That's not what I'm saying. I'm pointing out that this order is ridiculous because there is no means to enforce it, nor is there any real incentive to, and in fact, there is actually MORE incentive to ignore it and do nothing.
I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who once disagreed with Supreme Court decision and basically told them to just try and enforce it. I might have them wrong, but its still an amusing anecdote.
Point being, this may be a massive overreach of the not-even-enacted-yet SOPA, but by trying to include Yahoo, Google, and Bing, they've basically given license to all three to band together and completely ignore the order. Together, those three probably account for 99% of all web searches. If one ignores the order, the others would probably do so too, just to stay somewhat competitive. I'd love to see the shitstorm if the Justice Department tried to shut any one of them down for ignoring this.
Removing content is the definition of censorship because it is objectionable to a specific party is the definition of censorship, regardless of why that content is considered to be objectionable.
This isn't the pot calling the kettle black. It's calling a spade a spade.
For those of us who remember and witnessed the original drama, the guy who found it actually called Apple and told them he had the phone and that he wanted to return it. Apple then denied that such a prototype phone even existed and thus began the shit-storm that followed.
Okay on the off chance that someone replies to this after having read the article, which I did, I'm going to present a hypothetical situation, followed by a quote from the linked article that the situation could fall fit:
Scene: Hallway - After school hours
A mild mannered principal is making his rounds making sure that students have finally left campus after any after school sports and/or tutoring sessions. Noticing a male and female student still in the cafeteria, he confronts them, takes their names down and escorts them of the premises.
Having ensured that they have left, he heads to the security office and begins to review the tape of the cafeteria to determine what had occurred. To his shock, horror, and then bemusement, he finds that they were having sexual intercourse. He has already sent the two students home and will deal with the disciplinary issues the next day. Being an idiot (hey, he is a high school principal), he decides to show the footage to some faculty members the next day.
Most surveillance cameras in school don't work that way.
Regardless of the general notions of security, the cameras in a school are not intended to stop particular instances of wrongdoing, but to provide evidence of wrongdoing after the fact. At my old high school, for instance, there were 37 functioning surveillance cameras and 12 dummies (mostly directly outside the bathrooms). Those numbers may have changes by now, but there was rarely anyone monitoring those in real-time, and of the 37 feeds, only 8 were ever monitored for any length of time at all.
The point of the cameras was for footage to be reviewed later to identify any troublemakers after they caused the trouble. If this Kentucky school is anything like mine, then the principal likely found the footage while reviewing the footage after the fact, and it would be far more creepy for him not to share the footage.
Anyway, your suggestion that he should have stopped the act in progress is laughable at best, and he probably had no reason to believe that a routine review of security tape would contain anything questionable beyond relatively standard high school hijinks.
Mechanical brakes are designed such that any failure in the system causes them to catch the cars and stop them. A failure in a magnetic system would not be able to do that.
This is an interesting case. The show itself is called Baskteball Wives.
The whole point of the show is to cash in on the fame of several players. It would be a completely different show and would lose much of its appeal if it was called "Ex-Girlfriends of a bunch of no-name shmucks."
Not sure how I feel about the case itself, but it's pretty clear to me that the show is attempting to profit from his fame, regardless of what comments here suggest. I just don't happen to know what that means from a legal perspective.
The problem with your argument is that I have indeed had to open a 2011 file in Inventor 2009.
In fact, I was faced with that exact scenario just a few months ago. I do most of my Inventor work on a networked virtual machine that is always running the latest software (one of the perks of working for a research institute). Unfortunately, when I needed to print something outside of the lab that I normally work in, the network connection was too slow to reasonably print over the extended network, so I pulled the files I needed via WinSCP and loaded them into Inventor 2009 to print everything off. Worked just fine.
Autodesk hasn't significantly changed the .ipt, .iam, .idw, .dwg, or .dwf in years. The only problems I've ever encountered is when switching from an Educational product to a Professional version.
I don't know about Revit, since I'm an engineer, not an architect, but I have never experienced a time when a new AutoCAD or Inventor release couldn't open files from older versions. And yes, there are some forward compatibility issues, but they are relatively minor, and at least Autodesk tries to include legacy file types.
Point is, a lot of the Autodesk problems are about redesigning the underlying code that manage data and making it more efficient and streamlined for the user, whereas Adobe seems to purposely break compatibility with every new release.
Honestly,he presented a number of points, backed them up in a logical manner, and then told mankind to shut the hell up because certain things are just easier.
Meanwhile, at least that first rebuttal tries to argue things like "Women actually subsidize the drunk driving of men" despite the fact that men pay much higher premiums on.
Oh, and Nicole Hollander, try making any point. Any point at all. Or maybe a comic that isn't terrible.
I like to consider myself to be an open minded man, but if you want me to disagree with what Scott Adams said and, further, be angry about it, then give me a damn good reason why it's wrong and BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE!
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: I would love to see Google ignore this
Re: Re: I would love to see Google ignore this
Re: I would love to see Google ignore this
Stupid late night study sessions.
I would love to see Google ignore this
Point being, this may be a massive overreach of the not-even-enacted-yet SOPA, but by trying to include Yahoo, Google, and Bing, they've basically given license to all three to band together and completely ignore the order. Together, those three probably account for 99% of all web searches. If one ignores the order, the others would probably do so too, just to stay somewhat competitive. I'd love to see the shitstorm if the Justice Department tried to shut any one of them down for ignoring this.
It would be epic.
Re: Re:
"Removing content because it is objectionable to a specific party is the definition of censorship..."
Re:
This isn't the pot calling the kettle black. It's calling a spade a spade.
Re: You got to be kidding
Re: Re: Re: Inappropriate? Creepy? Maybe.
Scene: Hallway - After school hours
A mild mannered principal is making his rounds making sure that students have finally left campus after any after school sports and/or tutoring sessions. Noticing a male and female student still in the cafeteria, he confronts them, takes their names down and escorts them of the premises.
Having ensured that they have left, he heads to the security office and begins to review the tape of the cafeteria to determine what had occurred. To his shock, horror, and then bemusement, he finds that they were having sexual intercourse. He has already sent the two students home and will deal with the disciplinary issues the next day. Being an idiot (hey, he is a high school principal), he decides to show the footage to some faculty members the next day.
End Scene
Re: Re: Inappropriate? Creepy? Maybe.
Regardless of the general notions of security, the cameras in a school are not intended to stop particular instances of wrongdoing, but to provide evidence of wrongdoing after the fact. At my old high school, for instance, there were 37 functioning surveillance cameras and 12 dummies (mostly directly outside the bathrooms). Those numbers may have changes by now, but there was rarely anyone monitoring those in real-time, and of the 37 feeds, only 8 were ever monitored for any length of time at all.
The point of the cameras was for footage to be reviewed later to identify any troublemakers after they caused the trouble. If this Kentucky school is anything like mine, then the principal likely found the footage while reviewing the footage after the fact, and it would be far more creepy for him not to share the footage.
Anyway, your suggestion that he should have stopped the act in progress is laughable at best, and he probably had no reason to believe that a routine review of security tape would contain anything questionable beyond relatively standard high school hijinks.
(untitled comment)
Like at all.
Re: Re: Magnetic Brakes ?
(untitled comment)
The whole point of the show is to cash in on the fame of several players. It would be a completely different show and would lose much of its appeal if it was called "Ex-Girlfriends of a bunch of no-name shmucks."
Not sure how I feel about the case itself, but it's pretty clear to me that the show is attempting to profit from his fame, regardless of what comments here suggest. I just don't happen to know what that means from a legal perspective.
Re: Re: Re: Autodesk does this and many others as well
Re: Re: Re: Autodesk does this and many others as well
In fact, I was faced with that exact scenario just a few months ago. I do most of my Inventor work on a networked virtual machine that is always running the latest software (one of the perks of working for a research institute). Unfortunately, when I needed to print something outside of the lab that I normally work in, the network connection was too slow to reasonably print over the extended network, so I pulled the files I needed via WinSCP and loaded them into Inventor 2009 to print everything off. Worked just fine.
Autodesk hasn't significantly changed the .ipt, .iam, .idw, .dwg, or .dwf in years. The only problems I've ever encountered is when switching from an Educational product to a Professional version.
Re: Re: Re: Autodesk does this and many others as well
I'm pointing out that the issue for Autodesk software is not the same as the issues with Adobe software.
I am in no way attempting to defend Adobe.
Re: Autodesk does this and many others as well
Point is, a lot of the Autodesk problems are about redesigning the underlying code that manage data and making it more efficient and streamlined for the user, whereas Adobe seems to purposely break compatibility with every new release.
Glory Probe
(untitled comment)
Honestly,he presented a number of points, backed them up in a logical manner, and then told mankind to shut the hell up because certain things are just easier.
Meanwhile, at least that first rebuttal tries to argue things like "Women actually subsidize the drunk driving of men" despite the fact that men pay much higher premiums on.
Oh, and Nicole Hollander, try making any point. Any point at all. Or maybe a comic that isn't terrible.
I like to consider myself to be an open minded man, but if you want me to disagree with what Scott Adams said and, further, be angry about it, then give me a damn good reason why it's wrong and BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE!
(untitled comment)
Fixed.
More comments from TechDan >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TechDan.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt