Why no mention of the name of the developer, "who is well known"? The most direct way to solving this guy's problem is probably to shame the developer in public.
That aside, I wonder if there's a legal analogy to clean-room reverse engineering of computer hardware and firmware. That's clearly legal, so perhaps this guy's reverse-engineering of the design from the house (without ever seeing the blueprints) is OK.
Re: power imbalance between individual consumers and large multinational corporations
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I think a lot of political disagreement between thoughtful and sincere people boils down to this idea of "power imbalance".
I just don't see it. I certainly see that monopoly creates power imbalances.
But outside of monopoly, if I don't want to do buy from, or sell my labor to, business A, I just move on to one of their many competitors B, C, or D. In a competitive situation, one of the competitors is bound to offer more attractive terms, to the extent that's economically possible.
Obviously if I'm looking for something impossible - to buy gold bars at $1/ounce or sell my labor for $1,000,000/hour, nobody is going to offer me that - because in every trade between consenting adults, both sides need to feel they're ahead on the deal, or one of them walks away.
So I don't see the origin of any "power imbalance". As long as both sides are consenting adults, not acting under force or deception, then both sides must believe any trade they make benefits themselves. Otherwise they'd walk.
My answer is simple - consenting adults should be allowed to trade with each other, on the condition that they compensate any 3rd parties who are indirectly harmed ("externalities").
So, I'd say it's fine to limit advertising to minors, but not to adults.
And it's fine to prohibit deception and force, because people trading under those circumstances aren't consenting.
And it's fine to make polluters pay a tax to compensate for damage done by the pollution.
But it's not fine to tell consulting adults they're not allowed to trade with one another.
My position has nothing to do with the interests of corporations or of profitability - I start from the idea that human rights include the right of consenting adults to trade with each other.
So long as there's no deception involved, and no force.
I think it's important to draw a clear line between merely promoting something and making a business illegal - including advertising.
I don't see how promotion of breastfeeding is a trade barrier - billboards, public service ads, school education, etc.
But a law that says a seller of isn't allowed to advertise their product? I agree - that's a trade barrier.
If terms like "trade barrier" are going to mean anything legally, there needs to be a clear definition. Passing laws that prevent people from doing business seems like a reasonable place to draw a line.
If that's *all* they did with the junk science, I'd have no objection.
Lying about having lots of incriminating evidence to force a confession is the oldest trick in the book. The idea is that the guilty will cave, while the innocent will know it's BS.
It's when they bring the junk science into the courtroom that I have a problem.
This guy, by using the sticker, is "trying to force their social, religious, secular, racial, or fiscal values" onto those who are offended by them. For no discernible purpose other than to annoy them.
Exactly what the AC is complaining about. And I agree with that complaint.
Yes, he's within his 1st Amendment rights to do it.
But he shouldn't.
Lots of things are legal that ought not to be done by civilized people.
Re: he has not even responded to my request to be able to edit posts
All of us here can't edit our posts, not just you.
Take the time to get it right the first time, or live with the typos for evermore. Same as the rest of us.
Stop expecting special treatment. I invented lots of stuff too - just like millions of other young people who discover obvious and useful things (like email) but are still ignorant of the fact that other people invented those same things long ago.
There's a reason nobody got a patent on email, you know - it's obvious. Useful, yes, but obvious and so not patentable. Even for the FIRST inventor.
And why should Mike respond to your request if you can't be bothered to even let him know who it is doing the asking?
Yes, lots of ACs make good posts. But a disproportionate number of troll comments come from ACs.
It seems that for many people anonymity strips away many of the normal human conventions of civility. Even pseudonymity (as in "OldMugwump") seems to be enough to fix that (or most of it).
Once people have a reputation, even a pseudonymous one, they take care to avoid trashing it.
I suspect if trolls started posting stuff here as "Wendy Cockcroft" you wouldn't like it.
(This thread being 3 days old, I suspect few people are reading it by now except you and me, or I wouldn't even bring up the idea.)
On the post: Homeowner's House Burns Down, He Tries To Rebuild... But Facing Copyright Threats From Original Builder
Clean-room reverse engineering?
That aside, I wonder if there's a legal analogy to clean-room reverse engineering of computer hardware and firmware. That's clearly legal, so perhaps this guy's reverse-engineering of the design from the house (without ever seeing the blueprints) is OK.
IANAL.
On the post: Want To Promote Breastfeeding? That's A Trade Barrier, Says US Trade Rep
Re: power imbalance between individual consumers and large multinational corporations
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I think a lot of political disagreement between thoughtful and sincere people boils down to this idea of "power imbalance".
I just don't see it. I certainly see that monopoly creates power imbalances.
But outside of monopoly, if I don't want to do buy from, or sell my labor to, business A, I just move on to one of their many competitors B, C, or D. In a competitive situation, one of the competitors is bound to offer more attractive terms, to the extent that's economically possible.
Obviously if I'm looking for something impossible - to buy gold bars at $1/ounce or sell my labor for $1,000,000/hour, nobody is going to offer me that - because in every trade between consenting adults, both sides need to feel they're ahead on the deal, or one of them walks away.
So I don't see the origin of any "power imbalance". As long as both sides are consenting adults, not acting under force or deception, then both sides must believe any trade they make benefits themselves. Otherwise they'd walk.
Regardless of how large or small either party is.
On the post: Sketchy Bogus Crowdfunding Campaigns To 'Buy' Congress's Private Web Browsing... Only Now Realize That's Impossible
Re: Re: Re: just because they deem it less profitable
Almost all of those are at the state and local level.
On the post: Want To Promote Breastfeeding? That's A Trade Barrier, Says US Trade Rep
Re: should certain trade barriers be allowed?
My answer is simple - consenting adults should be allowed to trade with each other, on the condition that they compensate any 3rd parties who are indirectly harmed ("externalities").
So, I'd say it's fine to limit advertising to minors, but not to adults.
And it's fine to prohibit deception and force, because people trading under those circumstances aren't consenting.
And it's fine to make polluters pay a tax to compensate for damage done by the pollution.
But it's not fine to tell consulting adults they're not allowed to trade with one another.
My position has nothing to do with the interests of corporations or of profitability - I start from the idea that human rights include the right of consenting adults to trade with each other.
So long as there's no deception involved, and no force.
On the post: Sketchy Bogus Crowdfunding Campaigns To 'Buy' Congress's Private Web Browsing... Only Now Realize That's Impossible
Re: just because they deem it less profitable
Yes. It's less profitable because if they did that, the users would instantly disappear.
Instead, they sell the use of the data, which most users don't mind. (Maybe you mind, but Google has a lot more users than Duck Duck Go.)
No users, no lovely money. So they don't screw the users. That is how capitalism is supposed to work - make customers happy or lose.
On the post: Sketchy Bogus Crowdfunding Campaigns To 'Buy' Congress's Private Web Browsing... Only Now Realize That's Impossible
Re: As soon as they sell their data
No, that's not how it works.
They sell the use of the data, not the data itself.
It's not the same thing.
On the post: Want To Promote Breastfeeding? That's A Trade Barrier, Says US Trade Rep
You have to draw a line
I think it's important to draw a clear line between merely promoting something and making a business illegal - including advertising.
I don't see how promotion of breastfeeding is a trade barrier - billboards, public service ads, school education, etc.
But a law that says a seller of isn't allowed to advertise their product? I agree - that's a trade barrier.
If terms like "trade barrier" are going to mean anything legally, there needs to be a clear definition. Passing laws that prevent people from doing business seems like a reasonable place to draw a line.
On the post: Bose Lawsuit For Collecting Headphone Data Is Flimsy, But Highlights Continued Lack Of Real Transparency
Re: banned from collecting anything
It removes the option for people to make mutually advantageous agreements.
By all means, require real and meaningful disclosure (not buried "on page 57 of the EULA").
But let consenting adults make the deals with each other they want to make.
On the post: Bose Lawsuit For Collecting Headphone Data Is Flimsy, But Highlights Continued Lack Of Real Transparency
Bose may be hiring 3rd parties, not selling data to them
To be fair to Bose,
MAY mean that they hire 3rd parties to analyze the data for them.
Or not. It may mean they license others to use the data.
I really don't have a problem with this, on condition the data is properly and irreversibly anonymized.
On the post: Bose Lawsuit For Collecting Headphone Data Is Flimsy, But Highlights Continued Lack Of Real Transparency
Re: "only appears to be collecting metadata"
That is, they really are collecting something (it's more than an appearance). But what they're collecting is only metadata (song lists).
Whether it can be de-anonymized or not matters. As the article notes, in many cases supposedly anonymized data can be pretty easily de-anonymized.
It's not clear if that's the case here.
On the post: Guy Fined $500 For Criticizing Government Without A Permit Sues Oregon Licensing Board
Engineer is as engineer does
He who designs things using the discoveries of science is an engineer.
He who builds things is a technician.
License schmicense and degrees be dammed.
He who does, is.
(Yes, that goes for doctors too. Just don't call yourself a "licensed" physician if you're not, and it's fine with me.)
On the post: Cop Arrested, Fired After Wife Captures His Abusive Actions On His Own Body Camera
Re: Domestic Violence and Cops...
On the post: Attorney General Kills Off Study Of DOJ's Highly-Flawed Forensic Practices And Evidence
Re: Re: Can this help the defense in any way?
Lying about having lots of incriminating evidence to force a confession is the oldest trick in the book. The idea is that the guilty will cave, while the innocent will know it's BS.
It's when they bring the junk science into the courtroom that I have a problem.
On the post: If A Phone's Facial Recognition Security Can Be Defeated By A Picture Of A Face, What Good Is It?
Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
There are lots of things for which minimal security is fine - when a breach involves minor consequences you can easily live with.
For other things you need more security. If your phone can transfer away your life savings, for example.
And if your opponent is the NSA you need stronger security than if it's the nosy guy in the next cube at work.
Nobody should expect a single level of security to be right for everyone, or for everything.
Stronger security has costs that you don't want to pay for trivial gains.
On the post: Majority Of Intuit's Lobbying Dollars Spent Trying To Stop IRS From Making It Easier To File Your Taxes
And people wonder why lawyers rule
People wonder why it's necessary to hire an army of high-priced lawyers to be allowed to do anything these days.
Well, duh. Guess who writes the laws? Lawyers.
On the post: Driver Sues State After Receiving Ticket For 'Obscene' Stick Figure Vehicle Decal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nail on the head.
This guy, by using the sticker, is "trying to force their social, religious, secular, racial, or fiscal values" onto those who are offended by them. For no discernible purpose other than to annoy them.
Exactly what the AC is complaining about. And I agree with that complaint.
Yes, he's within his 1st Amendment rights to do it.
But he shouldn't.
Lots of things are legal that ought not to be done by civilized people.
On the post: Trump's Constant Whining About The NY Times Isn't Just Bad For The First Amendment
Re: Re: Trump has 1st amendment rights too
If you support freedom, everyone has the right to be an irresponsible jerk.
"Freedom" to do only those things that other people think are responsible and admirable is hardly meaningful.
Freedom is all about being allowed to do things that other people don't approve of.
(sorry for the late reply)
On the post: How To Improve Online Comments: Test Whether People Have Read The Article Before Allowing Them To Respond
Re: he has not even responded to my request to be able to edit posts
Take the time to get it right the first time, or live with the typos for evermore. Same as the rest of us.
Stop expecting special treatment. I invented lots of stuff too - just like millions of other young people who discover obvious and useful things (like email) but are still ignorant of the fact that other people invented those same things long ago.
There's a reason nobody got a patent on email, you know - it's obvious. Useful, yes, but obvious and so not patentable. Even for the FIRST inventor.
And why should Mike respond to your request if you can't be bothered to even let him know who it is doing the asking?
(Let alone that you're suing him...)
On the post: How To Improve Online Comments: Test Whether People Have Read The Article Before Allowing Them To Respond
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes Sense
If you have pride, have the pride to make your case in the open under your own name.
For sure, writing an email system at age 14 is quite an accomplishment - in any year, let alone 1978.
And I'm quite ready to believe you "invented" it independently, without knowing about things like Unix mail.
But that doesn't make make you the "inventor" of email. At best it makes you a "re-inventor" of email.
By your standard, I "invented" the queue and the linked list. And a great many other fundamental concepts in computer science.
But I didn't. These are more-or-less obvious (like email) and I re-invented them, long after others knew about them.
On the post: How To Improve Online Comments: Test Whether People Have Read The Article Before Allowing Them To Respond
Re: Re: Simple partial solution - eliminate ACs
Yes, lots of ACs make good posts. But a disproportionate number of troll comments come from ACs.
It seems that for many people anonymity strips away many of the normal human conventions of civility. Even pseudonymity (as in "OldMugwump") seems to be enough to fix that (or most of it).
Once people have a reputation, even a pseudonymous one, they take care to avoid trashing it.
I suspect if trolls started posting stuff here as "Wendy Cockcroft" you wouldn't like it.
(This thread being 3 days old, I suspect few people are reading it by now except you and me, or I wouldn't even bring up the idea.)
Next >>