I'm afraid I'll lose the "link battle", but I'd like to pose a few questions.
What happened to the link to the third paper?
You say "our perception of time is related to motion, but... time does not exist." If there is no time, then what is motion? I've always understood it to be spatial displacement over an interval of time.
The two links above are to philosophy papers. While philosophers do a good job of debating positions, their field has few, if any, inarguable conclusions. Can you point to a reference that has more scientific basis? I'll even accept "soft" sciences like psychology.
All they require is that your browser support 128-bit encryption.
Almost. As someone who helped revamp their site this spring, I'd like to point out that they now require cookies. I looked at their code (all MS, btw), and noticed that there was no error-check for writing the cookie (except to loop back and try again). When I pointed out that people with cookies disabled would be caught in an infinite loop, I was told that Bank One's unofficially official position was, "if we can't write a cookie to their machine, we don't want them as a customer."
If only one of these (say, an optic nerve) mutated in, it would not survive because ONLY an optic nerve doesn't help anybody.
You are begging the question. Of course an optic nerve without an eye would be worthless; but evolution doesn't work piecemeal. You'd have us believe evolution is a bucket of jigsaw pieces which are tried in more-or-less random combinations, until one is "finished". But assembling the list of parts requires foreknowledge of the finished product, hence assuming the existence of God. Consider, instead, that a great many species on this planet have eyes, and few of them work "exactly how" a human's does.
There was no 'cause' of the big bang, AFAIK, because time began with the big bang.
This is also why the question, What is the universe expanding into? makes no sense. The appropriate way to perceive space-time is that it is a property of the universe. No universe, no space-time.
Another way to look at it is, What is north of the North Pole?
Monty Phython also asked if the physical world exists at all.
Funny you should say that. In my haste, I originally read the headline as: "Does the Universe Exist?" I was hoping for some good, old-fashioned sophistry.;-)
Look at all this! This is the most active discussion I've ever helped spawn on/.! I guess it's all politics for me from now on.;)
Your conception of "interest" as purely bad is flawed.
Agreed. I considered arguing with your above post, but this one really brings the point home: as long as your investments (be they stock or R&D) bring in a higher rate of return than your debts, then leave the debts be. There was a recent article on Slate (I can't find it now, though) that argued that the national debt should be left alone. I was forced to disagree with his numbers, though, because he assumed a best-case scenario (continued economic expansion for two generations!).
I would be remiss, though, if I didn't point out a counter-argument: paying off an interest-bearing debt is a risk-free investment. If I spend $1000 to pay down a debt at 8% APR, I've just saved $80 for the year; an 8% return on investment (it helps to visualize overall net worth). The question then becomes: Is it worth the risk to invest that $1000 on something that might generate a 12% return (but might have a negative return), when I can get a guaranteed 8% return through other means? Unfortunately, the answer varies on an individual basis, so applying this analysis to the national debt is nigh impossible.
Is the painting "The Birth od Venus" pornographic? What about Michelangelo's statue of David?
No, and no. Nudity != pronography. If you have a problem with your children being exposed to nudity (are they bathed fully-clothed?), by all means, do what you think is best. Please, though, don't try to justify it by making sweeping generalizations declaring any and all images of the human body pornographic.
I want to be able to tell my children about sex WHEN THEY ARE READY.
I realize this opinion is unsolicited, but it's been my experience that children are ready to learn about something the first time they express curiosity about it. Granted, you should be able to dictate some of the terms (a discussion with you rather than random Web surfing), but that usually comes from making your children comfortable in coming to you with their questions.
Whether or not you agree with it, the consensus amount most economists is that flat taxes *are* regressive.
My hero!
The previous replies were so unanimously against me in that regard, I was beginning to question what had made me claim such a thing in the first place.
Thanks for the tip. As I understood it, "progressive" and "regressive" were opposite directions in a spectrum of taxing schemes. In that light, the idea I was trying to convey was that a flat tax is more regressive than our current system. Of course, once I admit that, I open myself up to debate on whether or not our current system is too progressive, etc.; a debate in which I am clearly outmatched.
If everyone pays, say, 13%, the amount anyone pays is in proportion to their income.
I was really drawn to this argument when I first heard it, but Steve Forbes soured the deal (this was before/during the primaries). Some Web site (I forget which) pointed out that under his plan, Mr. Forbes has no income (neglecting potential salary as President), and therefore would pay no taxes. As marcus seems to believe, investment income wouldn't count as taxable income; IMHO, I think this is wrong.
I own Cisco and you'd be cracking down on my profits.
I don't think you meant to sound this way, but you come off here as thinking like these profits shouldn't be taxed simply because they're yours.
Go buy some stocks yourself.
I already have a portfolio, thank you.
You'll soon understand how corporate taxes are entirely bogus.
I don't see why a legal entity with all the rights of an individual (excluding voting rights) gets all of the benefits I do, but shouldn't have to pay taxes like I do.
They are all actually secondary taxes on shareholders.
Only if the corporation is publicly held. A great many corporations (like my employer) are privately held, so your argument doesn't wash.
Call it double taxation since I've already paid the IRS the tax on the money that I spent buying Cisco. Now you want to tax me again?
Okay, I'm confused. How does taxing Cisco's revenues amount to a tax on your shares? Because you own a percentage of the company, you own an equal percentage of the company's revenues? Again, corporations are people, too. Maybe it's just a philosophical difference between us, but I still think that if Congress has the right to create life, they can tax it, too.
They also took at their tax returns and think "Damn, what did I get for the $20,000 that I sent to the IRS this year?"
Again, philsophical differences. Where you (or hypothetical people you seem to empathize with) think that taxes should be spent on yourself (what's in it for me?), I think that taxes should be spent on the country as a whole. The striking thing is how often these intersect (public education, interstate highway system, etc.).
Finally, how exactly is a flat tax rate regressive?
Several people have replied similarly, so I must presume that I used the term inappropriately. It was my understanding that abolishing tax brackets (which a flat tax would do) is considered "regressive". I apologize for any confusion I seem to have caused.
...the top 10% is current paying at least 1/3 of all taxes, by even the most conservative estimate....the wealthy are being disproporionately and perhaps unfialry taxed
There are several ways of responding to this without giving the wealthy a tax cut. Perhaps cracking down (via tax law) on companies like Microsoft and Cisco, the porportion that the wealthy pay would go down. And before anyone decries the horrible taxing regime placed upon the rich today, please consider that several decades ago (60s? 50s? Can some older/. readers indicate when?), there was a fifty percent tax bracket. What frightens me most is how much popular support there is for regressive taxing schemes (like a flat tax).
There can be no doubt that the Columbine killers were affected by the culture,...
A trivial statement. Anyone who attends public school is to some degree or another affected by culture.
...and accessed that through the internet.
Doubtless, they also "accessed" culture through much more popular forums (fora?) such as television and movies, but Gov. Bush didn't seem to be so derisive of those.
More likely, one or both of those kids were psychopaths by nature,...
Indeed they were. They both took prescription anti-psychotics to regulate their behavior. Shortly before that, they explicitly stopped taking their medication to allow themselves to kill without remorse.
...and picked up on the prevailing dark side of the culture as part of their fantasies.
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying the Internet is mostly dark ("prevailing dark side" (emphasis added))? That only psychopaths fantasize about anything "dark"? That the Internet was the only/most likely place for them to access this "dark side"? Please clarify.
OTOH it is clear that the celebrity culture is what drove them to kill so many...
So it isn't the Internet, but rather Hollywood that's to blame? That only makes your defense of the governor all the more difficult to understand.
Look, I'm no kind of expert in any field where I should be trying to explain this kind of stuff. FWIW, though, I grew up in a family that: took "Mazes & Monsters" seriously; worried about my potential exposure to backward masking ("Dog si eh! Natas! Natas!"); and asked my "expert opinion" on our chances of survivng Y2K. From personal experience, I know that people love an easy answer, and scapegoats are even better. The Internet is the ultimate scapegoat, because it can be adapted to fit any problem (chat-addiction, anyone?).
Don't kid yourself: Governor Bush was either attacking the Internet, or using it as a buzzword to get viewers riled up. Either way, he's trying to create a causal link between the Internet and the actions of two psychotics who would have probably snapped eventually, with or without the Internet.
And when they released the source code for DOOM itself, Online play of the game was immediately ruined by people who coded their own exploitive 'clients' to play the game with...
Next time use a better arguement.
There's nothing wrong with magic's or quantum bit's argument (whichever you're decrying). Reverse engineering is the process of figuring out how to replicate a black box's functionality. When people did that it did help id's popularity, and id's friendly attitude about it was a good decision on their part. Opening the source is a separate issue entirely, because it means that DOOM was no longer a black box. Writing "exploitive clients" is not reverse engineering. Writing one's own client before id opened the source would be reverse engineering.
Granted, at that point, the exploitive versions would've appeared anyway, but that's just what hackers do.
I agree with everything you said, except for one thing:
...if [Microsoft's] new products are bought by any large ammount of people the users of the older version create chaos.
I would argue that the chaos was created by either a) the adopters of the new version; or b) Microsoft. I know of no other field where the staus quo represents chaos.
Pretty much, but I think it's a little more accurate to say that it's a long-distance company wrongfully telling your local provider that you wanted to switch to their service.
Actualy, i'm pretty sure that its your local phone company that does the slamming, not the long distance...
That's debatable. I worked for a long-distance firm last year, and the way it was explained to me was that the long-distance carrier (LDC) calls up the local carrier (LC) and asks to change the registered LDC for a given customer. It then becomes the LC's job to update their records, and report back to the LDC. While I agree the LC should be a little more diligent in verifying these claims, the law says that it's the LDC who is liable for slamming.
(Bear in mind that "LC" and "LDC" are not formal acronyms to my knowledge. IIRC, we used "local service provider" (LSP) in place of "LC", and never really referred to any LDP other than ourselves.)
Also, the most you're going to get for a single violation (calling back, not slamming) is five hundred dollars. AT&T will either consider that a trifle, or balk and force you to prove that you asked to be put on their "do not call" list.
Slamming is definitely illegal, and given how much the FCC enjoys regulating the phone industry, it sounds like something they would find most interesting. Also, you may wish to call MediaOne and see if they offer some kind of "anti-slamming" protection. My local carrier is Ameritech (owned by SBC), and set me up (notice the double entendre). Now my long-distace carrier can't be changed unless Ameritech gets a signature from me!
My apologies, billybob2001. In trying to be clever and swift in my reply, I came off sounding like a jerk. My only intention was to point out (humorously) that you seemed to see a difference between a "low flat rate" and "free", where I saw the latter as a special case of the former. Re-reading my response, though, I can see that I was actually being snide, and there were a dozen other ways I could have made my point without sounding like a smart-ass.
In response to your new post, let me say that I definitely agree with what you're saying. All other things being equal, I'd prefer free service, or perhaps a reasonable flat rate for most services (except cable TV; I really resent paying for fifty channels when I only watch twenty to twenty-five).
So, in summary: I'm sorry I didn't think before I posted, especially since we appear to be in agreement.
Is there some kind of a software out there that checks trademarked names against the whois database, and then GENERATES threatening letters?
Well, sort of. For example, register.com offers a service to its corporate customers called Trademark Guardian[TM], which "will include detailed information about current and potential infringements on your trademark including... previously registered domain names." I imagine other registrars have offerings which are similarly creepy.
Technology moves much faster than the court system, and MS has hinted that this case is no longer relevant and should be let go. With this logic if you killed somone 5 years ago you shouldn't be prosecuted.
Your analogy doesn't hold. Antitrust laws aren't about punishment; they're about restoring competition. As much as/. readers may want to see someone put the hurt on MS, this trial isn't where that happens. The goal of an antitrust penalty is to make the market competitive again. If the market becomes competitive during the appeals process, then MS wins by default. There is no value to any attempts to "restore" competition where it already exists, and even if their past actions are ultimately condemned by SCOTUS, there will still be no penalty.
Are there any disgruntled former DC workers out there who can give us the scoop on how they could possibly be so out of touch?
That does it! I think it's high time there was a/. interview w/somebody at DC. Although this article might have been cathartic for CmdrTaco, the communication from DC seems more like a form letter (it's a little creepy to realize from the text that they think reverse-engineering is wrong/illegal).
I realize/. can't make someone do an interview, but it's obvious from the sheer number of these articles that CmdrTaco has an ongoing interest in this story. He should press the issue with DC, and while I doubt it would stop them in their tracks, it might give them pause to hear (hopefully) intelligent questions about the viability of their business model.
OS/2 was my baby. I'm gonna go weep in a corner now.
There, there. The article indicated IBM might actually Open Source some products if we ask nicely, and while he clearly reserved IBM's right to say "No," I still think someone more articulate than I can show IBM just how many points they would score for opening OS/2.
Yes, I realize that he was talking about opening *nix stuff, but if IBM sees it as practically defunct, where's the harm in asking?
Actually, that fact alone has convinced me that I need to vote. The Justices of SCOTUS are getting very old, and it is believed that if the next president gets re-elected (not an unreasonable assumption), a single person could appoint as many as four or five Justices over the next eight years. That's enough to seriously sway the political leanings of SCOTUS, who will inevitably hear a lot of cases nerds care about (2600, Napster, MS, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
care to rebut?
I'm afraid I'll lose the "link battle", but I'd like to pose a few questions.
All they require is that your browser support 128-bit encryption.
Almost. As someone who helped revamp their site this spring, I'd like to point out that they now require cookies. I looked at their code (all MS, btw), and noticed that there was no error-check for writing the cookie (except to loop back and try again). When I pointed out that people with cookies disabled would be caught in an infinite loop, I was told that Bank One's unofficially official position was, "if we can't write a cookie to their machine, we don't want them as a customer."
If only one of these (say, an optic nerve) mutated in, it would not survive because ONLY an optic nerve doesn't help anybody.
You are begging the question. Of course an optic nerve without an eye would be worthless; but evolution doesn't work piecemeal. You'd have us believe evolution is a bucket of jigsaw pieces which are tried in more-or-less random combinations, until one is "finished". But assembling the list of parts requires foreknowledge of the finished product, hence assuming the existence of God. Consider, instead, that a great many species on this planet have eyes, and few of them work "exactly how" a human's does.
Individuals don't evolve, systems do.
There was no 'cause' of the big bang, AFAIK, because time began with the big bang.
This is also why the question, What is the universe expanding into? makes no sense. The appropriate way to perceive space-time is that it is a property of the universe. No universe, no space-time.
Another way to look at it is, What is north of the North Pole?
Monty Phython also asked if the physical world exists at all.
Funny you should say that. In my haste, I originally read the headline as: "Does the Universe Exist?" I was hoping for some good, old-fashioned sophistry. ;-)
Look at all this! This is the most active discussion I've ever helped spawn on /.! I guess it's all politics for me from now on. ;)
Your conception of "interest" as purely bad is flawed.
Agreed. I considered arguing with your above post, but this one really brings the point home: as long as your investments (be they stock or R&D) bring in a higher rate of return than your debts, then leave the debts be. There was a recent article on Slate (I can't find it now, though) that argued that the national debt should be left alone. I was forced to disagree with his numbers, though, because he assumed a best-case scenario (continued economic expansion for two generations!).
I would be remiss, though, if I didn't point out a counter-argument: paying off an interest-bearing debt is a risk-free investment. If I spend $1000 to pay down a debt at 8% APR, I've just saved $80 for the year; an 8% return on investment (it helps to visualize overall net worth). The question then becomes: Is it worth the risk to invest that $1000 on something that might generate a 12% return (but might have a negative return), when I can get a guaranteed 8% return through other means? Unfortunately, the answer varies on an individual basis, so applying this analysis to the national debt is nigh impossible.
Is the painting "The Birth od Venus" pornographic? What about Michelangelo's statue of David?
No, and no. Nudity != pronography. If you have a problem with your children being exposed to nudity (are they bathed fully-clothed?), by all means, do what you think is best. Please, though, don't try to justify it by making sweeping generalizations declaring any and all images of the human body pornographic.
I want to be able to tell my children about sex WHEN THEY ARE READY.
I realize this opinion is unsolicited, but it's been my experience that children are ready to learn about something the first time they express curiosity about it. Granted, you should be able to dictate some of the terms (a discussion with you rather than random Web surfing), but that usually comes from making your children comfortable in coming to you with their questions.
Whether or not you agree with it, the consensus amount most economists is that flat taxes *are* regressive.
My hero!
The previous replies were so unanimously against me in that regard, I was beginning to question what had made me claim such a thing in the first place.
Score one more datum in the "Sane" column.
"regressive" is not appropriate...
Thanks for the tip. As I understood it, "progressive" and "regressive" were opposite directions in a spectrum of taxing schemes. In that light, the idea I was trying to convey was that a flat tax is more regressive than our current system. Of course, once I admit that, I open myself up to debate on whether or not our current system is too progressive, etc.; a debate in which I am clearly outmatched.
If everyone pays, say, 13%, the amount anyone pays is in proportion to their income.
I was really drawn to this argument when I first heard it, but Steve Forbes soured the deal (this was before/during the primaries). Some Web site (I forget which) pointed out that under his plan, Mr. Forbes has no income (neglecting potential salary as President), and therefore would pay no taxes. As marcus seems to believe, investment income wouldn't count as taxable income; IMHO, I think this is wrong.
I own Cisco and you'd be cracking down on my profits.
I don't think you meant to sound this way, but you come off here as thinking like these profits shouldn't be taxed simply because they're yours.
Go buy some stocks yourself.
I already have a portfolio, thank you.
You'll soon understand how corporate taxes are entirely bogus.
I don't see why a legal entity with all the rights of an individual (excluding voting rights) gets all of the benefits I do, but shouldn't have to pay taxes like I do.
They are all actually secondary taxes on shareholders.
Only if the corporation is publicly held. A great many corporations (like my employer) are privately held, so your argument doesn't wash.
Call it double taxation since I've already paid the IRS the tax on the money that I spent buying Cisco. Now you want to tax me again?
Okay, I'm confused. How does taxing Cisco's revenues amount to a tax on your shares? Because you own a percentage of the company, you own an equal percentage of the company's revenues? Again, corporations are people, too. Maybe it's just a philosophical difference between us, but I still think that if Congress has the right to create life, they can tax it, too.
They also took at their tax returns and think "Damn, what did I get for the $20,000 that I sent to the IRS this year?"
Again, philsophical differences. Where you (or hypothetical people you seem to empathize with) think that taxes should be spent on yourself (what's in it for me?), I think that taxes should be spent on the country as a whole. The striking thing is how often these intersect (public education, interstate highway system, etc.).
Finally, how exactly is a flat tax rate regressive?
Several people have replied similarly, so I must presume that I used the term inappropriately. It was my understanding that abolishing tax brackets (which a flat tax would do) is considered "regressive". I apologize for any confusion I seem to have caused.
There are several ways of responding to this without giving the wealthy a tax cut. Perhaps cracking down (via tax law) on companies like Microsoft and Cisco, the porportion that the wealthy pay would go down. And before anyone decries the horrible taxing regime placed upon the rich today, please consider that several decades ago (60s? 50s? Can some older /. readers indicate when?), there was a fifty percent tax bracket. What frightens me most is how much popular support there is for regressive taxing schemes (like a flat tax).
There can be no doubt that the Columbine killers were affected by the culture,...
A trivial statement. Anyone who attends public school is to some degree or another affected by culture.
Doubtless, they also "accessed" culture through much more popular forums (fora?) such as television and movies, but Gov. Bush didn't seem to be so derisive of those.
More likely, one or both of those kids were psychopaths by nature,...
Indeed they were. They both took prescription anti-psychotics to regulate their behavior. Shortly before that, they explicitly stopped taking their medication to allow themselves to kill without remorse.
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying the Internet is mostly dark ("prevailing dark side" (emphasis added))? That only psychopaths fantasize about anything "dark"? That the Internet was the only/most likely place for them to access this "dark side"? Please clarify.
OTOH it is clear that the celebrity culture is what drove them to kill so many...
So it isn't the Internet, but rather Hollywood that's to blame? That only makes your defense of the governor all the more difficult to understand.
Look, I'm no kind of expert in any field where I should be trying to explain this kind of stuff. FWIW, though, I grew up in a family that: took "Mazes & Monsters" seriously; worried about my potential exposure to backward masking ("Dog si eh! Natas! Natas!"); and asked my "expert opinion" on our chances of survivng Y2K. From personal experience, I know that people love an easy answer, and scapegoats are even better. The Internet is the ultimate scapegoat, because it can be adapted to fit any problem (chat-addiction, anyone?).
Don't kid yourself: Governor Bush was either attacking the Internet, or using it as a buzzword to get viewers riled up. Either way, he's trying to create a causal link between the Internet and the actions of two psychotics who would have probably snapped eventually, with or without the Internet.
And when they released the source code for DOOM itself, Online play of the game was immediately ruined by people who coded their own exploitive 'clients' to play the game with...
Next time use a better arguement.
There's nothing wrong with magic's or quantum bit's argument (whichever you're decrying). Reverse engineering is the process of figuring out how to replicate a black box's functionality. When people did that it did help id's popularity, and id's friendly attitude about it was a good decision on their part. Opening the source is a separate issue entirely, because it means that DOOM was no longer a black box. Writing "exploitive clients" is not reverse engineering. Writing one's own client before id opened the source would be reverse engineering.
Granted, at that point, the exploitive versions would've appeared anyway, but that's just what hackers do.
I agree with everything you said, except for one thing:
I would argue that the chaos was created by either a) the adopters of the new version; or b) Microsoft. I know of no other field where the staus quo represents chaos.
Pretty much, but I think it's a little more accurate to say that it's a long-distance company wrongfully telling your local provider that you wanted to switch to their service.
Actualy, i'm pretty sure that its your local phone company that does the slamming, not the long distance...
That's debatable. I worked for a long-distance firm last year, and the way it was explained to me was that the long-distance carrier (LDC) calls up the local carrier (LC) and asks to change the registered LDC for a given customer. It then becomes the LC's job to update their records, and report back to the LDC. While I agree the LC should be a little more diligent in verifying these claims, the law says that it's the LDC who is liable for slamming.
(Bear in mind that "LC" and "LDC" are not formal acronyms to my knowledge. IIRC, we used "local service provider" (LSP) in place of "LC", and never really referred to any LDP other than ourselves.)
Also, the most you're going to get for a single violation (calling back, not slamming) is five hundred dollars. AT&T will either consider that a trifle, or balk and force you to prove that you asked to be put on their "do not call" list.
Slamming is definitely illegal, and given how much the FCC enjoys regulating the phone industry, it sounds like something they would find most interesting. Also, you may wish to call MediaOne and see if they offer some kind of "anti-slamming" protection. My local carrier is Ameritech (owned by SBC), and set me up (notice the double entendre). Now my long-distace carrier can't be changed unless Ameritech gets a signature from me!
My apologies, billybob2001. In trying to be clever and swift in my reply, I came off sounding like a jerk. My only intention was to point out (humorously) that you seemed to see a difference between a "low flat rate" and "free", where I saw the latter as a special case of the former. Re-reading my response, though, I can see that I was actually being snide, and there were a dozen other ways I could have made my point without sounding like a smart-ass.
In response to your new post, let me say that I definitely agree with what you're saying. All other things being equal, I'd prefer free service, or perhaps a reasonable flat rate for most services (except cable TV; I really resent paying for fifty channels when I only watch twenty to twenty-five).
So, in summary: I'm sorry I didn't think before I posted, especially since we appear to be in agreement.
Is there some kind of a software out there that checks trademarked names against the whois database, and then GENERATES threatening letters?
Well, sort of. For example, register.com offers a service to its corporate customers called Trademark Guardian[TM], which "will include detailed information about current and potential infringements on your trademark including... previously registered domain names." I imagine other registrars have offerings which are similarly creepy.
It says "Users love low flat rates"
Try again.
Something like Users love free access.
Last time I checked, "free" was a low, flat rate.
Technology moves much faster than the court system, and MS has hinted that this case is no longer relevant and should be let go. With this logic if you killed somone 5 years ago you shouldn't be prosecuted.
Your analogy doesn't hold. Antitrust laws aren't about punishment; they're about restoring competition. As much as /. readers may want to see someone put the hurt on MS, this trial isn't where that happens. The goal of an antitrust penalty is to make the market competitive again. If the market becomes competitive during the appeals process, then MS wins by default. There is no value to any attempts to "restore" competition where it already exists, and even if their past actions are ultimately condemned by SCOTUS, there will still be no penalty.
Are there any disgruntled former DC workers out there who can give us the scoop on how they could possibly be so out of touch?
That does it! I think it's high time there was a /. interview w/somebody at DC. Although this article might have been cathartic for CmdrTaco, the communication from DC seems more like a form letter (it's a little creepy to realize from the text that they think reverse-engineering is wrong/illegal).
I realize /. can't make someone do an interview, but it's obvious from the sheer number of these articles that CmdrTaco has an ongoing interest in this story. He should press the issue with DC, and while I doubt it would stop them in their tracks, it might give them pause to hear (hopefully) intelligent questions about the viability of their business model.
OS/2 was my baby. I'm gonna go weep in a corner now.
There, there. The article indicated IBM might actually Open Source some products if we ask nicely, and while he clearly reserved IBM's right to say "No," I still think someone more articulate than I can show IBM just how many points they would score for opening OS/2.
Yes, I realize that he was talking about opening *nix stuff, but if IBM sees it as practically defunct, where's the harm in asking?
[T]he supreme court... is entirely appointed.
Actually, that fact alone has convinced me that I need to vote. The Justices of SCOTUS are getting very old, and it is believed that if the next president gets re-elected (not an unreasonable assumption), a single person could appoint as many as four or five Justices over the next eight years. That's enough to seriously sway the political leanings of SCOTUS, who will inevitably hear a lot of cases nerds care about (2600, Napster, MS, etc.).
But normal TV broadcasts aren't covered under the DMCA because there's no technological measures that effectively control access.
Not yet, but wait. The FCC is already making that happen.