One of the problems is, of course, that if the entire "people with a clue" industry is jailed, you are left with a bunch of "people without a clue" trying to run all the high-tech infrastructure.
The biggest problem is that geeks, by nature, tend to be non-gregarious. There are lots of small groups of geeks hanging out together, but they rarely all act together on something. I mean, hey, we all value individuality, right? Another problem we face (or at least I do) is that we tend to be lazy about some things. Why confront the system head on, when there are so many holes we can exploit to get around the problem? We all need to take a stand publicly--not just figure out a way to exploit the weaknesses that are inherent in the system.
And the black Americans did have to fight against the law. Many cities had segregation regulations. People were taken to jail for sitting at a "whites only" counter. Even though that is the case, I would argue that it is far more difficult to change a country's culture of discrimination than it is to get a couple of laws changed. Just my two cents...
Except that if most people started doing this and got arrested, their families would go hungry. It's perfect for someone like Bruce, who has a bit of recognition surrounding him to go out and do this.
If everyone held to the ideal of, "If I stand up for what is right, I might get mowed down," then their would have been no fight against racial inequality. MLK, Jr., would never have led black Americans across the country to peacefully oppose unjust laws. Supporting unjust laws is the surest way to convince the People in Power(TM) that they can continue to tred upon decency and human rights. I sincerely hope that we, as a group, can begin to show some courage and actually stand up against the corporate bullies and their bureaucrat henchmen who won't stop until they beat us and take all of our milk money.
That's interesting (and may very well be correct--so I'm not necessarily arguing with you), but what would be the reason for the warrant then? If a warrant can be issued to allow a search or siezure, but a search can be initiated anyway (without provocation in the instance of the airline--now carried out by federal employees), then why bother with warrants at all?
It is kind of difficult to understand with all of those commas, but here is how I read it (IANASCJ):
People's right to be secure (in their persons, houses, etc.) shall not be violated by unreasonable searches or seizures. A reason for a search (or warrant) would be probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. The warrant (and/or oath) must describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed.
It seems to me that this would define a search or issued warrant as unreasonable UNLESS it is supported by probable cause, etc.
Again, IANASCJ, but that is how I have always read it. But then again, I think that the 10th amendment actually means something, when everything that I read on legal sites seems to think that it is next to meaningles...
Ok, "Mr. Lets Pick Out A Single Word And Change The Meaning." Let's continue reading the rest of the sentence:...shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by oath or affirmation, and PARTICULARLY describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the persons or things to be siezed.
When being searched at an airport--mearly because you do not present id--there is no probable cause, no oath/affirmation, and no warrant describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
People who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it. People who don't learn their rights are doomed to lose them. People who learn both are still doomed by the majority that doesn't give a rat's ass.
Gilmore doesn't have a problem with screening passengers (at least he is not suing over that). He has a problem with having to present an ID when boarding the plane (or if you don't, being searched to a much greater extent than an ID presenting passenger).
People seem to forget that ALL of the terrorists on the September 11th planes had their IDs checked. They had legitimate visas. How does forcing everyone to show their ID (an act that is only good for tracking the average american citizen) in any way improve the security of the flights? If 16 year old kids can fake IDs, well financed terrorists shouldn't have much of a problem...
And to be completely honest about it, here in the U.S. we DO NOT have the right to return anything for a full refund just because we "got the wrong one." The FTC only specifies that you have the right to return something (within 3 days) if it was sold to you outside of the company's permanent place of business (i.e. in someones home--like at a Tupperware party, etc.). Here's the link to the FTC Cooling Off Rule.
1. They are not providing a service to their community by "cutting off the bandwidth hogs." They cap their internet access at a certain bandwidth limit. They gaurantee a certain speed. The "bandwidth hogs" are only using the amount of bandwidth they have purchased. Should their be a tiered access plan? Probably. But they don't currently offer that. So they are not increasing the benefits of their service for their customers by blocking kazaa.
2. The pirates are not making a profit in the general sense of the word. The average "pirate" can listen to radio for free to hear songs. They can even tape the radio for free and not get in trouble. To the average mp3 downloader, there is no moral difference between downloading a song for free and listening to one for free on the radio. The internet way is just more convienient. They are not selling the songs. They are not minting CDs and taking the music industries profit. They are listening to music. Plain and simple
... if you look at is from a business prospective.
It's responses like this they REALLY get to me. I'm assuming that you (like me) are a U.S. citizen. In this country, so many people think that if there is a legitimate business reason for taking an action, then it must be justified. I can't even begin to say how much this pisses me off. Yes, I understand that businesses are in business for one thing--to make money. But there are so many more lofty goals that people should pursue. Capitalism is not the be all end all of morality.
What ever happened to people who started a business because they wanted to provide a service to the community? They worked at a profession because it meant something to them. When did we all adopt this middle-management company man attitude that a company is entitled to profit at other people's expense?
Yes, Roadrunner has the right to do what they want with their service. But if they are selling "Internet Access," then they should be selling "Internet Access." They don't advertise "Web and FTP access." But obviously it doesn't really matter what they advertise, because it's more profitable if they fudge a little bit. Well, bull shit. I've had enough. I'm sick and tired of Corporate America(TM) and their never ending pursuit of profit. Their are some things that capitalism is ill-equipped to handle. With more and more corporate mergers in the works (which equals less and less choice for consumers), it looks like customer service may be one of those things.
I doubt it--the event it implies is not physically possible.
(someone else already pointed out what the subject is).
Yes, they did. They were pointing out that the subject was "Martin Koerber and Alpha-Omega." Which implies that they were butchered by the studios (not the movie), then they "restored most of the scenes and score." This is why it is funny. Laugh.
DSL and Tivo have nothing to worry about
on
Cable Boxes with 802.11
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What would DSL providers have to do to compete? Offer DSL modems with 802.11. No big deal there. I fail to see how it affects Tivo at all. You still use the Tivo they way you always did--hooked up to your cable box. Just because there is a network device and broadband connection attatched doesn't really change anything for the Tivo (at least as far as I can tell).
Actually, it is not just another "shoot-em-up." According to the article it is a full 40+ hour RPG. You even get to build your own lightsaber. I think referring to it as "just another shoot-em-up" is a little bit of an over-simplification.
Help! I've been desparately looking for this missing, uh... coder.. yeah. Her name is Anna Kournikova. I've tried contacting all of the email addresses that I've found listed but she is unreachable. If anyone could give me her current contact information, I would sure appreciate it. Thanks!
First, I just wanted to say, "Thank you," for releasing your version of "But What of Earth." The "co-authored" version that they put out was horrible in comparison.
I know this isn't a Linux or StarOffice question, but I'm very curious about who your inspirations were in the Sci-Fi realm. Who are your favorite authors?
I named my new puppy "Huxley," after Aldous Huxley (Brave New World). My wife's dog's name is "Patches." Guess which one of us is the geek... You can see them at my web page, if you want.
The best way to maintain security in this type of situation is to create logically separate networks. This doesn't mean that you have to buy completely new network equipment and never have the two networks touch.
What you need is a firewall with multiple interfaces. You could go commercial and buy something like a Watchguard Firebox or set up a cheap linux box and use a pre-packaged linux firewall like IPCop or SmoothWall where you just boot off a cd and install/configure a Linux firewall.
What you end up setting up is a DMZ. You would have a "Trusted" interface that could be your private library network, a DMZ interface that could be your public access network, and an external interface that is your connection to the Internet.
You could set up the IPs as 192.168.0.0/24 for the trusted, 192.168.100/24 for the DMZ, and use your external ip segment for the external. You still can use all of the same network hardware that you have in place.
That really should have read "The idea that people (corpororations) DESERVE to be the ONLY people to EVER profit from something just because they created it, is ridiculous.
Like I said--originally it was 20 years. Not 20 years after the death of the copyright holder. 20 years.
Should Microsoft give up all versions of Windows after 20 years? No. Each is a new product with significant new work.
Should Disney retain a monopoly on the Mickey Mouse character? No. It is not a new work. Yes, they may make new cartoons, but the character is the same. Just because Walt drew him long ago, Disney should not be given a monopoly on the character. As I said, copyright laws were created in such a way as to allow all information to eventually fall into the public domain.
This idea that people(corporations) DESERVE to make a profit for eternity just because they created something, is ridiculous. If I want to publish a little web cartoon of "The Further Adventures of Mickey Mouse," then damnit, it's been long enough--I should be able to.
The very principle behind copyrights/patents is that after a "fair amount of time," your work falls under the public domain. The idea is that Humanity's work eventually belongs to all of Humanity. No one can produce something so perfect that they and their family deserve to be paid for it in perpetuity.
For copyright, this used to be around 20 years. Now, I think it is somewhere around 80 years after the death of the copyright holder. This obviously is not what "the Founding Fathers" meant when they enacted their copyright laws.
...but doesn't it the article say that they did this with a mouse--not a human? The article does say that human trials might begin within two years, but the thymus that they produced was implanted into a mouse. (Not that I would criticize a Slashdot headline's accuracy)
Slashdot Mirror
They were supposed to have 5 megawatts by mid-May.
The biggest problem is that geeks, by nature, tend to be non-gregarious. There are lots of small groups of geeks hanging out together, but they rarely all act together on something. I mean, hey, we all value individuality, right? Another problem we face (or at least I do) is that we tend to be lazy about some things. Why confront the system head on, when there are so many holes we can exploit to get around the problem? We all need to take a stand publicly--not just figure out a way to exploit the weaknesses that are inherent in the system.
And the black Americans did have to fight against the law. Many cities had segregation regulations. People were taken to jail for sitting at a "whites only" counter. Even though that is the case, I would argue that it is far more difficult to change a country's culture of discrimination than it is to get a couple of laws changed. Just my two cents...
If everyone held to the ideal of, "If I stand up for what is right, I might get mowed down," then their would have been no fight against racial inequality. MLK, Jr., would never have led black Americans across the country to peacefully oppose unjust laws. Supporting unjust laws is the surest way to convince the People in Power(TM) that they can continue to tred upon decency and human rights. I sincerely hope that we, as a group, can begin to show some courage and actually stand up against the corporate bullies and their bureaucrat henchmen who won't stop until they beat us and take all of our milk money.
That's interesting (and may very well be correct--so I'm not necessarily arguing with you), but what would be the reason for the warrant then? If a warrant can be issued to allow a search or siezure, but a search can be initiated anyway (without provocation in the instance of the airline--now carried out by federal employees), then why bother with warrants at all?
People's right to be secure (in their persons, houses, etc.) shall not be violated by unreasonable searches or seizures. A reason for a search (or warrant) would be probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. The warrant (and/or oath) must describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed.
It seems to me that this would define a search or issued warrant as unreasonable UNLESS it is supported by probable cause, etc.
Again, IANASCJ, but that is how I have always read it. But then again, I think that the 10th amendment actually means something, when everything that I read on legal sites seems to think that it is next to meaningles...
When being searched at an airport--mearly because you do not present id--there is no probable cause, no oath/affirmation, and no warrant describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
People who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it. People who don't learn their rights are doomed to lose them. People who learn both are still doomed by the majority that doesn't give a rat's ass.
People seem to forget that ALL of the terrorists on the September 11th planes had their IDs checked. They had legitimate visas. How does forcing everyone to show their ID (an act that is only good for tracking the average american citizen) in any way improve the security of the flights? If 16 year old kids can fake IDs, well financed terrorists shouldn't have much of a problem...
And to be completely honest about it, here in the U.S. we DO NOT have the right to return anything for a full refund just because we "got the wrong one." The FTC only specifies that you have the right to return something (within 3 days) if it was sold to you outside of the company's permanent place of business (i.e. in someones home--like at a Tupperware party, etc.). Here's the link to the FTC Cooling Off Rule.
2. The pirates are not making a profit in the general sense of the word. The average "pirate" can listen to radio for free to hear songs. They can even tape the radio for free and not get in trouble. To the average mp3 downloader, there is no moral difference between downloading a song for free and listening to one for free on the radio. The internet way is just more convienient. They are not selling the songs. They are not minting CDs and taking the music industries profit. They are listening to music. Plain and simple
It's responses like this they REALLY get to me. I'm assuming that you (like me) are a U.S. citizen. In this country, so many people think that if there is a legitimate business reason for taking an action, then it must be justified. I can't even begin to say how much this pisses me off. Yes, I understand that businesses are in business for one thing--to make money. But there are so many more lofty goals that people should pursue. Capitalism is not the be all end all of morality.
What ever happened to people who started a business because they wanted to provide a service to the community? They worked at a profession because it meant something to them. When did we all adopt this middle-management company man attitude that a company is entitled to profit at other people's expense?
Yes, Roadrunner has the right to do what they want with their service. But if they are selling "Internet Access," then they should be selling "Internet Access." They don't advertise "Web and FTP access." But obviously it doesn't really matter what they advertise, because it's more profitable if they fudge a little bit. Well, bull shit. I've had enough. I'm sick and tired of Corporate America(TM) and their never ending pursuit of profit. Their are some things that capitalism is ill-equipped to handle. With more and more corporate mergers in the works (which equals less and less choice for consumers), it looks like customer service may be one of those things.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
I doubt it--the event it implies is not physically possible.
(someone else already pointed out what the subject is).
Yes, they did. They were pointing out that the subject was "Martin Koerber and Alpha-Omega." Which implies that they were butchered by the studios (not the movie), then they "restored most of the scenes and score." This is why it is funny. Laugh.
What would DSL providers have to do to compete? Offer DSL modems with 802.11. No big deal there. I fail to see how it affects Tivo at all. You still use the Tivo they way you always did--hooked up to your cable box. Just because there is a network device and broadband connection attatched doesn't really change anything for the Tivo (at least as far as I can tell).
Actually, it is not just another "shoot-em-up." According to the article it is a full 40+ hour RPG. You even get to build your own lightsaber. I think referring to it as "just another shoot-em-up" is a little bit of an over-simplification.
Help! I've been desparately looking for this missing, uh... coder.. yeah. Her name is Anna Kournikova. I've tried contacting all of the email addresses that I've found listed but she is unreachable. If anyone could give me her current contact information, I would sure appreciate it. Thanks!
First, I just wanted to say, "Thank you," for releasing your version of "But What of Earth." The "co-authored" version that they put out was horrible in comparison.
I know this isn't a Linux or StarOffice question, but I'm very curious about who your inspirations were in the Sci-Fi realm. Who are your favorite authors?
Perhaps that is why the author of the article said that you could calculate the margin of error...
I named my new puppy "Huxley," after Aldous Huxley (Brave New World). My wife's dog's name is "Patches." Guess which one of us is the geek... You can see them at my web page, if you want.
What you need is a firewall with multiple interfaces. You could go commercial and buy something like a Watchguard Firebox or set up a cheap linux box and use a pre-packaged linux firewall like IPCop or SmoothWall where you just boot off a cd and install/configure a Linux firewall.
What you end up setting up is a DMZ. You would have a "Trusted" interface that could be your private library network, a DMZ interface that could be your public access network, and an external interface that is your connection to the Internet.
You could set up the IPs as 192.168.0.0/24 for the trusted, 192.168.100/24 for the DMZ, and use your external ip segment for the external. You still can use all of the same network hardware that you have in place.
Hope this helps.
Well, they are evil (so are Nintendo and Sony in their own ways) and they do screw up more than they succeed.
Gee, I wish I could screw up more often than I succeed and come up with 40 billion dollars in cash.
To make these kind of decisions the robots had to adapt the zeroth law:
You may not harm humanity, or through inaction allow it to be harmed.
Giskard was the first to fully use the zeroth law, but it "killed" him because it was such a huge strain breaking the first law.
That really should have read "The idea that people (corpororations) DESERVE to be the ONLY people to EVER profit from something just because they created it, is ridiculous.
Like I said--originally it was 20 years. Not 20 years after the death of the copyright holder. 20 years.
Should Microsoft give up all versions of Windows after 20 years? No. Each is a new product with significant new work.
Should Disney retain a monopoly on the Mickey Mouse character? No. It is not a new work. Yes, they may make new cartoons, but the character is the same. Just because Walt drew him long ago, Disney should not be given a monopoly on the character. As I said, copyright laws were created in such a way as to allow all information to eventually fall into the public domain.
This idea that people(corporations) DESERVE to make a profit for eternity just because they created something, is ridiculous. If I want to publish a little web cartoon of "The Further Adventures of Mickey Mouse," then damnit, it's been long enough--I should be able to.
The very principle behind copyrights/patents is that after a "fair amount of time," your work falls under the public domain. The idea is that Humanity's work eventually belongs to all of Humanity. No one can produce something so perfect that they and their family deserve to be paid for it in perpetuity.
For copyright, this used to be around 20 years. Now, I think it is somewhere around 80 years after the death of the copyright holder. This obviously is not what "the Founding Fathers" meant when they enacted their copyright laws.
...but doesn't it the article say that they did this with a mouse--not a human? The article does say that human trials might begin within two years, but the thymus that they produced was implanted into a mouse. (Not that I would criticize a Slashdot headline's accuracy)