How much are you willing to bet that Tom Ridge's folks are keeping a keen eye on their team? Whatever they learn about rocketry must give the feds the willies
I doubt it; first, the Homeland Security office is too busy figuring out their turf in the administration to actually do their job, and second, rockets are about the last thing they have to worry about terrorists using against the U.S.
The CIA did help fund SafeWeb. Interestingly, they did it pretty openly, with articles in Wired and other online sources announcing it. This search on cryptome should direct you to plenty of information about the CIA connection to SafeWeb.
I'm not too happy with the kind of people who can't keep the bong out of their mouths when the cops show up.
I'm not too happy with a lot of idiots in the world, but I don't think they should be incarcerated for that.
If half the pot heads took their heads out of the purple haze and voted they might make a diferance. Instead, the they mimble obscure Noam quotes and take delight in pissing off the working classes. Hell, they so pissy, that we can't even use the weed for it's medicle uses because it has gotten such a bad reputation by being associated with the Microbus crowd.
"mimble obscure Noam quotes"? And you're blaming the "Microbus" crowd for the federal assault on state laws permitting medical use of marijuana, even though it is that very crowd that put those measures on state ballots and funded those campaigns? I'm not going to disagree that there are a lot of apathetic potheads out there, but you can't blame the legalization crowd for the failure of legalization when without them there would be no push for it in the first place.
Uhh.. if that's the case, then why don't i ever hear anyone in the media talking about the scandals of the Reagan years? Ever? Even though it's topical, and it would probably be fascinating to see a media review of "here is what the Eisenhower through Reagan administrations did covertly as foreign policy in the name of fighting Communism, and this is how it affects the current geopolitical climate, which is important becuase the U.S. is currently fighting an open-ended war against a number of nations whose current political situation is a direct result of U.S. actions"?
Not to mention it is topical because a lot of the same creeps who committed what amounts to high treason during the Reagan Administration are back in office again (e.g. Poindexter, Reich, Negroponte, Abrams) except now they have an even better excuse than the "war on communism" to trash the Constitution and send the U.S. military all around the world. We've heard more about Monica Lewinsky than anyone could ever want and yet we've never had a real accounting of the crimes of the Reagan Administration. This video is enlightening for folks who want to be more educated on the topic....
One can argue that there are a a few of people who don't belong in prision, either due to stupid laws or malicous prosecution. These people are fortunalty rare.
Actually these people are far from rare - they constitute more than half the (U.S.) prison population, incarcerated for nonviolent offenses (most often for violating "stupid" laws against possessing and ingesting certain substances). Read this or other documents like it before making ridiculous claims about the efficacy of the U.S. prison system.
I thought the difference between live and non live was the venue, live is all performed in front of an audience with no retries, non live is studio recorded material with editing/mastering etc inbetween the performance/performances and the final recording.
So does live mean bound by time or space? In other words, does the musician need to be in front of me doing h/er thing, or just doing that thing at the same moment as I am listening to that thing? And what do you mean by editing and mastering in between the performance and the recording? The sound crew better be editing and mastering during a live performance.... Even the musicians need to adjust a knob now and again; how is that not editing? The definition of "live" is already in crisis....
I don't see why a piano performance can't be accurately reproduced
One of the first (and perhaps still!) the most accurate way to record the piano is with the player piano - punch holes in a strip of paper indicating each key played. I listened to a player piano recording of Scott Joplin from 1910 and it sounded far clearer than any fancy CD/SACD format could approximate - because the sound came out of an actual piano. Of course, this method is not too effective with other instruments.... but it is the principle behind the punch card.
What makes this any less "live"? in either case you are talking about sounds relayed through a medium. What makes one piece of technology more "live" than another? Is "liveness" simply a factor based on presence of the artist in time? Or his/her presence in time and space?
I don't think that proof as you are stating is required. There have been many cases in which verbal and implied contracts were upheld, and a EULA is far more concrete than a verbal or implied contract.
Not if you contest that you ever signed it. Or, I would bet, if you have software on your system that circumvents it (such software might violate the DMCA, but that's a different issue). The point is the contract is not binding if there is a substantive doubt about whether you actually agreed to it. The other issue the poster raised was the lack of possibility of negotiation... the really interesting thing would be software that "negotiates" the EULA.... by changing the text of the EULA and THEN agreeing to it, saving proof that the EULA agreed to was one of your choosing rather than the one presented by the software company. Again such software would probably violate the DMCA but that is a separate issue. It would certainly render the EULA nonbinding, or the courts would have to accept that any software-generated EULA is binding, even if it is generated by the end user's own software....
Now that would be really cool: "By clicking OK, the user agrees to accept payments of $100,000 cash, in small bills, from Microsoft, each week for the remainder of his/her natural life. Microsoft in turn agrees to deliver such payments promptly each week...."
My guess is money has more to do with it than race in this situation; Lindh has not only his white skin but his rich parents who have hired good lawyers to defend his rights. Also Lindh had no priors and was widely regarded as a good kid; Padilla is a former gang member with weapons charges and widely regarded as a thug.
Either way it is ridiculous to consider either a threat to the fabric of the nation; the symbolic significance these people have been granted by the Bush administration's treatment of them as devil incarnates is pretty much guaranteed to backfire. Incidentally, it's pretty much the mirror image of the Manichaean worldview held by the type of people who join al Qaeda.
So let's not piss on the Constitution in our morbid fear of a few thousand fanatics who want to light their shoes on fire. Find these bastards, try them, and destroy their ability to threaten us, of course, but let's not pretend the threat they pose is part of a cosmic battle between good and evil. That gives them way more power than they deserve. And if we're willing to trash our most precious liberties to run away from them, then perhaps we really are as weak as they say we are.
Legend has it that after Columbus wore out his welcome with the natives in Jamaica, they stopped bringing his crew food, and even jailed a couple of them for improprieties with native girls. Knowing a lunar eclipse was coming, Columbus threatened that his God would destroy the village if they did not release the men and bring his crew food. The natives laughed at this, but Columbus said that his god would show his power by eating their moon that night. After about an hour of the eclipse, Columbus announced that God would return the moon to the sky if the natives promised to bring them food and release the men. Of course, he got what he asked for.
Humm, here is a more believeable thing to scare people with "what if all automated traffic light systems had to run Open
Source, could you imagine the national security issue of flashing red lights all over the heartland"?
What if all automated traffic light systems had to run Windows, could you imagine the national security issue of flashing blue screens all over the heartland?
1 - My server box is headless (no monitor/keyboard). That's because I am never PHYSICALLY there. Yet, I update web
pages, email services, add new forms, etc. I can even update the OS remotely. Can you do this on the Mac? Serious
question, I'd like to know the answer (I SUSPECT its NO, but I do want to know).
You can do most of the above using a tool like Timbuktu, which allows remote use of a mac using the GUI; you can do most of what you want through that. A better way is to use the Remote Admin Extension, which allows you to administer MacOS (pre-X of course) through a telnet client. Most Mac webservers also have remote administration capabilities built in. I administered a headless Mac webserver for about 5 years using these tools (The OS was 7.1 and I was running Webstar 1.1; this stuff worked faithfully (though slowly) for a long time.
Of course, the real reason Macs are perceived as more secure is because fewer people have spent time hacking them, because there are fewer Macs. Every service you offer can be coded for the Mac, and many have been, but every service opens the potential for security risks. You can stay up to date on Mac security issues at http://securemac.com, among other sites.
Finally, you can always install linux on the Mac and do what you want, but that really doesn't answer your question.
I believe he wrote a composition that is being performed in Germany that begins with 16 months of silence, followed by a single note in January 2003, then 8 more months of silence, and another note.... It sounds rockin!!
I don't think this was ever seriously at issue, since in legal terms everyone agrees that ideas cannot be copyrighted. Only actual copy can; i.e. something written down. Now, the idea of a FAQ could probably be patented, but that would probably be a very different case.
Heh... Imagine owning a patent on FAQs, RTFMs, RFCs. If you tried to collect you'd be able to piss off the entire Internet in one fell swoop! Unisys, are you guys game?
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD Troll community when IDC confirmed that the "*BSD is dying" market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all slashdot readers. Coming on the heels of a recent slashdot post which plainly states that the "*BSD is dying" troll has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The "*BSD is dying" troll is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Troll Admin comprehensive trolling test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the "*BSD is dying" troll's future. The hand writing is on the wall: There may be no future at all for the "*BSD is dying" troll because the "*BSD is dying" troll is dying. Things are looking very bad for "*BSD is dying" troll. As many of us are already aware, the "*BSD is dying" troll continues to lose market share; red ink flows like a river of blood.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Troll leader Anonymous Coward states that there are 7000 users of "BSD is dying troll". How many users of "Red Hat is dying" are there? Let's see. The number of "BSD is dying" versus "Red Hat is dying" posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 "Red Hat is dying" trolls. "Mandrake is dying" troll on Usenet are about half of the volume of "Red Hat is dying" trolls. Therefore there are about 700 users of "Mandrake is dying" troll. A recent article put "Debian is dying" troll at about 80 percent of the Linux market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 "Debian is dying" trolls. This is consistent with the number of "Debian is dying" Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of www.hotgrits.org, abysmal sales and so on, "Debian is dying" troll went out of business and was taken over by "Mandrake is dying" troll who sell another troubled troll.
Major marketing surveys show that the "*BSD is dying" troll has steadily declined in market share. "*BSD is dying" troll is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the troll is to survive at all it will be among troll hobbyists and dilettantes. The "*BSD is dying" troll continue to falter. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all intents and purposes, the "*BSD is dying" troll is dead.
Their really isn't any civilian agency that funds research at the embryonic stages that DARPA does, they usually get their technology transfers from DARPA.
Because there isn't any private organization stupid enough to waste money on some of the crap that gets funded for military purposes. Who else but the Pentagon would buy a laser controlled by a nuclear explosion?
KCRW, an LA NPR station, has been playing PSAs about this. They have a great page with a sample letter to your Congresscritter. And be sure to check out SaveInternetRadio.org. This is something the average non-slashdot-reader can understand far more than they can or will bother to comprehend DMCA, SSSCA, or the Russian who wrote software that let people read books, so there is a slight chance that the forces of ignorance won't take this round.
First, I think this was a good decision. The Court did not rule based on an imminent threat of actual violence but rather based on the threat's actual impact of intimidation of the doctors. In other words, whether or not the speech might encourage someone to actually kill the doctors, the point is putting them on a hit list in this manner is intended to (and does in fact) intimidate them. The judges rule basically that such "threats of force" are not protected speech, and I don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation of the site (by the way, the site used to not only provide the information listed, but actually listed home addresses, schedules of non-abortion-related activities (e.g. "Dr. Babykiller picks up his children, Sam and Dave, at 3:30 PM from Glen High School") and in some cases actual designs of the layout of their homes, IIRC. I believe they changed the site after they lost a suit to Planned Parenthood or NOW).
As far as the Supreme Court goes, I think I agree with the above poster that they will overturn it. The Court has made it pretty clear its activist (though conservative) bent on free speech issues - it will interpret the first amendment broadly when dealing with so-called hate speech (cf. RAV v. St Paul) and extremely narrowly when dealing with obscenity (cf. Erie v. Pap's AM). Rather than address the contradiction the Court persists in the myth of content-neutrality (see Scalia's bizarre and brazen construction of the notion in the RAV decision, rightly trounced by White as manufacturing a standard of "underbreadth"). It's likely to see this as protected speech here if past decisions are any clue.
Then again, I could see the argument being made that if we protect this kind of speech we would have to protect a website by terrorist sympathizers listing names and addresses of prominent American Jews (perhaps with the names of WTC victims crossed out) and describing the glory of suicide bombing infidels. I read that O'Connor has publicly warned Americans to expect civil liberties restrictions in the wake of 9-11 so such an argument could be pretty persuasive to the Court.
Slashdot Mirror
How much are you willing to bet that Tom Ridge's folks are keeping a keen eye on their team? Whatever they learn about rocketry must give the feds the willies
I doubt it; first, the Homeland Security office is too busy figuring out their turf in the administration to actually do their job, and second, rockets are about the last thing they have to worry about terrorists using against the U.S.
The CIA did help fund SafeWeb. Interestingly, they did it pretty openly, with articles in Wired and other online sources announcing it. This search on cryptome should direct you to plenty of information about the CIA connection to SafeWeb.
I'm not too happy with a lot of idiots in the world, but I don't think they should be incarcerated for that.
If half the pot heads took their heads out of the purple haze and voted they might make a diferance. Instead, the they mimble obscure Noam quotes and take delight in pissing off the working classes. Hell, they so pissy, that we can't even use the weed for it's medicle uses because it has gotten such a bad reputation by being associated with the Microbus crowd.
"mimble obscure Noam quotes"? And you're blaming the "Microbus" crowd for the federal assault on state laws permitting medical use of marijuana, even though it is that very crowd that put those measures on state ballots and funded those campaigns? I'm not going to disagree that there are a lot of apathetic potheads out there, but you can't blame the legalization crowd for the failure of legalization when without them there would be no push for it in the first place.
Not to mention it is topical because a lot of the same creeps who committed what amounts to high treason during the Reagan Administration are back in office again (e.g. Poindexter, Reich, Negroponte, Abrams) except now they have an even better excuse than the "war on communism" to trash the Constitution and send the U.S. military all around the world. We've heard more about Monica Lewinsky than anyone could ever want and yet we've never had a real accounting of the crimes of the Reagan Administration. This video is enlightening for folks who want to be more educated on the topic....
Actually these people are far from rare - they constitute more than half the (U.S.) prison population, incarcerated for nonviolent offenses (most often for violating "stupid" laws against possessing and ingesting certain substances). Read this or other documents like it before making ridiculous claims about the efficacy of the U.S. prison system.
So does live mean bound by time or space? In other words, does the musician need to be in front of me doing h/er thing, or just doing that thing at the same moment as I am listening to that thing? And what do you mean by editing and mastering in between the performance and the recording? The sound crew better be editing and mastering during a live performance.... Even the musicians need to adjust a knob now and again; how is that not editing? The definition of "live" is already in crisis....
One of the first (and perhaps still!) the most accurate way to record the piano is with the player piano - punch holes in a strip of paper indicating each key played. I listened to a player piano recording of Scott Joplin from 1910 and it sounded far clearer than any fancy CD/SACD format could approximate - because the sound came out of an actual piano. Of course, this method is not too effective with other instruments.... but it is the principle behind the punch card.
What makes this any less "live"? in either case you are talking about sounds relayed through a medium. What makes one piece of technology more "live" than another? Is "liveness" simply a factor based on presence of the artist in time? Or his/her presence in time and space?
Not if you contest that you ever signed it. Or, I would bet, if you have software on your system that circumvents it (such software might violate the DMCA, but that's a different issue). The point is the contract is not binding if there is a substantive doubt about whether you actually agreed to it. The other issue the poster raised was the lack of possibility of negotiation ... the really interesting thing would be software that "negotiates" the EULA.... by changing the text of the EULA and THEN agreeing to it, saving proof that the EULA agreed to was one of your choosing rather than the one presented by the software company. Again such software would probably violate the DMCA but that is a separate issue. It would certainly render the EULA nonbinding, or the courts would have to accept that any software-generated EULA is binding, even if it is generated by the end user's own software....
Now that would be really cool: "By clicking OK, the user agrees to accept payments of $100,000 cash, in small bills, from Microsoft, each week for the remainder of his/her natural life. Microsoft in turn agrees to deliver such payments promptly each week...."
Since when is it cool to simulate nuclear bombs?
When it's done with ASCII
My guess is money has more to do with it than race in this situation; Lindh has not only his white skin but his rich parents who have hired good lawyers to defend his rights. Also Lindh had no priors and was widely regarded as a good kid; Padilla is a former gang member with weapons charges and widely regarded as a thug.
Either way it is ridiculous to consider either a threat to the fabric of the nation; the symbolic significance these people have been granted by the Bush administration's treatment of them as devil incarnates is pretty much guaranteed to backfire. Incidentally, it's pretty much the mirror image of the Manichaean worldview held by the type of people who join al Qaeda.
So let's not piss on the Constitution in our morbid fear of a few thousand fanatics who want to light their shoes on fire. Find these bastards, try them, and destroy their ability to threaten us, of course, but let's not pretend the threat they pose is part of a cosmic battle between good and evil. That gives them way more power than they deserve. And if we're willing to trash our most precious liberties to run away from them, then perhaps we really are as weak as they say we are.
Legend has it that after Columbus wore out his welcome with the natives in Jamaica, they stopped bringing his crew food, and even jailed a couple of them for improprieties with native girls. Knowing a lunar eclipse was coming, Columbus threatened that his God would destroy the village if they did not release the men and bring his crew food. The natives laughed at this, but Columbus said that his god would show his power by eating their moon that night. After about an hour of the eclipse, Columbus announced that God would return the moon to the sky if the natives promised to bring them food and release the men. Of course, he got what he asked for.
What if all automated traffic light systems had to run Windows, could you imagine the national security issue of flashing blue screens all over the heartland?
You can do most of the above using a tool like Timbuktu, which allows remote use of a mac using the GUI; you can do most of what you want through that. A better way is to use the Remote Admin Extension, which allows you to administer MacOS (pre-X of course) through a telnet client. Most Mac webservers also have remote administration capabilities built in. I administered a headless Mac webserver for about 5 years using these tools (The OS was 7.1 and I was running Webstar 1.1; this stuff worked faithfully (though slowly) for a long time.
Of course, the real reason Macs are perceived as more secure is because fewer people have spent time hacking them, because there are fewer Macs. Every service you offer can be coded for the Mac, and many have been, but every service opens the potential for security risks. You can stay up to date on Mac security issues at http://securemac.com, among other sites.
Finally, you can always install linux on the Mac and do what you want, but that really doesn't answer your question.
I believe he wrote a composition that is being performed in Germany that begins with 16 months of silence, followed by a single note in January 2003, then 8 more months of silence, and another note.... It sounds rockin!!
"launch" should read "blow"
"orbit" should read "smithereens"
I don't think this was ever seriously at issue, since in legal terms everyone agrees that ideas cannot be copyrighted. Only actual copy can; i.e. something written down. Now, the idea of a FAQ could probably be patented, but that would probably be a very different case.
Heh... Imagine owning a patent on FAQs, RTFMs, RFCs. If you tried to collect you'd be able to piss off the entire Internet in one fell swoop! Unisys, are you guys game?
Q: So you're locked in a room with Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and a lawyer. You have a gun, but only two bullets. What do you do?
A: Shoot the lawyer twice.
"Main Screen Turn On"
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD Troll community when IDC confirmed that the "*BSD is dying" market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all slashdot readers. Coming on the heels of a recent slashdot post which plainly states that the "*BSD is dying" troll has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The "*BSD is dying" troll is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Troll Admin comprehensive trolling test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the "*BSD is dying" troll's future. The hand writing is on the wall: There may be no future at all for the "*BSD is dying" troll because the "*BSD is dying" troll is dying. Things are looking very bad for "*BSD is dying" troll. As many of us are already aware, the "*BSD is dying" troll continues to lose market share; red ink flows like a river of blood.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Troll leader Anonymous Coward states that there are 7000 users of "BSD is dying troll". How many users of "Red Hat is dying" are there? Let's see. The number of "BSD is dying" versus "Red Hat is dying" posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 "Red Hat is dying" trolls. "Mandrake is dying" troll on Usenet are about half of the volume of "Red Hat is dying" trolls. Therefore there are about 700 users of "Mandrake is dying" troll. A recent article put "Debian is dying" troll at about 80 percent of the Linux market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 "Debian is dying" trolls. This is consistent with the number of "Debian is dying" Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of www.hotgrits.org, abysmal sales and so on, "Debian is dying" troll went out of business and was taken over by "Mandrake is dying" troll who sell another troubled troll.
Major marketing surveys show that the "*BSD is dying" troll has steadily declined in market share. "*BSD is dying" troll is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the troll is to survive at all it will be among troll hobbyists and dilettantes. The "*BSD is dying" troll continue to falter. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all intents and purposes, the "*BSD is dying" troll is dead.
Don't you mean Stephen King?
Because there isn't any private organization stupid enough to waste money on some of the crap that gets funded for military purposes. Who else but the Pentagon would buy a laser controlled by a nuclear explosion?
Except using AOL!
KCRW, an LA NPR station, has been playing PSAs about this. They have a great page with a sample letter to your Congresscritter. And be sure to check out SaveInternetRadio.org. This is something the average non-slashdot-reader can understand far more than they can or will bother to comprehend DMCA, SSSCA, or the Russian who wrote software that let people read books, so there is a slight chance that the forces of ignorance won't take this round.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, I think I agree with the above poster that they will overturn it. The Court has made it pretty clear its activist (though conservative) bent on free speech issues - it will interpret the first amendment broadly when dealing with so-called hate speech (cf. RAV v. St Paul ) and extremely narrowly when dealing with obscenity (cf. Erie v. Pap's AM ). Rather than address the contradiction the Court persists in the myth of content-neutrality (see Scalia's bizarre and brazen construction of the notion in the RAV decision, rightly trounced by White as manufacturing a standard of "underbreadth"). It's likely to see this as protected speech here if past decisions are any clue.
Then again, I could see the argument being made that if we protect this kind of speech we would have to protect a website by terrorist sympathizers listing names and addresses of prominent American Jews (perhaps with the names of WTC victims crossed out) and describing the glory of suicide bombing infidels. I read that O'Connor has publicly warned Americans to expect civil liberties restrictions in the wake of 9-11 so such an argument could be pretty persuasive to the Court.