Slashdot Mirror

This was about the Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky scandal...

http://www.spectacle.org/398/h...

The scandal was two-sided...
* Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (did she inhale?)
* Newsweek spiked a well-researched story about Clinton/Lewinsky

Hillary is quoted as saying...

> As exciting as these new developments are.... there are a number of serious
> issues without any kind of editing function or gate-keeping function. What does it mean
> to have the right to defend your reputation, or to respond to what someone says?

From the other side of the political spectrum...

> During a 2012 speech to online activists and citizen journalists, former
> Alaska Governor Sarah Palin reminded them that "the new media rose up
> precisely because the old media failed to tell the truth." And she also
> discussed how much Drudge, who was fast becoming a de facto assignment
> editor, upset the legacy press that ridiculed him and tried to diminish his
> influence even though they were obsessively refreshing his home page.
>
> "That very first new media breakthrough was about 15 years ago when this
> lowly little store clerk in a lowly little apartment equipped with his computer
> and a modem broke one of the biggest stories of the decade. His name was
> Matt Drudge and the rest is history," Palin said in 2012. "And in hindsight, we
> see that the story he broke was more than just a president having an affair.
> To me it was much, much more than that. It was about a major
> old media publication that had spiked the story eleven times."
>
> She reminded today's citizen journalists that the mainstream press did not
> spike the Lewinsky story to "check their facts" but "because as charter
> members of that Democrat Media Complex they were protecting their guy."

I'm old enough to remember the JFK "Camelot era". Back then the public didn't know, but Kennedy was screwing everything in a skirt. Bill Clinton was a choir boy in comparison. But the MSM suppressed the story, and JFK was the "all-American boy".

The American lib-left love the MSM, because they control most of it, with the notable exception of Fox. Back in the JFK era, a president could do all sorts of wrongs, and get it hushed up, because the elite controlled the MSM. Today, not so much. Give me a wide-open internet, with different people pushing their different interpretations. I'll sort it out for myself. No thanks, I don't want Hillary editing/gatekeeping the news.

Years ago I got to work with some machines running cyber sitter.

It was great at blocking things you needed to look at updates software or maybe the news?

BBS flamewar? Blocked!

The trick was it was a url and text based filter so you had to use websites that weren't in its database. And didn't have any ad's on the page that would trigger the filter.

http://www.spectacle.org/alert...

I do not believe that you can have a web filter that is both effective and not a PITA for normal daily use of things that really are no relation to what's intended to be blocked.

You mean like when Sandy Berger was stuffing "secret" Clinton docs down his pants to smuggle them out of the National Archive? THAT kind of secret?

http://www.spectacle.org/0804/...

"...Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a "mistake" and was just "sloppy" when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants, socks, and a leather briefcase.

Upon investigation, Berger admitted that he had "made a mistake," and took them. Unfortunately, Berger says he "lost" some of the documents, but that he returned some of them after his the FBI searched his home. Amazingly, he even returned some documents that the Archive hadn't yet noted were missing! He apologized and said he had just been "sloppy...."

Wiki is not a source of truth, it is a source of editable information often edited for purposes of propaganda. A quick google search finds more articles disproving Wiki than I can count. Here are the first three.

Claiming that killing people saves lives is delusional to the point of insanity. Unfortunately this insanity is alive and well, though today we claim "we must kill all the Muslims to get peace" instead of those "dirty Japs". The only way to justify the delusion is to invent your own version of history, which never happened. Don't worry, I learned the same lessons in public schools and had to learn to think on my own to see the delusion.

If you have doubts, ask yourself if we ever had to land a single troop in Japan to get them to surrender? Check your history! Japan was completely blockaded. They had no ships to defend a convoy, no local production of petroleum, and could not defend themselves from any form of bombardment we were already attacking them with. We had planes fire bombing them at will, without an atomic bomb. There was no reason to invade them, it was only a matter of time before they surrendered. Then ask yourself why we dropped those bombs on non-military targets, because you won't be able to come up with a real answer for that either!.

That is right, we dropped the a-bomb because the US didn't give a shit about human lives or suffering. Our Government had no problem bitching about the Germans with their Jewish concentration camps, but yet we locked up whole families of Japanese Americans in our own. Oh, I know.. we didn't kill the people we put in jail so we were good guys right?

If you want to justify it, at least be honest about the reasons we bombed two cities full of civilians and not military targets. We are the bully that beat up the sickly kid, and people like you laugh about it. Fucking disgusting!

Nobody wants to live on 1000-1500 calories a day because you will feel exhausted and will probably have trouble getting all the needed nutrients while eating so little food

Why would anyone try to live on 1000-1500 calories? Even if you need to lose a massive amount of weight that's not sustainable. Weight loss is all about long term lifestyle adjustments not short term extremes. I've tried in vein to explain this to my fat friends who engage in yo-yo dieting; at one point I did some digging and discovered that the average ration at Alschwitz was in the 1,300 to 1,700 calorie range. Guess what? Most of those people were near death after three months. Even that analogy isn't enough to dissuade the idiots that think it's healthy to engage in starvation diets.

I limited my caloric deficit to a 250-300 calories a day when I needed to lose weight. Guess what? I kept my weight off, without too many yo-yos (the biggest yo-yo for me is winter, living in the Northeast and all....), and I was never so hungry that I hated life or thought about quitting.

Alternately:
Shakespeare was making a lawyer joke

Some highlights from that article:

Far from "eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution" or portraying lawyers as "guardians of independent thinking", it's offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It's hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be "When I'm the King, there'll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot" "AND NO LAWYERS".

and

The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.

You know this is a common misinterpretation, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-misinterpreted-599990.html

Basically the rebellion knows that lawyers maintain order in society and in order to throw it into chaos they need to get rid of the lawyers.

Also,

"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers." Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.

http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

It's a hypothetical situation.

But not difficult to find news reports of similar shootings, jealous husbands/lovers, accidental shootings, mistaken identity.

For example, death facilitated by "law abiding citizens" with guns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083886/Robin-Heidt-Wife-affair-brother-law-drove-gun-family-speaks-time.html
http://www.durhamregion.com/news/crime/article/1610791--documentary-probes-accidental-shooting-of-former-oshawa-teen
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/20/homeowner-shoots-and-kills-teen-who-entered-wrong-home-after-party/
http://www.spectacle.org/996/who.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270105/Phillip-Walker-Sailers-69-accused-killing-Rodrigo-Abad-Diaz-22-pulled-driveway-house.html
http://theadvocate.com/home/4109368-125/death-of-exchange-student-painful

I suppose, in the end it depends if you consider those deaths "for the greater good" - an acceptable consequence of liberal gun control.

I'm sorry. I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

You keep using that quote. I do not think it means what you think it means.

umm.. did you read all that?

For those of you unfamiliar with Shakesphere:

In Act IV, Scene 2 of Henry VI Part 2, Dick says "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

You keep using that quote. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I didn't know Google Lawyers were fans of the Bard

They don't.

I think you will find it was Shakespeare who said "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers!"

Sometimes the old ways are the best!

Most likely, some douchebag attorney will tell you how you are interpreting that line incorrectly. I'm here to pre-emptively say right on!

"But first let's kill all the lawyers" was a quote from an man of evil slant dreaming of his ability to remove his impediments to power. Just so no one walks away from this thinking that "But first let's kill all the lawyers" was stated as a GOOD idea.

Your analysis sucks. Stop carrying water for the carrion class on society.

http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

Famous qoute, "First Kill all the lawyers" seems apropos.

Sir —

Indeed, if you wish to give the rich even greater arbitrary and unfettered powers. Please allow me to present some choice quotes:

"Those who use this phrase pejoratively against lawyers are as miserably misguided about their Shakespeare as they are about the judicial system which they disdain so freely."

From: http://www.howardnations.com/shakespeare.html

"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers." Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.

– and –

As the famous remark by the plotter of treachery in Shakespeare's King Henry VI shows - "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers," - the surest way to chaos and tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of independent thinking.

From: http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

Who do you think sets up any framework for regulatory consequences or enactment of discipline of the stooges for the RIAA?

What exactly do you think would happen in the absence of any such a framework or discipline?

And I know it probably wasn't what was intended within the context of the play, but it sure does seem correct now.

With respect, to quote "First kill all the lawyers" as an argument that being rid of lawyers will result in fewer 'bullies' like the RIAA taking advantage of the poor is absurd and ignorant, not insightful.

Indeed, to quote the article, "The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said last year it would take action against the pair, and has now laid out its case, claiming Gore and Miller were fully aware that the IP data they used to identify accused file-sharers was flawed."

So you propose that we disban and disburse the SRA right at the moment they intend to engage in a process of rectification? You would instead prefer that all the lawyers and the rule of law be disbanded? What punishment then - if any - would you propose to eke out for these defendant lawyers, and on what basis would you make such punishment? How would you bring about a fair process and consistent judgments? Whom do you propose is fit to evaluate the facts and fairness of any punishment, and what limits - if any - do you propose? Should we chop off their heads? How about stoning them? What about their family, children, secretaries, barbers? They all benefitted from the defendants actions. Should we not punish them, too? What about their neighbours, they're probably lawyers too. Why not burn all their houses down?

Or, here's a thought: Why don't we set up a transparent system for evaluating wrongful conduct that's evaluated by impartial individuals with experience in the resolution of disputes and knowledge and insight into a proper measure of punishment. Oh, wait, that's what's happening.

I would think this is exactly the opposite of the time when getting rid of lawyers seems appropriate; it is lawyers who have identified the ill treatment of the public by the accused, lawyers who will pursue a case to bring about justice, and lawyers who will evaluate the wrong and determine the appropriateness of a remedy against them. What judge, jury and executioner do you propose replace all these lawyers?

You can be rid of the bastions of knowledge and reason – lawyers – only at the peril of the concept of principle itself.

Software patents are to the IT community as malware is to operating systems.

First thing to do with a new Windows machine is to remove the Symantec crap which it came infected with. As what to do with all those lawyers I'll just refer to Shakespeare and leave it to you, dear reader, to interpret this quote by the Bard of Avon...

Some excellent thoughts on that quote here. Basically, it agrees with what you're saying and implies that context is important. Sadly, context is unlearned in law school the day after ethics.

IIRC, Wm. Shakespeare already did. http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

Thank you for saving me the effort of finding the link.

We can argue whether slashdot is shilling for Apple this week, if there are more M$ turfers here now than in the past, and so forth. But the one thing I've really noticed is how many apologists for the legal community have shown up here over the years who have desperately tried to get the citizens of the US to throw away our rights.

Here, let me save you lawyers the effort. Shakespeare was NOT speaking in favor of lawyers.

Actually, in the original context , that "kill all the lawyers" line is in praise of lawyers, for they are obstacles to a tyrant's plans.

Methinks you need to read the page you link to. It asserts that the line is not in praise of lawyers:

The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer...

The audience must have doubled over in laughter at [the famous line]. Far from "eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution" or portraying lawyers as "guardians of independent thinking", it's offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It's hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be "When I'm the King, there'll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot" "AND NO LAWYERS". It's a clearly lawyer-bashing joke...

In fact, Shakespeare used lawyers as figures of derision on several occasions...

As long as there are lawyer[s], there will be "lawyer jokes". And lawyers will show how those jokes ring true by trying to explain how such lampooning really constitutes praise for their profession, thus by example justifying the jokes more than ever.

Actually, in the original context , that "kill all the lawyers" line is in praise of lawyers, for they are obstacles to a tyrant's plans.

No it was a praise to tyrant's since they kill lawyers. .

Actually, in the original context , that "kill all the lawyers" line is in praise of lawyers, for they are obstacles to a tyrant's plans.

I think you should reread that page you linked.

Actually, in the original context , that "kill all the lawyers" line is in praise of lawyers, for they are obstacles to a tyrant's plans.

I would like to suggest a single root cause: The Plague of Lawyers.

the issue of lawyers has been going since Shakespearian time (and surely before) so I don't really see what's different there.

However; I think there's something in what you say. There is a single root cause. What fundamentally changed at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century was that the laws of low energy physics where more or less settled. There was a series of major breakthroughs, for example electrodynamics (about 1860 onwards), then quantum physics (1905-1920) and relativity (1905-1930??). These breakthroughs were so big that it took years to understand them and even today we are still working on many of the implications

since that time, fundamental breakthroughs such as QED and the standard theory have been out of reach to normal manufacturing techniques. Rather, interesting work has been in the implications of the older work. For example, the transistor, the laser, the LED and the LCD come directly from quantum physics. Even the light bulb and the electric motor fundamentally need electrodynamics. What day to day object depends on QED? How could you make such a thing? Even GPS is a product of general relativity (making the clocks accurate enough to give position) and quantum mechanics (the devices).

The major discoveries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries have worked through to many other subjects and caused major changes. For example computers need QM and have driven many discoveries in biology and chemistry. Radio comms stems from electrodynamics. Moble phones, require computers, electrodynamics and quantum physics (in the radio circuitry etc). They also use many modern materials which required quantum driven breakthroughs in chemistry and solid state physics. I think we are gradually working through the implications of those discoveries and, whilst there's still quite a roller coaster ride to go, we can really expect things to slow down.

The funniest, most ironic thing, I think, is that where we (you; not me) laughed at our grandparents inability to cope with new stuff; out children (if they survive) will probably laugh at our strange cult like belief in intelligence "singularities" and indefinite exponential improvement. The same predictions of indefinite exponential growth were made about aeroplane engines at one time. And they were followed for some time. Then the advance just stopped.

I think in the UK you need two directors minimum for a company. Have they tried contacting the other(s)?

Hope it doesn't turn out to be another fiasco like censorware.

Just last week I installed CentOS 5.3, doh!

No it wasn't: http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

Though it will be a pain when my wife asks me what that message means, and can't I get it off the screen so she can finish the I.Q. test she's taking... this is important stuff she does, you know, so interruptions should be kept to a minimum...

Then I can teach her what she needs to know about Unbuntu. Should take about 15 minutes.

Shakespeare didn't know about the Internet, or he would have written 'first, we kill all the spammers'.

Aracho-capitalist view (a bit ranty but succinct):
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/wasdin/wasdin10.html/

In depth comparison/analysis:
http://www.spectacle.org/496/dream.html/

That is SO bullshit. Lawyers have been trying to re-interpret Shakespeare, but it doesn't make sense. Try this on for size. Only a lawyer would even try to make this into a defense of lawyers, and expect people to actually swallow it,

Lawyers are an impediment to justice. BTW, the examples you quote were CREATED by lawyers. People should be able to appeal directly to judges, without the rigamorole that lawyers love to use to intermediate themselves between you and the law.

Habeus corpus wasn't created by lawyers - it was a judge who "read in" the requirement. An olden time equivalent to today's "activist judges" that the government so hates.

If you want a real legal opinion, don't ask a lawyer - ask a judge. Lawyers opinions are like assholes - they've all got one, and at least half the time its full of shit, and the judge tells them so.

The fact that you and I can type our various opinions without fear of having our words erased and ourselves imprisoned without trial is because there would be a lawyer there to fight for us.

Those lawyers really helped bring that war criminal Bush to justice, didn't they? Not! - it wasn't in their "best interests", I guess. How about those illegal wire taps and phone intercepts? Lawyers did a real good number stopping them! Riiiight ....

We're more dependent on the media than lawyers when it comes to exposing wrong and preserving our rights. Problem is, "news" produced by FAX or CNN is usually so ingratiating to the administration, you wonder how they managed to get the shit stains off their noses before going on camera.

http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html Does not apply. . .

Who knows what other rulings against property will come of it - or how courts may use this precedent to justify taking others property for some kind of "common good".

Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society."

As the famous remark by the plotter of treachery in Shakespeare's King Henry VI shows - "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers," - the surest way to chaos and tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of independent thinking.
- "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - it's a lawyer joke

It's been a while since any mention of Michael Sims, one-time darling of the sladshdot in-crowd - a person guilty of exactly the tactics mentioned in TFA - has come up.

I think you are making some unfounded assumptions about how easy it is to get guns illegally, and what kind of guns they would be when you found them. I think you are perhaps imagining some sort of evil underworld bristling with high caliber automatic assault weapons. In truth, the majority of illegally obtained guns used in crimes are eventually traced back to a legal sale by a licensed gun shop. Chances are very good that had Cho not been able to buy a handgun from a gun shop, he would bought a handgun from someone who bought a handgun from a gun shop. Not much difference there, really. http://www.spectacle.org/495/guns5.html

There is a difference between 'I want the world to be like this' and 'The world is like this'.

The last time the monarchy in the UK had any power, there was no such thing as the USA. If you want to continue to argue this, you can produce an example of the monarch using their supposed powers any time in the last century or so first, please.

'Inalienable rights' is still just a phrase. Paine's variant (and there have been several) is simply the viewpoint of liberal English society around his time. If what you mean is 'Paine's definition doesn't change over time' then please say so. I'll point out that there are a whole lot of things we'd probably both feel we have a right to which Paine's definitions don't cover. Such as you'd probably object to the police if I set up a giant speaker shouting abuse at you just outside your house. The fact that the police would undoubtedly haul me off for causing a breach of the peace were I to do so is a reflection of the fact that society as a whole does not like people being obnoxious.

Have a look at http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html . It might help you understand the difference between 'right' and 'want' or 'can'.

As far a 'nonhumans cannot think' - well, firstly I see no barrier to recreating a human brain structure by computer simulation (it'd be prohibitively expensive and probably not practically useful but not impossible) and such a thing would certainly pass the Turing test, assuming you didn't pick someone really stupid to copy the brain structure from - secondly, in terms of society, if you prefer you can read 'majority preference of individuals in society' for 'think'. It doesn't affect my argument.

I'm no expert, I've never even read Henry VI. However, Seth Finkelstein makes a good argument that this is in fact a lawyer joke.

http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

Sorry, but no.

Here's what I got on Google from searching "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" is http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html, and they thoroughly explain the context of this quote to make you realize that it is, indeed, a lawyer joke.

Owners of property have a right under our Constitution to sell thier property to another consenting party for whatever price they choose

Wrong. Apparently you've never heard of eminent domain. Or of the history and rationale behind anti-trust laws. Both limit property rights in the United States.

and that right is an inalienable freedom.

Wrong again. The universe has no concept of this fiction you call inalienable or natural rights. If you don't believe me, then go provoke a grizzly bear and then attempt to argue with him/her about your rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

As a consolation, I'm sure Kenneth Lay (posthumously) and British Petroleum would be interested in promoting your point of view.

Difference is the US doesn't deny this to its citizens. A chinese person doesn't know anything other than what the Chinese government tells them.

You guys even re-elected Dubya knowing full well all of the BS that he's pulled.

And in the US, articles this one are available for you to read and form your own opinion.

Chinese don't have that option. Take a look at what Google Images host from:
google.cn

vs:
google.ca

Ah, fair enough. (Good for Seth!) I stand corrected; I'll stop parroting the "Dick was indirectly praising them" argument.

ummitwrote:
> You realize, of course, that Dick was advocating that not 'cause he thought the lawyers
> were scum, but because he was afraid they'd be righteous and unmasking of the atrocites that
> Cade and his rabble were contemplating...

I find the other opinion more to my liking.

However, you are somewhat right. Not all lawyers are scum.
The problem is that 99% of them give the others a bad name.

The main precedent on such in the internet era is the Thomas AABBS case. Poking around, I've been unable to find a copy of their BBS terms of service (if they even had one). Many adult sites expressly set in the terms of service what the governing jurisdiction is; EG, AT Kingdom's TOS, part XVII. A. (SFW, unlike the rest of the site).

On the other hand, it's not clear that that would be sufficient to get around 18 USC 1465, given the appellate ruling from US v. Thomas.

On the gripping hand, IAmNotALawyer; it may be perfectly clear to your attorney. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't create any new legal tangles; it just fails to clear up the existing one, because there is no concrete case to nail the theory to. It sounds like the courts are saying "don't come back until you can point to a specific case of bad prosecution." They want a clear, non-hypothetical case, where the business was in one place, and the prosecution somewhere else. Until then, they have other non-hypothetical cases on other important matters to occupy their time.

As to your hypothetical example, the TOS ought to be linked to from any splash page. It would also not be unreasonably paranoid to redirect any http request indicating an outside referrer to the splash page (as is fairly standard), to make sure the TOS have been agreed to (as well as to cut down on bandwidth leeching).

http://www.spectacle.org/795/amateur.html is a story of the reality of "venue shopping".
Sad, but true that ANYONE can drag anyone in the US into their local courts and prosecute them.

"Arbeit Macht Frei" - Words on the gate of the Auschwitz.

The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.

They can filter all the porn they want -- as soon as they can define it: http://www.spectacle.org/296/opt.html (Safe For Work)

(Or, even better, tell me why it's immoral.)

More seriously:

There are some fine lines between art and porn...stuff like: http://konzababy.tripod.com/photography.htm
(?Not?Safe?For?work?) Click the tiny image to enlarge. -- Is this art or porn? (I say art 100%)

Even closer still are things like http://www.domai.com (Not Safe For Work)

See this interview (Not Safe For Work) on domai.com for an interesting dialog about nudes/art/porn. -- Is Domai Porn? Difficult to say (I lean more toward yes, but I have reservations)

Any thoughts? What makes porn ... porn?

Try having a student-led demonstration in the capitol of each country. (Anybody remember Tiananmen quare?)

Ah yes, the "but china is worse so that makes it ok" defense. Does anyone remember Kent State?

"Now here in the U.S. we've traditionally taken a dim view of such heavy handed government tactics"

Really? Nobody even got punished for this one:

http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html

Not if anyone but Sony changes it. Sony owns the CD Trademark AFAIK and thus can simply declare the new format the "CD".

Philips is serious about maintaining CD compatibility, and has forced the purveyors of incompatiple DRM schemes to clearly label that they are not compatible with the standard.

See, e.g., http://www.spectacle.org/0702/evan.html

--kirby