Nearly all countries control their top level domain servers already. There's some current confusion about who will administer.iq (Iraq), but that's a special case obviously. This is mostly UN whining about control of the.com and.net domains.
ah, well there ya go.
I really dislike this concerted move to equate economic interests with "national security" interests..com and.net should be used for commercial purposes, national security should not play into the considerations.
Well, when Mass. did their working out, the total cost of upgrading to Office 12 was estimated at $50 million, while the total cost of switching to OO was $5 million - that includes all the training, software, and hardware considerations. ..
Seems they forgot to consider in their calculations all of the kickbacks and hookers MS would have ponied up for in order to prevent the loss of a big customer. That's the problem with accountants these days.
How about every country just maintain its own root servers for naming? It could be just a backup and mirror the ICANN authorized servers, but if any of the bad things the US could do such as cutting off certain country's suffixes ever did happen then people in other countries could just point their computers to the new Root name servers for lookups. And the governments could just use that or those national servers by default for security. Seems like you would want to do that anyway if your country has to worry about national security. Otherwise the US could do things like reroute traffic to mod.nic.in to their own servers probably without anyone noticing for some time and they could intercept some communications.
I know the Root name servers aren't exactly an easily configurable option in your computer or browser, but it really should be clear what root servers you are using.
My first concern is that once given away, a very poor family might look towards selling the laptop on the black market for food, clothing, etc. How much expense would be added if biometrics were incorporated into the design so that once a laptop is "mated" to a child, only that child can operate it, thus rendering its worth on the black market so much less?
I think the point here is that they wouldn't be worth a lot of money in the first place and would be available on the open market for not much more than it would cost for a school. And very much like a school textbook, I doubt it would be given away, rather given to students in schools just as textbooks are given to students to use while they are in school and then they have to give them back.
So if a family were to sell the this laptop they would be accountable for the theft.
TCO is really more important than ephemeral "but you can fix it yourself" claims. Especially since, if you RTFM, they can't - they can't get support unless they are running a certified operating system.
This isn't really a generic TCO issue. I don't care how crazy you are for any particular configuration with any OS, if the vendor of your multimillion dollar piece of software has a preferred platform then you go with that platform. The dirty little secret is that the reccomended platforms are the ones that are always the most tested and any other platforms that are supported are largely there for marketing purposes.
Recently we had the same problem with a vendor that said their application supported a particular database, but it turns out that they only had one other customer that was actually using that database and only then with many customizations to the code. So, it is always important to ask the vendor how many installations there are on each of the "supported" platforms and configurations before making such a large purchasing decision.
the law will never be above mathematics. they can have my private key when they pry it from my cold dead hand.
problem is that the government has the legal authority and power to do just that. Government has a legal monopoly on violence and the non defensive use of force which they are supposed to use with a lot more discretion than this ruling shows. This is no different than if the FCC said they had a right to post an agent in my home who would look over my shoulder as I typed 'just in case' I am suspected of a crime in the future. It is a trespass by the government before reasonable suspicion that a crime will be or has been commited.
What happened to the good old days when a wire tap actually meant just that, permission to actually tap into the wire at someone's residence when there was reasonable suspicion of a crime, and the recordings didn't have to be served up on a silver platter to the FBI or whatever other alphabet soup agency wants to increase their funding with a headline this month.
Wire tap was never meant to mean that we be compelled to act against ourselves even prior to the suspicion that a crime has ever even been commited let alone that we have commited it. The effect of this and the slippery slope that we have been on for many decades is that wiretaps are in effect in place on everyone before any suspicion, before any consideration of facts, you are wire tapped because you are human and likely to commit a crime at some point in your life. And in this age of ever growing burden of law and regulation it is becoming ever more likely that the assumption of guilt will take the place of presumption of innocence because of practical considerations.
Innocent as long as we obey, otherwise guilty. Thankfully, there is still room enough left to keep your head down and stay out of trouble for the most part, but God help those of us that want the world to be a better place. We are liable to find a world of hurt for our troubles. But I suppose that every generation has had its enemies in the state, look at the racial civil rights movement, look at the progressives, look back further and you'll see a whole lot of people in power that abuse their authority for no other reason than to hold on to it as long as they can.
In the end there will always be more of us than them as long as you choose to belong to the human race rather than some small minded group that focuses on our differences rather than what we have in common. And even with technology a minority can't hold power over a majority forever.
I just hope in my lifetime I don't see any more Americans convinced that they need to give up their Rights and dignity for some false promise of security.
And I usually keep mine right next to the computer or in the drawer hidden under some papers. Sure it is credit card sized, but it is calculator thick and isn't something I'm going to carry around with me. The key chain like one they have on the web site might be more likely to remain with me, but still it seems that it is more likely to end up sitting next to your point of access anyway. Still, it does add some security since it is something in addition to a password, but I don't think it adds as much security as some physical object that is actually small enough to make it practical and comfortable to carry with you all the time. Really, any token that is not easy to carry is as good as the physical security of wherever it is located.
You can't lose your finger NEARLY as easily as you can lose your physical token or forget your password.
yes, but I would much rather lose a token or forget a password.
Why is it that the people who seem to complain about this are the ones who also complain about there being nothing good to watch on TV? If there isn't anything good, then why do you care if they put in a flag that prevents you from doing something with someone else's content that they paid to create and distribute?
Don't forget that this law applies to manufacturers of electronic equipment, not individuals who might be doing the copying. Essentially it will require them to disable certain features of their product when this flag is detected in the signal. It may or may not be technologically hard to do, but it does mean that more lawyers will be involved with product design than before.
The quality of existing DVDs is quite amazing and I think most people will be happy with it for a while.
Regular DVDs look very poor compared to HDTV broadcasts. Not coming out soon with HD capable rentable or buyable media will mean that pay per view and movie channels will be the only choices for people who want HD quality videos. Also, don't forget that hard drives have enough capacity to hold many hours of HD video. So sure regular dvd quality is great for regular tvs, but not compared to HD video. Blockbuster and netflix should really weigh in on this since they have the most to lose over the next few years if a standard is not agreed to quickly. That and existing DVD sales will certainly start to stagnate and go down in the next 3 years as more and more people realize that their DVD collection might not scale well or look as good as they think they might on new tvs.
So, you'd think the studios would want a standard out more quickly since they make a lot of money on DVD sales.
I think there is a good chance neither format will gain as wide an acceptance as DVD has at this point unless something significant changes in the next year.
Everyone who votes against Freedom of Speech must be executed for treason
On further reflection I find this statement to be pretty funny since I am completely against the death penalty partly on first ammendment and freedom of speech grounds. Since talking hurts no one as long as the listener has the facility to discriminate. So if someone is no longer a danger to society then it is a social immorality to take away their voice. Killing someone is only moral when it is in self defense, that goes for society also.
So, removal from office is a good start.
John McCain and Russ Feingold top my list of people to boot from office over their support for campaign finance regulation.
You'd think that scifi channel would be a natural to have an HD channel. I think I'll be holding off on HD until scifi channel is broadcast in HD. Really the HD selection is very slim at this point.
The ones that are HD are brilliant and there could be some real opportunity for independent channels to provide more hd content, but really sports and the premium movie channels are the only good reasons to get hd at this point. Still, far too many channels either have no HD equivalent or they only have full hd during prime time.
Content is a real issue. Seems like the stations and cable companies should have the money and bandwidth to move over to HD, but maybe their delay in providing more HD content is a concerted one to try and rest more concessions from Congress and the manufacturers like HDMI and the broadcast flag.
Only if the library can show that, by balancing the four "fair use" factors, the library's copy is really a "fair use." There are no uses that are automatic fair uses -- all uses must be undergo the 4-factor balancing test before a determination can be made whether or not a given use is fair.
No, that is factually incorrect. It is specified in the statute that a library may make a copy of something in their collection. Just one copy. It has nothing to do with the four "fair use" criteria. This doesn't apply to the google situation specifically, but was a counter example to your absolute statement that the libraries have no right to copy books at all.
The fact that they make it available or not really isn't the relevant point. To make the index, they have to make a digital copy of the entire book -- and that's simply not going to be fair use, ever. Whether or not they make that digital copy available to others isn't the issue, since they've already made the illegal copy by that time.
That is circular reasoning. To determine fair use, the entirety of the act must be considered. You are merely saying that every act of copying is illegal regardless if it is determined that ultimately a fair use was made. The "use" is what makes it fair not the act of copying itself.
Computers make multiple copies of electronic content in memory caches which have been consistently ruled to be legal. Google's copying for indexing purposes should bear no relevance to the ultimate decision of fair use. The deciding factors will be how much of the work is provided, what form it is in and how might that impact the owners of the copyright.
That's the most leading question I've heared all week. Is your solution, by contrast, to beat people over the head with a rustly metal pole?
Well, i was just trying to actually elicit an idea from you rather than the big media is bad knee jerk reaction that is going to do more harm than good. Still, you haven't actually suggested doing something, you seem happy to keep chanting big media is bad while our freedoms erode away.
I disagree. A few big players with political agendas by and for the rich and powerfull dominating the mediasphere is not a good idea, and it is not something to champion in the name of "free speech".
And championing the mandatory registration of web sites, and newspapers on pain of fine and imprisonment if they want to write about politics is an even less good idea.
True. But even on cable or in print, big media and big business is heard a thousand times as loudly as othe folk. That's not freedom of speech, though for some strange reason it is seen as such in the USA.
So, is your solution to make sure that nobody has freedom of speech because a few speak more loudly than others? Should we all get speech licenses? Take a test and pass a physical exam? Should we get a test for mental soundness? Should we be forced to listen to those that have our government's blessing? Whatever your "solution" it will be coerced and corrupted by those with power and influence till it does not offend them. The rich and powerful do not fear regulation of speach because they can afford it. The RePUBLICans/DemocRATS don't fear regulation because they are the ones writing the rules to keep other voices from being heard. It is the weak and young that are harmed by putting up more hurdles to expression. When you need a law degree to say anything, then only the lawyers will be heard. Is that what you want?
I think we deserve to know what influences a candidate might be beholden to, but at what expense? That anyone who is for or against a candidate and states so publically becomes a criminal if they do not register themselves? That is not good. Anonymity can still be maintained if you have enough money to set up front organizations to distance yourself from the message, but the individual voices will be thwarted by even the lowest of hurdles.
Putting up any hurdles to candidates and free speech will not improve the quality of either. Unless you see great evidence to the contrary in recent candidacies? Campaign Finance "Reform" merely protects and emboldens the powers that be and will be used by them to punish dissent. True freedom of speech does not mean that the government makes sure that every voice is heard, it simply means that the government will not use its power to prevent anyone from being heard.
Prohibiting people from saying what they want about a candidate is a level of corruption that I will not stand by and watch. It must be stopped. Everyone who votes against Freedom of Speech must be executed for treason
Fixed it for you
never fire the first bullet, but be sure to fire the last one.
What is with this American idea handing over a new medium to those with the most money (big media, big business lobbying) constitutes "a chilling effect on free speech"
I mean, TV works that way, just look at Fox and CNN for how rubbish news can be under "free speech".
broadcasting signals over the EM airwaves are not free speech, they are tightly regulated and licensed because not everyone can have their own channel. It makes some sense that we would try to have a say over the content that is broadcast over this shared resource.
The content and distribution of Newspapers, Internet, magazines, flyers should not be regulated in the least, especially politically regulated, because any joe shmoe with a printer and a computer can publish effectively.
Prohibiting people from saying what they want about a candidate is a level of corruption that I will not stand by and watch. It must be stopped. Everyone who votes against Freedom of Speech must be removed from office and soon.
though, looking at the fact that it may be possible to download an entire copyrighted book just by doing different searches to me google may have crossed a line here. But if they say, just provided the same page which matched the search rather than the surrounding pages, that might be more a fair use.
Though, anyone desperate enough to go through all that trouble to get a whole book is probably not going to buy it no matter what, so would that really be an economic impact.
I installed OOo a few days ago for the express purpose of never having to deal with office again. I REALLY REALLY wanted it to be good. Sadly, I uninstalled it less than 5 minutes later. It's come a long way, but side-by-side with Office... well you get what you pay for.
So, you actually use Office then? My impression was that most people just keep it around so they could read the occassional document or resume written by someone who was too fancy for plain text in an email. Or the occasional spreadsheet of some manager who wants to show (off) the latest budget. In which case OOo is plenty good enough as I have found out.
And I would suggest the OpenOffice.org 2.0 Beta 2 version if you are serious. The 1.0s are not nearly as good.
But unlike MS Office, Open Office is releasing an update to the 1.0 line which can read the newer formats of the next version before they discontinue development.
That's the "copy" part of "copyright". A library may lend a book to as many people as they like - one at a time. They may not copy it. The right to produce copies of a book is reserved to the author. Copy. Right.
Got it?
A library specifically may make a copy, according to copyright law
Also, there are a number of criteria that are to be used to determine fair use. Copyright is not nearly as absolute as Holywood would lead you to believe.
As for Google, they are not providing whole books in readable form except when the books are in the public domain, so I think they have a good case to make that this is a fair use under copyright law.
I agree, with a higher population density on the ground comes an increase risk of ground casualties. But most of Africa has a much lower population density, very little military power and poor transportation infrastructure. Increased aircraft use has the lowest natural infrastructure costs of any mode of transportation. It is a natural fit for less developed economies and could be used to leapfrog those of us in more developed economic areas.
I don't buy the safety argument, there is a lot of sky and not many planes. And there are over 40,000 people that die every year in car accidents and hardly anyone takes seriously calls for such restrictive FAA type measures on the ground because they know it would bring the economy to a halt. So, why do people accept those same measures in the sky when we know that it retards economic development. Oh sure on a bad day, with low visability air travel at low altitudes can be dangerous, but with VFR conditions anyone could fly a plane safely.
No, the airspace is tightly controlled because of military, government taxation and control reasons. Some of those are good reasons, such as national defense, but that could be managed differently than requiring strict air space control. But many more reasons simply have to do with controlling smuggling and collecting taxes on the ground. Keeping people on the ground in fixed land routes is simply a means of control, both political and economic.
Maybe it is a choice between safety and prosperity, the US is prosperous enough that maybe it doesn't matter so much. But Africa could certainly benefit from less government control and simple continent wide rules for air transportation.
People don't buy motorcycles because they are suicide machines.
I know several people that have given up their motorcycles because it is simply not practicle as a primary vehicle and the cost of insurance makes it costly to keep around.
insurance is a fact of life.
Yes, but why require insurance for each vehicle when there is only one driver? Assuming of course it isn't for car loan purposes.
If cars crash, someone needs to be able to pay.
why? Why can't we as a society just accept the risk of loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Nearly all countries control their top level domain servers already. There's some current confusion about who will administer .iq (Iraq), but that's a special case obviously. This is mostly UN whining about control of the .com and .net domains.
.com and .net should be used for commercial purposes, national security should not play into the considerations.
ah, well there ya go.
I really dislike this concerted move to equate economic interests with "national security" interests.
Well, when Mass. did their working out, the total cost of upgrading to Office 12 was estimated at $50 million, while the total cost of switching to OO was $5 million - that includes all the training, software, and hardware considerations. . .
Seems they forgot to consider in their calculations all of the kickbacks and hookers MS would have ponied up for in order to prevent the loss of a big customer. That's the problem with accountants these days.
How about every country just maintain its own root servers for naming? It could be just a backup and mirror the ICANN authorized servers, but if any of the bad things the US could do such as cutting off certain country's suffixes ever did happen then people in other countries could just point their computers to the new Root name servers for lookups. And the governments could just use that or those national servers by default for security. Seems like you would want to do that anyway if your country has to worry about national security. Otherwise the US could do things like reroute traffic to mod.nic.in to their own servers probably without anyone noticing for some time and they could intercept some communications.
I know the Root name servers aren't exactly an easily configurable option in your computer or browser, but it really should be clear what root servers you are using.
My first concern is that once given away, a very poor family might look towards selling the laptop on the black market for food, clothing, etc. How much expense would be added if biometrics were incorporated into the design so that once a laptop is "mated" to a child, only that child can operate it, thus rendering its worth on the black market so much less?
I think the point here is that they wouldn't be worth a lot of money in the first place and would be available on the open market for not much more than it would cost for a school. And very much like a school textbook, I doubt it would be given away, rather given to students in schools just as textbooks are given to students to use while they are in school and then they have to give them back.
So if a family were to sell the this laptop they would be accountable for the theft.
TCO is really more important than ephemeral "but you can fix it yourself" claims. Especially since, if you RTFM, they can't - they can't get support unless they are running a certified operating system.
This isn't really a generic TCO issue. I don't care how crazy you are for any particular configuration with any OS, if the vendor of your multimillion dollar piece of software has a preferred platform then you go with that platform. The dirty little secret is that the reccomended platforms are the ones that are always the most tested and any other platforms that are supported are largely there for marketing purposes.
Recently we had the same problem with a vendor that said their application supported a particular database, but it turns out that they only had one other customer that was actually using that database and only then with many customizations to the code. So, it is always important to ask the vendor how many installations there are on each of the "supported" platforms and configurations before making such a large purchasing decision.
the law will never be above mathematics. they can have my private key when they pry it from my cold dead hand.
problem is that the government has the legal authority and power to do just that. Government has a legal monopoly on violence and the non defensive use of force which they are supposed to use with a lot more discretion than this ruling shows. This is no different than if the FCC said they had a right to post an agent in my home who would look over my shoulder as I typed 'just in case' I am suspected of a crime in the future. It is a trespass by the government before reasonable suspicion that a crime will be or has been commited.
What happened to the good old days when a wire tap actually meant just that, permission to actually tap into the wire at someone's residence when there was reasonable suspicion of a crime, and the recordings didn't have to be served up on a silver platter to the FBI or whatever other alphabet soup agency wants to increase their funding with a headline this month.
Wire tap was never meant to mean that we be compelled to act against ourselves even prior to the suspicion that a crime has ever even been commited let alone that we have commited it. The effect of this and the slippery slope that we have been on for many decades is that wiretaps are in effect in place on everyone before any suspicion, before any consideration of facts, you are wire tapped because you are human and likely to commit a crime at some point in your life. And in this age of ever growing burden of law and regulation it is becoming ever more likely that the assumption of guilt will take the place of presumption of innocence because of practical considerations.
Innocent as long as we obey, otherwise guilty. Thankfully, there is still room enough left to keep your head down and stay out of trouble for the most part, but God help those of us that want the world to be a better place. We are liable to find a world of hurt for our troubles. But I suppose that every generation has had its enemies in the state, look at the racial civil rights movement, look at the progressives, look back further and you'll see a whole lot of people in power that abuse their authority for no other reason than to hold on to it as long as they can.
In the end there will always be more of us than them as long as you choose to belong to the human race rather than some small minded group that focuses on our differences rather than what we have in common. And even with technology a minority can't hold power over a majority forever.
I just hope in my lifetime I don't see any more Americans convinced that they need to give up their Rights and dignity for some false promise of security.
"at three kilobucks."
funny, hadn't heard that before.
RSA SecurID
And I usually keep mine right next to the computer or in the drawer hidden under some papers. Sure it is credit card sized, but it is calculator thick and isn't something I'm going to carry around with me. The key chain like one they have on the web site might be more likely to remain with me, but still it seems that it is more likely to end up sitting next to your point of access anyway. Still, it does add some security since it is something in addition to a password, but I don't think it adds as much security as some physical object that is actually small enough to make it practical and comfortable to carry with you all the time. Really, any token that is not easy to carry is as good as the physical security of wherever it is located.
You can't lose your finger NEARLY as easily as you can lose your physical token or forget your password.
yes, but I would much rather lose a token or forget a password.
Why is it that the people who seem to complain about this are the ones who also complain about there being nothing good to watch on TV? If there isn't anything good, then why do you care if they put in a flag that prevents you from doing something with someone else's content that they paid to create and distribute?
Don't forget that this law applies to manufacturers of electronic equipment, not individuals who might be doing the copying. Essentially it will require them to disable certain features of their product when this flag is detected in the signal. It may or may not be technologically hard to do, but it does mean that more lawyers will be involved with product design than before.
The quality of existing DVDs is quite amazing and I think most people will be happy with it for a while. Regular DVDs look very poor compared to HDTV broadcasts. Not coming out soon with HD capable rentable or buyable media will mean that pay per view and movie channels will be the only choices for people who want HD quality videos. Also, don't forget that hard drives have enough capacity to hold many hours of HD video. So sure regular dvd quality is great for regular tvs, but not compared to HD video. Blockbuster and netflix should really weigh in on this since they have the most to lose over the next few years if a standard is not agreed to quickly. That and existing DVD sales will certainly start to stagnate and go down in the next 3 years as more and more people realize that their DVD collection might not scale well or look as good as they think they might on new tvs. So, you'd think the studios would want a standard out more quickly since they make a lot of money on DVD sales. I think there is a good chance neither format will gain as wide an acceptance as DVD has at this point unless something significant changes in the next year.
Everyone who votes against Freedom of Speech must be executed for treason
On further reflection I find this statement to be pretty funny since I am completely against the death penalty partly on first ammendment and freedom of speech grounds. Since talking hurts no one as long as the listener has the facility to discriminate. So if someone is no longer a danger to society then it is a social immorality to take away their voice. Killing someone is only moral when it is in self defense, that goes for society also.
So, removal from office is a good start.
John McCain and Russ Feingold top my list of people to boot from office over their support for campaign finance regulation.
You'd think that scifi channel would be a natural to have an HD channel. I think I'll be holding off on HD until scifi channel is broadcast in HD. Really the HD selection is very slim at this point.
The ones that are HD are brilliant and there could be some real opportunity for independent channels to provide more hd content, but really sports and the premium movie channels are the only good reasons to get hd at this point. Still, far too many channels either have no HD equivalent or they only have full hd during prime time.
Content is a real issue. Seems like the stations and cable companies should have the money and bandwidth to move over to HD, but maybe their delay in providing more HD content is a concerted one to try and rest more concessions from Congress and the manufacturers like HDMI and the broadcast flag.
Only if the library can show that, by balancing the four "fair use" factors, the library's copy is really a "fair use." There are no uses that are automatic fair uses -- all uses must be undergo the 4-factor balancing test before a determination can be made whether or not a given use is fair.
No, that is factually incorrect. It is specified in the statute that a library may make a copy of something in their collection. Just one copy. It has nothing to do with the four "fair use" criteria. This doesn't apply to the google situation specifically, but was a counter example to your absolute statement that the libraries have no right to copy books at all.
The fact that they make it available or not really isn't the relevant point. To make the index, they have to make a digital copy of the entire book -- and that's simply not going to be fair use, ever. Whether or not they make that digital copy available to others isn't the issue, since they've already made the illegal copy by that time.
That is circular reasoning. To determine fair use, the entirety of the act must be considered. You are merely saying that every act of copying is illegal regardless if it is determined that ultimately a fair use was made. The "use" is what makes it fair not the act of copying itself.
Computers make multiple copies of electronic content in memory caches which have been consistently ruled to be legal. Google's copying for indexing purposes should bear no relevance to the ultimate decision of fair use. The deciding factors will be how much of the work is provided, what form it is in and how might that impact the owners of the copyright.
That's the most leading question I've heared all week. Is your solution, by contrast, to beat people over the head with a rustly metal pole?
Well, i was just trying to actually elicit an idea from you rather than the big media is bad knee jerk reaction that is going to do more harm than good. Still, you haven't actually suggested doing something, you seem happy to keep chanting big media is bad while our freedoms erode away.
I disagree. A few big players with political agendas by and for the rich and powerfull dominating the mediasphere is not a good idea, and it is not something to champion in the name of "free speech".
And championing the mandatory registration of web sites, and newspapers on pain of fine and imprisonment if they want to write about politics is an even less good idea.
True. But even on cable or in print, big media and big business is heard a thousand times as loudly as othe folk. That's not freedom of speech, though for some strange reason it is seen as such in the USA.
So, is your solution to make sure that nobody has freedom of speech because a few speak more loudly than others? Should we all get speech licenses? Take a test and pass a physical exam? Should we get a test for mental soundness? Should we be forced to listen to those that have our government's blessing? Whatever your "solution" it will be coerced and corrupted by those with power and influence till it does not offend them. The rich and powerful do not fear regulation of speach because they can afford it. The RePUBLICans/DemocRATS don't fear regulation because they are the ones writing the rules to keep other voices from being heard. It is the weak and young that are harmed by putting up more hurdles to expression. When you need a law degree to say anything, then only the lawyers will be heard. Is that what you want?
I think we deserve to know what influences a candidate might be beholden to, but at what expense? That anyone who is for or against a candidate and states so publically becomes a criminal if they do not register themselves? That is not good. Anonymity can still be maintained if you have enough money to set up front organizations to distance yourself from the message, but the individual voices will be thwarted by even the lowest of hurdles.
Putting up any hurdles to candidates and free speech will not improve the quality of either. Unless you see great evidence to the contrary in recent candidacies? Campaign Finance "Reform" merely protects and emboldens the powers that be and will be used by them to punish dissent. True freedom of speech does not mean that the government makes sure that every voice is heard, it simply means that the government will not use its power to prevent anyone from being heard.
Prohibiting people from saying what they want about a candidate is a level of corruption that I will not stand by and watch. It must be stopped. Everyone who votes against Freedom of Speech must be executed for treason
Fixed it for you
never fire the first bullet, but be sure to fire the last one.
What is with this American idea handing over a new medium to those with the most money (big media, big business lobbying) constitutes "a chilling effect on free speech"
I mean, TV works that way, just look at Fox and CNN for how rubbish news can be under "free speech".
broadcasting signals over the EM airwaves are not free speech, they are tightly regulated and licensed because not everyone can have their own channel. It makes some sense that we would try to have a say over the content that is broadcast over this shared resource.
The content and distribution of Newspapers, Internet, magazines, flyers should not be regulated in the least, especially politically regulated, because any joe shmoe with a printer and a computer can publish effectively.
Prohibiting people from saying what they want about a candidate is a level of corruption that I will not stand by and watch. It must be stopped. Everyone who votes against Freedom of Speech must be removed from office and soon.
I like how everyone is so for campaign finance reform until it affects their little part of the world. How dare they!
prohibiting speech is not good, it IS the corruption that campaign finance reform is promoted as attempting to stop.
That is my final offer.
My server at home, which sits on a static IP address, is a mini-itx based machine.
Go ahead, post the link to your server on slashdot. I double dog dare ya.
though, looking at the fact that it may be possible to download an entire copyrighted book just by doing different searches to me google may have crossed a line here. But if they say, just provided the same page which matched the search rather than the surrounding pages, that might be more a fair use.
Though, anyone desperate enough to go through all that trouble to get a whole book is probably not going to buy it no matter what, so would that really be an economic impact.
I installed OOo a few days ago for the express purpose of never having to deal with office again. I REALLY REALLY wanted it to be good. Sadly, I uninstalled it less than 5 minutes later. It's come a long way, but side-by-side with Office... well you get what you pay for.
So, you actually use Office then? My impression was that most people just keep it around so they could read the occassional document or resume written by someone who was too fancy for plain text in an email. Or the occasional spreadsheet of some manager who wants to show (off) the latest budget. In which case OOo is plenty good enough as I have found out.
And I would suggest the OpenOffice.org 2.0 Beta 2 version if you are serious. The 1.0s are not nearly as good.
But unlike MS Office, Open Office is releasing an update to the 1.0 line which can read the newer formats of the next version before they discontinue development.
That's the "copy" part of "copyright". A library may lend a book to as many people as they like - one at a time. They may not copy it. The right to produce copies of a book is reserved to the author. Copy. Right.
Got it?
A library specifically may make a copy, according to copyright law
Also, there are a number of criteria that are to be used to determine fair use. Copyright is not nearly as absolute as Holywood would lead you to believe.
As for Google, they are not providing whole books in readable form except when the books are in the public domain, so I think they have a good case to make that this is a fair use under copyright law.
Got it?
I agree, with a higher population density on the ground comes an increase risk of ground casualties. But most of Africa has a much lower population density, very little military power and poor transportation infrastructure. Increased aircraft use has the lowest natural infrastructure costs of any mode of transportation. It is a natural fit for less developed economies and could be used to leapfrog those of us in more developed economic areas.
I don't buy the safety argument, there is a lot of sky and not many planes. And there are over 40,000 people that die every year in car accidents and hardly anyone takes seriously calls for such restrictive FAA type measures on the ground because they know it would bring the economy to a halt. So, why do people accept those same measures in the sky when we know that it retards economic development. Oh sure on a bad day, with low visability air travel at low altitudes can be dangerous, but with VFR conditions anyone could fly a plane safely.
No, the airspace is tightly controlled because of military, government taxation and control reasons. Some of those are good reasons, such as national defense, but that could be managed differently than requiring strict air space control. But many more reasons simply have to do with controlling smuggling and collecting taxes on the ground. Keeping people on the ground in fixed land routes is simply a means of control, both political and economic.
Maybe it is a choice between safety and prosperity, the US is prosperous enough that maybe it doesn't matter so much. But Africa could certainly benefit from less government control and simple continent wide rules for air transportation.
People don't buy motorcycles because they are suicide machines.
I know several people that have given up their motorcycles because it is simply not practicle as a primary vehicle and the cost of insurance makes it costly to keep around.
insurance is a fact of life.
Yes, but why require insurance for each vehicle when there is only one driver? Assuming of course it isn't for car loan purposes.
If cars crash, someone needs to be able to pay.
why? Why can't we as a society just accept the risk of loss.