Careful with that word: cult. That's generally used by bigger religions to scare people away from smaller religions, but I get your point... I've noticed. There's some demominations of churches that brand any denomination that isn't their own a cult.
When I say cult, I mean the Jim Jones Kool-Aid self destruct kind of cult. Self serving leaders that don't care that they're leading themselves and everyone else into oblivion, as long as they get just what they want.
Sounds like the current state of American politics to me.:/
It's time to put the representative back in Representative Democracy.
As I understand it, the Communist Revolution in Cuba came about because of even deeper poverty. Low wages WITHOUT the benefit of food rations, clothing, the basic necessities.
As for why Cuba is still poor, take a look at reality: The US, which is Cuba's closest neighbor, has decided to impose unilateral sanctions. WE're 90 miles from Cuba. If we were to open trande an tourism, I would expect a *HUGE* mutual economic boom to Cuba and Florida, which effect rippling thoughout the United States as well.
Consider this: The American farmer has had to face lower prices then ever for their product. They can't seem to sell enough at a halfway decent price. The family farmer is going the way of the Dodo. Yet there is a market like Cuba that is closed to us. A potentially large market, that could give the US farming industry a much needed shot in the arm, as well as provide more food for Cubans.
There's only one other type of entitiy that seeks to alter the way people think, act, and live using techniques of isolation and starvation: It's called a Cult.
It is already clear that the music distributors are taking advantage of strong import rules (as lobbied for by the music and film industry) to screw the British customer.
What situations like these make obvious is that corporations wish to reap the cost benefits of a "Global Economy" by obtaining resources at the low price possible. When I say resources, I mean everything: Cost of Facilities, labor, raw materials, etc. At the same time, corporations are lobbying (and successfully, at that) for laws that restrict where we can buy our media, how we can view it, and where we can view it.
It's a double standard in the worst way, and it's all in the name of God Money.
In the case of the music industry, they think they can get what they what by throwing money into overcoming any obstical that threatens their insane amount of profits, and then further gouge consumers to make up the difference. The problem is, it's almost always worked. They've gotten almost everything they want; the DMCA is the most recent example.
In my opinion, the situation WILL change. However, it's gonna be one hell of a battle: The music industry have rather large war chests that have been filled by gouging us for all these year.
o/~ "They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast." o/~
For anyone wishing to put this all in perspective, pick up a copy of Les Miserable. It helps make sense of a lot of things.
Amazing, isn't it? The more time passes, the more poinient the classics become.
Re:It's great that Iowa's trying, but...
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 1
If that company wishes to do business in a certain state, they must abide by the laws of that state. If you've ever read an explanation of a consumer warrenty, you will often times statement that in certain states, certain provisions don't apply, or there are different conditions in different states.
I'm not sure about the status of Iowa's UCITA "bomb-shelter" bill. Iowa's Legislative session ended earlier this week. (It only runs for about 100 something days). I'm not sure if it even passed the Senate.
So is this roadmap more or less realistic, or V-A-P-O-R . . . ?
Um.... you broke the haiku.
That last one should go:
So is this roadmap more of less realistic, or is it vapor?
Re:Future Incompatabilities?
on
Intel Roadmap
·
· Score: 1
Your logic is flawed. 10 years ago, when systems cost upwards of $4000, it made economical sense to upgrade. These days, a performance system will put you back, oh, $1200-$1500. The cost of computers and hardware has gotten to the point where it is more economical to purchase a new system, instead of upgrading. The cost to add the new motherboard is sometimes more than the motherboard itself!
More economical to who? Maybe for the people who can afford 1,200 to 1,500 each time they wanna upgrade.
If they wanted to, they could make upgrade paths even more economical then with current system. I know you can buy drive controller cards, and shut off the on-board controller through the CMOS. You can even buy USB upgrade cards. The biggest problem with upgrade paths is that most of the time when you want to upgrade the CPU, what you want will not work with your motherboard. If it weren't for that, upgrades might be more reasonable. However, a previous poster stated the point quite well: There's not as much money to be made if a product is UPGRADED rather then completely replaced.
If we wanted to, we *COULD* have cars and TV's and other consumer and durable goods that last virtually forever. Cars, VCR's, TV's etc. In case you haven't noticed the MBT of consumer goods has dropped tremendiously.
I know companies can do it if they want to. I have a perfect example sitting right next to me. Western Electric Dest Touch-Tone phone. I bought it at a second hand store. It was probably leased equipment at one point. And, since the Bells didn't want to have to replace subscriber equiment, they made these phones tougher then hell. You could literally bludgeon someone to death with this phone, and then plug it in and call the Coroner.:)
In the end, though, this constant replacement rather then upgrade is a tremendious waste of resources. Maybe when big business realized how much they hurt themselves and each other finacially with these almost disposable good, they'll again focus on craftmanship, durability, and upgradeability (where applicable).
Just ask NASA and JPL.:)
Re:Un*x is also popular in real-time embedded syst
on
The End of Unix?
·
· Score: 1
After all, who would want to run life support equipement on windows:)
*Shudder*
That adds a whole new level to the term "Blue Screen of Death
Um, aren't corporations groups of individuals (shareholders) too? Granted, they are not all-inclusive organizations, but then, what is? Surely not governments--those are merely a minority of individuals claiming to speak for the rest. What groups of individuals are you referring to?
Individuals that can afford to buy shares, yes. Generally, share of stock aren't bought out of ethics, but the desire for more money. Not that wanting more money is bad (I'd certainly like more!), but generally, what a shareholder is more interested in making money then in ensuring that all the company's actions are ethical.
If everyone does it, how can it be criminal? They can't jail EVERYBODY. The net is empowering people in this way.
They can't jail everybody. What they can try to do (and they certainly try!) is brow beat the masses into submission through fear and intimidation. Find a few people that are prominent enough (DVD CSS, anyone?), prosecute them, and threaten legal action against anyone and everyone (suiting over links to DeCSS, anyone?). Most individuals buckle, because they just don't have the resources (i.e., money) to fight.
d) You can always "throw the bums out". Whether this is peaceful (as in voting them out) or not (as in bloody revolution) is immaterial. If enough people get riled up enough, change occurs. There is no stopping it. There is no holding it back. At least, not without killing the dissenting parties as they arise, which is a shocking blow to the rest to the peepul (sic)...
Conclusion: at some point, the teaming masses of humanity will not take it anymore, and throw the bums out. You cannot continually remove a man's freedoms and expect him not to react. Everyone has their breaking point. So does a society. Things balance out.
What we need to do is make a concerted effort to inform the general public. I would think most people realize the system sucks. What they don't realize (and they're not going to learn this through any traditional mass media) is why it sucks and that they *CAN* effect change upon it. One the problems with changing it is voter apathy. I lot of people have such a severe distaste for the politics of the two big parties, they just don't vote. The media in general doesn't cover anything else but the two big parties. That we need to do is thrust knowledge of and about the alternative parties and their philosophies.
Yes, everyone will reach a breaking point somewhere along the line. Usually, when that happens, nothing short of bloody revolution will make a difference. I think that time is coming, thought not very soon. In revolution, the fat cats very well get what's coming to them; but war is a big shit sandwich and generally everyone gets a taste.
Throughout its history, the net treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
However, more and more people who circumvent this "damage" are no longer damamge control experts, but criminals.
The way our present society and present government treats corporations is ass backwards. Individual rights should come before the rights of corporations, not vice-versa. Collectively, groups of individuals should dictate the terms of what is allowable for corporations to do. Unfortunatly, the situation has been as such for so long that it's simply accepted.
I think one of the tools that we actually have now that is far, far under-exercised is the power to revoke a corporations charter. See this adbusters article for more information about the revokation of corporate charters.
However, as time goes on, more and more power is being shifted away from individuals and their elected representatives, and more towards corporations. Remember, though, that as much money as corporations can put into a politician's war chest, corporations can't vote. If inform voters, and get more of the elgiable public to vote, we can "throw the bums out" and get the law working back in the favor of the individual.
Thanks go out to Time-Warner/AOL/Whore of Babylon, the RIAA, the MPAA, the DVD Consortioum, and the politicians who have sold our best interests to the highest bidder and best funded lobbyist by passing the DMCA.
Remember how the FCC handed out all that bandwidth to existing Analog TV stations for HDTV? Remeber that they weren't necessarly using all that bandwidth? Voila. Corporate Handouts upon Corporate Handouts. The more we shuffle through the gargabe for scraps, the more they dine on Caviar.
For every day that passes, for every BS policy that's enacted, for every bit of our existance that's sold to the highest bidder, the more and more I feel our government needs a size 12 in their collective keisters that'll rattle their teeth right out of their mouths.
If anyone wants to discuss politics, my e-mail's in the header of this comment.
However, this not only misleading people with suggestive domain names.... this is purposly registering domains that are similar to trademarked or well known names, and redirecting them to something completely unrelated. While it's not redirecting people to a porn site (hell, if I wanted a porn site, I could find one easily), but it's still misleading, and still using a name similar to a trademark.
What to do about it though, is a tricky question. We don't want heavy handed tactics to become the norm. After all, we saw what happened with eToys.com (an on-line toy company) vs. etoy.com (which if my memory serves was a french art group.) However, there must be some way we can make such practices unappealing.
It would be a positive step forward if the federal government banned region coded dvds in the US. It could be legitimately done by classifying it as a restraint of trade, and restraints of trade are big time antitrust violations.
What really stink is that while big comapnies want to be able to move their jobs to wherever the labor is cheapest, they want to restrict what media we can buy, how we can play it, and how much we're going to pay for it. Can you say "double standard?"
We keep hearing about a "Global Economy." It seems, however, that the only thing big business is interested in globalizing is their iron fist. The rest of us are just supposed to take it like they give it in whatever part of the world we happen to be in.
If business is able to take their manufacturing and labor wherever they want to, buy materials and parts wherever it's cheapest, why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't we be able to buy an anime DVD from Japan if it hasn't been released here? Why shouldn't I be able to buy a DVD of some britcom from the UK?
If we're going to globalize the marketplace, let's globalize it for everyone, not just the select few.
You know why it won't be allowed to happen anytime soon? Because it should shake the very foundataion of the economic system that allows they super-rich to remain super-rich and gain more wealth. A truly open, free, global market would mean that companies could no longer exploit the poorest nations in the world to produce their product for the lowest cost, to be sold for as much as they can get somewhere else in the world. It would level the playing field. Economic dispariety would begin to dissappear, and the super rich would no longer be super rich.
History shows us, however, that it can't last forever. In fact, history shows us that when the breaking point is reached, bloody revolution ensues. When that happens, all the money in the world won't be able to buy a repreive from the people's wrath.
With lithium-ion batterys (which seem to be standard issue with new cell phones now), and the release of the Transmeta Crusoe(sp?) processor, we'll probably start seeing phones with more computational power and longer battery life. Combine this with the recent development of display that are smaller, higher resolution, and have lower power requirements, and you have the recipie for a pretty kickass combination of a cell phone and a PDA. Combine this with a built-in GPS receiver, and you have a device that can show you a map, show where you are on that map, and help guide you to your destination.
Don't get all giddy yet. I have some concerns. Wireless carriers have a direct monitary incentive to compell you to use on-line services so they can get their 90 cents a minute. On-line services have an interest in having whatever personal information they can get through your patronage. I'm also sure there are several government agencies, commercial entities, etc, that would love to know where you are, where you're going, and who you're going to meet. The possibilities range from the most innocent (showing you a banner ad for someplace you're going to pass near, remember the Ericcson Banner Ad article a couple days ago?) to the most egregious (i.e., everything Big Brother wants to know, you give without even thinking about it). If I've thought about it, you can bet that smarter people with power and influence have thought about it too.
You're probably thinking to yourself how far fetched this is. Is it that far-fetched? If a phone is giving up your phone number to every web site it visits, all someone needs to do is connect that phone number to whoever the owner is. The comment I'm replying to mentioned that Yahoo has a personal scheduler service on-line and accessible from web-browsing phones. If you're asking a site for directions from Point A to Point B, chances are, you're either at Point A, or will soon be at Point B. What better way to keep tabs on people's activities then to have their phone number associated with personal information you deposit in centralized computer systems? As is it now, you can already be somewhat tracked down by carrying your cell phone when it's turned on.
I see two possibilities: A) Phones will become simply wireless phone that double as a decent portible web terminal with better displays and input options, or B) Phones will become a combination of a wireless phone and a powerful PDA as well as a great solution for mobile web browsing.
Of course, solution A offers more profit and more power then option B. So naturally, which option do you think we'll get offered?
Read the fscking story. This person was terminated from his job, and his user ID was shut down. He then apparently got a former co-worker to reactivate his User ID, and used it to get into their network, when he then used L0phtcrack to gain user ID's and passwords.
If this is the case, the company has a legitamate criminal complaint. There's good reason to believe that he would have reason to attempt to hurt his former employer.
This isn't a heavy handed crackdown. This isn't a small town declaring that L0phtcrack is illegal to possess. This is a criminal arrest where a former employee is believed to have accessed a computer system after being terminated from his job. The logical motive would be to hurt the company by giving information to competitors.
CmdrTaco, how many times have we complained of uneven, uninformed media coverage of internet and digital media issues? Wouldn't it help our credibility and our cause to not be guilty of the same thing? I read the story that was linked to in your post. Did you even bother? You post does not provide ONE DAMN SHRED of evidence that you did.
So they want to make a robotic cat along the lines of AIBO. That's easy. After some cosmetic changes, just install some version of Windows to emulate feline behavior.
After all, cat don't do what you tell them to. In fact, they do whatever they want, whether you want them to do it or not. They can crash anywhere and everywhere. They will also consume all space, and are very curious about the enviroment they're installed in!
Of course, cat enthusiests would say that this is a feature, not a bug.
I recently used one of those e-mail engines to send correspondance to my two state senators (Sen. Chuck Grassley [R] and Sen. Tom Harkin [D], of Iowa), and *BOTH* sent me a snail mail response.
FYI, it was concerning the Know Your Customer Sunset Act.
As the Pink Floyd song goes....
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 1
"Bleeting and Babbling they fell on his neck with a scream"
"Wave apon wave of demented avengers marches cheerfully out of obsecurity into the dream"
Isn't is amazing how songs like Pink Floyd's "Sheep" become more relevant the more time passes?
Slashdot Mirror
When I say cult, I mean the Jim Jones Kool-Aid self destruct kind of cult. Self serving leaders that don't care that they're leading themselves and everyone else into oblivion, as long as they get just what they want.
Sounds like the current state of American politics to me. :/
It's time to put the representative back in Representative Democracy.
As for why Cuba is still poor, take a look at reality: The US, which is Cuba's closest neighbor, has decided to impose unilateral sanctions. WE're 90 miles from Cuba. If we were to open trande an tourism, I would expect a *HUGE* mutual economic boom to Cuba and Florida, which effect rippling thoughout the United States as well.
Consider this: The American farmer has had to face lower prices then ever for their product. They can't seem to sell enough at a halfway decent price. The family farmer is going the way of the Dodo. Yet there is a market like Cuba that is closed to us. A potentially large market, that could give the US farming industry a much needed shot in the arm, as well as provide more food for Cubans.
There's only one other type of entitiy that seeks to alter the way people think, act, and live using techniques of isolation and starvation: It's called a Cult.
What situations like these make obvious is that corporations wish to reap the cost benefits of a "Global Economy" by obtaining resources at the low price possible. When I say resources, I mean everything: Cost of Facilities, labor, raw materials, etc. At the same time, corporations are lobbying (and successfully, at that) for laws that restrict where we can buy our media, how we can view it, and where we can view it.
It's a double standard in the worst way, and it's all in the name of God Money.
In the case of the music industry, they think they can get what they what by throwing money into overcoming any obstical that threatens their insane amount of profits, and then further gouge consumers to make up the difference. The problem is, it's almost always worked. They've gotten almost everything they want; the DMCA is the most recent example.
In my opinion, the situation WILL change. However, it's gonna be one hell of a battle: The music industry have rather large war chests that have been filled by gouging us for all these year.
o/~ "They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast." o/~
The parody ad on Stay Free! Magazine looks like it's for an iGat. :) But with a clear case, so much for flash supression. :)
Amazing, isn't it? The more time passes, the more poinient the classics become.
If that company wishes to do business in a certain state, they must abide by the laws of that state. If you've ever read an explanation of a consumer warrenty, you will often times statement that in certain states, certain provisions don't apply, or there are different conditions in different states.
I'm not sure about the status of Iowa's UCITA "bomb-shelter" bill. Iowa's Legislative session ended earlier this week. (It only runs for about 100 something days). I'm not sure if it even passed the Senate.
It be more fun as a Jerry Springer show, though.
"Assenine patents do battle against other Assenine patents, tomorrow on Springer!"
Um.... you broke the haiku.
That last one should go:
So is this roadmap more of less realistic, or is it vapor?
More economical to who? Maybe for the people who can afford 1,200 to 1,500 each time they wanna upgrade.
If they wanted to, they could make upgrade paths even more economical then with current system. I know you can buy drive controller cards, and shut off the on-board controller through the CMOS. You can even buy USB upgrade cards. The biggest problem with upgrade paths is that most of the time when you want to upgrade the CPU, what you want will not work with your motherboard. If it weren't for that, upgrades might be more reasonable. However, a previous poster stated the point quite well: There's not as much money to be made if a product is UPGRADED rather then completely replaced.
If we wanted to, we *COULD* have cars and TV's and other consumer and durable goods that last virtually forever. Cars, VCR's, TV's etc. In case you haven't noticed the MBT of consumer goods has dropped tremendiously.
I know companies can do it if they want to. I have a perfect example sitting right next to me. Western Electric Dest Touch-Tone phone. I bought it at a second hand store. It was probably leased equipment at one point. And, since the Bells didn't want to have to replace subscriber equiment, they made these phones tougher then hell. You could literally bludgeon someone to death with this phone, and then plug it in and call the Coroner. :)
In the end, though, this constant replacement rather then upgrade is a tremendious waste of resources. Maybe when big business realized how much they hurt themselves and each other finacially with these almost disposable good, they'll again focus on craftmanship, durability, and upgradeability (where applicable).
Just ask NASA and JPL. :)
*Shudder*
That adds a whole new level to the term "Blue Screen of Death
Individuals that can afford to buy shares, yes. Generally, share of stock aren't bought out of ethics, but the desire for more money. Not that wanting more money is bad (I'd certainly like more!), but generally, what a shareholder is more interested in making money then in ensuring that all the company's actions are ethical.
They can't jail everybody. What they can try to do (and they certainly try!) is brow beat the masses into submission through fear and intimidation. Find a few people that are prominent enough (DVD CSS, anyone?), prosecute them, and threaten legal action against anyone and everyone (suiting over links to DeCSS, anyone?). Most individuals buckle, because they just don't have the resources (i.e., money) to fight.
d) You can always "throw the bums out". Whether this is peaceful (as in voting them out) or not (as in bloody revolution) is immaterial. If enough people get riled up enough, change occurs. There is no stopping it. There is no holding it back. At least, not without killing the dissenting parties as they arise, which is a shocking blow to the rest to the peepul (sic)...
Conclusion: at some point, the teaming masses of humanity will not take it anymore, and throw the bums out. You cannot continually remove a man's freedoms and expect him not to react. Everyone has their breaking point. So does a society. Things balance out.
What we need to do is make a concerted effort to inform the general public. I would think most people realize the system sucks. What they don't realize (and they're not going to learn this through any traditional mass media) is why it sucks and that they *CAN* effect change upon it. One the problems with changing it is voter apathy. I lot of people have such a severe distaste for the politics of the two big parties, they just don't vote. The media in general doesn't cover anything else but the two big parties. That we need to do is thrust knowledge of and about the alternative parties and their philosophies.
Yes, everyone will reach a breaking point somewhere along the line. Usually, when that happens, nothing short of bloody revolution will make a difference. I think that time is coming, thought not very soon. In revolution, the fat cats very well get what's coming to them; but war is a big shit sandwich and generally everyone gets a taste.
However, more and more people who circumvent this "damage" are no longer damamge control experts, but criminals.
The way our present society and present government treats corporations is ass backwards. Individual rights should come before the rights of corporations, not vice-versa. Collectively, groups of individuals should dictate the terms of what is allowable for corporations to do. Unfortunatly, the situation has been as such for so long that it's simply accepted.
I think one of the tools that we actually have now that is far, far under-exercised is the power to revoke a corporations charter. See this adbusters article for more information about the revokation of corporate charters.
However, as time goes on, more and more power is being shifted away from individuals and their elected representatives, and more towards corporations. Remember, though, that as much money as corporations can put into a politician's war chest, corporations can't vote. If inform voters, and get more of the elgiable public to vote, we can "throw the bums out" and get the law working back in the favor of the individual.
Thanks go out to Time-Warner/AOL/Whore of Babylon, the RIAA, the MPAA, the DVD Consortioum, and the politicians who have sold our best interests to the highest bidder and best funded lobbyist by passing the DMCA.
For every day that passes, for every BS policy that's enacted, for every bit of our existance that's sold to the highest bidder, the more and more I feel our government needs a size 12 in their collective keisters that'll rattle their teeth right out of their mouths.
If anyone wants to discuss politics, my e-mail's in the header of this comment.
However, this not only misleading people with suggestive domain names.... this is purposly registering domains that are similar to trademarked or well known names, and redirecting them to something completely unrelated. While it's not redirecting people to a porn site (hell, if I wanted a porn site, I could find one easily), but it's still misleading, and still using a name similar to a trademark.
What to do about it though, is a tricky question. We don't want heavy handed tactics to become the norm. After all, we saw what happened with eToys.com (an on-line toy company) vs. etoy.com (which if my memory serves was a french art group.) However, there must be some way we can make such practices unappealing.
Yea, but Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn would be much cooler. :)
What really stink is that while big comapnies want to be able to move their jobs to wherever the labor is cheapest, they want to restrict what media we can buy, how we can play it, and how much we're going to pay for it. Can you say "double standard?"
We keep hearing about a "Global Economy." It seems, however, that the only thing big business is interested in globalizing is their iron fist. The rest of us are just supposed to take it like they give it in whatever part of the world we happen to be in.
If business is able to take their manufacturing and labor wherever they want to, buy materials and parts wherever it's cheapest, why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't we be able to buy an anime DVD from Japan if it hasn't been released here? Why shouldn't I be able to buy a DVD of some britcom from the UK?
If we're going to globalize the marketplace, let's globalize it for everyone, not just the select few.
You know why it won't be allowed to happen anytime soon? Because it should shake the very foundataion of the economic system that allows they super-rich to remain super-rich and gain more wealth. A truly open, free, global market would mean that companies could no longer exploit the poorest nations in the world to produce their product for the lowest cost, to be sold for as much as they can get somewhere else in the world. It would level the playing field. Economic dispariety would begin to dissappear, and the super rich would no longer be super rich.
History shows us, however, that it can't last forever. In fact, history shows us that when the breaking point is reached, bloody revolution ensues. When that happens, all the money in the world won't be able to buy a repreive from the people's wrath.
Did I make any sense? Is what Is anything I said in the realm of possibility? Or am I just going completely Oliver Stoner?
Don't get all giddy yet. I have some concerns. Wireless carriers have a direct monitary incentive to compell you to use on-line services so they can get their 90 cents a minute. On-line services have an interest in having whatever personal information they can get through your patronage. I'm also sure there are several government agencies, commercial entities, etc, that would love to know where you are, where you're going, and who you're going to meet. The possibilities range from the most innocent (showing you a banner ad for someplace you're going to pass near, remember the Ericcson Banner Ad article a couple days ago?) to the most egregious (i.e., everything Big Brother wants to know, you give without even thinking about it). If I've thought about it, you can bet that smarter people with power and influence have thought about it too.
You're probably thinking to yourself how far fetched this is. Is it that far-fetched? If a phone is giving up your phone number to every web site it visits, all someone needs to do is connect that phone number to whoever the owner is. The comment I'm replying to mentioned that Yahoo has a personal scheduler service on-line and accessible from web-browsing phones. If you're asking a site for directions from Point A to Point B, chances are, you're either at Point A, or will soon be at Point B. What better way to keep tabs on people's activities then to have their phone number associated with personal information you deposit in centralized computer systems? As is it now, you can already be somewhat tracked down by carrying your cell phone when it's turned on.
I see two possibilities: A) Phones will become simply wireless phone that double as a decent portible web terminal with better displays and input options, or B) Phones will become a combination of a wireless phone and a powerful PDA as well as a great solution for mobile web browsing.
Of course, solution A offers more profit and more power then option B. So naturally, which option do you think we'll get offered?
If this is the case, the company has a legitamate criminal complaint. There's good reason to believe that he would have reason to attempt to hurt his former employer.
This isn't a heavy handed crackdown. This isn't a small town declaring that L0phtcrack is illegal to possess. This is a criminal arrest where a former employee is believed to have accessed a computer system after being terminated from his job. The logical motive would be to hurt the company by giving information to competitors.
CmdrTaco, how many times have we complained of uneven, uninformed media coverage of internet and digital media issues? Wouldn't it help our credibility and our cause to not be guilty of the same thing? I read the story that was linked to in your post. Did you even bother? You post does not provide ONE DAMN SHRED of evidence that you did.
After all, cat don't do what you tell them to. In fact, they do whatever they want, whether you want them to do it or not. They can crash anywhere and everywhere. They will also consume all space, and are very curious about the enviroment they're installed in!
Of course, cat enthusiests would say that this is a feature, not a bug.
I recently used one of those e-mail engines to send correspondance to my two state senators (Sen. Chuck Grassley [R] and Sen. Tom Harkin [D], of Iowa), and *BOTH* sent me a snail mail response.
FYI, it was concerning the Know Your Customer Sunset Act.
"Wave apon wave of demented avengers marches cheerfully out of obsecurity into the dream"
Isn't is amazing how songs like Pink Floyd's "Sheep" become more relevant the more time passes?
If voice-accessible PDA's become commonplace, we won't know who's talking to their PDA and who's just nucking futz!