Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Have a little pity on the magazine (Score 1) 290

by jesdynf (#34255038) Attached to: Cooks Source Magazine Apologizes — Sort Of

Additionally, if I think that *AA studies vastly overstate the effects of 'piracy' or that the awards given by some lawsuits are excessive and well beyond the damage done, it doesn't mean that I condone infringement.

I do... or rather, I don't recognize the concept of infringement. Copyright is *For Limited Times*, a balance between my interests and the interest of the creators. What we've got isn't balanced and isn't limited, and I haven't signed on to it. I could still be robbed or imprisoned if I'm caught violating it, but it doesn't merit the respect or deference a *law* does, merely the wary acknowledgement that a tool of your enemies can harm you.

If you don't like that, go come up with some real laws instead of jawing about "theft". I was guaranteed created works would enter the public domain -- what we have is theft from *me*.

(I suppose that in a country with sensible copyrights what this guy did was pretty douchey. But that isn't here.)

Comment: I Could Support Cameras (Score 1) 513

by jesdynf (#32129018) Attached to: Arizona Backs Off Its Speed Camera Program

Quite easily. All you need is one simple change -- decouple enforcement from revenue.

If I get a ticket because some worthless hamlet dropped the speed limit 10mph to rake in the dough? That's... that's just not acceptable. If I get a ticket because the officer feels that writing me a ticket is the best possible use of his limited time, that's sort of a different story, now innit? And if that municipality is running the cameras as an expense, I'd be more inclined to think that maybe the cameras are doing something useful if they feel that strongly about it.

I'd have a lot more respect for local governments if they just burned whatever fines they collected. Don't turn it over to the state or federal level, that still puts you in quota-land. Just erase it.

(Some people would say that this would mean higher taxes. This is of course incorrect; you would simple pay more money when your taxes are due and less money at all the other times cash is extracted from you for the municipality's profit.)

Comment: Re:Devil's Advocate (Score 2, Informative) 385

by jesdynf (#27478635) Attached to: Ad Block Plus Filter Maintainer "rick752" Dies At 56

I've never used AdBlock — I just use NoScript. I'm not blocking based on content, I'm just enforcing tighter security on my computer.

It cleanly kneecaps admonger arguments — static ads (I also disable animated gifs) and text ads display just fine, but you don't have my permission to run Flash, Java, or JavaScript on my system. And strangely enough, NoScript's control is finely-grained enough to give a site general permission to execute content without also granting access to and other bastions of consumer rights.

(And I'd use NoScript even if it did none of those things, because the act of *not loading a PDF by default* has saved me hours and hours of dodging lockups and crashes.)

The Media

+ - The Dark Side of Accountability?-> 2

Submitted by jesdynf
jesdynf (42915) writes "I saw an LA Times story — a restaurant manager donated $100 to support California's anti-gay Proposition 8; eventually, her name surfaced on donor lists, and her business is in the process of collapsing. This affair has The Internet written all over it — wide distribution of donor lists, with someone zeroing in on the lady's name, rapid (and snowballing) online communication about the topic, coordination of response... I haven't seen it discussed to my satisfaction, so I throw the question to the floor — is the internet working as designed? Is what we're seeing here a bug or a feature? Nobody accuses the protesters of lies or violence; the writer took the position that he didn't approve of the protests, but I'm not sure I understand why."
Link to Original Source
The Courts

+ - Has RIAA expert Jacobson contradicted himself?-> 1

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A year and five months after examining the defendant's hard drive in UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA's "expert" witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson, has issued a "supplemental report" which appears to contradict his earlier "reports" alluding to the hard drive inspection. In view of the superb job the Slashdot community and the Groklaw community did in helping first to prepare for, and then to vet, Jacobson's deposition, I humbly submit for your learned review the now three (3) versions of the "expert's" opinions based on the hard drive, for your analysis. As with almost all federal litigation documents nowadays, they are, unfortunately, in *pdf format: (a) December 19, 2006, declaration; (b) unsigned October 25, 2006, report, awaiting approval from RIAA lawyers; and (c) December 15, 2007, version. The initial observations of commentators on my blog are located here."
Link to Original Source

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.