Well, I was going to say: "The sky is not actually blue, we only perceive it to be blue, when in reality there is no such thing as blue; blue is only a concept that exists abstractly within the mind." - but I actually learned something from the answer your posted, so I'll refrain from being a smartass about it...;)
For awhile now I've been waiting for "the other shoe to drop" with regard Novell and SuSE Linux. I think it has happened.
FTFA:
"Only customers that use SUSE have paid properly for intellectual property from Microsoft," he said. "We are willing to do a deal with Red Hat and other Linux distributors." The deal with SUSE Linux "is not exclusive," Ballmer added.
This is the crux of it - in the above quote, Ballmer is describing Microsoft's strategy to move another step closer to eliminating SuSE Linux.
So Ballmer is claiming part of any money spent on SuSE distros (Novell products in general, perhaps?) - part of the money goes to Microsoft. What better way to prevent people from buying anything from Novell/SuSE? Well, there is one better way, but it's probably realated... that would be to make SuSE sux0r - something up until very recently I consider impossible, since SuSE has been - for a coupe years now - hands down the easiest to install, Linux end-user/newbie desktop around - and yes, I don't care if you think this about the server market, etc etc blah blah - I believe Microsoft determined that SuSE constituted a threat on the desktop. THey probably figured this out around the time I was talking parents, grand-parent, and several children thru SuSE installs over the phone - this after demonstrating it to developers at work and finding that the adoption rate was quite a bit better than even *I* thought it was going to be...
However - here's why I think there is something rotten going on here:
I quit doing new installs of SuSE - not directly because of the Novell/Linux deal, but before that. I was put in a rather awkward position having told all these folks to install, because - at what had to have been almost the same time Microsoft and Novell were busy fukking and sukking each other in some sleazy hollywood hotel room, a SuSE system patch trashed the reiser file system on my 100G laptop hardrive, with no warning, and no 'thank-you-ma'am' after the fact. Data gone. No "oops, we're sorry", nothing. Just a dead computer that wouldn't boot either the SuSE install or the Windoze partition.
In fact, the drive is so thoughly trashed none of the Linux tools or the Windows tools will even look at it when I mount it on another host (I haven't tried Norton - is there still a sector editor in norton utilities? That used to work well when by 8088 machine pulled stunts like this under DOS - what 3.3? - I cringe to think what using a sector editor to recover 100G is going to be like, though...) Anyway, this thing is looking a lot like the boot-sector virus (or whatever it was) that a Microsoft-funded cracker put on my (RedHat Linux) web-server back about 6 or 8 years ago - note that i was made painfully aware of Microsoft's "Linux research" at that time... also, note that Red Hat was already wildly popular at that time - it was probably the most popular Linux distro around - that's an important tidbit to keep in mind, here...
Anyway - back to the recent past - One other of the three machines I had running SuSE 9.x at home failed on this patch: that was a 250G SATA drive in a desktop machine - also dual boot. I pretty much had to just "wait and see" what to do about the hostile SuSE patch - I replaced the SATA drive with an old IDE I had lying around (installed SuSE 9.1), snatched the hard drive out of the Vaio and started running it off a LiveCD and a USB key (screw it - what do i need hard drive in that thing for, anyway?) - and waited. No word in any of the news sources - nothing from SuSE/Novell until this announcement about a partnership with Microsoft - and now I see.
You know, I just [while I was typing the above, in fact] realized something: The one machine that I have still running SuSE > 9.1 - the only SuSE box that didn't get trashed on that patch - is not dual boot - in fact (other than different brands of hardware), that is the onl
The rules shouldn't be changed, but rather people should understand that the definition of "publish" has in fact changed. Google, MS, Slashdot, etc. are not making an active, reviewed, and personal decision to make public whatever information they receive, but are acting as worlds in which such information is indexed and searched. We should make a distinction between active publication and passive publication. This would definitely solve a few problems.
I agree that rules shouldn't necessarily change - and I don't think they have, really. I think the distinction that needs to be made is not Passive vs Active publication (although those might be useful terms for the concept - rather, the concept of a printer - as opposed to a publisher or an editor needs to be brought forward into the the present day.
To apply the paradigm of hardcopy book writing, printing, and publishing to online content is not that difficult (one hopes it might even be simple enough for lawyers, courts, and lawmakers to understand - although understanding may not be sufficient in and of itself to keep those types of folk from screwing it up):
An individual who writes something is a writer.
When that individual posts writing to an internet forum - say a blog or a forum (for now I'm just talking about writing that is not being done as "work-made-for-hire" or some other editorially-controlled, other-directed work) - they are publishing that work. This individual can be said to be a self-published writer.
The individual, organization, or company providing the blog or forum technical facilities remain in a position analogous to that of a printer - in the "old-school" sense of the word, when "printer" was "someone who prints things [on a printing press]". Perhaps print shop would be more descriptive. In either case, whether you prefer printer or print shop (there is a subtle distinction in that the added shop may imply a company or organization, whereas printer might be taken to mean an individual, although in the old days "send it to the printers'" was a common phrase) - whichever you prefer, the printer has essentially no control over content, and is typically in no way responsible for the intellectual property content of the work.
I believe this is similar to the line of thought that went into the "common carrier" concept in telecommunications, which - while not directly applicable to this kind of situation - is obviously similar in it's handling of IP and [potentially] legally actionable communications.
Just as one does not prosecute (or sue) the phone company if a criminal uses a phone in the commission or a crime (or if a person slanders another over the phone), I don't know of many successful cases of a printer being sued or prosecuted over the contents of a book - perhaps if you went back to the early days of the printing press - I think some printers were prosecuted for printing e.g. Bibles, but they were arguably publishing (distributing) that work, as well as just printing it.
I believe I am correct in saying that it is typically the publisher - and to some extent the writer - who gets the legal fallout when something is written and released to the public which has legal ramifications. I actually think that is appropriate, provided we can make distinction between publishing and [what on the Internet amounts to] printing.
Also, there's the fact that if libel someone on the internet, I think I should get the full benefit of the publicity that goes along with the lawsuit (the phrase "there is no such thing as bad publicity" originated in the newspaper publishing industry, did it not?) - why should I share the spotlight with News Corp if I libel someone on MySpace.com, after all?
Have you ever been confined to a "Free Speech Zone" ?
You'll never hear about the other people who get jailed or intimidated into silence... because the world's media doesn't care about them. And this applies to citizens of almost any non-Western country.
Why do you restrict this to "non-Western" countries? The phenomenon you're describing (media ignoring injustice unless there exists both governmental sanction to report it and a chance to get a ratings boost from it) is a systemic dysfunction that is not restricted to non-Western countries, since it is - de facto - a problem of global media companies, not governments or the individuals... Commerical/corporate edia cares about you if you can get them ratings without costing them "access" to officialdom. Period.
There is no such thing as a "safe" capacitor! They are filled with SMOKE and that smoke is DEADLY. ALWAYS let the smoke out of the capacitors before attempting to handle them! This should only be done by PROFESSIONALS. Do NOT try this at home.
Always assume a CAPACITOR is holding a charge. And: Capacitors don't kill people, it's the circuit of which the person is a part that is dangerous...
Fire is energy, and can be various colors, depending on what's being reacted (burned), as well as the oxygen mix, etc. (which is also part of the fuel). Energy can be every color in the visible spectrum, as well as outside our visual spectrum (we can't 'see' radiation, but it's a form of energy).
Isn't it true that the light itself that you "see" is radiated energy? So the color it appears to be depends upon the frequency (or wavelength if you're looking at it the other way round) of that radiation?
In that respect, it's not so much that "energy is [some] color", it is that color is a specific frequency band of energy - specifically: wavelengths of radiated energy that are detectable by the [human] eye.
Not trying to nitpick here - it's early (here) and I just found myself thinking "light is energy" while reading your post - and then questioned myself about it instead of doing the sane thing and getting some coffee (energY) - sorry...
Well, unfortunately, fighting back against Hollywood is futile - they will send out nine lawyers on black horses that breathe flame, and have some weaselly, emaciated little agent fucker following you around whining and threatening as you make your way agonizingly towards the Towers in the West - there is no aged wizard to guide thru the subways, and no elfen or dwarven warriors to watch your back as you cross the wilds of the mid-west - basically, you're on your own, and the one-plot will completely subsume your mind, making you a slave to the very mega-corps you strive to free yourself from....
I can't believe I've read two news articles, on editorial, and [scanned] an entire page/. comments about of about this and have not found the phrase "embrace and extend" - i seem to remember something about EnE being a "core Microsoft corporate strategey" ? Isn't this purported "support" for Open Source / Linux etc just the "Embrace" part of "Embrace and extend"?
Besides, ya gotta know this is BULLSHIT 'cause I haven't seen GNU mentioned anywhere in the any of this.... hello?
Aye, that's true enough - probably a good reason for it, too - I suspect it's part of a more general trend that has people supporting the Rule of Law (as opposed to the more pernicious Rule-of-the-Company-with-the-Biggest-Stick-and-the -Meanest-Thugs that the RIAA has been making their millions out of for so many years now..)
Of course, bucking the trends is also quite trendy - has been pretty much since the beginning of time, so you're not quite so outre as you seem to believe yourself to be, either.
The RIAA aren't making evidence up here
I remember a time within my lifetime when - as we talked about these things (Law and Courts) - when we all understood that in the US Justice System there was a principle of presumed innocence. That is, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of their "peers"... Now, I'll give you that in practice this has not always worked as well as we might like (particularly in retrospect), but I am constrained to point out that in this case the burden of proof is on the RIAA to prove the defendant guilty - the defendant is not required to prove their innocence - in fact, the defendants should be presumed innocent until we have some reason to believe otherwise. So your statement there is disingenuous, at least, and more likely a deliberate attempt to mislead - especially given the way you follow it up...
it's simply the question of if search results are proof enough.
Not really. It is still an open question as to a) whether or not it is illegal to share music on the internet, and b) whether some alleged viewing of a search engine result list constitutes proof - I think this last is one of the things they're trying to set a precedent for, here.
Note that sharing songs on the internet is not illegal just because RIAA sez so. There has to be some legal activity to establish it as a point of Law. Then there has to be some guidelines about proof in such cases.
I don't think many people would seriously argue that the person being accused here wasn't illegally sharing files based on this evidence.
Huh. So do you want fries with that? There seems to be some hearsay evidence by a contracted third party that the invdividuals had some files on their drive, and that those files were accessible via some file sharing service. What the RIAA has not done (at least not to my satisfaction) is prove that this file haring is illegal. I guess that will have to be up to the jury - there is a jury, right?
Anyway, guys, quit the RIAA bashing.
Uhmmmm... no? I could make a plausible case for self defense and "the public good" for this "bashing" of the RIAA - they are, after all, racketeers, gangsters, and thugs who are known to have killed off musicians when the musicians became "inconvenient" to hold to a contract. The RIAA are scum - they're right up there with insurance companies and lawyers. How the fuck are you going to tell me not to bash them? If they don't like it, they can fucking sue me. I think I could can make a plausible defense against their slander and libel charges ["bashing"]. Clue: It's not slander if it's true, it's just journalism.
don't act like they're a pack of liars when they're almost undeniably correct in their accusations and their only flaw is not doing as air-tight a job as they should have.
Sounds like you've been watching too much Law & Order. That's just pathetic. Of course they're a pack of liars - Perhaps you could give us a good reason to believe them? They are known to be liars. Why should we believe their djinned up hearsay evidence is anything at all except a stage show designed to lend some misbegotten appearance of legitimacy to their sociopathic behaviour? The RIAA are the criminals here...
You're simply cheerleading for the RIAA's model of reality. You sound like a cyber-turfer - who signs your paycheck?
Come off what, exactly? Do you disagree with anything I said? Do you in fact feel that there is some reason to prohibit anonymity? If so, can you make a stronger argument than "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't fear the search" ?
We don't live 200 years ago, anonymity is a means to an end...change.
I disagree on both points:
Our consitution was written some 200 or so years ago, so in the sense that we live within the Law - within the Constitution - we do indeed live 200 years ago as much as we live in the present. The Law is not a static thing - it is "living" in that sense. Are you saying it [the Constitution and/or the body of Law] should be changed, or just ignored because it's dated? That would be a bit of a different argument than the one you started out with, I think...
Anonymity can serve change, yes, but its more direct end is defensive in nature, not pro-active.
In the instance where an author/speaker uses anonymity [for whatever reason], the content - the ideas expressed may or may not lead to the end "change" - there is no inherent linkage, there, between the anonymity and your postulated end result [change] - regardless of the "E Publius" example I used...
I believe we are advanced enough to change without anonymity, and the costs of anonymity are outweighing the benefits.
If you actually believe we have "advanced", perhaps you could cite an example of what sort of advance would obviate a need for anonymity? I personally do not believe [speaking in a philosphical and legalistic sense, although I'm willing to make the argument on technological grounds, too] that we have advanced particularly - at least, not here in the US. Perhaps you do in fact live somewhere else? That would certainly explain your idealization of the principles involved, since if you live in the US I can only assume that you are living in a vacuum that does not allow you any practical interaction with the realities that exist here - and have existed here for some time.
It's better to not need anonymity, than to need it.
True enough, but that is not a reason to compromise the ethics of preserving anonymity for use at need. Better to have [whatever] and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
The way to get there is by not using it.
What do you base that statement on? On the face of it, it is not a rational statement, although it could be used as part of an ideology, I suppose.
I don't want to have to sulk in the shadows, in fear that someone might connect me with my words.
Well, I rather like the darkness, but that's not really the point, here. In much the same way you wish to be connected directly with your own words, I feel that a good idea should stand on its own merits. The need to claim credit for it is simple Ego, and has no particular value in a larger sense - that is, it adds no value to the idea. The only practical reasons to attach your name to your words is a) to affect the credibility of your words, or b) to attempt to dervice some personal benefit from whatever you express.
For much of what I personally say, I don't feel any particular need to do either. If I did, I would simply express whatever I was.
The argument against the idea that "anything worth saying" should have the author's name attached to it is even more compelling if you factor in societal mores.
Your position on this issue puts me in mind something: I remember listening to a protestant minister make the argument from the pulpit that "who you are speaks so loudly that I can't hear what you're saying." He was referring to hippies, at the time (this was in the 1960s or 1970s and he was trying to support his thesis that young people should conform -
Would you care to back that statement up with some facts
Not really - I'm just operating from my own memory of events and have not looked any of it up. If you wish to challenge the statement, please be free to provide a lack of evidence as a counter argument - I don't have any particular reason to try to convince you or anyone else of the veracity of my remark, since if you don't want to believe it, you won't - no amount of argument suffices in such matters, in my experience.
That said, I would point out that I seem to remember seeing postings to the effect that legislation be enacted to make running an open wireless access point illegal. While I was referring in my post to events that would have occured before the advent of wireless net access, I imagine that searching thru the discussions of the last couple years where fearmongers are screaming about the possiblity of "terrorists", "child pornographers", "identity theieves", and "hackers" using OPW (Other Peoples' Wireless) access to gain net anonymity would probably find you some of the type of talk that I'm asserting has taken place. You might also try Reuters news service, since I think one of the stories where some lawmaker or enforcement official was talking along these lines was published there -
Ultimately, though, if you care to pursue it, I am willing to yeild the argument entire, since I'm not trying to prove anything to unbelievers here, simply to make some points to anyone who may happen to have background information similiar to my own...
If it will cost me my job, freedom, or life, then I might not say it, or will choose carefully who I say it to.
So you don't have anything to say that could cost you your employment, freedom, or life...
Seeing as how I don't work for someone else, and live in the U.S., chances are good I can say anything I like without losing any of those things.
... and/or if you do, you haven't actually tried saying such...
If you get fired for something you say then let the courts deal with it.
Uh-huh. They sure will. Especially if the entity prosecuting or suing you has sufficient legal/political clout or just plain old cash. Of course, you should realize that it might be cheaper or more politically expedient for them to just kill you or imprison you - of course, by the above, you probably believe that sort of thing doesn't happen in the good ole U.S. of A, right? I suggest you test that theory at your first opportunity - that way you can claim credit for what you've said with greater credibility, eh?
I am a strong believer in Freedom of Speech. I am Free to say what I want, and am Free to put my name on it.
Okay, I will not only take your word for it, I will [continue to] defend your right to do just that, if that's your choice - just as I will continue to defend my own right to Speech - including my Right to use names other than the one on my Social Security card. IANAL, but it is my understanding that use of an "alias" is not [yet] illegal in most states in the US. I would like to think that you (having made the claim of being a supporter of the Right to Speech) for your own part you would defend the Rights of others to their own choice not to put their "real names" on things they have to say. Not all of us are particularly interested in laying claim to the information we propagate, or counting coup by saying "I told you so", y'know? If you think that makes what we say "not worth saying", I strongly encourage you to not listen...
I realize that you stopped short of saying that anonymous speech should be prohibitted under the Law, but you should realize that such is the underlying issue here. There have been, and no doubt will continue to be, efforts to make anonymous speech - particularly anonymous speech via the Internet - illegal in the US. I think that would be a shame, but there are many who do not agree.
Finally, I commend to you the Revolutionary War period writings published under the nom de plume "E Publius" - perhaps you could have convinced the newspapermen of that era that anonymity for the likes of Patrick Henry was un-necesary and in fact rendered the words "not worth saying", but for my part, I'm gratified to follow in the footsteps of such writers - some of whose names we still don't know - and have no particular problem accepting the ideas presented without tying them to some name registered in the county birth records of the era.
"You have the Right / to Free Speech /... unless you are actually stupid enough to actually try it" —The Clash, Know Your Rights
Too bad Mr Kohut doesn't get out more - perhaps if he did he would meet some actual Americans who could tell him what they think instead of him having to make things up based on the pure vacuum that [obviously] exists in his town. Certainly he wouldn't make it very far down any street in this neighborhood spouting that kind of crap...
you mean the right to simple privacy also applies to people who could fly off the handle and kill someone? oh perish the thought!
Well yeah - I mean, if there were no right to privacy, the fact that George Dubya Bush is a deserter in wartime from the US armed forces, and that Dick Cheney has been dead since before the 2000 elections would be common knowledge. Wouldn't we feel salty, then...
You can speed, as long as you're not slung out low riding with 20" spinners
i got pulled over in an unremarkable gold 4 door sedan..
Hell, that's nothing! I got pulled over last night in an American-made SUV for no reason other than a tail-light had burnt out [note that under the state law I'm only requred to have one working taillight - all my signals worked - it was plainly "selective enforcement"]. Then the pigs wanted to make an issue of the young lady I had picked up ouside the convenience store - called her a "hooker" and lectured me for even giving her a ride. Since when is it a cleavble offense to pick up a strang woman on the side of the road? What's she gonna do, stab me? I was betting she wasn't carrying concealed weapons [if she was I'd have given 10 bux just to know how she concealed them in that outfit] - and I'll take that chance. As I'm entitled to. They made her leave my car, and didn't even bother to make sure she got home safely - and it was the fukkin middle of the night! WfF is wrong w/ these assholes?
Told me not to "ride around" in "their best neighborhood" - that's a quote from an [one of the 6] officer partticipating in these completely un-American harassment activities.
Of course, by my lights' I was in a deal more danger from these armed hooligans in blue suits than I was from the an exhausted whore who just wanted a cigarette and a chance to sit down for a minute... go figure. I have to admit, their enclosure and capture pattern was quite professionally exeuted, but - well, that just made it even scarier. This is not the America I was born and raised to respect and venerate, I'm telling you.
this is AMERICA.. learn to spell it.. learn to read the constitution.
you rush to them with handfuls of your personal data
Well, you're making two assumptions there - a) that [we] rush to gmail (there are some folk don't use it, you know - quite a lot of them, I hear - even some/. subscribers), b) that all gmail subscribers provide actual data - disinformation is a two-way street, my friend - remember I told you that when you find out that Google is an CIA front company...
you defend the collection of relatively meaningless data points that you call a life like a snarling wolverine?
[nice image, btw -the snarlin wolverine]. Well, if the data is so trivial and meaningless, then I guess they won't need it after all, will they, so they won't whine and bitch when they are prohibited from collecting it, right?
The government isn't sending me spam, let them mine whatever they want.
Two points here 1) your two points are unrelated, so this a spuriously adjuncted statement - probably intended to distract from the lack of actual information or accuracy in your post, but let's not jump to conclusions... Second, Agents of the Bush Regime are in fact spamming - it's the CYA strategy they've adopted to excuse domestic snooping - check the sources on your SPAM (you do get SPAM, right?) - it's all from overseas. The Agents of the Bush Regime (aka Al Qaeda, et al) are spamming US email addresses from overseas in order that when Emporer Dubya sez "We're only reading the email of people who have receieved communications from Al Qaeda," the statement will not be as completely false as most people assume - most people get spam, most spam comes from agents of the regime, most spam originates outside the US (in countries simpy rife with "terrorists" [not]), hence the Dubya Regime really is monitoring everyone, but they still really are only monitoring comms w/ "Al Qaeda"... Q.E.D.
Not entirely - not in small amounts. Fact is that any amount of cash worth talking about is - like weed, and drugs, and guns, and an ice cream cone in your back pocket on Sunday - a crime to possess lacking some especial dispensation from the poticians and law enforcement [that is: The Corporations] - which dispensation means that your privacy has been violated de facto. Selective enforcement is the game here...
Cash has traditionally been anonymous, and anonymity makes liars afraid, so the Feds are afraid of anonymity and hence of private ownership of cash.
"When cash is outlawed, only outlaws will have cash."
Honestly, I'm seriously interested in this and I want to hear from you guys what (if anything) you do to evade that kind of surveillance...
Hah! I'll just bet you do... you freaking narc you. Everyone knows the Euro-people don't have to put up with this kind of shit - they have privacy laws over there...
Any (legal) cash transaction more than $10,000 triggers government reporting regulations
That information is out of date - it has been $3k for some years now - that action was taken as part of the so-called "war on drugs" - I am not completely certain it was not lowered again from $3k [according to the Moneygram website referenced below, it has been lowered to $2k under the so-called USA PATRIOT Act].
If you don't believe it (can't imagine why, but....;)), the proof is simple - go to Walmart [Moneygram] or Western Union and try to send $5000 in cash to your friend in another state - if you want to make it really interesting, try to do it using the "no ID required for pickup" option.
It's interesting, sometimes, the kinds of fantasitic beliefs some of the people who expect you to trust them with your money seem to hold...
In any case, transacting even in cash leaves a lot more traces these days than it did when the blurb you posted was written... Ever read "Steal This Book"? [i don't know if it is still available uneditted, but it was - at least at one time - a really great read...
You must file this SAR-MSB report whenever one or more transactions that add up to $2,000 or more are conducted or attempted at your location involving one of our products and you know or suspect that the transaction: [...] or [...] has no business or apparent lawful purpose and you know of no reasonable explanation for the transaction.
Now, in the real world - the world we lived in up until recently - You're not supposed to have to tell a desk clerk at Walmart why you're sending your associate in California $5k in cash.
Note that MoneyGram - while cheaper than WU - does not do anonymous transfers at all. For that matter, I don't know for sure that WU still allows anonymous money transfer like they did in the days I didn't carry ID and my mom had to send me gas money from out of state - can't get to their Javascript-only website just now]. But the fact remains: I can't think of any good reason I should be required to explain my business to a telex clerk, for any reason, ever - I'm paying for a service, not begging a favour.
More from the same page:
the Currency Transaction Report (CTR) and the recordkeeping and identification requirements that apply to cash purchases of money orders of $3,000 to $10,000, and the recordkeeping requirements that apply to any money transfer of $3,000 or more.
There's no reason to be suspicious of the government at this point, they don't do a perfect job but they're not systematic oppressors as seems to be the common implication at/.
And where are you from? I got the impression from the opening that you might be an American, but clearly you haven't lived there in some time, at the least...
there's cyber-crimes galore and on top of that there's a lot of dangerous criminals adjusting, terrorists, to our favorite medium
Really? Where? I mean seriously, so you have cites for that? Most of the crime I hear about involves computers and networking only peripherally. Even the so-called "terrorists" don't seem to be particularly tech-savvy. Of course, I understand that an oppressive regime can use the "threat" of terroism to "scare" the citizenry into giving up basic rights, but that is not technically a part of what the majority of hte people involved (the population of the planet, for instance) have consensually agreed is that thing we call Reality.
It is, in fact, some of the only actual cybercrime of which I am aware, since the oppressive regimes are resorting now to cybercrime themselves to counter the (imagined) cybercrime with which they would "scare" us. Furthermore, I hear a lot more about governments, powers, and principalities being involved in cybercrimes than I do any other group of people. Perhaps we should simply limit the access that those governments, powers, and prinicpalities have to data and the networks - I'm fairly sure that such action would limit the cybercrimes that e.g. the US Federal Government could engage in... but giving them more information about thei potential victims? No. That's a lot like offering powdered cocaine to a crack addict: a) they can't appreciate what they've gotten, and b) they will simply abuse it in the same way they did the rock. There is no benefit for the non-addict who is paying for it - the US population, in this case.
Well, there were all those little adsense messages down the right-hand side of the screen that said "Google Loves You", "Trust Google", "Google is your friend." - besides, we all know that only Terrorists Don't Trust Google - if yer no w/ us yer agin us, etc.
For my own part, I trust that Google will actually make good on a Linux version of Earth - the current v4 beta seems a cruel mockery of those of us who have been anxiously awaiting their tender attentions since Earth for Windoze came out. This stuff just looks like crap - one of the worst examples Linux graphics pretension I've seen (amongst apps that don't outright crash)...
The best description I can give for the graphics quality of Linux Earth v4 beta running on my (SuSE 9.2 [patched]) laptop that it looks a lot like an 8mm home movie when the belt on the projector broke and you're spinning the reel by hand to keep the heat from the lamp from burning holes in the celluloid film. It looks pretty damned stupid compared to e.g. watching a DVD, MPEG, or AVI under gxine, let me tell you.
Question: Why [make that: "For the Love of God, why...") didn't they write this thing in Java? At least Java mostly works [once you've suffered the agonies of the damned to get it installed], and I hear thtat it has some sort of cross-platform functionality, as well... or perhaps the "lack of depth" shown by stupid questions like that are the reason they didn't hire me... [bastards]...
You pay $100/month for TV? Does that include porn movies?
Dude, pretty much everyone I know has been paying at least $85/mo for "basic" digital cable for a couple years now - add any premium channels (e.g. HBO) and it goes over $100/mo. And no, the pr0n is PPV and costs extra - except for a little nudity here and there - no real porn. As a side note, it's fascinating to me that there are so many people living in govt housing project where they are paying e.g. $15/mo for rent, but they manage to keep a ~$150/mo cable bill paid...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I was going to say: "The sky is not actually blue, we only perceive it to be blue, when in reality there is no such thing as blue; blue is only a concept that exists abstractly within the mind." - but I actually learned something from the answer your posted, so I'll refrain from being a smartass about it ... ;)
For awhile now I've been waiting for "the other shoe to drop" with regard Novell and SuSE Linux. I think it has happened.
FTFA:
This is the crux of it - in the above quote, Ballmer is describing Microsoft's strategy to move another step closer to eliminating SuSE Linux .
So Ballmer is claiming part of any money spent on SuSE distros (Novell products in general, perhaps?) - part of the money goes to Microsoft. What better way to prevent people from buying anything from Novell/SuSE? Well, there is one better way, but it's probably realated... that would be to make SuSE sux0r - something up until very recently I consider impossible, since SuSE has been - for a coupe years now - hands down the easiest to install, Linux end-user/newbie desktop around - and yes, I don't care if you think this about the server market, etc etc blah blah - I believe Microsoft determined that SuSE constituted a threat on the desktop. THey probably figured this out around the time I was talking parents, grand-parent, and several children thru SuSE installs over the phone - this after demonstrating it to developers at work and finding that the adoption rate was quite a bit better than even *I* thought it was going to be...
However - here's why I think there is something rotten going on here:
I quit doing new installs of SuSE - not directly because of the Novell/Linux deal, but before that. I was put in a rather awkward position having told all these folks to install, because - at what had to have been almost the same time Microsoft and Novell were busy fukking and sukking each other in some sleazy hollywood hotel room, a SuSE system patch trashed the reiser file system on my 100G laptop hardrive, with no warning, and no 'thank-you-ma'am' after the fact. Data gone. No "oops, we're sorry", nothing. Just a dead computer that wouldn't boot either the SuSE install or the Windoze partition.
In fact, the drive is so thoughly trashed none of the Linux tools or the Windows tools will even look at it when I mount it on another host (I haven't tried Norton - is there still a sector editor in norton utilities? That used to work well when by 8088 machine pulled stunts like this under DOS - what 3.3? - I cringe to think what using a sector editor to recover 100G is going to be like, though ...) Anyway, this thing is looking a lot like the boot-sector virus (or whatever it was) that a Microsoft-funded cracker put on my (RedHat Linux) web-server back about 6 or 8 years ago - note that i was made painfully aware of Microsoft's "Linux research" at that time... also, note that Red Hat was already wildly popular at that time - it was probably the most popular Linux distro around - that's an important tidbit to keep in mind, here...
Anyway - back to the recent past - One other of the three machines I had running SuSE 9.x at home failed on this patch: that was a 250G SATA drive in a desktop machine - also dual boot. I pretty much had to just "wait and see" what to do about the hostile SuSE patch - I replaced the SATA drive with an old IDE I had lying around (installed SuSE 9.1), snatched the hard drive out of the Vaio and started running it off a LiveCD and a USB key (screw it - what do i need hard drive in that thing for, anyway?) - and waited. No word in any of the news sources - nothing from SuSE/Novell until this announcement about a partnership with Microsoft - and now I see.
You know, I just [while I was typing the above, in fact] realized something: The one machine that I have still running SuSE > 9.1 - the only SuSE box that didn't get trashed on that patch - is not dual boot - in fact (other than different brands of hardware), that is the onl
I agree that rules shouldn't necessarily change - and I don't think they have, really. I think the distinction that needs to be made is not Passive vs Active publication (although those might be useful terms for the concept - rather, the concept of a printer - as opposed to a publisher or an editor needs to be brought forward into the the present day.
To apply the paradigm of hardcopy book writing, printing, and publishing to online content is not that difficult (one hopes it might even be simple enough for lawyers, courts, and lawmakers to understand - although understanding may not be sufficient in and of itself to keep those types of folk from screwing it up):
An individual who writes something is a writer.
When that individual posts writing to an internet forum - say a blog or a forum (for now I'm just talking about writing that is not being done as "work-made-for-hire" or some other editorially-controlled, other-directed work) - they are publishing that work. This individual can be said to be a self-published writer.
The individual, organization, or company providing the blog or forum technical facilities remain in a position analogous to that of a printer - in the "old-school" sense of the word, when "printer" was "someone who prints things [on a printing press]". Perhaps print shop would be more descriptive. In either case, whether you prefer printer or print shop (there is a subtle distinction in that the added shop may imply a company or organization, whereas printer might be taken to mean an individual, although in the old days "send it to the printers'" was a common phrase) - whichever you prefer, the printer has essentially no control over content, and is typically in no way responsible for the intellectual property content of the work.
I believe this is similar to the line of thought that went into the "common carrier" concept in telecommunications, which - while not directly applicable to this kind of situation - is obviously similar in it's handling of IP and [potentially] legally actionable communications.
Just as one does not prosecute (or sue) the phone company if a criminal uses a phone in the commission or a crime (or if a person slanders another over the phone), I don't know of many successful cases of a printer being sued or prosecuted over the contents of a book - perhaps if you went back to the early days of the printing press - I think some printers were prosecuted for printing e.g. Bibles, but they were arguably publishing (distributing) that work, as well as just printing it.
I believe I am correct in saying that it is typically the publisher - and to some extent the writer - who gets the legal fallout when something is written and released to the public which has legal ramifications. I actually think that is appropriate, provided we can make distinction between publishing and [what on the Internet amounts to] printing.
Also, there's the fact that if libel someone on the internet, I think I should get the full benefit of the publicity that goes along with the lawsuit (the phrase "there is no such thing as bad publicity" originated in the newspaper publishing industry, did it not?) - why should I share the spotlight with News Corp if I libel someone on MySpace.com, after all?
Have you ever been confined to a "Free Speech Zone" ?
Why do you restrict this to "non-Western" countries? The phenomenon you're describing (media ignoring injustice unless there exists both governmental sanction to report it and a chance to get a ratings boost from it) is a systemic dysfunction that is not restricted to non-Western countries, since it is - de facto - a problem of global media companies, not governments or the individuals... Commerical/corporate edia cares about you if you can get them ratings without costing them "access" to officialdom. Period.
There is no such thing as a "safe" capacitor! They are filled with SMOKE and that smoke is DEADLY. ALWAYS let the smoke out of the capacitors before attempting to handle them! This should only be done by PROFESSIONALS. Do NOT try this at home.
Always assume a CAPACITOR is holding a charge. And: Capacitors don't kill people, it's the circuit of which the person is a part that is dangerous...
Isn't it true that the light itself that you "see" is radiated energy? So the color it appears to be depends upon the frequency (or wavelength if you're looking at it the other way round) of that radiation?
In that respect, it's not so much that "energy is [some] color", it is that color is a specific frequency band of energy - specifically: wavelengths of radiated energy that are detectable by the [human] eye.
Not trying to nitpick here - it's early (here) and I just found myself thinking "light is energy" while reading your post - and then questioned myself about it instead of doing the sane thing and getting some coffee (energY) - sorry...
Well, unfortunately, fighting back against Hollywood is futile - they will send out nine lawyers on black horses that breathe flame, and have some weaselly, emaciated little agent fucker following you around whining and threatening as you make your way agonizingly towards the Towers in the West - there is no aged wizard to guide thru the subways, and no elfen or dwarven warriors to watch your back as you cross the wilds of the mid-west - basically, you're on your own, and the one-plot will completely subsume your mind, making you a slave to the very mega-corps you strive to free yourself from....
I can't believe I've read two news articles, on editorial, and [scanned] an entire page /. comments about of about this and have not found the phrase "embrace and extend" - i seem to remember something about EnE being a "core Microsoft corporate strategey" ? Isn't this purported "support" for Open Source / Linux etc just the "Embrace" part of "Embrace and extend"?
Besides, ya gotta know this is BULLSHIT 'cause I haven't seen GNU mentioned anywhere in the any of this.... hello?
Aye, that's true enough - probably a good reason for it, too - I suspect it's part of a more general trend that has people supporting the Rule of Law (as opposed to the more pernicious Rule-of-the-Company-with-the-Biggest-Stick-and-the -Meanest-Thugs that the RIAA has been making their millions out of for so many years now..)
Of course, bucking the trends is also quite trendy - has been pretty much since the beginning of time, so you're not quite so outre as you seem to believe yourself to be, either.
I remember a time within my lifetime when - as we talked about these things (Law and Courts) - when we all understood that in the US Justice System there was a principle of presumed innocence. That is, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of their "peers"... Now, I'll give you that in practice this has not always worked as well as we might like (particularly in retrospect), but I am constrained to point out that in this case the burden of proof is on the RIAA to prove the defendant guilty - the defendant is not required to prove their innocence - in fact, the defendants should be presumed innocent until we have some reason to believe otherwise. So your statement there is disingenuous, at least, and more likely a deliberate attempt to mislead - especially given the way you follow it up...
Not really. It is still an open question as to a) whether or not it is illegal to share music on the internet, and b) whether some alleged viewing of a search engine result list constitutes proof - I think this last is one of the things they're trying to set a precedent for, here.
Note that sharing songs on the internet is not illegal just because RIAA sez so. There has to be some legal activity to establish it as a point of Law. Then there has to be some guidelines about proof in such cases.
Huh. So do you want fries with that? There seems to be some hearsay evidence by a contracted third party that the invdividuals had some files on their drive, and that those files were accessible via some file sharing service. What the RIAA has not done (at least not to my satisfaction) is prove that this file haring is illegal. I guess that will have to be up to the jury - there is a jury, right?
Uhmmmm ... no? I could make a plausible case for self defense and "the public good" for this "bashing" of the RIAA - they are, after all, racketeers, gangsters, and thugs who are known to have killed off musicians when the musicians became "inconvenient" to hold to a contract. The RIAA are scum - they're right up there with insurance companies and lawyers. How the fuck are you going to tell me not to bash them? If they don't like it, they can fucking sue me. I think I could can make a plausible defense against their slander and libel charges ["bashing"]. Clue: It's not slander if it's true, it's just journalism.
Sounds like you've been watching too much Law & Order. That's just pathetic. Of course they're a pack of liars - Perhaps you could give us a good reason to believe them? They are known to be liars. Why should we believe their djinned up hearsay evidence is anything at all except a stage show designed to lend some misbegotten appearance of legitimacy to their sociopathic behaviour? The RIAA are the criminals here...
You're simply cheerleading for the RIAA's model of reality. You sound like a cyber-turfer - who signs your paycheck?
Goose? Dinner. Goose liver and German beer, anyone?
Come off what, exactly? Do you disagree with anything I said? Do you in fact feel that there is some reason to prohibit anonymity? If so, can you make a stronger argument than "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't fear the search" ?
I disagree on both points:
Our consitution was written some 200 or so years ago, so in the sense that we live within the Law - within the Constitution - we do indeed live 200 years ago as much as we live in the present. The Law is not a static thing - it is "living" in that sense. Are you saying it [the Constitution and/or the body of Law] should be changed, or just ignored because it's dated? That would be a bit of a different argument than the one you started out with, I think...
Anonymity can serve change, yes, but its more direct end is defensive in nature, not pro-active.
In the instance where an author/speaker uses anonymity [for whatever reason], the content - the ideas expressed may or may not lead to the end "change" - there is no inherent linkage, there, between the anonymity and your postulated end result [change] - regardless of the "E Publius" example I used...
If you actually believe we have "advanced", perhaps you could cite an example of what sort of advance would obviate a need for anonymity? I personally do not believe [speaking in a philosphical and legalistic sense, although I'm willing to make the argument on technological grounds, too] that we have advanced particularly - at least, not here in the US. Perhaps you do in fact live somewhere else? That would certainly explain your idealization of the principles involved, since if you live in the US I can only assume that you are living in a vacuum that does not allow you any practical interaction with the realities that exist here - and have existed here for some time.
True enough, but that is not a reason to compromise the ethics of preserving anonymity for use at need. Better to have [whatever] and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
What do you base that statement on? On the face of it, it is not a rational statement, although it could be used as part of an ideology, I suppose.
Well, I rather like the darkness, but that's not really the point, here. In much the same way you wish to be connected directly with your own words, I feel that a good idea should stand on its own merits. The need to claim credit for it is simple Ego, and has no particular value in a larger sense - that is, it adds no value to the idea. The only practical reasons to attach your name to your words is a) to affect the credibility of your words, or b) to attempt to dervice some personal benefit from whatever you express.
For much of what I personally say, I don't feel any particular need to do either. If I did, I would simply express whatever I was.
The argument against the idea that "anything worth saying" should have the author's name attached to it is even more compelling if you factor in societal mores.
Your position on this issue puts me in mind something: I remember listening to a protestant minister make the argument from the pulpit that "who you are speaks so loudly that I can't hear what you're saying." He was referring to hippies, at the time (this was in the 1960s or 1970s and he was trying to support his thesis that young people should conform -
Not really - I'm just operating from my own memory of events and have not looked any of it up. If you wish to challenge the statement, please be free to provide a lack of evidence as a counter argument - I don't have any particular reason to try to convince you or anyone else of the veracity of my remark, since if you don't want to believe it, you won't - no amount of argument suffices in such matters, in my experience.
That said, I would point out that I seem to remember seeing postings to the effect that legislation be enacted to make running an open wireless access point illegal. While I was referring in my post to events that would have occured before the advent of wireless net access, I imagine that searching thru the discussions of the last couple years where fearmongers are screaming about the possiblity of "terrorists", "child pornographers", "identity theieves", and "hackers" using OPW (Other Peoples' Wireless) access to gain net anonymity would probably find you some of the type of talk that I'm asserting has taken place. You might also try Reuters news service, since I think one of the stories where some lawmaker or enforcement official was talking along these lines was published there -
Ultimately, though, if you care to pursue it, I am willing to yeild the argument entire, since I'm not trying to prove anything to unbelievers here, simply to make some points to anyone who may happen to have background information similiar to my own...
So you don't have anything to say that could cost you your employment, freedom, or life ...
... and/or if you do, you haven't actually tried saying such ...
Uh-huh. They sure will. Especially if the entity prosecuting or suing you has sufficient legal/political clout or just plain old cash. Of course, you should realize that it might be cheaper or more politically expedient for them to just kill you or imprison you - of course, by the above, you probably believe that sort of thing doesn't happen in the good ole U.S. of A, right? I suggest you test that theory at your first opportunity - that way you can claim credit for what you've said with greater credibility, eh?
Okay, I will not only take your word for it, I will [continue to] defend your right to do just that, if that's your choice - just as I will continue to defend my own right to Speech - including my Right to use names other than the one on my Social Security card. IANAL, but it is my understanding that use of an "alias" is not [yet] illegal in most states in the US. I would like to think that you (having made the claim of being a supporter of the Right to Speech) for your own part you would defend the Rights of others to their own choice not to put their "real names" on things they have to say. Not all of us are particularly interested in laying claim to the information we propagate, or counting coup by saying "I told you so", y'know? If you think that makes what we say "not worth saying", I strongly encourage you to not listen...
I realize that you stopped short of saying that anonymous speech should be prohibitted under the Law, but you should realize that such is the underlying issue here. There have been, and no doubt will continue to be, efforts to make anonymous speech - particularly anonymous speech via the Internet - illegal in the US. I think that would be a shame, but there are many who do not agree.
Finally, I commend to you the Revolutionary War period writings published under the nom de plume "E Publius" - perhaps you could have convinced the newspapermen of that era that anonymity for the likes of Patrick Henry was un-necesary and in fact rendered the words "not worth saying", but for my part, I'm gratified to follow in the footsteps of such writers - some of whose names we still don't know - and have no particular problem accepting the ideas presented without tying them to some name registered in the county birth records of the era.
"You have the Right / to Free Speech / ... unless you are actually stupid enough to actually try it" —The Clash, Know Your Rights
Hell yeah - thanks man - a refresher will really help out now that the credit cards are maxed out ...
Too bad Mr Kohut doesn't get out more - perhaps if he did he would meet some actual Americans who could tell him what they think instead of him having to make things up based on the pure vacuum that [obviously] exists in his town. Certainly he wouldn't make it very far down any street in this neighborhood spouting that kind of crap...
.... you meant "where" didn't you? Instead of "whether"?
Does anyone know if the NSA is operating shell corps (similar to the way the CIA operates) ?
Well yeah - I mean, if there were no right to privacy, the fact that George Dubya Bush is a deserter in wartime from the US armed forces, and that Dick Cheney has been dead since before the 2000 elections would be common knowledge. Wouldn't we feel salty, then...
Hell, that's nothing! I got pulled over last night in an American-made SUV for no reason other than a tail-light had burnt out [note that under the state law I'm only requred to have one working taillight - all my signals worked - it was plainly "selective enforcement"]. Then the pigs wanted to make an issue of the young lady I had picked up ouside the convenience store - called her a "hooker" and lectured me for even giving her a ride. Since when is it a cleavble offense to pick up a strang woman on the side of the road? What's she gonna do, stab me? I was betting she wasn't carrying concealed weapons [if she was I'd have given 10 bux just to know how she concealed them in that outfit] - and I'll take that chance. As I'm entitled to. They made her leave my car, and didn't even bother to make sure she got home safely - and it was the fukkin middle of the night! WfF is wrong w/ these assholes?
Told me not to "ride around" in "their best neighborhood" - that's a quote from an [one of the 6] officer partticipating in these completely un-American harassment activities.
Of course, by my lights' I was in a deal more danger from these armed hooligans in blue suits than I was from the an exhausted whore who just wanted a cigarette and a chance to sit down for a minute... go figure. I have to admit, their enclosure and capture pattern was quite professionally exeuted, but - well, that just made it even scarier. This is not the America I was born and raised to respect and venerate, I'm telling you.
Nicely put, thanks.
Well, you're making two assumptions there - a) that [we] rush to gmail (there are some folk don't use it, you know - quite a lot of them, I hear - even some /. subscribers), b) that all gmail subscribers provide actual data - disinformation is a two-way street, my friend - remember I told you that when you find out that Google is an CIA front company...
[nice image, btw -the snarlin wolverine]. Well, if the data is so trivial and meaningless, then I guess they won't need it after all, will they, so they won't whine and bitch when they are prohibited from collecting it, right?
Two points here 1) your two points are unrelated, so this a spuriously adjuncted statement - probably intended to distract from the lack of actual information or accuracy in your post, but let's not jump to conclusions... Second, Agents of the Bush Regime are in fact spamming - it's the CYA strategy they've adopted to excuse domestic snooping - check the sources on your SPAM (you do get SPAM, right?) - it's all from overseas. The Agents of the Bush Regime (aka Al Qaeda, et al) are spamming US email addresses from overseas in order that when Emporer Dubya sez "We're only reading the email of people who have receieved communications from Al Qaeda," the statement will not be as completely false as most people assume - most people get spam, most spam comes from agents of the regime, most spam originates outside the US (in countries simpy rife with "terrorists" [not]), hence the Dubya Regime really is monitoring everyone, but they still really are only monitoring comms w/ "Al Qaeda" ... Q.E.D.
Think they wouldn't?
Not entirely - not in small amounts. Fact is that any amount of cash worth talking about is - like weed, and drugs, and guns, and an ice cream cone in your back pocket on Sunday - a crime to possess lacking some especial dispensation from the poticians and law enforcement [that is: The Corporations] - which dispensation means that your privacy has been violated de facto. Selective enforcement is the game here...
Cash has traditionally been anonymous, and anonymity makes liars afraid, so the Feds are afraid of anonymity and hence of private ownership of cash.
Hah! I'll just bet you do ... you freaking narc you. Everyone knows the Euro-people don't have to put up with this kind of shit - they have privacy laws over there...
That information is out of date - it has been $3k for some years now - that action was taken as part of the so-called "war on drugs" - I am not completely certain it was not lowered again from $3k [according to the Moneygram website referenced below, it has been lowered to $2k under the so-called USA PATRIOT Act].
If you don't believe it (can't imagine why, but .... ;)), the proof is simple - go to Walmart [Moneygram] or Western Union and try to send $5000 in cash to your friend in another state - if you want to make it really interesting, try to do it using the "no ID required for pickup" option.
It's interesting, sometimes, the kinds of fantasitic beliefs some of the people who expect you to trust them with your money seem to hold...
In any case, transacting even in cash leaves a lot more traces these days than it did when the blurb you posted was written... Ever read " Steal This Book "? [i don't know if it is still available uneditted, but it was - at least at one time - a really great read...
From the MoneyGram website:
Now, in the real world - the world we lived in up until recently - You're not supposed to have to tell a desk clerk at Walmart why you're sending your associate in California $5k in cash.
Note that MoneyGram - while cheaper than WU - does not do anonymous transfers at all. For that matter, I don't know for sure that WU still allows anonymous money transfer like they did in the days I didn't carry ID and my mom had to send me gas money from out of state - can't get to their Javascript-only website just now]. But the fact remains: I can't think of any good reason I should be required to explain my business to a telex clerk, for any reason, ever - I'm paying for a service, not begging a favour.
More from the same page:
And where are you from? I got the impression from the opening that you might be an American, but clearly you haven't lived there in some time, at the least...
Really? Where? I mean seriously, so you have cites for that? Most of the crime I hear about involves computers and networking only peripherally. Even the so-called "terrorists" don't seem to be particularly tech-savvy. Of course, I understand that an oppressive regime can use the "threat" of terroism to "scare" the citizenry into giving up basic rights, but that is not technically a part of what the majority of hte people involved (the population of the planet, for instance) have consensually agreed is that thing we call Reality. It is, in fact, some of the only actual cybercrime of which I am aware, since the oppressive regimes are resorting now to cybercrime themselves to counter the (imagined) cybercrime with which they would "scare" us. Furthermore, I hear a lot more about governments, powers, and principalities being involved in cybercrimes than I do any other group of people. Perhaps we should simply limit the access that those governments, powers, and prinicpalities have to data and the networks - I'm fairly sure that such action would limit the cybercrimes that e.g. the US Federal Government could engage in... but giving them more information about thei potential victims? No. That's a lot like offering powdered cocaine to a crack addict: a) they can't appreciate what they've gotten, and b) they will simply abuse it in the same way they did the rock. There is no benefit for the non-addict who is paying for it - the US population, in this case.
Well, there were all those little adsense messages down the right-hand side of the screen that said "Google Loves You", "Trust Google", "Google is your friend." - besides, we all know that only Terrorists Don't Trust Google - if yer no w/ us yer agin us, etc.
For my own part, I trust that Google will actually make good on a Linux version of Earth - the current v4 beta seems a cruel mockery of those of us who have been anxiously awaiting their tender attentions since Earth for Windoze came out. This stuff just looks like crap - one of the worst examples Linux graphics pretension I've seen (amongst apps that don't outright crash)...
The best description I can give for the graphics quality of Linux Earth v4 beta running on my (SuSE 9.2 [patched]) laptop that it looks a lot like an 8mm home movie when the belt on the projector broke and you're spinning the reel by hand to keep the heat from the lamp from burning holes in the celluloid film. It looks pretty damned stupid compared to e.g. watching a DVD, MPEG, or AVI under gxine, let me tell you.
Question: Why [make that: "For the Love of God, why...") didn't they write this thing in Java? At least Java mostly works [once you've suffered the agonies of the damned to get it installed], and I hear thtat it has some sort of cross-platform functionality, as well ... or perhaps the "lack of depth" shown by stupid questions like that are the reason they didn't hire me... [bastards] ...
Dude, pretty much everyone I know has been paying at least $85/mo for "basic" digital cable for a couple years now - add any premium channels (e.g. HBO) and it goes over $100/mo. And no, the pr0n is PPV and costs extra - except for a little nudity here and there - no real porn. As a side note, it's fascinating to me that there are so many people living in govt housing project where they are paying e.g. $15/mo for rent, but they manage to keep a ~$150/mo cable bill paid...