You think this law applies to them? Read it again:
"At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps... These Mitigation Measures may include,...
or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. [emphasis added]
Don't forget the economics. When it's someone else's money you're spending, you spend more of it. In a lot of these agencies, spending more money is actually good for your career.
Oh, and to even get into a position in one of these agencies where you'll be put in charge of such a contract, you'll have to be a master at a number of skills that are not business, cost-cutting or engineering.
You seem to have a couple of different concepts mixed up. I'm not sure exactly where to argue with you.
Do you agree that if I send you something (in a controlled system like Google+) you can be sure that it came from me? (If not then there's really nothing to argue about here.)
Do you agree that you can fake a screenshot? That is, change the text but keep the "From: Beta" at the top? Or just make up the whole thing?
Do you agree that without strong authentication (e.g. a cryptographic signature) it is impossible to tell whether a screenshot has been tampered with?
There is more than one kind of information; having a copy of some data is not the same as having knowledge of its provenance.
P.S. there is a very clever way that I can prepare a message with a cryptographic signature that only you can authenticate, but I think the math would be a little inappropriate for this forum.
A very important point. In this case, the people building Google+ could improve privacy by leaving out authentication, so that the first recipient cannot prove that the forwarded message is genuine.
Better still, they could build in an optional (default-off) Google+ cryptographic signature system. If I want to send you something confidential, I leave off the signature; if I want to nail my colors to the mast, I put it on.
(Note that in the real world, some people tend to believe gossip, and some others tend to be believed, even without proof.)
That really is incredibly weak. Look, it works just as well the other way, maybe better: "taxes should be cut, because someone somewhere has to pay for the things bought with that money by the people who earned it."
...software pricing shouldn’t be decided randomly... first, you might be missing out on revenue; second, your product price says something about the quality and intended audience of your product; third, your price also sets an expectation of how much effort has gone into production and how much value a customer should expect..."
The "second" and "third" look the same to me (and the "first" is always true), but here goes.
First comes the ideal free market of rational agents, wherein better goods cost more. Lower the price and more people will buy.
Then comes the market of lazy ignorant people who use price as a guide to quality (like me when I'm buying wine). More people will buy if you raise the price.
Then comes the market of knowledgeable buyers who are not fooled by the marketing tricks of the second market (like me when I'm buying tea). This pretty much takes you back to the first market, but with a lot more room for idiomatic appeal to niche markets.
If you are set squarely in the second market, and can't see anything else, then the argument above makes sense-- if you give something away, people will think it's worthless. But by that same argument there's no need for me to worry about competitors who do that; they don't cut into my business, they don't "distort the market", people will walk past their "FREE STUFF" to stand in line at my boutique.
Or to put it another way, "why is it brick and mortar stores have to charge sales tax when others doing business in the state don't? It's time to abolish state sales taxes to help local businesses compete. Be fair to everyone. (For the children. Don't do drugs.)"
Here's another question: why is that people who use the word "fair" when talking about taxes always want to raise them?
I have to wonder 1) what these ISPs got in exchange, 2) how much of a competitive advantage this gives to uncensored ISPs, and 3) what business models can be built on 1 and 2.
Ralston comes across as an idiot, but maybe that's what his public likes.
If I knew nothing about this case, I'd see an interviewer who can't keep his mouth shut, constantly interrupting his guest without ever really cornering him, screwing up the metaphors and missing point after point, while the guest blew clouds of weasel-language which the host made no real effort to dispel. What was the "dishonest" behavior about? Are Gibson's counterarguments valid? Did Righthaven go after people who were small, or people who were innocent? How much trouble is Righthaven really in, and does it have a snowball's chance of making further profit by these suits? All I would know at the end of the interview was that Gibson was unwise to go on the show (and that the show isn't worth watching).
Crucifying a visitor on camera is an art, it requires real debate skill and a quick mind, not just a loud voice and a friend in the control booth.
"If [this drink] took off, under the name "Painkiller", any giant of a company like a Diageo or a Bacardi or some other could introduce a drink of the same name and we'd be out of the running instantly."
As far as I can tell, this is basically Pusser's admitting that its rum simply isn't very good.
Well, to be completely fair, maybe Pusser is admitting that the cocktail recipe isn't very good: if Bacardi fielded a better "Painkiller" recipe -- trademarked and specifying Bacardi rum -- then Pusser's rum would lose a lot of market share... in all the bars in lawyerworld... where they probably don't dare serve rum anyway
"Science applies to what can be observed. The notion of a science of origins is oxymoronic..."
We can observe evidence and test theories about the past-- but I restrict myself to one argument with creationists per year, and I used it up in February.
On the post: Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three
Re: When can we start submitting accusations
"At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps... These Mitigation Measures may include,...
or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. [emphasis added]
Get the picture?
On the post: Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
they could save a fortune
On the post: Mayor Bloomberg Demands SAIC Pay Back $600 Million In Cost Overruns For NYC Computer System
Re: Re: Government Designed Systems
Oh, and to even get into a position in one of these agencies where you'll be put in charge of such a contract, you'll have to be a master at a number of skills that are not business, cost-cutting or engineering.
On the post: First Totally Bogus Privacy Issue Over Google+ Raised
Re: Re: Re: One limited sense
Do you agree that if I send you something (in a controlled system like Google+) you can be sure that it came from me? (If not then there's really nothing to argue about here.)
Do you agree that you can fake a screenshot? That is, change the text but keep the "From: Beta" at the top? Or just make up the whole thing?
Do you agree that without strong authentication (e.g. a cryptographic signature) it is impossible to tell whether a screenshot has been tampered with?
There is more than one kind of information; having a copy of some data is not the same as having knowledge of its provenance.
P.S. there is a very clever way that I can prepare a message with a cryptographic signature that only you can authenticate, but I think the math would be a little inappropriate for this forum.
On the post: First Totally Bogus Privacy Issue Over Google+ Raised
Re: One limited sense
Better still, they could build in an optional (default-off) Google+ cryptographic signature system. If I want to send you something confidential, I leave off the signature; if I want to nail my colors to the mast, I put it on.
(Note that in the real world, some people tend to believe gossip, and some others tend to be believed, even without proof.)
On the post: NASA Sues Astronaut, Claiming He Stole Space Camera... 40 Years Ago
burying the lead
"[Mitchell] did admit to the Post that NASA had, in the past, asked for the camera back. He believed the matter had been laid to rest."
On the post: Amazon Prepares For Showdown In California After Budget Includes Amazon Tax
Re: Re: Re: be fair
On the post: The Misconceptions Of 'Free' Abound; Why Do Brains Stop At The Zero?
it's not for everyone
The "second" and "third" look the same to me (and the "first" is always true), but here goes.
First comes the ideal free market of rational agents, wherein better goods cost more. Lower the price and more people will buy.
Then comes the market of lazy ignorant people who use price as a guide to quality (like me when I'm buying wine). More people will buy if you raise the price.
Then comes the market of knowledgeable buyers who are not fooled by the marketing tricks of the second market (like me when I'm buying tea). This pretty much takes you back to the first market, but with a lot more room for idiomatic appeal to niche markets.
If you are set squarely in the second market, and can't see anything else, then the argument above makes sense-- if you give something away, people will think it's worthless. But by that same argument there's no need for me to worry about competitors who do that; they don't cut into my business, they don't "distort the market", people will walk past their "FREE STUFF" to stand in line at my boutique.
On the post: Amazon Prepares For Showdown In California After Budget Includes Amazon Tax
Re: be fair
Here's another question: why is that people who use the word "fair" when talking about taxes always want to raise them?
On the post: Court Says EA Can Use The Word 'Dillinger;' Declares John Scalf's Trademark Claim Invalid
think of the, uh...
John Dillinger wouldn't have committed his crimes, without the assurance that... wait...
If EA wants to exploit an image of a dirty crook who preys on innocent people, sure the image of John Scalf... well, I think I'm getting warmer...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Agreed, but the credit belongs to Futurama.
On the post: Australia, Once Again, Seeks To Censor The Internet
they can't even get rid of rabbits
On the post: Righthaven CEO: Judges Are Really Just Giving Guidance To Righthaven Competitors
*yawn*
If I knew nothing about this case, I'd see an interviewer who can't keep his mouth shut, constantly interrupting his guest without ever really cornering him, screwing up the metaphors and missing point after point, while the guest blew clouds of weasel-language which the host made no real effort to dispel. What was the "dishonest" behavior about? Are Gibson's counterarguments valid? Did Righthaven go after people who were small, or people who were innocent? How much trouble is Righthaven really in, and does it have a snowball's chance of making further profit by these suits? All I would know at the end of the interview was that Gibson was unwise to go on the show (and that the show isn't worth watching).
Crucifying a visitor on camera is an art, it requires real debate skill and a quick mind, not just a loud voice and a friend in the control booth.
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
garfield - 0.99 * garfield
On the post: Pusser's Rum Wins Ridiculous Trademark Battle, But Loses The War As Bartenders Protest And Boycott
Oh that witty Winston
That's very interesting, but not exactly praise for the rum itself, I mean not when the alternatives at sea were the lash and that other thing.
On the post: UK Lobbyists Claim UK Software Industry In Trouble Because It Doesn't Have Software Patents
what you mean we
– Trevor Cook, IP lawyer
Did anybody else catch that?
On the post: Pusser's Rum Wins Ridiculous Trademark Battle, But Loses The War As Bartenders Protest And Boycott
"litigation" even sounds drunk
As far as I can tell, this is basically Pusser's admitting that its rum simply isn't very good.
Well, to be completely fair, maybe Pusser is admitting that the cocktail recipe isn't very good: if Bacardi fielded a better "Painkiller" recipe -- trademarked and specifying Bacardi rum -- then Pusser's rum would lose a lot of market share... in all the bars in lawyerworld... where they probably don't dare serve rum anyway
On the post: China Accused Of Putting Recording Devices In All Dual-Plate Hong Kong/China Cars
coventry, anyone?
On the post: How Did The iTunes Terms Of Service Become A Cultural Phenomenon All Its Own?
wish list of voice actors
Oh, what Orson Welles could have done with it...
On the post: Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
We can observe evidence and test theories about the past-- but I restrict myself to one argument with creationists per year, and I used it up in February.
Next >>