Slashdot Mirror

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/education/21BOOK .html?ex=1067313600&en=f29e2e8bac871ef3&ei=5062&pa rtner=GOOGLE

I agree that right now MA taxes are not unreasonable. The worst I encountered was a 12% short term Capital Gains tax, but I think even that has been reduced to around 5% in the past couple of years. The income tax fell from 5.9% to 5.3% in the past 5 years.

Did you notice the "optional" tax rate on the MA tax return form this year? Yes that's right, you had the option to be taxed at a higher rate if you wanted to!

This might be down-modded by Google-fanboys, but it needs to be said: Google has had something like this coming.

As a customer both of Google AdSense and Google AdWords, I have been victim of many of Google's own anti-competitive and censorship policies.

First, if your webpage contains keywords like "war" or "suicide" (as any news page will sometimes) Google will not serve your site paying ads but will serve you Public Service Announcements (PSAs) about saving Gorillas and stuff like that. By Google's own criterion, they wouldn't sponsor news.google.com or the NY Times, except, well, they do. If your money is big enough then it's kay; only smaller sights are oppressed. They have revoked supporting non-PSAs at the recently slashdotted News for Christians site Good Fig:

http://www.goodfig.org

They stopped mainly because Good Fig covers things like the Isreali-Palestinian situation (war), the COPA (the keyword "pornography"), a sex-abuse victim reconciliation study (the keyword "sex"), etc. There also is a story reported here that Google wouldn't allow Valley Firearms LLC or any other firearms retailer to advertise their firearms, while Google will advertise porn links that are only 2 clicks away from ultra-explicit material.

Google wouldn't support paying ads for Slashdot unless Slashdot had big enough money (which they might), because Slashdot covers stories involving the keywords "sex", "pornography", etc., etc.

Next, using Google AdWords I had a click-through-rate (CTR) of 0.6% with an average position of 4-5 while Google requires 0.5% for the top spot so I was doing fine---until Google ran my ad on "content focused" sites and got me a "content focused" CTR of 0.1% and are now trying to charge me a $5 "full-restore" fee for my "underperforming keywords/ads." One of the "content-focused" sites was Amazon.com and they ran my ad on a few book pages where you have to scroll way down and read the "You might also be interested in.." section. Like anyone will ever read that.

So, Google's search page rules and they have some of the best and brightest technical minds working for them; however, when it comes to the money-people Google has hired to direct policy and manage how AdWords and AdSense work, they have some clear issues....

Why does every story linking to a New York Times article have people such as yourself complaining about it? Your comment lends nothing to the discussion and identical sentiments have been expressed countless times. Write a journal entry if you want mindless discourse regarding the New York Times registration requirement. Complain to the Times and tell them what horrible, horrible people they are for making you take ten seconds of your time to provide them with false information.

The fact is that the New York Times often has excellent content and they do not syndicate. This article isn't available elsewhere, but it's worthy of discussion, so either register and read it or do not participate in the discussuion.

I find it hard to believe that you're too lazy to fill out their registration form but somehow found the energy to come here and complain.

Hey anyone else think this picture was really cool?

Tired of going through their stupid registration? CLICK HERE

nytimes also have this here.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. Finally, complain to the media. If they get enough letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

Remember, VeriSign is busy telling them its side of the story. We need to tell them ours!

The same article is also posted at CNET, which doesn't require registration. They also have it in a nice single-page format for those that don't like to keep hitting "next".

Google's Link

I noticed this in today's New York Time's article (2nd page) about China's preparations for space flight:

The Chinese named their spacecraft Shenzhou or Divine Vessel. Weighing more than 8 tons and almost 30 feet long, it was slightly larger and heavier than the Soyuz. The main difference is the forward unit, which on the Shenzhou has solar panels and can remain in orbit after the piloted module descends back to Earth.

How many uses are there for these modules, these little electric generators in space? I assume that they are not just scientific/military satellites that are attached to the manned launch. (I may be incorrectly estimating the size of a military satellite). They sound like building blocks that are being left in orbit for future use. What would they be used for? They probably wouldn't be able to change their orbit/trajectory very much, because they probably have little or no fuel.

If that is true, then they are just orbitting electrical generators. I suppose that would be useful for two things (essentially the same). A) they could provide power for satellites, so the satellites themselves could be launched with more instruments. B) they could provide power for space stations, so (again) the volume of future launches could be devoted to habitation rather than power.

I don't know. Are there other possibilities?

Also, I'm going to wait on congratulating China until the taikonaut survives the trip. So far it is still just a worthy attempt.

Here's the NYTimes' fairly long piece on it(free reg. req.).
While there is great potential for helping people with paralysis there is also potential to use such technology for military purposes. This is a small step in the direction of creating Terminators.

Why can't we just get the google link right out of the gates? Google News

Support anti-karma-whoring, click this reg-free NYT link today!

Here is the Google news hole to get to the site without logging into NY Times.

Click Here

NY Times article

Article

A rather interesting article from the NYTimes covered some facts on a journalist's ability to protect sources:

Leaks and the Courts: There's Law, but Little Order (reg required)

I'd agree with the poster above that this was a "creative" use of the Carrier law by an FBI agent hoping to bully the guy into complying, with little actual legal ground to stand on. However, the reporter is definitely going to get a request for the full notes and info from the interview.

As the Times article points out, a reporter has no LEGAL means of keeping these away from the FBI, if really pressed to present them. We'll see if it gets that far.

-Erik

The harrassment of this reporter points to a larger and more fundamental problem. In the US, law enforcement takes a "creative" approach to applying law to specific cases. (An abstract of the original NYT article, and the option to purchase is here.)

Law enforcement is charging manufacturers of illegal drugs, and others, under provisions in the Patriot Act -- stretching the law to appear "tough on crime."

When law can be interpreted "creatively" and made to apply in cases for which it was not designed, and for which there are already applicable laws, we are on the path to a government not of laws, but of men! It is anti-American, and moreover anti-liberal.

If the law can be made to mean anything, then it is worse than having no law; worse because the unthinking still give such a government the respect due a lawful society. It's a sham!

Everyone in government, law and society who supports this philosophy -- from ambitious proscecutors, to shyster lawyers, to every last office worker and housewife who couldn't care less as to how criminals are caught and convicted -- is guilty of destroying this country.

We need a push to get honesty back into law enforcement. The alternative is to have draconian laws on the books that can be used to oppress whoever is at the moment among the despised and unpopular.

google link

Read about it here

This looks like a lot of fun, if I was more of a runner.

If you want to believe that Linux is technically better than Windows, fine. I happen to agree on that point. If you think that Microsoft is the evil empire, that's OK; you can form your own opinions. If you can't seperate the two ideas in your mind, then there's a problem, and you probably ought to reexamine your conclusions (or at least your mode of evangelism.)

Linux is superior to Windows. The anger and the hostility does not stem from that fact, but from the fact that Windows is an imposed inferiority.

Sometimes it's difficult to be both polite and honest at the same time. Paul Krugman writes about this in todays NYTimes OP/ED pages regarding anger at the Bush Administration... The lessons to be learned there are the lessons to be learned here. For example, the statement;

"The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."

That's a pretty impolitic statement. It's also an accurate description of the situation and part of federal law. The author is US Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson and it's part of the findings of fact in the anti-trust trial (don't have a url handy for it, google is your buddy)

Oftentimes it's difficult to answer the honesty without getting stuck on the sheer nastiness of the response. In fact, MicroSoft used what they percieved as nastiness to paint Judge Penfield-Jackson as unfair and biased and thus were able to overturn some portions of his ruling on appeal.

However, nasty doesn't have to mean untrue. Hatred can sometimes be grounded in reality. I, personally, have a hatred of all things mediocre... to the point, often, of outright hostility. When that mediocrity is forced upon me you're right; I will both argue that Linux is superior and MicroSoft is evil. I might even use some 'bad' words to do so. Deal with it.

Google Link to story

For those who hate registering, here's the google news link.

right here

Today, we had the US Special Envoy to Afghanistan warn of "spectacular attacks" by the Taliban against US forces. On Sept. 22, we had news about Mullah Omar (you remember how W missed him as well as Osama) having a big meeting with the reformed Taliban in Pakistan. And even the CIA doesn't actually think Osama is dead yet. And liberating the country and handing control of most of it to rival warlords isn't what W said the fight was all about.

As for your "we're recovering from nicely; I know how that must disappoint you" comment on the recession, a jobless recovery with a fundamentals this weak, not to mention the first net loss of jobs in over 70 years, doesn't constitute recovering OR nicely as far as I'm concerned.

I agree -- Krugman discusses related stuff in a recent column. paul krugman's column People are pretty short-sighted, perhaps on both sides...

Michael Powell supports media consolidation redardless of the side effects(mostly negative for the consumer). In this example, Fox is squeezing Cox(;0) by demanding cox pay a higher rate for Fox Sports. This means higher cable bills for consumers which in turn drive them into the waiting arms of Direct TV, also owned by Fox parent News Corp.

I believe anti-copy CD technologies will prove unfruitful, and will therefore eventually be abandoned by record companies. There firms may take a cue from the movie industry and increase the value of CDs by bundling interesting bonus features rather than restrictive copy-control software.

An interesting New York Times article today about exactly this can be found here. The article even mentions a band that includes a PlayStation 2 game on a DVD with their CD. Which just goes to show that CD prices have absolutely no relationship with marginal costs.

If you remember this article from the nytimes posted a while back. This guy really seemed to appreciate out of office reply. An anecdote? Yes, but from a self-proclaimed spammer.

I'm not claiming that it couldn't happen. But could it just be paranoia? I mean, this IS the BUSH administration!

Sorry, but I don't know where to get the full article, other than my coffee table!

A more detailed version of the article can be found at the NY Times site. According to this article, the restrictions imposed by the new safety regulations constrain the shuttle to daylight launches, where adequate ascent video can be obtained. This unfortunately results in am extremely limited number of launch windows to reach the ISS. (It seems that there are only 4 between September 2004 and March 2005, and two of these are very narrow.)

Now I certainly want the thing to be as safe as possible, but is anyone else think that the level of acceptable risk has gotten too small? We should make the shuttle as safe as possible, but we shouldn't do this by compromising the shuttle's ability to fulfill its mission. Remember, we now have a space station up there that is going to need lots of maintenance, supplies, and fresh crews if it is going to be able to carry out any of the science work that are ostensibly the reason for its existence. Albatross or windfall, we put the thing up there, now we have to take care of it -- otherwise we've wasted a lot of money and political capital.

Here

Google Link

What the hell?

seriously, everyone enjoys a nice cathedral now and then... leaks destroy the foundation

What do you call the shenanigans of the Bush team as described in this recent NY Times editorial? Who's sordid now

Once again, Google News comes to the rescue.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

For news, and timely information certainly the internet is the place I turn. The evening "News" is so corporate owned and supported that I don't really consider it a reliable source for information. Besides, I don't really know exactly what I get out of keeping up with how many people were murdered or died in fires in the tri-state NY metro area (there is a LOT of that on the news). So, I've just stopped watching. I was never much of a newspaper reader, but of course there is always the New York Times and many other newspapers that bring the information to you with a nice bow on it so you don't have to go scouring elsewhere. But if scouring is your style and you are a real information junky, the scouring certainly isn't that hard.

But if I am going to learn anything in-depth certainly books -dead tree media- is the way to be. My upper limit of reading an article on the crt is about 10 pages. Your mileage will vary there, of course it's highly individual. But maybe that's why places where the information is in digested for you allowing you to scan many stories at once and sample them all, because lengthy readings on a computer monitor are more tedious than kicking back and reading a book.

Link

Published: September 29, 2003

A newly launched peer-to-peer trade association has offered to sit down and negotiate with music industry lawyers, while it simultaneously denounced its adversaries as obsolete and "tyrannosaurical."

P2P United, a group of six peer-to-peer businesses, held a coming-out event Monday in Washington, D.C. The lobbying effort is designed to demonstrate to the U.S. Congress that peer-to-peer companies are legitimate enterprises that will abide by the law. The group is touting a code of conduct that promises to warn users of their software that copyright infringement is wrong, but does not offer to police the vast sprawl of peer-to-peer networks for illegal activities.

The members of P2P United that showed up at the event at the National Press Club included LimeWire, Blubster, Grokster and Streamcast Networks, which distributes Morpheus. (The other two participants are BearShare and eDonkey 2000.) Noticeably absent from P2P United is Sharman Networks, distributor of Kazaa.

"P2P United is here and intends to remain here as a presence in Washington to demonstrate not just with our words but with our actions that this is not a fly-by-night business," Adam Eisgrau, a veteran lobbyist who represents P2P United, said at the event.

However, other members of the lobbying effort at the event denounced the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)--which is targeting individuals in its legal efforts to stifle file swapping--in language rarely heard in policy circles.

"What the hell are these guys doing? Who do they think they are? For God's sake!" Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, said. "This is absolutely reprehensible. I don't care what anyone says, but suing a 12-year-old girl is child abuse."

Eisgrau said the colorful language shouldn't hurt the peer-to-peer group's planned efforts to reach a deal with the RIAA. "If they're afraid of a few adjectives, even our willingness to talk with them won't save them," Eisgrau said.

"It is refreshing to see that P2P United is acknowledging that their members should be more active in educating their users about the consequences of illegal file sharing that is rampant on their networks, as well as the other risks these networks pose to personal privacy and security," the RIAA said in a statement. "But, let's face it, they need to do a whole lot more before they can claim to be legitimate businesses."

P2P United wouldn't give details on what kind of deal it would seek with the RIAA and other copyright holders except to say that it was looking for some sort of compulsory license or indirect payment system. One idea that's been floated is for Congress to levy a tax on high-speed Internet connections, with the proceeds split between the RIAA and peer-to-peer companies.

"It has been reacted to as if it were radioactive," Eisgrau said, talking about the suggestion of compulsory licenses. "That has to change. It is a legitimate set of strategies present in copyright law in many forms. It is a general subject that belongs on the table."

Eisgrau, who once worked for the American Library Association, said the idea was to impose "small levies which are spread widely and pretty invisibly" and noted that a previous copyright compromise in Congress resulted in a few cents "being attached to the cost of a blank tape."

NYTimes subscription bs required

From the New York Times(no reg required):
"another federal judge issued a ruling that would prevent the government from carrying out the do-not-call registry, citing First Amendment grounds."

According to this, the FCC has no more right to enforce it than the FTC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/technology/29TAG S.html?ex=1065412800&en=ae0b64773a522d63&ei=5062&p artner=GOOGLE

can I harvest his email address from the article?

If you can read it. The link above did not work for me. This one may be better.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

With all respect, this is bullshit!

No it is not bullshit. Like it or not, reprinting other people's copyrighted works for distribution without thier permission is both wrong and against the law. There may be an argument for fair use here because this is a discussion forum that is discussing said argument, but for fair use to apply it would probably require that only those parts of the article that are being specifically commented on in that post be reprinted (quoting the article to make a point or to elaborate/illustrate an idea is acceptable fair use, karma whoring by bypassing accepted chanels to that article is not).

The New York Times is the newspaper of record for the American empire.

There is no "newspaper of record" for the "American empire". The masters of this hegemony would never allow any media source to become "authoritative" as that would mean they could not later dispute the lies they spread there when they no longer serve the hegemony.

They published it

Yes the did publish it, and as the publisher of this article they control the copyright and thus can decide how to distribute it. And don't give me any of that poorly thought out "copyright is bad" crap, as the GPL depends on copyright law to ensure that the source code remains availabe. The way copyright is implemented may be flawed (and yes it sucks big time) but the concept is not inherently bad and it could serve individuals and communities as well as companies if we attempted to be a little less strident and a little more convincing when making our arguments.

The New York Times has never explained WHY they require a registration for reading from the net

They have no obligation to do so. My guess is that because the same articles are available at newstands, in libraries and through delivered subscriptions, the advertisers balked at paying to advertise separately for the web edition. Advertising is the main income for news publishers, and the rates are set by the number of expected viewers of the advertisement. If the NYT wanted to charge premium rate for the adspace on thier web edition, they probably would need good statistics about who it is that reads the web edition. Hence registration. Whether this is a good business model for web editions of also printed media, or if there are better ways to accomplish the same thing for this particular edition of this particular newspaper, is thier problem. Personally I think they are making a mistake by limiting thier readers (and thus ad viewers) by requiring registration, but theyu are not required to listen to or follow my, or your, advice.

Every demand from a corporate entity for personal information deserves an explanation of why this information is being collected and for what purposes it will be used.

Agreed, if the corporate entity is not forthcoming with this information to the satisfaction of the potential subscriber (through a subcriber agreement and a privacy policy, then that potential subscriber should decline the offer for a subscription and perhaps go down to the newstand or library to read the content in relative anonymity.

I like to dream that some day some people, perhaps you and I, might create a publication that lives up to journalistic and business ideals that I can consider admirable. Until that day that the right combination of opportunity, skills and like minded individuals come together in such a task, I will treasure the right to criticize those who do not, but I will not allow myself to be so egotistical as to demand that these others change thier business practices to my whim, nor will I believe that they are entirely without worth because of thier failure to live up to an ideal that I have yet to witness in this world.

With all respect, this is bullshit!

No it is not bullshit. Like it or not, reprinting other people's copyrighted works for distribution without thier permission is both wrong and against the law. There may be an argument for fair use here because this is a discussion forum that is discussing said argument, but for fair use to apply it would probably require that only those parts of the article that are being specifically commented on in that post be reprinted (quoting the article to make a point or to elaborate/illustrate an idea is acceptable fair use, karma whoring by bypassing accepted chanels to that article is not).

The New York Times is the newspaper of record for the American empire.

There is no "newspaper of record" for the "American empire". The masters of this hegemony would never allow any media source to become "authoritative" as that would mean they could not later dispute the lies they spread there when they no longer serve the hegemony.

They published it

Yes the did publish it, and as the publisher of this article they control the copyright and thus can decide how to distribute it. And don't give me any of that poorly thought out "copyright is bad" crap, as the GPL depends on copyright law to ensure that the source code remains availabe. The way copyright is implemented may be flawed (and yes it sucks big time) but the concept is not inherently bad and it could serve individuals and communities as well as companies if we attempted to be a little less strident and a little more convincing when making our arguments.

The New York Times has never explained WHY they require a registration for reading from the net

They have no obligation to do so. My guess is that because the same articles are available at newstands, in libraries and through delivered subscriptions, the advertisers balked at paying to advertise separately for the web edition. Advertising is the main income for news publishers, and the rates are set by the number of expected viewers of the advertisement. If the NYT wanted to charge premium rate for the adspace on thier web edition, they probably would need good statistics about who it is that reads the web edition. Hence registration. Whether this is a good business model for web editions of also printed media, or if there are better ways to accomplish the same thing for this particular edition of this particular newspaper, is thier problem. Personally I think they are making a mistake by limiting thier readers (and thus ad viewers) by requiring registration, but theyu are not required to listen to or follow my, or your, advice.

Every demand from a corporate entity for personal information deserves an explanation of why this information is being collected and for what purposes it will be used.

Agreed, if the corporate entity is not forthcoming with this information to the satisfaction of the potential subscriber (through a subcriber agreement and a privacy policy, then that potential subscriber should decline the offer for a subscription and perhaps go down to the newstand or library to read the content in relative anonymity.

I like to dream that some day some people, perhaps you and I, might create a publication that lives up to journalistic and business ideals that I can consider admirable. Until that day that the right combination of opportunity, skills and like minded individuals come together in such a task, I will treasure the right to criticize those who do not, but I will not allow myself to be so egotistical as to demand that these others change thier business practices to my whim, nor will I believe that they are entirely without worth because of thier failure to live up to an ideal that I have yet to witness in this world.

Good idea, but the submit button on that page appears to do nothing. Try here instead.

Maybe then they'll try to hire reporters with a clue. Nah.

Complain about it here.

The New York Times has never explained WHY they require a registration for reading from the net the articles that are available on every newstand and every library in the country. They just demand it.

Did you ever ask?

From their site...

If you have further questions about registration or the site in general, contact Customer Service.

NYT Customer Info (No Reg Required)