To think of this another way, you might not have a problem giving up your Social Security number and debit card PIN number to a bank employee while you're in their office conducting business, but if there were a half-dozen other people in the office too, listening to the conversation, you would certainly think differently.
Uhm I worked in retail banking (with 3 different banks) for five years (from teller to head teller to manager) and currently work for a major credit card company in software development...PLUS I worked in network security...you never give your pin number to ANYBODY. Very few people, actually depending on how it was coded nobody, have access to passwords. If it was coded to allow someone to see it most likely it is a DBA - but a good programmer/systems designer would request the databse containing the PIN numbers can never been seen by anything except the software. Now given that there are ways to get around that security if you have access to the source code - but you get the point. Whoever made the PIN example for the bank was wrong. SS is different as that is used to look up your info and it is something any bank employee (minus support staff like secretaries, janitorial staff, etc) have access to.
Why should I be under any obligation to do something for an organisation that is no longer my employer to prevent harm from coming to them? Sure, if it's my job I have to do what they ask me to, and if my negligence causes them harm then I could be in trouble. But if I'm no longer under contract, why should I do anything? Why, in fact, can I not say, "Oh, those passwords? Well, when I left my job with you they were no longer useful to me so I destroyed my copies of them, as security best practices dictate I should do with any confidential information I no longer require?"
You are absolutely correct - once they fire you then you are no longer responsible to provide them with any services (unless you signed a contract stating otherwise). Even if it causes their system to fail it is no longer your responsibility. They can offer you money...or they should have thought of that BEFORE firing you (e.g. sending you an e-mail two days in advance stating "please document all systems you have access to, how you access them, including login credentials and all back-door access and get this to us before XYZ date"). If they did that and you neglected to respond, while still employed, then they could have legal recourse. Otherwise....QQ PvP World
that's the point really. His keeping the passwords is really no different than a VP keeping a laptop or company automobile. There are several civil steps that need to be gone through before "keeping" something you were previously entitled to have and protect becomes "criminal".
Consider the case of loaning a car to your long term SO for many years, then the relationship goes south and you show up with the cops to take back the car she's had for several years. Yes, you can get it back, but the cops will tell you to get a judgment first and won't just let you take it
Fault & bad comparison.
Faulty: If you loan your SO your car and the day you break up you come with the cops they will give you the car - that day - but they will not arrest her (unless you have evidence of her trying to sell your car illegally, or proof positive of her saying "it's mine and you can never have it back" which is stealing). If you have legal citings that say otherwise please post it, otherwise ownership gives you instant access (with some exception, like someone renting living space from you and giving someone reasonable time to vacate space like a storage unit).
Comparison: It's a bad comparison all-together. The SO could easily argue that giving up the car would be detrimental (she couldn't get to work, or go to pick her daughter up from school, or go to the doctor, or go to the car rental place) and was asking for a 2-3 day continued usage period where it would not cause the same harm to the owner. She would not win, since letting someone borrow your vehicle doesn't entitle them to use it when you want it back, but the cops most likely won't arrest her either (unless they want to be total douchebags or she was kicking/screaming). But what makes this a bad comparison - once the network admin leaves the company he has absolutely NO need to access the systems. He was fired - his responsibility to maintain the network has been removed. It will not hurt him to not have access to the computers. He has no legal right to access the information nor any reason to. If the network admin says "but i have some personal files on there" that is too bad. Most companies (those who think of it) have terms stating that any data on their servers belong to them and the laws support this. Now the company could be nice and say "when we get a new network admin we will have him burn your information to CD" but they are under no legal/moral obligation to do so.
I am not sure about the terms of this specific case but if one of these two scenarios happened then two different outcomes would occur:
1) If someone else in the company (e.g. the CEO) had copies of the PW and the network admin changed the PW's at the last second to screw with the company he could be held liable for tampering with private property in an attempt to cause malicious harm. Information which he no longer has a legal right to access (he was fired) cannot be changed even if he thinks it is to help the company "your honor i was just protecting them". It is no longer his responsibility nor his call to make.
2) If he did not change the password after he found out he was going to be fired (this includes finding out by accident) then he is not requried to write the passwords down for them. They could ask him, and he could refuse. They could offer him money. If a company fires you they have to take the good and the bad. The good is they no longer have you for the reasons they wanted to fire you. The bad is they lose any information you have in your head and that is not information you have to divulge (unless you have a contract stating you need to spend your time writing something up). They should have thought of the information loss before firing you. When I was fired from a job years ago I was not asked for information from my boss, but there were a LOT of technical needs that was not documented (I tended to document every process I ran but never had a chance to do all of them). My employer would have no legal right to demand me to document those. He could offer to pay me but I could also tell him to go to hell.
GP is correct that their attempting to force users to pay for it won't work, anymore than forcing users to pay for music when its available "for free" is working.
First, they are not forcing anyone to do anything.
Second, the same news is not available for free in other spots. AP is one of the few true international news organizations and most news outlets get their news from them. If they get knocked out of the loop that will be a huge loss to the news pool - so yea we will still get news to fill up the 30 minute tv spot, or the column but it will not be the same news. You can't expect them not to charge when they have to overhead costs. The GGP and you are wrong.
So, a free 1 paragraph summary, with word count, and a depth rating (1 for glossover, 5 for deep technical dive, perhaps). No crummy misleading headlines, and it would also have to have a "reused/rehashed" rating, to determine how much is just a recap of old news. These ratings would need to be done by a 3rd party, or would need to be a summary of the article reader feedback, with no way for the news producer to manipulate them.
So you want the elite version? No problem. Your rate is 3.5x the average user rate
I also want permanent access to it, to be part of my "pool" of information that I have purchased, so I can refer to it whenever I like. Oh, and no blocking of print, or cut&paste. No funky formats or DRM, to prevent media/device shifting. A workable micropayments system also would be necessary, not some junk like paypal.
Not a problem, just sign this contract that you promise to NEVER release your information to anyone in your household. If you and we catch you doing it, using current technologies, we will fine you (legally bound) $50,000 for copyright infringement...per article.
These guys have never had an issue about you keeping the info, but I am sure they don't want you creating your own website and posting that information without paying them - which is fair. DOn't like well live in your dark ages world without a leader in news.
Don't compare it to the papers that just reuse other people's news
Just to add to that, and your otehr statementa bout AP being one of the 3 major world-investigators....yea these other news sources use AP's work. When they get stuff off "the wire" a lot of times it is AP's wire. Don't believe me? Open up Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Washington Post, then go to your local newspapers (Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily News are two Philadelphia examples)....lots of those articles ARE from the AP.
Who pays for the news broadcasts on NBC, ABC, and CBS?! Who pays the anchors, the journalists, and the cameramen? Who pays for your local news broadcasts?
Let me repeat from an earlier comment I made... Do you seriously think that CBS would make more money on its Evening News with Katie Couric if its stopped broadcasting it for free and made it solely pay-per-view? Think about it.
Two different, completely different, business models - tv and print media. Also TV gets massive (millions of dollars) in advertising fee's...way more then print media. Also lots of channels charge these days...the network broadcast don't, but you want CNN - yup pay for it.... It's different business models you really can't compare the two on an even playing field.
Something else will step in to fill the void left behind, and will likely be less dinosaurian about the entire process. Good riddance.
Let's see: You HOPE something of the same quality or better will fill in the void. You HOPE what steps in will be less "dinosaurian". That's a lot of assumptions there. You may also get nothing to fill in the void, or whatever fills in the void to be of less quality and cost more to you (be it advertisements every other word or you gotta pay). Their model may not work anymore but that does not mean they are incorrect for charging. Put it this way - would you go to work for free? If not then stfu.
The proof for BBC independence is that whatever government is in power, their supporters always claim the BBC is a puppet of the opposition. This is exactly how an unbiased news outlet should be perceived in my view.
I would prefer my media outlet to be viewed as neutral, & unbiased...not as negative nancies, nay-sayers, or devils advocates. It's OK to agree with gov't, it's OK to say 'good job Mr. President/Congressman/SCJ/etc'. But to be known as the opposition no matter who is in power strikes me as a group of people who just like to cause strife cause it sells - which is wrong.
"Also, I know we point this out every time some clueless news exec claims that users need to pay, but it's worth mentioning again: nowhere do they discuss why people should want to pay.
"Why people should want to pay?" Is that person a moron? Nobody WANTS to pay. People want things for free. Hell people want to get paid for giving you the priviledge of giving it to them for free. A better question to ask "why should they charge".
Well let's examine why a COMPANY may want to charge money for it's SERVICES.
Well other then the fact it is a for PROFIT COMPANY, and it is offering a SERVICE which costs it money I don't have much of a good reason. They need to make their money somewhere, and if ad's aren't cutting it then they need to get it someplace else.
As I have said it before, and I will keep saying it - This service is not a life or death service. You do not NEED it to live or be happy. Given that - you can pay for it or not pay for it. If it's time for the business to fail then it will eventually fail. In the meantime - managers, reporters, support staff, printers, web devs, isp providers, internet connections, and other infrastructure cost money.
Not necessarily true. Sometimes companies lay off employees due to other issues - like personality conflicts, or if the person is known to be looking for another job, or they found someone better for the job. They may not want to hurt the employee in a negative fashion for other jobs, or even unemployment compensation (typically you cannot get UC if you were fired - which implies cause). Also the person originally quoted may have been fired but she spun it as a lay-off.
We sometimes swap "being fired" with "being laid off" without thinking (or deliberatly since fired implies the employee f'd up) about it. The end result is the same but the reason for each is different.
While I feel sorry for anyone who has to go through that you do not know their side of the story. Maybe she was caught taking days off without reporting it (even before the miscarriage), or she got caught stealing money/supplies. Maybe they are not that large of a company and could not afford to keep her on for an extra couple months (or whatever each differing person determines is an appropriate time). Maybe they planned on laying her off months before but didn't want to because she was about to have a baby (an extra expense) - and then when it came to light she would not (as tragic as it is) they had no reason to keep her because she would not have that extra expense.
There are many reasons, you don't know them, so stop demonizing the company.
Unfortunately employers have the power. Even with internet sites out there where you can rate your employer 1) most people don't use them and 2) when someone is offering you a better paying job you really don't care what those forums say.
So yes, employers can be jackasses, but as those with the power they can get away with almost anything that is not illegal.
When I quit my job, I was being passed over for promotions by morons, I wrote a nice letter. Thanking those who worked with me and letting people know where to get me. I actually quit two weeks after I got promoted, but because I was passed over three times (one of the guy recently got fired for incompetence) I didn't care.
I would rather not burn bridges - you never know if you may want to work at a company where a previous co-worker is employed at. Leaving with grace is always better then leaving with attitude.
FBI: "We came here looking for pr0n. We didn't find any, but we found bit torrent program on your computer. You obviously used that for illegal activites, and you obviously deleted your logs which prove you downloaded pr0n. You are going to jail"
Contrary to/. belief this does not happen. FBI actually TRIES to keep a clean record so they don't look like asshats as they did in the past.
Given all that - write to your senator/rep and spread the word. Most people don't care about our geek rants because they don't understand or see an effect on them. However, if you explain to people that they may be required to keep backups/logs/etc in their homes for two years...which could run in the thousands/tens of thousands range then they will care.
Yes and there is a solution. YOu will have to buy a centera backup system. It will cost you 50k/terabyte...not including backup...so 100k/terabyte.
Problem solved. Enjoy the new bill - you may want to start selling your blood at the donation centers, maybe a kidney or two.
Law or no law, if my router doesn't capture it I am not capturing it. I don't know how to do it, nor will I pay someone to do it. if the gov't wants it captured on my home network they can supply me with the means to do it - just like the local gov't supplies me with recycling bins....though that just means more taxes....
Firstly, ensure a level playing field by mandating open and free formats, protocols and standards for all government operations.
In this case stating "level playing field" and "mandating" don't match. If you are mandating open/free formats then you are kicking out of play any group that uses closed/pay formats. While you may be happy about this setup it negates your "level playing field". A better way to go is to mandate 1) Compatibility, and 2) Cheapest AND Best product wins. THat is hard to determine. Rating cost is one thing, but rating "best" is another thing and more subjective.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense..." With an annual budget of about $6.06 billion, we are the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.
now if they had said, 'chop off thier balls and ram them down thier throats, then fileshare a recording of thier last moments as they die in pain, being sure to utilise dynamic range compression to make the sounds of them thrashing about in thier final moments before the lack of oxygen and blood loss kill them sound annoyingly louder than whatever was played immediately before it'
I hope I am not on any list of yours man. I am thinking of Billy Madison, and you're Steve Bucheme.
Slashdot Mirror
To think of this another way, you might not have a problem giving up your Social Security number and debit card PIN number to a bank employee while you're in their office conducting business, but if there were a half-dozen other people in the office too, listening to the conversation, you would certainly think differently.
Uhm I worked in retail banking (with 3 different banks) for five years (from teller to head teller to manager) and currently work for a major credit card company in software development...PLUS I worked in network security...you never give your pin number to ANYBODY. Very few people, actually depending on how it was coded nobody, have access to passwords. If it was coded to allow someone to see it most likely it is a DBA - but a good programmer/systems designer would request the databse containing the PIN numbers can never been seen by anything except the software. Now given that there are ways to get around that security if you have access to the source code - but you get the point. Whoever made the PIN example for the bank was wrong. SS is different as that is used to look up your info and it is something any bank employee (minus support staff like secretaries, janitorial staff, etc) have access to.
Why should I be under any obligation to do something for an organisation that is no longer my employer to prevent harm from coming to them? Sure, if it's my job I have to do what they ask me to, and if my negligence causes them harm then I could be in trouble. But if I'm no longer under contract, why should I do anything? Why, in fact, can I not say, "Oh, those passwords? Well, when I left my job with you they were no longer useful to me so I destroyed my copies of them, as security best practices dictate I should do with any confidential information I no longer require?"
You are absolutely correct - once they fire you then you are no longer responsible to provide them with any services (unless you signed a contract stating otherwise). Even if it causes their system to fail it is no longer your responsibility. They can offer you money...or they should have thought of that BEFORE firing you (e.g. sending you an e-mail two days in advance stating "please document all systems you have access to, how you access them, including login credentials and all back-door access and get this to us before XYZ date"). If they did that and you neglected to respond, while still employed, then they could have legal recourse. Otherwise....QQ PvP World
that's the point really. His keeping the passwords is really no different than a VP keeping a laptop or company automobile. There are several civil steps that need to be gone through before "keeping" something you were previously entitled to have and protect becomes "criminal". Consider the case of loaning a car to your long term SO for many years, then the relationship goes south and you show up with the cops to take back the car she's had for several years. Yes, you can get it back, but the cops will tell you to get a judgment first and won't just let you take it
Fault & bad comparison.
Faulty: If you loan your SO your car and the day you break up you come with the cops they will give you the car - that day - but they will not arrest her (unless you have evidence of her trying to sell your car illegally, or proof positive of her saying "it's mine and you can never have it back" which is stealing). If you have legal citings that say otherwise please post it, otherwise ownership gives you instant access (with some exception, like someone renting living space from you and giving someone reasonable time to vacate space like a storage unit).
Comparison: It's a bad comparison all-together. The SO could easily argue that giving up the car would be detrimental (she couldn't get to work, or go to pick her daughter up from school, or go to the doctor, or go to the car rental place) and was asking for a 2-3 day continued usage period where it would not cause the same harm to the owner. She would not win, since letting someone borrow your vehicle doesn't entitle them to use it when you want it back, but the cops most likely won't arrest her either (unless they want to be total douchebags or she was kicking/screaming). But what makes this a bad comparison - once the network admin leaves the company he has absolutely NO need to access the systems. He was fired - his responsibility to maintain the network has been removed. It will not hurt him to not have access to the computers. He has no legal right to access the information nor any reason to. If the network admin says "but i have some personal files on there" that is too bad. Most companies (those who think of it) have terms stating that any data on their servers belong to them and the laws support this. Now the company could be nice and say "when we get a new network admin we will have him burn your information to CD" but they are under no legal/moral obligation to do so.
I am not sure about the terms of this specific case but if one of these two scenarios happened then two different outcomes would occur:
1) If someone else in the company (e.g. the CEO) had copies of the PW and the network admin changed the PW's at the last second to screw with the company he could be held liable for tampering with private property in an attempt to cause malicious harm. Information which he no longer has a legal right to access (he was fired) cannot be changed even if he thinks it is to help the company "your honor i was just protecting them". It is no longer his responsibility nor his call to make.
2) If he did not change the password after he found out he was going to be fired (this includes finding out by accident) then he is not requried to write the passwords down for them. They could ask him, and he could refuse. They could offer him money. If a company fires you they have to take the good and the bad. The good is they no longer have you for the reasons they wanted to fire you. The bad is they lose any information you have in your head and that is not information you have to divulge (unless you have a contract stating you need to spend your time writing something up). They should have thought of the information loss before firing you. When I was fired from a job years ago I was not asked for information from my boss, but there were a LOT of technical needs that was not documented (I tended to document every process I ran but never had a chance to do all of them). My employer would have no legal right to demand me to document those. He could offer to pay me but I could also tell him to go to hell.
Can you get us something more lamens? Maybe a picture? Motion gif would be a bonus.
I for one would welcome our new comet overlords, but since I am late to the ceremony they are turning me into vaporware.
GP is correct that their attempting to force users to pay for it won't work, anymore than forcing users to pay for music when its available "for free" is working.
First, they are not forcing anyone to do anything.
Second, the same news is not available for free in other spots. AP is one of the few true international news organizations and most news outlets get their news from them. If they get knocked out of the loop that will be a huge loss to the news pool - so yea we will still get news to fill up the 30 minute tv spot, or the column but it will not be the same news. You can't expect them not to charge when they have to overhead costs. The GGP and you are wrong.
So, a free 1 paragraph summary, with word count, and a depth rating (1 for glossover, 5 for deep technical dive, perhaps). No crummy misleading headlines, and it would also have to have a "reused/rehashed" rating, to determine how much is just a recap of old news. These ratings would need to be done by a 3rd party, or would need to be a summary of the article reader feedback, with no way for the news producer to manipulate them.
So you want the elite version? No problem. Your rate is 3.5x the average user rate
I also want permanent access to it, to be part of my "pool" of information that I have purchased, so I can refer to it whenever I like. Oh, and no blocking of print, or cut&paste. No funky formats or DRM, to prevent media/device shifting. A workable micropayments system also would be necessary, not some junk like paypal.
Not a problem, just sign this contract that you promise to NEVER release your information to anyone in your household. If you and we catch you doing it, using current technologies, we will fine you (legally bound) $50,000 for copyright infringement...per article.
These guys have never had an issue about you keeping the info, but I am sure they don't want you creating your own website and posting that information without paying them - which is fair. DOn't like well live in your dark ages world without a leader in news.
Don't compare it to the papers that just reuse other people's news
Just to add to that, and your otehr statementa bout AP being one of the 3 major world-investigators....yea these other news sources use AP's work. When they get stuff off "the wire" a lot of times it is AP's wire. Don't believe me? Open up Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Washington Post, then go to your local newspapers (Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily News are two Philadelphia examples)....lots of those articles ARE from the AP.
Who pays for the news broadcasts on NBC, ABC, and CBS?! Who pays the anchors, the journalists, and the cameramen? Who pays for your local news broadcasts? Let me repeat from an earlier comment I made... Do you seriously think that CBS would make more money on its Evening News with Katie Couric if its stopped broadcasting it for free and made it solely pay-per-view? Think about it.
Two different, completely different, business models - tv and print media. Also TV gets massive (millions of dollars) in advertising fee's...way more then print media. Also lots of channels charge these days...the network broadcast don't, but you want CNN - yup pay for it.... It's different business models you really can't compare the two on an even playing field.
Something else will step in to fill the void left behind, and will likely be less dinosaurian about the entire process. Good riddance.
Let's see: You HOPE something of the same quality or better will fill in the void. You HOPE what steps in will be less "dinosaurian". That's a lot of assumptions there. You may also get nothing to fill in the void, or whatever fills in the void to be of less quality and cost more to you (be it advertisements every other word or you gotta pay). Their model may not work anymore but that does not mean they are incorrect for charging. Put it this way - would you go to work for free? If not then stfu.
The proof for BBC independence is that whatever government is in power, their supporters always claim the BBC is a puppet of the opposition. This is exactly how an unbiased news outlet should be perceived in my view.
I would prefer my media outlet to be viewed as neutral, & unbiased...not as negative nancies, nay-sayers, or devils advocates. It's OK to agree with gov't, it's OK to say 'good job Mr. President/Congressman/SCJ/etc'. But to be known as the opposition no matter who is in power strikes me as a group of people who just like to cause strife cause it sells - which is wrong.
They also state on their site they receive gov't support.
"Also, I know we point this out every time some clueless news exec claims that users need to pay, but it's worth mentioning again: nowhere do they discuss why people should want to pay.
"Why people should want to pay?" Is that person a moron? Nobody WANTS to pay. People want things for free. Hell people want to get paid for giving you the priviledge of giving it to them for free. A better question to ask "why should they charge".
Well let's examine why a COMPANY may want to charge money for it's SERVICES.
Well other then the fact it is a for PROFIT COMPANY, and it is offering a SERVICE which costs it money I don't have much of a good reason. They need to make their money somewhere, and if ad's aren't cutting it then they need to get it someplace else.
As I have said it before, and I will keep saying it - This service is not a life or death service. You do not NEED it to live or be happy. Given that - you can pay for it or not pay for it. If it's time for the business to fail then it will eventually fail. In the meantime - managers, reporters, support staff, printers, web devs, isp providers, internet connections, and other infrastructure cost money.
Not necessarily true. Sometimes companies lay off employees due to other issues - like personality conflicts, or if the person is known to be looking for another job, or they found someone better for the job. They may not want to hurt the employee in a negative fashion for other jobs, or even unemployment compensation (typically you cannot get UC if you were fired - which implies cause). Also the person originally quoted may have been fired but she spun it as a lay-off.
We sometimes swap "being fired" with "being laid off" without thinking (or deliberatly since fired implies the employee f'd up) about it. The end result is the same but the reason for each is different.
While I feel sorry for anyone who has to go through that you do not know their side of the story. Maybe she was caught taking days off without reporting it (even before the miscarriage), or she got caught stealing money/supplies. Maybe they are not that large of a company and could not afford to keep her on for an extra couple months (or whatever each differing person determines is an appropriate time). Maybe they planned on laying her off months before but didn't want to because she was about to have a baby (an extra expense) - and then when it came to light she would not (as tragic as it is) they had no reason to keep her because she would not have that extra expense.
There are many reasons, you don't know them, so stop demonizing the company.
Unfortunately employers have the power. Even with internet sites out there where you can rate your employer 1) most people don't use them and 2) when someone is offering you a better paying job you really don't care what those forums say.
So yes, employers can be jackasses, but as those with the power they can get away with almost anything that is not illegal.
When I quit my job, I was being passed over for promotions by morons, I wrote a nice letter. Thanking those who worked with me and letting people know where to get me. I actually quit two weeks after I got promoted, but because I was passed over three times (one of the guy recently got fired for incompetence) I didn't care.
I would rather not burn bridges - you never know if you may want to work at a company where a previous co-worker is employed at. Leaving with grace is always better then leaving with attitude.
"don't worry son, jail will give you plenty of time to learn how to secure your soho"
FBI: "We came here looking for pr0n. We didn't find any, but we found bit torrent program on your computer. You obviously used that for illegal activites, and you obviously deleted your logs which prove you downloaded pr0n. You are going to jail"
/. belief this does not happen. FBI actually TRIES to keep a clean record so they don't look like asshats as they did in the past.
Contrary to
Given all that - write to your senator/rep and spread the word. Most people don't care about our geek rants because they don't understand or see an effect on them. However, if you explain to people that they may be required to keep backups/logs/etc in their homes for two years...which could run in the thousands/tens of thousands range then they will care.
Yes and there is a solution. YOu will have to buy a centera backup system. It will cost you 50k/terabyte...not including backup...so 100k/terabyte.
Problem solved. Enjoy the new bill - you may want to start selling your blood at the donation centers, maybe a kidney or two.
Law or no law, if my router doesn't capture it I am not capturing it. I don't know how to do it, nor will I pay someone to do it. if the gov't wants it captured on my home network they can supply me with the means to do it - just like the local gov't supplies me with recycling bins....though that just means more taxes....
Firstly, ensure a level playing field by mandating open and free formats, protocols and standards for all government operations.
In this case stating "level playing field" and "mandating" don't match. If you are mandating open/free formats then you are kicking out of play any group that uses closed/pay formats. While you may be happy about this setup it negates your "level playing field". A better way to go is to mandate 1) Compatibility, and 2) Cheapest AND Best product wins. THat is hard to determine. Rating cost is one thing, but rating "best" is another thing and more subjective.
The open source movement is exactly what should be funded
They are numbnuts: http://www.nsf.gov/news/index.jsp?prio_area=5
For those to lazy to click a link
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense..." With an annual budget of about $6.06 billion, we are the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.
now if they had said, 'chop off thier balls and ram them down thier throats, then fileshare a recording of thier last moments as they die in pain, being sure to utilise dynamic range compression to make the sounds of them thrashing about in thier final moments before the lack of oxygen and blood loss kill them sound annoyingly louder than whatever was played immediately before it'
I hope I am not on any list of yours man. I am thinking of Billy Madison, and you're Steve Bucheme.
I thought hackers were supposed to be ingenious and creative thinkers. Not the equivalent dumbass jocks on a rampage.
Years of repression in highschool locker rooms by the sports jocks breeds creative thoughts of violence in the adult hacker community.
"EPIC WINNING LOL"
So basically he is saying that these hackers are raiding the various wings of these lawsuit organizations. So are the drops purpz or orangez?
RIAA Wing
MPAA Wing
FedGov Wing
Metallica Wing
Now who are the two main bosses?