The Register article complains solely because a search for "second superpower" now links primarily to an article on a Harvard weblog about something increasingly similar to the term they preferred ("second superpower" being those global antiwar protestors).
What does this mean? Google's relevance works -- I saw links to the Harvard article on almost every major weblog I read--it's a popular concept, and google reflects that.
Google is not an encyclopedia, nor is it a movement organizer. Google categorizes information based on some perceived level of web popularity. I think its doing its job.
She's really asserting a right to purchase what she wants, at the cost she wants it. As a law student and a law clerk for a county court judge (in Ohio), I have seen where and how legal information is available.
LexisNexis and West provide FULL access to almost every newspaper, court case, statute, and regulation to all law students, free of charge. Why do they do this? So when you graduate, you're only used to getting information from them, and then will be willing to pay to get it.
But what is she demanding reasonable access to? Full text copies of opinions? Keeping in mind that opinions are generally NOT published initially in electronic text (signed hardcopies are the norm), rather they are scanned, proofread, and annotated by any of the electronic publishers. More often than not, these opinions are online through West or Lexis within hours of their print release. None of these services come inexpensively, and offering free public access to them, while a socially good thing, doesn't necessarily follow as a deserved right.
Furthermore, libraries, and the public in general are not precluded from access to the cases and research (perhaps, just her library). Law libraries still provide the hardcopies of books, which are index searchable and provide cross-references to other cases.
Ohio, the state which the article's author is apparently in charge of some library system, even facilitates online searching of appellate-level cases since 2000 (don't expect the state to transcribe those old appellate cases). Their website is located at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/documents/
I really think she's complaining of the lack of a comprehensive service like LexisNexis or West that could be provided to the public. Given the associated expense for what they do and keeping in mind the information she seeks is already available, I find the point of the article is just a minor complaint.
This was not to slight your decision at all. "Winning" is always a relative term, especially in the legal field.
I really think what's important coming up about these types of jurisdictional issues is the distinction courts are making with regards to the interactivity of websites determining whether or not you've "entered" the forum state. Your page is rather static, but if you'd offered a product for sale, or possibly the ability to directly communicate with another individual in California, the jurisdictional issue may have been decided otherwise.
Actually, the Northern District of Texas set out a description of whether or not a website creates "sufficient contacts" in the forum state in Mink v. AAAA (190 F.3d 333). Basically the court described three points on a spectrum of websites: 1) fully interactive, and/or commercial, 2) somewhat interactive, 3) static pages. The court is the determiner of where a website falls, and if it's somewhere within 1 or 2, a website operator may be under jurisdiction in a state where the site is viewable.
Granted this is one court's decision, but the extreme difficulties in quantifying interactivity make this a sticky issue.
I really think this highlights the need for a clear legislative or Supreme Court ruling on these types of issues.
Again, I'm just a first year law student, about a month and a half into civil procedure--but I have been following the growth of the Internet and the arising legal issues since 1994. I do think the correct result was reached on this issue, and hope that they don't pursue the case any further.
Let me preface this by stating I'm currently a law student (actually in my civil procedure class right now).
The court did not render a judgment stating he had the right to his domain. Rather, they said that suing in California was not permissible due to a lack of jurisdiction over him.
There are several ways to establish jurisdiction over an out of state defendant:
-If Chris had "systematic and continuous" contacts with the State of California
-If his website was of an ambiguous (courts have a nebulous examination standard) level of interactivity and accessible from California (contacts with California established via the Internet)
Because they didn't find either of those, the court determined that he couldn't be tried in that court. This does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a case in Texas against him.
Basically he just won this battle. It's possible the war is still going on.
If you read the faq, and timothy's website, they clearly say that they "program" stories. So there's not a glut of stories at once, they set a specified time for it to appear.
Even if your submission is rejected before the story appears, it doesn't mean your "First Submission" was actually first.
While it's a good methodology, everyone still wants name recognition. I would propose the best marketing ever would have to be 1800contacts.com. I remember both their web address and their phone number, in one fell swoop.
Think about this. The second they use this information to communicate product related spam, either direct advertisements or Windows related propoganda, they violate the purpose of collecting the information.
Any self-respecting judge or attorney would not allow the subpoena of information in a trademark dispute case to be turned into undeserved financial gain. This doesn't make sense. If Microsoft uses the information improperly, obviously they will be reprimanded for it.
However, this doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be taken by Lindows counsel to make sure the lists are not established as part of the public record, in which case they would be free domain. Unfortunately, this is another issue altogether.
As stated in one of the several articles I read about the incident, unless they can prove a severe degree of complicity (basically, you gave another your paper and said "turn this in, it's ok"), those who were copied off of are generally in the clear.
UVa's student-run honor system brings trials for those accused of lying, cheating, or stealing, under a single sanction of expulsion. A trial is conducted before a student jury--however, they must meet a "seriousness" clause.
Let me preface this by saying I am a U.Va. student--although I haven't taken this class. My girlfriend took it in the Fall of '99.
The interesting part of this situation is that it was the new method for submitting the papers that enabled this to happen. Prior to Spring of 99 I believe, they had to submit the papers in hardcopy, making it nearly impossible to catch semester-to-semester cheating. The email submission, while being a first step towards easy collective intelligence (ease of publication, distribution), will probably mean the expulsion of at least a few students.
However, UVa's honor system is single sanction, meaning if you're guilty, they have to kick you out. This makes the student jurors extremely reluctant to pursue such an option.
Anyway, I thought the most interesting part of the Washington Post article was when he said that the news of the honor investigations was released before this semester's papers were due, and he found "very little" plagiarism. The system is now in effect.:)
"We're going to need a bigger boat."
on
Review: Blow
·
· Score: 2
The review was right on, but the synopsis of the plot was lacking--When Jung says "We're going to need a bigger boat," he's not implying they were storing the money on a boat, or even that they were going to buy a boat to put their money on. In the narration to the scene, they state they had no place in the house to put the money.
What they were doing was referencing a quote from Jaws: "You're going to need a bigger boat." The use of the quote here is obviously to tie it back to the cultural phenomenon that was Jaws.
Coming back to cultural inferences, aside from the change in clothing style, and the soundtrack transitions, there isn't a lot of period dating as would be expected through the use of selected television shows, product placement, etc.
Assuming you haven't seen Down to Earth, your statements are a bit overblown. While yes, purely racist jokes (whatever race they are directed towards) shouldn't be consistently implemented and applauded, this movie pokes fun at stereotypes.
Would you laugh or shake your head if you saw an elderly white man singing along with DMX in a deli? Probably.
Would an elderly white man be accepted or booed in a black comedy club? I'll let you figure it out.
That's what this movie lampoons the most, the fish-out-of-water contrast of an urban black man in upper crust society, or an elderly white man in an urban setting. It's not poking fun at individual racist differences. It's contrasting cultural differences in a satiric manner.
Nobody leaves this movie thinking all rich white guys wear goofy clothes. Sometimes a movie is just a movie--people are smart, give them credit.
I tend to put movies into one of three categories: "rent it", "see a matinee", or the ultimate "pay full prize." Rock's latest movie is definitely a "rent it." The movie is hilarious at times (standup comedian Wanda Sykes is a riot as Wellington's back talking maid), but just doesn't seem to hit the emotional level it was seeking when Rock isn't cracking jokes.
It's not that Rock can't act--he plays a pretty straight apostle in Kevin Smith's Dogma, it's just the black-man-in-a-white body jokes don't transition well to a romantic interlude. There were three writers on this movie, it's pretty easy to pick out where they made their transitions.
This movie will have you both rolling in the aisles laughing one minute, and rolling your eyes the next. It's horribly inconsistent, but possibly worth renting if you like Rock's comedy.
However, if do you like Rock's comedy, I suggest you try to catch the "Diary of Chris Rock" on MTV. Traditionally, the "Diary" series is a melodramatic half hour confessional--Rock turns it into a one-man hilarity special. Especially amusing was his riff on Jay-Z:
You see, the difference between Jay-Z and I is that if you meet us in the street, I have the extra $290,000 in my back pocket, because I am rockin the {Nissan} Altima, while he be rockin the Bentley. Rockin the Altima.
Did anyone else notice that the girl performing this experiment was EIGHT years old?
No wonder they yanked it, there's no reason to have a high-level race dialogue among second graders.
I'm for science for the sake of science, but making any inferences on such limited social science data is dangerous, especially considering there has been extensive academic studies already done on the "doll preference test" (and cited in Brown v. Board of Education).
This girl obviously was in over her head. While I commend her for the process used to undertake such an examination, I have to wonder why she was pursuing a social science project in an elementary school science fair.
Man, I hate this rumor. I interned for a Congressman this summer, we sent out probably 50-100 letters a week to people who were concerned about this bill. They've sent out over 9,000 letters over the past THREE years on bill 602P and Congressman Schnell.
Whoever started that rumor, has probably cost the taxpayers millions already. Unfortunately, congressmen (at least the good ones) are obligated to respond to all letters/e-mails received with valid snail mail addresses. They do not respond to simple e-mails, because there is no way of verifying actual constituency.
Having worked on the Hill over the summer, here's some advice for those of you planning on contacting your elected official:
a) Write them a snail-mail letter. There's a sneaking suspicion that one person is sending them all those form emails.
b) If you do want to write an email, include your NAME and ADDRESS. Without your NAME and ADDRESS, you might not be a constituent, they don't really waste the time to figure out the difference.
I'm sorry, but this completely constitutional. Most universities have extensive "Rules of Access" you agree to when you plug your computer into their ethernet, including the right to choose the sites you have access to. Theoretically, they could limit their students to just having access to academic sites, but I bet that would drive students off grounds(in the manner of that survey of UCLA students living on grounds for the ethernet).
I'm sure student outcry and public attention to this issue will cause a reversal. And re: Coke or Pepsi, I'm fortunate enough to go to a University that doesn't limit Internet access, or my opportunity to purchase either soda. Coke and Pepsi machines live in harmony (and usually next to each other) at the University of Virginia.
I think it's entirely possible the reason the data hasn't been able to be decrypted is that it is in fact garbage. In Mitnick's book (with Jon Littman), _The Fugitive Game_, they describe how Mitnick's partner encrypted garbage several times, just to irritate the law enforcement officers who seize the boxes.
Slashdot Mirror
The Register article complains solely because a search for "second superpower" now links primarily to an article on a Harvard weblog about something increasingly similar to the term they preferred ("second superpower" being those global antiwar protestors).
What does this mean? Google's relevance works -- I saw links to the Harvard article on almost every major weblog I read--it's a popular concept, and google reflects that.
Google is not an encyclopedia, nor is it a movement organizer. Google categorizes information based on some perceived level of web popularity. I think its doing its job.
She's really asserting a right to purchase what she wants, at the cost she wants it. As a law student and a law clerk for a county court judge (in Ohio), I have seen where and how legal information is available.
LexisNexis and West provide FULL access to almost every newspaper, court case, statute, and regulation to all law students, free of charge. Why do they do this? So when you graduate, you're only used to getting information from them, and then will be willing to pay to get it.
But what is she demanding reasonable access to? Full text copies of opinions? Keeping in mind that opinions are generally NOT published initially in electronic text (signed hardcopies are the norm), rather they are scanned, proofread, and annotated by any of the electronic publishers. More often than not, these opinions are online through West or Lexis within hours of their print release. None of these services come inexpensively, and offering free public access to them, while a socially good thing, doesn't necessarily follow as a deserved right.
Furthermore, libraries, and the public in general are not precluded from access to the cases and research (perhaps, just her library). Law libraries still provide the hardcopies of books, which are index searchable and provide cross-references to other cases.
Ohio, the state which the article's author is apparently in charge of some library system, even facilitates online searching of appellate-level cases since 2000 (don't expect the state to transcribe those old appellate cases). Their website is located at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/documents/
I really think she's complaining of the lack of a comprehensive service like LexisNexis or West that could be provided to the public. Given the associated expense for what they do and keeping in mind the information she seeks is already available, I find the point of the article is just a minor complaint.
This was not to slight your decision at all. "Winning" is always a relative term, especially in the legal field.
I really think what's important coming up about these types of jurisdictional issues is the distinction courts are making with regards to the interactivity of websites determining whether or not you've "entered" the forum state. Your page is rather static, but if you'd offered a product for sale, or possibly the ability to directly communicate with another individual in California, the jurisdictional issue may have been decided otherwise.
Actually, the Northern District of Texas set out a description of whether or not a website creates "sufficient contacts" in the forum state in Mink v. AAAA (190 F.3d 333). Basically the court described three points on a spectrum of websites: 1) fully interactive, and/or commercial, 2) somewhat interactive, 3) static pages. The court is the determiner of where a website falls, and if it's somewhere within 1 or 2, a website operator may be under jurisdiction in a state where the site is viewable.
Granted this is one court's decision, but the extreme difficulties in quantifying interactivity make this a sticky issue.
I really think this highlights the need for a clear legislative or Supreme Court ruling on these types of issues.
Again, I'm just a first year law student, about a month and a half into civil procedure--but I have been following the growth of the Internet and the arising legal issues since 1994. I do think the correct result was reached on this issue, and hope that they don't pursue the case any further.
Again, this case was not decided on the merits of the issue, rather just a procedural thing.
Let me preface this by stating I'm currently a law student (actually in my civil procedure class right now).
The court did not render a judgment stating he had the right to his domain. Rather, they said that suing in California was not permissible due to a lack of jurisdiction over him.
There are several ways to establish jurisdiction over an out of state defendant:
-If Chris had "systematic and continuous" contacts with the State of California
-If his website was of an ambiguous (courts have a nebulous examination standard) level of interactivity and accessible from California (contacts with California established via the Internet)
Because they didn't find either of those, the court determined that he couldn't be tried in that court. This does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a case in Texas against him.
Basically he just won this battle. It's possible the war is still going on.
If you read the faq, and timothy's website, they clearly say that they "program" stories. So there's not a glut of stories at once, they set a specified time for it to appear.
Even if your submission is rejected before the story appears, it doesn't mean your "First Submission" was actually first.
Did anyone else notice the HP ads running over this story?
I'm sure their marketing droids would be upset they were wasting their image impressions on an HP-negative article. Seems strange.
Then again, perhaps it was like when my girlfriend searched for "Britney Spears" in google, and a Britney ad showed up in the Windows AIM client.
Here's the link to the google cache:: www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/dgillmor/dg0113 01.htm+%22google+effect%22&hl=en
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:0r0qLUS_G3oC
While it's a good methodology, everyone still wants name recognition. I would propose the best marketing ever would have to be 1800contacts.com. I remember both their web address and their phone number, in one fell swoop.
Think about this. The second they use this information to communicate product related spam, either direct advertisements or Windows related propoganda, they violate the purpose of collecting the information.
Any self-respecting judge or attorney would not allow the subpoena of information in a trademark dispute case to be turned into undeserved financial gain. This doesn't make sense. If Microsoft uses the information improperly, obviously they will be reprimanded for it.
However, this doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be taken by Lindows counsel to make sure the lists are not established as part of the public record, in which case they would be free domain. Unfortunately, this is another issue altogether.
As stated in one of the several articles I read about the incident, unless they can prove a severe degree of complicity (basically, you gave another your paper and said "turn this in, it's ok"), those who were copied off of are generally in the clear.
UVa's student-run honor system brings trials for those accused of lying, cheating, or stealing, under a single sanction of expulsion. A trial is conducted before a student jury--however, they must meet a "seriousness" clause.
Let me preface this by saying I am a U.Va. student--although I haven't taken this class. My girlfriend took it in the Fall of '99.
:)
The interesting part of this situation is that it was the new method for submitting the papers that enabled this to happen. Prior to Spring of 99 I believe, they had to submit the papers in hardcopy, making it nearly impossible to catch semester-to-semester cheating. The email submission, while being a first step towards easy collective intelligence (ease of publication, distribution), will probably mean the expulsion of at least a few students.
However, UVa's honor system is single sanction, meaning if you're guilty, they have to kick you out. This makes the student jurors extremely reluctant to pursue such an option.
Anyway, I thought the most interesting part of the Washington Post article was when he said that the news of the honor investigations was released before this semester's papers were due, and he found "very little" plagiarism. The system is now in effect.
What they were doing was referencing a quote from Jaws: "You're going to need a bigger boat." The use of the quote here is obviously to tie it back to the cultural phenomenon that was Jaws.
Coming back to cultural inferences, aside from the change in clothing style, and the soundtrack transitions, there isn't a lot of period dating as would be expected through the use of selected television shows, product placement, etc.
Would you laugh or shake your head if you saw an elderly white man singing along with DMX in a deli? Probably.
Would an elderly white man be accepted or booed in a black comedy club? I'll let you figure it out.
That's what this movie lampoons the most, the fish-out-of-water contrast of an urban black man in upper crust society, or an elderly white man in an urban setting. It's not poking fun at individual racist differences. It's contrasting cultural differences in a satiric manner.
Nobody leaves this movie thinking all rich white guys wear goofy clothes. Sometimes a movie is just a movie--people are smart, give them credit.
It's not that Rock can't act--he plays a pretty straight apostle in Kevin Smith's Dogma, it's just the black-man-in-a-white body jokes don't transition well to a romantic interlude. There were three writers on this movie, it's pretty easy to pick out where they made their transitions.
This movie will have you both rolling in the aisles laughing one minute, and rolling your eyes the next. It's horribly inconsistent, but possibly worth renting if you like Rock's comedy.
However, if do you like Rock's comedy, I suggest you try to catch the "Diary of Chris Rock" on MTV. Traditionally, the "Diary" series is a melodramatic half hour confessional--Rock turns it into a one-man hilarity special. Especially amusing was his riff on Jay-Z: You see, the difference between Jay-Z and I is that if you meet us in the street, I have the extra $290,000 in my back pocket, because I am rockin the {Nissan} Altima, while he be rockin the Bentley. Rockin the Altima.
No wonder they yanked it, there's no reason to have a high-level race dialogue among second graders.
I'm for science for the sake of science, but making any inferences on such limited social science data is dangerous, especially considering there has been extensive academic studies already done on the "doll preference test" (and cited in Brown v. Board of Education).
This girl obviously was in over her head. While I commend her for the process used to undertake such an examination, I have to wonder why she was pursuing a social science project in an elementary school science fair.
Man, I hate this rumor. I interned for a Congressman this summer, we sent out probably 50-100 letters a week to people who were concerned about this bill. They've sent out over 9,000 letters over the past THREE years on bill 602P and Congressman Schnell.
Whoever started that rumor, has probably cost the taxpayers millions already. Unfortunately, congressmen (at least the good ones) are obligated to respond to all letters/e-mails received with valid snail mail addresses. They do not respond to simple e-mails, because there is no way of verifying actual constituency.
Having worked on the Hill over the summer, here's some advice for those of you planning on contacting your elected official:
a) Write them a snail-mail letter. There's a sneaking suspicion that one person is sending them all those form emails.
b) If you do want to write an email, include your NAME and ADDRESS. Without your NAME and ADDRESS, you might not be a constituent, they don't really waste the time to figure out the difference.
To contact your representative: Write-rep
To contact your senator: It's not as easy, go find their e-mail address.I'm sorry, but this completely constitutional. Most universities have extensive "Rules of Access" you agree to when you plug your computer into their ethernet, including the right to choose the sites you have access to. Theoretically, they could limit their students to just having access to academic sites, but I bet that would drive students off grounds(in the manner of that survey of UCLA students living on grounds for the ethernet).
I'm sure student outcry and public attention to this issue will cause a reversal. And re: Coke or Pepsi, I'm fortunate enough to go to a University that doesn't limit Internet access, or my opportunity to purchase either soda. Coke and Pepsi machines live in harmony (and usually next to each other) at the University of Virginia.I think it's entirely possible the reason the data hasn't been able to be decrypted is that it is in fact garbage. In Mitnick's book (with Jon Littman), _The Fugitive Game_, they describe how Mitnick's partner encrypted garbage several times, just to irritate the law enforcement officers who seize the boxes.