Actually that's only part of the govt's job, a small part at that (thoughtfully named "Border Patrol" so they wouldn't be confused with the "Secret Service.")
the corporations should be in charge of securing their own networks and hiring their own wardrivers, not making joe taxpayer foot the bill.
I agree with that fully, but not because I'm afraid of the country being taken over by people who come here to be cooks and gardners. The dude who wrote the letter to the article you linked is smoking crack. National emergency - give me a break. This guy claims to respect the Bill of Rights yet he advocates a mass expulsion, Milosevic-style. Keep your pants on, man, you're talking about a large disenfranchised and easily exploitable pool of cheap labor -- a problem, perhaps, but hardly a "massive army of invasion and occupation." Get real.
true in theory, but are you going to make a citizen's arrest if you see a cop go 85 without his lights on, or (as is common) he turns his siren on just to blast through a red light?
Let's get realistic about this - The SS is doing this because they can. They have a huge budget and lots of nifty toys. They're supposed to know "what's going on" around DC, so they have license to snoop around to an extent. Their basic job description probably leaves many of them plenty of free time. Someone probably read an article in Wired, and thought it was cool. That's kind of what happens when you empower virtually unaccountable branches of the government; in this dept the SS has nothing on the CIA, for example....
I seriously doubt that's what the original poster was saying, but I love the idea!! L. Ron promises you 72 beautiful copies of Dianetics if you smash yourself into some trees to promote copyright law!
Re:Should stuff *ever* enter the public domain?
on
Eldred vs. Ashcroft
·
· Score: 2
Quite being lazy and write your own book.
Don't confuse the issue. The question is not whether I can take Mr. Frost's work and put my name on it ("The Road Not Taken," by Commodore Sloat - yeah right), but whether years after Mr. Frost's death I should have to pay some company who happens to have gotten ahold of the copyrights to be able to read or distribute his work, with his name on it. We're not talking about plagiarism.
Personally I don't see any rationale behind the idea that an author can sell copyright in the first place - if copyright is there to protect authors' ownership (as well as the public good, as outlined in the US Constitution), then Disney or whoever should not have the right to "buy" the copyright in the first place. But that's another issue - though I wonder why it's an issue that is never represented in debates over copyright.
yeah, all Democrats are communists
on
Eldred vs. Ashcroft
·
· Score: 3, Funny
And it's a good thing, too. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to call Tom Daschle and Joe Lieberman to discuss plans for socialist revolution. I hear Lloyd Bentsen has a good blueprint for the violent overthrow of the government. And you should hear Al Gore wax poetic about the withering away of the state!
The commenter obviously didn't read the story, much less the articles linked to it. The Supreme Court may or may not vote that Congress overstepped its boundaries. This has nothing to do with MS or oil companies. The poster's expression of disdain (same old same old) assumes that the Supreme Court will answer to the same pressures as our elected representatives - it's possible, but it remains to be seen.
SMEG (Single Middle Eastern Gunman) seeks same for quiet walks under the moonlight, late night study of Q'uran, and the frantic slaughter of infidels. Share passion and laughter with me as we spend our days butchering Zionists and Crusaders, and our evenings drinking in merriment at our prospective martyrdom. We will get wasted together at the Taliban Tavern where we will drink 19 kamikazes and a flaming Manhattan, washing it all down with a refreshing pitcher of Osama bin Lager.
as long as you have the 2nd amendment you can take the others back any time you have the nerve to stand up and make a stand. when you've lost the 2nd it's too late.
Look, I support gun ownership too, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've read today (and that's saying a lot; I've spent way too much time on slashdot today). What are you suggesting, that we march up to Ashcroft and wave a.45 in his face and demand our rights back? An armed citizenry is a good thing if it's also an informed citizenry. But, frankly, we have neither, and the informed citizenry is far outgunned by the powers that be. Yes we have to fight for our rights, but until we see tanks rolling down the streets, the right way to fight for our rights is through the legal and political process, as corrupt as it might be. We can challenge the corruption in our political system through legitimate means, not by storming the white house. Our democracy is suffering, to be sure, but it ain't dead yet, and shooting at politicians isn't going to help us in the short term or the long term.
Do you have a cite? I don't get the reasoning; part of the Bill of Rights is null and void because it hasn't come up before? So what? A f*cking bureaucrat only has to know those amendments that have "come up" recently? They say ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it, and that is true no matter how obscure the law, yet they can ignore the third f*cking amendment to the Constitution because they might not have heard of it???!!! Arrrgh!!!
Actually, for Ashcroft & Co., protecting gun rights is more important than fighting terrorists; Ashcroft wouldn't even allow law enforcement to check whether the 9-11 hijackers had purchased weapons; check it out.
Yah, it was passed in 1798 and repealed in 1801. The US was fighting with France at the time and the main purpose of the act was to assuage President Adams' paranoia about Frenchmen living in the US who were attracted to the ideals of Thomas Jefferson. Backlash against the act helped fuel Jefferson's election in 1800. While the Act was in force, one guy was thrown in jail for saying he didn't care if someone fired a cannon out the president's ass. One senator was even jailed for violating the Act, and he won reelection from prison. This was a time when Americans actually gave a shit about free expression. Sadly the only ones who seem to care these days are pornographers and slashdotters:(
"Pirating music is muthaf*ckin' wrong, and if I catch the biznitch who put my songs on Gnutella I'm putting a cap in his ass. You see, kids, encouraging rape and violence and pistol-whipping bouncers while whining about my white trash momma is art, but encouraging music-sharing is muthaf*ckin theft. Besides I'll go broke without people buying my f*ckin records; yo Dre, pass me the f*ckin 40 oz, Dog!"
PC folks used to write "s/he" to mean "she or he", but since "s/he" only accounts for males and females of animate species, the more all-encompassing abbreviation should be "s/h/it."
This proves the Brits were behind slapper. And since the PATRIOT Act allows us to define propagating computer worms as an act of terrorism, I vote that the Bush Administration does what we should have done a long time ago:
Fact is, while Micros~1 concentrates its efforts on Linux and open source, OS X is quietly improving and delivering a full-featured BSD with an irresistably cuddly UI. While any predictions about the death of M$ or the triumph of Apple are probably exaggerated, I can see M$'s obsessive focus on countering linux - an effort that is likely to do little to actually harm most linux-related businesses - will distract them from a task that is actually within the realm of their capability: waging a propaganda campaign to rival Apple's "switch" campaign. I know several computer-savvy former Windows users who now swear by OS X. I also know of a few organizations that rely on Windows + MS Office who are in no hurry to upgrade either for cost and learning curve reasons. If OS X improves without breaking the last release of Office for OS X, more organizations might see the wisdom in the switch. I don't foresee the "end" of Micros~1 as a result, but in terms of market- and mind-share this could help OS X in the long run. Which would be a good thing for open source, IMHO.
Whatever happened to the Zippy filter from metahtml.com? The whole domain seems down now. Anybody ever mirror the code for that wonderful tool? My internet surfing has been dreary without it.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's some info.
Actually that's only part of the govt's job, a small part at that (thoughtfully named "Border Patrol" so they wouldn't be confused with the "Secret Service.")
the corporations should be in charge of securing their own networks and hiring their own wardrivers, not making joe taxpayer foot the bill.
I agree with that fully, but not because I'm afraid of the country being taken over by people who come here to be cooks and gardners. The dude who wrote the letter to the article you linked is smoking crack. National emergency - give me a break. This guy claims to respect the Bill of Rights yet he advocates a mass expulsion, Milosevic-style. Keep your pants on, man, you're talking about a large disenfranchised and easily exploitable pool of cheap labor -- a problem, perhaps, but hardly a "massive army of invasion and occupation." Get real.
Let's get realistic about this - The SS is doing this because they can. They have a huge budget and lots of nifty toys. They're supposed to know "what's going on" around DC, so they have license to snoop around to an extent. Their basic job description probably leaves many of them plenty of free time. Someone probably read an article in Wired, and thought it was cool. That's kind of what happens when you empower virtually unaccountable branches of the government; in this dept the SS has nothing on the CIA, for example....
Which begs the question, what does it matter if Dick Cheney's hospital is near the starbuck's.
Business that can't survive in a free market doesn't deserve to survive. You might as well write "your democratic government is killing monarchy."
But this is slashdot. I suppose we could cuddle up with the stuffed penguins instead.
I seriously doubt that William Raduchel will be needing food stamps anytime soon.
I seriously doubt that's what the original poster was saying, but I love the idea!! L. Ron promises you 72 beautiful copies of Dianetics if you smash yourself into some trees to promote copyright law!
Don't confuse the issue. The question is not whether I can take Mr. Frost's work and put my name on it ("The Road Not Taken," by Commodore Sloat - yeah right), but whether years after Mr. Frost's death I should have to pay some company who happens to have gotten ahold of the copyrights to be able to read or distribute his work, with his name on it. We're not talking about plagiarism.
Personally I don't see any rationale behind the idea that an author can sell copyright in the first place - if copyright is there to protect authors' ownership (as well as the public good, as outlined in the US Constitution), then Disney or whoever should not have the right to "buy" the copyright in the first place. But that's another issue - though I wonder why it's an issue that is never represented in debates over copyright.
And it's a good thing, too. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to call Tom Daschle and Joe Lieberman to discuss plans for socialist revolution. I hear Lloyd Bentsen has a good blueprint for the violent overthrow of the government. And you should hear Al Gore wax poetic about the withering away of the state!
The commenter obviously didn't read the story, much less the articles linked to it. The Supreme Court may or may not vote that Congress overstepped its boundaries. This has nothing to do with MS or oil companies. The poster's expression of disdain (same old same old) assumes that the Supreme Court will answer to the same pressures as our elected representatives - it's possible, but it remains to be seen.
SMEG (Single Middle Eastern Gunman) seeks same for quiet walks under the moonlight, late night study of Q'uran, and the frantic slaughter of infidels. Share passion and laughter with me as we spend our days butchering Zionists and Crusaders, and our evenings drinking in merriment at our prospective martyrdom. We will get wasted together at the Taliban Tavern where we will drink 19 kamikazes and a flaming Manhattan, washing it all down with a refreshing pitcher of Osama bin Lager.
Look, I support gun ownership too, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've read today (and that's saying a lot; I've spent way too much time on slashdot today). What are you suggesting, that we march up to Ashcroft and wave a .45 in his face and demand our rights back? An armed citizenry is a good thing if it's also an informed citizenry. But, frankly, we have neither, and the informed citizenry is far outgunned by the powers that be. Yes we have to fight for our rights, but until we see tanks rolling down the streets, the right way to fight for our rights is through the legal and political process, as corrupt as it might be. We can challenge the corruption in our political system through legitimate means, not by storming the white house. Our democracy is suffering, to be sure, but it ain't dead yet, and shooting at politicians isn't going to help us in the short term or the long term.
Do you have a cite? I don't get the reasoning; part of the Bill of Rights is null and void because it hasn't come up before? So what? A f*cking bureaucrat only has to know those amendments that have "come up" recently? They say ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it, and that is true no matter how obscure the law, yet they can ignore the third f*cking amendment to the Constitution because they might not have heard of it???!!! Arrrgh!!!
Sorry, I'm a little crabby today....
Actually, for Ashcroft & Co., protecting gun rights is more important than fighting terrorists; Ashcroft wouldn't even allow law enforcement to check whether the 9-11 hijackers had purchased weapons; check it out.
Yah, it was passed in 1798 and repealed in 1801. The US was fighting with France at the time and the main purpose of the act was to assuage President Adams' paranoia about Frenchmen living in the US who were attracted to the ideals of Thomas Jefferson. Backlash against the act helped fuel Jefferson's election in 1800. While the Act was in force, one guy was thrown in jail for saying he didn't care if someone fired a cannon out the president's ass. One senator was even jailed for violating the Act, and he won reelection from prison. This was a time when Americans actually gave a shit about free expression. Sadly the only ones who seem to care these days are pornographers and slashdotters :(
"Pirating music is muthaf*ckin' wrong, and if I catch the biznitch who put my songs on Gnutella I'm putting a cap in his ass. You see, kids, encouraging rape and violence and pistol-whipping bouncers while whining about my white trash momma is art, but encouraging music-sharing is muthaf*ckin theft. Besides I'll go broke without people buying my f*ckin records; yo Dre, pass me the f*ckin 40 oz, Dog!"
PC folks used to write "s/he" to mean "she or he", but since "s/he" only accounts for males and females of animate species, the more all-encompassing abbreviation should be "s/h/it."
This proves the Brits were behind slapper. And since the PATRIOT Act allows us to define propagating computer worms as an act of terrorism, I vote that the Bush Administration does what we should have done a long time ago:
INVADE BRITAIN!!!!
Fact is, while Micros~1 concentrates its efforts on Linux and open source, OS X is quietly improving and delivering a full-featured BSD with an irresistably cuddly UI. While any predictions about the death of M$ or the triumph of Apple are probably exaggerated, I can see M$'s obsessive focus on countering linux - an effort that is likely to do little to actually harm most linux-related businesses - will distract them from a task that is actually within the realm of their capability: waging a propaganda campaign to rival Apple's "switch" campaign. I know several computer-savvy former Windows users who now swear by OS X. I also know of a few organizations that rely on Windows + MS Office who are in no hurry to upgrade either for cost and learning curve reasons. If OS X improves without breaking the last release of Office for OS X, more organizations might see the wisdom in the switch. I don't foresee the "end" of Micros~1 as a result, but in terms of market- and mind-share this could help OS X in the long run. Which would be a good thing for open source, IMHO.
Whatever happened to the Zippy filter from metahtml.com? The whole domain seems down now. Anybody ever mirror the code for that wonderful tool? My internet surfing has been dreary without it.
I thought we had killed
spam dead by using haiku
I guess I was wrong
- http://metwww.epfl.ch/lecteur_disques/MainLectDis
c E.htm - http://www.elpj.com/frameset.html
Not cheap though. And unfortunately you can't skratch on these....You mean like this one?
Not true.