If it is killed at 37C, then any second effect could be avoided by warming the entire body.

But that will probably avoid the good desirable effect too — if it is killed, then it won't even create the defenses it is supposed to create. (Oh, and warming your body would also be bad for testicles, which defeats the main purpose of warming it.)

But that way your normally warmer parts would be actually at the same temperature as your outer parts. Wouldn't then the vaccine get spread along all of your body?

Anyway, a vaccine that might screw genitalia. That's a choice between the joy of being father (again, for some), or living longer. I wonder if the secondary effects will be that bad, maybe it's no worse than a soft kick.

The card reader display shows what the card reader should look like?

And if someone is able to compromise both the card and that image of "what it should look like"?

In this kind of situation it is better to have banks telling people — through another medium — what the terminals should look like. (But in some countries this might not be possible, if every bank/network has its own design)

The idea should work, the problem, as you point, is that you're relying on courts (actually the same courts which sometimes rule stuff like patenting ideas). And there is plenty of room for "ambiguity".

A DRM-breaker will always be useful to break DRM used in public-domain works (even if we wait 70 years (or more, if it is a Fantasia DVD)). But it can be used to break copyright protected works too. In a country where people go bankrupt because of the AA, that's too much uncertainty and risk.

But the problem is that not only should people be able to break DRM on PD and share tools to do so, restricting access to public domain should never happen. This proposal points the root of this evil.

Their president knows what free software is,

We had to choose: either we could go to the kitchen to prepare the dish that we wanted to eat with the flavors that we wanted to add and we could put a little Brazilian flavor into the food, or we could go eat what Microsoft wanted to sell us. Simply speaking, the idea of freedom won.

Lula, at FISL 10 (10th International Free Software Forum)

That might be a good pointer, but, IIRC, his term will end in some months.

Giving someone a computer doesn't make the user an expert in some area. On this specific case, the main question is whether a child knows how to study.

If she is already able to do lenghty searches for some information in a big encyclopedia, or to read different books in different ways until she understands a concept, then with a computer she might improve her study, by taking electronic notes, searching in electronic resources, using the web, ...

On the other extreme if we give a kid who hates studying a computer, she might just spend the whole day playing some game or refreshing her facebook/hi5/orkut/the-social-net-you-hate-here status.

It is important to give students better tools, but it is also important to teach students how to use those tools. Not doing so is like pretending a computing machine always gives the right result, even when given garbage.

Then *AA just need to found a new country and make it so every work is registered there and say copyright never expires on that country?

I guess he means "not allowing people to read/share/copy a book is like keeping people as slaves".

This sounds like "the content wants to be free".

After all, it makes sense to have some ability to control our own work. The problem is that instead of just assuring people don't get robbed, the congress usually gives *AA sort of a license to kill.

We need more examples that making a move does not mean being under the MPAA umbrella, does not mean using DRM, and does not mean "bittorrent is evil".

This is going to give "Copyrighted stuff can't be copied" people a hard time...

All material on this site is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license.

Although the movie is not directly hosted on its site (or is it?), maybe it's also under BY-NC-SA.

Not only could the OP just grab the video and convert it to DVD, he could distribute it too! (The only bottleneck being MPEG patents.) No need to feel guilty for sharing a version for your beloved movie player gadget!

Won't this just catch the ones who plan their attacks with no encryption?

Also, even if it catches those, isn't the internet a little big to filter without getting overloaded with stuff to analyse? Unless everyone starts using ASCII youtube, I suppose...

But surely, this gives potential to the idea of fake alerts to make sure security forces will be somewhere else waiting for an attack, while the real one happens on their backs.