The real, serious issue here is that these kids are getting charged with a felony for PLAYING with computers they were given.
The kids weren't given laptops any more than your employer gave you your computer. They were provided with a tool to use in a particular way. They were informed that there would be consequences for misues. It is also apparant from the site defending these kids that each of them had been repeatedly repremanded for similar activity, and they kept doing it. The author of giveusabreak.org seems to think that the kids wanted to stop, but "just couldn't control themselves." See, it wasn't their fault, the evil computers made them do it.
The kids will now get to argue their case to a jury.
I'm really not surprised that you didn't RTFA, but if you had, you'd see that:
"In addition, they're accused of using hacking tools to find the new admin password when it was changed from the password that was taped on the back of the machines."
The three major Transport Layer (DoD model) protocols in TCP/IP are TCP, UDP, and ICMP. There are others, like IGMP and other multicasting protocols, but these are not as major as those three.
According to LMI whenever you refer to Linux, even if you don't require a license, they will require you to use the (r) and include a trademark notice. They may or may not be able to enforce this requirement, but it's the trying that will get them in trouble.
Attribution Is For Everyone
If your use of the Linux trademark doesn't fall under the scope of the Linux Sublicense, you should attribute ownership of the mark to Linus Torvalds in two ways:
1. For each web page, advertisement, or publication, the first prominent appearance of LINUX should feature the "circle R" character adjacent to the X, as follows:
Linux®
2. At the end of your web page, advertisement, publication or media broadcast, include the following text in a legible font and size:
Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
Set Microsoft Trademarks Apart From Other Words or Nouns They Modify
The common way to do this is to capitalize the product name and use the appropriate trademark symbol and appropriate descriptor. You may also underline, italicize, or bold the name. Examples:
Correct: After you install the Windows® operating system...
Incorrect: After installing Windows programs you can... Use Trademark Notices
Include an attribution of Microsoft's ownership of the trademark(s) within the credit notice section of your documentation or advertisement. The format to follow is:
"Microsoft, Encarta, MSN, and Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries."
There's nothing evil about having a trademark (or patent or copyright) and protecting it. What is going to be interesting is what steps will be taken to protect the mark, and what the community's reaction is going to be.
If a project on Sourceforge works with Linux, and mentions the name without the ®, and doesn't put the trademark notice in the documentation, what is the LMI going to do? Are they going to send C&D letters to OSS authors who write Linux compatible programs but don't follow the "rules" for the use of the mark? They'll have to if they really want to protect it. And what about the stubborn developers who refuse to license the mark, but behave with the spirit of the F/OSS movement? Will they get sued? That is what is going to wind up giving Linus a black eye.
Nobody outside of academic institutions or the gov't had Internet access in 1993, let alone broadband. So your assertion that this development has anything to do with broadband is silly. Microfiche documents,.pdfs, and web docs are all available in libraries. The same libraries that anyone would have gone to in 1992 to find a paper copy.
Lawlibraries are only open to the public where they are at state schools and due to budget constraints the paper copies of documents available on the web are being deaccessioned.
That's simply not true. It may be in some cases, but certainly not all. SMU is a private school, and their Law Library is open to the public. I assure you, there are copies of the US Code there. But why would it have to be a law library? Most other public libraries have Internet access, where you could download the PDF.
Sorry, but the divide is here and now and it has been here since the mid 1990's.
Since the mid 1990's people without broadband haven't been able to get access to US gov't materials? That's a rediculous assertion without any support.
So, 5 years ago, what did someone do if they wanted to read that Truth in Lending document? Go to a library? Federal regulations on paper won't be phased out in any of our lifetimes.
As an example, I love Mathematics and earned my Ph.D. in Mathematics. I also love to teach. I study and teach Mathematics solely for the benefit of science and mankind.
So, you don't get paid? You don't get any sense of satisfaction from educating others, or advancing the state of the art? You don't gain any expansion of your own knowledge and intelect? I guess if that's all true then you really are teaching solely for the benefit of others. But somehow, I doubt it.
Even Mother Teresa couldn't claim complete selflessness, since she believed that "good works" was the way into heaven. People have a wide range of motivations. None are inherently better than others.
No one is trying to discredit electric cars. If an electric car meets your needs -- in the words of Lee Iacocca -- "Buy it!" But don't try to claim some kind of moral high-ground.
If you leave California, and never intend to return, how can you still be a citizen of California? If a child is born overseas, and his parents are citizens, he's a citizen, even though he has never set foot in any state.
Jane Fonda and Michael Moore are much more like traitors than George Bush. Having a different moral compass is hardly giving aid and comfort to our enemies. I guess you would also consider folks like Jesse Jackson and Hillary Clinton, who would like to turn the US into their idea of a utopia, traitors as well.
No, just because you disagree with someone's vision, it doesn't make them anything like a traitor.
Not posted as an anonymous coward, because I'm not one. And anyone who thinks that the religious right has any pull on/. is completely deranged.
Maybe you should actually read the Constitution some time. The US Constitution defines treason quite clearly, and it doesn't say anything about the bible:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
There's also plenty of US citizens who don't live in a state or the Disctrict of Columbia. Some of them live in other countries, and some of them live in US territories.
The US government should stay the hell out of the way
Well, that just isn't possible, since the Department of Commerce controls the . root zone, they have to approve new TLDs. So, they have to approve.xxx.
So, why pick on the Bush administration? What's so special about all of the Democrats who voted for CAN-SPAM, the nationwide Do Not Call List, and campaign finance reform? And let's not forget to thank Tipper Gore (yes, that Tipper Gore) for ushering in the modern wave of music and TV censorship. I defy you to name one nationally significant Democrat who lives up to your standard of protecting liberty.
Oh, I get it. It isn't cool to bash Democrats. Carry on.
In fact it's a necessary step if the xxx TLD is going to mean anything at all. Otherwise, porn sites will still have com/net/org domains, plus xxx domains. Without banning porn on all other TLD's, xxx is just another vanity domain.
I realize that the current administration (and quite a few other politicians outside of the White House walls) want to have everyone come crying to them to "think of the children" but we need to remember *real* freedom first - not the created/imagined freedom the Bush Administration and fellow politicians have decided exists in 2005. This type of behavior in response to a few letters? No thanks.
It's really too bad that no one teaches logic in public schools anymore. How can you be opposed to government regulation, but be in favor of the.xxx TLD? Of what use is the TLD if it isn't regulated? You can't indescriminately block the xxx domain unless only porn sites live there, and you can't indescriminately allow other sites, unless porn doesn't live there. Such a creation is only useful if it's regulated. The whole concept of a porn TLD is stupid, and is just an excuse for the registrar awarded the contract to make a bunch of money.
And how could it possibly be inappropriate for the US gov't, with whom the registrar would really have a contract, to want to evaulate the details and feasibility? It isn't clear from the/. summary, but this isn't a case of the DoC throwing a wrench in at the last minute, since they hadn't yet approved this in the first place.
You can't disprove a syllogism, because a syllogism is true by definition.
In your case "Google's model of the web is the best model" therefore "Google returns the best results." You've created a logical construct where no one can tamper with Google results, because simply the fact that the results come from Google means they are the correct results.
It doesn't matter to you that the page that is number one in the results for "miserable failure" doesn't actually have any content useful to someone searching for information on miserable failures, or that there is copius evidence that the reason for that ranking was a deliberate campaign by a relatively few number of sites. According to you, as long as Google returns those results, they must reflect the "current state of the web" because you've conviniently defined the "current state of the web" to be whatever Google says it is.
The Web's links are more meaningful than the equivalent unlinked text, and these rankings demonstrate that.
It doesn't demonstrate that at all. You've concluded that, and since that's how Google ranks pages, you've further concluded that Google's rankings are correct. You've created a syllogism, so further proof would be useless.
Quite correct. And the mode you describe is exacerbated if one searches for random combinations of words. For many of the random queries, there are zero useful results. Maybe Yahoo! just doesn't index word lists.
Slashdot Mirror
The real, serious issue here is that these kids are getting charged with a felony for PLAYING with computers they were given.
The kids weren't given laptops any more than your employer gave you your computer. They were provided with a tool to use in a particular way. They were informed that there would be consequences for misues. It is also apparant from the site defending these kids that each of them had been repeatedly repremanded for similar activity, and they kept doing it. The author of giveusabreak.org seems to think that the kids wanted to stop, but "just couldn't control themselves." See, it wasn't their fault, the evil computers made them do it.
The kids will now get to argue their case to a jury.
I'm really not surprised that you didn't RTFA, but if you had, you'd see that:
"In addition, they're accused of using hacking tools to find the new admin password when it was changed from the password that was taped on the back of the machines."
The three major Transport Layer (DoD model) protocols in TCP/IP are TCP, UDP, and ICMP. There are others, like IGMP and other multicasting protocols, but these are not as major as those three.
There are quite a few more than that.
And FYI, Microsoft has similar requirements.
There's nothing evil about having a trademark (or patent or copyright) and protecting it. What is going to be interesting is what steps will be taken to protect the mark, and what the community's reaction is going to be.
If a project on Sourceforge works with Linux, and mentions the name without the ®, and doesn't put the trademark notice in the documentation, what is the LMI going to do? Are they going to send C&D letters to OSS authors who write Linux compatible programs but don't follow the "rules" for the use of the mark? They'll have to if they really want to protect it. And what about the stubborn developers who refuse to license the mark, but behave with the spirit of the F/OSS movement? Will they get sued? That is what is going to wind up giving Linus a black eye.
Nobody outside of academic institutions or the gov't had Internet access in 1993, let alone broadband. So your assertion that this development has anything to do with broadband is silly. Microfiche documents, .pdfs, and web docs are all available in libraries. The same libraries that anyone would have gone to in 1992 to find a paper copy.
Lawlibraries are only open to the public where they are at state schools and due to budget constraints the paper copies of documents available on the web are being deaccessioned.
That's simply not true. It may be in some cases, but certainly not all. SMU is a private school, and their Law Library is open to the public. I assure you, there are copies of the US Code there. But why would it have to be a law library? Most other public libraries have Internet access, where you could download the PDF.
Sorry, but the divide is here and now and it has been here since the mid 1990's.
Since the mid 1990's people without broadband haven't been able to get access to US gov't materials? That's a rediculous assertion without any support.
So, 5 years ago, what did someone do if they wanted to read that Truth in Lending document? Go to a library? Federal regulations on paper won't be phased out in any of our lifetimes.
As an example, I love Mathematics and earned my Ph.D. in Mathematics. I also love to teach. I study and teach Mathematics solely for the benefit of science and mankind.
So, you don't get paid? You don't get any sense of satisfaction from educating others, or advancing the state of the art? You don't gain any expansion of your own knowledge and intelect? I guess if that's all true then you really are teaching solely for the benefit of others. But somehow, I doubt it.
Even Mother Teresa couldn't claim complete selflessness, since she believed that "good works" was the way into heaven. People have a wide range of motivations. None are inherently better than others.
No one is trying to discredit electric cars. If an electric car meets your needs -- in the words of Lee Iacocca -- "Buy it!" But don't try to claim some kind of moral high-ground.
The IOC is non-profit.
That should be:
If ((OS == Windows 2000)&&(System.HasAllTheSecurityUpdates != True))
Then Could be.
If you leave California, and never intend to return, how can you still be a citizen of California? If a child is born overseas, and his parents are citizens, he's a citizen, even though he has never set foot in any state.
Jane Fonda and Michael Moore are much more like traitors than George Bush. Having a different moral compass is hardly giving aid and comfort to our enemies. I guess you would also consider folks like Jesse Jackson and Hillary Clinton, who would like to turn the US into their idea of a utopia, traitors as well.
/. is completely deranged.
No, just because you disagree with someone's vision, it doesn't make them anything like a traitor.
Not posted as an anonymous coward, because I'm not one. And anyone who thinks that the religious right has any pull on
Ron Paul
Maybe you should actually read the Constitution some time. The US Constitution defines treason quite clearly, and it doesn't say anything about the bible:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
There's also plenty of US citizens who don't live in a state or the Disctrict of Columbia. Some of them live in other countries, and some of them live in US territories.
It will be lauched by the mothersip, White Knight II.
The US government should stay the hell out of the way
.xxx.
Well, that just isn't possible, since the Department of Commerce controls the . root zone, they have to approve new TLDs. So, they have to approve
So, why pick on the Bush administration? What's so special about all of the Democrats who voted for CAN-SPAM, the nationwide Do Not Call List, and campaign finance reform? And let's not forget to thank Tipper Gore (yes, that Tipper Gore) for ushering in the modern wave of music and TV censorship. I defy you to name one nationally significant Democrat who lives up to your standard of protecting liberty.
Oh, I get it. It isn't cool to bash Democrats. Carry on.
In fact it's a necessary step if the xxx TLD is going to mean anything at all. Otherwise, porn sites will still have com/net/org domains, plus xxx domains. Without banning porn on all other TLD's, xxx is just another vanity domain.
I realize that the current administration (and quite a few other politicians outside of the White House walls) want to have everyone come crying to them to "think of the children" but we need to remember *real* freedom first - not the created/imagined freedom the Bush Administration and fellow politicians have decided exists in 2005. This type of behavior in response to a few letters? No thanks.
.xxx TLD? Of what use is the TLD if it isn't regulated? You can't indescriminately block the xxx domain unless only porn sites live there, and you can't indescriminately allow other sites, unless porn doesn't live there. Such a creation is only useful if it's regulated. The whole concept of a porn TLD is stupid, and is just an excuse for the registrar awarded the contract to make a bunch of money.
/. summary, but this isn't a case of the DoC throwing a wrench in at the last minute, since they hadn't yet approved this in the first place.
It's really too bad that no one teaches logic in public schools anymore. How can you be opposed to government regulation, but be in favor of the
And how could it possibly be inappropriate for the US gov't, with whom the registrar would really have a contract, to want to evaulate the details and feasibility? It isn't clear from the
You can't disprove a syllogism, because a syllogism is true by definition.
In your case "Google's model of the web is the best model" therefore "Google returns the best results." You've created a logical construct where no one can tamper with Google results, because simply the fact that the results come from Google means they are the correct results.
It doesn't matter to you that the page that is number one in the results for "miserable failure" doesn't actually have any content useful to someone searching for information on miserable failures, or that there is copius evidence that the reason for that ranking was a deliberate campaign by a relatively few number of sites. According to you, as long as Google returns those results, they must reflect the "current state of the web" because you've conviniently defined the "current state of the web" to be whatever Google says it is.
HTH
HAND
The Web's links are more meaningful than the equivalent unlinked text, and these rankings demonstrate that.
It doesn't demonstrate that at all. You've concluded that, and since that's how Google ranks pages, you've further concluded that Google's rankings are correct. You've created a syllogism, so further proof would be useless.
Quite correct. And the mode you describe is exacerbated if one searches for random combinations of words. For many of the random queries, there are zero useful results. Maybe Yahoo! just doesn't index word lists.
"Extraordianary" evidence. Courtesy of Google.