Traffic fatalities are stated in deaths per 100,000 miles driven, so it's population independent. The death rate on the Autobahn is also less than on the restricted-speed (100-120 km/hr) roads.
If you want to leave the U.S., talk to the consulate of any country, most are hot to get IT people, even Germany currently.
To kind of straddle the middle, get a job with a contractor working for overseas military or join the U.S. civil service in Europe at http://www.chrma.hqusareur.army.mil. They are also hot for IT people.
There was a game called "hackers" or something like that for the Atari ST where you go rummaging through computers of big bad corporation to figure out and stop their world domination plot. It took a good amount of problem solving, and it was fun.
Plus you get to indoctrinate the juvies on corporate evil.
When the US limit was 55 and Germany mostly unlimited (on the Autobahn, other roads still limited), the US and Germany were running neck and neck on accident rates. This "speed kills" speach is just another brand of the same control freaks who we're speaking out against now.
I was in Lance for a while. The system's long gone, so this has nothing but historical value.
The stockpile was in Muenster, and you could fit either conventional or nuke warheads onto the end of a rocket, just takes a few minutes with a small crane. The conventional was simple bomblets, but the nuke was pretty bad -- what we called "dial-a-nuke." Essentially, "how many people do you want to kill" and "how dirty do you want this explosion to be." I'm guessing the latter ties into the neutron bomb idea of how unlivable you want an area to be afterwards.
Nasty, glad we never had to fire a real one. But practicing emergency destruction with C4, TNT and shaped charges was real fun.
IIRC, a couple of years ago when Congress balanced the budget, they used a little bit of trickery. It seems that they took the amount of money to be gained in 2006 from spectrum auctions and applied it to the current budget in order to balance it, essentially borrowing against future income.
Now what happens if the broadcasters keep the spectrum?
First of all, the sig is wrong, it should be "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom."
This was said in the context of a web site operator exercising his right to free speech. That this was political speech makes it even more strongly protected. That it was often parody makes the case even stronger.
I remember a story recently that looked pretty bad for GW ("The military's this big?"), and it turned out it was straight from the newswire. Other stories like his criminal past, lying under oath in a civil court case (sounds familiar, huh?), payback for campaign donations, land theft, and military desertion are all quite well documented.
GW has a long history of using his might to silence opponents, and this was just the latest example.
Some addresses Monster Hut sent to were only used as points of contact for domains with NetSol.
There is no way they could have opted in anywhere since these addresses aren't used for anything other than domain contact.
If one of those people got an unsolicited email, then it's spam, against terms of service, and reasons for terminating the contract.
Monster Hut got that 2% complaint figure thrown in hoping it would save them from getting cut off for spamming, knowing there's no way to get 120,000 separate provable complaints.
But they forgot that that's complaints on truly opted-in spam -- and they should have to prove the opt-in status. They can't -- they're toast.
Indictment simply means that there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. It says NOTHING about if the law is good or not.
Indictments have nothing anymore to do with whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, since the general wisdom is that "A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich."
They are now either rubber stamps for a trial or the legal muscle behind a prosecutorial fishing expedition (e.g., Whitewater). Their original place as protectors of unwarranted prosecution is long gone.
Of course, this fact makes your case even better.
Re:Department of Defense getting in on the fun?
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 2
There are actually real people on that network, government workers, airmen, who are doing their daily job. It's probable that you have someone interested in the case, maybe even on your side, who likes to keep up to date with what's going on. Although I haven't visited your site, I'm a good example.
It's that little part not in italics at the end that says "VA is Slashdot's corporate parent."
Christ, we used to not bother reading the linked-to stories, then we stopped reading the whole Slashdot stories, and now we're not even reading the whole teaser before we post a reply?
Most public records laws already have measures in place to safeguard personal privacy. Others, as in the article (I read it!) do need some work to account for personal privacy. A good example is, before records were finally given to APB news on judges' finances, personal information such as address, phone, etc., was redacted.
Records being available in the Internet is very important. Check out www.freedomforum.org to see how hard it is often to get public records in person, with demands to know why, see ID and attempted arrests (especially for public police records such as who's currently in jail). Internet access would allow people to get this information without fear of intimidation.
I have friends who have written congressmen on various injustices being done to them by the government (especially if you're in the Army and getting screwed), and they have always been righted quite quickly.
3. Raises spectre of loss of intellectual property on other levels, and more and more are confiscated for the "public good"
At least in the U.S., the only reason IP is allowed in the first place is for the public good. If you're jacking your prices on a necessary drug, preventing thousands from receiving treatment, that's not in the public good, and you deserve to have your rights curtailed. Also, IIRC, their R&D costs aren't that high, since the government funds much of the research in the first place.
All that aside, seven supreme court justices were appointed by Republicans. Whatever political favors were owed were paid back in full last December
Justices don't have to pay back any favors, since once they're in, they're in for life. The parties, Congress and President have no leverage at all, just a hope of payback. What future positions of power or influence can they be offered beyond that of the Court? A Justice's fear is only from the other Justices.
SCOTUS history is full of appointees who were supposed to toe the party line of those who appointed them, only to severely disappoint. Just look at Sandra Day O'Connor for an example: Reagan thought she'd be ultra-conservative, and now she's usually the swing vote.
For 1 & 2, Lemelson's patents are crap. Here was his process:
See which way an industry is going
File an extremely vague patent that would cover pretty much anything in that area
Keep extending the application as long as you can. This allows you to:
Extend the life of your patent. You can have an application in for 20 years but the clock doesn't start ticking until it's awarded. When you get a judgement, it's effective to the date of application. This is now no more, but Lemelson's patents are grandfathered.
See what gets used and invented in the industry during that time. Amend your patent to include these technologies.
Finally allow your patent to be issued
Sue people for technologies they invented and have been using for years, since your patent predates their discoveries.
This is why lectures and papers that provide the information to destroy a business's financial security are so dangerous.
As soon as people start saying speech is dangerous, we are in very big trouble. History is full of this rationale for censorship on a number of subjects, most of which you wouldn't consider "dangerous." Speaking out about human rights abuses while in China is currently "dangerous."
At the very least, jailed Russian boy should have informed Adobe of the weaknesses inherent in their encryption scheme before attempting to give this information to the public domain.
IIRC, his company did. Besides, their program was perfectly legal under the laws of their country. It even may have served to make an illegal program, eBook reader, legal by allowing backups.
Furthermore, arguments that revealing the weaknesses of encryption schemes is a public service is bunk in this case, because Adobe's encryption scheme isn't in widespread use.
That is exactly why it is a public service. Luckily, millions of authors didn't start using this format, only to find that it is easily broken.
Don't forget that cracking applications like this actually provide a service. You have certain Constitutional and statutory rights, such as first sale, fair use, and backups. If the content control of a book attempts to take any of these from you, then you have a means of regaining those stolen rights.
Just because something can be used for illegal purposes you propose banning it? Quick, ban mice, I feel like strangling my coworker with the cord!
You might want to consider the fact that there _are_ exceptions to the First Amendment already,
Those exceptions are few and far between and must withstand the utmost scrutiny from courts that hold the First Amendment in higher esteem than you. Prior restraint is very rarely granted, and as shown with the recent Gone With the Wind parody, often overturned if granted. Other attempts at restricting speech are also not taken lightly. If Larry Flynt can prevail against Jerry Falwell in the Supreme Court, we all have a chance.
Detailing weaknesses of an encryption method already put to use by a private company can wreak havoc on their profitability.
And detailing the weaknesses of Firestone tires on Ford Explorers can wreak havoc on their profitability too. Too bad someone didn't do it earlier. If it were software he'd be put in jail for it though.
It is in the public's best interest to expose shoddy workmanship from a corporation, be it tires or security. He did them, us, and authors a favor by exposing this before it got too big.
6) Nintendo treats their 3rd party developers like shit and always has.
Apparently Nintendo has learned their lesson. One of the whole points of the Game Cube is to make it very easy to develop for it. No more buying SGI O2 workstations and ultra-expensive license just to develop. Just get some computers (I believe Macs), get a reasonably-priced license, and go for it.
Also, Nintendo made the developing itself easy. Simple memory architecture and straightforward programming, rather than the extreme hoops you have to jump through to overcome the limited and quirky memory architecture on the PS2.
From what I've seen, the BSA doesn't go after corporations with big money to defend themselves. They just threaten the little-medium guys who would take a beating on legal fees should they turn down the BSA. Same strategy as the IRS.
Please tell me that was sarcastic. Text just doesn't convey sarcasm well, leaving one to guess, and there are too many idiots out there who would actually mean this.
Slashdot Mirror
Traffic fatalities are stated in deaths per 100,000 miles driven, so it's population independent. The death rate on the Autobahn is also less than on the restricted-speed (100-120 km/hr) roads.
If you want to leave the U.S., talk to the consulate of any country, most are hot to get IT people, even Germany currently.
To kind of straddle the middle, get a job with a contractor working for overseas military or join the U.S. civil service in Europe at http://www.chrma.hqusareur.army.mil. They are also hot for IT people.
There was a game called "hackers" or something like that for the Atari ST where you go rummaging through computers of big bad corporation to figure out and stop their world domination plot. It took a good amount of problem solving, and it was fun.
Plus you get to indoctrinate the juvies on corporate evil.
When the US limit was 55 and Germany mostly unlimited (on the Autobahn, other roads still limited), the US and Germany were running neck and neck on accident rates. This "speed kills" speach is just another brand of the same control freaks who we're speaking out against now.
...and hope they don't have an Albert Speer.
Production in Germany actually increased drastically during our time of hitting their industry the hardest due to Speer's genius.
I was in Lance for a while. The system's long gone, so this has nothing but historical value.
The stockpile was in Muenster, and you could fit either conventional or nuke warheads onto the end of a rocket, just takes a few minutes with a small crane. The conventional was simple bomblets, but the nuke was pretty bad -- what we called "dial-a-nuke." Essentially, "how many people do you want to kill" and "how dirty do you want this explosion to be." I'm guessing the latter ties into the neutron bomb idea of how unlivable you want an area to be afterwards.
Nasty, glad we never had to fire a real one. But practicing emergency destruction with C4, TNT and shaped charges was real fun.
IIRC, a couple of years ago when Congress balanced the budget, they used a little bit of trickery. It seems that they took the amount of money to be gained in 2006 from spectrum auctions and applied it to the current budget in order to balance it, essentially borrowing against future income.
Now what happens if the broadcasters keep the spectrum?
First of all, the sig is wrong, it should be "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom."
This was said in the context of a web site operator exercising his right to free speech. That this was political speech makes it even more strongly protected. That it was often parody makes the case even stronger.
I remember a story recently that looked pretty bad for GW ("The military's this big?"), and it turned out it was straight from the newswire. Other stories like his criminal past, lying under oath in a civil court case (sounds familiar, huh?), payback for campaign donations, land theft, and military desertion are all quite well documented.
GW has a long history of using his might to silence opponents, and this was just the latest example.
Someone else not reading.
Some addresses Monster Hut sent to were only used as points of contact for domains with NetSol.
There is no way they could have opted in anywhere since these addresses aren't used for anything other than domain contact.
If one of those people got an unsolicited email, then it's spam, against terms of service, and reasons for terminating the contract.
Monster Hut got that 2% complaint figure thrown in hoping it would save them from getting cut off for spamming, knowing there's no way to get 120,000 separate provable complaints.
But they forgot that that's complaints on truly opted-in spam -- and they should have to prove the opt-in status. They can't -- they're toast.
Indictment simply means that there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. It says NOTHING about if the law is good or not.
Indictments have nothing anymore to do with whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, since the general wisdom is that "A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich."
They are now either rubber stamps for a trial or the legal muscle behind a prosecutorial fishing expedition (e.g., Whitewater). Their original place as protectors of unwarranted prosecution is long gone.
Of course, this fact makes your case even better.
There are actually real people on that network, government workers, airmen, who are doing their daily job. It's probable that you have someone interested in the case, maybe even on your side, who likes to keep up to date with what's going on. Although I haven't visited your site, I'm a good example.
It's that little part not in italics at the end that says "VA is Slashdot's corporate parent."
Christ, we used to not bother reading the linked-to stories, then we stopped reading the whole Slashdot stories, and now we're not even reading the whole teaser before we post a reply?
Most public records laws already have measures in place to safeguard personal privacy. Others, as in the article (I read it!) do need some work to account for personal privacy. A good example is, before records were finally given to APB news on judges' finances, personal information such as address, phone, etc., was redacted.
Records being available in the Internet is very important. Check out www.freedomforum.org to see how hard it is often to get public records in person, with demands to know why, see ID and attempted arrests (especially for public police records such as who's currently in jail). Internet access would allow people to get this information without fear of intimidation.
I have friends who have written congressmen on various injustices being done to them by the government (especially if you're in the Army and getting screwed), and they have always been righted quite quickly.
3. Raises spectre of loss of intellectual property on other levels, and more and more are confiscated for the "public good"
At least in the U.S., the only reason IP is allowed in the first place is for the public good. If you're jacking your prices on a necessary drug, preventing thousands from receiving treatment, that's not in the public good, and you deserve to have your rights curtailed. Also, IIRC, their R&D costs aren't that high, since the government funds much of the research in the first place.
Or maybe Jobs could have use a Photoshop optimized for the Pentium 4's SSE2 as he used a Photoshop optimized for the G4's Altivec.
All that aside, seven supreme court justices were appointed by Republicans. Whatever political favors were owed were paid back in full last December
Justices don't have to pay back any favors, since once they're in, they're in for life. The parties, Congress and President have no leverage at all, just a hope of payback. What future positions of power or influence can they be offered beyond that of the Court? A Justice's fear is only from the other Justices.
SCOTUS history is full of appointees who were supposed to toe the party line of those who appointed them, only to severely disappoint. Just look at Sandra Day O'Connor for an example: Reagan thought she'd be ultra-conservative, and now she's usually the swing vote.
This is why lectures and papers that provide the information to destroy a business's financial security are so dangerous.
As soon as people start saying speech is dangerous, we are in very big trouble. History is full of this rationale for censorship on a number of subjects, most of which you wouldn't consider "dangerous." Speaking out about human rights abuses while in China is currently "dangerous."
At the very least, jailed Russian boy should have informed Adobe of the weaknesses inherent in their encryption scheme before attempting to give this information to the public domain.
IIRC, his company did. Besides, their program was perfectly legal under the laws of their country. It even may have served to make an illegal program, eBook reader, legal by allowing backups.
Furthermore, arguments that revealing the weaknesses of encryption schemes is a public service is bunk in this case, because Adobe's encryption scheme isn't in widespread use.
That is exactly why it is a public service. Luckily, millions of authors didn't start using this format, only to find that it is easily broken.
Don't forget that cracking applications like this actually provide a service. You have certain Constitutional and statutory rights, such as first sale, fair use, and backups. If the content control of a book attempts to take any of these from you, then you have a means of regaining those stolen rights.
Just because something can be used for illegal purposes you propose banning it? Quick, ban mice, I feel like strangling my coworker with the cord!
You might want to consider the fact that there _are_ exceptions to the First Amendment already,
Those exceptions are few and far between and must withstand the utmost scrutiny from courts that hold the First Amendment in higher esteem than you. Prior restraint is very rarely granted, and as shown with the recent Gone With the Wind parody, often overturned if granted. Other attempts at restricting speech are also not taken lightly. If Larry Flynt can prevail against Jerry Falwell in the Supreme Court, we all have a chance.
Detailing weaknesses of an encryption method already put to use by a private company can wreak havoc on their profitability.
And detailing the weaknesses of Firestone tires on Ford Explorers can wreak havoc on their profitability too. Too bad someone didn't do it earlier. If it were software he'd be put in jail for it though.
It is in the public's best interest to expose shoddy workmanship from a corporation, be it tires or security. He did them, us, and authors a favor by exposing this before it got too big.
6) Nintendo treats their 3rd party developers like shit and always has.
Apparently Nintendo has learned their lesson. One of the whole points of the Game Cube is to make it very easy to develop for it. No more buying SGI O2 workstations and ultra-expensive license just to develop. Just get some computers (I believe Macs), get a reasonably-priced license, and go for it.
Also, Nintendo made the developing itself easy. Simple memory architecture and straightforward programming, rather than the extreme hoops you have to jump through to overcome the limited and quirky memory architecture on the PS2.
From what I've seen, the BSA doesn't go after corporations with big money to defend themselves. They just threaten the little-medium guys who would take a beating on legal fees should they turn down the BSA. Same strategy as the IRS.
Please tell me that was sarcastic. Text just doesn't convey sarcasm well, leaving one to guess, and there are too many idiots out there who would actually mean this.
(Yes, Elcomsoft isn't really a competitor to Adobe, except that one use of their product could reduce ebook sales)
I'd only buy an eBook-like format book if I had the means to exercise my fair use and first sale rights. This tool would make me more willing to buy.
The EFF is smarter than that, from the defendant list: "JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES"
Should they win, this makes DMCA criminally unenforceable too.