My 7 3/4 year-old daughter loved Narnia too. Interestingly (to me), the opening Blitz scene made her very nervous, just because it wasn't in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (which we've recently finished reading), so she didn't know what would happen. We talked about why the scene was there afterwards, and she enjoyed understanding how it showed us the children's relationships with their parents and with each other.
Similarly, my 5-year-old son loved Revenge of the Sith, except that he was frightened when Obi-Wan went up against General Grievous without a Clone Trooper helping him, because that wasn't the way it had worked in his LEGO Star Wars video game (where every level has two players). Fear of the unknown -- it's a powerful thing!
Reading to your kids is a wonderful exercise. If your daughter enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies, you could try the book on her -- it works very well for reading aloud. (We finished the whole thing in a year, inc. The Hobbit, in between the second and third films' release dates).
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/29/ucsu it has lots of details and links of the UC Berkeley admissions policy, and the resulting lawsuit. There may be some more up-to-date info elsewhere. The key soundbite is probably this:
At issue are the university's requirements for high school courses for those seeking admission to one of the system's campuses. Almost all students who are admitted to the university are evaluated based on test scores and grades in certain college preparatory classes. High schools submit course outlines for eligibility, which is based on standards adopted by the university.
According to Bird [who's suing], Christian schools in the last year have started to have courses rejected, making it next to impossible for their students to earn admission to the university system.
Don't worry, Groklaw is fisking his quotes even as we speak. Head over there to find them in their proper context. (It's kinda like what The Blurb Racket does for movie poster quotes...)
The spammers "legally obtained the email addresses from the University" via an open records request for a list of utex.edu email addresses, then pretended that this meant they'd paid for the "right" to spam anyone associated with the University of Texas. More details here: Texas Attorney General's Office.
The FTC's spam reporting address has changed - see this page. Forget about spam@ftc.gov -- you want to send your spam to spam@uce.gov
Here's a couple of other useful spam-reporting addresses:
FDA (for Viagra etc. spam -- if it's a drug or medication being offered under its US brand name, the Food and Drug Administration enforcers want to know)
Russia recently joined the Kyoto treaty so that it would look good on paper.
Actually, Russia would do very well out of any reasonable emissions trading regime growing out of Kyoto, given the collapse of Soviet-era polluting industries in the interim. Selling all those surplus "permissions to pollute" on the global market should be a nice little earner for them. (And that's quite all right by me).
(2) Modifying settings related to use of the computer or to the computer's access to or use of the Internet by altering (C) a list of bookmarks used by the computer to access Web pages
Looks to me like 2(C) at last outlaws that incredibly irritating thing Microsoft do when they patch Internet Explorer (and decide, in passing, that you must have really wanted them to add a bunch of bookmarks linking to their useless web services as well).
So peers, convicts, fraudsters and the insane can't vote? Looks like somebody's really got it in for Jeffrey Archer (who could answer "yes" to all of the above, as a perjured sociopath who's served time but somehow kept his peerage).
Of course, this gets to something I never figured out. If Company A in the united states hires Spammer B in Burma to spam U.S. citizens, and Spammer B violates the CAN-SPAM act in doing so, can Company A be prosecuted under CAN-SPAM?
Yep. They're "procuring" the spam run. See the CAN-SPAM act's definitions. If the US company know that the Burmese outfit are spammers, or they don't take reasonable measures to find out, they can be prosecuted under CAN-SPAM. (If you live in a Bizarro World where spammers actually get prosecuted under CAN-SPAM, that is).
This is normal done with ASBOs (Anti-social behaviour orders), if you are a twat X number of times, you have an ASBO stapped on you (spray paint loads or something), then if you break the ASBO (they can be farily "open ended", such as going into the area your last victem lived, owning spray paint), you break that you get taken to court.
Amusingly, a couple of "twats" were recently slapped with an ASBO for marketing Sony and BMG acts by flyposting. The Register has the original story and a follow-up.
Five-second summary: Flyposting (sticking up posters wherever you damn well want to) is illegal. A couple of big music labels, members of the law-abiding, non-criminal music industry, preferred illegal flyposting to buying poster space for their acts (as it saved them money). One central London council said, "That's anti-social: if you do it again, the marketing people behind the campaigns will be jailed for up to five years." So Sony stopped flyposting. BMG haven't, yet (apparently there was a hitch re: naming the right anti-social individuals at the company). But this all seems to be a Good Thing to me.
But why? They don't think very well. Their arguments always tank. Why should the good guys reward these "think tanks" for being greedy, ignorant, unethical whores?
Oh, come off it! This isn't a 'deterrent,' or a 'solution,' localised or otherwise. It's not even any use as a 'fig-leaf.' It's just an embarrasment. The UK Government looked at the problem, and waved its hands in the air, and decided to do nothing effective. Luckily, in the Office of the Information Commissioner, they had the perfect enforcer (ha!) ready to do their bidding.
That's missing the point. You don't need to beat the key out of them, if you can beat the information out of them. (Information wants to be free, remember?)
Here's what the article's all about: CAN-SPAM Act Congressional Testimony of Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Jana Monroe before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, May 20, 2004
Slashdot Mirror
Andy Updegrove is great; I find Rob Weir is also an excellent source of info on MS standards shenanigans.
My 7 3/4 year-old daughter loved Narnia too. Interestingly (to me), the opening Blitz scene made her very nervous, just because it wasn't in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (which we've recently finished reading), so she didn't know what would happen. We talked about why the scene was there afterwards, and she enjoyed understanding how it showed us the children's relationships with their parents and with each other.
Similarly, my 5-year-old son loved Revenge of the Sith, except that he was frightened when Obi-Wan went up against General Grievous without a Clone Trooper helping him, because that wasn't the way it had worked in his LEGO Star Wars video game (where every level has two players). Fear of the unknown -- it's a powerful thing!
Reading to your kids is a wonderful exercise. If your daughter enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies, you could try the book on her -- it works very well for reading aloud. (We finished the whole thing in a year, inc. The Hobbit, in between the second and third films' release dates).
(Oh, and forget underlines: use italics!)
cf. "The Golden Age of Science Fiction is 13." Same observation.
Good.
Cheers, Nick
Don't worry, Groklaw is fisking his quotes even as we speak. Head over there to find them in their proper context. (It's kinda like what The Blurb Racket does for movie poster quotes...)
The spammers "legally obtained the email addresses from the University" via an open records request for a list of utex.edu email addresses, then pretended that this meant they'd paid for the "right" to spam anyone associated with the University of Texas. More details here: Texas Attorney General's Office.
The full name is "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002", so, in a word, "no."
Hear, hear!
Support the Web Standards Project, then. They're working for what you want.
Here's a couple of other useful spam-reporting addresses:
Actually, Russia would do very well out of any reasonable emissions trading regime growing out of Kyoto, given the collapse of Soviet-era polluting industries in the interim. Selling all those surplus "permissions to pollute" on the global market should be a nice little earner for them. (And that's quite all right by me).
Not before time.
So peers, convicts, fraudsters and the insane can't vote? Looks like somebody's really got it in for Jeffrey Archer (who could answer "yes" to all of the above, as a perjured sociopath who's served time but somehow kept his peerage).
In that case, nor does Great Britain. "Airstrip One" has been occupied by the US ever since WW2.
No, I agree with you. I find it a baffling decision.
Of course, this gets to something I never figured out. If Company A in the united states hires Spammer B in Burma to spam U.S. citizens, and Spammer B violates the CAN-SPAM act in doing so, can Company A be prosecuted under CAN-SPAM?
Yep. They're "procuring" the spam run. See the CAN-SPAM act's definitions. If the US company know that the Burmese outfit are spammers, or they don't take reasonable measures to find out, they can be prosecuted under CAN-SPAM. (If you live in a Bizarro World where spammers actually get prosecuted under CAN-SPAM, that is).
Five-second summary: Flyposting (sticking up posters wherever you damn well want to) is illegal. A couple of big music labels, members of the law-abiding, non-criminal music industry, preferred illegal flyposting to buying poster space for their acts (as it saved them money). One central London council said, "That's anti-social: if you do it again, the marketing people behind the campaigns will be jailed for up to five years." So Sony stopped flyposting. BMG haven't, yet (apparently there was a hitch re: naming the right anti-social individuals at the company). But this all seems to be a Good Thing to me.
You're not posting from Brazil, are you...?
Just checking.
But why? They don't think very well. Their arguments always tank. Why should the good guys reward these "think tanks" for being greedy, ignorant, unethical whores?
Oh, come off it! This isn't a 'deterrent,' or a 'solution,' localised or otherwise. It's not even any use as a 'fig-leaf.' It's just an embarrasment. The UK Government looked at the problem, and waved its hands in the air, and decided to do nothing effective. Luckily, in the Office of the Information Commissioner, they had the perfect enforcer (ha!) ready to do their bidding.
As for the site, it says nothing about the Reg 22 in question
Here's the Information Commissioner's Guidance on Regulation 22 (you have to scroll down to p.24 of the pdf). What, you expected something accessible from that bunch of clowns? Think again...
That's missing the point. You don't need to beat the key out of them, if you can beat the information out of them. (Information wants to be free, remember?)
Can you say, rubber hose cryptanalysis? Even if you go quantum, they'll eventually crack you.
OP is probably thinking of Edgar Allan Poe's The Purloined Letter.
Here's what the article's all about: CAN-SPAM Act Congressional Testimony of Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Jana Monroe before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, May 20, 2004
Steve Linford of spamhaus calls the overview of Project SLAM-Spam "required reading for all spammers."