The same sort of laws on profanity can be used for interference, no FCC needed. Someone starts interfering then there's such a thing as courts. If someone intensionally interferes then you can sue them.
Two totally different points. The anti-profanity rules come from the FCC as a condition of being granted a license. Hence, if your pirate radio station starts broadcasting a stream of profanity, you still can only get in trouble for the pirate part of the station. (And maybe some law against exposing minors and/or being obscene depending on state and local laws.)
Without an FCC, how does 99.66667 become "yours" that someone is infringing upon? And how do you prove it? Why cannot I say that 99.66667 is my patriotic Star-Spangled Banner loop and you are infringing on my frequency. This is especially true if we had two stations in the same city, with transmitters only overlapping in a small section and then for whatever reason one or both stations' range increases. It is almost as though we need a government agency to keep track of who is broadcasting on what channel where.
Chances of a typo are even higher if someone routinely types in MS Word with AutoComplete turned on and is now physically incapable of typing "the", "from", or any number of words correctly the first time.
Actually, just so long as they are consistent, that's a GoodThing (TM). After all, "atrulystrongpasswordshouldhaveatleastthreeoftehfollowingifnotfour" is a more secure password than "atrulystrongpasswordshouldhaveatleastthreeofthefollowingifnotfour". Even more secure would be "atrulystrongpasswordsshouldhasatleastthreeoftehfollowingifnotfour" (also, you can feel presidental every time you type your password.)
Pirate radio stations are defined by their illicit nature. Hence, it is impossible to allow pirate radio stations.
When I dislike your model railroad station, or more realistically, when I (or the opposing political party) dislike your political talk station, I could purposefully broadcast white noise at the same frequency. While maybe I could broadcast at 99.666667 instead of 99.666668 (your station) I only want to be disruptive. Make it illegal to broadcast white noise? So I broadcast me singing the Star-Spangled Banner on a loop, etc. What, want to make it first come-first serve? Then we are back to FCC regulation, and frankly, I would rather the channels were bid on than given away.
Additionally, there are anti-profanity laws regarding what may be broadcast. And lastly, copyright law enforcement is important.
If the FCC really wanted competition on the airwaves they'd allow Pirate and Micropower broadcasters. But instead the FCC does what it can to shutdown them.
Pirate radio stations are prima facia imposisble to allow. And competition does not mean anarchy. Aside from the fact that they would collide with one another, and thus interfer greatly, micropower stations make copyright law much harder to enforce.
Study: 'Huge jump' in Microsoft flaws since last year
"We have seen a huge jump in the vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products," said Amol Sawate, manager of Qualys's vulnerability-management lab. "These charts show growth of nearly 300 percent from 2006 to 2007
It seems unfair to claim that there is a 300 percent vulnerability increase between two versions (fairly dramatic differences) without mentioning that as the cause. Further, Office != IE, anymore than OpenOffice's problems can be laid at FireFox's feet (or an OSS project that expressly produces malware).
Actually, "most" could be interpreted two ways. One is as a plural pronoun, however the other is as an adjective for the understood subject "people" (understood in the same way that "you" is in the sentence "Do the dishes"). Both would be acceptable.
You only get an implied subject in your example because it is a command (most languages have a special conjugation for the command form of a verb, not so in English.) I am hard-pressed to think of an example of syntax that would allow you to modify this subject. There is no "implied subject" in normal usage. Instead, there is a pronoun that is acceptable.
The first is used as an adjective, and the last two as adverbs.
Let us examine this:
Most in search of malware for offensive use know the good stuff.
Most of malware for offensive use know the good stuff.
Most in search for offensive use know the good stuff.
Most for offensive use know the good stuff.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense once we remove the phrases that the nested prepositional phrases modify.
And it would be tacky to call me incorrect when I'm not... </snide self-congratulations>
You can see my response to the grandparent pointing out his errors, including "most" being a plural pronoun (not merely common venacular). However, the prepositional phrases, while not confusing in the slightest, were nested. "For offensive use" was clearly an adjective describing malware in "of malware". "Of malware for offensive use" is a prepositional phrase used as an adjective to describe the search in "in search". "In search of malware for offensive use" is a prepositional phrase used as an ajective to describe "most". There was no prepositional phrase "in search" or "of malware" in the sentence.
I know someone already called you out on this, but incorrectly. Hence, I shall also attempt to explain:
Most: A plural pronoun, in addition to an adjective.
Search: In addition to a verb, a noun meaning the act of searching.
Offensive: An adjective to describe "use" (see below).
Use: Noun, a method of employing something. Ironically, Merriam-Webster lists this usage as more common than "use" as a verb.
Good: Pejorative use of the adjective.
Also, apparently the nesting of prepositional phrases was confusing. "Use" was the end of the third prepositional phase (in addition to being a noun). If you are a native English speaker, my question is how many years did you spend reading and writing some other language before learning to communicate verbally?
This is apparently largely because of the success of a similar project where they put every episode of The Daily Show on-line a few months back. This action didn't hurt ratings, and it may have actually helped them.
Coincidentally, this site launched the day before the writer's strike. So, I'm amazed the reruns didn't hurt ratings and the website get blamed. Or maybe they are comparing it to other reruns' ratings?
No advertising, no residual payments... not fair?
Actually, thedailyshow.com has enourmous numbers of adversiments, mostly leaning towards the Air Force or AT#&T/Cingular.
Not to discourage you from buying it, and thus proving there is interest, but aren't new episodes already purchased by either Viacom (for Comedy Central) or Time-Warner (for Cartoon Network)?
Apollo 11 landing 1201 and 1202 program alarms. Programmers on the ground and flight engineers were able to rapidly determine that the alarms posed no threat and the landing continued to success.
Not to nitpick, but to claim that this is an example of "when things went wrong we used our guts and brains and fixed them" kinda demeans the rest of the list. This is something that seemed to be a problem, but was not.
There are a lot of things that required brains and guts to fix them (although in many cases, the astronauts on board were somewhat committed, so I would say more nerves than guts.)
I would contend 1864. Lincoln and Johnson, one a Democrat and one a Republican ran together on the National Unity ticket. They ran against a Democrat and a Republican who advocated peace. After the Republican was bribed to drop out, it became the National Unity vs. Democratic party, and the long, rich history of calling Democrats tratiors began.
HTML 5 is strict in the formulation of HTML entities. In the past, some browsers have been too forgiving of malformed entities, exposing users to security exploits. Browsers should not perform heroics to try to make bad content displayable.
It's the browser's fault not the HTML standards fault. And it will never go away unless all of them do away with it at once? Why, because then little Johnny, who messes up a website and only tests it in IE (for example) will see that it works for IE, not FF, not understand why, and reintroduce those crappy "looks best in IE" stickers.
Sounds good, I'm glad someone is actively trying to make the internet a safer place for people in general...
This is actually another scary example of Google being more and more evil. Think, if the US government had the DNS servers point that domain to a "This is a known malware" site, slashdot would be up in arms. But when a private corporation removes it from their index that's a good thing?
I believe in net neutrality, and I believe in search engine neutrality as well. That is, just as AT&T should not be able to throttle traffic from those sites, Google should not be able to remove them from their results (for being malware sites).
It's a tricky line to walk, but Google is powerful, and when powerful people start removing options/information "for my protection" I get nervous. While nothing forces me to use Google, they have (or maybe had?) the best algorithim. So, if Google slowly destroys their search algorithim for monetary/political reasons, we lose the best option available.
CLICHE Alert!!! Someone can't understand philosophy. Presumably you would also consider lying to be by definition unreasonable, and therefore appropriate to be limiteded?
Actually, not a cliche, but a reference to US Supreme Court opinions. Lying is not unreasonable, nor are laws to limit lying. However, there are (US) laws covering yelling in a theater, using "fighting words", and perjury. These are considered reasonable restrictions.
If you live outside the United States, there is no reason for you to know how our Supreme Court ruled (except you call things cliched when they are references to their opinions.) If you live inside the United States, educate yourself.
Does disclosing personal information of your clients classify as freedom of speech, too? Don't you think there are other risks involved?
Yes, it is a form of free speech. However, freedom is not absolute. We commonly recognize that you cannot yell fire in a theater, use certain "fighting words", or perjure yourself, all acts of free speech that we consider unreasonable. Many people (although not many people on slashdot) believe that freedom of speech can be limited by intellectual property laws. So, the interesting question is not whether it is an act of free speech, but whether whether it is justified or not to restrict it. And censorship is the word used to describe an unjustified restriction on free speech. I think in this case there are sufficent societal benefits for the restriction, but reasonable people can disagree.
I'll trump that "dozen textbooks" with Wikipedia and Google any day of the week. Add the ability to email, and get current weather reports or data that isn't under the direct control of your local priest or government bureaucrat, and you've got a real educational winner.
You're right, last time I was in Sudan I was amazed by the free wifi access in the plentiful Starbucks. And dictatorships that allow a high percentage of their citizens on the web always allow unrestricted access.
A hat is not enough; I'm going for full body coverage.
I never understood that meme: tin foil (or aluminium foil) would be a far worse conductor than gold or silver or copper. And isn't the point to approximate a faraday cage?
But, actually, with the advent of microwave weapons, are troops in the future going to wear nifty metallic mesh armor? Heck, I know a ton of people who would inroll if they were sci-fi enough.
groups of people holding 1 share of every stock they can get so they can sue when any stock decreases in price.
Any drop in price due to fraud or various other illegal activities. The point behind the plaintiff farms is to allow certain lawfirms to be first to file. If you want to see any flaw in the system, it is that the first lawyer to file a claim in what becomes a class-action gets such special privledges to make it worthwhile.
And actually, I'm not entirely sure that there is anything wrong with a plantiff farm. (I know they are illegal, but morally.) Then the best law firms are the ones to prosecute.
Slashdot Mirror
Two totally different points. The anti-profanity rules come from the FCC as a condition of being granted a license. Hence, if your pirate radio station starts broadcasting a stream of profanity, you still can only get in trouble for the pirate part of the station. (And maybe some law against exposing minors and/or being obscene depending on state and local laws.)
Without an FCC, how does 99.66667 become "yours" that someone is infringing upon? And how do you prove it? Why cannot I say that 99.66667 is my patriotic Star-Spangled Banner loop and you are infringing on my frequency. This is especially true if we had two stations in the same city, with transmitters only overlapping in a small section and then for whatever reason one or both stations' range increases. It is almost as though we need a government agency to keep track of who is broadcasting on what channel where.
Actually, just so long as they are consistent, that's a GoodThing (TM). After all, "atrulystrongpasswordshouldhaveatleastthreeoftehfollowingifnotfour" is a more secure password than "atrulystrongpasswordshouldhaveatleastthreeofthefollowingifnotfour". Even more secure would be "atrulystrongpasswordsshouldhasatleastthreeoftehfollowingifnotfour" (also, you can feel presidental every time you type your password.)
They do not need proof. It is intuitive. Hence, you need to prove it is not the case.
Civil suits - proponderence of the evidence.
Pirate radio stations are defined by their illicit nature. Hence, it is impossible to allow pirate radio stations.
When I dislike your model railroad station, or more realistically, when I (or the opposing political party) dislike your political talk station, I could purposefully broadcast white noise at the same frequency. While maybe I could broadcast at 99.666667 instead of 99.666668 (your station) I only want to be disruptive. Make it illegal to broadcast white noise? So I broadcast me singing the Star-Spangled Banner on a loop, etc. What, want to make it first come-first serve? Then we are back to FCC regulation, and frankly, I would rather the channels were bid on than given away.
Additionally, there are anti-profanity laws regarding what may be broadcast. And lastly, copyright law enforcement is important.
Pirate radio stations are prima facia imposisble to allow. And competition does not mean anarchy. Aside from the fact that they would collide with one another, and thus interfer greatly, micropower stations make copyright law much harder to enforce.
It seems unfair to claim that there is a 300 percent vulnerability increase between two versions (fairly dramatic differences) without mentioning that as the cause. Further, Office != IE, anymore than OpenOffice's problems can be laid at FireFox's feet (or an OSS project that expressly produces malware).
You only get an implied subject in your example because it is a command (most languages have a special conjugation for the command form of a verb, not so in English.) I am hard-pressed to think of an example of syntax that would allow you to modify this subject. There is no "implied subject" in normal usage. Instead, there is a pronoun that is acceptable.
Let us examine this:
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense once we remove the phrases that the nested prepositional phrases modify.
And it would be tacky to call me incorrect when I'm not... </snide self-congratulations>
You can see my response to the grandparent pointing out his errors, including "most" being a plural pronoun (not merely common venacular). However, the prepositional phrases, while not confusing in the slightest, were nested. "For offensive use" was clearly an adjective describing malware in "of malware". "Of malware for offensive use" is a prepositional phrase used as an adjective to describe the search in "in search". "In search of malware for offensive use" is a prepositional phrase used as an ajective to describe "most". There was no prepositional phrase "in search" or "of malware" in the sentence.
You can be an ass, but you have to be correct.
I know someone already called you out on this, but incorrectly. Hence, I shall also attempt to explain:
Also, apparently the nesting of prepositional phrases was confusing. "Use" was the end of the third prepositional phase (in addition to being a noun). If you are a native English speaker, my question is how many years did you spend reading and writing some other language before learning to communicate verbally?
Coincidentally, this site launched the day before the writer's strike. So, I'm amazed the reruns didn't hurt ratings and the website get blamed. Or maybe they are comparing it to other reruns' ratings?
Actually, thedailyshow.com has enourmous numbers of adversiments, mostly leaning towards the Air Force or AT#&T/Cingular.
Sorry to respond to my own comment, but I meant "you're" not "your".
Abort the landing, and... die in space? Seriously, your committed to try to get back, even if you don't think it will work.
Both. I missed it in the episode, but want to watch it now just to see it myself. But most people are outside the /. niche.
Not to discourage you from buying it, and thus proving there is interest, but aren't new episodes already purchased by either Viacom (for Comedy Central) or Time-Warner (for Cartoon Network)?
Not to nitpick, but to claim that this is an example of "when things went wrong we used our guts and brains and fixed them" kinda demeans the rest of the list. This is something that seemed to be a problem, but was not.
There are a lot of things that required brains and guts to fix them (although in many cases, the astronauts on board were somewhat committed, so I would say more nerves than guts.)
I would contend 1864. Lincoln and Johnson, one a Democrat and one a Republican ran together on the National Unity ticket. They ran against a Democrat and a Republican who advocated peace. After the Republican was bribed to drop out, it became the National Unity vs. Democratic party, and the long, rich history of calling Democrats tratiors began.
Or not turn on cookies...
It's the browser's fault not the HTML standards fault. And it will never go away unless all of them do away with it at once? Why, because then little Johnny, who messes up a website and only tests it in IE (for example) will see that it works for IE, not FF, not understand why, and reintroduce those crappy "looks best in IE" stickers.
I have a pain-relief gel which has a side-effect of super-(strength/speed/control of sea animals).
This is actually another scary example of Google being more and more evil. Think, if the US government had the DNS servers point that domain to a "This is a known malware" site, slashdot would be up in arms. But when a private corporation removes it from their index that's a good thing?
I believe in net neutrality, and I believe in search engine neutrality as well. That is, just as AT&T should not be able to throttle traffic from those sites, Google should not be able to remove them from their results (for being malware sites).
It's a tricky line to walk, but Google is powerful, and when powerful people start removing options/information "for my protection" I get nervous. While nothing forces me to use Google, they have (or maybe had?) the best algorithim. So, if Google slowly destroys their search algorithim for monetary/political reasons, we lose the best option available.
Actually, not a cliche, but a reference to US Supreme Court opinions. Lying is not unreasonable, nor are laws to limit lying. However, there are (US) laws covering yelling in a theater, using "fighting words", and perjury. These are considered reasonable restrictions.
If you live outside the United States, there is no reason for you to know how our Supreme Court ruled (except you call things cliched when they are references to their opinions.) If you live inside the United States, educate yourself.
Yes, it is a form of free speech. However, freedom is not absolute. We commonly recognize that you cannot yell fire in a theater, use certain "fighting words", or perjure yourself, all acts of free speech that we consider unreasonable. Many people (although not many people on slashdot) believe that freedom of speech can be limited by intellectual property laws. So, the interesting question is not whether it is an act of free speech, but whether whether it is justified or not to restrict it. And censorship is the word used to describe an unjustified restriction on free speech. I think in this case there are sufficent societal benefits for the restriction, but reasonable people can disagree.
You're right, last time I was in Sudan I was amazed by the free wifi access in the plentiful Starbucks. And dictatorships that allow a high percentage of their citizens on the web always allow unrestricted access.
I never understood that meme: tin foil (or aluminium foil) would be a far worse conductor than gold or silver or copper. And isn't the point to approximate a faraday cage?
But, actually, with the advent of microwave weapons, are troops in the future going to wear nifty metallic mesh armor? Heck, I know a ton of people who would inroll if they were sci-fi enough.
Any drop in price due to fraud or various other illegal activities. The point behind the plaintiff farms is to allow certain lawfirms to be first to file. If you want to see any flaw in the system, it is that the first lawyer to file a claim in what becomes a class-action gets such special privledges to make it worthwhile.
And actually, I'm not entirely sure that there is anything wrong with a plantiff farm. (I know they are illegal, but morally.) Then the best law firms are the ones to prosecute.