I believe the main reason that it was discounted was the fact that when there is the lack of a term for an idea, a new word is created in its place. Just because there was no word for quark before doesn't mean that it can't be invented by someone.
Matt Leese
The whole idea that someone can be sued in California for actions which took place in another state in this context seems to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution (for those that don't remember, the Federal government has sole jurisdiction over interstate commerce). This is definately a commerce related action (given that DeCSS supposedly breaks a trade secret which would qualify as intellectual property, hence commerce). That given, the California Court shouldn't have any jurisdiction over the proceedings whatsoever. This should be at best a suit in Federal District Court in California (but the venue most likely would still be incorrect). Even if this case is lost at the lower level (can't remember whether it's in State District or Circuit level, don't know what CA calls it), there would still be ample precedent to simply turn it over on appeal.
It has everything to do with it because the states run federal elections and the state's determine egibility for voting in federal elections (remember the grandfather clause and literacy tests administered by southern states to prevent blacks from voting?). Selling your vote isn't protected by federal law so you'd lose your ability to vote.
I would recommend giving the students some real time programming assignments. It's something that was completely neglected at my high school and something that is much more useful in the real world. The best way to do this though is on microcontrollers.
Parallax makes a pretty good microntroller called the Basic Stamp II that could be used. It does have a really annoying BASIC based language called PBASIC but it is still usable. It's a cross between BASIC and C with the more powerful features ripped away (these things have 32 bytes of RAM and 500 bytes of ROM if I remember correctly). I believe that Parallax does try to support the educational community.
If you really wanted to get involved in real time programming I'd recommend a program like FIRST Robotics although that is much more geared toward the engineering side of it. But the robot that's built does have to have a robot controller (it's based around the Basic Stamp II and sold by InnovationFIRST). There are a lot of interesting problems that creap up in that competition including the fact that there isn't any timing circuit. Another part of the FIRST Competition related to programming this year was that they released specs to a data stream that could be tapped into so I (and several other people independently) wrote interfaces to that information. And for those who can't tell, I am very much into this program still.
Microsoft could use their international prescense to remain monolithic overseas but I really don't see any US court standing for that. Microsoft would be very quickly slapped with a contempt of court order, and the punishment for that would be much more nasty than anything that Microsoft is threatened with now. That could be getting into criminal action (the only way to get around that would for the corporate officers to relinquish their US citizenship, otherwise they're fair game).
Now, Microsoft could try and flee to another country to avoid US court action but I doubt that would go over well with anyone: the court, the rest of the government, or even the US public. I think that's about the time we start seeing either extremely high import tariffs or an outright ban on Microsoft products (the court could concievably declare them contraband because Microsoft would be in contempt of court).
Basically, Microsoft trying to run from the decision would be a very bad thing for them. Remember, the US is a very large computer market and it would hurt Microsoft significantly to lose it and by leaving the country they'd be risking that too greatly.
The Treaty of Versailles did not put very harsh terms on Germany. In fact, the terms placed on them after World War II (mostly by the Soviet Union in the form of reperations on their part of occupied Germany) were much worse than those placed on Germany by Versailles. The Weimar Republic intentionally made it look impossible to pay the reparations owed and in so doing caused massive inflation and destroyed their economy. Versailles did have something to do with starting World War II in that it helped to perpetuate the myth that the German Army was never defeated but that instead the homefront collapsed (this was one of the belief's that Hitler clung to). Because the army didn't fail, it could then be postulated that Germany could win the next war (as long as they kept close watch over the homefront).
Japan did not contribute to the start of World War II either. The most important theater of operations (at least as far as the United Nations or Allies was concerned was the European theater) as can be seen by the Europe First strategy (knock out Germany and then take Japan). In the European theater was where the home country's were threatened (at least for Britain and the Soviet Union). One of the main reasons that Japan felt free to attack the South Pacific was because most of the nations were already involved with fighting Germany and were therefore not as able to reinforce their colonial possessions (as to whether or not Japan would have succeeded otherwise, I'm not going to comment). It's also important to remember that World War II involved the United Nations in Europe before they did in the Pacific.
I believe what you're asking for is exactly what we have right now for telemarketing: an opt-out program. You have the ability to simply ask to be taken off the telemarketers list and your asking is legally binding. Refusing to take you off their list can have the telemarketer fined. Spam email is supposed to have the same system, however, I don't have experience with opting out of spam email (never get around to it).
Now, if you want to ban unsolicated email or phone calls you get into the problem of prior restraint. Basically, the government cannot ban speech before it is said (or printed or whatever), but may inact punishment for what is said later. Now, banning unsolicated speech may be prior restraint. I would feel that it may be: the government is banning a class of communication. So it may be difficult for the government to simply ban it. It may have to be opt-out only.
Faxes were made illegal because they cost money to the recieving party (i.e. paper and ink). Telemarketing wasn't because there aren't any real costs to having a telemarketer call (there is the lost of time but that's hard to quantify). Email also costs money to the reciever which is why it has been outlawed in some areas. The main issues are first amendment. Whereas most people do not send political messages (what the first amendment tries to protect the most) through fax, they do send them through email. Some types of email could be protected speech, which is why there is more controversy over it.
I believe that he's trying to say that there is not an overreaching conspiracy to put the public under complete survelliance. Instead, it is more along the lines of a smaller groups that aren't seeking to control everything, just a small part of our lives. The cumulative effect is that our entire lives are under control, albeit different groups. He's trying to point out that they are more likely to occur even though they are less sexy to look for.
The Supreme Court has had trouble defining what pornography is (I believe the exact quote is "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it") and now there is the idea that pornography should be decided by a computer program (or a private company, depending on how you look at it). Does this strike anyone else as odd? There have been many court cases as to what is indecent and what is decent and now this decision is being left to a computer. Have computers really advanced to the point where they are capable of making better decisions than humans when there is no set algorithm? Obviously, no. Perhaps if there was a descrete definition for pornography and indecent material, then we could employ these, but until that date (which I believe will never come) we are stuck with the fact that the filters will end up blocking out sites that are not legally (as would be determined by a court of law) indecent. Is it worth while to block some decent content for the greater good of stopping indecent content? Not if you hold to the ideas of the first amendment. This could easily be considered prior restraint (preventing something being published before it has been published), which has been upheld as illegal by the Supreme Court. Software filters are not only a bad idea, but are also most likely unConstitutional. This issue most likely will need to be taken to court to get a definitive legal answer.
The Pope was the person most responsible for bringing down communism you say? I think Ronald Regan would get that position. Without his push to increase military spending in the US, communism would not have fallen. In essence, the Soviet Union bankrupted itself trying to keep up in the arms race with the United States. At the end of the cold war they could no longer keep up under the pressure and collapsed because they had destroyed their economy.
Only the copyright holder would be able to enforce the GPL. Anyone else, whether the FSF or Red Hat, would not have legal standing to bring a suit. This would basically be a case in which there would need to be enforcement of a contract. The contract would be the GPL and the contracting parties would be the copyright holder and the violator.
Even though the FSF could not sue the violator, the copyright holder could have the FSF represent them as their lawyer in court. This would help to transfer the financial burden away from the copyright holder.
Simply changing the name of the copyright holder to the FSF would not give them enough standing to sue because it was requires signed documentation that the copyright is being transfered to a new party (see the GNU website for more.
There isn't much chance of recieving monetary damages in an Open Source case because it is required to register a copyright with the copyright office (is that the USPTO?). All that a court could legally do is order a company to comply with the GPL, which is what is intended in the first place.
Over the past several months there have been several controversies over the National Endowment for the Arts, specifically, with relation to the Brooklyn Museum of Art showing a controversial exhibit. What is your position on the National Endowment for the Arts and, more generally, the government sponsorship of expression.
Does the fact that the money cannot go to all artists, the NEA therefore limits the freedom to express of some artists, so it should therefore be removed as a program? Or because of the fact that it helps some artists provide there views, it is therefore good and should be kept? Should taxpayers have to pay for something that they don't agree with? I belive that most people would agree that the NEA has done some good by promoting art, but has it done more harm than good?
The article did refer to subway systems and, I may be mistaken, but I believe that transit police do have arresting power. This will create a good deal of hassle for those who are falsely identified. Do you think stores will hesitate to throw out people who are "threats"? Matt Leese
Although just warning and interogating seems a good alternative to a crime occuring, the situation is quite different for false positives. How much would you like to spend an hours or more being interogated because of abnormal behavior? The technology could be used to alert a security officer that a crime was about to be committed and then they could simply observe the situation and intercept after a crime has been committed. That sounds like a tempting idea but it comes way too close to Big Brother for me. Matt Leese
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the main reason that it was discounted was the fact that when there is the lack of a term for an idea, a new word is created in its place. Just because there was no word for quark before doesn't mean that it can't be invented by someone. Matt Leese
Matt
It has everything to do with it because the states run federal elections and the state's determine egibility for voting in federal elections (remember the grandfather clause and literacy tests administered by southern states to prevent blacks from voting?). Selling your vote isn't protected by federal law so you'd lose your ability to vote.
Matt
Parallax makes a pretty good microntroller called the Basic Stamp II that could be used. It does have a really annoying BASIC based language called PBASIC but it is still usable. It's a cross between BASIC and C with the more powerful features ripped away (these things have 32 bytes of RAM and 500 bytes of ROM if I remember correctly). I believe that Parallax does try to support the educational community.
If you really wanted to get involved in real time programming I'd recommend a program like FIRST Robotics although that is much more geared toward the engineering side of it. But the robot that's built does have to have a robot controller (it's based around the Basic Stamp II and sold by InnovationFIRST). There are a lot of interesting problems that creap up in that competition including the fact that there isn't any timing circuit. Another part of the FIRST Competition related to programming this year was that they released specs to a data stream that could be tapped into so I (and several other people independently) wrote interfaces to that information. And for those who can't tell, I am very much into this program still.
Matt Leese
Now, Microsoft could try and flee to another country to avoid US court action but I doubt that would go over well with anyone: the court, the rest of the government, or even the US public. I think that's about the time we start seeing either extremely high import tariffs or an outright ban on Microsoft products (the court could concievably declare them contraband because Microsoft would be in contempt of court).
Basically, Microsoft trying to run from the decision would be a very bad thing for them. Remember, the US is a very large computer market and it would hurt Microsoft significantly to lose it and by leaving the country they'd be risking that too greatly.
Matt Leese
Japan did not contribute to the start of World War II either. The most important theater of operations (at least as far as the United Nations or Allies was concerned was the European theater) as can be seen by the Europe First strategy (knock out Germany and then take Japan). In the European theater was where the home country's were threatened (at least for Britain and the Soviet Union). One of the main reasons that Japan felt free to attack the South Pacific was because most of the nations were already involved with fighting Germany and were therefore not as able to reinforce their colonial possessions (as to whether or not Japan would have succeeded otherwise, I'm not going to comment). It's also important to remember that World War II involved the United Nations in Europe before they did in the Pacific.
Now, if you want to ban unsolicated email or phone calls you get into the problem of prior restraint. Basically, the government cannot ban speech before it is said (or printed or whatever), but may inact punishment for what is said later. Now, banning unsolicated speech may be prior restraint. I would feel that it may be: the government is banning a class of communication. So it may be difficult for the government to simply ban it. It may have to be opt-out only.
Matt Leese
Matt Leese
Matt Leese
Matt Leese
Even though the FSF could not sue the violator, the copyright holder could have the FSF represent them as their lawyer in court. This would help to transfer the financial burden away from the copyright holder.
Simply changing the name of the copyright holder to the FSF would not give them enough standing to sue because it was requires signed documentation that the copyright is being transfered to a new party (see the GNU website for more.
There isn't much chance of recieving monetary damages in an Open Source case because it is required to register a copyright with the copyright office (is that the USPTO?). All that a court could legally do is order a company to comply with the GPL, which is what is intended in the first place.
Matt Leese
Does the fact that the money cannot go to all artists, the NEA therefore limits the freedom to express of some artists, so it should therefore be removed as a program? Or because of the fact that it helps some artists provide there views, it is therefore good and should be kept? Should taxpayers have to pay for something that they don't agree with? I belive that most people would agree that the NEA has done some good by promoting art, but has it done more harm than good?
Matt Leese
The article did refer to subway systems and, I may be mistaken, but I believe that transit police do have arresting power. This will create a good deal of hassle for those who are falsely identified. Do you think stores will hesitate to throw out people who are "threats"? Matt Leese
Although just warning and interogating seems a good alternative to a crime occuring, the situation is quite different for false positives. How much would you like to spend an hours or more being interogated because of abnormal behavior? The technology could be used to alert a security officer that a crime was about to be committed and then they could simply observe the situation and intercept after a crime has been committed. That sounds like a tempting idea but it comes way too close to Big Brother for me. Matt Leese