Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do we stop bad people from using technology is the same as how do we stop bad people from using guns
That is an Invalid comparison, as UK gun deaths have always been very low. The Hand Gun ban was enacted as a reaction to a single Incident, the Dunblane School Shooting.
You seriously think I don't know all that already?
Yes UK gun deaths have always been low because UK gun control has always been much stricter than in the US.
The hand gun ban was probably a step a little too far - but strict gun control has kept UK gun deaths down for a very long time.
How can they justify stronger encryption for government communications but advocate weaker or no encryption for everyone else?
Actually that is not even possible. Strong encryption relies mostly on being well tested. The best way to test encryption is for everyone to use it. If only the government uses it it will be weaker.
Re: Re: Re: How do we stop bad people from using technology is the same as how do we stop bad people from using guns
Bad people ignore the law, and the hand gun ban in the UK has not stopped their use by criminals. It has hurt the people who enjoyed target shooting, up to and including Olympic pistol. Further banning the means does not eliminate the causes, and often leads to further bans as the bad people find an alternative means.
Whilst I agree that the UK gun ban went a bit too far in banning target shooting I cannot agree that it has not been effective. It has been very effective. If you compare UK gun deaths with the US you will see what I mean. The statistics are undeniable. Also I would say that the residual use of guns be criminals in the UK owes a lot to their ready availability in the US.
Otherwise, tests which are notorious for false positives become probable cause factories.
Yes this happens - and not just for warrants. Iyt happens in actual cases too. It has to get really out of hand before anyone speaks out - as the case of Annie Dookhan shows.
It's simple. Mike thinks it's a huge tragedy that these works from 1959 are not in the public domain. What about works from 1960? From 1970? From 1980? From last year? He won't tell us anything about those works. Does he think it's a tragedy that those works aren't in the public domain too? If not, what's the difference?
I can't speak for Mike but :
1. In my ideal world all of those works (in fact all works) would be in the public domain - so your criticism would be invalid.
2. In this world as it was in 1959 those works were scheduled to be in the public domain now. Works from 1960 and later were not scheduled (at the time they were created) to be in the public domain now - so that is a simple and clear difference that you seem to be too stupid to see.
They don't want to stop the older version from competing, as you claimed, they just want to make sure nobody else gets a look in.
Aren't those two things in practice the same?
ie what they want to avoid is somebody else using the older works to get a look in.
If the older work is in the public domain then the older work competing is synonymous with somebody else getting the profit.
My point is that if the older works are in the public domain then others, who may be able to deliver the content more efficiently, can compete with their newer offerings.
But, there's usually a re-release of older movies at the time a remake or sequel is released, usually in some kind of special edition/remastered/collector's edition. If your assertion was true, that would make no sense. Even without a new package, sales often spike as the new version reignites interest in the older film.
I think we're not really very far apart on this one. It is only a matter of relative scale of motivations. However I think we'd agree that their real nightmare goes something like this:
They release new version - someone else re-releases older version. That someone else can now push the old version at the expense of the new one whilst profiting from their publicity. Given that the new one will be much worse than the old* that someone else will now get most of the profit.
*I don't think a film like Ben Hur could be made these days - its cultural assumptions are no longer mainstream. If made in the modern climate it will most likely be a cheesy backward looking version with the harder edges removed (not that there were many in the 1959 one). Alternatively it could be an attempt to bring the story into line with the modern, more cynical worldview which would contradict the motivation of the original book.
No, they make very little money from even the most popular older works. Take Ben Hur for example. They have done a remake (scheduled for release later this year - timed for next Christmas). If they could still make lots of money from the 1959 version why bother - but what they really don't want is the 1959 version competing with their new (and likely lame) film.
There are very few old works (beyond Happy Birthday) that actually make siginificant money.
Actually the main reason behind this is not to continue to profit from those old works - rather it is to avoid new works having to compete with them. They don't care if the old works are lost completely - in fact that would be even better for them - because it would be permanent.
1 Almost every last person in the entertainment industry, with very few exceptions, is a complete and utter idiot, lacking even the most basic pattern recognition skills, and incapable of learning even the most obvious lesson from their past actions.
...
#1 is possible, but unlikely in the extreme. You don't reach the point of running multi-billion dollar companies if you are lacking in smarts and business skill, and only an idiot would throw millions away if they weren't getting anything out of it.
Actually that IS entirely possible in the sense that they have a blind spot in that direction. Everyone in the entertainment industries is brainwashed from day 1 to believecertain things about copyright, piracy etc etc. I see this effect with people that I know personally who are not stupid but yet still have this emotional reaction to piracy. You grossly underestimate the human capability for cognitive dissonance.
First of all the purpose of terrorism is to make people afraid. That people become afraid is an indicator that terrorism worked, even if the proposed terror is fiction. Interestingly, I have yet to see any methodology to ascertain if anyone is actually afraid.
Actually it is an economic war and it is surprisingly successful. The economic cost of all the securoty is truly staggering.
" In a post-9/11 interview with Al Jazeera, bin Laden remarked at length on the financial impact of the attacks. He concluded that the total cost to America was “no less than $1 trillion,” in comparison with the approximately $500,000 al-Qaeda spent to make it happen."
Quoted in Gartenstein-Ross, “Bin Laden’s ‘War of a Thousand Cuts’ Will Live On.”
"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to maintain or establish a computer network unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and exchanging of pornography."
Actually means:
"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to maintain or establish a computer network ."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
The government should NEVER be in the business of health care of any kind. ... If you really wanted to fix healthcare, you would instead completely outlaw insurance completely.
You just condemmned everyone except the 0.1% to early death with those two statements. Modern healthcare is not affordable by ordinary people at the stages of their lives where they need it most. (Infancy and old age). Some kind of insurance scheme is inevitable and the government is best placed to provide it universally.
BY the way do you REALLY mean that governemnt is not involved in ANY healthcare - including wounded soldiers on the battlefield?
On the post: The White House Asks Silicon Valley What To Do To 'Disrupt' ISIS
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do we stop bad people from using technology is the same as how do we stop bad people from using guns
That is an Invalid comparison, as UK gun deaths have always been very low. The Hand Gun ban was enacted as a reaction to a single Incident, the Dunblane School Shooting.
You seriously think I don't know all that already?
Yes UK gun deaths have always been low because UK gun control has always been much stricter than in the US.
The hand gun ban was probably a step a little too far - but strict gun control has kept UK gun deaths down for a very long time.
On the post: The White House Asks Silicon Valley What To Do To 'Disrupt' ISIS
Re:
Actually that is not even possible. Strong encryption relies mostly on being well tested. The best way to test encryption is for everyone to use it. If only the government uses it it will be weaker.
On the post: The White House Asks Silicon Valley What To Do To 'Disrupt' ISIS
Re: Re: Re: How do we stop bad people from using technology is the same as how do we stop bad people from using guns
Whilst I agree that the UK gun ban went a bit too far in banning target shooting I cannot agree that it has not been effective. It has been very effective. If you compare UK gun deaths with the US you will see what I mean. The statistics are undeniable. Also I would say that the residual use of guns be criminals in the UK owes a lot to their ready availability in the US.
On the post: Former NSA Whistleblower Bill Binney Warns UK Lawmakers Mass Surveillance Will 'Cost Lives In Britain'
have you ever?
It's tough isn't it?
How much harder to search through 50 million such historys over 2 years?
On the post: Judge Helps Ensure That The More Ignorant Law Enforcement Officers Are, The More They'll Be Able To Get Away With
Re: Ignorance
Because the first part of that rule is just a device to make their job easier - as is the second.
On the post: Judge Helps Ensure That The More Ignorant Law Enforcement Officers Are, The More They'll Be Able To Get Away With
Re: Judge dumber than the Cops
On the post: Judge Helps Ensure That The More Ignorant Law Enforcement Officers Are, The More They'll Be Able To Get Away With
Re: Who's responsible for the tests?
Yes this happens - and not just for warrants. Iyt happens in actual cases too. It has to get really out of hand before anyone speaks out - as the case of Annie Dookhan shows.
On the post: Former UK Bureaucrat Whines About People Happily Looking At Mobile Phones Rather Than Fearfully Spying On Everyone Else
The boy who cried wolf
On the post: Here We Go Again: All The Works That Should Now Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re:
I can't speak for Mike but :
1. In my ideal world all of those works (in fact all works) would be in the public domain - so your criticism would be invalid.
2. In this world as it was in 1959 those works were scheduled to be in the public domain now. Works from 1960 and later were not scheduled (at the time they were created) to be in the public domain now - so that is a simple and clear difference that you seem to be too stupid to see.
On the post: Here We Go Again: All The Works That Should Now Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Competition
Aren't those two things in practice the same?
ie what they want to avoid is somebody else using the older works to get a look in.
If the older work is in the public domain then the older work competing is synonymous with somebody else getting the profit.
My point is that if the older works are in the public domain then others, who may be able to deliver the content more efficiently, can compete with their newer offerings.
On the post: Here We Go Again: All The Works That Should Now Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Competition
I think we're not really very far apart on this one. It is only a matter of relative scale of motivations. However I think we'd agree that their real nightmare goes something like this:
They release new version - someone else re-releases older version. That someone else can now push the old version at the expense of the new one whilst profiting from their publicity. Given that the new one will be much worse than the old* that someone else will now get most of the profit.
*I don't think a film like Ben Hur could be made these days - its cultural assumptions are no longer mainstream. If made in the modern climate it will most likely be a cheesy backward looking version with the harder edges removed (not that there were many in the 1959 one). Alternatively it could be an attempt to bring the story into line with the modern, more cynical worldview which would contradict the motivation of the original book.
On the post: Here We Go Again: All The Works That Should Now Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Competition
There are very few old works (beyond Happy Birthday) that actually make siginificant money.
On the post: Here We Go Again: All The Works That Should Now Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Competition
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2015 At Techdirt
Huh
...
#1 is possible, but unlikely in the extreme. You don't reach the point of running multi-billion dollar companies if you are lacking in smarts and business skill, and only an idiot would throw millions away if they weren't getting anything out of it.
Actually that IS entirely possible in the sense that they have a blind spot in that direction. Everyone in the entertainment industries is brainwashed from day 1 to believecertain things about copyright, piracy etc etc. I see this effect with people that I know personally who are not stupid but yet still have this emotional reaction to piracy. You grossly underestimate the human capability for cognitive dissonance.
On the post: These Ain't Masterminds: Would Be Terrorist Crowdsourced Targets On Twitter Using 'Silent Bomber' Handle
Re: Re:
On the post: These Ain't Masterminds: Would Be Terrorist Crowdsourced Targets On Twitter Using 'Silent Bomber' Handle
Re:
but it's darn close.
The actual threat - yes - but the cost of our overreaction no. That threat is really significant.
On the post: These Ain't Masterminds: Would Be Terrorist Crowdsourced Targets On Twitter Using 'Silent Bomber' Handle
Re: Re:
Actually it is an economic war and it is surprisingly successful. The economic cost of all the securoty is truly staggering.
" In a post-9/11 interview with Al Jazeera, bin Laden remarked at length on the financial impact of the attacks. He concluded that the total cost to America was “no less than $1 trillion,” in comparison with the approximately $500,000 al-Qaeda spent to make it happen."
Quoted in Gartenstein-Ross, “Bin Laden’s ‘War of a Thousand Cuts’ Will Live On.”
On the post: Denmark Looking To Asset Forfeiture To Solve Its Immigrant 'Problem'
Re: How Very National Socialist of Denmark
As opposed to the US government which seems to ahve a law that allows them to confiscate anything from anyone at any time!
On the post: Want To Know How Ridiculous The Omnibus Bill Is? It Has A Meaningless Porn Filter Clause Four Times
What it really means
Actually means:
"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to maintain or establish a computer network ."
On the post: Want To Know How Ridiculous The Omnibus Bill Is? It Has A Meaningless Porn Filter Clause Four Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
You just condemmned everyone except the 0.1% to early death with those two statements. Modern healthcare is not affordable by ordinary people at the stages of their lives where they need it most. (Infancy and old age). Some kind of insurance scheme is inevitable and the government is best placed to provide it universally.
BY the way do you REALLY mean that governemnt is not involved in ANY healthcare - including wounded soldiers on the battlefield?
Next >>