And it's an insult to my intelligence. What makes it more galling is the number of people this kind of ass covering pacifies. When a doctored photo slips through they'll say, "see, we did something but it happened anyway!" as though it's relevant. People are fucking retarded sometimes.
Modern games are DRM'd to hell. Nevertheless most of them aren't actually copy protected by strong encryption. That is the only reason most of them will still be around in 30 years. Some games are too old to sell but too young to even be in a state of quasi-public-domain. Steam DRM is adding volumes to that list. With most games now sold as DRM'd downloads the future of this data is very much in doubt.
If Steam is sold who will still have the unencrypted programs and game assets? Who will bother to re-assemble games from loose files? Society could lose hundreds of games forever. If I were king I would insist that copies of all source code be kept in an archive somewhere, to be released when the copyright term expires.I think bitrot is one of the most evil forces on the internet. Are there any more practical ways to stop it?
I don't mind the creation of walled gardens up to a point. The death of AOL taught us that people will migrate to free networks when they're available. What I'm worried about is that a walled garden will be created that has the infrastructure for total coercive control over speech but generally does not exercise it. In practical terms this will almost be free speech and will be used at first to control only the least popular (legal) speech. Piracy, rape porn, Doxxing. People will say "nothing of value was lost". Until the grip tightens and "doxxing" turns into "publishing the real-world associations of a journalist". And "Rape porn" turns into "porn without obvious enthusiastic consent". And "Piracy" turns into "violation of draconian copyright laws". Soon enough there will be a huge struggle to convince people of the danger. Free speech advocates will be labeled conspiracy loons. And we'll have to create new mesh networks just to permit vibrant debate. Oh wait...
How permanent is permanent? I lost north of 300 novels when Nook bought e-book retailer Fictionwise. I could have downloaded and archived them one at a time I guess. Except for the ones that expired a year after purchase due to draconian DRM. Anyway the point is I no longer trust ANY DRM'd material, especially streamed content. If it's not downloadable and DRM free, you never own it.
Here is an alternate link that won't feed Vice and here is the linked article. (pdf) The study is very broad but they consider as much as a Google tracking cookie to be "leaking your data", so it doesn't really say much.
Seriously? 22 cents per person is enormously expensive when the organization needs several hundred such subscriptions to form a decent library. If every journal cost that much it would pretty much stop any science from being accomplished through journals. How much do you think it should cost to write a paper on an arbitrary topic? Why do you think this rent seeking is acceptable? Do you know how little revenue an organization with 10,000 students+faculty is getting? Do you know how little it actually costs to publish these journals?
No and the whole thing is disingenuous. If you think people should have a lower standard of living (less privacy, higher rent, less living space, probably less parks/lawns) for the sake of the environment, at least have the balls to say it openly. You can say you're happier living in a city but don't say everyone is, and don't call it a suburb.
An anonymous reader writes: A widely published UN report on "cyber violence" against women, later found to be deeplyflawed is still relevant. It's relevant because there is clearly an interest from the UN to censor the internet in the name of protecting women.
An article by muckraker The Ralph Retort explores a (failed) Twitter campaign clearly intended to create an appearance of cyber violence despite a complete lack of evidence. According to the article a Katharina Jens created the hash tag as an attempt to prove cyber violence affecting women. The author believes now that the Twitter campaign has failed an attempt will be made to paint the lack of evidence of harassment as evidence of harassment. Supporting evidence is that following an (in my opinion very impolite, even hostile, but not even vaguely threatening) email from the author Jens wiped the internet of every account she had. Such over-reaction is, if not an indictment, an indication of shady dealings. Something that should be monitored when it's in association with an organization as important as the UN.
The UN's next draft of the "cyber violence" report is coming soon.