Slashdot Mirror

GINGRICH: In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is - and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got there, we were both part of a 'futures group' - the fact is, in the Clinton administration the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen. You can see it in your own life, between the Internet, the computer, the cell phone.

starting in 1994, Gore has added two years to his journalistic experience, upping the figures from the five years he once claimed to seven.

GINGRICH: In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is - and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got there, we were both part of a 'futures group' - the fact is, in the Clinton administration the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen. You can see it in your own life, between the Internet, the computer, the cell phone.

starting in 1994, Gore has added two years to his journalistic experience, upping the figures from the five years he once claimed to seven.

True, but I just read this. So much for the idea that American laws hold no water in other countries. Our corporate government will find any way to push itself on other countries when money is involved, it seems...

Shameless plug: That's why I'm voting Nader!

-------

I got into a discussion (read: name calling session) on /. the other day regarding misstatements/falsehoods told by Gore, and misstatements/falsehoods told by the media in reporting them. The entire thread starts here, but if you're interested specifically in the "invented the Internet" story, check here .

In summary: Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn credit Gore with having more effect on the the development of the Internet than anyone else in public life. Declan McCullagh, the guy who broke the story in the first place, talks about how the story was mishandled by the press. Finally, The Washington Monthly reports on "how the press has exaggerated Al Gore's exaggerations."

And finally, because I wind up having to make this disclaimer every time I get involved in this topic, I do not consider myself to be a Gore supporter, let alone apologist, even though I'll probably wind up voting for him.

See?

Wired News (http://www.wired.com/) has a little debate going between Nader and Reed Hundt (Gore adviser and former FCC chairman). In one of the last articles, "Al Isn't Net's Best Friend" (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39295,0 0.html) Nader talked about technology issues and the 'net.

Page 3 is the really juicy part. He's against silly patents (mentions one-click) and is also against software patents. He feels corporations are robbing citizens of rights in order to protect intellectual property. He writes in favor of fair use of IP ("priceless" paradies and all that). He also talks about government endorsement for the "open-source movement".

An interesting read, IMHO.

-Psychochild

Wired News (http://www.wired.com/) has a little debate going between Nader and Reed Hundt (Gore adviser and former FCC chairman). In one of the last articles, "Al Isn't Net's Best Friend" (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39295,0 0.html) Nader talked about technology issues and the 'net.

Page 3 is the really juicy part. He's against silly patents (mentions one-click) and is also against software patents. He feels corporations are robbing citizens of rights in order to protect intellectual property. He writes in favor of fair use of IP ("priceless" paradies and all that). He also talks about government endorsement for the "open-source movement".

An interesting read, IMHO.

-Psychochild

In this article (part of a Wired debate on technology policy between Nader and Gore advisor Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC during the Clinton/Gore administration), Nader speaks up about the CDA, DMCA, silly patents, and other dangers of continuing to elect corporate stooges like Gore and Bush.

Here's a great (although long) quote:

In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?

In the area of corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations, there is no end to what this administration will do for the e-commerce industry.

But when it comes to supporting an astonishing citizen movement that is protecting the Internet from Microsoft and other would-be monopolies and providing huge benefits to the economy, the administration is completely inarticulate.

JMC

In this article (part of a Wired debate on technology policy between Nader and Gore advisor Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC during the Clinton/Gore administration), Nader speaks up about the CDA, DMCA, silly patents, and other dangers of continuing to elect corporate stooges like Gore and Bush.

Here's a great (although long) quote:

In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?

In the area of corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations, there is no end to what this administration will do for the e-commerce industry.

But when it comes to supporting an astonishing citizen movement that is protecting the Internet from Microsoft and other would-be monopolies and providing huge benefits to the economy, the administration is completely inarticulate.

JMC

I'm glad he finally posted something about Nader, but it wasn't Nader's best writing on the subject, and he had to qualify it with "self-promotional" as if the news stories on Bush and Gore are anything other than reprinted press releases from the campaigns!

JMC

I'm glad he finally posted something about Nader, but it wasn't Nader's best writing on the subject, and he had to qualify it with "self-promotional" as if the news stories on Bush and Gore are anything other than reprinted press releases from the campaigns!

JMC

"What good is it to have just one more vote than Russia?"

"Exactly why Mr. Nader is bent on doing all he can -- whether or not intended -- to deliver us into the grip of another, more strengthened Republican government still leaves me dumbfounded."

Last I checked, a vote for Nader adds only to Nader. It adds nothing to either of the opposing candidates. It underscores the fact that we do deserve more than 'one choice more than Russia.' It furthers the outcry of the popular vote when the popular vote is otherwise silenced by a Duopoloistic electoral college.

Maybe instead of improving the quantity of education, they should start with the quality of their own! ;-)

"What good is it to have just one more vote than Russia?"

"Exactly why Mr. Nader is bent on doing all he can -- whether or not intended -- to deliver us into the grip of another, more strengthened Republican government still leaves me dumbfounded."

Last I checked, a vote for Nader adds only to Nader. It adds nothing to either of the opposing candidates. It underscores the fact that we do deserve more than 'one choice more than Russia.' It furthers the outcry of the popular vote when the popular vote is otherwise silenced by a Duopoloistic electoral college.

Maybe instead of improving the quantity of education, they should start with the quality of their own! ;-)

Wired is running an article in which Declan McCollough traces the history of the mythical contention by Al Gore that he "invented the Internet". The article compares to Bogart's never-actually-uttered famous phrase, "Play it again, Sam." Just an FYI.

jMC
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Oh really? For someone so obviously indoctrinated as to not recognize that Gore is an even more pathological liar than his boss, here's a link to an actual transcript of the CNN program where Gore claimed to have created the Internet: htt p://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/pre sident.2000/transcript.gore/

Indoctrination implies that I'm in some way a Gore shill, which is far from the case. As I've stated before, I am not a Gore apologist, or even a supporter, despite the fact that he's probably going to wind up with my vote. The way I see it, I have the choice of voting for someone I don't trust to do the right things, or someone I do trust to do the wrong things. If this is damning with faint praise, so be it.

It's also interesting that you selected your words in the manner that you did. The most common version of the story is that Gore claimed to have "invented" the Internet, which he obviously did not. Most news agencies played fast and loose with this distinction.

However, you've provided me with a reference, so I'll provide you with a couple of my own. If I really, desperately wanted to refute your accusation regarding the "creatation of the Internet" story, what would I look for? Well, first I'd look for a rebuttal by the guy who broke the story to begin with. Then, I'd look for a statement by key Internet muckity-mucks - I dunno, IETF members or something - claiming that Gore was all that and a bag of chips.

To wit:

• The Mother of Gore's Invention, an article by Declan MucCullagh, the guy who broke the story. Relevant quotes: "...Gore in the 1980s supported universities' efforts to increase funding for NSFNet, a measure that became law in the High Performance Computing Act of 1991. Gore's guest columns in Byte magazine at the time showed an appreciation of technology that was far from usual on Capitol Hill. "
• Did Al Gore Really Invent the Internet?, an article by none other than Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (whose names I assume you recognize, seeing as how you were "following the development of the Internet fairly closely at the time"). Relevant quote: "As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. ...No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President."

When Vint Cerf says, "This guy was important in the creation of the Internet," I listen. In the face of that statement, the speech which is the subject of your complaint seems to drop from the realm of outright falsehood into mere political hyperbole. In the shitty political climate of the US these days, I find it difficult to get worked up about that.

I found this interesting little piece between Nader and one of Al Gore's advisors. It's sheds some interesting light on Nader's position; I think many people here would be interested in hearing it. Vote Nader!

Nader's latest article discusses a lot of issues close to our (dark) hearts, including privacy regulation for e-commerce business, and patents on 1-click shopping.

Here's a great (although long) quote:

In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?

In the area of corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations, there is no end to what this administration will do for the e-commerce industry.

But when it comes to supporting an astonishing citizen movement that is protecting the Internet from Microsoft and other would-be monopolies and providing huge benefits to the economy, the administration is completely inarticulate.

JMC

Nader's latest article discusses a lot of issues close to our (dark) hearts, including privacy regulation for e-commerce business, and patents on 1-click shopping.

Here's a great (although long) quote:

In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?

In the area of corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations, there is no end to what this administration will do for the e-commerce industry.

But when it comes to supporting an astonishing citizen movement that is protecting the Internet from Microsoft and other would-be monopolies and providing huge benefits to the economy, the administration is completely inarticulate.

JMC

In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?

"There is a break point in bandwidth around a million bits, or a megabit, per second. If you get below a million bits you notice the lack of speed. But with anything above 1.5 million bits you hardly notice the increase; the difference between 2 megabits and 10 megabits is negligible. It is really surprising."

Good point, and you know that's what they are going to try to do. It has already been widely noted that they will be trying to "marginalize" MP3s.

The first players that come out will be "backward compatible" to your MP3 library. Then along the way they will make a "new and better" player and drop MP3 support all together.

Also, because of the DMCA, you put yourself at risk if you opened a player (even if it was to reverse engineer/make modifications so your new player can play MP3s). Copyright violation is now a federal criminal offense instead of just of a civil one. Which means you could do jail time while your neighbor is listening to some new tunes Sony let them download for turning you in!

That's why you have David Corwin, senior counsel for the Motion Picture Association of America, saying that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is "near and dear to our heart."

Sick stuff..

Wired from a couple months ago had an article on the AOL/Time-Warner merger (get it here). It was rather long, but it was very informative, and definitely worth the read if you're not up-to-snuff on the issue. It looks as if these two companies have their leadership infrastructure well planned out. I doubt that there's any chance the merger will just _not happen_. Especially not over something trivial like a bit of a mixup concerning broadband (if such a problem even exists). If anything, the merger is a sure thing; unless of course, the government decides to get involved...or a meteor destroys the north american continent or something. Well, no doubt, the government _will_ get involved (why stop with just Microsoft?); but I'm sure AOL/Time-Warner will get their problems straightened out. It's a natural reaction to fear such an intimidating company, and people will be trying to poke holes in it whenever possible. One could write a book on it. However, the Wired article should suffice. -David "Ryouga" H. Cut the kids in half...

Wired from a couple months ago had an article on the AOL/Time-Warner merger (get it here). It was rather long, but it was very informative, and definitely worth the read if you're not up-to-snuff on the issue. It looks as if these two companies have their leadership infrastructure well planned out. I doubt that there's any chance the merger will just _not happen_. Especially not over something trivial like a bit of a mixup concerning broadband (if such a problem even exists). If anything, the merger is a sure thing; unless of course, the government decides to get involved...or a meteor destroys the north american continent or something. Well, no doubt, the government _will_ get involved (why stop with just Microsoft?); but I'm sure AOL/Time-Warner will get their problems straightened out. It's a natural reaction to fear such an intimidating company, and people will be trying to poke holes in it whenever possible. One could write a book on it. However, the Wired article should suffice. -David "Ryouga" H. Cut the kids in half...

Stuff Nader said about some of the patent issues that have been discussed on Slashdot.

When I read this, it at least makes me think he has managed to get himself informed on some of the issues.

And what can we expect from Mr. Gore on the issue of intellectual property rights? Right now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is pushing as hard as it can for the public to accept patents on business methods.

We have patents on methods of Internet auctions, patents on one-click shopping, patents on methods of picking stocks, patents on methods of avoiding taxes on credit card transactions, patents on methods of political campaigning on the Internet, and even patents on Internet Web standards.

Mastercard has foolishly sued me, claiming their trademark rights can stop my use of parody in political ads, including using the word "priceless" itself.

There are lawsuits over hypertext links in Web pages. The Girl Scouts are told to pay royalties on campfire songs. Trade-secret laws are now a federal criminal offense. Students have been thrown in jail for refusing to turn patents over to giant corporations who fund university facilities.

I am opposed to patents on software, and opposed to patents on business methods. I believe that parody should be protected in copyright and trademark, that copyright enforcement should not override privacy rights, and that use of patents, trademarks and copyrights should be limited by fair use, and when necessary, compulsory licenses.

The public domain should be protected, and public figures need to speak out against the ever-escalated march of corporate lobbying for expanding intellectual property rights. -- Nader on IP

At least he reasons, as opposed to jabbering emotionally loaded nonsense at us.

Of course, to me, all that stuff is Big Government stepping all over people, and I'm sure to Nader its Big Corporations controlling the government. Still, at least he's thinking.

This doesn't mean I plan on voting for him or otherwise endorsing him, but it is nice to read something coherent and rational.

Stuff Nader said about some of the patent issues that have been discussed on Slashdot.

When I read this, it at least makes me think he has managed to get himself informed on some of the issues.

And what can we expect from Mr. Gore on the issue of intellectual property rights? Right now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is pushing as hard as it can for the public to accept patents on business methods.

We have patents on methods of Internet auctions, patents on one-click shopping, patents on methods of picking stocks, patents on methods of avoiding taxes on credit card transactions, patents on methods of political campaigning on the Internet, and even patents on Internet Web standards.

Mastercard has foolishly sued me, claiming their trademark rights can stop my use of parody in political ads, including using the word "priceless" itself.

There are lawsuits over hypertext links in Web pages. The Girl Scouts are told to pay royalties on campfire songs. Trade-secret laws are now a federal criminal offense. Students have been thrown in jail for refusing to turn patents over to giant corporations who fund university facilities.

I am opposed to patents on software, and opposed to patents on business methods. I believe that parody should be protected in copyright and trademark, that copyright enforcement should not override privacy rights, and that use of patents, trademarks and copyrights should be limited by fair use, and when necessary, compulsory licenses.

The public domain should be protected, and public figures need to speak out against the ever-escalated march of corporate lobbying for expanding intellectual property rights. -- Nader on IP

At least he reasons, as opposed to jabbering emotionally loaded nonsense at us.

Of course, to me, all that stuff is Big Government stepping all over people, and I'm sure to Nader its Big Corporations controlling the government. Still, at least he's thinking.

This doesn't mean I plan on voting for him or otherwise endorsing him, but it is nice to read something coherent and rational.

This is known in the science trade as salami science: slice your work really thin and publish lots of short, incomplete articles so your c.v. looks more impressive. Why can't Wired write a single carefully researched Mars article instead of lots and lots of shallow ones?

The Wired articles are also pretty pathetic because they never include any out-going links to more substantial academic or government articles. If Wired is supposed to be an example of really modern internet journalism, why do they use the web as if it was made of dead trees?

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers

But the times, they are a changin' Judge Upholds Video Game Ban

To quote the judge:

It would be an odd conception of the First Amendment ... that would allow a state to prevent a boy from purchasing a magazine containing pictures of topless women in provocative poses, but give that same boy a constitutional right to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parents' permission.

The law requires coin-operated games featuring graphic violence or strong sexual content to have warning labels and be kept at least 10 feet from nonviolent game machines. The machines must also be separated by a curtain or wall so minors cannot see them. The law bars people under age 18 from such games unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

Businesses would be fined $200 per day for a violation; three violations in a year could lead to the revocation of a business's amusement location license.

No what's really happening here is the arcade industry is being deliberately targetted for destruction by the forces of ignorance.

America, a Free Country? Not anymore.

Vote Libertarian!

The Detwiler Foundation's Computers for Schools program

A neat Wired article about the people who do the gutting and filleting of the old stuff

I'm sure there are more-- please post what you know! You might want to consider volunteering with one of these groups, too; users aren't likely to get the most out of an old machine without some guidance or help. But they can learn, and you might feel better about yourself for having helped to lessen the digital divide a bit for a person or two who could really use a machine, any machine.

Granted, not all old equipment is useful. But much of it is far more useful than some of us gearheads might think. Better in the hands of someone who might actually use it than taking up space in a landfill.

It's the Network Economy, after all, and for some, just being able to participate means a hell of a lot more than having a machine with mHz instead of gHz. As Harry Tuttle said in Brazil, "Hey, we're all in this together".

The current Wired has a 50-page article which covers each of your points in detail & refutes them, Mr. troll.

You can read it on the newsstand now or here when it's released: The Truth The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth

As for your silly example of Apple: look up the definition of tying. Hint: it does not apply when two products have always been sold together.

--

Wired referred to the court as having "technical savvy" for putting details of this case up on a web site. What they don't mention is that the web site is not only running IIS, but the documents are accessed via a "microsoft.asp" page.

Be sure to check out this article in Wired from a few months back about using porous crystals to do an all-optical switch that is also solid state. Apparently older models used thousands of little rotating mirrors! The same technology can be used for regulating other kinds of waves including sound waves and wave waves (like in the ocean).

I'm not sure what you meant by "record them" in that sentence, but borrowing tapes/cds from friends is absolutely NOT illegal. This is part of "fair use", and has been ruled that way by the courts. See, for instance, how David Boies, the lead attorney defending Napster, describes it in this Wired interview.

So if the DMCA is providing 'a technical implementation' of something, it certainly isn't for 'existing laws.' In fact, it's about to make illegal something that has always been legal to do.
________________

Look at the constitution;

Article I section 8 of the constitution states that the purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors exclusive right to their respective Writings...."
(bold mine)

This is clear. It says that the copyright should go to the author. It does not say that it goes to the author's children, grandchilderen, distant relatives, or corporate interest. When congress originally passed the first extension to the copyright law in 1831 (upon renewal for a total term of 28years) none of the original framers of the constitution were even in the congress to vote on it, and only one (Madison) was alive.

Retroactive changes to the length of a term of copyright are wrong, in my opinion. I would have no problem with Disney lobbying for longer and longer copyright terms .

The problem is that "ex post facto" is Disney's middle name. See here. So it's ok for big money to argue for retroactive changes, but if the public does, then screw them??? The thing is that if the public ever does, they don't have the money "to grease the wheels" to move legislation through. There are no glamerous movie stars, no expensive parties, no expensive lobbyists to take congress out to dinner. That's they way it has been for the last tenty-five years until now you have David Corwin, senior counsel for the Motion Picture Association of America, saying that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is "near and dear to our heart." See here.

The fact of the matter is that anybody who studies this issue even just a little bit realize that the public's interest has aalways been nothing more than an afterthought. Indeed, the author of this analysis noted that with the task force on the DMCA;

The message of these recommendations seems to be that the Task Force will see what rights are left over for the public once the rights of the authors have been firmly established.

And this was before the passage of the Sonny Bonno Copyright Term Extension Act!

So we have reached the point now that the only rights left to take away are constitutional ones, such as freedom of speech, fair use, the right of first sale, and the established right to reverse engineer and have interoperability. So now copyright holders are taking those too!

What really has been "ex post facto" has been the endless retroactive copyright terms over the last 40 years.

with Disney lobbying for longer and longer copyright terms if the longer terms only affected new works

For the first time in our history, nothing is falling into the public domain due to the CTEA. So, as a citizen, why should I support some government granted monopoly if I get nothing in return??? Where is the Quid Pro Quo???? These same companies that are suing Napster are the ones who lobbyied and effectively "paid" congress for the CTEA, not to mention the DMCA. Look at it, what is this story and thread about?? Companies who do not want us to use Napster or DVDs on linux, but at the same time are taking our fundamental rights as citizens away, not to mention the old (and I mean old) works that were supposed to enter the public domain?

So what reason do I have to support their so called "copyright" when they are effectively taking all my "rights" away????

Time for a little counterpoint, don't you think?

If the term length is set by legislation (I am not certain if it is or not), then in what way is this not ex post facto?

If you read the constitution, the "right to copy" was originally intended to go to the author only for limited times. So the only "ex post facto" here is the endless copyright term extensions??

It's so ludicrously bad now, that you have the government arguing that extending copyright is a national tradition This statement (in their brief to the appelant court, see openlaw) is so outrageously absurd that it defies description. So by their reasonong, congress twenty years ago had planned on retroactively extending copyright terms now, and in another twenty years they are going to do it again, ad infinitum???

Why didn't congress back in 1976 just extend copyright law for another 100 years? Or is congress just trying to "circumvent" the "limited times" clause of the constitution???? What's "ex post facto" about saying that is wrong??

So, what congress is doing is whoring themselves to special corporate interests by defrauding the public of their due. There is no nicer way to put it.

Please forgive me if this post seems like a flame. But your statement illustrates perfectly why many of us over at openlaw shake our heads. On the surface it seems very logically and correct, but in reality it could not be further from what is right. I'm really glad you made your post, because it illustrates beautifully the widespread ignorance of how the publics' rights are being ripped off by a prostituted congress. I do not say this lightly.

So I invite you to become familiar with the openlaw site, and I hope to see you on the discussion boards there. Some of the people their are extremely smart, and when I open my mouth I get it slapped!!!

I think this would be a good idea but don't know if there's anyone with the resources to undertake the task. If you could make a business out of it, like maybe Enonymous' Privacy Ratings site, then that might work. I'd monitor it if there was such a site. Maybe someone would want to run something like FuckedCompany.Com but concentrate on slippery privacy practices.

I've found that PrivacyDigest and WebVeil do a pretty good job of keeping abreast of the news. Privacy Digest is better because it is more comprehensive, but WebVeil is selective, seeming to focus on privacy for consumers specifically rather than everything that is privacy under the sun. Otherwise, I just pay attention to and filter what the paranoids are saying in alt.privacy or check on the privacy issues section of Yahoo and Wired.

I've like to make a great quote from an otherwise pretty bad movie:

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
-Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) in Jurassic Park

There was a great article in Wired 6 months ago by Bill Joy (yeah, that Bill Joy), that brought up some of the issues we see here. Check it out.

Now, I don't agree with alot of what Joy postulates, but the subject needs serious consideration. NOW. Not tomorrow, not when we get around to it. Because putting off a discussion and a decision means we don't have one at all. We'll just turn around one day, and wonder, "How did we get in the fucking mess?"

I'm not really sure about this story - I don't have all the details, so I'm reserving judgement (or at least, an opinion).

We humans (especially Westerners, and particularly Americans) like to cheat. We don't like to play the hand Fate deals us, so we dicker, moan, whine, and complain to the dealer, while we busily re-arrange the cards to our liking, then say, "Oh, jeeze, look what I've got!" I'm all for stacking the deck in your favor, don't get me wrong. Transplants, drug therapy, all sorts of operations and treatments, hell, they're great.

What bothers me is that we're rapidly approaching the point where we start to use other people as parts banks for ourselves. "Oops, drank too much liquor over the last 10 years, better warm up that clone I had growing in the bank, I need a new liver..."

You can argue that its already starting, with the trade in black-market organs (particularly kidneys) harvested from the 3rd world for 1st world clients. That's bad (and if you think those people really are giving them up by their free will, dream on).

If you and the wifey are at high risk for having a kid with a major genetic problem, well, maybe you shouldn't be having kids. Adopt a kid - they're plenty available, waiting for a nice home. But, not, we're selfish. Gotta have it. And when it doesn't work out, well, whine, and try to rig the game.

Do what you can for yourself. But the minute you start messing with other people's lives to cover for your mistakes (or hell, even to cover for the screwy hand of Fate), well, that's a line I think we better not cross.

-Erik

No we will not run out of "fossil fuels" because fossil fuels may not have came from fossils.
Read the wired article about it. But I do agree we should find an alternative soon so we do not have to be dependent on only that type of fuels.

Baldur's Gate 2, that is pretty much a given.

Rio 500 MP3 player, which you can pick up for cheap at Audible.com, last time I checked.

A subscription to Wired.

VMWare for the geek in all of us.

A new video card, though I don't know specifics.

From the Wired magazine archives, here's a great article on the history of Ted Nelson and the Xanadu project: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.06/xanadu.htm l

Not only did I win, but Wired interviewed me. The complete article, by Joyce Slaton, is available at: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,39038,00. html Check it out. I'm "Gamer" John Woods of Arlington, VA, by the way. To be honest, I didn't expect to win--I was just sending in a description of a funny thing that happened to me...and kaboom! They wanted to interview me! I hope they send me a T-shirt or something... Aciel aciel@speakeasy.net

Can anyone explain Taco's thought process as to what is considered news and what isn't?

To me, this was news when the contest was ANNOUNCED, and people might have a chance to participate. Therefore I submitted this story but it was rejected.

Now the story is no longer news, it's just history.

NOTE TO MODERATORS: Go ahead and moderate me down, I'm so far over the 50 point cap that harldy matters anymore.

A somewhat related topic...here is a Wired article about 3D LCD's, pretty cool if you ask me.

Note: This wasn't cool enough to make the main page so I thought I would share it here.

A somewhat related topic...here is a Wired article about 3D LCD's, pretty cool if you ask me.

Note: This wasn't cool enough to make the main page so I thought I would share it here.

In this vein, see:
This article by Bill Joy. Very interesting, and sobering article.

CNN has this story.
Wired has this one.

Wired says Akamai and Sandpiper were the first to "use the trick of rewriting URLs as a hook into the alternative system." That is, Akamai's technology doesn't just perform routing-optimization, it breaks the connection between domain and location and rewrites the address entirely, using any of a large number of servers for the new route. A short time later or connecting from a different machine the redirection taking place is likely to be entirely different.
Wired's article (dated August 99) states clearly Akamai and Sandpiper were the first companies to use algorithms for actual rewriting of addresses. The cofounder of Akamai, Danny Lewin wrote the algorithms as part of his thesis and mathematics and patented it.

DFN, the Digital Freedom Network is running a contest until September 25th to find the most egregious example of censorware error. The Foil the Filters contest is being held to coincide with the American Library Association's Banned Books Week.

Entries can be either a site you'd expect to be filtered that wasn't, or one that shouldn't have been but was. WIRED is running a story on it here

DFN, the Digital Freedom Network is running a contest until September 25th to find the most egregious example of censorware error. The Foil the Filters contest is being held to coincide with the American Library Association's Banned Books Week.

Entries can be either a site you'd expect to be filtered that wasn't, or one that shouldn't have been but was. WIRED is running a story on it here

If this is informative and not Offtopic than I have got VERY informative link about P2P Pages
Wired's Guide to Global File-Sharing

This list of 240-plus downloads, services, and information resources - most of them free - is designed for experienced P2Pers and novices alike.

The article mentions "The serial number issue has been raised before, most famously in early 1999 in a clash with Intel over its Pentium II computer chip. ", however, this whole fiasco was over the Pentium III chip as illustrated by this wired article.

I'm frustrated by Wired on-line's unwillingness to cover this story. Not a peep out of them. They're supposed to be disconnected in all ways from the print version, so why won't they do a story on this?

I've e-mailed them twice about this, but I'm yet to receive a response. I assume that they really are tied to the print version still, and they're simply not allowed to write about it. Still, I guess I've come to expect more of Wired. I never thought I'd see the day when C|Net was proved to be a more useful news resource than Wired.

-Waldo