I had a math professor in college like that, but at least he had a good sense of humor about it. Once, when one of the students pointed out an arithmetic error of his, he responded, "There are three kinds of mathematicians: those who can count, and those who can't."
Why would you need to destroy documents, if you're not doing anything wrong?
If you're sued, all your records on the topic can be subpoenaed. If you've never destroyed anything, you have to provide it all to the attorneys of the people suing you. Usually in hard copy.
The time and money it can take to do this, if you haven't been deleting anything, can be immense. It can run literally into the tens of millions of dollars and thousands of person-hours. On the other hand, if you've been deleting old documents regularly, you don't have that much to produce in the first place.
Even if we did have free energy, that wouldn't mean all of our problems would be solved.
Arthur C. Clarke addresses this in 3001: The Final Odyssey. Mankind had tapped zero-point energy, giving them free energy. Problem was, the release of all that energy had a way of significantly heating up the planet...
No, but you do only get freedom to criticize my post if you actually take the time to read the whole thing, rather than just reading the first sentence and making knee-jerk assumptions about the rest of it. Sheesh.
The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it. No, they're the type who will be upset with that company no matter how much they've done to improve. (Otherwise, there could come a point where they'd have to say, "Yeah, X sucked three years ago, but they've improved a lot and don't suck anymore. We're shutting our site down." Who could see that happening?)
Don't get me wrong; I'm all in favor of allowing *sucks.com sites. But I don't pretend that they're any more objective than the company site itself.
jyoull is exactly right. To make an analogy: suppose you have a book written in French. The doctrine of first sale allows you to sell that book to your neighbor. Now, if your neighbor does not read French, the book will be of no use to him, but that is not the concern of the doctrine of first sale. The doctrine of first sale does not compel the publisher to publish an English translation for the benefit of your neighbor, or in any other way make the book useful to your neighbor. All the doctrine of first sale says is that you are permitted to sell the book to your neighbor.
You're right that for the vast majority of searches, you'd want to review the results, rather than being automatically sent to the first result.
However, if you use Google enough, you get to know what type of searches are likely to bring back your desired page as the first hit.
95% of the time when I search on Google, I just "Search" rather than use "I Feel Lucky".
About 5% of the time, I'm pretty confident before I click on anything that Google's first result will be the one I want. When this happens, I click on "I'm feeling lucky." When I do this, I get the page I was looking for 99% of the time.
So that's why someone would want to use the "I'm feeling lucky" button. I don't use it every time I search Google, or even most of the time. But I do use it, and I love having that option.
I have animosity towards legal solutions because they violate the spirit of the internet.
And just what is the "spirit of the internet"? Anarchy? Or rule by some technical standards body which the average person has absolutely no say in?
It would seem to me that a technical solution would be more effective.
I don't have any objection to a technical solution as long as it is transparent, or nearly so, to the average user. All too many proposed technical solutions require skill far beyond that of the average user--particularly here on/. where it is easy to forget that the skills of the average/. reader are far beyond that of most users.
A legal solution is nothing more than a formalized social solution. Why the animosity towards a legal solution? True, laws can be abused, but so can unwritten, informal social solutions.
A technical solution simply encourages a "[technical] might makes right" attitude. Which may be fine for many/.ers, but hardly suits your average user.
At the time several State's constitutions forbid their elected representatives from giving the federal government the ability to tax income. however these congressman illegally voted for these amendments even thou it violated their state constitution.
1. I looked at the front page of givemeliberty.org and saw nothing on there to suggest that the 16th amendment was in conflict with any other amendment. If it's on some page buried deep within the website, I couldn't find it. Feel free to link to the correct page itself, if one even exists.
2. "READ!" yourself. The FAQ I linked to previously debunks the claims some have made that the 16th amendment conflicts with the 4th, 5th, 10th, or 14th amendments. (Not that any of those would even matter--the 16th, having been ratified after all of those, would take precedence if there was a conflict--just as the 21st amendment repeals the 18th, and is not "illegal" because it is in conflict with the 18th!!) If you'd like to suggest some way in which the 26th amendment overturns the 16th, for example, I'm happy to listen.
Having a trademark would prevent others from using your name in certain ways. It would not prevent people from using your name at all.
"Microsoft" is a trademark, but that doesn't stop me from writing about Microsoft without their permission. I can't legally market a product called "Microsoft" without their permission. I can write all I want about their business, such as their corporate address, phone number, management, annual sales, quality of their products, etc., etc., etc.
Do you ever stop to think that maybe an initiative like this is being done in the interest of the American people? The government is not a "big brother" organization that is looking to turn you into another node in "the matrix".
You forget the original meaning of the term "Big Brother." It's come to mean a totalitarian, all-seeing goverment because it was used that way in George Orwell's 1984. But when Orwell wrote the book, "Big Brother" didn't already have that meaning--it acquired the meaning because of the book. No, in the book the government chose "Big Brother" as its personification precisely because a big brother would always have your best interests at heart, and would never do anything to harm you. You would give power over yourself to a big brother that you would never give to a perfect stranger.
What you seem to be saying is that, in that sense of the term, the US government should be trusted just as a big brother should. And that is precisely what scares me, and so many others.
I can feel the mod-downs coming, but I feel this has to be said.
If I bothered modding anymore, I'd mod you down myself. Still, I must commend your nice use of the "Say 'I know this'll get modded down, but...' to avoid being modded down" tactic.
In fact, it appears that Joe, Bill, Neil, Laura, and her husband Steve are all active posters on news.admin.net-abuse.email
Ooooh, there's the smoking gun right there! They post to nanae! What despicable people they must be!
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I think these people see themselves as anti-spam vigilantes.
I wasn't aware that asking ISPs to actually enforce their posted AUPs now constitutes vigilantism. By that standard, I guess I'm an "anti-spam vigilante" too.
Since he's trying to find jobs with computer companies, it's not uncommon to send HR requests to a non-HR department; after all, many small computer companies don't HAVE an HR department, but just an admin running the whole show.
concordia.ca is neither small nor a computer company. Just how many concordia.ca addresses did he send his resume to? (Hundreds, I'm guessing.) If only one, what conceivable reason would he have for picking Neil's?
Hmmm...Slashcode seems to have confused "(Score: 4, Insightful)" for "(Score: -1, Did not read the linked documents.)"
The law applies to anyone doing business in California, whether or not they are located in California. If you ship a product to a customer in California, for example, you are doing business in California and are subject to California law.
Case in point is the Muppet Movie, which had furry muppets that kids could enjoy, while adults had fun with the witty dialogue. Newer movies leave the adults out of the equation, reasoning that the kids won't "get" the movie.
Some do, certainly. So did some kids' movies from the 1970s. But it's far from universal. In fact, 2001 saw not one but two "kids'" movies which are enjoyable for adults as well: Shrek and Monsters, Inc. (I highly recommend both--and I'm 30 years old and don't have children.)
So you're saying that if I play my DVDs in Linux and read my eBooks on my PDA, I'm "stealing from companies"? And you have a +1 bonus? *sigh* Slashdot is falling apart...
So you believe no one should have a +1 bonus unless they are in lockstep with the doubleplusgood Slashdot groupthink? *sigh* Slashdot is falling apart...
Gore voters, front and center...
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think you've got it backwards--Gore cost Nader the election. After all, if all Gore voters had voted for Nader instead, Nader would have won.
Funny, I've talked to a lot of people who are far from geeks, much less "pirates".... You know what? They don't think any of those things should be occuring.
In other words, you tell them your side of the story only, and--surprise, surprise--they agree with your side of the story.
People are only as stupid as you seem to think they are, when they listen to you tell them how stupid they are.
People are only as anti-DMCA as you seem to think they are, when they listen to you tell them how anti-DMCA they are.
Brilliant? Brilliant???!!! Passionate, yes. Hardly brilliant. Ellison asserts that an author has absolute control over his work, even after his death--but Ellison simply treats that as axiomatic, and gives the skeptical reader not one whit of argument as to why he should accept Ellison's axiom.
I presume Ellison (and all the posters here who oppose posthumous publication without the author's consent) would also deny the world Mozart's Requiem.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that most people use soap when taking a bath, which is plenty ionic.
I had a math professor in college like that, but at least he had a good sense of humor about it. Once, when one of the students pointed out an arithmetic error of his, he responded, "There are three kinds of mathematicians: those who can count, and those who can't."
I see. Do you tape and save all your telephone calls where you work?
Why would you need to destroy documents, if you're not doing anything wrong?
If you're sued, all your records on the topic can be subpoenaed. If you've never destroyed anything, you have to provide it all to the attorneys of the people suing you. Usually in hard copy.
The time and money it can take to do this, if you haven't been deleting anything, can be immense. It can run literally into the tens of millions of dollars and thousands of person-hours. On the other hand, if you've been deleting old documents regularly, you don't have that much to produce in the first place.
Arthur C. Clarke addresses this in 3001: The Final Odyssey. Mankind had tapped zero-point energy, giving them free energy. Problem was, the release of all that energy had a way of significantly heating up the planet...
Um, sure. Just like James T. Kirk was just another wimpy starship captain until "Star Trek: Generations" came out.
No, but you do only get freedom to criticize my post if you actually take the time to read the whole thing, rather than just reading the first sentence and making knee-jerk assumptions about the rest of it. Sheesh.
The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it. No, they're the type who will be upset with that company no matter how much they've done to improve. (Otherwise, there could come a point where they'd have to say, "Yeah, X sucked three years ago, but they've improved a lot and don't suck anymore. We're shutting our site down." Who could see that happening?)
Don't get me wrong; I'm all in favor of allowing *sucks.com sites. But I don't pretend that they're any more objective than the company site itself.
jyoull is exactly right. To make an analogy: suppose you have a book written in French. The doctrine of first sale allows you to sell that book to your neighbor. Now, if your neighbor does not read French, the book will be of no use to him, but that is not the concern of the doctrine of first sale. The doctrine of first sale does not compel the publisher to publish an English translation for the benefit of your neighbor, or in any other way make the book useful to your neighbor. All the doctrine of first sale says is that you are permitted to sell the book to your neighbor.
However, if you use Google enough, you get to know what type of searches are likely to bring back your desired page as the first hit.
95% of the time when I search on Google, I just "Search" rather than use "I Feel Lucky".
About 5% of the time, I'm pretty confident before I click on anything that Google's first result will be the one I want. When this happens, I click on "I'm feeling lucky." When I do this, I get the page I was looking for 99% of the time.
So that's why someone would want to use the "I'm feeling lucky" button. I don't use it every time I search Google, or even most of the time. But I do use it, and I love having that option.
And just what is the "spirit of the internet"? Anarchy? Or rule by some technical standards body which the average person has absolutely no say in?
It would seem to me that a technical solution would be more effective.
I don't have any objection to a technical solution as long as it is transparent, or nearly so, to the average user. All too many proposed technical solutions require skill far beyond that of the average user--particularly here on /. where it is easy to forget that the skills of the average /. reader are far beyond that of most users.
A technical solution simply encourages a "[technical] might makes right" attitude. Which may be fine for many /.ers, but hardly suits your average user.
Perhaps you'd care to address the arguments made in the FAQ, rather than the person who wrote it?
Debunked in the FAQ.
In US tax code dealing with income all 50 states is missing.
Debunked in the FAQ.
Some say that this is what makes the 16th amendment legal in that you are not forced to pay tax.
Debunked in the FAQ.
2. "READ!" yourself. The FAQ I linked to previously debunks the claims some have made that the 16th amendment conflicts with the 4th, 5th, 10th, or 14th amendments. (Not that any of those would even matter--the 16th, having been ratified after all of those, would take precedence if there was a conflict--just as the 21st amendment repeals the 18th, and is not "illegal" because it is in conflict with the 18th!!) If you'd like to suggest some way in which the 26th amendment overturns the 16th, for example, I'm happy to listen.
"Microsoft" is a trademark, but that doesn't stop me from writing about Microsoft without their permission. I can't legally market a product called "Microsoft" without their permission. I can write all I want about their business, such as their corporate address, phone number, management, annual sales, quality of their products, etc., etc., etc.
You forget the original meaning of the term "Big Brother." It's come to mean a totalitarian, all-seeing goverment because it was used that way in George Orwell's 1984. But when Orwell wrote the book, "Big Brother" didn't already have that meaning--it acquired the meaning because of the book. No, in the book the government chose "Big Brother" as its personification precisely because a big brother would always have your best interests at heart, and would never do anything to harm you. You would give power over yourself to a big brother that you would never give to a perfect stranger.
What you seem to be saying is that, in that sense of the term, the US government should be trusted just as a big brother should. And that is precisely what scares me, and so many others.
Do the research yourself. You might start here.
If I bothered modding anymore, I'd mod you down myself. Still, I must commend your nice use of the "Say 'I know this'll get modded down, but...' to avoid being modded down" tactic.
In fact, it appears that Joe, Bill, Neil, Laura, and her husband Steve are all active posters on news.admin.net-abuse.email
Ooooh, there's the smoking gun right there! They post to nanae! What despicable people they must be!
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I think these people see themselves as anti-spam vigilantes.
I wasn't aware that asking ISPs to actually enforce their posted AUPs now constitutes vigilantism. By that standard, I guess I'm an "anti-spam vigilante" too.
Since he's trying to find jobs with computer companies, it's not uncommon to send HR requests to a non-HR department; after all, many small computer companies don't HAVE an HR department, but just an admin running the whole show.
concordia.ca is neither small nor a computer company. Just how many concordia.ca addresses did he send his resume to? (Hundreds, I'm guessing.) If only one, what conceivable reason would he have for picking Neil's?
Hmmm...Slashcode seems to have confused "(Score: 4, Insightful)" for "(Score: -1, Did not read the linked documents.)"
The law applies to anyone doing business in California, whether or not they are located in California. If you ship a product to a customer in California, for example, you are doing business in California and are subject to California law.
Some do, certainly. So did some kids' movies from the 1970s. But it's far from universal. In fact, 2001 saw not one but two "kids'" movies which are enjoyable for adults as well: Shrek and Monsters, Inc. (I highly recommend both--and I'm 30 years old and don't have children.)
So you believe no one should have a +1 bonus unless they are in lockstep with the doubleplusgood Slashdot groupthink? *sigh* Slashdot is falling apart...
I think you've got it backwards--Gore cost Nader the election. After all, if all Gore voters had voted for Nader instead, Nader would have won.
In other words, you tell them your side of the story only, and--surprise, surprise--they agree with your side of the story.
People are only as stupid as you seem to think they are, when they listen to you tell them how stupid they are.
People are only as anti-DMCA as you seem to think they are, when they listen to you tell them how anti-DMCA they are.
Brilliant? Brilliant???!!! Passionate, yes. Hardly brilliant. Ellison asserts that an author has absolute control over his work, even after his death--but Ellison simply treats that as axiomatic, and gives the skeptical reader not one whit of argument as to why he should accept Ellison's axiom.
I presume Ellison (and all the posters here who oppose posthumous publication without the author's consent) would also deny the world Mozart's Requiem.