I agree, the Chinese government is extremely arrogant, but in some ways the U.S. government is worse. The U.S. government interferes with the governments of other countries, and kills people with whom it disagrees.
And the Chinese government does not kill the people with whom it disagrees? And the Chinese government does not interfere with the governments of other countries? Hmmm... why not visit Taiwan sometime and ask them what they think of that assertion.
Again, I agree that the U.S. government is doing things it should not be doing. I'm really frustrated with my government to the point of depression. But saying that the United States is AS arrogant as China, and MORE judgmental... that's reckless hyperbole at best and silly if you actually believe it.
No more arrogant than the US and certainly less judgmental.
I have a major problem with my country, the United States, because I think we are too arrogant and too judgmental.
That having been said, the above poster's statement is completely ridiculous. The United States more judgmental than CHINA? Where on EARTH are you getting your information? Yes, we are going through an extremely jingoistic phase right now, but we ain't got NOTHING on the Chinese government. Hell, the fact that I have the freedom to post this, including the first paragraph, automatically shows that the United States is less judgmental than China.
A sense of perspective, please. The United States has its problems, severe problems, but we are not Communist China nor are we Nazi Germany. Just because some of us unfairly put this country on a pedestal is no reason to unfairly dump us in a gutter.
No more arrogant than the US and certainly less judgmental. My god, what a silly statement.
We don't need the Chinese government to pass some law to make this happen - the free market *can* force them to do so
Just click your heels together three times and say, "There's no force like the free market... there's no force like the free market... there's no force like the free market..." And then all of our problems will go away and we will live in a Utopia just as good as Karl Marx's, but better because there are no unrealistic communists in it.
so to write any sort of a math paper it's either LaTeX or MS Office. I'll let you guess which is easier to use
Scientific Workplace. The power of LaTeX, the WISIWYG simplicity of MS Office, and a computer algebra program (maple) built in, so you can actually generate the figures you use, right on the page.
If Google does eventually need to consider doing something drastic to make money, I certainly hope they come to us instead of ad companies. I would easily pay something like $100/year to use Google provided it was clear of ads and sponsored links
I never would. I'm scum; I'm sorry. But how about this: For $10/year you can search and not see the ads and sponsored links. Then google makes money from the purists (they pay $10/year for being pure) and they make money from scum like me (they sell ads that I wind up reading). That seems the best of both worlds, Narsindal. What do you think?
Catalog of Free Compilers and Interpreteers: introduction Catalog of Free Compilers and Interpreters.... If you wish to search the free-compilers list, fill out the following form:... www.idiom.com/free-compilers/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
I didn't get that. I entered "compilers" and got:
Catalog of Free Compilers and Interpreteers: introduction Catalog of Free Compilers and Interpreters.... If you wish to search the free-compilers list, fill out the following form:... www.idiom.com/free-compilers/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
...which is pretty much the opposite of what you said. Is it randomized?
I am not a professional web designer. I'm just a guy who goes to a lot of web sites. Here are my personal preferences
(1) THERE MUST BE CONTACT INFO. I was doing a project for a bit where I had to call various university math departments. It was very annoying when there was no way to get an address and a phone number for a website. Put that stuff on the first page.
(2) THERE MUST BE A SEARCH BOX. It is not hard to attach a search engine to a web-site now. So there is no excuse for not doing so. If I want to buy a bow-tie from you, and I know you sell them along with eleventibillion other things, I should be able to type "bow-tie" in a box instead of going through your navigation
(3) IT MUST LOAD FAST. Unless it is a photograph of a naked lady, I am not going to wait for that graphic to load. I have a very nice internet connection, and I still find pages where I have to wait for the labels on the "forward" "back" "search" "about" buttons to load, because of all the other graphics that are on the page
(4) THERE IS NO POINT FOUR
(5) IT MUST NOT CRASH MY BROWSER. Some pages make Internet Explorer crash. I don't know why. I don't care why. I just plain don't like it when that happens, so please make it not happen to me.
I have no way of knowing, but I am wondering about the people complaining about their meager benefits, and talking about how they can't afford to pay their bills with their unemployment checks, and how they can't afford living in a $1500 apartment (but would never get a roommate).
I am wondering if they are the same people who, a year and a half ago, were all buying copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and constantly posting to slashdot that government has no business taxing the wealthy (and therefore deserving) to help out the poor (who should just get up and start their own businesses).
The reason I wonder is that there seem to be fewer Randroids, "you don't work... you don't eat" people, people who complain and whine that underemployed people complain and whine. And there are more people talking about inadequate unemployment benefits, and how the government should help people pay their rent and food while they go to school to improve their job skills.
I know that it could be a coincidence, but I keep wondering if they are the same people.
The NSA factors numbers, and their work is top-secret. When I read stories like this, I wonder if people are just discovering things that the NSA has known about for years. If the NSA could factor 2 Kbit keys, would they tell people? Probably not.
So when you ask "Are our keys secure" the logical follow-up question is, "From who?"
From me? Yes. I probably couldn't factor a 1000 digit number.
From your boss? Yes. You could use rot-13 and your boss would probably be baffeled.
From your boss' lawyers? From the police? Here is where we get into the gray area; where the article becomes relevant
From the government? I think you were kidding yourself when you thought it was secure in the first place. I find it easy to believe that the NSA is far ahead of the public in the encryption arms-race.
Because if they think the spam is getting through, the spammer ends up wasting a whole lot of time sending spams which don't get delivered. If they realize they've got a honeypot, they move to another relay and start sending spams which do get delivered. Clearly it's better to have a spammer sending mail to nowhere than sending it to everywhere, but no spammer's going to intentionally send mail to nowhere. That's where the trickery comes in.
Okay, this is the step 2 that I was missing. I assumed that the spammers would just hit every open relay that they could. The above is saying (if I understand correctly) that they will find an open relay, and use it as long as possible, and then when the spam is sent they will say, "A job well done. Now let us go out and find puppies to slay." And thus the honeypot prevents the spam from being sent, and thus they get no responses, and say, "My, sending spam is useless."
(2) Spammer sees.01% response rate drop to.0000001% response rate (finding open relays, spidering email addresses, etc)
This is an interesting answer. If the spammer is looking at response RATES, that answers my question, because the honeypot will decrease the apparent response rate. But wouldn't a spammer be looking at the response TOTALS? In other words, "I spend $1,000 to send a spam, and I got $10,000 in orders, so I made 10x my investment." The response total will not change if there are honeypots or not, because the spam would be blocked by the ISP who set up the honeypot in either case.
Your argument works if the time investment (the 40 hours you detailed) goes up as the response rate goes down. I don't believe it does that - whether or not a honeypot is set up, the spammer still sends out the same quantity of spam.
Uh, spammers send out spam to get orders, sales etc.. If their mails don't get through, they sell less and get discouraged.
You are misunderstanding me. I understand why it hurts spammers if their mail doesn't make it through to their destination. What I don't understand is why it is better to let them THINK it is getting through than it is to let them realize that it is not.
I read the article, and it seems to be based on this.
(1) Spammer sends bunch of stuff to someone who is throwing it away, unread
(2) ? ? ?
(3) Spammer is discouraged from sending spam
In other words, I understand that that spammer THINKS his spam is reaching endusers, when, in actuality, it is not. But I don't understand how that discourages or harms the spammer in any way.
(1) The publicity is amazing. I was watching morning TV today and it was like a huge infomercial for the Segway
(2) He is getting people to pay a fortune for the privilege of beta-testing the device.
(3) By only selling three, he is taking a leaf from business mastermind Eric Cartman's book. "Only three people get to ride today." The people who bid $100,000 and LOST will gladly pay any price once a few more become available.
My only worry is this: As a teacher, I am going to have to deal with a generation of students who cannot spell "segue".
If a honest man invents something, why should he want to automatically destroy knowledge about his invention?
If the honest man having sex with the honest woman was really honest and not cheating on somebody, why should he want to destroy the mail? Do you destroy the loveletters you sent to your girlfriends?
These are very good points, and deserve a thoughtful response.
To the first question: It is a question of timing. He may not want the knowledge of the invention to exist until it is in a form he is proud to take credit for and patent. If I have come up with a new type of GUI, for example, I wouldn't want Microsoft or Apple to look at it until I was ready to have it marketed. Otherwise, if they thought it was a good idea, they might use their superior resources to make a copy and get the copy on the market first.
Also, philosophically, if I have invented something, or written something, I may want to destroy it for many reasons. I may believe that the invention would be a Bad thing for my society, or I may believe that my writing has not acheived what I want it to achieve. I can therefore choose to destroy what I have created, even if I am an Honest Man. (And one could even argue that the Honest Man probably destroys more of his work than the Dishonest Man who is happy to just get another publication/patent on the ol' C.V.)
To the second point: There are many reasons an Honest Man would want to delete graphic email he has sent to a girlfriend. In this context, one main reason is that his emails to her are between the two of them. He may not want future internet-snoopers reading graphic descriptions of their private life. You can think of other reasons.
I think you're missing the point. Privacy is one thing. Hiding your lawbreaking behavior from the government and your shareholders is a whole different ballgame.
I am not missing the point. The original posting was about software that purports to do to electronic documents what a paper-shredder does to printed documents. The response was "Honest men have nothing to hide." And I was responding to that, correctly calling it a dangerous attitude, demonstratably false. (Another respondent mentioned that people don't put their credit-card information on the web, even Honest Men)
The software CAN be used to hide lawbreaking behavior from the government and shareholders. But that is not its sole purpose. And when someone says something ridiculous like "Honest men have nothing to hide," in response to an article about a self-shredding email system, it is clear that THEY are missing the point.
Not only is this statement false; it is dangerous.
If an honest man comes up with a new, beautiful, invention, shouldn't he hide it until the patent forms come out?
If an honest man writes a personal email to an honest woman, thanking her in detail for the honest sex they had last night, would he be suddenly dishonest if he didn't want those details accessible to any snoop a few years later?
If an honest man writes an email to his honest colleague, and makes some honest fun about the way that his honest customer dresses, just the way that colleagues often jest and jape, is it that big a stretch that he wouldn't want that email to surface years later in some lawsuit?
If you are living your life in such a way that you never write or say anything that you would like to keep private, I wouldn't call you "honest," I would probably call you "bland." And I don't believe that being bland is a virtue to which we should aspire.
30% of the time that a correlation is reported, there is an accompanying causation. r =.3 is too high a correlation is ignored. Therefore, we can conclude that correlation is one of the Main causes of causation, and thus cannot be ignored.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:1)
by Sierpinski on Thursday January 24, @11:19AM (#2895196)
(User #266120 Info)
I see your point. Let me rephrase:
The web is a medium for people to do easily what they could have done anyway through other means at some great expense of time and/or money.
Does that seem more coherent to you? (No sarcasm intended!)
I still disagree. One thousand people have read my review of Brave New World. Before the web, even if I had a lot of money, I wouldn't have been able to get one thousand people to read it. (Oh, yes, if I had Millions of dollars of disposable income, I would have been able to hire a publicist and self-publish. But even if I HAD a million dollars, it would not have been WORTH a million dollars.)
The general gist of your comment (seems to me to be) is that the web simplifies things, but does not allow us to do anything new. And I disagree. The web allows me to publish my book reviews. Strangers and I now have very interesting discussions about the books I have reviewed, and whether I, a math professor, have a right to pass judgment on Literature.
This would not have happened if it had not been for the web. Even if I had time and money, I would never have done a project like this. The web has allowed me to do something new, that is not just an extension of what I could have done previously.
Re:The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast
on
The End of Cyber BS
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Loved the spoof.
The Revolution will not be webcast.
However, it will be sponsored - probably by Nike and AOL/Time Warner.
And then the Revolution will be patented - probably by Microsoft, who will then sue to get Nike and AOL / Time Warner away from it.
And the Revolution will by copyrighted. You will not be allowed to criticize the Revolution. Revolutionsucks.com will not be accessible to you.
You, ultimately, will not be allowed to participate in the Revolution. And, since it will not be televised or webcast, you will soon forget about it, and go back to watching Friends if you watch TV, or watching Law & Order and the West Wing, if you like to brag that you don't watch TV.
I might be straying off my point here a bit, so I'll end my comment with the following statement:
The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means.
This is false. I currently am reading 100 novels from a pompous list. I probably would have done that before the web. But I am writing down my impressions of them, and posting them on my website (http://www.dougshaw.com/top100.html) We can debate whether or not this is a worthwhile thing for me to do. (My mother votes 'no.') But if it were not for the web, I would not have expressed my opinions of the books in writing. The process has, of course, affected the way that I read and think about books.
"The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means. "
If you win your lawsuit, what type of precedent will it set? Will it encourage others to sue to regain their freedom of speech? Was this idea something you thought about when you were deciding upon filing charges?
Microsoft posted the security bulletin PROMINENTLY in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in an unused lavatory with a sign on the door that said, "Beware of the Leopard!"
Slashdot Mirror
And the Chinese government does not kill the people with whom it disagrees? And the Chinese government does not interfere with the governments of other countries? Hmmm... why not visit Taiwan sometime and ask them what they think of that assertion.
Again, I agree that the U.S. government is doing things it should not be doing. I'm really frustrated with my government to the point of depression. But saying that the United States is AS arrogant as China, and MORE judgmental... that's reckless hyperbole at best and silly if you actually believe it.
I have a major problem with my country, the United States, because I think we are too arrogant and too judgmental.
That having been said, the above poster's statement is completely ridiculous. The United States more judgmental than CHINA? Where on EARTH are you getting your information? Yes, we are going through an extremely jingoistic phase right now, but we ain't got NOTHING on the Chinese government. Hell, the fact that I have the freedom to post this, including the first paragraph, automatically shows that the United States is less judgmental than China.
A sense of perspective, please. The United States has its problems, severe problems, but we are not Communist China nor are we Nazi Germany. Just because some of us unfairly put this country on a pedestal is no reason to unfairly dump us in a gutter.
No more arrogant than the US and certainly less judgmental. My god, what a silly statement.
Just click your heels together three times and say, "There's no force like the free market... there's no force like the free market... there's no force like the free market..." And then all of our problems will go away and we will live in a Utopia just as good as Karl Marx's, but better because there are no unrealistic communists in it.
so to write any sort of a math paper it's either LaTeX or MS Office. I'll let you guess which is easier to use
Scientific Workplace. The power of LaTeX, the WISIWYG simplicity of MS Office, and a computer algebra program (maple) built in, so you can actually generate the figures you use, right on the page.
If Google does eventually need to consider doing something drastic to make money, I certainly hope they come to us instead of ad companies. I would easily pay something like $100/year to use Google provided it was clear of ads and sponsored links
I never would. I'm scum; I'm sorry.
But how about this: For $10/year you can search and not see the ads and sponsored links. Then google makes money from the purists (they pay $10/year for being pure) and they make money from scum like me (they sell ads that I wind up reading). That seems the best of both worlds, Narsindal. What do you think?
Catalog of Free Compilers and Interpreteers: introduction ... If you wish to search ...
... If you wish to search ...
Catalog of Free Compilers and Interpreters.
the free-compilers list, fill out the following form:
www.idiom.com/free-compilers/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
I didn't get that. I entered "compilers" and got:
Catalog of Free Compilers and Interpreteers: introduction
Catalog of Free Compilers and Interpreters.
the free-compilers list, fill out the following form:
www.idiom.com/free-compilers/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
...which is pretty much the opposite of what you said. Is it randomized?
I am not a professional web designer.
I'm just a guy who goes to a lot of web sites.
Here are my personal preferences
(1) THERE MUST BE CONTACT INFO. I was doing a project for a bit where I had to call various university math departments. It was very annoying when there was no way to get an address and a phone number for a website. Put that stuff on the first page.
(2) THERE MUST BE A SEARCH BOX. It is not hard to attach a search engine to a web-site now. So there is no excuse for not doing so. If I want to buy a bow-tie from you, and I know you sell them along with eleventibillion other things, I should be able to type "bow-tie" in a box instead of going through your navigation
(3) IT MUST LOAD FAST. Unless it is a photograph of a naked lady, I am not going to wait for that graphic to load. I have a very nice internet connection, and I still find pages where I have to wait for the labels on the "forward" "back" "search" "about" buttons to load, because of all the other graphics that are on the page
(4) THERE IS NO POINT FOUR
(5) IT MUST NOT CRASH MY BROWSER. Some pages make Internet Explorer crash. I don't know why. I don't care why. I just plain don't like it when that happens, so please make it not happen to me.
DJS
I have no way of knowing, but I am wondering about the people complaining about their meager benefits, and talking about how they can't afford to pay their bills with their unemployment checks, and how they can't afford living in a $1500 apartment (but would never get a roommate).
I am wondering if they are the same people who, a year and a half ago, were all buying copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and constantly posting to slashdot that government has no business taxing the wealthy (and therefore deserving) to help out the poor (who should just get up and start their own businesses).
The reason I wonder is that there seem to be fewer Randroids, "you don't work... you don't eat" people, people who complain and whine that underemployed people complain and whine. And there are more people talking about inadequate unemployment benefits, and how the government should help people pay their rent and food while they go to school to improve their job skills.
I know that it could be a coincidence, but I keep wondering if they are the same people.
The NSA factors numbers, and their work is top-secret. When I read stories like this, I wonder if people are just discovering things that the NSA has known about for years. If the NSA could factor 2 Kbit keys, would they tell people? Probably not.
So when you ask "Are our keys secure" the logical follow-up question is, "From who?"
From me? Yes. I probably couldn't factor a 1000 digit number.
From your boss? Yes. You could use rot-13 and your boss would probably be baffeled.
From your boss' lawyers? From the police? Here is where we get into the gray area; where the article becomes relevant
From the government? I think you were kidding yourself when you thought it was secure in the first place. I find it easy to believe that the NSA is far ahead of the public in the encryption arms-race.
Because if they think the spam is getting through, the spammer ends up wasting a whole lot of time sending spams which don't get delivered. If they realize they've got a honeypot, they move to another relay and start sending spams which do get delivered. Clearly it's better to have a spammer sending mail to nowhere than sending it to everywhere, but no spammer's going to intentionally send mail to nowhere. That's where the trickery comes in.
Okay, this is the step 2 that I was missing. I assumed that the spammers would just hit every open relay that they could. The above is saying (if I understand correctly) that they will find an open relay, and use it as long as possible, and then when the spam is sent they will say, "A job well done. Now let us go out and find puppies to slay." And thus the honeypot prevents the spam from being sent, and thus they get no responses, and say, "My, sending spam is useless."
...which answers my question. Thanks.
(2) Spammer sees .01% response rate drop to .0000001% response rate (finding open relays, spidering email addresses, etc)
This is an interesting answer. If the spammer is looking at response RATES, that answers my question, because the honeypot will decrease the apparent response rate. But wouldn't a spammer be looking at the response TOTALS? In other words, "I spend $1,000 to send a spam, and I got $10,000 in orders, so I made 10x my investment." The response total will not change if there are honeypots or not, because the spam would be blocked by the ISP who set up the honeypot in either case.
Your argument works if the time investment (the 40 hours you detailed) goes up as the response rate goes down. I don't believe it does that - whether or not a honeypot is set up, the spammer still sends out the same quantity of spam.
Do you agree with me, or am I still being thick?
Uh, spammers send out spam to get orders, sales etc.. If their mails don't get through, they sell less and get discouraged.
You are misunderstanding me. I understand why it hurts spammers if their mail doesn't make it through to their destination. What I don't understand is why it is better to let them THINK it is getting through than it is to let them realize that it is not.
I read the article, and it seems to be based on this.
(1) Spammer sends bunch of stuff to someone who is throwing it away, unread
(2) ? ? ?
(3) Spammer is discouraged from sending spam
In other words, I understand that that spammer THINKS his spam is reaching endusers, when, in actuality, it is not. But I don't understand how that discourages or harms the spammer in any way.
I have been using spamcop for about a month, and so far I have not noticed any decrease in the amount of spam that I get.
I continue to use it intermittently, but I don't have any indication that it is doing any good.
I would be interested if anybody has evidence of is efficicacy
This auction thing is brilliant because
(1) The publicity is amazing. I was watching morning TV today and it was like a huge infomercial for the Segway
(2) He is getting people to pay a fortune for the privilege of beta-testing the device.
(3) By only selling three, he is taking a leaf from business mastermind Eric Cartman's book. "Only three people get to ride today." The people who bid $100,000 and LOST will gladly pay any price once a few more become available.
My only worry is this: As a teacher, I am going to have to deal with a generation of students who cannot spell "segue".
If the honest man having sex with the honest woman was really honest and not cheating on somebody, why should he want to destroy the mail? Do you destroy the loveletters you sent to your girlfriends?
These are very good points, and deserve a thoughtful response.
To the first question: It is a question of timing. He may not want the knowledge of the invention to exist until it is in a form he is proud to take credit for and patent. If I have come up with a new type of GUI, for example, I wouldn't want Microsoft or Apple to look at it until I was ready to have it marketed. Otherwise, if they thought it was a good idea, they might use their superior resources to make a copy and get the copy on the market first.
Also, philosophically, if I have invented something, or written something, I may want to destroy it for many reasons. I may believe that the invention would be a Bad thing for my society, or I may believe that my writing has not acheived what I want it to achieve. I can therefore choose to destroy what I have created, even if I am an Honest Man. (And one could even argue that the Honest Man probably destroys more of his work than the Dishonest Man who is happy to just get another publication/patent on the ol' C.V.)
To the second point: There are many reasons an Honest Man would want to delete graphic email he has sent to a girlfriend. In this context, one main reason is that his emails to her are between the two of them. He may not want future internet-snoopers reading graphic descriptions of their private life. You can think of other reasons.
I think you're missing the point. Privacy is one thing. Hiding your lawbreaking behavior from the government and your shareholders is a whole different ballgame.
I am not missing the point. The original posting was about software that purports to do to electronic documents what a paper-shredder does to printed documents. The response was "Honest men have nothing to hide." And I was responding to that, correctly calling it a dangerous attitude, demonstratably false. (Another respondent mentioned that people don't put their credit-card information on the web, even Honest Men)
The software CAN be used to hide lawbreaking behavior from the government and shareholders. But that is not its sole purpose. And when someone says something ridiculous like "Honest men have nothing to hide," in response to an article about a self-shredding email system, it is clear that THEY are missing the point.
"Honest men have nothing to hide."
Not only is this statement false; it is dangerous.
If an honest man comes up with a new, beautiful, invention, shouldn't he hide it until the patent forms come out?
If an honest man writes a personal email to an honest woman, thanking her in detail for the honest sex they had last night, would he be suddenly dishonest if he didn't want those details accessible to any snoop a few years later?
If an honest man writes an email to his honest colleague, and makes some honest fun about the way that his honest customer dresses, just the way that colleagues often jest and jape, is it that big a stretch that he wouldn't want that email to surface years later in some lawsuit?
If you are living your life in such a way that you never write or say anything that you would like to keep private, I wouldn't call you "honest," I would probably call you "bland." And I don't believe that being bland is a virtue to which we should aspire.
30% of the time that a correlation is reported, there is an accompanying causation. r = .3 is too high a correlation is ignored. Therefore, we can conclude that correlation is one of the Main causes of causation, and thus cannot be ignored.
If you two get married, will you be all propritary towards her, or will she be open source?
The web is a medium for people to do easily what they could have done anyway through other means at some great expense of time and/or money.
Does that seem more coherent to you? (No sarcasm intended!)
I still disagree. One thousand people have read my review of Brave New World. Before the web, even if I had a lot of money, I wouldn't have been able to get one thousand people to read it. (Oh, yes, if I had Millions of dollars of disposable income, I would have been able to hire a publicist and self-publish. But even if I HAD a million dollars, it would not have been WORTH a million dollars.)
The general gist of your comment (seems to me to be) is that the web simplifies things, but does not allow us to do anything new. And I disagree. The web allows me to publish my book reviews. Strangers and I now have very interesting discussions about the books I have reviewed, and whether I, a math professor, have a right to pass judgment on Literature.
This would not have happened if it had not been for the web. Even if I had time and money, I would never have done a project like this. The web has allowed me to do something new, that is not just an extension of what I could have done previously.
Loved the spoof.
The Revolution will not be webcast.
However, it will be sponsored - probably by Nike and AOL/Time Warner.
And then the Revolution will be patented - probably by Microsoft, who will then sue to get Nike and AOL / Time Warner away from it.
And the Revolution will by copyrighted. You will not be allowed to criticize the Revolution. Revolutionsucks.com will not be accessible to you.
You, ultimately, will not be allowed to participate in the Revolution. And, since it will not be televised or webcast, you will soon forget about it, and go back to watching Friends if you watch TV, or watching Law & Order and the West Wing, if you like to brag that you don't watch TV.
The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means.
This is false. I currently am reading 100 novels from a pompous list. I probably would have done that before the web. But I am writing down my impressions of them, and posting them on my website (http://www.dougshaw.com/top100.html) We can debate whether or not this is a worthwhile thing for me to do. (My mother votes 'no.') But if it were not for the web, I would not have expressed my opinions of the books in writing. The process has, of course, affected the way that I read and think about books.
"The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means. "
I have given you a counter example.
If you win your lawsuit, what type of precedent will it set? Will it encourage others to sue to regain their freedom of speech? Was this idea something you thought about when you were deciding upon filing charges?
Microsoft posted the security bulletin PROMINENTLY in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in an unused lavatory with a sign on the door that said, "Beware of the Leopard!"