Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Eldred, Cruise, SOAP

Slashback tonight with several updates, ranging from patent encumbrances to SOAP 1.2 to the transcript for Eldred v. Ashcroft, with more bits in the middle on the recent Geek Cruise in the Caribbean, the all-important cable TV lineups, and more. Read on below for the details! A little light reading. hayek writes "The transcript of oral argument at the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft is now available online."

And then we saw the sharks. a9db0 writes "Part II of Doc Searl's travelogue recounting his experiences on the Geek Cruise has been posted here by the fine folks over at the Linux Journal"

In an earlier report from Geek Cruise, Linus predicted 2.6 by June 2003. If you liked the list of features being considered for 2.6, you can thank puriots0 for "the list of what's been included in time for the feature freeze for Linux 2.6", as found at kernelnewbies.org.

Peel back your eyelids and let these images flood your brain. strredwolf writes "I think we had half the story when Cartoon Network said they were going to remove Zoids and G Gundam in their Toonami block. It was more like remove Zoids, move G Gundam to Midnight Run with GI Joe, put HeMan and Transformers on full weekdays, and double up on DB and DBZ. The website and broadcast prove it now. (This report was done while watching to Toonami live.)"

And Stalke writes "Recently, rumours about Stargate SG1 7th season included it both being renewed as well as speculation that it might be cancelled. MGM and Scifi put those rumours to rest today by officially announcing a 7th season. It will begin filming next year with a full 22 episodes ordered. No word about Daniel Jackson returning though :("

Cracking down on alien fraudsters. yep writes "Administrators of the alien-hunting distributed computing experiment SETI@home have announced they will crack down on cheats who rort statistics on computing power lent to the project. The announcement follows a united protest from the chief contributors. SETI@home director David Anderson announced SETI@home would do its best to investigate users returning suspiciously high amounts of work and delete their accounts if it uncovered solid evidence of cheating."

Sure they're not. tiltowait writes "The Hartford Courant article "The FBI Has Bugged Our Public Libraries" has been retracted (this was mentioned here - but the older article has been removed). Even if the retraction can be trusted, this doesn't change the fact that the FBI can still bug libraries as freely as the CIA can assasinate with impunity, or that more McCarthyism is on the way."

This story retracts the claims of bugging made in the previous one. Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial.

Cleaning up the future for SOAP. Makarand writes "A major hurdle in finalizing the SOAP 1.2 specification has been removed. Both Epicentric, a subsidiary of Vignette, and WebMethods, which makes integration software, had said in earlier statements that they may have patents that cover the technology used in the SOAP 1.2 specification which would have made SOAP 1.2 non royalty-free hindering approval by W3C. Epicentric has now amended its earlier statement saying they no longer believe they hold any such patents, and even if they did, they are interested in making them available on a royalty-free basis. WebMethods has made no comments yet."

181 comments

  1. Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? by ekrout · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I were you guys I'd probably avoid Slashdotting the Supreme Court...

    Just a thought, though, not a sermon ;-)

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    1. Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? by RudeDude · · Score: 3, Informative
      Reposting, I screwed up my own HTML previously

      If their site DOES get Slashdotted...
      The 144KB (*ahem* KiB) PDF is also here.

      --
      RudeDude
      Perl/Linux/PHP hacker
    2. Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were you guys I'd probably avoid Slashdotting the Supreme Court...

      Or at least hold off until January, when the Republican Senate, Republican house and Republican Idiot President start confirming the right winger judges to steal our rights away...

    3. Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? by minion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Karma: n. the total effect of a person's actions during successive phases of their existance

      Karma: n. A thing on /. which every geek envies, but has absolutely no idea what it is.

      --

      -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
    4. Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? by bedessen · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you don't want to read the PDF version of Lessig's arguments, I have converted it to HTML and formatted it for your enjoyment. Here is the link.

      (If you're like me, you find it highly annoying reading a PDF file of pure text, double-spaced with line numbers.)

    5. Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supreme Court == able to handle the traffic. They have dual redundant load balancers that can handle the 900 megs a sec.

    6. Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? by vsync64 · · Score: 1
      Maybe, but your version is worse. At least the PDF has paragraph breaks (look at the very beginning of Lessig's argument).

      Your Slashdot skins are pretty impressive, though.

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
    7. Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? by BenLambert · · Score: 1

      Why then, is the score for this post only 0? This is most intelligent post to Slashdot in my recent memory.

  2. SciFi by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "MGM and Scifi put those rumours to rest today by officially announcing a 7th season. It will begin filming next year with a full 22 episodes ordered."

    Yea? I remeber when SciFi and Jim Henson annouced more seasons of Farscape and full seasons ordered.

    1. Re:SciFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Yea? I remeber when SciFi and Jim Henson annouced more seasons of Farscape and full seasons ordered."

      When dead people say stuff, you damn well listen!

    2. Re:SciFi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Yea? I remeber when SciFi and Jim Henson annouced more seasons of Farscape and full seasons ordered."

      When dead people say stuff, you damn well listen!
      I assume he means Jim Henson Studios
    3. Re:SciFi by hhawk · · Score: 1

      Perhaps John Edwards was involved in a very special esp. of Crossing Over!!

      --
      http://www.hawknest.com/
  3. FBI Conspiracy Theory by CatWrangler · · Score: 5, Funny
    OK... The FBI may or may not be bugging libraries. The FBI is closely in alliance with the Secret Service. The Secret Service is run by the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department is run by Paul O'Neil, who used to run Alcoa. Alcoa is the largest producer in the world of Tin Foil.

    It all makes sense folks. The truth is out there.

    --

    ---
    When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--

    1. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      "It all makes sense folks. The truth is out there."

      No, you are "out there". ;)

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by meatspray · · Score: 2

      pshhhaww, why would they go through the trouble to bug the computer directly? Wouldn't that be a horrible waste of their time?

      I mean why not just keep an eye on the internet traffic for the whole library, I'm sure they all get their service from some place fairly standard and traceable.

      They most likely tap network at some point where they can watch whole library system with one sniffer.

      just my 2 cents

    3. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by lactose99 · · Score: 2

      They're already doing this... with Carnivore.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    4. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by aero6dof · · Score: 3, Funny

      So what does this have to do with Kevin Bacon?

    5. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by maggard · · Score: 2
      OK... The FBI may or may not be bugging libraries. The FBI is closely in alliance with the Secret Service. The Secret Service is run by the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department is run by Paul O'Neil, who used to run Alcoa. Alcoa is the largest producer in the world of Tin Foil.

      Umm, where does Kevin Bacon fit in?

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    6. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by __aaahtg7394 · · Score: 2

      Actually, Tin Foil has been a key part of the catering teams for most of Mr. Bacon's movies.

      Unfortunately, hollywood always screws the little guy, so he doesn't get the recognition he so deserves.

    7. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by da007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's easy to tap all libraries. I used to work at the Dothan, AL public library and all libraries in Alabama get their bandwidth through the Alabama Supercomputer Authority. I'm sure other states have a similar setup.

    8. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      Alcoa sold a bunch of aluminum to Japan before WWII which was subsequently made into a lot of very dangerous airplanes called Zeros.

      Leave it to Neal Stephenson to write a story about Japanese gold when what's really interesting is a story about Japanese aluminum.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by vandemar · · Score: 1
      Umm, where does Kevin Bacon fit in?

      As we know, the FBI has been monitoring online communications to gain leads on terrorist cells. From the Onion: Kevin Bacon linked to Al-Qaeda.

    10. Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is more likely ALUMINUM foil, as opposed to tin; a rareity in these modern times.

  4. Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats by Samir+Gupta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don't they use a standard principle of distributed systems: just send out the same work unit to multiple machines and teams, and use some cross-comparison scheme to detect anamolies? Work units that disagree with the majority are flagged as invalid.

    --
    -- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
    1. Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats by IEEEmember · · Score: 1

      I thought the original article said that team members were massively sharing nearly completed work units so that every machine on the team would complete the work unit and submit it.

    2. Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats by cduffy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They do that -- but one of the methods of cheating is copying the results of that one completed work unit and returning it without recomputation when another machine on the same team is asked to double-check it.

      One obvious solution -- distributing a work unit only once to each team -- comes to mind, but without being on the team I can't comment as to relevant practical concerns.

    3. Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because what MANY of the cheats are doing is to take an *almost* finished work unit, then distribute that to a whole bunch of machines to finish and subsequently report. Thus, they flood back a tremendous number of identical (and valid) work units and get credit for many more work units than could possibly be done with the actual hardware that they have.

      These cheats aren't diluting the validity of the results, only getting credit for huge quantities of work units. (Though one could argue that they are disrupting things by chewing up bandwidth) Credit is one of the reasons that folks volunteer to do SETI@Home, so this could also cause people to loose interest and drop out if not corrected.

    4. Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why don't they use a standard principle of distributed systems: just send out the same work unit to multiple machines and teams, and use some cross-comparison scheme to detect anamolies? Work units that disagree with the majority are flagged as invalid.

      That is PRECISELY what that they are said to be abusing. One machine completes 99% of a work unit, that unit is then passed on to a hundred other machines. They each complete the last 1% and all hand in correct units. The cross-check program verifies that they all agree and flags them all as valid, they all get credit.

      The good news it that this does not currupt any of the results. The bad news is that the "work done" figures are hosed and that worthless data is burning up bandwidth and processor time on the central servers.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
      "These cheats aren't diluting the validity of the results, only getting credit for huge quantities of work units."

      Except that they are still subverting the validation system. So if they've got flaky hardware and their results are slightly wrong because of it, they'll be passing on those corrupted results to a number of other people who will provide incorrect confirmation.

  5. Library by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Couldn't some /.er go to the library in question and investigate the computers? See if there is something running in the background or a keylogger on the keyboard? *That* would be interesting, indeeeeed. I would be interested to see what library patrons have been doing to circumvent and/or expose any attempts at skullduggery by the feds.

    1. Re:Library by ender81b · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Allright I work at a university research library so I can possibly answer this for you. For one, no we haven't had the FBI knocking on our door so that is good. But, as to how they would do this i have a few theories.

      I doubt they would run anything on the computers themselves using a program or a keylogger, mainly because it is too much work and ALOT of people would have to know about. I mean, we have 176 public computers and around 200 staff computers throughout all our branches they would have to bug. And to do that they would have to involve at least 3 people PLUS the student techs who administer the machines and work in the labs. I would doubt they would bother with it, considering the work to log 500 some machines. Doesn't seem worth their time.

      Instead, and much more likely, they would track the people's book browsing habits. Our library uses a third-party system called IRIS (innovative research something something) to handle our online card catalog, which happens to be our only card catalog. Now things become more interesting. Since all queries (seaching for books, journals, etc, etc) are tracked by IP and logged automatically by the IRIS machine in the first place - to see interests in books and what we can keep or send to storage, not part of some grand conspiracy - all the FBI would have to do is ask for the logs. Then, assuming they know which computer the suspect was at, match the IP's with the queries. Also if they wanted stuff like book checkout records, etc, etc, they could just grab it from the IRIS machine. Basically, this would be relatively easy for them and only 1-2 people who have to know. And, even better, the general public would be oblivious. You could also set up the database to only report certain queries for books, and the like. I mean the infrastructure is there, all they have to do is turn it on/customize it to what they need.

      The only way you could find out about it is if you had access to the IRIS machine. And, sorry guys, that ain't going to happen unless you work there. So don't go to your local library looking for key loggers you aren't going to find any. Now, personally, I am a lowly student computer tech so I have absolutely no say in this but it is somewhat scary to think of.

      Also, they could just deploy packet sniffers, etc, etc on the LAN.

    2. Re:Library by Grail · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Then, assuming they know which computer the suspect was at, match the IP's with the queries.

      You've got it backwards.

      The FBI isn't interested in finding out what queries have been made by dangerous suspects. What the FBI will be doing is looking for dangerous queries (people pulling out copies of "Catcher in the Rye" for example), and thus locating their next suspect.

      So be careful about your book borrowing habits. Rather than borrowing books, buy them. Buy books from stores using only cash. Only buy one book per transaction. Buy your books from different stores. Never visit the same store twice in a row.

      And remember - trust no-one.

    3. Re:Library by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm you've probably just made it easier for them: they might now prove more insightful than their traditional raid, confiscate, take-apart approach.

  6. No matter what a stripper tells you by cscx · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's no sex on the Geek Cruise. None. Oh, there's geeks on the Geek Cruise -- but you don't want geeks. You want sex. And there's no sex on the Geek Cruise.

    1. Re:No matter what a stripper tells you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn, and here I thought it was a greek cruise. No sex on a greek cruise?

    2. Re:No matter what a stripper tells you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait a second. what kind of sex are we talking about? the kind with one person, or more than one person?

      because I guarantee, the kind with one person was definitely IN FULL EFFECT on that geek cruise.

      That boat was ROCKIN' with the SOLO-SEX-STYLEE, boyeeeeeee!

      There was some SERIOUS MOTION in that OCEAN, my friend.

      If you meant the kind with more than one person, well, sorry. They're geeks for a reason you know.

  7. Eldred Cruise uses SOAP? by McFly69 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wow... that is news worthy. Middle aged Tom Cruise uses SOAP. :)

    BAD joke... Ignore this.. do not even mod it.

    --



    NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
  8. Why couldn't I go on the cruise? by ekrout · · Score: 5, Funny

    Free cruises are a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.

    Free cruises are a matter of the vacationers' freedom to sail to, study, change and improve cities all across the globe. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the cruise:

    - The freedom to ride on any ship, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    - The freedom to study how the ship works, and adapt it to your vacationing needs (freedom 1).
    - The freedom to redistribute free cruise passes so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    - The freedom to improve the cruise, and release your improvements to the event coordinator, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    1. Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember, boarding a ship without permission from the ship owner makes you a PIRATE.

    2. Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? by UnknownQ · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Remember, boarding a ship without permission from the ship owner makes you a PIRATE.

      and it makes you a STOWAWAY, which is WORSE.
      --
      Wherever you go, there you are!
    3. Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm could the music industry use that one?

      Last year, $30 billion dollars worth of CDs were illegally PIRATED.

      or

      Last year $30 billion dollars worth of CDs were illegally STOWAWAYED.

      It just doesn't have the same "zing".

    4. Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STOWED AWAY, not STOWAWAYED.

    5. Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $30 billion worth of CDs were STOWED AWAY.

      say, I like that.

      "I was on Kazaa last night, STOWING AWAY the new Justin Timberlake."

      or not..

    6. Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      So where does Free Body Culture fit in? Well, probably not in any geek cruises ;-)

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    7. Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
      Reasons why we should be able to board cruise ships for free:

      • The people who practice the art of actually running the ship (captain, crew, etc.) only see a small portion of the proceeds. The rest is taken by the greedy corporation that runs the cruise line.
      • If I can take a free cruise, I'll be more likely to tell all my friends about it, increasing the popularity of the ship.
      • The cruise line can still make money by selling me extras while I'm on board.
      • The cruise line should pick a better business model.
      • The cruise line should offer incentives to people who actually purchase their tickets.
      • Security measures such as checking tickets when people board only inconveniences the paying passengers who have to go through the checkpoint. Stowaways will always get on board no matter what. If I can see a boat, I can get on board.
      • As long as the cabin I use would have been empty anyway, the cruise line isn't losing any money. I wouldn't have bought a ticket if I hadn't been able to go for free.
  9. Patents on SOAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is that why RMS doesn't use it?

  10. Geek Cruises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    These "Geek Cruises" seem to be doing quite well. This phenomenon has even attracted the attention of mainstream travel agencies like Orbitz.

  11. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even the highest judiciary station in the land is flooded with corporate cash and corrupt puppets.

    WTF are you saying? Do you mean to imply that the Supreme court is accepting bribes from Microsoft? Where can I view your proof?

    Or are you just talking out of your ass?

    Idiot.

  12. ISPs and e-mail disclosure by wytcld · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The McCarthyism link is to a Wired story about a law now likely to pass the Senate allowing the FBI to gain ISP e-mail records without warrant. All the more reason to get your own fixed IP and run your own mailserver. If I'm my ISP for mail, can they demand I turn over the records of my e-mail from my own computer in my home without a warrant? For those whose cable services block outgoing port 25 ... tough.

    Of course, having read this, Ashcroft's Ashellians will require licenses on mail servers....

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    1. Re:ISPs and e-mail disclosure by brer_rabbit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Won't they just tap your inbound/outbound connections upstream? I agree running your own mail server does have it advantages, but security from your upstream ISP doesn't seem like one of them.

  13. FBI, Libraries, and You by carb · · Score: 4, Funny
    Well, if I recall back to David Fincher's "Seven", there's an interesting scene where Morgan Freeman's character explains to Brad Pitt's character that the country has specific books flagged, and that if you're reading them, they know it (or something to that degree).

    My point here is - I've never known movies to be wrong.

    1. Re:FBI, Libraries, and You by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Homer: "TV Said that? Then it MUST be true!"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. A new low... by igaborf · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...even for /.

    Let's see... the FBI says the report wasn't true, the city librarian says the report wasn't true, the reporter says the report wasn't true, and the reporter's two anonymous sources say the story wasn't true. And the delusional /. editor's response? "Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial."

    Un-fucking-believable.

    1. Re:A new low... by abe+ferlman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... igaborf says it's not true, everyone believes her.

      The dear editor's point was that a retraction of a story about espionage is at least as likely to be caused by pressure as by error, and probably more so since there could be serious consequences to making up such a story, so it's not something one enters into lightly.

      It's called plausible deniability.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    2. Re:A new low... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, there is the little point that any source that did confirm the story would get hit with some serious federal prison time. In case you don't want to bother looking at the original slashdot story, it said:

      "There's a gag order. When the FBI uses a court order or a subpoena to gain access to library computers or a list of the names of people who have borrowed certain books, librarians can't tell anyone - not even other librarians or you. They face a stiff federal penalty if they do."

      It's one of the lovely provisions of the USAPATRIOT Act. If patriotism means locking up librarians then I'm no patriot. Blowing up a handfull of buildings isn't going to destroy America, but gutting the constitution can.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:A new low... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering the FBI's history, I don't blame /. .
      The FBI is not above threatening to put people in jail over these issues.

      For me, the FBI needs to go beyond just saying it wasn't true.
      No I don't think this is a huge conspiecy, or that the FBI is out to get me, but they have a pretty abusive history, so I take everything they say with a lump of salt.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:A new low... by Skjellifetti · · Score: 2

      You can always confirm it to the reporter and ask that they not reveal your name. Many reporters in the US and other places have gone to jail rather than reveal their sources. Reporters regard this as a fundamental part of a free press.

    5. Re:A new low... by elmegil · · Score: 2
      Let's see; all the parties involved would be under a gag order.... At this point if all they say is "no comment", that basically confirms the premise. You really don't think that there's any chance that everyone involved has been leaned on and threatened with legal action to get them to go along?

      I don't say it's the most likely possibility, but I think it's naive and bordering on stupid to presume it's impossible.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    6. Re:A new low... by t · · Score: 1

      Many? I know of exactly one who was actually put in jail rather than reveal her source. But even that one seems questionable. The type of reporter that you are referring to is a dead breed. Normaly the phrase is a dieing breed but in this case, I'm willing to bet that no reporter alive would actually allow themselves to be put into jail to protect a source.

    7. Re:A new low... by Wordsmith · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. I AM a reporter, and I'd be honored for the opportunity. If someone is willing to me with information so substantial and so credible that I'm willing to print it without namnig my source, that person has instilled a deep trust in me amd I WILL respect and honor that trust.

    8. Re:A new low... by Skjellifetti · · Score: 2

      Many?

      How about these? Here is the current advice on the subject of whether a reporter should offer confidentiality to a source. The US Supremes ruled in 1999 that there is no 1st Amendment guarantee to reporters offering confidentiality and tossed it to each state to decide on their own. A reporter should consult with her local publisher for their policy before guaranteeing confidentiality.

    9. Re:A new low... by LuYu · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you have forgotten that the FBI was recently repremanded for lying to a federal court?

      Didn't you see A Fish Called Wanda? It's "unbe-fucking-lieveable."

      --
      All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    10. Re:A new low... by eyeball · · Score: 2

      Of course /. editors chose to bury the mention of the retraction in Slashback, rather than posting it in it's own article, therefore letting all the people that skim headlines continue to think that the FBI is bugging all our libraries. Too bad many of them won't be exposed to posibility that the FBI isn't doing it.

      1 spread paranoia
      2 steal underpants
      3 ..
      4 profit

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    11. Re:A new low... by t · · Score: 1
      Well I looked at the link that Skjellifetti posted and it has pretty much proven my point. The woman I was thinking of is on the list, Vanessa Leggett. But otherwise, I'll summarize:

      People who rolled over:
      Chris Van Ness (after only several hours!!)
      Bruce Anderson (13 days)

      People who got lucky (usually because the case was over):
      Roxana Kopetman (6 hours)
      Sid Gaulden, Schuyler Kropf, Cindi Scoppe, Andrew Shain (8 hours)

      People who got off because the source came forward:
      Richard Hargraves (1 weekend)
      Brian Karem (after 13 days, of course we are talking about a jailhouse interview. See squealing on gang members below.)

      Doesn't count:
      Brad Stone (wouldn't reveal gang members in cop killing case. duh. jail is better than getting wacked by a gang.)
      Tim Roche (18+ days for criminal contempt, not like he had a choice at that point.)
      Felix Sanchez and James Campbell (locked in the judges chambers! Oh the horrors.)
      Lisa Abraham (20+ days, again ratting on a convict is rather unhealthy.)
      David Kidwell (14 days, again with the jailhouse interviews.)
      Timothy Crews (5 days, wouldn't rat on a dirty cop. duh.)

      Well if this is the best proof anyone has then sorry my point is proven. Two of the reporters revealed their info, the majority had sources who would probably kill them if they were revealed. And this is over the last 18 years! There must be hundreds of cases where people rolled without jailtime.

      And Wordsmith, I believe you feel that way, but you have never actually been in that situation, you have yet to prove yourself. Saying the phrase "I would die for you." and living up to (or dieing in this case) are two entirely different matters.

    12. Re:A new low... by t · · Score: 1

      See above..

    13. Re:A new low... by ONU+CS+Geek · · Score: 2
      Something else abotu the PATRIOT act that irks me. My girlfriend (as well as her mother) are bank tellers. Whenever anyone opens up a bank acccount, they've got to get a copy of their driver's license, as well as keep it on file. Now, yes, I know that some banks already get this information for things like ChexSystems (et.al), but when they keep it on flie for 5 years, keeping my information in a not-so-secure place (e.g., a locked drawer), it bugs me.

      [ob political rant] ya know, Ashcroft and GW have done a very nice job of diminishing what few civil liberties that we've got left. Before 9/11, how many times a month did you hear the word terrorism. Now, how many times do you hear it? Drugs? Terrorism. Violence? Terrorism. Someone not wiping their ass right? Terrorism. [/ob rant and apology to moderators]

      The next thing you know, they'll be looking at our web site traffic to determine if we're terrorists.

      --

      I disable sigs...do you?
    14. Re:A new low... by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Whenever anyone opens up a bank acccount, they've got to get a copy of their driver's license, as well as keep it on file.

      I hadn't heard that. What the hell do they do if you don't HAVE a drivers licence or non-driver ID? Does the USAPATRIOT Act make it illegal to get a bank account without an official ID???

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  15. the FBI has ways of making you believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This story retracts the claims of bugging made in the previous one. Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial.

    Early tomorrow morning, around 4:30am, you will receive some surprise guests at your door, and after they let themselves in, you will learn exactly what your incentive is.

    Hint: save yourself a lot of trouble and have your computers unplugged and boxed up.

    By tomorrow afternoon, I predict you too will retract your statement.

    A Friend

  16. Live in fear by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "doesn't change the fact that the FBI can still bug libraries as freely as the CIA can assassinate with impunity, or that more McCarthyism is on the way."

    You diminish the tragedy of McCarthy with your excited little exaggerations.

    As for the CIA capping terrorists:
    "..hey man, nice shot!" - Filter

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  17. Assassination BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much as I love to criticize the CIA, they're in the clear as far as I'm concerned on that one incident. Assassination is you take out a political leader instead of direct military action or to aid existing military actions. Frankly, what the drone plane did wasn't assassination. It was a military action. Sure it was a small-scale one, but with the enemy scattered all over the world in small groups, that's the way ALL military action against A-Q will look.

    But the overall point of the Patriot Act sucking is well taken.

    1. Re:Assassination BS by Siniset · · Score: 1

      Damn, it's terrorism when they blow up a bus, but when we don't even have the guts to send in a real live person to get the job done it's a military action? I guess right to a fair trial only exists for middle class americans. "The kingdom of heaven must be taken by storm"

    2. Re:Assassination BS by SetiAlphaOne · · Score: 1

      Technically you're right about assassination, but it would be more appropriate to say it is when you take out _anyone_ in order to suit your agenda.

    3. Re:Assassination BS by filmnorthflorida · · Score: 0

      no no no. the right to a fair trial only exists for... well, maybe for new zealanders or something. middle class and poorer americans don't get it, and rich americans don't need it because the system is biased *in their favor*.

      --
      --- php: perl hates people
  18. Relevant Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  19. the CIA can assasinate with impunity by snake_dad · · Score: 1

    Well, Timothy, killing combatants with impunity is what happens in wars...

    --
    karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    1. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does Bush's position as Commander in Chief make him a combatant and a legit target of the enemy? If not, why not? If so, is he not an 'illegal combatant', since he is usually wearing neither uniform nor conspicuous insignia?

    2. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by viking95 · · Score: 1

      Well, this is dumb. IANAG (I am not a general), but GWB is obviously a legit target. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania was probably headed to the White House. I've also heard conjecture that the plane that hit the Pentagon was headed for the White House or the Capitol, but the terrorists got lost. But the questions of legitimaticy have nothing to do with the terrorists, because they violate just about every point of the "Rules of War". And you don't need to wear a uniform all the time, just when you should reasonably expect to be combating. It is actually for your peoples protection that this rule was invented. If Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah would wear uniforms, many Afganis and Palestinians would be alive today. It's not illegal to use illegal combatants, every one does it and they are called spies. But if you are an illegal combatant, you lose your international rights against torture and execution

    3. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by 2short · · Score: 1

      Well, we're defiintely getting OT here, but what the hey...

      "The plane that went down in Pennsylvania was probably headed to the White House."

      How can this statement be anything but a wild guess?

      "I've also heard conjecture that the plane that hit the Pentagon was headed for the White House or the Capitol, but the terrorists got lost"

      Have you ever seen DC from the air? It's not exactly hard to find the big landmarks. Quite the oposite really. Given that they crashed into the one side of the Pentagon where there was a big fuel tank next to the building, I think it's a good guess they hit exactly what they wanted to.

    4. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll have to be extremely careful about the intelligence they base the strike on. The Israeli government's bunged up a few of these operations when the intended target was definitely not in the vehicle that was blown up.

    5. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      The statement is a very valid guess, not a wild one. It may or may not be accurate, but the plane was heading somewhere, and there would only be a few targets to aim at.

      As far as how they "got lost", I think that being in a large plane that you recently hijacked, and trying to find the 'right' building to fly into, could mess up their flight plans. Not that they couldn't figure out their targets, but they only had so much time to do it in. Especially since they were trained by using MS Flight Simulator. (that last part was a joke :P ) Beside, they hit the one part of the Pentagon that was almost vacant. There were very few casualties, as compared to if they hit a different side.

    6. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      Let's see, all Talibans followed a rather strict dress code, and everybody recognized them through their cloths - yet this does not count as a uniform?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    7. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by Lars+T. · · Score: 2
      QUESTION: I'm sure many Israelis are wondering what the difference is between this and in targeted killing. And me, too.

      MR. BOUCHER: As far as the events in Yemen, I have nothing for you on that.

      QUESTION: But can you say that you are against targeted killings?

      MR. BOUCHER: Our policy on targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context has not changed --

      QUESTION: And in other contexts?

      MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to speculate.

      QUESTION: Well, so you have one rule for one conflict and another rule for another conflict?

      MR. BOUCHER: I would say that -- if you look back at what we have said about targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context, you will find that the reasons we have given do not necessarily apply in other circumstances.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    8. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2

      The new Hellfire warheads are damn cool. The one they used on those assholes in Yemen was probably the fragmentation with incendiary pellets. There is also an antiship penetrator and a dual shaped charge version.

      As to "impunity", bullshit! We have SF on the ground in Yemen. The Predator can pretty much look in the window of the car and see who is inside. The "poor, inocents" inside were terrorist leaders.

      BOOM! Score six for the good guys!

    9. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on there. This is /. With the high level of euro-weeneies present, only blowing up Americans (or Israelis) is considered a GOOD THING. Those poor muslims were just trying to shake off western imperialism. By killing women and children.

    10. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by viking95 · · Score: 1

      Further off topic, but most of the Taliban were not deemed "illegal combatants". They are POWs, and have been left in Afganistan. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand do not wear uniforms when they infiltrate America, Kenya, Tanzinia, Yemen, etc. to commit acts of terrorism against civillians. For those reasons, and many others, they are illegal combatants, and as such can be deported, interrogated, tortured, held after the cessation of hostilities, and executed.

    11. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      Neither do CIA agents wear uniforms. Shoot them on sight.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    12. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by 2short · · Score: 1


      My point is that if you've looked at a map of DC, and then see it from the air, the time to locate the whitehouse is significantly less than a second. The hijackers obviously spent quite a bit of time preparing, it seems unlikely that they couldn't find the whitehouse. A little research (driving past) would have told them which side of the pentagon had a big fuel tank next to it, but not which sections were occupied. If they'd hit a residential neighborhood, or the Lincoln memorial, I'd buy that they missed their intended target. Given that they hit the headquarters of the US Military, in what they might well have concluded was the most damaging way possible, I'm inclined to beleive that was their intent.

    13. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      Hold on there yourself. /me is a euro :) And I can assure you that what you see as the european opinion is *not* the majority view here. It's only the loudest group, as usual.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    14. Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity by viking95 · · Score: 1

      This gets dumber and dumber. This will be my last post on this topic. First off, if you are at war, you can shoot uniformed soliders at sight. In fact, that is one of the main ways to tell if you are at war. Second, if you catch a CIA spy in your country, you are allowed to interogate him, torture him, and execute him all you want, and it's ok with rules of war. It's what I've been saying all along. Using illegal combatants is not immoral or illegal, and every country does it. Those illegal combatants forfiet their Geneva protections.

  20. Until It's You by Myriad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As for the CIA capping terrorists:
    "..hey man, nice shot!" - Filter

    Read this, particularly the part about the three peasants.

    What if someone were to turn around and declare you a terrorist?

    Still finding it such a good idea?

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    1. Re:Until It's You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still finding it such a good idea?

      Absolutely stupendous.

    2. Re:Until It's You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F----ing A! Let's put the same criteria on the cops too! Shoot to kill on suspicion! Guarantee that will get a lot of lowlifes before they can commit a crime! Woooohoooo! Life sure is exciting once you give up your brain!!!!

  21. Yeah... Riigggghhhhhhtttt... by Lokni · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IMO, the fact that the librarians refused to discuss the matter of the FBI tapping the computers and stuff like that is solid evidence that the FBI is IN FACT doing it. If the FBI was NOT doing it, the Librarian would have said straight up the FBI has not contacted us and is not bugging anything. IMO, the fact that the librarian refused to talk about it, shows that she has been briefed by the FBI on what to say if questioned about the bugging.

    1. Re:Yeah... Riigggghhhhhhtttt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      And it had absolutely nothing to do with the B-3 bomber.

  22. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definitely talking out his ass, especially since the Supreme Court didn't rule in the Microsoft Antitrust case.

  23. Eldred's Question Time by serps · · Score: 2

    I'm only a quarter of the way through the Eldred arguments, IANAL, insert disclaimer here, but it seems to me that many of the judges asking these questions just don't have an understanding of Eldred's arguments, yet are interrupting him with questions from all directions so as not to let him completely answer it.

    That's just my take on it, but it just seems like they didn't buy his argument, and they're just being deliberately obtuse about it.

    --
    "Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
    1. Re:Eldred's Question Time by The_Steel_General · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It was Lessig who was discussing the case, but given that nit:

      I think that they wanted to look at the two halves of his argument separately, while he kept referring to one as supporting the other. I think they wanted to see if either of them supported the claim individually, and I'd guess they were more interested in looking at the First Amendment issue. (As I understand it, going to the First Amendment for copyright issues isn't normally supported. They might have been looking for an easy out on that side...)

      Further, based on their questions to Olson, they may have been so in favor of the Section 8 limitation argument that they didn't see the need to go any more down that path. (They gave him a *lot* of opportunities to describe the effective limits of the Copyright Clause, and he kept coming back to "Well, that's up to Congress." They didn't seem to like that answer, much.) Which, if true, is a good sign. And might mean that their questioning of Lessig was an attempt to see what help the First Amendment might give them.

      It is a tricky problem for them: They don't like to overrule Congress, but also don't let Congress run wild with its own interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe we'll get lucky.

      TSG

    2. Re:Eldred's Question Time by Anomalous+Canard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not at all.

      First of all, it's difficult to tell which way the Justices are leaning from the questions. They've done their homework and read all thr briefs. They know Lessig's argument. What they are doing in the questioning is testing the argument to find its weaknesses. The stronger the argument, the harder the questions.

      When you get down to SG Olsen's questioning, you'll see how thoroughly they demolish his position. "Whatever limit Congress sets as long as its finite" is a non-starter. Later on the Justices joked about theatre boxes in England being leased for 900 years. It's finite in mathematical terms, but unlimited in practical terms.

      The real question for the court is how too define appropriate limits to Congressional powers that give meaning to the phrase "limited times" without usurping the Congressional function of setting the limit. They don't want to be in a position of having to say x years is OK, but y years is too long. Lessig has offered them a meaningful place to put that limit. SG Olsem has not.

      They are also concerned that the argument which defeats the CTEA defeats the 1976 act as well. Lessig's own brief distinguishes the two and the clerks know this if the Justices don't.

      Reading the transcript gave me hope. Several of the Justices got the point that Lessig was making. There is a real liklihood of a positive outcome. Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Breyer are likely yesses. There's only one more needed.

      It's a little more informative to read the transcript which was posted to the web a few weeks ago. Someone put in the names of the Justices which this official transcript lacks. Also read Lessig's blog. I think he has real reasons to feel confident.

      --
      Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
      Canard: a false or unfounded repor
    3. Re:Eldred's Question Time by serps · · Score: 2

      Good post. (someone mod this guy up :) I finished reading the transcript and noticed that the Govt side of the arguments seemed to be a lot weaker than Lessig's. (Appeal to authority in the form of the EU, neglecting the fact that the EU changed its copyright terms to match the US, not the other way round, the argument that the previous extensions weren't challenged before, so of course they're correct, and so on)

      I think that they wanted to look at the two halves of his argument separately, while he kept referring to one as supporting the other.

      Yeah, I gathered that. I think Lessig realised that there was a fair amount of synergy in the parts of his argument, but I think it turned out passably, despite the questioning. He was right to have reserved a few minutes for the end, IMO. His summation really highlighted the holes in the opposition's arguments.

      btw thanks for pointing out it's Lessig, not Eldred, doing the argument. I am teh suck.

      --
      "Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
    4. Re:Eldred's Question Time by slashdoter · · Score: 2
      This is par for the course, the judges do this to everyone. I think the election problems of two years ago was the only time they let some one record them, check it out and hear them, but the questions flow like that both ways. Read olsons turn, they do the same to him.

      --
      Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
    5. Re:Eldred's Question Time by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister · · Score: 1

      It seemed to me like Lessig reserved a few minutes at the end for this heavy hitter:

      "The Feist opinion very clearly sets out the implied limits, a per se limit for originality, "

      Which is a brilliant point: after some period of time, an original idea is no longer original.

      --

      He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
  24. what a good slashback! by sweatyboatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this is like the best slashback ever. so much interesting stuff. wow. I feel so in the know.

    no, I'm not kidding.

    in all seriousness. good job /. people

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  25. Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In related news, JD Salinger was arrested at his New Hampshire home.

  26. WHATEVER YOU GAY, G-MAN! by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 2
    I bet you'll be retracting your post, too, to keep even more secrets from us, Mr. Fed!

  27. INSIGHTFUL?!? by MacAndrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please, there is no Supreme Court ruling re MS. Not even close. The case was settled, so if you want to blame someone, blames the Bush Administration Justice Department for the weak terms it sought, or more importantly the portions of the case it simply dropped after winning on them (e.g., tying).

    But, anyway, NOT insightful.

    1. Re:INSIGHTFUL?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Betcha 5 bucks that he makes it to +5 before you do.

  28. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, and this f*cking moron is currently sitting at +2 insightful. /. crowd is getting dumber by the day. This jerk's idea of insightful is a bellybutton lint collection.

  29. Why is this marked troll? by Chairboy · · Score: 2

    I don't understand, why is the above marked troll? It appears to be a legit link. Am I just naive?

    1. Re:Why is this marked troll? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      Most likely the KiB thing - some people are advocating the usage of kibibyte in place of kilobyte. Unfortunately, they're not too tactful about it and frequently resort to some sort of appeal to authority to justify themselves.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Why is this marked troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's a kibibyte?

    3. Re:Why is this marked troll? by NighthawkFoo · · Score: 1

      KiB = 2*10 bytes = 1024 bytes
      KB = 10*3 bytes = 1000 bytes

      as defined by the IEEE...

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
      - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Why is this marked troll? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      Actually, they're both 1024. The views of IEEE notwithstanding, setting KB to 1000 runs counter to decades of usage.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  30. flicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never wrong? Not even "Armageddon"? :)

  31. Geek Cruise? by fobbman · · Score: 1, Redundant

    That boat must have looked like a ghost ship from the outside.

    1. Re:Geek Cruise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He ain't albino, he's my brother.

  32. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by ajakk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course you know that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Microsoft case except to deny the appeal by Microsoft from the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and to deny the fasttrack from Judge Jackson. The Supreme Court is not flooded with corporate cash at all. The justices are very open about all of their money, and it is stupid to claim that they are corrupt puppets.

  33. CIA shoots... by MacAndrew · · Score: 2

    No, they'd say something like, "Then I said, 'Hey, I wonder what THAT button's for?'"

    Pretty scary for the folks on the ground, who have to worry maybe the CIA guy's got bad TV reception, or didn't sleep well last night.

  34. Correct capitalization. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This isn't really relevant, but I've been needing to make this rant for all the time I've worked at webMethods...

    It's "webMethods". Not "web methods". Not "WebMethods". Not "Webmethods".

    Just "webMethods".

    Thank you.

    (And, no, I don't know anything about the patent)

    1. Re:Correct capitalization. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you mean webmethods

  35. Re:the CIA can assasSinate with impunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon, stop vacillating and just shoot him!

    I didn't just say that. Anyone who says I did is a liar!

  36. Not so insightful... by schlach · · Score: 2

    This post and subsequent moderation is why there is M2. Don't rubberstamp moderation results, take the time to investigate. Warning: under the current consensus system, you may never moderate again for insightfully metamoderating. =) I M2 twice a day, and haven't moderated in a month.

  37. You are a jealous bully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't find these sorts of comments funny or insightful in any way. And they always show up on Slashdot.

    Didn't you get bullied when you were in school? Didn't you have enough of that?

    To better understand your comment, I'll rephrase it thusly:

    "RMS is funny, and I don't understand him. He says things that cause me to think. He says things that threaten my livelihood. He speaks out where I am afraid to. He is confident in his ideas.

    Kick kick kick. I cannot deal with him. Kick Kick Kick.

    I am small and by kicking RMS I can be big."

    Myself, I wish I could understand and phrase an argument as clearly and succinctly as RMS. I wish I could code as well as RMS. I wish I had made a contribution to my profession 1/1000th as important as either emacs, gcc, or GNU. I wish I had the balls to speak as freely as RMS. I wish I wasn't as enamored of money as I am, maybe then I could follow my dreams of activism, and I thank RMS for following his. I thank RMS for his contributions to our profession and to society, and for making arguments that cause me much grief when I think about them.

    1. Re:You are a jealous bully by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      I'm so torn. I agree with everything you say, and I think RMS may be the most important and influential thinker of our generation.

      But here's why I'm torn- if people didn't bash RMS all the time with such petty hatred , that joke wouldn've been pretty funny, like a teasing joke between friends. When taken in the context of the other posts that show up here however, I fear that you are exactly right.

      Alas, people hate him because his ideas threaten the deeply buried contradictions that lay beneath the surface of people's conception of the world.

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    2. Re:You are a jealous bully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed. the original poster is simply jealous he doesn't share the same powerful musk and aroma as RMS.

      the amazing thing is, RMS actually does use soap, but his man-juices are strong enough to penetrate nonetheless.

      oh, if only I could be in a room with RMS right now, to share in his essence.

    3. Re:You are a jealous bully by Siniset · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, somebody needs to get off their high horse. God, laugh a little. Enjoy life. I'm all for activism, and I support the idea of free software, but to compare a stupid (and funny) joke combining geeks in general (and I've met RMS, so him in particular) tendency to fear showers, baths and anything else related to hygene and RMS strong views on software patents with "kicking a man" is ridiculous. Or maybe I just don't understand you and your love of RMS. I respect RMS, although he might be a little extreme for me, and his additions to computing have been great. We need people of all viewpoints. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will get you sued for libel.

    4. Re:You are a jealous bully by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Since this stupid joke got to 5, and the retort is still at zero, I'm copying it so its more visible:
      I don't find these sorts of comments funny or insightful in any way. And they always show up on Slashdot.

      Didn't you get bullied when you were in school? Didn't you have enough of that?

      To better understand your comment, I'll rephrase it thusly:

      "RMS is funny, and I don't understand him. He says things that cause me to think. He says things that threaten my livelihood. He speaks out where I am afraid to. He is confident in his ideas.

      Kick kick kick. I cannot deal with him. Kick Kick Kick.

      I am small and by kicking RMS I can be big."

      Myself, I wish I could understand and phrase an argument as clearly and succinctly as RMS. I wish I could code as well as RMS. I wish I had made a contribution to my profession 1/1000th as important as either emacs, gcc, or GNU. I wish I had the balls to speak as freely as RMS. I wish I wasn't as enamored of money as I am, maybe then I could follow my dreams of activism, and I thank RMS for following his. I thank RMS for his contributions to our profession and to society, and for making arguments that cause me much grief when I think about them.

    5. Re:You are a jealous bully by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      Then my suggestion to you is to quit reading them and to quit responding to them.

      Does it change the fact that for 15+ years Mr. Stallman lived in his office at MIT? Does it change the fact that his hygenic preferences (and lack thereof) are well documented? No, it does not. Does it particularly matter? In the realm of "Free Software", no it does not. In the sphere of "social acceptability" (which you may or may not ascribe to. I personally have a "eh, fuck it" attitude), yes it does. When you can't preach your point without grossing out the audience because you smell like ass, what's the point? Stallman is a relic of the "hippies" that so many of us make fun of. You know the type, they still exist in pockets around the country. They don't bathe, shower, work, or whatever, generally live a care-free life, many are well educated, their "priorities" seem to be off-kilter with the rest of the world, and personally, that's what makes them fun. I don't particularly care for hippies (the lazy fucking bastards), but I don't particularly mind them, either. They don't harm me.

      RMS has some very controversial views about things. This opens him up for attack, and he apparently has a very thick skin for most things, except for his little pet peeves (such as GNU/Linux). So fucking what? He can defend himself and doesn't need you or anyone else to do it for him. He gets picked on, sure, but does it really matter to him? Do you think he goes home and cries himself to sleep because of what some little prick on /. said about him (and I've said some very bad things about RMS and I really don't give a shit what you think about it)? Maybe he'll grab an AK and go Columbine at the Redmond campus. Is that what you're insinuating?

      Henry Ford is revered as one of the modern progenitors of modern industrialism. Not much is mentioned about his pro-Nazi sympathies, his dictatorial aims of his own company (the Ford Smile, anyone?), etc. RMS will go down in history not for his uncleanliness (that's an ad-hominem attack), but for his work with the FSF and GNU, regardless of what anyone says. Today it's cruel, but humorous in that, well, it's true. And when he's dead he'll stink for other reasons other than his hygiene. Who cares? I certainly don't.

      If you idolize him, put your fucking code where your mouth is and shut the hell up.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    6. Re:You are a jealous bully by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 3
      I really am not intending to defend RMS (and that message wasn't actually my composition), but rather I agreed with the sentiment that this hostility is all too reminicent of a bully. There's a lot of people who think they're better than RMS and the bizarre people like him, but they feel that way without any justification. They ascribe to be cool, where apathy is the greatest achievement.

      I have often defended Stallman not because he needs it, but because he is one of the most sincere people I can think of. In this cynical society it is very hard to be sincere, and it always opens you up to criticism. But I hate cynicism, and I strive to be more sincere myself. I defend him because that sincerity is something I aspire to.

      I don't like the term "geek" -- somewhere along the line it lost its meaning, because too many idiots took that term for themselves as though it was something cool. It cannot ever be cool to be a geek -- they are opposites. A real geek -- not just a socially awkward person -- has a passion that is not diluted for social ends. I am offended when that passion is ridiculed. And usually that ridicule comes from people who are mediocre and self-centered. But I respond because coolness can be infectious -- or at least the aspiration of cool. I hope only that someone will see how empty that path is.

    7. Re:You are a jealous bully by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      And my point is that no matter what kind of "cruel" bullying going on on /. regarding RMS is going to matter exactly ZERO in the long run. He's made his mark on history, just like Kernighan and Ritchie, Linus Torvalds, and yes, Bill Gates. And unlike the others, I predict that RMS will actually be more revered in 100 years than the rest, even if his vision of "Free Software" isn't universally embraced (and I certainly do not ascribe to any kind of "right" to sourcecode).

      It's nice to call the kettle black sometimes, and it might make a few people around think about it a little harder. However, when it comes right down to it, it's still an internet message board with almost zero bearing in real life (does /. cook your meals? Take you to the bus stop? That's what I mean by "real life", not some loose collection of anonymous cowards). People take this shit too seriously. Posting as an AC just proves that the original poster is a coward and in real life would shit his pants if confronted by RMS. I have no use for them, even though I'm sometimes one of them (although all my anti-RMS rants are done under my account, no need for cowardice if you believe it).

      I have no idea where this is going. Take it light.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    8. Re:You are a jealous bully by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 2

      RMS, you really need to not let these comments bother you so much.

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
  38. Geek Cruise.. What?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I know that here on Slashdot we all like to pile on the flaming when it comes to the Church of Scientology, but doesn't anyone care about the "Church" and its actions when they sponsor something like the Geek Cruise? Is this another case where Slashdotters are willing to look the other way because they are basically being bribed off? How many times do we see this with the RIAA/MPAA-love/hate relationship on this message board?

    Here's the scoop. Geek Cruises Inc. is operated by Neil Bauman who is a OT6-level Scientologist. Not to mention that he has deep contacts with anti-semite Bobby Fischer.

    The geek cruise format, from the time of leaving port is identical to that of the Freewinds OT5 training. The early seminars and late "social activities" are designed to loosen your mind from its pinnings, allowing external suggestion to become much easier.

    This isn't done to "brainwash you into loving Linux", that's already done and there's no need to be redundant. However, the point of the cruise is to open your mind to the possibility of joining their other cruises like Mindscape: Clear your mind in Alaska and Celebrity Slam (this year featuring Nicholas Cage). These other cruises are specifically geared towards getting people hooked into Scientology. For whatever reason, it works a hell of a lot better than the weirdo movie they like to show to "IQ test takers" at their normal temples.

    It's because the company Geek Cruises Inc does so many nice things for the geek community and provides really interesting cruises that Scientology likes it as a means of recruiting so much. Don't be fooled, please. If you are interested in Scientology, please visit their website and read up about it. Then visit Operation Clamback and read up about the things they don't want you to know.

    Scientology is one of the most devious "religions" around. Don't be sucked in by promises of meeting geek celebrities or viewing beautiful scenery and stopping at exotic ports of call. It is all a scam. You may get what you pay for, but you will get much more that you simply don't want.

    1. Re:Geek Cruise.. What?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate all churches

    2. Re:Geek Cruise.. What?? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Well spotted and researched! I hope their cruise ship looks better than the Toronto Org

      If they can't get in the front door...

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  39. When does the Eldred decision come? by sgarrity · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know when a decision is expected on the Eldred case?

  40. SETI blocks computed: take out the brag factor by brer_rabbit · · Score: 2

    One of the brag factors about SETI seems to be "number of block computed" or whatever they call it. I wonder if the amount of cheating / falsifying data would decrease if the competitive nature of who's processed the most blocks were taken away.

    Publishing aggregate results is fine, but posting individual results begs people to find ways, sometimes malicious, to "get ahead".

    1. Re:SETI blocks computed: take out the brag factor by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      Or just design it so it's not so damned easy to cheat. They really should know who has what blocks to begin with, it would be immediately useful. Not giving the same blocks to members of the same team (as has been suggested elsewhere) would help but is not really a reasonable suggestion as it would not necessarily solve the problem. On the other hand, significantly delaying the time between the allocation of blocks AND not giving the same blocks to members of the same team would DRAMATICALLY reduce this kind of cheating, maybe to the point where no one would bother.

      Anyway publishing individuals' results is absolutely necessary because people want recognition and they're not going to go through the effort to install the client or screensaver or whatever unless you give them props - because there will always be SOMEONE who will give them credit for their CPU time.

      Sure, some people really believe in giving their CPU time to a specific cause, those people will continue, they likely appreciate the accolades anyway, however. Meanwhile people who are doing it just for credit will either not bother or just not bother to update and add the software to new machines. People who both believe in the cause and like the credit will put less effort into it as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:SETI blocks computed: take out the brag factor by ChocoboKnight · · Score: 1

      I believe that the bragging is what makes many people join the SETI@Home project.

  41. A Little Less DBZ Please... by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Dragonball and Dragonball Z are the twinkies of Anime. Lots of empty calories. I'd hesitate to even call them Anime. Any "plot" exists simply to get you to the next fight scene. It's a pity Bebop is too "mature" for that timeslot. It's got much more meat to it. Personally I'd fill those slots with Ranma 1/2 but I wouldn't object to seeing more Courage the Cowardly Dog and/or Powerpuff Girls in those slots.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:A Little Less DBZ Please... by bgarrett · · Score: 2

      Ranma 1/2, in ANYTHING like its original animated form, will probably never be seen on Cartoon Network. The problem? In a word, "breasts".

      --
      Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
    2. Re:A Little Less DBZ Please... by pedro · · Score: 2

      My nephews, aged 8, 7, and 26 eagerly admit that DBZ makes no sense whatsoever.
      They watch it anyway, cuz it looks k3w1!

      It's obvious to me now that the South Park Pokemon Parody episode was a thinly veiled documentary expose' of the true intentions of the japanese media... the ossification of the american brain via mindless eye candy and useless occupation of american mental computational capacity with ridiculous and STOOPID games, thus breeding a home-grown brain drain, rendering us effectively a nation of self involved non threating masturbatory morons.
      It seems to be working. Sigh.

      I guess the Seizure Robots were too subtle in their results..

      --
      Brak: What's THAT?
      Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
  42. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by elmegil · · Score: 2

    The ruling on the MS case is not a primary reason to lose faith in the Supreme Court. Things like their ruling in Bush V Gore (or was it Gore V Bush? I forget), and all the interesting political bs documented as going on in Closed Chambers by Ed Lazarus are all much more damning than that. For the record, while Ed documents thoroughly the inconsistencies of the alleged "strict constructionists" on the court, the liberals are just as much at fault, so don't construe me as having a particular agenda.

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  43. LinuxworldExpo (OT) by ACNeal · · Score: 1

    This is really offtopic, but se4emed like a good place to put it.

    I just got a flyer in the mail for LinuxWorldExpo.

    I normally just throw these away, they aren't worth my time or energy to go.

    Of note were the sponsors.

    The cornerstone sponsor was HP, the former employer of pundit Bruce Perens, until he slighted MS too much. Also the company that can't decide how to distribute Linux (or did they resolve that?) on their PC's.

    Also, the silver sponsor was Macrovision.

    I just thought it was appropriate that these two companies were sponsoring an expo. Neither of these two companies really are anti-Linux, but the /. crowd doesn't really have any use for them, do they? Just struck me as funny, thought I would make the observation out loud.

  44. Cancelled by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Funny
    MGM and Scifi put those rumours to rest today by officially announcing a 7th season.
    Yes, but then they cancelled when they realized they wouldn't get the full 95 years of copyright protection to recover their investment. 75 years just wasn't enough.
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  45. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by geekee · · Score: 1

    Umm. The Supreme Court had nothing to do about the MS case. As for Bush v. Gore, they stepped in to prevent the Florida supreme court from overstepping their bounds. The Florida court made up their own rules rather than following the rules already enacted by the legislature. The same thing happened recently in NJ, where the NJ supreme court allowed the Democrats to substitute a candidate at the last minute (who later won), despite the explicit laws on the books.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  46. Perhaps not Earth Shattering But Insightful Enough by FreeUser · · Score: 2

    The case was settled, so if you want to blame someone, blames the Bush Administration Justice Department for the weak terms it sought,

    Oh, I think most nonpartisan observers (and of course those partisan observers in the anti-microsoft camp) already do blame the Bush administration for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    But there were nine states which did not settle, and which are perfectly entitled to persue an appeal against this ruling, and certainly should do so.

    So the supreme court may well end up ruling on this case. The poster suspects it will do no good because of other apparent cases of corruption in other rulings by the supreme court (he doesn't cite any, but I suspect the election ruling of 2000 is one of those he had in mind, and on that one I'd have to agree).

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  47. That was such a fucking awful troll by Tokerat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...that if I could use used all 5 mod points to +1 Funny, it'd be well worth it. :-)

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  48. Better yet... by goldfndr · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Rather than a limit of work units to people, how about a unique identifier attached to each work unit - perhaps a hash or signature for WU and date/time and user? Then filter/reject any duplicate identifiers.

    I'd imagine they have some sort of rejection method right now (in case someone tries to upload /dev/random), but I don't know how much overhead this would involve.

    --
    Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
    1. Re:Better yet... by cduffy · · Score: 2

      That's fine and dandy but will do little good unless the entire calculation of the results is dependant on that UID. Otherwise, if the bulk of the calculations can be done first and the UID applied separately, cheaters can simply store the non-UID-dependant components of the calculation and apply them against as many UIDs as they like.

    2. Re:Better yet... by goldfndr · · Score: 2
      apply them against as many UIDs as they like
      That would only work if the UID was really short. If the UID is adequately long (4 or 5 bytes) and random (or at least non-sequential), good luck to getting a match in a reasonable amount of time without "getting caught".
      --
      Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
    3. Re:Better yet... by cduffy · · Score: 2

      Huh? Every time one of their machines is assigned an already-completed work unit (but with a different UID), they munge the precalculated portion together with that UID and send it back. I'm not suggesting that UIDs be tried randomly.

  49. Cracking down on alien fraudsters by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    Actually all the falsified packets for certain parts of sky decode as: "No intellegent life here. Nothing to see. Move along."

    Where's Sherkaner Underhill when you need him?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  50. If that were true, I'd have been visited by now by brokeninside · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Then again, maybe that's why I was visited by the Secret Service last winter.

  51. 'Simple' Object Access Protocol? by truth_revealed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have you read the SOAP 1.2 specification lately? Nevermind the XML Schema and HTTP 1.1 specifications which SOAP also uses. These specs are far from "simple". SOAP seems to be slowly turning into an XML version of CORBA. XMLRPC, on the other hand, is simple. The Jabber protocol is even simpler yet - no HTTP transport. Something that starts off simple is usually transformed into something quite different after committees of software development firms get a hold of it. It's in their interest to keep the barrier to entry high.

    1. Re:'Simple' Object Access Protocol? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      Oh boy, you hit that on the nail. My gripes with soap are extensive. For one, the way of passing XML as parameters or return values appears to have been removed in SOAP 1.1 - there used to be a literalXML attribute you could use to signal that a method was returning actual XML as opposed to a data structure. Where is it now? I dunno, and as the W3C helpfully don't appear to list the preceding versions of the spec on their site (i feel they must be there, but never found them) I can't find out if I'm simply going crazy or they really did remove it.

      When a frustrated person on the list asked the same questions I'd been having, he was told there seemed to be an informal standard of using an Apache Axis namespace for XML now! I mean WTF? But that's only the beginning.

      Where is objects-by-reference? Oh, I know, that'd be in the Microsoft .NET Remoting extensions. Why not in the standard itself? Because MS have been blocking it on the grounds of "added bloat". I'd say objects-by-reference are absolutely critical to any modern RPC protocol and it doesn't have to be complex either, but it's not in there. Simple Object Access Protocol my backside.

      And then of course the patents. Considering we've been doing RPC for over a decade, and SOAP is merely RPC done in XML (and done worse) how in the lords name can there be patents on it? Prior art trips you up at the street corner there's so much. And WSDL? What a POS. That is a classic example of something that's been abstracted so much it's almost incomprehensible.

      I used to quite like SOAP, but after trying to actually write stuff using it, I've decided it's (to borrow a phrase i saw in a newsgroups) "a dog turd served on a fine china plate". The W3C produce some good specs, but this isn't one of them. I, of course, blame Microsoft :)

      Oh and BTW, XML-RPC doesn't have xml as a first class data type either. Dunno why. I might write my own rpc protocol at this rate.

  52. Epicentric, a subsidiary of Vignette ... by dougmc · · Score: 2
    Actually, Vignette recently announced that they acquired Epicentric.
    Recently = approximately nine days ago.

    Is that enough time to call something a subsidiary? :) (I wonder if the deal has even been completed yet. I know the paperwork has been signed, but things like that still tend to take time.)

  53. Re:Oh Great more Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More Advertising, can I wear earplugs and make it go away?

    No, but you can *pay* and make it go away. For a while.

    Slap down yo' Benjamins or quit whining, bitch.

  54. CIA assassination? by Hard_Code · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "the CIA can assasinate with impunity"

    And not only that...it can assassinate US citizens. "Administration officials, intelligence operatives and military analysts...praised the CIA strikes as an innovative way to get the job done." You know that whole "pre-emptive strike" debate? Well it's over now. Everybody grab their sled because we're in for a nice ride down this slippery slope from moral highground! Weeeee!

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  55. Troll. by underwhelm · · Score: 2

    Please link to the sources of these crucial assertions:

    How do you know Mr. Bauman is a Scientologist?
    Where did you read when Freewinds leaves port?

    Oh, yeah, and your links to geek cruises all fail.

    My conclusion? Well written, but completely false.

    --

    I don't need large brains to have a good time.

    1. Re:Troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry about the links. They were all working when I wrote this earlier.

      I don't see what the Freewind's schedule has to do with anything besides the fact that the onboard schedule is almost identical in format to the standard geek cruise.

    2. Re:Troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, now try supporting your claims.

      All I'm asking for is independent verification.

  56. Libraries and the FBI: A True Story by Halo- · · Score: 2

    My mom is the director of a public library. A few months back I went home to visit, and the subject of our dinner time conversation was: "Will Mom go to jail?"

    The short version is that she had been visited by some very "official" FBI agents, who informed her they had reason to beleive a patron was looking up "terrorist material" on the internet, and wouldn't she be so kind as to hand over her records and start watching said individual. My mom told them they'd need a warrant or subpoena, and she'd have to call the state's lawyers to see just where the PATRIOT act was these days.

    Needless to say, the bitched and moaned that she wasn't a good citizen or patriot, and was quite possiblely negatively impacting the "War on Terror".

    The truly ironic part is that most libraries, my mom's included, don't keep records around for any longer than absolutely necessary for just these reasons. Once you return a book, *poof* the record is gone. These sorts of requests have gone on for years. My mom has been asked to provided "lending histories" for suspects in murder trials, and other fun things. It amazes me that attorneys don't realize that by law (in some places) such records are not keep.

    The Fed's should be required to obtain a warrant. Just like they had to when they wanted to tap the pay phone in my mom's library lobby. Libraries are a public resource, and should be treated accordingly.

    Man, it really sounds like my mom's library is a hotbed of criminal activity huh?

  57. Watergate and McCarthyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the Wired article, the problem is that ISPs must pass on e-mail to any federal, state, or local agency on a "good faith" basis. That means that a county councilman could legally ask his buddy at the local ISP to give up e-mail for anyone that opposes him. No real reason is required. How about DNC e-mail being requested on behalf of the RNC?

  58. Half correct still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Zoids was pulled from the Toonami afternoon block. But it's played at it's normal time at 6:30am Monday through Friday. It played during this time, at least ever since the Chaotic Century run was on the afternoon block, and continues today.

  59. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by elmegil · · Score: 1

    Ah, another republican apologist.

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  60. Epicentric and webMethods want to be heard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I think Epicentric and webMethods want to be "heard". There is no chance anyone is going to pay them any royalty for using SOAP. Here is a followup article about this snag.

  61. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by geekee · · Score: 1

    Sorry to confuse you with reason.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  62. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by elmegil · · Score: 2

    You get the government you deserve. Enjoy the lack of privacy and power abuses ushered in by the new completely controlled regime. (Just FYI I'd be saying the same thing if it were a completely Democratic federal government).

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  63. Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? by geekee · · Score: 1

    I'm not a Republican. I never said I was. Vote libertarian.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  64. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Go not unto the Usenet for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (and
    quite a few things that just have nothing at all to do with the question).
    -- seen in a .sig somewhere

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...