Build fiber networks ffs.
that's what i'm saying. most people here in the U.S. are still stuck with 1~8 Mbps asymmetric residential connections, meanwhile people in Japan and South Korea are upgrading from 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps symmetric bandwidth FttH for about $56 USD. meanwhile, what Comcast arrogantly refers to as their "wideband" service offers only 50 Mbps and costs $150/month.
i think the first thing we need to do is catch up on wired broadband infrastructure. internet usage is only going to increase, and bandwidth demand will continue to skyrocket as more and more bandwidth-intensive applications come into popular usage. the disparity in per-Mbps cost of internet bandwidth between countries, not to mention the lack of FttH/symmetric service availability is quickly creating a gap between the nations with the most advanced communications infrastructure and the nations being reamed by incompetent/corrupt Telecoms & ISPs.
after the dearth in bandwidth is addressed via wired infrastructure, the next step would be to roll out municipal WiFi/WiMax as last-mile solutions to provide ubiquitous wireless broadband access. right now mobile broadband services offered by telecoms are way too unreasonably priced to be accessible/practical for general use. this is in stark contrast with public wireless networks, which are of great benefit to everyone.
You're right, and so's the GP. The GP is right about how the law is written, but you're right about how the courts have chosen to interpret it.
No, the GP is not correct.
The letter of the law specifically says that fair use is permitted and is not copyright infringement, even if the action would otherwise violate a portion of the DMCA:
17 USC 1201(c)(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
The DMCA was codified in Title 17, sections 1201-1205 of the United States Code (USC), and you can see by the text that anything otherwise permitted by Title 17 is not a violation of the DMCA portion.
It all works out to "for fair use, you can violate the DMCA, but contributory infringement is not fair use". Contributory infringement includes distributing devices or software whose primary purpose is to remove some sort of copyright protection mechanism, so that's why you can rip a DVD for personal use, but a company can't legally provide you with the software to do it.
The plan would involve some level of filtering...
I predicted this before I read it. Anything a government is going to provide you will also be completely controlled by them.
...but might allow adults to opt out.
That's the same thing they said about parents who want to home school their kids rather than sending them to public schools, but is not the case, they still have to pay for other peoples kids via taxes to get the worthless education currently being provided.
"I don't have to break in. All I have to do is own a bank, or even just a restaurant, anything where I can get your bank/credit card details."
To my knowledge, there is nothing actually illegal about a bank employee reproducing your credit card details. In fact, if it was illegal for them to do so, they wouldn't be able to print copies of documents with your information in order to hand it over to you.
Now, if they USE your credit to make purchases they've committed credit card fraud. If they withdraw money from your bank they've stolen from you. None of this has anything to do with their ability to take pictures or make photocopies etc. which is perfectly legal.
There might be regulations in certain areas that prohibit store employees from making copies or recording credit card numbers etc. However, I'm pretty sure that these are policies set by the credit card companies and not the law. I might be wrong. In any case, such a law is preemptive and unnecessary. It makes a certain action illegal in order to prevent other action which in itself is illegal. The reasoning is to prevent crime but I don't see the logic in preventing crimes by making more activities illegal.
Easy... is relative. Let's try to remove Unix (Linux) from the equation:
There is a weird convention used with Windows for direct drive access:
\\.\PhysicalDriveN for physical drives (0, 1, 2...), or \\.\X: for logical drives (C, D, E...). Of course, the mapping between physical and logical isn't particularly clear, given the partition tables on the physical devices.
Under Unix (linux, here)
But, even so, as "Administrator" on Windows, if you know the physical or logical drive, you can use the "COPY" command to duplicate the drive (I think -- never dared).
COPY \\.\E: C:\IMAGE
REM THERE IS NO STANDARD COMPRESSOR UNDER WINDOWS, USE ZIP
"TYPE" may work to stream the data, oh, and you still have to replace \\.\E: with the designator for the partition (whatever it is).
Does this help?
There's no such thing as an "implementation of UNIX". Standards are implemented, Unix was an OS, not a standard. Unix was licensed out to various companied, first from AT&T, later from Novell, and it was tweaked to those various parties' needs. AIX for example isn't IBM's "implementation" of System V, it started off as System V. AIX is what IBM did to SYS V. Same goes for the other Unices.
When OP said 'implementation of UNIX' it is possible that he was referring to the Single Unix Specification, which is a bunch of standards. If your OS is certified to follow those standards, you can call your OS 'Unix'.
What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.