Why does it take an MIT professor to make a monumental cockup like that (see link to mathematical argument for electoral colleges). It's a joke to say that in any form, someone who gains less votes than someone else should be the winner. Points, sets, groups and game theory are fine, hell I even study them for my degree, but it's preposterous to group people in this way, meaning that one person's vote in an "already lost" game is less valuable that someone else's vote in a "close tie". Basically, electoral colleges do/not/ represent the majority vote, as is clear from the numbers.
OK, I'm neither American nor a lawyer, and I don't know the ins and outs of the DMCA. However, I think that this is definately an opportunity to make a huge name for yourselves. If you fight there are 2 possible outcomes:
1: You win. Sit and drink champagne, become famous. Your readership trebles overnight.
2: You lose. You get a fine. Oh dear. You get huge publicity, people buy into you for this publicity and your readership trebles overnight.
Come on, this is outrageous. It's an offence to the ideal of free speach, and not only that, it's an attempt by a commercial corporation to control the flow of information. Stand against it, or it won't be long before even usenet is censored. And that will be the death of the "Old" internet. We'll be left with the commercial websites and QVC style adverts. Whoopee. Do not let them take over our net. We built it, they want it. Tough. It's our community. They can come and sit in as long as they play by our rules, but they cannot jump up and down and demand to take it over. The internet is not for sale, we won't be run by a commercial organisation./. of all groups should know this, and stand by it. If you fight, we'll ensure that you get more than your fair share of media coverage, I'm sure. Think of the headlines "MS in anti-free speech blunder", "Gates to censor what you read", "Big Bill is watching you". Do NOT let this go./. is great as it is, and I'm sure you'll fight to keep it this way.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does it take an MIT professor to make a monumental cockup like that (see link to mathematical argument for electoral colleges). It's a joke to say that in any form, someone who gains less votes than someone else should be the winner. Points, sets, groups and game theory are fine, hell I even study them for my degree, but it's preposterous to group people in this way, meaning that one person's vote in an "already lost" game is less valuable that someone else's vote in a "close tie". Basically, electoral colleges do /not/ represent the majority vote, as is clear from the numbers.
1: You win. Sit and drink champagne, become famous. Your readership trebles overnight.
2: You lose. You get a fine. Oh dear. You get huge publicity, people buy into you for this publicity and your readership trebles overnight.
Come on, this is outrageous. It's an offence to the ideal of free speach, and not only that, it's an attempt by a commercial corporation to control the flow of information. Stand against it, or it won't be long before even usenet is censored. And that will be the death of the "Old" internet. We'll be left with the commercial websites and QVC style adverts. Whoopee. Do not let them take over our net. We built it, they want it. Tough. It's our community. They can come and sit in as long as they play by our rules, but they cannot jump up and down and demand to take it over. The internet is not for sale, we won't be run by a commercial organisation. /. of all groups should know this, and stand by it. If you fight, we'll ensure that you get more than your fair share of media coverage, I'm sure. Think of the headlines "MS in anti-free speech blunder", "Gates to censor what you read", "Big Bill is watching you". Do NOT let this go. /. is great as it is, and I'm sure you'll fight to keep it this way.