which is sorting out what OS's it will allow to be installed on a computer, based on whether an RMT RAID driver is built-into the OS Kernel? That's nothing but fingerprinting for identification, at best!
What? That's like saying that my Intel CPU is performing fingerprinting by not letting me install an OS based on whether it supports the x86 instruction set.
I feel the same. Copyright law is being used here because there is no plagiarism law.
What are the other avenues? Civil theft, trade secret? They don't really seem like they fit because the draft was given to Sutton without any kind of non-disclosure agreement.
It seems fine for now to ignore the legal route and just leave it to the court of public opinion; but at what point is it worse to set up a kangaroo court rather than deal with things in a proper legal arena in which all parties are meant to get due process?
Yeah... no. Considering that 99% of temperature data comes from SATELLITES that didn't exist until a couple decades ago, and that we have NO RECORDS OF ANY KIND from more than a few thousand years ago, I'll take all average global temperature data values older than 20 years with a grain of salt.
The only people you can trust with your data is yourself, because *you care* about your own data, but companies only care about profit and return on shareholder value, which is a few steps away from your data.
I find your optimism about the combination of how much I care about my data and how capable I am of taking care of it charming, given just how long my NAS has been out of service...
Yeah, but are they really? It seems to me that the reaction to terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks is a much bigger problem than the attacks themselves.
If most of the time and resources that are currently allocated to "stopping terrorism" were instead redirected to bringing everyone to a living wage and basic education (globally, if possible)... then not only would it be more effective at reducing terrorism (IMO), but it is also likely to reduce pedestrian crime... and just be kinda nice.
You're using the term free market, but it doesn't really count unless you understand what the words mean and use them appropriately.
A free market means that there are no restrictions on who can buy and sell an item. The competition between buyers and between sellers allows the market to set the value of the item based on an equillibrium of supply and demand.
I am very keen on a free market - including the freedom to choose when and where to sell or market a product.
You're confusing free market with global/local market concepts. You can have a free local market (which isn't actually free because copyright and lack of second sale, but whatever, that's a compromise we currently live with) and a non-free global market. And localised release windows are only possible with a non-free global market, kind of by definition.
If people don't like they choice, they don't have to enjoy the product. They could create their own and distribute them in any manner they see fit. That's the beauty of a free market.
I make these lovely tables, but I only sell them to Scottish people who have lived for less than three years in the British isles, and they have to sign a contract affirming that they may never sell the table to anyone else or else ownership reverts to me. But I'm not forcing anyone to buy these tables, they're free to create their own and distribute them in any manner they see fit. Free market, yay! Yeah, no.
The stepped release concept is in some part to release a film or whatever in the best paying market first, so that they can (like all good business should) extract as much profit as possible for their shareholders and owners. Releasing a product into lower dollar markets first would just support the natural flow from low cost to high cost centers, handing (diminished) profits to others.
And that made sense in the '80s. Why not just release it TO THE WORLD at the higher price, then step the price down as you'd normally release to wider, lower cost, markets? You know, live in the 21st century and reap all the same benefits as your legacy business model with all the same advantages of a global marketplace? I mean, really?
Those threats, regardless of how many of them are empty, in total ruin lives and I can't find a good reason to protect them.
Granted that we're talking about Australia here and not America, so protected speech isn't even a thing... on the internet, how can you tell that a threat is empty? Does that imply that all threats on the internet should be prosecuted as if they were real and imminent? What if the person^H^H^H^H^H^Hdickhead posting the threat lives in another city? Another country?
And if it's the totality of the threats that causes harm, where none of them is actionable by itself... then how do you possibly handle that within the scope of the law? Every poster has to spend their share of the 3 year total jail term in jail*?
I am aware, that it's a difficult subject and we probably won't see a nuanced or narrow law from any legislation on this planet, but wouldn't it be great if we did?
Actually, I don't believe it would even be good. It has been shown uncountable times through history that it is nearly impossible to change society through enacting laws, so it really doesn't matter how well written the law is - it won't fix society. It could *possibly* fix the problem if you manage to incarcerate the entire population of potential offenders, but that really just swaps in a whole different problem.
If you want to change society, you have to change society. There are no shortcuts or ways around dealing with the root of this problem. If you want to live in a society in which it is unacceptable to treat women (or anyone) in this way, then make it unacceptable.
So if this person had walked up to another person and said the same thing, would it just be "trolling", or would it be more serious?
Why does the law mention venue at all? And why doesn't it define "serious offense"? I stand by my declaration that this law is the equivalent to an "on the internet" patent, and is about as useful to polite society.
I do concede the point that this law's existence is a useful foil to people asking for more bad internet-related laws, but it's akin to saying that we don't need a bear to patrol our home, because a mountain lion is already doing the job.
I'm also Australian, but I don't think that a law has to apply to you before you're qualified to comment on its quality, particularly since this law contains exactly zero cultural nuance.
Not to mention, this sounds like a pile-on law - making it illegal to do illegal stuff "on the internet".
If it's already illegal face-to-face, then you don't need the internet law. If it's not illegal face-to-face, then why is it illegal on the internet? If these laws end up pushing abuse off the internet and into face-to-face encounters... have we actually improved anything?
Sometimes I think I'd like to see it go the other way around, myself. If being drunk was a multiplier on any sentence, rather than a mitigator, then I like to think we'd see people doing less stupid stuff while drunk...
Of course, I could write pages about why it's actually a terrible idea, so I leave it at occasional daydreams.
Your all arguing about whether he is right or not. It simply doesnt matter.
You may be correct that it doesn't matter, though that's a symptom of a much larger systematic failure... but who is arguing about Brennan being right?
As for "everyone scrambl[ing] to prove him wrong", that's not happening. Everyone is merely pointing out that Brennan has ALREADY been proven wrong. The work was done months ago, because everyone knew that this kind of lie was inevitable and wanted to have the data ready to prove it.
Do you have any suggestions for how better to fight against Congress pushing bad mandates other than pushing back on invalid assertions?