You're right, Tim, but I'm really sick of this idea that the "part" of a law can be unconstitutional and the rest can stick. Maybe it's always been that way. I don't know. But I do know that I've been really bothered lately by SCOTUS doing that.
I'd much rather throw the whole thing out and start over.
It's the urban centers that get a lot of OTA TV. Where I like, I MAY be able to get an ABC affiliate on a good day with the antenna pointed in the right direction and the wind blowing the right way.
The more rural areas are going to be satellite only, which these days is about as good an option as any. I had DirecTV for two years and I didn't hate it. I don't have it anymore, but I didn't hate it.
How does spotify work? I would ban anything that tries to publicly open ports. UPnP? That shouldn't be on in the first place. Is it a bandwidth issue? Does Spotify use a single port I can throttle?
Why do we even care about how the IT people decide to secure their workplace network? I don't see any difference between the government building and any business network, except that the government people may be trying to secure store and transfer classified documents...
If you disagree with someone, you call them a "lobby" or a "special interest group", because lobbyists and special interests are ebil. If you agree with them, they're called a constituency or "the ____ vote". This is true of corn farmers, labor unions, gun rights groups, and pretty much anything else.
1. A shooting gallery/tange game is not "violent" just because it contains guns
2. I'm pretty sure their position is that violence, especially that on humans, in video games is what is damaging... and there are studies that show the effects of realistic simulated violence (not just video games) affects violent behavior. Now, I personally disagree with this position, but it should be accurately stated
So, love ya, Tim, but the sensationalist headline on this one is a bit over the top and doesn't really help whatever point you're trying to make.
"...reinforces in the minds of some that Anonymous is made up of bratty, destructive kids"
IT IS! "Anonymous" is not some coherent organized group. It's whatever kids happen to be looking at 4chan.org/b/ at a particular moment.
Not that that's a bad thing or that that should affect the argument in any way, that's just what it is. And that's OK!!
Also this notion that "it's free speech" when it's something positive and "it's hacking" when it's something you don't like is retarded. It doesn't matter whether it's Anonymous or an organized group... DDoS is DDoS. The intent, the source, and the purpose don't affect the definition.
On one hand, a DDoS should *never* be considered "hacking" or "terrorism". That's not accurate at all.
On the other hand, physically occupying space can be more destructive than just "protesting", especially if your purpose is to intimidate. If you're infringing my ability to freely move about in the public square and go about my daily business, you're guilty of more than just "speech" and "protesting".
You have to TRY to download a movie from a torrent site with malware.
Like AC said, if it's a movie file, it *can't* contain malware...
However, if you go to some shady sites that have a promise of good quality, recent releases, they'll try to sucker you in by getting you to install their download manager, or fill out an offer for a credit card before you get a download link... but still, you have to be really committed to downloading malware if you make it that far.
The downside to downloaded movies is the lack of metadata. You have to do some manual labor sometimes to get the movie put into your library where all your media players and devices will recognize what it is. For me at home, though, that has all be solved with Plex Server. Plex just figured out what movie it is based on the name of the file and downloads cover art, lots of meta data, and appropriate video thumbnails automatically for the movie as soon as it's done downloading, and it automatically just plays on any device in my house.
For me, the sad thing for Hollywood is that I now get a better PACKAGED experience from my downloaded movies - the cover art, plot summaries, etc, all directly onscreen. The official means of playing an Ultraviolet movie don't give me that experience.
I don't use instagram or anything so I wouldn't know...
Did they previously NOT claim "ownership" (non-exclusive unconditional license, I assume) on everything uploaded, and now they're claiming "ownership" of everything retroactively before the time it was originally uploaded? If that's the case, then I can see why people are upset, but otherwise, I guess I don't get it
This is where I live. I never expected to learn about local news from Techdirt.
The crime here is so low that police get bored. There may be certain "high crime" areas, but the "high crime" areas in this town are better than the "low crime" areas of Memphis, TN. I know the area he's talking about. It's not that bad. You're not going to get shot. You might get solicited for meth, but you're not getting shot.
I haven't seen a single AR15-armed officer, so I'll believe it when I see it.
The local politics here are stupid. The judges are stupid (well, one that I'm familiar with)... the local cable/electric/utility muni-owned company is stupid... This is a town where if you vote against tax increases, then you hate children. I've never run into cops, but I've heard they're not bright either.
Sounds like this idiot has already backed down on his plan.
A brief history of my personal piracy experience with Nintendo products:
- In the mid-to-late 90s, I discovered NES emulators. They ran very well on my even-then modest computer. I also tried a SNES emulator. It ran, but it was still the current-gen system at the time, and my computer wasn't powerful enough to run it well.
- In college, I got a computer and a controller. I was able to pirate NES and SNES with ease. I prided myself on being able to store every NES game ever released in the US with ease on a single CD. SNES, too. I experimented with GB emulators. They worked, but I wasn't too interested. I attemped N64 emulators, but they were still slow.
- During the Nintendo DS era, I got a SuperCard. I was pirating current-gen DS games, as well as GBA games. I played Metroid Fusion and Zero Mission for the first time and liked them.
- I currently have a modded Wii. It has a SNES emulator, an NES emulator. I have USB Loader GX. The N64 emulator works well too. I got to play Rush 2049 and bring back some memories with a college buddy one day. Oddly enough, I've never bothered with pirating GCN games. Not for any particular reason, though.
- I even pirated VirtualBoy games one day. I got an emulator that would do side-by-side stereoscopy. So, there I was... playing that Mario & Luigo VirtualBoy game cross-eyed on my laptop.
So, there you go. Nintendo systems are more hackable or piratable than any other system, yet they're the ones who try the hardest to prevent it.
I'll add that I love Nintendo and have given them more money than any other competitor over the years and I will probably continue to do so.
I'm struggling to see what the problem is here. What's wrong with requiring warrants?
They probably don't want to put their employees in a position where the employee requires a warrant according to the law as he understands it, but the employee is incorrect that ends creating an obstruction charge.
Of course, you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that's probably the reason.
Lobbying, sending a spokesperson to deliver a message to elected officials, is one thing. Having the corporation write the laws is another. I don't think Google is doing the latter yet. I've heard more about Google fighting bad laws than I have about Google helping write them. Of course, it may just be a matter of time...
"that lumping stuff together just pisses off consumers, and they might as well offer up an a la carte solution instead"
I haven't commented much lately, and I hate to log in just to (rarely) disagree with Mike...
But this statement isn't backed up by anything. There's no guarantee that a la carte would be cheaper for most people. The service would definitely be more expensive for cable companies to provide - the question is how much. If you like 30 of your 60 channels, buying those 30 channels 1 or 5 at a time would probably be more expensive. On top of licensing, there's a large technical cost for the cable company to implement a system where your channels are artificially limited so that those other 30 channels are turned off, and a lot of overhead in the billing department as well. Remember, this is cable... all that data is broadcast over the cable anyway. All they're doing is artificially limiting it, and adding the artificial limit adds cost.
Sure, it might be cheaper for the people that only want 5 of those 60 people, but those people are dropping cable for netflix and hulu anyway.
tl;dr: I only view 10 websites a day, but I still pay for all of them and that's good. Why should cable be different?
I agree with this. The only excuse here is that he uses it for his job. That's not a good excuse. If he wants to not be in jail and stick to the guidelines, he should try to get a different job. It sounds like the guidelines are intended to keep him away from communication platforms. Want to read the headlines? Fine. But no Facebook account for you.
Thanks for jumping on that. My brain focused on that same line...
Capitalism by definition is the default, unfettered state of economy. The existence of replicators doesn't make capitalism go away or difficult to maintain. It just changes how that default state is described a little bit. Time, space, and manpower will always be scarce, so there's always something to "capitalize". Starfleet's members may not be serving to earn higher and higher paychecks. They serve to earn higher prestige and opportunities to go out and look at things. Even after eliminating money itself, capitalism still exists.