I've gotta admit, the inertia-based movement system always annoyed me about real life, too.
Never more so than playing touch rugby and some of the opposing team seemed to not realise they are supposed to slow down and stop before changing directions... Stupid cheat codes. And don't even get me started on real-life cliphax!
I suspect you may be underestimating just how bad the previous (or current) system may be, and how long it would take to even get signoff to get access to the old servers, or to find out who actually knows which box the tape backups containing the pre-2014 emails might be sitting in.
Still, a year of full-time work sounds pretty outrageous, and 9 months of 24x7 computation is completely unreasonable. As mentioned below, they should require their own access to search their old emails for any number of reasons, claiming they do not have such is just negligence!
You're obviously passionate about the subject, and that can be a good thing. I'd suggest taking a few breaths before and after writing such posts, and if you feel your heart rate going up as you're writing it then it's probably wise to edit before hitting submit.
Reasoned discussion is probably the most useful thing that can be done right now, if you're not someone who's actually releasing hardware yourself. Probably the biggest issue otherwise is the problem of alternatives; yes, Google, Facebook and others (state, corporate, and maybe even criminal) are massively mining every aspect of our behaviour they can get their digital claws on and that may well become THE problem of the 21st century... or encryption might get better, easier to use and more pervasive and we slowly sidestep the problem.
As to what we can do about it today? If you want to own a smartphone, there's not much choice if you don't want to be tracked... and that quickly disappears to no choice if you don't want to spend time with non-mainstream hardware and/or custom operating systems. Same with home computers, laptops, and even TVs. Thankfully "smart" TVs aren't quite as much of a must-have as the producers would like us to think... though if you want a good quality TV with high-end components, it's very hard and getting harder to avoid the smart options. Which is why I'm currently happy enough with a chinese knock-off brand TV with almost no features but decent picture reproduction - especially since it only cost me a couple of hundred dollars at a charity event :-)
So, I hope you don't feel as unheard as yesterday, and I look forward to more reasoned discussion.
All the issues with DRM could be solved just fine by getting rid of anti-circumvention provisions.
Not the issue of DRM itself.
If DRM doesn't have the weight of the law behind it, then there aren't many issues in DRM itself. Note here that I'm talking about the kind of DRM that purely enables or disables access to the program containing the DRM. If it's legal to disable this kind of DRM in software that you have purchased, then it doesn't really matter if it's there or not. Companies that waste money on implementing it may find it harder to be competitive with companies that don't bother, or they may finally realise that it's not worth the money so stop implementing DRM naturally. Once the legal backing for DRM is removed, the problem largely goes away by itself - there's no NEED for any further legislation.
That's what Leigh is talking about when he asks what issues would remain.
As to software that installs rootkits, or scans your hard drive, or otherwise locks up your computer outside the boundaries of the software (or music) that you actually wanted... it's not completely clear that these should be criminal, either. The court of public opinion and the free market may still be better mechanisms for dissuading such behaviour than threat of criminal sanctions - that are nearly impossible to apply to corporations anyway.
How would you propose dealing with a lone software developer that offered some software that lets them connect some device to their PC to control it in a new and novel way... but after some months, it is discovered that the library that the developer used to build their driver functionality on includes a rootkit that is used to build a botnet? What if the developer didn't know that about the library when they chose to use it? Should they be personally liable based on not decompiling and performing a security audit on every third-party library that they are using?
I don't think the law is nimble enough, or flexible enough, to apply any kind of good solution to this kind of problem.
Here's one more question, just out of curiosity: would free trial versions of software that disable after a given number of days also be illegal?
Most likely, and everyone hates those anyway. It would provide an opportunity for innovation, to develop a better model for demo software. :)
Spoiler: You don't speak for everyone. Those software trials can be critical for evaluating some software that may have high unit costs. Heck, I don't know how you can say they could be illegal without calling into question the entire premise of software trials, or software/services that you license on a subscription basis.
And whether or not you LIKE such models, making them illegal sounds extreme, and would more likely reduce innovation in software marketing than provide new opportunities, especially considering those opportunities already exist. I don't think there's a single developer out there who is saying "Look, everyone hates this method of trialling software... but it's not illegal, so let's not bother looking for a new way". Well, not more than two or three.
Ok, those things are terrible if true, and maybe relevant in an article about Google. They are also completely compatible with Leigh's statement that he thinks "there are genuine privacy concerns to be considered around something like Google Glass".
Why jump on Leigh for that?
Also, there are many dozens of stories that TD doesn't report on. They also have limited staff. If they've already called out behaviour on some other company, just assume that they feel the same about the same behaviour from a different company. Why assume the worst? It just makes you look bad.
Well, it's lucky that TD commenters are always willing to venture as far into "tin hat" territory as required, and further!
If anything, privacy conserns are extreamly understated, most don't even understand the extent of the threat. People absolutely should be "freaking out" alot more then they are.
Debatably true, but then you trip down the slippery slope of sanity and you aren't even talking about Google Glass any more.
In what way was your comment relevant to Leigh's post (repeated here for simplicity)?
I called them "somewhat overblown" and "freakouts" — not entirely ungrounded or irrelevant. I do think there are genuine privacy concerns to be considered around something like Google Glass, but unfortunately most people were unable to have any kind of rational conversation about it, and went straight to violent opposition of the technology up to and including ripping them off people's faces and smashing them (and being widely applauded online for doing so).
If you think that was a reasonable reaction, so be it. I think it was a somewhat overblown freakout.
"To reduce collisions at grade crossings, railroads are installing four quadrant gate systems on high speed rail corridors, commuter lines, light rail systems and in areas with high concentrations of foolish drivers."
At least once people stop driving their own cars, we can return to more sane two quadrant crossing gates.
It might reduce the problem. But we don't know how much, and it will widen the portal for further bans of other allegedly dangerous materials (e.g. video games mentioned above, though gay-friendly children's books are a big target, as are contraceptives)
And I'm pretty sure your standards for enjoyment are not up to par with the standards that gun enthusiasts have. Many of the other commenters think that enthusiasts should be content with computer simulations, or rented guns or slingshots. It's avoiding the issue that you're still invoking your will on their liberties.
Controlling one thing will be used as a stepping stone for introducing more control, you're right. I don't have a good answer for that other than contacting your government representative regularly to let them know how you'd like to be represented. An imperfect answer, I'd like to find better.
So, yeah, I appreciate your concern, and I agree that there are a lot of stupid people who do not respect the risk that comes with owning a gun. And I agree that the NRA has become something of a bag of dicks that does not represent the gun community well at all. But in the long game, gun control is not the answer, especially so as the age of 3D printing approaches and custom gun parts can be prototyped locally, rather than by a major manufacturer.
I will still hold up Australia as an example that gun control *can* help. It may not be *the* answer, but that doesn't mean it can't be part of the answer. Nutjob control would also help, but unfortunately governments willing to invest in good societal platforms for mental health issues, equality and education are few and far between.
And I relentlessly distrust anyone pushing for more gun control in this convesation to not, once their agenda is furthered, wipe their hands of the Charleston massacre deciding okay we did something. That's what O'Reilly is trying to do by accusing video games. That's what Obama is trying to do by pushing gun control.
The Charleston Massacre is not another rampage killing to be swept under the rug like so many others. And blaming guns here is being used to do exactly that.
I agree that any simple answer is wrong, or at least insufficient. All I can suggest is to be the change you want to see in the world, but the depressing aspect is that's probably what motivated this guy to action.
The Second Amendment's "obvious purpose," the Supreme Court declared in United States v. Miller, was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of ... [militia] forces." [307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).]
It is difficult, nonetheless, to find support in the Constitution for the notion that the Second Amendment is a license for the people to resist and triumph over government at any level by means of force and violence. To the contrary, the Constitution is replete with provisions intended to quell uprisings. For example, Congress is empowered to call out the militia-the very force envisioned to resist usurpations of power-to suppress insurrections and rebellions. Significantly, treason is the only crime the Framers believed important enough for the Constitution to condemn explicitly. In defining the crime, for example, the Constitution expressly lists "levying war" against the United States as a manifestation of the offense. Thus, the theory that the Second Amendment contemplates armed confrontations against the government is seriously undermined.
Advocates who insist that the Second Amendment is still a viable check on tyranny often suggest that lightly-armed civilians could defeat modern armies by mounting a guerrilla war, selectively pointing to various twentieth century conflicts as evidence of the same. In reality, however, no insurgents armed only with the sort of personal weapons contemplated by the Second Amendment have prevailed, in a military sense, over any authentically modern army.
Most of the rest is talking about the very limited likelihood of success of an civilian armed revolution, particularly compared to the remarkable success that nonviolent resistance has had recently. Interesting read though.
Obviously no simple answer is going to solve a complex problem, but what if it reduced the problem?
Also, to hearken back to a recent thread, what if "banning guns" doesn't actually stop you from enjoying responsible gun use in many reasonable ways?
Neither of these are hypotheticals, in case you're wondering.
Also, how many gun deaths per capita do you think is too many? Care to apply that quantity regarding bathtubs? Swimming pools? Stepladders? SCUBA gear? Surfboards? Because I think you won't.
I think you underestimate how much time and energy goes into preventing each of those categories of deaths. Perhaps time and money would have much better long-term benefits from being spent on improving mental health conditions and support in the community (all communities) than in controlling guns (actually, no perhaps, it's undeniably true), but that's not enough reason (for me) not to control guns as well, especially when the consequences of properly implemented gun control are so slight.