Beginning with a partial solution to this problem is better than doing nothing at all. This sad state of affairs has gone on for far too long.
820 karma · joined December 1, 2015
Recording users' behavior by default with informing the user clearly and giving him the option to opt-out is abhorrent, regardless of the benignity of the reason behind it.
Disclosure: I use firefox, but periodically strip all relevant hidden add-ons and disable all information sending possible.
Using the DMCA to protect company's defective and flawed DRM scheme does not constitute circumvention. As such, I do not believe that DMCA's anti-circumvention laws are relevant.
Publishers would be better served if they restricted their articles, by demanding payment upfront before serving the article, rather than unreasonably and unrealistically demanding that people consume their content in a certain way. Don't blame your users for your failed business model.
As a side note, Copyright is not the place where this issue should be tackled as no copyright is being infringed (Content is not being redistributed).
It's not a third party tool. It's a tool used by the first party (user) to modify information that was sent to him without effecting the publisher. I don't see how the publisher has any authority over what the user chooses to do with the information he obtained.
> I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." If you don't like ads, pay up or go elsewhere.
That's an interesting take on IP rights. By generalizing your argument, would you argue against newspaper snippets because a reader would only collect the article without adjacent ads? (with scissors made by a third-party, no less.)
> You do not have a right to anybody else's IP.
Fair use, Noncopyrightable items, old expired IP, and the public domain are all examples of rights I have to others IP. Rights have been - and I hope will continue to be - balanced between the concerns of IP "owners" and the rest of society to best serve everyone's interests. Tipping the scale in one side's favor like what you advocate here will disrupt that balance.
This is false if the IP being enforced is trademark (which I'm not even sure is covered by the DMCA).
[HASH:1AB543.124A3CC4.1AB543]/ads
I'm certain that including a name in a list does not fall under copyright (ample precedent that backs it up). In the unlikey (and unfathomable) case that it is protected under copyright, I bet it would fall under fair use.
Trademark law isn't relevant to an entry in a machine database.
Emphasis mine. Merely "removing" networks from your device does not preclude you from being attacked. Broadcom and all the locked-down devices that aren't iphones or high-end android devices who use them demonstrate this quite nicely.
I expect the only situation in which 51% attacks would be useful is when a party wants to deliberately destroy a currency.
I also think that while LibreOffice is relatively new, it name has already begun to spread among normal users. I think it be very unwise to throw that good reputation away and start over. I also happen to be quite found of their current name, LibreOffice. I think it's classy and easy to remember.
I don't think that's entirely fair. They're also valuable to those who want to transfer money without ridiculous fees, excessive bureaucratic friction, and many mandatory middlemen.
What other system would allow you to instantly be able to accept payments without giving an exorbitant portion of your revenue?
People can also use current 3D printers to (mostly) print unconventional guns anonymously. Do these printers also concern you?
Reaction to technology should be with reason, not fear mongering.
Protection from this kind of blame-shifting and misdirected retaliation should be guaranteed by law. Until it is, bugs in critical and important infrastructure will go on unreported, and remain available for malicious actors to exploit.
What percentage of those "muslim minorities" actually took part in those acts? Does that percentage justify treating everyone who qualifies as "muslim minorities" like a criminal?
> The muslims have been on a non stop jihad since its inception and this is just a continuation of it.
That's not remotely true despite what extremists on both sides like to delude themselves into believing.
The point made is that different people will use software in different and unexpected ways. Assuming that people use browsers the same way you do, or assuming that a certain scenarios are "impossible" because you personally are not likely to encounter it will harm your userbase.
That's why most projects, companies, and even governments tend to strip down the rules that govern them to what is necessary for them to function (e.g. separation of religion from state for governments).
The common reason given by the rust community to justify their behavior is that technology does not exist in a vacuum, and that technology can not be separated from politics. I completely agree. However, politics should be tackled on a layer incompletely independent from technology. Mixing the two only causes instability and uncertainty for rust. Here are two risks that arise from this mixing. I'm sure there are many, far more serious, risks besides these two:
- What happens when (not if) a significant shift in values occurs in the community? Will it collapse?
- What about technical or legal changes to the project that were driven by community values rather than technical or legal merits? This is not far fetched when technology and politics are made inseparable in the way it was done in Rust.
I use rust in a professional context, and I appreciate what it brings in terms of technical benefits. but I would be lying if a said this aspect of it didn't worry me. I can not recommend its adoption to colleagues from other companies if asked for this very reason (I was asked once so far).
Community instability or the mere perception of such is a big barrier to adoption, at least for companies.
I wonder if xorg has some sort of kernel support to enable this.
There are no real alternatives to using an ad blocker.
My point in my previous comment was that browsers should consider exposing the distinction between EV and DV certs to the user in a way that doesn't break their mental model of how browsers indicate the security of websites. How this is implemented is probably better handled by others more knowledgeable in UI design than I.
For the usability problem you're hinting at, people mistaking DV certs for EV certs, I believe web browsers should consider demoting the color of the pad lock displayed for DV certs from green to plain text color, while still retaining the pad lock symbol (plain http would still be red). This solution would both provide enough distinction between the two types of certs to the normal enduser without retraining them; "look for the green padlock" would still hold.
That said, 17k (even multiples of this) is still a rounding error compared to the total number of certs issued. I believe the public good done here far outweighs the bad.
Hopefully, this will be enough to make development of GCC's rust front-end viable again.
That said, I also mirror gp in that any self-driving car must be at least better than myself for me to trust it. I imagine that's a sentiment shared by many people.
I used to be a big fan of permissive licenses until I bought a $700+ android phone a couple of years back and discovered that it did not "support" my native language (it could render the glyphs but system-wide support was not enabled).
Having extensive experience with unicode and how text is usually rendered, I knew exactly how to fix the issue; the fix was likely as simple as injecting an SO that hijacks a specific system library function. However, because the phone was locked down, I was unable to fix the problem myself. All important system apps including SMS and the browser displayed gibberish.
It was the most expensive brick I ever bought. This experience taught me the true value of the GPL and why user freedom far outweighs the freedom of developers