Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Peter
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 months ago
in A Social Hack on Gmail Users on The Technology Liberation Front
I'm a total idiot. I read straight over this step
"""
STEP 2- Once you have logged into your own account, compose/write an e-mail to: retrive.pass.tm@gmail.com This is a mailing address to the gmail Staff. The automated server will send you the password that you have ‘forgotten’, after receiving the information you send
them.
"""
This is a mailing address to the gmail Staff
ha ha ha
"""
STEP 2- Once you have logged into your own account, compose/write an e-mail to: retrive.pass.tm@gmail.com This is a mailing address to the gmail Staff. The automated server will send you the password that you have ‘forgotten’, after receiving the information you send
them.
"""
This is a mailing address to the gmail Staff
ha ha ha
8 months ago
in Whither the Social Contract? on The Technology Liberation Front
The free market didn't fail. Skewed policies failed. Having politicians trying to run the economy with unbalanced secondary goals (home ownership for example) failed.
Home ownership rates should not be a government policy objective. Who cares if all the houses are owned by 1 person, but everyone else owns more productive assets? Perhaps I don't want to negotiate all my home maintenance, and would rather have a landlord deal with it.
Anyway, couldn't quite get if you were serious, but saying free markets fail would imply the markets were free. And the bail-out is not the free market solution, having failed companies, well, fail, would be the free market solution. If we don't try the free market solution, how can we know it failed?
Home ownership rates should not be a government policy objective. Who cares if all the houses are owned by 1 person, but everyone else owns more productive assets? Perhaps I don't want to negotiate all my home maintenance, and would rather have a landlord deal with it.
Anyway, couldn't quite get if you were serious, but saying free markets fail would imply the markets were free. And the bail-out is not the free market solution, having failed companies, well, fail, would be the free market solution. If we don't try the free market solution, how can we know it failed?
10 months ago
in Porn on Planes: 3 Possible Solutions on The Technology Liberation Front
I know it's already been said, but this is no different from the other "objectionable content" already available to passengers.
And, what no-one has said is aircraft are not public libraries, you are in a little dictatorship of the pilot, administered by the crew. If they tell you to stop doing something, for whatever reason, you better stop. It's already a Federal offence (in the US) to refuse instructions from the crew.
And, what no-one has said is aircraft are not public libraries, you are in a little dictatorship of the pilot, administered by the crew. If they tell you to stop doing something, for whatever reason, you better stop. It's already a Federal offence (in the US) to refuse instructions from the crew.
11 months ago
in The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » FCC Killing BitTorrent? Not Exactly on The Technology Liberation Front
The difference is with peer-to-peer, if you pay for up and down traffic, then you either don't share, or you pay twice. In the first case (you don't share), BitTorrent has no advantage over any other service, everyone downloads from them. In the second case, consumers will think twice about using a service that doubles or more the bandwidth they use.
I'm not saying it would kill BitTorrent, or that the other points the original post was making are correct, just that there is a reason that bandwidth charges could impact peer-to-peer delivery systems more than other delivery methods.
I'm not saying it would kill BitTorrent, or that the other points the original post was making are correct, just that there is a reason that bandwidth charges could impact peer-to-peer delivery systems more than other delivery methods.
11 months ago
in The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » FCC’s DRM ban may derail distribution of new-release films on cable TV on The Technology Liberation Front
"Intellectual Property" is neither intellectual nor property. It's not a scarce resource that has to rationed somehow so we all get a chance to get some. It is a concept to encourage people to produce content and ideas that could otherwise be copied proving no benefit to the originator, and therefore possibly produced in lessor quantities.
If I copy a song from a CD, this does not take anything from the copyright holder, other than the nebulous potential that I might have paid again for another copy.
So, since we allow copyright holders a limited monopoly over their creation for the net benefit of all, the question becomes where is the best place to draw a line on the limits of that monopoly.
It is legal for me to copy my CD onto my MP3 player, but it is not legal for me to own a product capable of copying a DRM-protected track onto my MP3 player. That's the problem right there, my otherwise legal actions are restricted by a combination of technology and weird laws.
In the end I agree with Ryan that the problem is not that companies want to put DRM into their content, that's something the market should be allowed to sort out, but the problem is that actions that are legal (copies of legal "originals" for personal use) are made difficult to perform *legally* due to the restrictions on DRM-breaking products. It is not a problem to attempt to make it difficult *practically*, that part the market can sort out.
I don't agree that government can stay out entirely, since IP is a creation of government, but they should err on the side of minimality. Perhaps I agree in practise, with a slightly nuanced perspective.
If I copy a song from a CD, this does not take anything from the copyright holder, other than the nebulous potential that I might have paid again for another copy.
So, since we allow copyright holders a limited monopoly over their creation for the net benefit of all, the question becomes where is the best place to draw a line on the limits of that monopoly.
It is legal for me to copy my CD onto my MP3 player, but it is not legal for me to own a product capable of copying a DRM-protected track onto my MP3 player. That's the problem right there, my otherwise legal actions are restricted by a combination of technology and weird laws.
In the end I agree with Ryan that the problem is not that companies want to put DRM into their content, that's something the market should be allowed to sort out, but the problem is that actions that are legal (copies of legal "originals" for personal use) are made difficult to perform *legally* due to the restrictions on DRM-breaking products. It is not a problem to attempt to make it difficult *practically*, that part the market can sort out.
I don't agree that government can stay out entirely, since IP is a creation of government, but they should err on the side of minimality. Perhaps I agree in practise, with a slightly nuanced perspective.
