the film (hint- the courts studied this one recently).
How would this affect professional portrait photographers? If the person in the photo holds the copyright, would the photographer be compelled to hand over the high quality images without payment? What does it mean if the holder of the copyright doesn't even own a copy?
What if the consequences of centering copyright law on the one digital 'thing' that a person should have exclusive rights to, were, on balance, a good thing? What if we had the power to make people forget things that we didn't want them to remember? What if that was, on balance, a good thing?
I'd suggest that convincing other people that a particular simplified view of part of a law is a good thing is best done by examining the consequences, rather than just asking "what if it was, though?"
Definitely possible, yes. And that's a better way to use the biometric data than directly as a password, but I'm not sure that I can see a benefit over just using a random salt
Nimoy was worth over 45 million when he died, so you think his son who most likely got a good chunk of that money needs 600k to make a movie to profit on?
He's under no obligation to self-fund the movie, and you're under no obligation to fund the movie either. What's the problem?
Dude, his freaking dad sold rights for those videos/images while working for CBS and Paramount. There's nothing unfair here, regardless how rich he is.
While CBS and Paramount have every legal right to require licensing fees for their footage for the documentary, the article is asking why they wouldn't hand over rights to the footage for free, in exchange for the timely, grassroots advertising to their franchise? That's literally the kind of advertising that money can't buy!
Put another way, this is a business discussion, not a legal one. The stupidos are banking on being paid for their footage, AND the documentary working as advertising for their franchise, apparently discounting the value of any goodwill they might achieve by cooperating more directly.
And not all fallacies are absolute.I would wager the statement isn't false.
The point of logical fallacies is that the truthiness of the statement doesn't tend to correlate with the correctness of the proposition.
As the first post stated, However, free speech is free speech, whether one likes the speech or not. It's pretty likely that people won't like it if embarrassing pics of their family are on public display - statement is true. Speech is still legal - statement is true.
As mentioned in a comment by G Thompson, there may be other laws broken in the course of the speech, but the speech itself is not (should not be) the illegal part.
Biometrics are only effective as both username and password in situations where you don't really need passwords at all. eg- logging on to a multi-user home computer - but not for getting access to sensitive files (eg- password safe), or at least not by itself.
Re: Re: Re: HOLY CRAP! Another of Techdirt's startling REVERSES!
I copied the phrase "Other people's content" from the article. I did not introduce a new off-topic concept, but picked up on the KEY point, and want to take the piece in this direction:
Just because it's the point of most interest to you, don't make it the KEY point.
A few paragraphs later the article even specifies that the content isn't the point (emphasis added):
While providing an RSS feed cedes a certain amount of control over content distribution (in all honesty, Apple never needed to half-assedly ask for permission to add the feed to its News app)
... which is about as much as that point needs to be discussed.
The KEY point of the article, as everyone else has pointed out, is Apple trying to pretend that an opt-out "contract" is enforceable.
This is very impressive; I'm not sure how likely a commodity computer made today is to even last thirty years. Even enterprise systems aren't made with the kind of tolerances to last that long.
The more dense fabrication technologies and faster clock speeds means that parts wear faster, and break earlier. It looks like Seagate's Barracuda ES.2 Near-Line Serial ATA drive is 80% likely to survive 30 years without a failure (http://knowledge.seagate.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/174791en?language=en_US), but a quick search didn't yield anything immediately useful for RAM or other components.
And what makes you think the computer is connected to the POTS? Reading the article, it's much more likely that the modem is providing the DAC for connecting to the radio network.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns are force focusing and targeting tools.
That will never work again in the US. It is considerably harder to overthrow a domestic government by force than it is to remove a foreign government. The only guns that have an impact in domestic revolutions are those held by the domestic army.
[citation needed]
Unfortunately I had a better article on this a few days ago, but that was on a different computer. Try these:
Another interesting link is this one (http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5203&context=faculty_scholarship).. .
To the contrary, the Constitution is replete with provisions intended to quell uprisings. For example, Congress is empowered to call out the militia-the very force envisioned to resist usurpations of power-to suppress insurrections and rebellions.60 Significantly, treason is the only crime the Framers believed important enough for the Constitution to condemn explicitly.61 In defining the crime, for example, the Constitution expressly lists "levying war" against the United States as a manifestation of the offense.62 Thus, the theory that the Second Amendment contemplates armed confrontations against the government is seriously undermined. (p654)
So my comment may not be true (kinda curious what that book says now), but I still consider it likely to be true in practice... and it looks like there's a strong case to be made that that's not even the point of the second amendment anyway.
You can protect your loved ones much more effectively if the other guy doesn't have a gun.
Exactly how do you propose to ensure that the other guy doesn't have a gun? Prohibiting guns from the white market only confines them to the black market, meaning only those who are willing to access them via the black market will have them.
True, there's no way to eliminate guns entirely. Restricting the supply of guns goes a long way however, and the rates of gun-related crime in Australia have gone down since gun control laws were passed in 1996. Sure, people are still killed each year with guns, but you are extremely unlikely to be shot by a police officer (they have no reason to assume that anyone might be carrying a gun), and even criminal shootings tend more towards shooting other criminals (rival gangs) than shooting civilians.
I think it's pretty naive thinking that by passing laws, you will constrain those who don't respect law in the first place. Though it does ensure that neither you nor the police know who does have guns and where they keep them.
Isn't it naive to ignore the reality of low gun-related crime in countries with stronger gun control (Australia and New Zealand in particular, the UK to a lesser degree)?
...Is there any problem with needing to go to a shooting range (or a farm) to get access to the gun for recreational shooting?
Gun enthusiasts often like to own and modify their own weapons. They also like to take them to multiple ranges.
Gun control laws in Australia don't prevent you from owning guns and taking them to multiple ranges. I must admit I have no idea what degree of modification is permitted under the laws, that may be one of the more regrettable losses if it's not permitted.
You seem to be making the same kinds of incorrect presumptions that Lawrence D’Oliveiro was making in this same comments section, particularly about substitutes for specific purposes. It brings me to wonder if you two are the same person, or at least pull your information from the same dubious sources.
And you seem to be speaking from the same emotional standpoints as tqk, but there's no other reason to believe you're the same person, or that it would even matter if you were.
I can't speak for Lawrence D'Oliveiro, but my dubious sources derive from living in Australia before and after the gun control laws were enacted and seeing how people reacted, and being a (very) minor gun enthusiast (firing pistols and revolvers at shooting ranges, and rifles at my parent's farm).
I had a problem, so I got a gun. Now I got two problems.
Then perhaps you got a gun for the wrong reasons, and perhaps you are too irresponsible to own and maintain a firearm.
That doesn't mean the rest of humanity is.
I don't have any problems that a gun could possibly solve, and don't own a gun (my father does, and does). You seem to be missing the fact that my support for gun control laws is in no way tied to a desire for people not to own guns and maintain them responsibly; it is rather tied to a desire for people not to be killed by other people with guns, and I'm not aware of a better method than gun control laws to do this. Arming more of the population seems to me to be exactly the wrong thing to do.
Re: Re: Re: Guns are force focusing and targeting tools.
Also, if you honestly believe you could live freely in your nation without a military force or allies with military force you are hopelessly naïve. The U.S. is a country founded on the basis of people fighting against an oppressive government (ironic, I know). Being able to defend oneself is a core element of U.S. culture, and was considered important enough by our founders to place directly below the right to speak freely.
That will never work again in the US. It is considerably harder to overthrow a domestic government by force than it is to remove a foreign government. The only guns that have an impact in domestic revolutions are those held by the domestic army.
Guns have many more purposes besides murder.
Let's have a look at those purposes, shall we?
They can be used to protect you from others who would do you harm. Apart from the fact that this is still (justified?) murder, they can also be used by those others who would do you harm, and allow them to do even more harm in a much more expedited fashion. In countries where neither party is likely to have access to guns, harm is notably less even if violent crime is not.
tl;dr: You can protect your loved ones much more effectively if the other guy doesn't have a gun.
A gun is a great equalizer between the sexes; a woman can defend herself with a gun as effectively as a man, unlike most other weapons. So is a taser or pepper spray. Martial arts training is also a great equalizer, with awesome health benefits.
They can be used to teach responsibility and safety. They can be used for recreation and mastery, which in turn can build confidence. I have no problem with guns being used in this way, but guns are hardly unique in this regard. Back to you, is there any problem with needing to go to a shooting range (or a farm) to get access to the gun for recreational shooting?
I had a problem, so I got a gun. Now I got two problems.
Re: Re: Re: Utility is not relevant when it comes to our liberties
There is almost nothing that can be achieved with guns, that can't be achieved better in other ways... other than killing large numbers of people.
I'm pretty sure that we have better ways of killing large numbers of people.
I think guns are one of the more efficient ways of killing large numbers of people, but it does depend on what you're optimising for. Anyway, that part of my comment was a little incindiary, and debating it doesn't really lead anywhere. Sorry about that.
Even if you mean to imply guns are an anachronism (some are) there are plenty of other anachronisms that people like to have, and that brings us to the prior issue: why would their right to have guns be trumped by your right to object to them having guns?
Why would somebody's right to enjoy torturing people be trumped by somebody else's right to object to being tortured? Not all personal choices are equal.
However, I have no objections to people owning guns. My father has owned a gun since before I was born, and I've occasionally enjoyed going to a gun range to shoot pistols. My point is, sensible gun control laws do not preclude people enjoying guns. They do however reduce gun-related crime. Of course they don't eliminate it, but that's a pipe dream, and the reduction in gun-related deaths in Australia since the laws were brought in has been well worth the small but measurable reduction in peoples' freedom (to own automatic weapons).
John Oliver has covered Australia's gun laws, I'd recommend seeing it if you haven't. There's a lot of viable grey in-between "gunz r evul" and "you can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands".
Re: Utility is not relevant when it comes to our liberties
Here in Australia, there are guns that provide plenty of pleasure for people who want to use them, AND we also have gun control laws. The two concepts are only barely related in that they both involve guns.
Gun control laws don't stop people from enjoying using guns. However, they DO demonstrably reduce people from being killed with guns. Being anti gun-control just sounds like you want to kill people, to us.
The idea that you think your government is threatened by private gun holders (as opposed to by the political power wielded by the NRA) is absent from any kind of validity in the real world: no uprising has ever succeeded without the support (or at least lack of opposition) of the military.
There is almost nothing that can be achieved with guns, that can't be achieved better in other ways... other than killing large numbers of people.
Well! If not giving away digital goods, but is using DRM, then according to Masnickal Law, Steam MUST be a dying dinosaur! -- "4,500 games ... 125 million active users. ... estimated by Screen Digest that 75% of games bought online for the PC are downloaded through Steam."
Where do you get that Masnickal law from? Mike has said a number of times that DRM adds no value to the customer, and in many cases removes value from paying customers that doesn't affect "non-paying customers".
With specific reference to Steam, we can turn to this story by Mike:
Bill Bliss was the first of a whole bunch of you to write in with a version on the story of how Valve has continued to show how to compete with free. This alone, isn't new. We've been covering these kinds of stories concerning Valve and its CEO, Gabe Newell, for years.
More links in that story, in which Mike documents Steam successfully competing with free. Granted, most mentions of Steam's DRM on this site cover things going wrong (some by Mike, some by others), but isn't that what DRM does best?
Perhaps the Masnickal Law you're trying to refer to is "innovate or die", though I don't think Mike can claim credit for that one.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: Re: Re: The CULTURE is bad for women.
Society is a shared thing, and we can only influence the behaviour of those who we interact with.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re:
Even if we have permission at one time to post an image, the subject still maintains the right to demand it be removed at any time. This might make it difficult to run a website or other business that uses these sorts of images as a product, but oh well.
On what possible basis do you make this claim? What is the test for an "intimate and/or sexual image"? Would a picture of someone's face showing some intimate emotion (sadness, love, despair) qualify? What about a silhouette that has no identifying features?
As discussed above, just because you can't imagine how such a law would be misused, or perhaps because you imagine that it will provide greater good than harm, doesn't make it a good law.
Posting an intimate or private image of a person without that person's direct permission should be a much more serious crime than posting a copy of a song that has already been sold ten thousand times to ten thousand others, no comparison.
Perhaps it should, but copyright is not the law you're looking for.
I'm not suggesting rights to digital depictions of ones body (DNA, iris, fingerprints included) are the only rights we have, I'm suggesting that this is where our natural Human rights should start in the new digital domain.
Now this is a very interesting discussion tangential to the topic of the article, but I'll limit it to: Why do you think you should have rights to digital depictions of these things, when you don't obviously have any rights to their analog depictions? Every day, every single one of us leaves behind tens of thousands of copies of many parts of our body - fingerprints, hair, skin cells, mucous, footprints, people seeing us as we cross the street and remembering what we look like.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: Re: Re:
If a picture of a person appeared in a news article, and the person didn't like how they were portrayed in the article, they might retract the license for the picture from the news source. If the news source was a newspaper and the printed paper was already distributed, that would be difficult for the paper to handle.
What about if an actor/actress didn't like how they were portrayed in the final edit of a movie they performed in? What are the implications if they can retract their permission for their likeness in the film (hint- the courts studied this one recently).
How would this affect professional portrait photographers? If the person in the photo holds the copyright, would the photographer be compelled to hand over the high quality images without payment? What does it mean if the holder of the copyright doesn't even own a copy?
What if the consequences of centering copyright law on the one digital 'thing' that a person should have exclusive rights to, were, on balance, a good thing?
What if we had the power to make people forget things that we didn't want them to remember? What if that was, on balance, a good thing?
I'd suggest that convincing other people that a particular simplified view of part of a law is a good thing is best done by examining the consequences, rather than just asking "what if it was, though?"
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Biometrics
On the post: Leonard Nimoy's Son Needs To Crowdfund Money For Spock Documentary... To License Photos And Videos
Re:
On the post: Leonard Nimoy's Son Needs To Crowdfund Money For Spock Documentary... To License Photos And Videos
Re: Re:
He's under no obligation to self-fund the movie, and you're under no obligation to fund the movie either. What's the problem?
On the post: Leonard Nimoy's Son Needs To Crowdfund Money For Spock Documentary... To License Photos And Videos
Re: Re: Re: What so ridiculous here
While CBS and Paramount have every legal right to require licensing fees for their footage for the documentary, the article is asking why they wouldn't hand over rights to the footage for free, in exchange for the timely, grassroots advertising to their franchise? That's literally the kind of advertising that money can't buy!
Put another way, this is a business discussion, not a legal one. The stupidos are banking on being paid for their footage, AND the documentary working as advertising for their franchise, apparently discounting the value of any goodwill they might achieve by cooperating more directly.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry but no.
The point of logical fallacies is that the truthiness of the statement doesn't tend to correlate with the correctness of the proposition.
As the first post stated, However, free speech is free speech, whether one likes the speech or not. It's pretty likely that people won't like it if embarrassing pics of their family are on public display - statement is true. Speech is still legal - statement is true.
As mentioned in a comment by G Thompson, there may be other laws broken in the course of the speech, but the speech itself is not (should not be) the illegal part.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Biometrics
Maybe. But probably not.
As soon as you are trying to use biometrics in a digital form, you are subject to replay attacks. See also https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/1999/08/biometrics_uses_and.html (still relevant after 16 years!) for other reasons why biometrics make poor passwords.
Biometrics are only effective as both username and password in situations where you don't really need passwords at all. eg- logging on to a multi-user home computer - but not for getting access to sensitive files (eg- password safe), or at least not by itself.
On the post: Apple Informs Bloggers It Will Be Using Their Content In Its 'News' App Via An Opt-Out Only 'Agreement'
Re: Re: Re: HOLY CRAP! Another of Techdirt's startling REVERSES!
Just because it's the point of most interest to you, don't make it the KEY point.
A few paragraphs later the article even specifies that the content isn't the point (emphasis added):
... which is about as much as that point needs to be discussed.
The KEY point of the article, as everyone else has pointed out, is Apple trying to pretend that an opt-out "contract" is enforceable.
On the post: Mi Amiga: One Michigan School District's Three-Decades-Old Hero Computer That Still Manages HVAC Today
They don't make 'em like they used to
The more dense fabrication technologies and faster clock speeds means that parts wear faster, and break earlier. It looks like Seagate's Barracuda ES.2 Near-Line Serial ATA drive is 80% likely to survive 30 years without a failure (http://knowledge.seagate.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/174791en?language=en_US), but a quick search didn't yield anything immediately useful for RAM or other components.
On the post: Mi Amiga: One Michigan School District's Three-Decades-Old Hero Computer That Still Manages HVAC Today
Re:
On the post: Awesome Stuff: New Digital Instruments Done Right
On the post: New Zealand Steps In To Block US Gov't From Stealing All Of Kim Dotcom's Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns are force focusing and targeting tools.
Unfortunately I had a better article on this a few days ago, but that was on a different computer. Try these:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WhTuhiIfouwC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=has+any+civi lian+revolution+succeeded+without+support+from+army&source=bl&ots=Ogof5Qm4LB&sig=uj1R09h cIceiQ_-TEe_aUoBIYsw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O9d2VfisPIOwmwWHooLoCQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage& amp;q=has%20any%20civilian%20revolution%20succeeded%20without%20support%20from%20army&f=false
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=HKvSBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=civilian+rev olution+without+support+from+army&source=bl&ots=61Qa2jXuS6&sig=JwP55lKwLWnYRJv5G62rIqHVI nA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ttV2VaCELaXMmwXUwoEQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCA#v=snippet&q=loyalty&f= false
Unfortunately the previews of this book don't include the conclusions, and they cite the Cuban revolution as a possible counterexample to my claim, but it also traces the claim back to Lenin - that a revolution cannot succeed without the assistance of part of the armed forces (p5-6)
Another interesting link is this one (http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5203&context=faculty_scholarship).. .
So my comment may not be true (kinda curious what that book says now), but I still consider it likely to be true in practice... and it looks like there's a strong case to be made that that's not even the point of the second amendment anyway.
True, there's no way to eliminate guns entirely. Restricting the supply of guns goes a long way however, and the rates of gun-related crime in Australia have gone down since gun control laws were passed in 1996. Sure, people are still killed each year with guns, but you are extremely unlikely to be shot by a police officer (they have no reason to assume that anyone might be carrying a gun), and even criminal shootings tend more towards shooting other criminals (rival gangs) than shooting civilians.
Isn't it naive to ignore the reality of low gun-related crime in countries with stronger gun control (Australia and New Zealand in particular, the UK to a lesser degree)?
Gun control laws in Australia don't prevent you from owning guns and taking them to multiple ranges. I must admit I have no idea what degree of modification is permitted under the laws, that may be one of the more regrettable losses if it's not permitted.
And you seem to be speaking from the same emotional standpoints as tqk, but there's no other reason to believe you're the same person, or that it would even matter if you were.
I can't speak for Lawrence D'Oliveiro, but my dubious sources derive from living in Australia before and after the gun control laws were enacted and seeing how people reacted, and being a (very) minor gun enthusiast (firing pistols and revolvers at shooting ranges, and rifles at my parent's farm).
I don't have any problems that a gun could possibly solve, and don't own a gun (my father does, and does). You seem to be missing the fact that my support for gun control laws is in no way tied to a desire for people not to own guns and maintain them responsibly; it is rather tied to a desire for people not to be killed by other people with guns, and I'm not aware of a better method than gun control laws to do this. Arming more of the population seems to me to be exactly the wrong thing to do.
On the post: New Zealand Steps In To Block US Gov't From Stealing All Of Kim Dotcom's Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Guns are force focusing and targeting tools.
That will never work again in the US. It is considerably harder to overthrow a domestic government by force than it is to remove a foreign government. The only guns that have an impact in domestic revolutions are those held by the domestic army.
Let's have a look at those purposes, shall we?
They can be used to protect you from others who would do you harm.
Apart from the fact that this is still (justified?) murder, they can also be used by those others who would do you harm, and allow them to do even more harm in a much more expedited fashion. In countries where neither party is likely to have access to guns, harm is notably less even if violent crime is not.
tl;dr: You can protect your loved ones much more effectively if the other guy doesn't have a gun.
A gun is a great equalizer between the sexes; a woman can defend herself with a gun as effectively as a man, unlike most other weapons.
So is a taser or pepper spray. Martial arts training is also a great equalizer, with awesome health benefits.
They can be used to teach responsibility and safety. They can be used for recreation and mastery, which in turn can build confidence.
I have no problem with guns being used in this way, but guns are hardly unique in this regard. Back to you, is there any problem with needing to go to a shooting range (or a farm) to get access to the gun for recreational shooting?
I had a problem, so I got a gun. Now I got two problems.
On the post: New Zealand Steps In To Block US Gov't From Stealing All Of Kim Dotcom's Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Utility is not relevant when it comes to our liberties
I think guns are one of the more efficient ways of killing large numbers of people, but it does depend on what you're optimising for. Anyway, that part of my comment was a little incindiary, and debating it doesn't really lead anywhere. Sorry about that.
Why would somebody's right to enjoy torturing people be trumped by somebody else's right to object to being tortured? Not all personal choices are equal.
However, I have no objections to people owning guns. My father has owned a gun since before I was born, and I've occasionally enjoyed going to a gun range to shoot pistols. My point is, sensible gun control laws do not preclude people enjoying guns. They do however reduce gun-related crime. Of course they don't eliminate it, but that's a pipe dream, and the reduction in gun-related deaths in Australia since the laws were brought in has been well worth the small but measurable reduction in peoples' freedom (to own automatic weapons).
John Oliver has covered Australia's gun laws, I'd recommend seeing it if you haven't. There's a lot of viable grey in-between "gunz r evul" and "you can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands".
On the post: New Zealand Steps In To Block US Gov't From Stealing All Of Kim Dotcom's Stuff
Re: Utility is not relevant when it comes to our liberties
Gun control laws don't stop people from enjoying using guns. However, they DO demonstrably reduce people from being killed with guns. Being anti gun-control just sounds like you want to kill people, to us.
The idea that you think your government is threatened by private gun holders (as opposed to by the political power wielded by the NRA) is absent from any kind of validity in the real world: no uprising has ever succeeded without the support (or at least lack of opposition) of the military.
There is almost nothing that can be achieved with guns, that can't be achieved better in other ways... other than killing large numbers of people.
On the post: New Zealand Steps In To Block US Gov't From Stealing All Of Kim Dotcom's Stuff
Re: Now if only they would protect the artists' work with the same fervor
Now you're talking about the label heads, yeah?
On the post: The Future Is Now: Steam Finally To Allow Refunds On Digital Purchases
Re: "not as a way to get free games"!?
Where do you get that Masnickal law from? Mike has said a number of times that DRM adds no value to the customer, and in many cases removes value from paying customers that doesn't affect "non-paying customers".
With specific reference to Steam, we can turn to this story by Mike:
More links in that story, in which Mike documents Steam successfully competing with free. Granted, most mentions of Steam's DRM on this site cover things going wrong (some by Mike, some by others), but isn't that what DRM does best?
Perhaps the Masnickal Law you're trying to refer to is "innovate or die", though I don't think Mike can claim credit for that one.
On the post: The NYTimes Plays Its Role In 'Keeping Fear Alive' With Pure Fearmongering Over PATRIOT Act Renewal
Re: Re: Does is matter at all?
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/05/why_the_current.html
Next >>