In the wake of this morning's tragedy in London, someone on Flickr already set up a photo pool. So far, it appears that the photos are generally just screen grabs of the TV news, perhaps those who were there, and those who operate security cameras in the stations could post their photos from before the attacks, and try to identify the perpetrators. A warning - the pictures don't appear graphic as yet, but as the day progresses, I expect that they will get to be so.
Hopefully, this will stop the attacks on the coalition troops, and the US can pull out and let Iraq start setting up its own country.
He didn't fire a shot or fight back at all, according to the news. That's the best part. According to a report on NPR, that's going to decimate his standing among the populace who used to fear him. Now he's just seen (according to the Al Hayat reporter on NPR) as a coward.
The book has a companion website, wherein Howard continues his active research into Smart Mobs and the integration of technology into daily life. Smart Mobs
I've gotten to page 53 of the book, which is dense, yet so information rich that I carry it with me everywhere, so I can try to squeeze out a few extra paragraphs on subway platforms and in elevators.
It's an excellent exploration of where mobile technology may lead.
For the good of mankind, I will have sex with Liv Tyler.
Science and the useful arts
on
ACM vs. RIAA
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In the United States, Congress has the right "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts, by Securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Sec 1, Art 8, Cl 8.
Someone explain to me how outlawing science and research in order to protect overextended copyrights (life+70 only helps Disney...) "promotes the progress of science" or the useful arts.
It's in the plain language, kids. Someone else want to try to explain that to Congress and the Supreme Court?
Note: a good history of Copyright is available at http://netizen.uoregon.edu/documents/ethics.html (I have nothing to do with that page, but found it and it's pretty good)
The cycle of violence has turned outward from what it's been. We recognize this, we understood it all the way back to Columbine. Why, though?
The slashdot community, self proclaimed nerds, has had a wide variety of reactions to these troubles - from elder statesmen telling the younger ones "hold on, life gets better, they sell used cars and you sell your used cars to them" to "violence is never the answer" to "yeah, I remember that, I remember being stuffed in a locker and spit on and tripped and beat up after school because I told a teacher, who did nothing to protect me because I looked different than everyone else, and the football players that did it to me were untouchable in the school." We've been over this before.
The most frightening bit is not the suicides, which are tragic, but happen to everyone at all ages. It's not that the Internet is being blamed, either.
It's the freedoms that are being taken away from children in the name of protecting them. California's recently enacted shield laws, for example, allow finger pointing _at_ outsiders, the exact people who have been picked on. In fact, they encourage it by disallowing defamation suits even if the claims are demonstrably false.
The witch hunt against children has intensified. There isn't, however, a good solution to this. It's not just nerds that are being picked on, there are gays, minorities, and so forth. It has been ever thus. But the fact that the picked on are fighting back in such dramatic fashion, well, the legislators passing these new laws and the media covering them were not using a TRS-80 in class, they were busy playing football and picking on geeks. Except Ted Kennedy, who was busy doing other things. They're scared.
There is, of course, never an excuse for taking a life, but this is not a soluble problem. When someone is going to snap has to do with such a myriad number of factors that you can't pin it on the Internet, bullies or anything else.
Perhaps we need to follow Ashcroft's suggestion: ban violent video games, violent music and the rest of the violence in the media. When kids continue to kill other kids, perhaps we could then dispel the persistent myth that kids can't tell fantasy from reality.
Mind you, to _really_ eradicate violence from our kids lives, we really have to do away with the bible, too, what with all that smiting, going down into other cultures and wholly wiping them out, and so forth. But you don't see Ashcroft censoring that, it's "tradition."
Anybody proposing a viable solution to this problem would be a nobel prize winner, I assure you. Until that time, we're going to have to face the facts, outsiders will get picked on and attacked by both their peers and the government. It's sad, depressing, and has been ever thus.
I don't mean to be knitpicky, but the quote was "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
I have a journal, and that article was crap
on
Online Journals
·
· Score: 1
A few comments:
1) I have a journal. I do it because I enjoy writing about my life. What's so freakin' complicated?
2) The article missed some of the more important figures in this whole journalling thing: justin hall (links.net) Derek of fray, Kottke, Megnut, etc. I don't know any of the people, but I know of them, because...
3) this article has been done to death, and they're always freakin' mentioned.
Note: the fall of Pyra Labs was excluded from the article, as were any links to the services. Is MSNBC run by retards?
Because really, how much can they economically require you to add to the cost of a computer?
The money will be limited, and it'll go to their legal team. You will be paying for your own chains. That's my guess.
While it's an interesting joke
on
License to Sit
·
· Score: 2
government groups angered at homeless squatters may want to use the technology, or something akin to it. If something stands still in a certain place for too long, and it's scanned as human, a little jolt and up it moves?
Man, sometimes I even make myself sick.
IT is a flying "car" device.
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 2
This was the great promise of the new revolution - that we could work from home and home could be a suburb and we could still quickly contact our urban friends.
Well, IT will force cities to reevaluate their design because parking spaces now may have to go verticle.
IT will run afoul of FAA regulations.
IT runs afoul of billion dollar companies - GM and Oil companies is my guess.
My girlfriend's father tried to do this. The New York Times wrote a big article on it - he wanted to run a mill and produce electricity that way. Power his own home. That was it. Great big fight with the regulatory agencies involved in New York state. He didn't even wanna put it on the grid, just run it into his own home.
Highly doubtful - think, in order to be in the electoral college, you're thoroughly a party man. If not, why send you? You _might_ be able to get _one_ electoral college member who isn't a party man, but if that tips the scale for who is president? The backlash would be fast and furious.
Hey, worked for Rome - just call 'em Consul instead of President and go to an inherited senate and a cursus honorem and tell Dubya to beware the Ides of March.
My guess is that something got screwed during the migration - consistently gives a MySQL error when you try to pull up an article.
And as to those of you conspiracy theorists who think that this is Operation Sundevil reincarnate, I remind you that the site changed hosts, there was no government conspiracy. Explore before you claim that the sky is falling. "I mean, that's the only reason it could have happened." Err, no, it was quite obviously not.
For a total of $1USD and 5 minutes (the time it takes to come up with a witty remark to this post) you can do the following:
1) Write your senator a letter supporting changing this legislation. (time=3 minutes, especially if someone sets up a form letter)
2) Print that letter and put it in an envelope with a stamp ($.33USD + $.05USDenvelope) (15 seconds, depending on printer)
3) Revise the "Dear Senator" to "Dear Congressperson" and reprint and reenvelope ($.38USD again)
4) Copy email body from Staroffice to Pine and email a copy to your senator, and email a separate copy to your congressman.(10 seconds+/- depending on your cooridination)
5) Drop the letters in a mailbox (time determined by proximity to mailbox)
And then you will:
A) Have covered both bases in case someone takes down the email server.
B) Have not had to write a whole hell of a lot.
C) Have just upped the ante on your Congressman and Senator during an election year.
Good idea - advertise to the world that you are going to move in with five geeks and having many thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment in there.
While it sounds like a good idea, after a short time it _also_ sounds like a perfect target for theft. Padlock them doors, kiddies. Then deadbolt 'em, and do everything short of setting spring guns.
Agreed. "Look, I can make references to a work of brilliance and Microsoft's most recent business initiative, spout a bit about corporate monoculture, and get linked to by/."
Stupid waste of time.
This is, as you say, a no case scenario.
And what point, exactly, was gotten across? Corporations are scary? Get over it.
The open source movement has turned previously canonical rules of intellectual property on their head. However - they have done so by working within the rules. The open source community depends on the GPL and its brethren, which are _still_ all licensing schemes, they're just open. Working within that framework gives the holders of these rights the ability A: To revoke (unless the GPL totally revokes all rights, you retain them (I haven't read the GPL, I don't know)) and B: to choose what you want to keep and what you want to give away.
Put metaphorically - just because I let you use my pool doesn't mean I want you also sleeping with my wife in my bed.
It is _not_ hypocritical to have an open source/public good for one piece of software but maintain proprietary rights in something else. Just b/c someone has given away _some_ of their intellectual property doesn't mean that they've decided to give it _all_ away. If a hobbyist works on a widget for the next Red Hat distro and it gets burned in, do you also expect said hobbyist to give away all of his copyright material in some other field? Illogical.
Giving away something does not equate to giving away everything.
Unless the new Linux argument is "do away with money" and if so, email me, and I'll tell you where you can send the pre-IPO shares of your company.
---
There are no logical paradoxes. If two things seem to conflict, check your premises. One of them is usually wrong. -- Ayn Rand (Via Hugh Akston)
You do _NOT_ get jurisdiction over every single human being in the entire world merely because they post something on the 'net.
If you do, then we're in trouble when a more repressive regime than the US attempts to indict us in the US for crimes against their nation elsewhere.
This is seeing the trees but not the forest, people. You get jurisdiction over someone by _actively_ doing something involving the forum state. This could be something as simple as putting your information into interstate commerce - but the idea that putting something on the net, for free, is in interstate commerce probably violates a half dozen treaties, not to mention the entire concept of jurisdiction.
(IANAL, usual rules of don't bother fact checking this because I haven't either. And don't rely on this for anything - consult a real lawyer before fighting a megacorporation with tentacles all over the world just like HYDRA)
Slashdot Mirror
In the wake of this morning's tragedy in London, someone on Flickr already set up a photo pool. So far, it appears that the photos are generally just screen grabs of the TV news, perhaps those who were there, and those who operate security cameras in the stations could post their photos from before the attacks, and try to identify the perpetrators. A warning - the pictures don't appear graphic as yet, but as the day progresses, I expect that they will get to be so.
(Cross posted at Mindjack and Swerdloff (dot com).
"you also get to eliminate malpractice suits. Real savings with the last one."
:)
Ok, you go first. Hope nothing goes wrong, since you just said you'd have no recourse.
Good news for Iraqis.
Hopefully, this will stop the attacks on the coalition troops, and the US can pull out and let Iraq start setting up its own country.
He didn't fire a shot or fight back at all, according to the news. That's the best part. According to a report on NPR, that's going to decimate his standing among the populace who used to fear him. Now he's just seen (according to the Al Hayat reporter on NPR) as a coward.
Good.
The book has a companion website, wherein Howard continues his active research into Smart Mobs and the integration of technology into daily life. Smart Mobs
I've gotten to page 53 of the book, which is dense, yet so information rich that I carry it with me everywhere, so I can try to squeeze out a few extra paragraphs on subway platforms and in elevators.
It's an excellent exploration of where mobile technology may lead.
For the good of mankind, I will have sex with Liv Tyler.
In the United States, Congress has the right "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts, by Securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Sec 1, Art 8, Cl 8.
Someone explain to me how outlawing science and research in order to protect overextended copyrights (life+70 only helps Disney...) "promotes the progress of science" or the useful arts.
It's in the plain language, kids. Someone else want to try to explain that to Congress and the Supreme Court?
Note: a good history of Copyright is available at http://netizen.uoregon.edu/documents/ethics.html (I have nothing to do with that page, but found it and it's pretty good)
This is the premise behind Adultcheck, and there are mainstream media considering this a viable new option, according to inside sources.
I'm failing to see why money laundering is slashdot worthy.
I thought the e- in a company name was no longer the only criteria for that sort of notice?
Mind you, online money laundering is a dot com startup that probably did pretty well for itself. Wish I'd thought of it back in the boom days.
The cycle of violence has turned outward from what it's been. We recognize this, we understood it all the way back to Columbine. Why, though?
The slashdot community, self proclaimed nerds, has had a wide variety of reactions to these troubles - from elder statesmen telling the younger ones "hold on, life gets better, they sell used cars and you sell your used cars to them" to "violence is never the answer" to "yeah, I remember that, I remember being stuffed in a locker and spit on and tripped and beat up after school because I told a teacher, who did nothing to protect me because I looked different than everyone else, and the football players that did it to me were untouchable in the school." We've been over this before.
The most frightening bit is not the suicides, which are tragic, but happen to everyone at all ages. It's not that the Internet is being blamed, either.
It's the freedoms that are being taken away from children in the name of protecting them. California's recently enacted shield laws, for example, allow finger pointing _at_ outsiders, the exact people who have been picked on. In fact, they encourage it by disallowing defamation suits even if the claims are demonstrably false.
The witch hunt against children has intensified. There isn't, however, a good solution to this. It's not just nerds that are being picked on, there are gays, minorities, and so forth. It has been ever thus. But the fact that the picked on are fighting back in such dramatic fashion, well, the legislators passing these new laws and the media covering them were not using a TRS-80 in class, they were busy playing football and picking on geeks. Except Ted Kennedy, who was busy doing other things. They're scared.
There is, of course, never an excuse for taking a life, but this is not a soluble problem. When someone is going to snap has to do with such a myriad number of factors that you can't pin it on the Internet, bullies or anything else.
Perhaps we need to follow Ashcroft's suggestion: ban violent video games, violent music and the rest of the violence in the media. When kids continue to kill other kids, perhaps we could then dispel the persistent myth that kids can't tell fantasy from reality.
Mind you, to _really_ eradicate violence from our kids lives, we really have to do away with the bible, too, what with all that smiting, going down into other cultures and wholly wiping them out, and so forth. But you don't see Ashcroft censoring that, it's "tradition."
Anybody proposing a viable solution to this problem would be a nobel prize winner, I assure you. Until that time, we're going to have to face the facts, outsiders will get picked on and attacked by both their peers and the government. It's sad, depressing, and has been ever thus.
I don't mean to be knitpicky, but the quote was "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
A few comments:
1) I have a journal. I do it because I enjoy writing about my life. What's so freakin' complicated?
2) The article missed some of the more important figures in this whole journalling thing: justin hall (links.net) Derek of fray, Kottke, Megnut, etc. I don't know any of the people, but I know of them, because...
3) this article has been done to death, and they're always freakin' mentioned.
Note: the fall of Pyra Labs was excluded from the article, as were any links to the services. Is MSNBC run by retards?
Because really, how much can they economically require you to add to the cost of a computer?
The money will be limited, and it'll go to their legal team. You will be paying for your own chains. That's my guess.
government groups angered at homeless squatters may want to use the technology, or something akin to it. If something stands still in a certain place for too long, and it's scanned as human, a little jolt and up it moves?
Man, sometimes I even make myself sick.
This was the great promise of the new revolution - that we could work from home and home could be a suburb and we could still quickly contact our urban friends.
Well, IT will force cities to reevaluate their design because parking spaces now may have to go verticle.
IT will run afoul of FAA regulations.
IT runs afoul of billion dollar companies - GM and Oil companies is my guess.
And so forth.
Personalized levitation maneuvering system.
My girlfriend's father tried to do this. The New York Times wrote a big article on it - he wanted to run a mill and produce electricity that way. Power his own home. That was it. Great big fight with the regulatory agencies involved in New York state. He didn't even wanna put it on the grid, just run it into his own home.
Ending the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment. This requires 2/3ds of both houses AND 3/4s of the governors of the country.
Your founding fathers checks and balances system at work.
Highly doubtful - think, in order to be in the electoral college, you're thoroughly a party man. If not, why send you? You _might_ be able to get _one_ electoral college member who isn't a party man, but if that tips the scale for who is president? The backlash would be fast and furious.
Hey, worked for Rome - just call 'em Consul instead of President and go to an inherited senate and a cursus honorem and tell Dubya to beware the Ides of March.
Do you have to stick your finger in your friends ear if the call is for them?
My guess is that something got screwed during the migration - consistently gives a MySQL error when you try to pull up an article.
And as to those of you conspiracy theorists who think that this is Operation Sundevil reincarnate, I remind you that the site changed hosts, there was no government conspiracy. Explore before you claim that the sky is falling. "I mean, that's the only reason it could have happened." Err, no, it was quite obviously not.
For a total of $1USD and 5 minutes (the time it takes to come up with a witty remark to this post) you can do the following:
1) Write your senator a letter supporting changing this legislation. (time=3 minutes, especially if someone sets up a form letter)
2) Print that letter and put it in an envelope with a stamp ($.33USD + $.05USDenvelope) (15 seconds, depending on printer)
3) Revise the "Dear Senator" to "Dear Congressperson" and reprint and reenvelope ($.38USD again)
4) Copy email body from Staroffice to Pine and email a copy to your senator, and email a separate copy to your congressman.(10 seconds+/- depending on your cooridination)
5) Drop the letters in a mailbox (time determined by proximity to mailbox)
And then you will:
A) Have covered both bases in case someone takes down the email server.
B) Have not had to write a whole hell of a lot.
C) Have just upped the ante on your Congressman and Senator during an election year.
Good idea - advertise to the world that you are going to move in with five geeks and having many thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment in there.
While it sounds like a good idea, after a short time it _also_ sounds like a perfect target for theft. Padlock them doors, kiddies. Then deadbolt 'em, and do everything short of setting spring guns.
Agreed. "Look, I can make references to a work of brilliance and Microsoft's most recent business initiative, spout a bit about corporate monoculture, and get linked to by /."
Stupid waste of time.
This is, as you say, a no case scenario.
And what point, exactly, was gotten across? Corporations are scary? Get over it.
The open source movement has turned previously canonical rules of intellectual property on their head. However - they have done so by working within the rules. The open source community depends on the GPL and its brethren, which are _still_ all licensing schemes, they're just open. Working within that framework gives the holders of these rights the ability A: To revoke (unless the GPL totally revokes all rights, you retain them (I haven't read the GPL, I don't know)) and B: to choose what you want to keep and what you want to give away.
Put metaphorically - just because I let you use my pool doesn't mean I want you also sleeping with my wife in my bed.
It is _not_ hypocritical to have an open source/public good for one piece of software but maintain proprietary rights in something else. Just b/c someone has given away _some_ of their intellectual property doesn't mean that they've decided to give it _all_ away. If a hobbyist works on a widget for the next Red Hat distro and it gets burned in, do you also expect said hobbyist to give away all of his copyright material in some other field? Illogical.
Giving away something does not equate to giving away everything.
Unless the new Linux argument is "do away with money" and if so, email me, and I'll tell you where you can send the pre-IPO shares of your company.
---
There are no logical paradoxes. If two things seem to conflict, check your premises. One of them is usually wrong. -- Ayn Rand (Via Hugh Akston)
But this time, this is just plain stupid.
You do _NOT_ get jurisdiction over every single human being in the entire world merely because they post something on the 'net.
If you do, then we're in trouble when a more repressive regime than the US attempts to indict us in the US for crimes against their nation elsewhere.
This is seeing the trees but not the forest, people. You get jurisdiction over someone by _actively_ doing something involving the forum state. This could be something as simple as putting your information into interstate commerce - but the idea that putting something on the net, for free, is in interstate commerce probably violates a half dozen treaties, not to mention the entire concept of jurisdiction.
(IANAL, usual rules of don't bother fact checking this because I haven't either. And don't rely on this for anything - consult a real lawyer before fighting a megacorporation with tentacles all over the world just like HYDRA)