Maybe amanfrommars is Satoshi Nakamoto?
4545 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
Re: Proprietary code hardwired to use proprietary APIs to do stuff shock!
>>"What's the point in having a cake if you're not going to eat it?"
Well, to a certain mindset it allows you to have a cake that others do not. "Have your cake and eat it" has always had a connotation of greed and unreasonableness about it.
Re: Deja vu
>>"Reminds me of the time when Internet Explorer got so fully "integrated" into the OS that you couldn't get rid of it in favor of another browser."
You really don't want to know about ChromeOS, then!
Re: Cue the hackers in 3, 2, 1...
>>"Legend has it that the keypad arrangements were chosen to use a different layout specifically to slow down people as they mash in the number. Desktop calculators, or "adding machines" with cranks on the side had been around for a while, and the usual office worker could overload or confuse the phone system with their speed if they used the adding machine format."
You're confusing two separate though similar things. The QWERTY keyboard layout was designed to slow people down because old-fashioned mechanical typewriters could not keep up. Dvorak is designed to be faster but is seldom seen.
The phone keypads weren't designed to slow people down. Phone keypads were not mechanical in the same way as typewriters and have always been able to handle human speeds just fine. And I think that the old-fashioned dial phones never had this problem either. What they did have, however, was the fact that it took longer to dial numbers comprised of low digits, than it did to dial longer ones. Which is why phone codes in the UK and USA were preferentially assigned according to population / pull in government. E.g. London was 020, Bristol got one with several ones, I think, whilst we Northern rif-raff got all the fives, sixes, etc.
Re: Proprietary code hardwired to use proprietary APIs to do stuff shock!
>>"Why the hell do people demand Microsoft's code run on magic and rainbows when none of their competitors are required to do so?"
Because we (the MS customers) pay money for their products and want that to be how MS make their money. MS were one of the last non-advertising, non-privacy invading software vendors. We LIKED it when privacy was a selling point that MS would use against Google. We have money and we're willing to hand it over for what we want.
But that's not good enough for MS, apparently. They want to have their cake and eat it, they've seen Google eat their lunch and think the only way to fight back is to become Google. Ignoring that many of us are still with them only because they're not.
So what do we have left? I don't know what privacy is like in the Apple ecosystem. But I guess increasingly it's becoming either them or the (non-Google) GNU/Linux distributions.
Re: So where's EU
Both Google and Microsoft are bad on things like this. May not be coincidence that this happens the week after Google and MS agree not to shop each other to the courts for market misbehaviour.
Democracy... The very best that money can buy!
I would guess that a lot of the people going from government TO Google are receiving rewards for favourable actions whilst in government. That's the way it works with Oil and Health Insurance.
Sergey Brin, how are you feeling these days?
Re: The biological imperative.
>>"Personally, I'm going to keep arguing for roughly the same causes as you but from behind a different label."
I'm glad you posted a response. And I'm glad we've reached an accord. I do see your point and I do recognize that feminism isn't the only label for fighting for equality under - even sexual equality. I'm very glad to have your support and you have mine also - whether I oppose sexism under the banner of feminism and you oppose it under the banner of, for example, human rights.
I post the beer icon of peace. :)
Re: The biological imperative.
>>"Absolutely, we all (or anyone worth talking to at least) want that. I'm just saying that if that's what you're after then the feminism movement, which is named after only one gender and has a long history of caring primarily about that gender is not a good way to achieve that sort of non-sectarianism."
Someone claimed that feminism was a derogatory term that some people were applying revisionism to. I showed with historical accuracy that this was not the case. You chose to argue against my post and add your own words into my mouth in doing so. I re-iterated what I'd said, asked you if you were really trying to defend such an absurd position as I countered by contesting what I wrote. You have again, skipped over that, started contesting what I wrote. You seem only to wish to argue against my defending the term against someone who twisted its meaning in a quite plainly obvious way.
Feminism remains an important movement for as long as there are injustices which are primarily perpetrated against women. Just read the story you're actually replying to if such injustices are escaping your attention. I can provide a long list of other examples if you wish and you know that I can. It is no more wrong to be a feminist and fight against injustices against women than it is wrong to be a gay rights activist and fight against injustices towards homosexuals, or to be a racial activist and fight against injustices towards Black people. Or similar for any other targeted group.
>>I think we now need to stop calling ourselves feminists and start saying we're in favour of gender equality.
Femism has ALWAYS had equality as a stated goal. To claim we need to "start saying..." anything of this sort is absurd ignorance. If you have any grasp of the history of feminism then you must know there is no "start". This has always been a core statement of feminism. The "Feminist" name of the movement isn't because we're not in favour of equality, it's because historically and today, most of the adjustments that need to be made have been bringing women up to the same level of opportunity and rights as men. Or are you going to contest that as well?
It's your repeated insinuation that to be feminist is to ignore other injustices. This is false and you know it to be false, yet in trying to abolish the term feminism you keep pretending that it is.
>>You could call that a feminist issue if you want but if it's about something which is good for everyone, why would you want it to be labelled as a "women's problem"?
It's a problem in society that affects people regardless of gender. But if you're genuinely interested in my answer as to why I use the term feminist, as opposed to just trying to attack the term for being exclusionary, then the answer is simple. It's one more front on the battle for social justice that has a long and respected history behind it and it's a cause behind which both men and women can rally. Whether you call yourself a feminist or choose to call yourself a human rights activist, is up to you. But please cease attacking those of us who do call ourselves feminists by implying it's exclusive of championing other causes. And especially cease attacking the supported and plain arguments of those who refute historically inaccurate and hate-filled revisionism which is what you have been doing so far.
Feminism is a useful term that is the name for an active political movement that stretches back over a hundred years. I and others call ourselves that because we believe in and work towards equality for women. When that's achieved, come back and tell us the term no longer has meaning. Today, that hasn't happened, so kindly respect our freedom to champion such causes and continue to refer to ourselves by the name of our movement. You know perfectly well that being a feminist does NOT mean excluding other injustices and caring ONLY about women. Would you similarly attack someone from Stonewall when they were debating with a anti-gay bigot and tell them that they shouldn't call their movement a gay rights organization, but a human rights one, even though they were a gay rights movement? Or leap into a conversation between a racist and a black rights activist and keep trying to attack the latter saying they were wrong to talk about Black rights? Show some respect. Feminism has a long and proud history so kindly respect people's right to identify as such without insinuating things about us. Sure, you could abstract every righteous cause on the planet and complain that they should all just be called "Justice" and that any differentiation beyond that implied exclusion. But would it be useful? Would it help? Would it recognize that people fight against the injustices that they encounter in their daily lives or have been on the receiving end of? No.
If none of the above reaches you, and at the end of it you don't feel like just respectfully backing off and letting someone shut down bigots who say stupid things, and still want to challenge people for the name of their movement and the areas they are active in; then I can only conclude that your goal here isn't to learn or respect how people self-identify, but only to argue and be right on the Internet.
I understand your argument. No further explanation from you is necessary on this. I understand it and am still fine with calling myself a feminist and I still reject insinuations that it means we're excluding people. Re-read the experiences of Jessie Frazelle. Re-read some of the injustices women go through daily in the world today. And if after all that you still object to people taking up the banner of feminism under which we unite to try and oppose those things, then you don't have the respect for the people fighting those battles that you think you have. Because you're attacking them every time you support people who try to turn the word feminist into a term of abuse.
>>You've concocted a lot of specious circumstances to try and justify what boils down to: ""This guy is attractive so he can say whatever he likes" and "I don't like the look of this guy so if he so much as puts a foot wrong I'll try and wreck his livelihood".
Have I? I wasn't there and your post begins by complaining that a "hot guy" (your words) made sexual comments to a girl and she was okay with it but that an "unattractive, creepy IT guy" came and commented sexually on her appearance and she did not like that. You then got annoyed, saying that treating people differently based on whether their advances were welcome or not wasn't an "explanation". Now I don't know whether or not her going to HR and complaining about him was justified or not - like I said, I wasn't there. But I can say a few things about it. Firstly, if this thing by itself results in "wrecking his livelihood" there's some context missing from this story. Was his livelihood actually wrecked? Or did he just get called in for a chat about workplace etiquette? Secondly, you well know, or should, that there is a lot more to communication than just words repeated on a page. You complain that his comments were less lewd than the "hot guy's". But that's not the criteria by which such things are assessed. They're assessed by the intent behind them, by the person delivering them. Like it or not, that's the facts of life. Nobody gets to go "He said she had a nice arse and she didn't mind, so she has to be okay when I tell her how soft her skin is", or whatever.
Maybe she was jumpy and over-reacted and he would have taken a mild rebuff and never bothered her again. Maybe she didn't and he wouldn't. But either way, what has this to do with the story we're talking about or the general case? Is it your position that women shouldn't be able to file a complaint about a guy who bothers them sexually in the work place? Or that a woman should be mandated to complain when she doesn't want to? Is it that you feel women have too much power over male colleagues by means of being able to report them for sexual advances in the workplace? If so, are you saying that a male employee is not allowed to file complaints? What exactly is your contention here? Because you seem to just be complaining about a double standard between attractive people and unattractive people. Which, you know...
Making sexual advances to someone in the workplace is a risky business. Is there really anybody that this is news to? You don't do it unless you have a reasonable expectation that it wont bother the recipient, and if you do do it, you try to do it in such a way that it minimizes embarrassment and allows a get-out for all concerned. It sounds like your "hot guy" has such skills and that your "creepy IT guy" came across as, well, creepy and threatening. And for all we know, he did. So I refer you back to my middle paragraph - what exactly is your complaint here? That women shouldn't be able to voice complains to HR if someone makes a creepy and threatening advance to them? That they should have to complain even when the advance is welcome? That a specific person reacted in a way you didn't like and you think this is representative of women generally? Because all of this is how it comes across.
Re: The biological imperative.
>>"Now (in the west) things are very different. Women have legal parity (or better) with men in every area. So someone who has continued the same fight for more rights for women has, without changing their behaviour, gone from fighting for more gender equality to fighting for less gender equality"
Sexism isn't about war between two factions, it's about disregarding someone's sex when judging their abilities or what opportunities they have. And it's about stamping out abuse based on someone's sex. You see it as two sides in a war fighting over power - your attitude is part of the problem. It's really about a world full of individuals and not splitting them up needlessly into factions based on some arbitrary criteria that isn't relevant to the matter in hand. And you are making your comments about how women have it better than men on a story about how a woman was hounded with death and rape threats because she was a woman. Quite literally, this story would not have happened if this were a male developer.
The finance sector in particular still has prevalent sexism. Every year British women get forced into marriages or sent abroad to undergo forced removal of the clitoris. Repeatedly women with an online presence have to deal with sexual harassment and abuse because they are women. In the USA I know first-hand of multiple cases where someone has been sidelined for positions or paid less because they are female. All these are facts. None of them would harm male rights if we could stamp them out. It's less than a hundred years since we got the right to vote. It took 46 years for the Women's Suffrage campaign to get that right to vote. And another decade after that before it was extended to women of the same age as men who could vote, and didn't require a woman to be wealthy to do so. There are people alive today, still compos mentis and able to have a good old discussion with you who remember these events. And you really think all anti-female prejudice is gone and any argument for equal rights is now an attack on men in disguise? You have no idea.
>>"They didn't put an end to oppression, they just switched places and started oppressing the Sunnis."
You may feel oppressed but clearly the majority of men here do not. Maybe they have something you don't. Feminism will have achieved its aims when the law and people don't think in terms of men vs. women, but just in terms of people. You may wish to demonize or corrupt the word feminism, but you wont.
Re: The biological imperative.
>>"Just to butt in on the question of definition, were you a feminist before Germaine Greer?"
No, but then my statement of what feminism is not, isn't based on my having seniority over someone else in when I started using it. That would be silly. It is based, as you have read in my post, on the origins of the modern movement which coined the term in the first place, which goes back to the Nineteenth Century and women's suffrage in France and the UK. Emmeline Pankhurst and Marie Stopes were feminists before both Germaine Greer and myself, and it's these examples which I used as evidence.
Trying to throw out my argument by suggesting it's an argument from authority (i.e. "my definition is the right one because it's mine"), is to skip, oh, about a paragraph and a half of my post.
>>"If not then your claim that gender equality is in the definition of feminism is definitely revisionist"
Firstly, see above - your premise is flawed. Secondly, I don't believe those words above are mine. What I wrote is that "Feminism" is not a revisionist interpretation of a derogatory term. Unless you are arguing that it is, then you accept my position criticising the AC that claimed such a stupid thing.
Re: The biological imperative.
It's barely worth replying given how voting shows everyone can see the obvious counter-arguments to your posts for themselves. However, because I hate historical revisionism...
>>"I often see that claim and I'll say it's false and the user tries to redefine a derogative term to suit political agenda."
When feminism as a movement emerged in Nineteenth Century UK and France, women were denied the right to vote and the law had numerous double-standards. They defined different property rights for men and women differently, for example. Can you imagine a situation where marrying granted the male legal right to handle all economic issues of their partner? Is opposing that what you want to say is originally a derogative term? After much campaigning and active fighting for equality, women in the UK got the right to vote like men, if they were over thirty and owned property. This was in 1918. Just under a century ago. These are the origins of the term Feminism. How you can claim it was a "derogative [sic] term" that modern people have redefined with your bare face hanging out, I'll never know.
I'm a feminist. Have been since I was a teenager. And if anyone is trying to redefine the term, it's you.
>>"is literally feminists, female supremacists with the idea that males are unnecessary and should be eliminated by genocide."
The world must seem a very scary place to you. Meanwhile, on this planet, the men I meet don't seem terrified of me and treat me as a human being. And when they don't, it's usually because of some horrible aspect of my own personality as an individual, not because of anything inherent to my sex. People like you are the exception. Congratulations - you have become Adria Richards with a penis. :)
Re: The biological imperative.
>>Instead of blaming each other, how about facing up to the real world, rather than the kindergarten cartoon the politically correct draw, of society and social relations. [...] Of course those that have, have no time for 'feminism', which remains the province of those who have not.
Everytime someone complains about political correctness, my instinct is to suspect they are annoyed at not being able to use phrases like "doll" or "the little lady". And every time the same person goes on to declare that "feminists" are against sex, it reinforces that.
Feminism is simply the seeking of equal opportunities for women as there are for men. That is neither anti-sex nor mutually exclusive with supporting equal opportunities for men (e.g. fair consideration for men in custody settlements). Yes, you get the odd Adria Richards type person who wears the label of Feminism whilst using it to attack over trivial and inoffensive things. But that no more makes it right for you to indulge in the old "feminists are women who aren't getting any" trope than the Nation of Islam group makes seeking racial equality a bad thing.
Feminism isn't about 'beating men'. It's just recognition that there are some problems, amply illustrated by this story, that there are some problems which, whilst not wholly unique to women, are primarily faced by them and trying to solve that so that everybody (not just one gender), can be judged on merit.
>>"AC because I dont want to be subjected to death threats, pictures photoshopped with blood etc etc."
Honestly, I think downvotes are the only thing you'd really have to worry about.
>>"Different reactions for different people" as an attempt to explain away that double standard really does not cut it.
What double standard are you referring to? That someone reacts differently to someone they find attractive and non-threatening to someone they don't find attractive and do feel threatened by? That's the example I gave and I think as explanations go, it's a pretty clear one. What explanation for reacting differently to sexual advances from two different people do think is more likely, than how welcome they are?
Keep in mind that the situation you've raised is not one of sexism. It's not related to the difficult situation this woman faced with rape threats, it's not about career opportunity or discrimination. You posted a story about someone coming onto a woman sexually in the workplace. You held it up as wrong that in one case she flirted back with the "hot guy" and then treated the other guy "from IT" differently. So yes, my "explanation" that the difference is down to whether the advance was welcome or not is likely the right one. That's not a "double-standard", unless you think that someone should respond equally to sexual advances regardless of whether they're welcome or not.
Basically, you've gone off on a tangent about something that isn't an issue of sexism. A man is equally entitled to respond differently to two different women flirting with him.
Re: Utterly unacceptable
>>"Not just Women, but everyone....being a black techie is a nightmare, you are seldom judged on the contents of your brain....rather the colour of your skin, disgusting behaviour!"
Do you mind if I ask where you work? UK or USA?
Re: Troll mentality? - a story of abuse
I'd just like to say that was an inspiring story both for the cleverness you showed in unmasking the perpetrator and for your first reaction being to stand by and support your male partner in this. Attacking someone by threatening to start rumours and sow doubt between a couple is a disgusting, horrible act.
Well yes. Comes-ons from people you find attractive who know how to come on to you, are received differently from people you don't find attractive and whose come-ons feel kind of threatening. If a good-looking guy says something flattering to me and seems confident and casual about it, I'm usually okay with that. If an unattractive guy who has clearly been planning out the scenario of coming on to me - typically with a transparent disguise of trying to do me some favour to show what a good friend they are to me - for the past two weeks does it, I react differently. Especially if it makes me uncomfortable to the point I think it's going to be a growing problem with someone I have to work with.
That's how flirting works. Different reactions are given to different people.
So anyway, anecdote time if we're doing this. My general impression, as I've said before on this topic, is that most men I've worked with have been entirely decent nice people. I think it does vary by sector and country. In Germany, I have never encountered discernible sexism ever. I'm sure it must exist, but nowhere I've been. Absolutely great. In the UK, I've only a couple of times encountered real sexism in the IT sector. And in both cases, the attitude of everyone else in the place nipped the sexist people's behaviour in the bud (for which I was very grateful). Amongst Marketing and Sales people, incidences of sexism has been much higher. I think that is a general symptom of the kind of sleazy circles and old-boy network environments of this sector. You get a lot of sexism in marketing and sales departments or companies. The worst sector in the UK, ime, is the financial sector. Here sexism is high and especially, in my brief overlaps with it, in The City. There is a long way to go in eradicating sexism there. But in IT departments in the UK, mostly fine imo. Good, in fact.
The USA has more of a sexism problem. In fact, outside of the Middle East, I think it's the worst. MOST of the people I've worked with in the USA have been alright, but it's definitely a much greater incidence of sexist attitudes I have found there and I've worked in a couple of places where the sexism is very real and has very definitely adversely affected women's career opportunities and earnings. I'm sorry to say it, but I wouldn't particularly want to work for a US corporation again based on some of my experiences there.
Anyway, all the above is anecdotal and only ONE PERSON's experience (mine). So please only take it as that. (Paris, because she's the only discernibly female representation we have in the icons. ;) )
Re: @Meldreth -- Utterly unacceptable
Why should Docker share the results of private investigations? Aside from the fact there's a good chance it would do little good, there's a significant chance it would do a lot of harm - naming people who weren't guilty, prejudicing cases against those that were...
It seems like a very positive thing to me that Docker took additional steps to try and deal with this problem. I'm more concerned about the fact that we're entering a situation where corporations have to take care of law enforcement for their employees rather than the State being able to provide this service.
Well it would be unethical when it resulted in harm, I guess. That's the usual basis of ethics. And I can certainly see that stripping out the way sites such as El Reg make money but still taking their product harms the site. Yes, it's not enforced by a contract or DRM, but I don't necessarily take the position that anything not actively locked down or forbidden by contract becomes okay to do. On the whole, I am fine with sites having advertising and I respect that I am getting something from the site so I have the courtesy to not block them getting something from me for it. Legality is of little interest to me as in my experience the law often has only a passing acquaintance with ethics (and sadly, the entire history of government in this species will probably back me up on that :/ ).
Where I do feel entitled to block it, is when it starts spying on me. That is an actively aggressive act which I reject. I do not appreciate that to use the Internet I must submit to giant ad corporations knowing everything I do and everywhere I go.
So in short: I'm fine with advertising and wont normally block it because I want the sites I like to be profitable and their employees to be paid. But I despise tracking and will cheerfully do what I can to stop that, even giving up the odd site (such as forbes.com) that make it too difficult to avoid.
Re: (Related) ... Anyone have grounded theories about this...
I find it hard to believe that any negative effects from Fukishima on fish populations would even be measureable against the effect of fishing and whaling by human beings.
There's one reason for collapse in marine populations, and it's us.
Re: If Lewis Page had written this article...
Might be better if he had. See my correction above about the "50% of animals" statement. This article is very lacking in actual numbers which is one of the first signs you should look deeper. Are you really of the belief that media coverage of nuclear incidents isn't generally biased? I can provide you plenty of examples of bias and misrepresentation from mainstream sources if you ask.
Re: Show me some stats
I'm also pretty certain that the article is wrong. Or at least highly misleading. It refers to more than 50% of animals having reduced brain size. That should be more than 50% of the types of animals suffer from it. I.e. they found incidences of this in X number of species, not of all individual animals total, more than 50% were afflicted.
Definitely some numbers required. I'm going to make an educated guess and say they would lead to a very different impression than this article.
Re: Employment: well, yes and no.
But Amazon might finally be making in-roads to get rid of even you. RDS is coming for your job sooner or later.
Re: Actually, no
>>"More on the torrent thing...the example given is people distributing 2500 films. Now I have been on torrents with 12,000 people on, so -instead of 2,500 x 1 file- we're looking at 1 x 12,000). "
This is misleading. They weren't given the sentence because of the number of films they participated in torrenting. They were given it because that was the number of undistributed films they managed to be amongst the first seeders of and their stated goals as a team were to obtain and be the first to pirate these movies and get the torrenting started. If you had read the reference in the proposal you would have seen this. If you're going to try and clarify things for people, research your facts, first.
Re: Actually, no
So let's begin with the obvious. I've made the point, with examples of actual UK legal history, that this clickbait suggestion of ten year sentences for domestic pirates is inaccurate. You've argued against my posts and I've asked you for any counter-examples in UK law of your own. You have none.
You claim you can't give me examples of ten year sentences because this law hasn't been written yet. But I'm not asking for that and already addressed this. We can sentence someone to 4.5 years right now so you're entirely able to give me the examples of multi-year sentences for domestic downloaders I've asked for. Well, assuming they exist. Where are they?
You claim the courts will abuse this ten year maximum but you can't even find me examples of abusing the current maximums! In fact, I'll go one better. In the Surfthechannel case they were prosecuted under Conspiracy to Defraud, which has a maximum sentence of ten years (same as this proposal) and the defendant received a sentence of four years. And THAT was a case of someone making £30,000+ per month and filtering the money through foreign banks to hide it. Yet you are promoting this idea that the domestic downloader is going to get ten years in prison for it.
>>Isn't the entire point of the proposal that the most you could do online copyright infringers for was 4.5 years by using fraud laws?
No. This is about rationalizing online and offline penalties. Is it fair that someone who commits fraud online should be penalized differently from someone who does the same thing resulting in the same harm offline? I mean you attempt to argue that this should be done later on and I'll get to that. But it's plainly wrong. The law needs to keep up with technology and here is an example of it doing so. So, no the entire point isn't about upping it from 4.5 years, it's about making the law consistent with itself. Now lets talk about the 4.5 years and the fact that it's gone up. It's also about making the law more readable and clear - also good things - because there are many cases where the CPO has dropped cases because of the confusion with the existing laws. If somebody ripped you off you would be most unhappy if the CPO came back and said "sorry - the law is too complex to prosecute".
>>"I would suggest that physical piracy is far more likely to involve a commercial element. For a start you're going to want to recover the cost of the blank media "
People make hundreds of thousands of pounds from advertising on piracy sites. And you're talking about pennies! So firstly, since when did reduced costs become a factor for making something less likely to appeal to criminals? Think over what you've just argued! Secondly, when you've answered that, tell me why it should matter what methods of crime are most popular to the case of prosecuting some individual for their particular crime. If it's not relevant, then don't bring it as a counter-argument about proposed laws.
>>"plus cash exists and you have to physically meet to exchange media anyway, so no extra arrangements need be made and no extra risk needs be taken"
Oh yes, meeting dodgy people and moving around unmarked smuggled boxes is a great incentive over sticking up a website. Sure it is.
>>"Now online infringement can be monetised; but you need to add a mechanism to do that and that is always going to add significant risk."
It's called advertising and adding it to your site is easy. As is telling the advertisers where to put the money. "Significant" is really a lovely vague term, isn't it, btw?
>>"Well, I'm in Spain; where there is a tax on blank media and the rights groups get a payout"
Well that might explain why you're repeatedly able to support your points about UK law. Regardless, a tax on blank media is a terrible, terrible idea. Why? Firstly, you're forcing people who don't pirate to subsidise those that do. Secondly, profits are divvied up by big rights organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA who take a nice fat cut of that for "administration" and independent and small artitsts are fucked as well. Thirdly, it's deeply out of touch. Do you honestly think that all those people torrenting movies and MP3s are busy sticking them on plastic discs? No? Then don't offer this stupid law up as a justification for piracy.
"When it's hands-down the most popular method of downloading large lumps of data and when that method intrinsically means that you are technically making that data available to large numbers of people, then fuck yeah, it's a weakness"
No. Laws citing specific technological methods of doing things rather than aims and results is always a bad idea. Do you seriously want a scenario where copyright law was re-written for Betamax and VHS and vinyl and cassette tapes and then CDs and then DVDs and then Blu-Rays or MP3 players? Have you seen the mess the US patent system is in when it focuses on specific bits of technological method rather than general principles? Would you like international law to have lots to say about mustard gas but nothing about Sarin or nuclear weapons? Well-written laws have to be written about aims and results, not about specific stages of technology.
Re: Actually, no
>>"You're saying that with a confidence that I don't share. You appear to be expecting common sense from the law; whereas -not only do I not expect it- but when you think a little bit about recent legal history scope creep; RIAA maths and so on, the exact opposite is what will likely happen in practice."
I've been citing actual cases of multi-year convictions in UK legal history and showing the level of wrong that had to be committed to achieve that. They are rare and extreme cases, all with massive distinctions between them and domestic piracy that others here are discussing. You accuse me of confidence, well yes - I'm basing this on actual cases. You declare vague hints about "RIAA maths" and declare that the exact opposite will happen. Well then put your money where your mouth is and do what I have done: cite some actual cases and lets examine them. Show me cases in the UK where people have received multi-year sentences for piracy in the UK and we'll take a look at whether these are domestic pirates or are actually some non-representative case that has special reasons for it. Go for it - show me cases where people have got multi-year prison sentences in the UK for this. And don't make the mistake of saying you can't because this is a new law because this is a rationalization existing law to remove discrepancies between the same act taking place online and offline. Multi-year sentences have been possible for piracy under UK law for a long time. Cite me some examples of this that support your case as I have done for mine.
>>"The proposal has 2 serious flaws: The first is that digital copying is not the same as physical copying"
If someone hands me a cracked copy of photoshop on a pressed DVD or if they send me the file via Dropbox, the fraction of a penny difference in plastic is not the concern. Similarly, if I stole a retail copy of it and then applied a crack, do you really think the pennies of difference and pressing of an extra copy is the concern to Adobe? Or that it's the copy of the software that is their concern. No, the distinctions you are attempting to make are not the relevant ones here. Steal a piece of plastic with the information on or steal it via a torrent, it is logical and correct that the law shouldn't have wildly different sentences and guidelines over these. That is simple and correct. Attempting to say "but in the former case, they no longer have a piece of plastic that someone might have bought" when the plastic is just another medium of transporting the real thing of value, is knowingly trying to dodge the important elements here.
>>"The second is that torrenting is technically making files available; potentially to a large -instant industrial scale- number of people and I see no mention; exemption or even knowledge of that in the proposal"
Well, I'll resist the urge to suggest you don't participate in massive distributed attempts to defraud people of the product of their labour and point out that (a) you haven't seen the actual draft law itself yet and (b) there is indeed a response addressing proportionality of response. Several in fact. Amongst them they highlight previous cases for guidance including one where people got two years and that this wasn't for simply obtaining the movies as domestic downloaders, but people who aimed to be the initial seeders of content that wasn't yet generally obtainable by torrent and did so for over 2,500 movies.
Generally when laws cite specific technological methods, it's a BAD thing. Such laws rapidly become out of date. You are now effectively arguing it's a weakness in the proposal that it [I]doesn't[/I] do this. The point is addressed by multiple citations of existing history in this area so you're wrong that it doesn't cover it. It just doesn't cover it in the way that you think it should be done but would in fact be very problematic and short-sighted to do so.
Now, back to you finding cases in the UK that actually support your belief that domestic pirates are going to get ten year sentences over my actual examples that indicate they wont...
>>"But isn't that only because of the persistant fear and scaremongering that exists now thanks to the ilk of the Daily Mail, et al."
I wouldn't have thought so. Sex with a prepubescent child is intrinsically damaging to that child and equally is inescapably taking advantage of a child through one's greater power over them. It is not arguable that sex with a child isn't both harmful to the child and lacking in even the pretence of consent. It is inherently wrong. Anyone who was a good person and found themself sexually attracted to children is going to suffer distress about their urges. Hence why any good person who finds themself suffering from this would want and need help.
>>"Do you tell everyone about your sexual attractions? Do you tell everyone that you're a heterophile? Homophile? Podophile? Zoophile? Whatever attraction floats your boat? No, probably not."
I tell anyone who asks that I'm heterosexual because I am. However, having seen the distress homosexual people have suffered historically (and may still do today with their families), I can see how having to keep a sexual attraction, even one that is harmless like homosexuality, can cause immense distress for the person who has to live the lie.
>>"You mean child molestation? By that logic, what's stopping you, a person with an attraction, from raping every person that you meet?"
Well I have no penis, so I guess lack of the necessary equipment for a start. But you're badly failing to comprehend what is being said to you which is that sexual attraction can lead to horrific outcomes. Which it can. I didn't say that someone who is a paedophile necessarily will - that part was covered by the suffering in my first part. But I do go on to say that unaddressed paedophilia is a risk. I would think a lifetime of any unfulfilled sexual desire would have a high chance of leading someone towards giving in at some point. What's up for debate in that? So again, the OP wasn't unreasonable in saying they need help. You're being unreasonable in contesting that.
>>"For the purpose of Devil's Advocate though. [...]"
No. You're arguing against points I didn't make through your own inability to understand. Additionally, this is a massive distraction from what the article is actually about. What is happening here is plain: you have some particular issues with paedophilia and having seen an off-hand reference to it in someone's post are now going into some death spiral of arguing about it for your own reasons. I'm satisfied that the points I made are clear and reasonably uncontroversial to any bystander so I decline to derail this forum discussion any further for the sake of your issues. I am done on this.
You really need a citation that if a generally good person found themselves attracted to children they wouldn't feel distressed about that? Or that keeping your sexual attractions secret from everyone you know wouldn't lead to suffering? You genuinely question whether a sexual attraction to prepubescent children can lead to horrible outcomes?
You're a moron.
Re: So disproportionate
>>Someone on TorrentFreak's comments posted this link: http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php to a list of the current maximum sentences.
Okay. Let's examine this:
>>Walk into Piccadilly Circus with an AK-47 - 7 years.
Carrying a firearm. Not shooting it, not killing anyone, not murdering anyone... just carrying it unauthorized in a public place. Our prisons are pretty over-crowded anyway, isn't seven years fine for this? Is carrying a firearm without actually attempting to use it or evidence of planned murder (both of which could bump it up to Life) inherently worse than causing millions of pounds of lost profit through software piracy (real example of a multi-year sentence).
I mean you're example is really incredibly stupid. Simply 'possessing or distributing a prohibited weapon' carries a maximum of 10 years and a minimum of 5 years whilst 'Possession of Firearm with Criminal Intent' carries a maximum of Life. You're contriving a situation in which someone legally owns an AK-47 in this country and then without any criminal intent carries it into a busy public place just so that you can try to show the penalty is 'only' seven years.
You are, quite plainly, being dishonest in your attempt to misrepresent proportionality here.
>>Have sex with your 12-year-old daughter - 7 years.
There's a boatload of crimes that would be committed here, not least of which: "Sexual intercourse with girl under 13" - which can carry a life sentence and rape, which can also carry a life sentence.
You've skipped over these very deliberately in your list and then gone down to find attempted versions of the crime. So yes, if a person tried to seduce a twelve year old girl, they might get away with seven years. But if they have sex with her complicitly or uncomplicitly, those crimes carry life sentence maximums.
Again, you're misrepresenting things deliberately. You're lying, in fact.
>>Download some films off the internet - 10 years.
False. You'd get a fine. We've never had a 10 year sentence for this in this country. Even case of someone trading fifty million in pirated software as a commercial business only got seven, iirc.
If you want to lie to rile people up and get them angry about something that isn't true, your post is going about it in the perfect way. If you want to actually deal with accuracy and fair argument, you've badly lost your way.
Re: In other news...
>>A few moments of research revealed that... "All ORG materials, unless otherwise specified, are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license."
That's ORG materials. ORG members are also private people with careers and contracts. I would not be surprised if more than one of them worked in software and depended on copyright law for their income.
>>"Perhaps next time one should do some research before one spouts?"
Given that you didn't actually answer the GP's question...
>>>>Paedophiles need _help_
I guess because it's a sickness and left unaddressed leads to suffering and potentially horrific consequences.
Re: His (her) Master's Voice
>>"Frankly Oriowski I wish you would piss off."
And I am very glad he's here as he actually backs up his articles. I can also spell his name!
Whenever Orlowski posts in the comments on El Reg., I always picture him as George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life: standing in front of the mob when there's a run on the bank desperately trying to explain how the system works as people keep shouting for their money.
Beer for our resident IT masochist.
Re: You COULD NOT...
>>"If you really wanted to harmonise the sentencing guidelines then you could lower the penalty for the physical crime."
Yes, you could resolve it either way. But in the case of someone who was pulling down £400,000 from advertising on the back of other people's work and funnelling that money secretly via international banks to hidden accounts in South America (not a hypothetical example but one of the rare cases of someone in the UK getting a mult-year prison sentence for this kind of stuff), should it be lowered? Frequently cases like this are not prosecuted simply because the complexities in the law have made it difficult to proceed. This clarifies and rationalizes the law and that's a good thing. If you want to argue that industrial-scale fraud should have its penalties lowered to inline with what some home torrenter might get (a fine), then that's going to need some support.
>>"It is perfectly reasonable to use stronger laws (fraud etc) to prosecute the more serious cases."
Discretionary sentencing is a valuable tool in the British legal system. Without it you get an inability of judges to be lenient. and cases being thrown out because the prosecution picked the wrong gradient of the crime. E.g. dangerous driving can be anything from a fine to two years in prison. And if you kill someone it can go up to fourteen years. What happens if the prosecution pick the variant of the crime and don't meet the necessary burden of proof for the ten year dangerous driving law, but would have met it for the eight? And it leads to US-style plea bargaining.
Discretionary sentencing is, if not vital, certainly very important.
>>Sorry. I fundamentally disagree that you could be locked up for 10 years for sharing an ISO.
You wont be. The article has misled you. If you're talking about sharing some popular movie, you'll get a fine, same as you always would. This is about commercial-scale piracy which your example certainly doesn't meet the criteria of.
>>And I disagree just as strongly with the way that policy was created.
Public consultation followed by vote by elected MPs? What would be your preferred method of enacting and removing laws?
>>"So, this is legislation for a problem that has already been solved?"
No, because previously the same crime was handled differently depending on whether it took place online or offline. This rationalizes the law on the subject so that there is no double-standard.
If someone slapped or punched me, that would be assault and a "crime against the person" as you call it. Would that inherently demand a harsher sentence than if I'd had spent two years working on a computer game and then that same person took it from me and shared it online costing me tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of pounds and wasting two years of my life? Because that's what you've just argued. And then you've declared that only "a cretin" would think otherwise.
You should review what you've written here. You've allowed this (admittedly very biased and one-sided article) to lead you into thinking this is about ten years for occasionally downloading movies. It isn't.
Re: So if you wrote a book...
Bullshit. If you spent two years of your life working on something, e.g. a computer game, and then someone took it for free and shared it to the world free, you'd be livid. You'd want them fined to get recompense for the lost sales and I'd lay pretty good odds that you'd be angry enough to want them to go to prison as punishment.
>>"Piracy hurts only big fish in distribution, don't even try to give me the shit that it hurts artists. Artists get peanuts from MAFIAA for their work"
It hurts everyone involved in the music and movie industries. If you work in the movie industry - whether you're a caterer, a carpenter or a movie star, you're hired on the basis of expected profits and paid by investors who look at returns on previous films. Anything that reduces profits on a film impacts investment in future films. Which knocks on all the way through the system.
Re: Actually, no
Thanks banks weren't lying (generally, that we know of). The ratings agencies, e.g. Standards and Poor, were lying. They rated packages as AAA when they knew they were no such thing. And the reason for that is almost undoubtedly that the banks wanted them to. So in fact, there was wilful deception involved. The film The Big Short which came out recently is worth watching on the subject.
Re: Actually, no
>>"It's not a persecution complex or paranoia if they actually are out to get you."
That's the point, they're not. You're not going to get ten years for torrenting a few current movies. This whole article is click-bait and I'll happily debate the author on it and tear their argument apart piece by piece if they'd like to engage me on it.
>>"On a related note; what's the penalty for defrauding billions with sub-prime mortgages and causing a global depression? Yeah, I fucking thought so."
If you're now using Goldman-Sachs et al as a way of making yourself look moral, you need to raise your standards. A lot.
Re: His (her) Master's Voice
>>"If i steal a warehouse of cd's and dvd's they're gone, i nicked em and made a profit selling em. I have deprived someone of real things. If I copy a mates mp3 via bluetooth on my device, no one has lost out."
Both are methods of depriving the content producer of payment for their product. Unless for some incalculable reason you think the primary cost of producing a movie or album is the plastic that goes into the DVD, then it really makes no difference how you take it without paying for it. This is a fact.
>>"I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so no loss of sale."
This is you deciding unilaterally the worth of someone's work and depriving them of a say in it. You declare it's not worth £10 but is worth £0, so it's therefore okay for you to take it for £0. Trade depends on both parties being able to negotiate on a price. If the seller prices it too highly, you choose not to buy. If you find it worth the price they demand, you do choose to. Taking it at a price that the seller does not agree to is theft, even if (especially if) that price is £0. The customer always wants everything cheaper, that's why they don't get to set the prices of it unilaterally.
Also, utterly absurd to argue from a position that piracy doesn't cost sales. Whilst the comments sections of IT news sites seem to be filled with people who pirate nothing that they would ever buy, the real world contains people I know who absolutely use piracy as an alternative to buying, renting or cinema.
And before I get the utterly predictable retort that this doesn't mean that every pirated good is a lost sale, let me point out I haven't made such an argument.
All of the above is fairly straightforward logical progression from supportable premises. You're trying to justify piracy and doing a piss-poor job of it.
>>"And now they wanna lock me up for 10 years."
No, the article is misleading you. They want to slap a fine on you and say "don't do it again." Unless you happen to be engaging in large-scale software piracy for profit which is more what this is about despite the frothing rant that has just attempted to pass itself off as journalism without so much as pretending to consider the opposing view.
Re: You COULD NOT...
>>"Just checked - you get less for Manslaughter with anything other than 'Low Provocation'..."
And here come the silly comparisons. Though it's usually driving offences that are preferred, car analogies and all.
Presumably everyone outraged by this also thinks that when an ISP promises "up to 100Mbps" that's what they'll get. Or that because you can get up to two years for dangerous driving, you'll get two years for accidentally going through a red light.
This is about harmonizing offline and online penalties so that someone producing knock-off DVDs gets treated the same as someone transferring ISOs online. It's not about upping the penalties.
Let's look at actual prosecutions resulting in multi-year sentences in the UK. To recall two, we had a guy who traded in $20million of pirated software and made a very handsome profit on that. He got seven years, iirc. The other multi-year sentence I can recall was someone running a piracy site and he was channelling about £50,000 advertising revenue per month through Latvian banks to South American-registered companies. I don't recall how long that person got, but it was less than ten years.
If you're someone at home distributing some movies via BitTorrent, you're not going to get a decade inside, you're going to get a fine, in all but the most exceptional cases.
Discretion in sentencing is a thing and exists for a very good reason. Meanwhile El Reg. and Ars Technica go into a feeding frenzy of click-bait profits whilst freetards go into moral outrage and complain about comparisons to manslaughter. Well home torrenters aren't going to be sentenced the same way as people committing manslaughter and if you throw out all historical evidence from this country to the contrary, and refuse to acknowledge that maximum sentences are not the be all and end all of how you assess a law, then you're wilfully [b]trying[/b] to be outraged because you enjoy it.
Re: Following up on the patent truce story
Spurious claims by who? As someone replied to your previous post on this, MS were making lots of money from the patents that Android infringed on. It's free money to them.
Also, isn't this rather shoe-horned into this topic?
Thank goodness this is nearly over.
We'll have left the EU soon and then we can negotiate with international corporations as a small independent nation rather than a large, powerful trading block. I'll be glad of the extra protection that Theresa May and David Cameron give us once their hands are no longer tied.
I can't believe this.
I accept that the company has actually issued these statements and I accept that El Reg is reporting it. But I honestly find it no easier to believe than if I saw a cow begin to levitate in front of me.
A company could just not be this incompetent. It just doesn't compute in my brain.
And pre-Millienials were tech savants?
Can we ditch honing in on "Millenials"? I'm sick of every bandwagon news site suddenly starting to throw the word around every other article as if it has some actual significance. If anything, I would have thought "Millenials" probably have a higher average IT knowledge than older generations.
Maybe they just don't care because there aren't any well-paying jobs and there's nothing IN their bank-accounts except ten grand of student debt, did you think of that?
Grumpy icon for grumpy post ----------->
EDIT: And yes, I read the article. If they're five percentage points higher than the previous generation likely to store the numbers in their phone, I suspect that's more to do with smartphone ownership and use of online banking than tech expertise.
How to not get pwned on Windows: Don't run any virtual machines, open any web pages, Office docs, hyperlinks ...
Re: Sad pretty much not being able to use the PC
>>"Yet somehow your phone and tablet can be on the Internet wherever you go all day long with nary a twitch. It's almost as if there were a specific software vendor involved in all of this PC malware mess."
I'd lay good money that you would also be critical of the Windows Store. In fact, given that this is Mikel, long-time poster on El Reg. noted for virulent anti-Microsoft posts, I'd say it's almost a certainty you've been against it. Yet you compare Windows (open and free to install what you want) to locked down systems like iPads and Windows RT. If you can't see the relevant distinction between an iPad and a Windows OS machine is not vendor but user privileges, you're wilfully blind.
Oh, and you should check out Android sometime (the most popular OS used for phones) which even at one's most charitable could not be described as having "nary a twitch" when it comes to security.
Re: How not to get pwned on Windows...
>>"Security bugs are a fact of life in all software - the bigger the code base, the more you can expect. Saying "my OS is less likely to get pwned than your OS" is just stupid."
It's not stupid. There are actual variations in security flaws between different OSs. Back in pre-Vista era, Windows was inherently less secure than GNU/Linux. That's no longer true. Windows is probably slightly more secure than GNU/Linux these days. And maybe that will change again over time - who knows. But it's not right to reject comparisons between OSs. It's useful. If nothing else, it keeps different vendors trying hard to compete in the area of closing down vulnerabilities.
>>"We all know that the "many eyes" theory spouted by the OSS hardliners is complete bullshit."
It's not "complete bullshit". It's a valid argument that Open Source benefits from people being able to inspect the source and find flaws. The problem is that the more complex the project, the more specialized you have to be to notice flaws. I can find a flaw in the MySQL source code. I can't find one in Firefox source - I simply wouldn't know where to start with their code base. But that doesn't mean that other people can't or that it's "bullshit".
The biggest security advantage of Open Source, though, is not guarding against accidental flaws, but against deliberate ones. It lets you examine the source for deliberate backdoors by the vendor. That has a lot of value, imo.
Re: Pastafarianism is under attack!
What's the feminine form of Pope. Is it Popess? Or Popette? I quite fancy being a Popette.
Hail Eris! She what done it all!