The idea here is that even the stuff before that first comma is important. Lessig et al. argue that, by extending copyright over too long a time, you're actually doing more harm (aka, arresting spin-offs and adaptations) than good (convincing creators to create by making it financially attractive).
So it's not black and white. You absolutely cannot cimply ignore any of the words or phrases in the Constitution.
Careful! Next thing you know, we'll have to pay attention to stuff after a comma as well, and then we'll all get to tote guns!;)
Outside of college, I haven't found a whole lot of people who think, or really know the details of any orthodoxy.
Um, I live in a college town. I burst out with a guffaw every time I hear someone make a connection between being a college student, and thinking or being intelligent. I can't help it.
Just make sure I don't have a mouthful of soda if you're going to say something like that:)
Eventually when the technology improves, the system will have to move to a "pay what you weigh" billing scheme just like all of our other utilities.
Hmm...
I pay a flat rate for unlimited local phone calls. I pay a shallow rate for gas, a scheme that keeps the monthly bill from fluctuating too wildly. I don't have cable, but I assume a flat rate is paid regardless of how much you watch.
And I've been paying a flat rate of one sort of another for internet access, from way back. $50/mo to hooked.net for telnet access from any CompuServe phone number 'til they stopped me from running SLIP emulators;). Then flat rate for various dialups. Now flat rate for cable internet. And the whole time, doomsayers were saying it couldn't last. We'll see. It's worked so far.
There is a sweet spot, between a free for all IT environment and network nazis. In the sweet spot, you have reasonable usage and security policies, backups, reimaging (when necessary), and best of all, something of a blind eye to the clueful.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a ratchet effect; an inevitable ossification. There's always going to be "incidents" of lost files, viruses, etc. Let's overreact, and put our users in straightjackets (but never, for example, replace Outlook with a sane mail client). Some idiot installed Kazaa, so let's make sure nobody installs vim or textpad. And the clueful people needed to run a reasonable network are too expensive; let's remotely install everything with some crap like Netware Application Launcher
And now this. We'll detect anyone trying to come up with a better way to do things, and harrass them. Great. Meanwhile, anyone with ill intent can still do whatever they want - yeah, you can theoretically restrict a user from writing to his own hard drive or registry, but good luck. What was that about cheap easy administration again?
China hasn't been communist for quite a long time; there's plenty of private industry (both local and foreign), and significant disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor. It's essentially a capitalist one-party state. It's still socialist in some ways, though mostly unofficially (a lot of the large private companies are indirectly controlled by people in high places in the government).
The government owns the big companies; that is the definition of communism (ownership of the means of production by the "proletariat"). Since that hive mind thing has been a little slow in development, the proletariat are, er, represented by the government. But since they don't know what they really want and need, their true desires are implemented by an elite; the Party. They don't need an actual vote, you see.
None of that has changed. Call me when it does.
And Communist contries have always had significant disparities between rich and poor. The Party elite are the rich.
What is this, the eighties again? "They are too just like us! Well, except for that voting thing, and the government owning or controlling all the companies, and the gulag. Um, shut up, you McCarthyite!". Am I going to have to listen to all that tripe again with China?
I think that comment is very interesting. Apparently you're way smarter than I am. Please tell me what the universally-understood message of Koyaanisqatsi is, in 250,000 words or less. Make sure not to leave anything out. Then you can post it on Slashdot and I'm sure everyone will agree that you got it exactly right.
So which is it? It uses powerful visuals to convey a message, or it doesn't have a clear message?
Being incoherent doesn't make something deep. But is it awfully convenient, because if you're ever challenged on your message, you can retreat and say "I have no message; it is only what you make of it".
Prior to 1983, I don't think anyone had seen the world from quite that perspective.
Maybe not, I don't remember. Certainly not so visually. But in 1982, you could hear part of that perspective in Subdivisions, by the band Rush. But, hey, they only had 5:33, so they only covered the "modernity alienation" part. And it's just a pop song, not a deep, deep, film. Oh well.
Wait a minute, memory coming back. They had a video, with that kind of urban traffic imagery. Was that made before or after the movie was released, I wonder?
It makes you think, is all, and shows you the world in a way you probably haven't seen it before. The reaction you have to those images probably tells you more about yourself than it does about the movie.
Actually, I've heard the things it is preaching many times. Although presented very well and with impressive visuals, the ideas were not new, even then.
And that "tells you more about yourself" stuff is pretty meaningless. It's a cherry-picked sequence of images, and I'm smart enough to tell what the message is. If you agree with the message, then stand behind it and take responsibility for it, don't just say "it means whatever you see in it".
Have I just had incredible good luck? Am I using P2P on a different planet or something? Gnutella "scales" just fine for me, and I don't have any trouble with it.
I've had one bad download from P2P, 3 minutes of silence or hiss. Oh no!;) I picked another result, clicked a button, and switched windows. Oh the time! Oh the trouble!;) Do people just need to learn about ALT+TAB? You don't sit there watching the download attempts, do you? If that's the case, RIAA has nothing to fear after all. Maybe you do need to buy a $20 shrinkwrapped piece of %$^$^ with one good song on it.
If it takes a long time, it's quite likely either your server, or your network is overburdened. Could it possibly be that everyone in the company is trying to log-in at the same time?:-)
I thought it might be that, but even when I come in at odd hours, or on weekends, it's the same thing.
And at my current employer, when I arrived, most people were on Win95 and connecting with Windows networking (hey what can I say, it's a state agency). We had snappy logins, mostly, and what variation there was did seem to depend on load.
Then we switched to the glorious NT/Novell future (about 4 years late) and I was back in "go get a cup of coffee" mode. Oh well.
I don't think I'll hear a single arguement that Windows makes a better server... so what else?
I really want to agree with you... but... WHY does it take 10 minutes to log in?
I've worked three places with NT clients connecting to the network via Novell login. Same thing at each place. What is it doing??? For 10 minutes??? At least Windows networking lets me start working sometime before lunch.
4) "Right to work" law, so far as I know, is simply a euphemism for the proposition that an employer is free to hire or fire any employee on any given day, and cannot be held to contract (union or otherwise) regarding employment on any other basis. Basically, it makes illegal the old union notion of a closed shop. (In this arena, I am no expert, but folks seem to be misusing the term here.) RTW is a species of employment law, slightly akin to a backwards version of antitrust.
You focus heavily on half of what right-to-work means, and gloss over the other half. Yeah, it would sound pretty bad if only that half existed.
What you mention, but only in passing, is that right-to-work means no closed union shop. You literally have a right to work; to enter into an employment arrangement without being required to join a union. Yes, that means your employer can hire (and fire) you without going through the union as well. Whoop-de-do. If you like the union tradeoff, join one; if not, don't. You're trying to make right-to-work sound like the tool of eeeevil big business, by leaving off the benefit to the employee.
And in case you hadn't heard, there are much better (as decided by the UN) places to live and work - primarily because of people with your mindset.
Oh, the UN, well, that settles it then. Call us when they vote to move the UN headquarters to Dumbfukistan;) How do they suffer through their cushy posts in NY? Yep, having representatives from all the world gather in NY in a nice building to criticize us and then beg for money really makes me feel inferior;)
The/. anti-US crowd has a bit of a psychological problem... do I really have to explain why you feel motivated to slam the top dog at every turn? Hint: it ain't because he's not #1...
And as a final note, I'm replying to you. You felt the need to reflexively bash, and I'm just replying. I don't need to toot my own horn, unless something comes buzzing around and needs to be blown away.
Politics is just the manifestation of your philosophy and morality. It's not possible to separate this from science, or anything else.
Is it OK to experiment on adults? Children? Babies? Pre-babies? Why or why not? At some point, your religion, philosophy, morality, whatever, have to become involved. There is no other basis for making such decisions. The Pete Singer's of the world are at least honest (if repulsive) in admitting what their bias is.
"Let's just put our differences aside and do what I think is right", seems to be the battle cry here. Nope, sorry. We settle these differences through politics. At least in the western world we do it at the ballot box, ultimately.
I do? Ah, you're one of those pinheaded Americans that think there's only Republican, or Democrat
Ah, intelligent conversation...
Did you write the story? Lesse... I responded top level... I think Michael is an American, isn't he? And he was talking about the US, right? And judging by the views in his write up (and his usual fare), yes, I suspect he does like it when Democrats spend and regulate.
Since I was more or less talking to him, sorry I didn't mention Christian Democrats or whatever parties you have wherever the hell you are. Didn't seem relevant.
But have a nice day. We love you furriners ya know, your petty jealousies and all;)
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
Hmm.. I sense a rhetorical question...;) Yes, those elected get to do what they want with tax money. You like it, when they're dems, so don't pretend to oppose it generally.
Call me when they start pushing aquired heredity or a flat earth. Until then, yawn.
Not having read the linked article, in pure/. tradition...
Make the players pretty colors, with about 400 slightly different models to compare and collect. Make them super cheap and flimsy; it's not like your going use one of them anywhere near as much as a general purpose player.
And best of all, just use a crippled format or something. Tech support problems solved! "Um, sir, you're not allowed to open it up and put the CD in your computer...
You might ask "why bother? We already have wireless voice now." But with an open platform for wireless (Symbian, JavaPhone etc), your "voice" (er.. audio) just becomes bits that your programs can manipulate before sending."
Hey, we've discovered a slash bug.
See how the article cuts off right there? Where's the rest of the explanation? He must have actually answered the question in the complete article!;)
Wouldn't it depend on what you consider deceptive?
No, it would depend on what the law classifies as deceptive. If there is ambiguity there, it would depend on what a judge, jury, or both considers deceptive. Doesn't matter what you and I think about it, unless we're on the jury, or voting single issue in WA.
should everyone in the U.S. now have to follow this state law, to make sure that they don't accidentally transmit banned material to residents of that state (for example, by placing it on a website where a resident of that state could access it)?
website != email
If I go to a website, I chose to do so. If you spam me, you chose to do so.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to give a real example of how this law could cause harm, not a silly hypothetical. No, a jury is not going to convict your uncle because his subject line said "funny joke" but the body wasn't funny.
"The law, which does not ban all unsolicited commercial e-mail, makes it illegal to send an e-mail to people in Washington that contains deceptive subject lines, uses a bogus return address or uses a third party's domain name without permission."
deceptive subject lines? Don't try and tell me there isn't room for lawyers to abuse that.
There is room for lawyers (and their clients) to abuse anything. But most of the time, the legal system actually operates in a fairly sensible, equitable manner (recent copyright matters excepted...).
It would have to be found actionably deceptive in a courtroom, not just on Slashdot or something. I'm trying to think of a "legitimate" need for actionably deceptive subject lines in email...
Subject: Re: your Bible order
Body: (an HTML porn email...)
Who the fuck is the State of WA to determine what the hold times are. Bah.
The difference between that and this spam case is simple.
The spammer is sending an email to you, in WA. With a call center, someone in WA is chosing to phone the call center in another state.
I would agree with you about the call center (though if the call is tech support for something sold in a WA store, I suppose you could argue that it is part of the sale...)
"Right now it's a bunch of states making their own laws about how people in other states can do business," Crandall, his attorney, said. "It's a profoundly interesting case about whether the government can regulate business on the Internet, or at least regulate equally."
No, it's Washington state saying how you have to do business in Washington state. It's not like they don't already do this, in every other area of business. If you want to sell something in Washington state, you have to abide by their laws. This isn't new. If you don't like their laws, don't sell there.
And I don't think you're going to get much sympathy by whining "but how do I know what state you're in, if I'm indiscriminately spamming you"?;)
Slashdot Mirror
The idea here is that even the stuff before that first comma is important. Lessig et al. argue that, by extending copyright over too long a time, you're actually doing more harm (aka, arresting spin-offs and adaptations) than good (convincing creators to create by making it financially attractive).
So it's not black and white. You absolutely cannot cimply ignore any of the words or phrases in the Constitution.
Careful! Next thing you know, we'll have to pay attention to stuff after a comma as well, and then we'll all get to tote guns! ;)
Outside of college, I haven't found a whole lot of people who think, or really know the details of any orthodoxy.
Um, I live in a college town. I burst out with a guffaw every time I hear someone make a connection between being a college student, and thinking or being intelligent. I can't help it.
Just make sure I don't have a mouthful of soda if you're going to say something like that :)
Eventually when the technology improves, the system will have to move to a "pay what you weigh" billing scheme just like all of our other utilities.
Hmm ...
I pay a flat rate for unlimited local phone calls. I pay a shallow rate for gas, a scheme that keeps the monthly bill from fluctuating too wildly. I don't have cable, but I assume a flat rate is paid regardless of how much you watch.
And I've been paying a flat rate of one sort of another for internet access, from way back. $50/mo to hooked.net for telnet access from any CompuServe phone number 'til they stopped me from running SLIP emulators ;). Then flat rate for various dialups. Now flat rate for cable internet. And the whole time, doomsayers were saying it couldn't last. We'll see. It's worked so far.
There is a sweet spot, between a free for all IT environment and network nazis. In the sweet spot, you have reasonable usage and security policies, backups, reimaging (when necessary), and best of all, something of a blind eye to the clueful.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a ratchet effect; an inevitable ossification. There's always going to be "incidents" of lost files, viruses, etc. Let's overreact, and put our users in straightjackets (but never, for example, replace Outlook with a sane mail client). Some idiot installed Kazaa, so let's make sure nobody installs vim or textpad. And the clueful people needed to run a reasonable network are too expensive; let's remotely install everything with some crap like Netware Application Launcher
And now this. We'll detect anyone trying to come up with a better way to do things, and harrass them. Great. Meanwhile, anyone with ill intent can still do whatever they want - yeah, you can theoretically restrict a user from writing to his own hard drive or registry, but good luck. What was that about cheap easy administration again?
and anyone who was still bothered by "terrorism" at the end of July of this year definitely is being pushed by an agenda or is pushing her own.
Well, all politicians have agendas. Wouldn't be much point if they didn't.
But are you saying terrorism is OK, after a 10 month waiting period? You distrust anyone with an attention span that long?
China hasn't been communist for quite a long time; there's plenty of private industry (both local and foreign), and significant disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor. It's essentially a capitalist one-party state. It's still socialist in some ways, though mostly unofficially (a lot of the large private companies are indirectly controlled by people in high places in the government).
The government owns the big companies; that is the definition of communism (ownership of the means of production by the "proletariat"). Since that hive mind thing has been a little slow in development, the proletariat are, er, represented by the government. But since they don't know what they really want and need, their true desires are implemented by an elite; the Party. They don't need an actual vote, you see.
None of that has changed. Call me when it does.
And Communist contries have always had significant disparities between rich and poor. The Party elite are the rich.
What is this, the eighties again? "They are too just like us! Well, except for that voting thing, and the government owning or controlling all the companies, and the gulag. Um, shut up, you McCarthyite!". Am I going to have to listen to all that tripe again with China?
I think that comment is very interesting. Apparently you're way smarter than I am. Please tell me what the universally-understood message of Koyaanisqatsi is, in 250,000 words or less. Make sure not to leave anything out. Then you can post it on Slashdot and I'm sure everyone will agree that you got it exactly right.
So which is it? It uses powerful visuals to convey a message, or it doesn't have a clear message?
Being incoherent doesn't make something deep. But is it awfully convenient, because if you're ever challenged on your message, you can retreat and say "I have no message; it is only what you make of it".
Prior to 1983, I don't think anyone had seen the world from quite that perspective.
Maybe not, I don't remember. Certainly not so visually. But in 1982, you could hear part of that perspective in Subdivisions, by the band Rush. But, hey, they only had 5:33, so they only covered the "modernity alienation" part. And it's just a pop song, not a deep, deep, film. Oh well.
Wait a minute, memory coming back. They had a video, with that kind of urban traffic imagery. Was that made before or after the movie was released, I wonder?
How many of everyone hear complaining has 1) voted in the previous presidental and congressional elections
Um, presidential? What difference would that have made?
Ralph Nader: Unsafe at any Download Speed? Did he even have a position on copyright and the DMCA?
Al Gore: I took the initiative in creating Napster. How are you enjoying your Clipper Chip?
WTF?
It makes you think, is all, and shows you the world in a way you probably haven't seen it before. The reaction you have to those images probably tells you more about yourself than it does about the movie.
Actually, I've heard the things it is preaching many times. Although presented very well and with impressive visuals, the ideas were not new, even then.
And that "tells you more about yourself" stuff is pretty meaningless. It's a cherry-picked sequence of images, and I'm smart enough to tell what the message is. If you agree with the message, then stand behind it and take responsibility for it, don't just say "it means whatever you see in it".
Have I just had incredible good luck? Am I using P2P on a different planet or something? Gnutella "scales" just fine for me, and I don't have any trouble with it.
I've had one bad download from P2P, 3 minutes of silence or hiss. Oh no! ;) I picked another result, clicked a button, and switched windows. Oh the time! Oh the trouble! ;) Do people just need to learn about ALT+TAB? You don't sit there watching the download attempts, do you? If that's the case, RIAA has nothing to fear after all. Maybe you do need to buy a $20 shrinkwrapped piece of %$^$^ with one good song on it.
If it takes a long time, it's quite likely either your server, or your network is overburdened. Could it possibly be that everyone in the company is trying to log-in at the same time? :-)
I thought it might be that, but even when I come in at odd hours, or on weekends, it's the same thing.
And at my current employer, when I arrived, most people were on Win95 and connecting with Windows networking (hey what can I say, it's a state agency). We had snappy logins, mostly, and what variation there was did seem to depend on load.
Then we switched to the glorious NT/Novell future (about 4 years late) and I was back in "go get a cup of coffee" mode. Oh well.
I don't think I'll hear a single arguement that Windows makes a better server... so what else?
I really want to agree with you ... but ... WHY does it take 10 minutes to log in?
I've worked three places with NT clients connecting to the network via Novell login. Same thing at each place. What is it doing??? For 10 minutes??? At least Windows networking lets me start working sometime before lunch.
4) "Right to work" law, so far as I know, is simply a euphemism for the proposition that an employer is free to hire or fire any employee on any given day, and cannot be held to contract (union or otherwise) regarding employment on any other basis. Basically, it makes illegal the old union notion of a closed shop. (In this arena, I am no expert, but folks seem to be misusing the term here.) RTW is a species of employment law, slightly akin to a backwards version of antitrust.
You focus heavily on half of what right-to-work means, and gloss over the other half. Yeah, it would sound pretty bad if only that half existed.
What you mention, but only in passing, is that right-to-work means no closed union shop. You literally have a right to work; to enter into an employment arrangement without being required to join a union. Yes, that means your employer can hire (and fire) you without going through the union as well. Whoop-de-do. If you like the union tradeoff, join one; if not, don't. You're trying to make right-to-work sound like the tool of eeeevil big business, by leaving off the benefit to the employee.
And in case you hadn't heard, there are much better (as decided by the UN) places to live and work - primarily because of people with your mindset.
Oh, the UN, well, that settles it then. Call us when they vote to move the UN headquarters to Dumbfukistan ;) How do they suffer through their cushy posts in NY? Yep, having representatives from all the world gather in NY in a nice building to criticize us and then beg for money really makes me feel inferior ;)
The /. anti-US crowd has a bit of a psychological problem ... do I really have to explain why you feel motivated to slam the top dog at every turn? Hint: it ain't because he's not #1 ...
And as a final note, I'm replying to you. You felt the need to reflexively bash, and I'm just replying. I don't need to toot my own horn, unless something comes buzzing around and needs to be blown away.
Politics is just the manifestation of your philosophy and morality. It's not possible to separate this from science, or anything else.
Is it OK to experiment on adults? Children? Babies? Pre-babies? Why or why not? At some point, your religion, philosophy, morality, whatever, have to become involved. There is no other basis for making such decisions. The Pete Singer's of the world are at least honest (if repulsive) in admitting what their bias is.
"Let's just put our differences aside and do what I think is right", seems to be the battle cry here. Nope, sorry. We settle these differences through politics. At least in the western world we do it at the ballot box, ultimately.
I do? Ah, you're one of those pinheaded Americans that think there's only Republican, or Democrat
Ah, intelligent conversation ...
Did you write the story? Lesse ... I responded top level ... I think Michael is an American, isn't he? And he was talking about the US, right? And judging by the views in his write up (and his usual fare), yes, I suspect he does like it when Democrats spend and regulate.
Since I was more or less talking to him, sorry I didn't mention Christian Democrats or whatever parties you have wherever the hell you are. Didn't seem relevant.
But have a nice day. We love you furriners ya know, your petty jealousies and all ;)
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
Hmm.. I sense a rhetorical question ... ;) Yes, those elected get to do what they want with tax money. You like it, when they're dems, so don't pretend to oppose it generally.
Call me when they start pushing aquired heredity or a flat earth. Until then, yawn.
Not having read the linked article, in pure /. tradition ...
Make the players pretty colors, with about 400 slightly different models to compare and collect. Make them super cheap and flimsy; it's not like your going use one of them anywhere near as much as a general purpose player.
And best of all, just use a crippled format or something. Tech support problems solved! "Um, sir, you're not allowed to open it up and put the CD in your computer ...
... at least the Aussie's have better high-tech wireless phones than the US ...
Thank you, I'll be here all week ... :) remember to tip your waitress ...
You might ask "why bother? We already have wireless voice now." But with an open platform for wireless (Symbian, JavaPhone etc), your "voice" (er .. audio) just becomes bits that your programs can manipulate before sending."
Hey, we've discovered a slash bug.
See how the article cuts off right there? Where's the rest of the explanation? He must have actually answered the question in the complete article! ;)
Wouldn't it depend on what you consider deceptive?
No, it would depend on what the law classifies as deceptive. If there is ambiguity there, it would depend on what a judge, jury, or both considers deceptive. Doesn't matter what you and I think about it, unless we're on the jury, or voting single issue in WA.
should everyone in the U.S. now have to follow this state law, to make sure that they don't accidentally transmit banned material to residents of that state (for example, by placing it on a website where a resident of that state could access it)?
website != email
If I go to a website, I chose to do so. If you spam me, you chose to do so.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to give a real example of how this law could cause harm, not a silly hypothetical. No, a jury is not going to convict your uncle because his subject line said "funny joke" but the body wasn't funny.
"The law, which does not ban all unsolicited commercial e-mail, makes it illegal to send an e-mail to people in Washington that contains deceptive subject lines, uses a bogus return address or uses a third party's domain name without permission."
deceptive subject lines? Don't try and tell me there isn't room for lawyers to abuse that.
There is room for lawyers (and their clients) to abuse anything. But most of the time, the legal system actually operates in a fairly sensible, equitable manner (recent copyright matters excepted ...).
It would have to be found actionably deceptive in a courtroom, not just on Slashdot or something. I'm trying to think of a "legitimate" need for actionably deceptive subject lines in email ...
Subject: Re: your Bible order ...)
Body: (an HTML porn email
Yeah, what an "abuse" to ban this practice ...
Who the fuck is the State of WA to determine what the hold times are. Bah.
The difference between that and this spam case is simple.
The spammer is sending an email to you, in WA. With a call center, someone in WA is chosing to phone the call center in another state.
I would agree with you about the call center (though if the call is tech support for something sold in a WA store, I suppose you could argue that it is part of the sale ...)
"Right now it's a bunch of states making their own laws about how people in other states can do business," Crandall, his attorney, said. "It's a profoundly interesting case about whether the government can regulate business on the Internet, or at least regulate equally."
No, it's Washington state saying how you have to do business in Washington state. It's not like they don't already do this, in every other area of business. If you want to sell something in Washington state, you have to abide by their laws. This isn't new. If you don't like their laws, don't sell there.
And I don't think you're going to get much sympathy by whining "but how do I know what state you're in, if I'm indiscriminately spamming you"? ;)