For all the noise that/. makes over the user of Hacker vs. Cracker, one would think that stealing services would fall into the latter category. While I think that the reverse engineering and cleverness involved in cracking the smartcards is quite impressive, I see no noble motivation, just stealing a service that is quite expensive to develop and provide. The real Hackers in this story work for Hughes.
The intent does not matter, it is an issue of LAW, why can't you understand that? You cannot nuke all the publishers because you "intend" to block pornography! You cannot broadly censor legally-protected speech because you "intend" to do good.
'Secondly, considering the fact that the library is a "privilege" and not a "right"'
Um, no, libraries are a government SERVICE, not a "privilege" that can be granted or denied on a whim. Hence the requirement for handicapped access, lack of fees for access, etc. Sure the local government can tear down all the libraries any time it wants. But if it provides them, and funds them with our tax dollars, then they must abide by the law. And like it or not, the US Constitution is the law of the land. (this land anyway)
You can put up your strawman arguments about adult magazines all you want, but that has nothing to do with the issue. We're not talking about restricting children's access to adult material, that is a legally accepted practice. We are talking about arbitrary and secret standards for censoring CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH!
I'm sorry if the word "arbitrary" hurts your feelings, but that's what it is. Look it up if you like. Censorware does not use standard, narrow, and specific criteria for blocking sites. Whatever the software makers want to block, they block. They won't tell you what or why.
"belittling and hyperbolic"? Do you know what those words mean? Can you refute one thing I've stated? I find it frustrating that the people pushing this on us cannot argue the facts, cannot argue the law, they just want it done. We live in a country governed by laws, not the whim of those who make the most noise.
Take a Constitutional Law class. Hell, high school level should do it for you. You might learn something about the First Amendment.
Yes, it IS unconstitutional. We are not talking about obscenity, we are applying overly broad and SECRET standards based on content to what adults can read and see in a publicly funded library.
Content blocked on political views by federally-mandated tools is about as blatant as you can get.
Oh, and when you start talking about publicly funded exotic dancers being prohibited from discussing their politcal views in a government building, then you'll be comparing apples with apples.
"The objects could not be seen in the telescopes, but the effects of their gravitational pull could be detected in the distinct wobbles of their stars. Astronomers tracked these perturbations for at least two years before determining that they signaled the presence of the two planetary systems."
No pictures for you. Or anyone else for that matter. Of course, they're relatively close by, you could go see them for yourself.
I'm always happy to see something new and unexpected discovered in science. We need something like this every once in a while to keep from getting too complacent. Thinking that we understand it all is a very dangerous thing.
I'm curious, has anyone compared the cost of paperback books over the past few years to the inflation rate? $8-9 (US) for paperback books seems rather steep compared to just a few years ago. Maybe this will compensate for the billions lost to yard sales and church fundraisers.
Another issue: these are the same folks who got upset when Amazon started (gasp!) allowing regular folks like you and me to post reviews. It seems they had so little confidence in the quality of what they were publishing that they thought sale would be hurt if potetial customers knew what people thought of the books.
I would hope that most of us subscribe to the ideal that one should be paid for the work that one does. Since you claim that an author is generating content, why should he or she be paid more than once? After all the book is only written once, why should an author be paid for multiple copies of the media, when only one copy of the content was generated?
Not ridiculous enough for you? If we reject that and follow your argument, we should just licence books, distribute them with electronic locks, and charge a new fee every time the book is opened! Of course, our speech would have to be monitored so we could be billed for reading or quoting out loud, because that would create a new copy of the content.
Oil, food, medicine, all tightly controlled. Computers, military equipment, all embargoed. But 4,000 PS2s? "Sure, no problem Saddam, we have thousands in stock. You want next-day air?"
I propose to patent a totally new paradigm for generating revenue. My patent would describe a business that does not produce anything but patents. Business processes, technology, etc. would be covered. All revenue would be generated solely by lawsuits. The first step would be to sue the companies generating ridiculous patent lawsuits, for infringing on my patent!
Not only are these policies ridiculous, but I believe they make the problem even worse. Yes, South Park is probably too much for small children, even young teens. But it's the parent's right to make that decision, not a corporation's. The problem with kids today is not exposure to sex or violence, it is the lack of parental involvement in their lives. Children need guidance as they grow and learn, and absentee parents almost guarantees that a kid's values will be dictated by what they are shown without any guidance on how to interpret it. But instead of encouraging, or better yet, demanding parents take some responsiblity for their children, we seem to be insisting that movies, TV, and the Internet become MORE responsible!
Slashdot Mirror
For all the noise that /. makes over the user of Hacker vs. Cracker, one would think that stealing services would fall into the latter category. While I think that the reverse engineering and cleverness involved in cracking the smartcards is quite impressive, I see no noble motivation, just stealing a service that is quite expensive to develop and provide. The real Hackers in this story work for Hughes.
WHAT?! You're not letting the Internet/movies/TV raise your children for you? That's downright un-American!
The intent does not matter, it is an issue of LAW, why can't you understand that? You cannot nuke all the publishers because you "intend" to block pornography! You cannot broadly censor legally-protected speech because you "intend" to do good.
'Secondly, considering the fact that the library is a "privilege" and not a "right"'
Um, no, libraries are a government SERVICE, not a "privilege" that can be granted or denied on a whim. Hence the requirement for handicapped access, lack of fees for access, etc. Sure the local government can tear down all the libraries any time it wants. But if it provides them, and funds them with our tax dollars, then they must abide by the law. And like it or not, the US Constitution is the law of the land. (this land anyway)
You can put up your strawman arguments about adult magazines all you want, but that has nothing to do with the issue. We're not talking about restricting children's access to adult material, that is a legally accepted practice. We are talking about arbitrary and secret standards for censoring CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH!
I'm sorry if the word "arbitrary" hurts your feelings, but that's what it is. Look it up if you like. Censorware does not use standard, narrow, and specific criteria for blocking sites. Whatever the software makers want to block, they block. They won't tell you what or why.
"belittling and hyperbolic"? Do you know what those words mean? Can you refute one thing I've stated? I find it frustrating that the people pushing this on us cannot argue the facts, cannot argue the law, they just want it done. We live in a country governed by laws, not the whim of those who make the most noise.
Take a Constitutional Law class. Hell, high school level should do it for you. You might learn something about the First Amendment.
Yes, it IS unconstitutional. We are not talking about obscenity, we are applying overly broad and SECRET standards based on content to what adults can read and see in a publicly funded library.
Content blocked on political views by federally-mandated tools is about as blatant as you can get.
Oh, and when you start talking about publicly funded exotic dancers being prohibited from discussing their politcal views in a government building, then you'll be comparing apples with apples.
[sigh] Ok, I'll type this slowly...
Because filters don't work, and block "legitimate" information along with what you consider "porn".
Because filters block sites based on arbitrary criteria chosen by people with agendas.
Because we all pay for public libraries, not just those of you who want to decide what we all see and learn.
And oh yeah, because it's unconstitutional. Deny it all you like, it's censorship based on content.
The bad: those of us stuck supporting M$ junk can't get our daily bug fixes/workarounds.
The good: net congestion should drop dramatically, since we can't get our daily bug fixes/workarounds.
Um, no.
"The objects could not be seen in the telescopes, but the effects of their gravitational pull could be detected in the distinct wobbles of their stars. Astronomers tracked these perturbations for at least two years before determining that they signaled the presence of the two planetary systems."
No pictures for you. Or anyone else for that matter. Of course, they're relatively close by, you could go see them for yourself.
I'm always happy to see something new and unexpected discovered in science. We need something like this every once in a while to keep from getting too complacent. Thinking that we understand it all is a very dangerous thing.
I'm curious, has anyone compared the cost of paperback books over the past few years to the inflation rate? $8-9 (US) for paperback books seems rather steep compared to just a few years ago. Maybe this will compensate for the billions lost to yard sales and church fundraisers.
Another issue: these are the same folks who got upset when Amazon started (gasp!) allowing regular folks like you and me to post reviews. It seems they had so little confidence in the quality of what they were publishing that they thought sale would be hurt if potetial customers knew what people thought of the books.
I would hope that most of us subscribe to the ideal that one should be paid for the work that one does. Since you claim that an author is generating content, why should he or she be paid more than once? After all the book is only written once, why should an author be paid for multiple copies of the media, when only one copy of the content was generated?
Not ridiculous enough for you? If we reject that and follow your argument, we should just licence books, distribute them with electronic locks, and charge a new fee every time the book is opened! Of course, our speech would have to be monitored so we could be billed for reading or quoting out loud, because that would create a new copy of the content.
[sigh]
Let me see if I have this right:
Oil, food, medicine, all tightly controlled. Computers, military equipment, all embargoed. But 4,000 PS2s? "Sure, no problem Saddam, we have thousands in stock. You want next-day air?"
I propose to patent a totally new paradigm for generating revenue. My patent would describe a business that does not produce anything but patents. Business processes, technology, etc. would be covered. All revenue would be generated solely by lawsuits. The first step would be to sue the companies generating ridiculous patent lawsuits, for infringing on my patent!
Not only are these policies ridiculous, but I believe they make the problem even worse. Yes, South Park is probably too much for small children, even young teens. But it's the parent's right to make that decision, not a corporation's. The problem with kids today is not exposure to sex or violence, it is the lack of parental involvement in their lives. Children need guidance as they grow and learn, and absentee parents almost guarantees that a kid's values will be dictated by what they are shown without any guidance on how to interpret it. But instead of encouraging, or better yet, demanding parents take some responsiblity for their children, we seem to be insisting that movies, TV, and the Internet become MORE responsible!