Slashdot Mirror

This is "ganging up on the consumers".

If these two factions ever come to an agreement, fair use as we know it is dead (even more than it is already!).

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Wherever possible, ULTra will run along the ground, but some routes might require tracks to be raised on pillars above roads, creating a truly futuristic look.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

... the vehicles will be designed to stop automatically if they sense an object in their path.

Think about it. Either:

1) The "object" threshold is high, which means the first time this kills a toddler, there will be a massive lawsuit

or

2) The "object" threshold is low, which means these will be out of commision the moment a piece of trash crosses their path

Neither setting is workable in a city.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

This is because Microsoft introduced the concept of the CLR, or common language runtime.

To cite just one example, the author seems never to have heard of the venerable UCSD P-SYSTEM

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

In fact, censorware is a control system. It is designed to control what people read. This is a different technical problem. Thus, as a consequence, it is impelled to ban anonymity, privacy, language translation sites, and even e.g. the Google cache, because all of these represent escapes from control.

Is it s deep wish of mine that this idea get past the reflex reactions, and into the thought processess, but so far I have failed.

See, for example, my reports on:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs Google: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

And, older, SmartFilter's Greatest Evils: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

I hope to get more material of this sort released in the near future, but, frankly and bluntly, the politics of publicity is quite onerous. (yes, in part there I'm talking about Michael Sims and the story of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org))

In fact, censorware is a control system. It is designed to control what people read. This is a different technical problem. Thus, as a consequence, it is impelled to ban anonymity, privacy, language translation sites, and even e.g. the Google cache, because all of these represent escapes from control.

Is it s deep wish of mine that this idea get past the reflex reactions, and into the thought processess, but so far I have failed.

See, for example, my reports on:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs Google: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

And, older, SmartFilter's Greatest Evils: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

I hope to get more material of this sort released in the near future, but, frankly and bluntly, the politics of publicity is quite onerous. (yes, in part there I'm talking about Michael Sims and the story of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org))

In fact, censorware is a control system. It is designed to control what people read. This is a different technical problem. Thus, as a consequence, it is impelled to ban anonymity, privacy, language translation sites, and even e.g. the Google cache, because all of these represent escapes from control.

Is it s deep wish of mine that this idea get past the reflex reactions, and into the thought processess, but so far I have failed.

See, for example, my reports on:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs Google: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

And, older, SmartFilter's Greatest Evils: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

I hope to get more material of this sort released in the near future, but, frankly and bluntly, the politics of publicity is quite onerous. (yes, in part there I'm talking about Michael Sims and the story of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org))

In fact, censorware is a control system. It is designed to control what people read. This is a different technical problem. Thus, as a consequence, it is impelled to ban anonymity, privacy, language translation sites, and even e.g. the Google cache, because all of these represent escapes from control.

Is it s deep wish of mine that this idea get past the reflex reactions, and into the thought processess, but so far I have failed.

See, for example, my reports on:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs Google: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

And, older, SmartFilter's Greatest Evils: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

I hope to get more material of this sort released in the near future, but, frankly and bluntly, the politics of publicity is quite onerous. (yes, in part there I'm talking about Michael Sims and the story of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org))

Since when was it a right to receive what ever you want on a freely provided information channel.

A limited public forum is created when the government voluntarily opens a particular forum to the public for expressive activity. See id. at 45. The government can create a limited public forum for all, some, or only a single kind of expressive activity. See, e.g., Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1259 (finding that the government had made the public library a limited public forum for the expressive activity of "communication of the written word"). Even though it is not required to operate such a forum, once the [begin page 21] government does so it "is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum." Perry, 460 U.S. at 46. Therefore, content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations on the expressive activity or activities allowed are permissible if narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest while leaving open ample alternative channels of communication, see Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1262. Any content-based restriction, however, must he "narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." ...

This is from Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, a case involving a public library using censorware on everyone.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. However, I did have something to do with that case :-)

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

If the government provides you with free access, does that give them the right to censor it? I couldn't begin to speak to the Australian constitutionality of this, but I've always wondered about the American constitutionality of similar schemes.

As far as has been answered by the courts so far, the result is a resounding NO. This is from Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, involving a public library using censorware on everyone:

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/81123o p.htm

"Although defendant is under no obligation to provide Internet access to its patrons, it has chosen to do so and is therefore restricted by the First Amendment in the limitations it is allowed to place on patron access. Defendant has asserted a broad right to censor the expressive activity of the receipt and communication of information through the Internet with a Policy that (1) is not necessary to further any compelling government interest; (2) is not narrowly tailored; (3) restricts the access of adult patrons to protected material just because the material is unfit for minors; (4) provides inadequate standards for restricting access; and (5) provides inadequate procedural safeguards to ensure prompt judicial review. Such a Policy offends the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional."

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Note that Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) is not the same as, or even associated with, the US's very own well-known Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

And, sigh, my sig is so poignant these days :-(

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

• Purchasable karma - for a small additional fee, of course ...
• VIP chat with (insert your most-loved Slashdot editor here)
• Voting-out of (insert your most-hated Slashdot editor here)
• Priority consideration in the story-submission queue
• Higher rankings in comment submission

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

City Of Ladue et al. v. Gilleo

An ordinance of petitioner City of Ladue bans all residential signs but those falling within one of ten exemptions, for the principal purpose of minimizing the visual clutter associated with such signs. Respondent Gilleo filed this action, alleging that the ordinance violated her right to free speech by prohibiting her from displaying a sign stating, "For Peace in the Gulf," from her home. The District Court found the ordinance unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ordinance was a "content based" regulation, and that Ladue's substantial interests in enacting it were not sufficiently compelling to support such a restriction.

Held: The ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech. Pp. 4-16.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

(he did the interview with Salon and then submitted the story to Slashdot).

So this is why I feel sorry for him: As you've just shown, O'Reilly's ad-hominem worked. Rather than looking at the evidence, you reacted to how O'Reilly framed the issue. Now, while "having a weblog" does not a journalist make, O'Reilly is a prominent publisher, not some random geek writing a diary. TheoDP will not be able to have his reply to the personal attack heard in a comparable manner, unless it's picked up by someone else in the media. That's a situation which draws my sympathy.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Q: What degree of diligence did BountyQuest exert in trying to understand the very high profile 1-Click submissions? Were people contacted who had actually used or were at least familiar with the prior art described in the submissions? (Submitted by Edie)

TOR: Again, I can't really answer for BountyQuest. However, I imagine that they used the same criteria a court would use, namely to read the documents and to do "pattern matching" on them.

Q: Of the four entries cited specifically by number as "Terrific Submissions" by BountyQuest, Tim O'Reilly chose to exclude only one - #25, which referred to anIBM mainframe system -- from receiving a portion of the $10,000 "unofficial" award, even though it's arguably the most similar to the Amazon patent and represents prior art that Jeff Bezos could have personally used or seen earlier in his mainframe days. Why? (Submitted by Ted)

TOR: Well, I actually thought the Doonesbury cartoon was the best example - it made it pretty clear to me that 1-click shopping was an "obvious" idea. But as programmers say on the net, IANAL (I am not a lawyer), and the lawyers at BountyQuest obviously didn't think that it would pass muster in a court of law as evidence of prior art.

But as to the specific entry you mention - # 25 - it isn't at all clear to me how it's relevant. I didn't read every page, but in scanning through it, I didn't see much evidence of relevance in it. Perhaps if whomever had submitted it had pointed specifically to the passages they thought were relevant, we might have been able to see it as well. But frankly, based on what I did see there, it's hard to see why it was submitted at all!

The three selected entries were patents. The other one (#25) was not. So while it might have been closer in a conceptual sense, it arguably wasn't as close in a patent-law sense.

Though the statement on the BountyQuest 1-Click prior art page gives me pause:

What's also interesting, though, is the number of submissions that talk about simplifying the buying process on the Web without actually inventing 1-Click shopping. Look at submission #25 to see how much work some IBM engineers did on the subject of digital shopping without actually inventing 1-Click.

Anyway, I've probably spent more time on this than I should have. Chalk it up to my extreme sympathy for those subject to journalist attack, because of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

And I've learned some great things by being willing to listen to the target.

TheoDP briefly laid out his complaint in his own words in a Usenet Posting

At the very least, this makes me dubious about the claim by O'Reilly that TheoDP wouldn't explain the relevance of his material.

Hmm, let's compare, O'Reilly claims, regarding TheoDP:

He sent in hundreds of pages of material without any explanation of why he believed any particular part of it invalidated the patent, and all of those who looked at it couldn't see the remotest relevance. Requests for clarification about just what in this material represented prior art were met with avoidance and hostility. His continued harrassment of both me and BountyQuest has convinced me that he's some kind of a crank.

The story gets weirder still. Another contestant in the Amazon sweepstakes has stepped forward, complaining that his entry was one of four BountyQuest cited as a ``Terrific Submission'' but that, unlike the other three, he didn't get any money.

Ted Conway, a freelance programmer in Chicago, submitted details of a system used by IBM in the 1970s to order and ship printed reports. ``The parallels to Amazon's system are very similar,'' Conway tells me. (He notes that Bezos worked at IBM's San Jose research labs in college and likely would have used the IBM system.)

BountyQuest didn't agree and offered Conway a T-shirt as a consolation prize. Conway now accuses BountyQuest of pulling a whitewash to protect Amazon's legal case.

In a Q&A posted today on SiliconValley.com (www.siliconvalley.com/opinion/gmsv/), an online partner of the Mercury News, O'Reilly says Conway's submission isn't relevant to the Amazon patent. But he admits he's not clear how BountyQuest officials researched and judged the entries. Cella declined to answer any questions about the contest.

Matthew Powers, managing partner of the Silicon Valley office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, says it's unlikely the site would try to cover for Amazon.

The Menlo Park patent attorney says the publicity ``would be so valuable for BountyQuest that there's no way in the world they would not have accepted a submission that killed the patent

Pending further evidence. I'm inclined to side with TheoDP. It looks like the power of journalism again. Throw the mud, make the smear, virtually no-one will ever check the evidence, and the target can't fight back. Yes, my experiences do color my view here.

And I've learned some great things by being willing to listen to the target.

TheoDP briefly laid out his complaint in his own words in a Usenet Posting

At the very least, this makes me dubious about the claim by O'Reilly that TheoDP wouldn't explain the relevance of his material.

Hmm, let's compare, O'Reilly claims, regarding TheoDP:

He sent in hundreds of pages of material without any explanation of why he believed any particular part of it invalidated the patent, and all of those who looked at it couldn't see the remotest relevance. Requests for clarification about just what in this material represented prior art were met with avoidance and hostility. His continued harrassment of both me and BountyQuest has convinced me that he's some kind of a crank.

The story gets weirder still. Another contestant in the Amazon sweepstakes has stepped forward, complaining that his entry was one of four BountyQuest cited as a ``Terrific Submission'' but that, unlike the other three, he didn't get any money.

Ted Conway, a freelance programmer in Chicago, submitted details of a system used by IBM in the 1970s to order and ship printed reports. ``The parallels to Amazon's system are very similar,'' Conway tells me. (He notes that Bezos worked at IBM's San Jose research labs in college and likely would have used the IBM system.)

BountyQuest didn't agree and offered Conway a T-shirt as a consolation prize. Conway now accuses BountyQuest of pulling a whitewash to protect Amazon's legal case.

In a Q&A posted today on SiliconValley.com (www.siliconvalley.com/opinion/gmsv/), an online partner of the Mercury News, O'Reilly says Conway's submission isn't relevant to the Amazon patent. But he admits he's not clear how BountyQuest officials researched and judged the entries. Cella declined to answer any questions about the contest.

Matthew Powers, managing partner of the Silicon Valley office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, says it's unlikely the site would try to cover for Amazon.

The Menlo Park patent attorney says the publicity ``would be so valuable for BountyQuest that there's no way in the world they would not have accepted a submission that killed the patent

Pending further evidence. I'm inclined to side with TheoDP. It looks like the power of journalism again. Throw the mud, make the smear, virtually no-one will ever check the evidence, and the target can't fight back. Yes, my experiences do color my view here.

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:27:11 -0500
To: openlaw-announce [at-sign] eon.law.harvard.edu
From: Wendy Seltzer
Subject: [openlaw] Eldred v. Ashcroft to the Supreme Court

From Lawrence Lessig and the Openlaw team:

We are extremely pleased to report that the Supreme Court has today granted cert in Eldred v. Ashcroft. After the case was listed on the court's conference calendar 4 weeks in a row, the court decided to hear the full range of issues in the appeal.

We have gotten this far because of the extraordinary work and support of many many people -- especially the plaintiffs in this case, but also the extraordinary pro bono work of the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.

We would also not be here but for the extraordinary help of a wide range of law professors and volunteer lawyers, who have used the Openlaw process to make our work better. Those professors signed the amicus briefs in this case, as did the Eagle Forum and Cato Institute.

There's just one more step in this process of reversing Congress' mistake: After getting 0 votes in the District Court, 2 votes in the Court of Appeals, and now at least 4 votes in the Supreme Court to hear the case, we now need just 5 to prevail.

Thank you for your continued interest and support. Read more background on the case and join the Openlaw process at http://eldred.openlaw.org/

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

You can't have it both ways. Pick one.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

You can't have it both ways. Pick one.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.
-- John Gilmore

What if censorship is in the router?
-- Seth Finkelstein

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Though I admit it would be very nice if caffeine actually did lengthen life (as opposed ot just making it seem to be lived faster) ...

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

"The defendant is hereby charged with murder, rape, robbery, and being obnoxious".

The prosecution does this because 1) They like to throw lots of mud and see if it sticks, and 2) Sometimes they hope that with the serious crimes, the judge or jury will pile-on the "being obnoxious" charge, and establish case law that can be used later against true enemies-of-the-state.

Then the stories can be "Defendant charged with being obnoxious".
And the web-discussion runs "If being obnoxious is a crime, we are all criminals. 1984, Orwell, Rand etc. etc."

So the problem is that the "being obnoxious" charge often isn't the reason for the case itself. It's a kitchen-sink or mudslinging aspect. On the other hand, it is there, and the fact that the prosecution is trying for it still remains a problem. These situations sometimes aren't simple.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Further, it is ironic that the poster of this story, Michael Sims, has been accused by his former partner in running censorware.org, of effectively censoring ...

You'll note the word censoring isn't in the essay. In this context, it makes for too easy a target, for a distracting high-noise side-argument of getting into a definition-of-censorship debate.

I talk about the corruptions and temptations of the power of journalism, and similar issues. Note I'm not the only person who has such a view of Michael Sims' actions. For example, Jonathan Wallace's account corroborates mine.

But there is a deep irony here (and my message is not completely off-topic). The destruction of censorware.org did (and still does) a lot of harm to the cause of promoting freedom of expression. More personally, I was just musing that were I to find myself in legal trouble for free-speech work, as other programmers have, I sure hope I'd get as much favorable press as has been given to the raisethefist guy. It is one of my biggest worries that Michael Sims, yes that Michael Sims, the poster of the story, would further abuse his editorial position at Slashdot, behave in a spiteful manner similar to how he has done in the past with censorware.org, and make my legal position worse, out of score-settling revenge.

Given how Michael Sims behaves, I think it's an extremely reasonable worry.

And there is the irony for you.

Further, it is ironic that the poster of this story, Michael Sims, has been accused by his former partner in running censorware.org, of effectively censoring that website because people questioned his authority and he happened to control the domain (which he still does, censorware have been forced to set up shop at censorware.net because Sims is still squatting on censorware.org).

The Slashdot editors seem to believe that they are justified in censoring comments which users clearly want to see (as shown by positive user moderation), and if anyone doesn't like it, they should go somewhere else.

Of course, they are right, but their attitude suggests that they believe they are what are valuable about this website, not the users who share their knowledge and opinions in these forums.

Is this comment "off topic"? I challenge the editors to let the readers of this website decide.

But, c'mon guys - if Microsoft pulled something like this, I can hardly imagine the stories it would generate. Most especially that privacy policy change!

I agree with the other comments that the privacy policy change looks like a preparation to sell the data as an asset, in a buy-out or merger. It is certainly extremely suggestive. If it were in fact to concern being cracked or similar, then the logical place to say that is in the "security" section. Instead, it's a free-standing section that effectively disclaims the entire previous policy for extremely vague reasons. That's certainly a BIG change.

Again, what would the Slashdot story be, if Microsoft did that in one of its services?

I should hasten to add that I don't believe there's anything silly, like a specific quid-pro-quo directive. Rob is an extremely nice person that I've seen. But this is the essence of a conflict-of-interest. The idea that our guys are good, upstanding, moral, they never would do something bad ... It may be a sincere belief on the part of the writer, but that's why it's a problem.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

I'm biased and corrupt and you should ignore my opinions on the subject, ...

Yes, publically defending changes made by your owner, especially considering how those changes would likely be savaged if done by an opponent, raises deep issues of conflict of interest which deserve better than such an offhand dismissal.

After all, how different is "You get what you pay for after all", from "If you don't like our click-wrap license, don't use the software"?

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The censorware.org material has long been retrieved, and is mostly back up now at http://censorware.net. As to not having a separate backup, we mistakenly trusted Michael Sims as webmaster.

As you see, the destruction was done by Michael Sims, now a Slashdot editor. There is also a great deal of other politics not mentioned my essay. This had, and has, a significant impact on publicizing recent and future anti-censorware work.

In a moment of frustration over all the grudge-holding politics, compared to front-page slots being wasted on months-old triplicates (not duplicates, triplicates), I vented some of my feelings about Slashdot's editorial lackings in my posting. I shouldn't have done it.

The censorware.org material has long been retrieved, and is mostly back up now at http://censorware.net. As to not having a separate backup, we mistakenly trusted Michael Sims as webmaster.

As you see, the destruction was done by Michael Sims, now a Slashdot editor. There is also a great deal of other politics not mentioned my essay. This had, and has, a significant impact on publicizing recent and future anti-censorware work.

In a moment of frustration over all the grudge-holding politics, compared to front-page slots being wasted on months-old triplicates (not duplicates, triplicates), I vented some of my feelings about Slashdot's editorial lackings in my posting. I shouldn't have done it.

And it's months-old news by now!

Grumble, grumble, are front page slots really going begging? It's unseemly to complain. But at a certain level, it's very sad that I can't get any Slashdot coverage for my anti-censorware work these days, because of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) while months-old news is recycled over and over. Really guys, if you need a good story, I have plenty of deserving ones that are languishing for lack of journalistic backing!

And it's months-old news by now!

Grumble, grumble, are front page slots really going begging? It's unseemly to complain. But at a certain level, it's very sad that I can't get any Slashdot coverage for my anti-censorware work these days, because of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) while months-old news is recycled over and over. Really guys, if you need a good story, I have plenty of deserving ones that are languishing for lack of journalistic backing!

That is, ask the students: What would it be like to be Montag? How's it feel to have The Hound (take it as a symbol for the legal system) nipping at your heels, or seeing it devour others? To have your employer give you an "out" for your activities, and would you take it? What if someone could advance their career by doing ill to fellow booklovers?

Now, honestly, Jon Johansen and DeCSS is actually a better individual example. It's not inconceivable that one of the students could find themselves in a similar situation (below is one of my favorate quotes, where Jon is responding to reporter Declan McCullagh, given Declan was arrogantly giving Jon a hard time for not immediate returning Declan's request for comment):

Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:26:23 +0100
From: Jon Johansen (Micro Media ADB) digitech@m...
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats

I assume you've read a great deal of articles on the subject? If you have, you might have noticed that I'm only 15 years old; which means I go to school. Norway is GMT+01. You should be able to figure out the time difference, and when I would be available for comment :)

That is, Fahrenheit 451 takes place in metaphor. But there's real battles going on right now, right this minute, and there's real-life opportunities to be Montag. But beware The Hound.

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

"If a ReplayTV customer can simply type 'The X-Files' or 'James Bond' and have every episode of 'The X-Files' and every James Bond film recorded in perfect digital form and organized, compiled and stored on the hard drive of his or her ReplayTV 4000 device, it will cause substantial harm to the market for prerecorded DVD, videocassette and other copies of those episodes and films," the lawsuit states.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Farsite is just one of several projects at Microsoft Research and other labs around the world that will render operating systems all but unrecognizable in 10 years.

How long has it taken for Microsoft to make an OS that simply DOES NOT CRASH?!

With around 15 years of work and refinement, they may just about have gotten to that point with Win2000 and WinXP. How much effort did it take them to do long file names, for heaven's sake? Let's not even get into issues about the quality of multitasking.

I simply can't take a prediction seriously that a (real) Borg Operating System will be a reality in 10 years. Especially coming from Microsoft. Heck, I wouldn't believe such a prediction from an OS company I respect. But from Microsoft??? Consider the source.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

In only one of the e-mail accounts, I provided all of the information requested (name, address, demographics, etc.) during the registration process, and I used this e-mail address just one time - to purchase a gift certificate from Borders.com. Less than a week later, the spam started rolling in - jamming the in-box with more spam than the other new accounts I had created.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The two sides settled out of court in June, and Greenspun gave up his fight for control. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but Greenspun has since purchased an RV and an airplane.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

You seem to think that if someone is a Libertarian, then any criticism of a pro-government figure must be politically motivated. Sorry, but that's simply not logical.

I think that if:

a) Someone is a dogmatic, extreme, Libertarian
and
b) Knows some of the best technical sources,
but
c) Ignores them, and derides them, in favor of political sources which state exactly what a dogmatic, extreme, Libertarian wants to hear

THEN, inductively, they are politically motivated.

Indeed, this seems like a sound chain of inductive logical reasoning to me.

Please do not reply with trivial counter-arguments, such as the idea that we can never fully know the contents of a person's mind, and thus no statement about their motivations can ever be proved in an absolute sense.

[Combining replies]

It implies that McCullagh's motivations are not political, but career-oriented ("yellow journalism", as the poster said it).

Correction: It implies for that LiViD article series, his motivations were, etc. You've incorrectly imputed to me the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

Look, can I point out you haven't made one focused rebuttal? That is, every response is either to something I didn't say (a straw man, or imputed hasty generalization), or the trivial objection that an induction can't be absolute like a deduction.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

You offered no evidence that his motivation was based on political leanings. Therefore, ...

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Libertarians typically believe that the government can't do anything right, and they prefer to forget or ignore the part government has played in the Net's triumph. Giving Gore credit means admitting the government's role; distorting and mocking his claims helps deny it.

McCullagh, who is outspoken in his libertarian views, argues that, though he didn't use the word "invent," it is "a not entirely unreasonable paraphrase of the vice president's remarks," and suggests that the pro-Gore comments from Cerf may have a partisan basis: ...

Again, this isn't me. This is Salon . The Libertarian politics is interwoven all throughout the events, from origin to resistance to eventual retraction.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

No offense taken, but note what you've written is in fact much closer structurally to the true argument ad hominem. You've attempted to infer something about the truth of the statements from impolite aspects of them. That is, you've stated my some of my comments are "emotional words" or "political slant", etc. You haven't said they are false. Note the difference.

In fact, they are emotional, because I have very deep and complex associations here. It's a long story. But I'd defend what I wrote as accurate

Moreover, I would assert that a key part of the smear was that it was deliberate. It was not an innocent misquote. Declan McCullagh knows, e.g. Dave Farber. He (Declan) knows who he can ask for factual comments. Rather, the "story" was a deliberate fabrication, and Declan did his best to dismiss people who were "there" via published personal attacks.

Note the difference - Declan did not say that Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn were wrong, AND that the motive for their defense was that they were "Friends of Al". Rather, he dismissed what they said BECAUSE of that, which is classical ad hominem.

Consider the two propositions
1) Declan McCullagh wrote a false story
2) Declan McCullagh wrote the story because he's a Libertarian proselytizer

You are correct to note that #1 can be argued independently from #2. However, it would be incorrect to argue #1 is false because of #2 being argued. And #2 is relevant in itself, and should stand or fall on its own merits.

There really isn't a nice way to say someone wrote a political hatchet-job. But I'd say refusing to discuss that aspect does history a disservice.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The story that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet has been thoroughly debunked by Phil Agre in http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore. and.the.Inte.html and rebutted further later
That meme was a creation of Declan McCullagh, a "reporter" for Wired News who is politically a dogmatic Libertarian so extreme that he managed to get a book chapter using him as a poster-boy for Libertarian ideologues, and a different book chapter using him as Libertarian joke-fodder.

If you think this is flame-bait, the aspect of his fabricated story being a Liberatarian hit-piece on Al Gore was extensively discussed in a debunking by Salon

After Declan McCullagh was repeatedly taken to task for his hatchet-job, over more than year, by everyone who was there, from Dave Farberto Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, Declan finally grudgingly retracted the "story"

But people still repeat it, because urban legends never die.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Maybe this is horror, not humor, but I must laugh here else I'll cry.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

That is so like, uh, not true. I get this while logged in: Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email jamie@mccarthy.vg.

So much for the "free" and "you can see everything at -1 threshold". Appearently someone got pissed at my "Support the firing of Michael Sims" sig and proceeded to mod down 10 of my comments in about 2 minutes (some in old articles at the bottom of the slashboxes). Hmmm. What sucked is that my subnet was banned as well... one of my floormates that doesn't post often (but doesn't tend to "speak his mind" as much as I do...) was banned from posting here too. He asked me about it and I replied "well that's the communist community of Slashdot for you." The editors are a bunch of liars. He can post again, but my IP has been banned from posting for a few days now. I also liked the 3 flamebait mods to the post that was posed at 1. 1-3 = -2??

I get banned from speaking the truth, but the page-widening posts continue. What does this boil down to? Slashdot is afraid of the truth. I often tend to speak my mind and tell it like it is. I guess some people can't handle that.

Slashdot. We support free speech... that is, if we agree with it.

--cscx

Support the firing of Michael Sims from /.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

This motion presents an issue of first impression - may section 1201 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA") be applied to a foreign corporation for conduct allegedly within its purview, but which occurred entirely on the Internet in cyberspace. We believe that law and logic compels the court to conclude that it may not be so applied. Elcomsoft believes and asserts that because of the unique nature of the Internet, it's alleged conduct, which only took place on and by means of the Internet occurred outside of the territorial jurisdiction United States. That is, it was extraterritorial in nature.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Elcomsoft Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

Even if the court were to find that Congress intended for section 1201 to apply extraterritorially, you must nevertheless conclude that the exercise of jurisdiction in this case does not meet constitutional standards. Application of section 1201 extraterritorially is also improper because its application in that manner would violate the norms of due process, including: (1) the rule of lenity; (2) the right of fair warning; and (3) the requirement of a sufficient nexus between the alleged conduct and the United States. "Under the rule of lenity, an ambiguous criminal statute is to be strictly construed against the Government." United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F.Supp.2d 189, 216 (S.D.N.Y.2000). The principle of fair warning requires those subject to the law have a "fair warning . . . in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear." McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931). In this case, regardless of whether the actions of Elcomsoft are deemed to have occurred within or without the United States, Elcomsoft had no warning that section 1201 could be applicable to its actions.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Valuable information about the FreeSoftware/OpenSource/Linux movements and their excellent, superior software can be found here, here, here, here and here.

Examples of the excellent community spirit within that movement that will help us bring down the evil, illegal Microsoft monopoly: here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Support Free Software! Buy a mug or t-shirt today! This is how open source morons earn their money, you know! By being beggars!

Michael Sims is a liar and void of ethics.