Frankly, the fact that there is an exploit to reformat peoples hard drives is a GOOD thing IMHO. As a matter of fact, I hope it bites tons of people. The fact that "the average user" doesn't check for updates and maintain their machine NEEDS TO CHANGE.
No, it needs to be made unnecessary. The way Windows handles automatic updates (if you ask it to) is about as good as it gets. My Mom doesn't hang out on BugTraq, but she's perfectly comfortable with rebooting her machine after installing the automatic update that she authorized to install.
The auto is a great example. If you didn't maintain your car (change the tires, fix the brakes, etc.) when it needed to be done, YOU are a danger to yourself and others around you.
Not such a great example. Unlike a car, an exploit like this is not purely a matter of neglect. An unpatched computer is more like a car sitting in your driveway. It's not a danger to anyone until it's exploited.
If my car's sitting unlocked in my driveway when someone wanders into my yard and sets my front seat on fire, then it isn't OK. And it's certainly not a valid means of raising awareness for the proper use of car keys.
Your federal government could easily solve this problem by re-allocating the spectrum to the technologies set to use it in the future.
Easily? Aside from UHF television, which is still very much in use by television stations, parts of the spectrum set for possibe future reallocation also contain public safety radio systems used by police and fire personnel, HAM radio equipment, and other non-trivial applications. You can't just yank the rug out from under all those current systems just because it would make things convenient for some other segment of the market. Not only would it be completely unworkable, it would also be unfair.
If the government was to let the free market allocate the spectrum, an entire new universe of wireless network services could become available.
Ok. First you want the gov't to re-allocate the spectrum by dictatorial decree, current users be damned. Now you want the free market to decide spectrum use. Perhaps you're confused, or maybe just a troll.
Er, how do you think Sony got where they are today? It's not like Joe Sony took out a loan at the Tokyo bank and started soldering Playstations together in his garage. They leveraged the huge profits they made from their other divisions to make a foray into the highly competitive and always risky home gaming console market. Hell, Atari and Nintendo did pretty much the same thing in their day, too.
First off, MS is not operating at a loss. It's an expense. A cost of doing business in a new market that has entrenched competitors. If they were selling the X-Box for $19.95 then, yeah, that would be kinda fishy. But they're not lowball pricing their product at all, just trying to keep up with the rapidly dropping market pricing set by the other dominant companies that are already there. (Pricing which is only possible because those companies already have a sizable investment of their own to protect and leverage.)
Besides, what would you suggest they do? Give up, fire that division's employees, and abandon the market? How would that benefit anyone at all, other than Nintendo and Sony?
The problem with all these arguments is that they miss the point of the First Amendment, which protects any speech, not just speech that national moral standards deem worthwhile.
Not so. The First Amendment most definitely does not protect "any" kind of speech, it never has, and it was never intended to. It prevents the gov't from passing laws that regulate speech for the sake of regulating speech. That doesn't mean that you have can say anything you want to anyone you want at any time you want and not expect the consequences. Nor does it mean that private non-gov't entities have to obey the same rules.
If I take out television ad that falsely claims that you're guilty of some horrible crime, then I am not protected by the First Amendment. If the TV station realizes that I'm lying and decides not to run my advertisment then they are also not guilty of violating my First Amendment rights. Nor can I exersize my free speech rights by casually violating private contracts, official oaths, privacy laws, etc.
People don't like to talk about this openly, but the fact is that most of us like porn, at least in some form. Admittedly, the vast majority of porn has no redeeming social value, but that's not enough to make it against national law. The only reason the laws are as strict as they are is that a rich, highly vocal minority are imposing their religious moral standards upon the rest of the country--standards which are technically unconstitutional because they violate the doctrine of separation of church and state.
Nonsense. First, the laws aren't strict. You can buy, view, or create pretty much any kind of porn you like in this country short of child porn, which is illegal for obvious reasons. The only question here is who funds the access to the porn.
Second, the fact that a given law parallels the moral beliefs of the majority of the population does not make it a violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment. If that were actually so then laws against murder and theft would also be unconstitutional, because, after all, the Bible teaches that those things are sins, and we can't have religion tainting things, can we?
Personally, I think that net filtering is stupid. Watching what people are doing while online and kicking out unruly patrons who break the rules seems to work just fine. Let the Libraries and the communities they exist to serve make these decisions.
This law might be a violation, and if it is the courts will say so. But don't pretend that everything law or government decision that you disagree with is automatically an unjustifiable violation of your rights, because it just ain't necessarily so.
Actually Bush and company are saying pretty much the same thing you are, though perhaps not as forthrightly. It's some scientists who are being dogmatic, presumably because scaring people into doing what you want them to do is much easier than educating them and allowing them to have a part in making a rational decision.
There are other reasons on why people wants to leave the countryside. It's not all about jobs, but the lifestyle you want.
True, but I think a lot of people overlook the advantages of living in a rural setting. Minimal traffic, peace and quiet, lower cost-of-living, less pollution, and nice scenery. Life is more than entertainment and restaurants.
People flock to the cities to enjoy the (generally overpriced) amenities of urban life, and then complain about crowds, crime, and the difficulty of making ends meet while they cram their lives into their $1000/mo efficiency apartments.
Here in rural Maryland I've got lots of coworkers who were willing to take a substantial pay cut to get away from the city and work in an environment that they actually enjoyed. And more options for speedy Internet connectivity would be just one more reason for some people to make the same move. Neither lifestyle is perfect for everyone, of course, but folks should give it a chance before they knock it.
Yes, I suppose MS could do that. But MS has been remarkably restrained about abusing intellectual property laws. I don't see why they'd change tactics at this point. While we're busy demonizing companies I'll point out that Apple and Adobe, just to name two, have been downright evil sometimes.
What ESR wants to do with his money is his own business, and it's unfair to bash him because of it.
But the same is true of Bill Gates. Gates doesn't have tens of billions of dollars stuffed into his matress. That's his net worth, including stock and all sort of assets other than cash. Furthermore, Gates has said that he intends to give away most of his fortune, over time (leaving some for his heirs.)
Many well-known charities are notoriously inefficient when it comes to handling money, and Gates understandably doesn't wish to see the money he gives away wasted. Which charities or philanthropoc efforts he supports and when he supports them is entirely up to him, as it should be. Leave the man alone.
The problem lies in having no probable cause and merely getting a listing of people who have checked out "book x". These people have done nothing wrong necessarily and therefore the government has no right to see those records. They have committed no crime. It is almost like saying that checking out that book is illegal.
No, it's not saying that, not even "almost". The gov't isn't preventing you from checking out the book, and it isn't doing anything to you because you checked out the book. After getting "a court order or a subpoena" (per the article) the FBI gets a list of who checked out a particular book of interest to their investigation. Just like the FBI can go over to the local Borders bookstore and get a list of who bought the same book. Again, why should libraries be exempt?
That's a good question. And if absolute anonymity is granted to public library patrons, then what makes them so special?
Let's say the FBI is investigating a poisoning. One of their possible suspects is known to have visited a hardware store a few days before the murder. An agent gets a warrant and asks the store manager for a copy of the suspect's receipt. The receipt indicates that the suspect purchased a poison, the same poison used in the murder. Aha. Obviously this suspect is worth investigating a bit more closely. Fearing that the suspect might panic, flee or destroy evidence, the employees of the hardware store are told not to say anything to the suspect about the investigation.
I hear that examining receipts and tracking purchases is a fairly common method of gathering evidence. And I'd imagine that most people involved in a criminal investigation are asked not to tell the person being investigated exactly what the police are doing, for obvious reasons.
So, any objections to that first scenario? Ok, try this variation:
Let's say the FBI is investigating a poisoning. One of their possible suspects is known to have visited a library a few days before the murder. An agent gets a warrant and asks the librarian for a copy of the suspect's borrowing records. The records indicate that the suspect borrowed a medical text about the dosages and effects of various poisons, including the same poison used in the murder. Aha. Obviously this suspect is worth investigating a bit more closely. Fearing that the suspect might panic, flee or destroy evidence, the librarians are told not to say anything to the suspect about the investigation.
You tell me, what's the difference? Why should police investigating a crime be denied access to that information? And what is so ominious about librarians being asked to keep quiet about an ongoing investigation?
If different standards are to be enforced, should these same special rules apply to bookstores, newsstands, or private libraries? Or are the books and employees found in public libraries unique in some way?
Yes there was. Even more than there is now. Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it.
"Anyone" with access to printing press, you mean. And in Colonial America that's not a huge number of people. It's not like everyone had a laser printer at their house.
A better idea would be to leave the date where it is and make the day a national holiday. Among other problems, moving the elections to Saturday or Sunday would probably raise religious objections.
No, Intentia published the information when they put it up on their web site. Reuters just reported what Intentia made publically available to anyone who thought to look.
Anyone who has a web site probably has unlinked pages hanging around, or directories excluded from indexing with robots.txt. The difference is that most of us are smart enough to realize that those pages aren't private or secure, just out of the way and unlikely to be seen. Intentia apparently has trouble grasping this concept.
Re:An Interesting Alternate Universe Idea
on
Superhero Smackdown
·
· Score: 2
Sounds like the "Speeding Bullets" Elseworlds graphic novel. That was very well done.
Superman was reluctant to fight Batman. After all, he and Bruce Wayne had been allies many times in the past. But, in DKR, Superman operates as an agent of the United States Government, and the gov't is upset with Batman's unsanctioned activities. Law-and-order type that he is, Supes can't bring himself to defy a direct order and flies off to confront Batman.
Batman knows what's coming and has prepared for the inevitable. He's got himself a nifty exoskeleton with a pocketful of kryptonite. As the fight progresses and he inevitably finds himself outmatched Batman hauls out the kryptonite. Batman then drops dead of a heart attack.
Of course, he's really faking it so he can start over without being hounded by the authorities. Superman's fooled at the time, but while attending Batman's funeral he hears Bruce's heart start up again and he realizes what's going on. Having been reluctant to go after Batman in the first place he happily keeps the truth to himself and lets Batman "win".
But nobody really won. Superman's heart wasn't really in it, and, as you say, Batman threw the fight when he had an advantage.
Well spoken, but you're presenting a false dilemma. It's not a choice between feeding starving people OR giving them a computer. The volunteer resources, in particular, that are being directed toward the latter goal are unlikely to help very much if redirected to the first goal.
Nor is implementing technology a waste of time for people in dire straits, as you seem to imply. Consider email communications to experts in other parts of the country or on the other side of the planet; Internet access to scientific, medical and agricultural resources; and the ability to coordinate programs to avoid duplication of effort. These are some of the things we all take for granted, but take them away and your making a very hard job even more difficult.
Each time, the primary examiner has revalidated our patent - and then his boss overrides his conclusion & throws our patent out (the same boss each time), usually without a reason.
How about speaking to the boss's boss? Even if they can't directly intervene in the case they've gotta be able to take a look at what their own employees are doing.
I don't know of any rights granted to me by the constitution
Well, he's right, but not in the way he intended. The Constituion doesn't grant rights to the people, it witholds powers from the government. That is and always was the intent when it was created and ratified. The Bill of Rights, enumerating basic human rights explictly, were included in the Constitution at the same time as a safeguard. This was done at the insistence of those framers who were afraid that people/govt would forget that original intent. It's probably contributed to some confusion over the years, but in retrospect it was probably a wise decision.
As the saying goes, a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
Re:Those aren't LCDs people buy
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 2
Amen. It was after reviewing that thread that I bought a Dell 2000FP 20" display to replace my slowly dying 21" CRT. Very, very nice. And I personally prefer the understated black styling.
It could be that they're doing a clever bit of market segmentation. People who buy SCSI drives are already willing to pay a premium for their SCSI preference/requirement. If a drive manufacturer can keep that small but lucrative market happy with a longer warranty then it might be worth the additional cost. Especially if the mfr needs to keep a stock of older drives around anyway for those customers who require an identical replacement unit in their RAID arrays.
"If all browsers adhere to the standards very strictly then no non-compliant pages can be viewed with them."
No one except web designers care about whether a page is "compliant" or not. They just want to see the web page. Making a browser that doesn't browse what they want to see is hardly a step toward wider acessibility of information.
I agree that legislation is the wrong answer, but what we really need are better assistive technologies. You'll never get rid of all the stairs in the world, so instead concentrate on making a wheelchair that climb the stairs. Likewise, you'll never get rid of non-compliant pages, so instead make a smarter screen reader that can figure this stuff out.
It galls some people to say it, but slack standards and the ease of publishing that they faciltiated are what allowed the web to succeed in the first place. Sloppy commercial sites with dumb mistakes that make them inaccessible should be an embarrasment to the companies that make them, but maybe the fact that they don't care enough to make their web site usable should make you question how they feel about you as a customer.
The whole idea behind patents, copyright, etc. was to empower individual inventors, scholars, and other creative people for the public good. Instead, current IP law empowers corporate non-persons (who are only people on paper) for private advantage, totally turning the original concept on its head.
Since when? It's perfectly legitimate for corporations to hold patents, copyrights, and trademarks. If an invention is created by a dozen engineers working with their colleages, utilizing millions of dollars of equipment with all development costs and research paid for by the company that employes them, then what "individual" has a right to that patent?
Your initial premise is flawed. Copyrights and patents were designed to encourage the creation of new stuff, allow the creators to make a buck, and then have those creations slip back into the public domain after a set period of time. That's all. It never has mattered who came up with the idea, be it "powerless innovator" or those twisted and exploitative evil corporate monsters lurking under your bed.
"Why should one hesitate to call something what it is in plain language? Yes we all have biases, but I don't think the comments ammounted to bias, but an honest reaction to what was taking place in his courtroom."
Ok, let's say you're on trial for insurance fraud. In the middle of the case, while the trail is underway, the judge makes a statement to the media where he expresses his personal dislike for you, strongly implies that you're guilty as sin, and states that you should be severely punished for your crimes. That's his "honest reaction", so it's ok with you?
Of course it isn't. Judges have no business publically expressing their personal opinions on or being political pundits while in the middle of a legal proceeding. Their job is to be impartial, and anything less is unfair to everyone involved.
if you bought a house in the last 2 years, you're going to look worse than this guy after the bubble bursts in the housing market.
houses arent that great of investments, and unless you are sure you are going to be in it for 5-10 years, you will get screwed.
Houses aren't investments, at least not primarily. They're places to live. Don't buy a house based on what you think the next person might want. Buy a house that you like to live in, in a location that you like to live in.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, the fact that there is an exploit to reformat peoples hard drives is a GOOD thing IMHO. As a matter of fact, I hope it bites tons of people. The fact that "the average user" doesn't check for updates and maintain their machine NEEDS TO CHANGE.
No, it needs to be made unnecessary. The way Windows handles automatic updates (if you ask it to) is about as good as it gets. My Mom doesn't hang out on BugTraq, but she's perfectly comfortable with rebooting her machine after installing the automatic update that she authorized to install.
The auto is a great example. If you didn't maintain your car (change the tires, fix the brakes, etc.) when it needed to be done, YOU are a danger to yourself and others around you.
Not such a great example. Unlike a car, an exploit like this is not purely a matter of neglect. An unpatched computer is more like a car sitting in your driveway. It's not a danger to anyone until it's exploited.
If my car's sitting unlocked in my driveway when someone wanders into my yard and sets my front seat on fire, then it isn't OK. And it's certainly not a valid means of raising awareness for the proper use of car keys.
Your federal government could easily solve this problem by re-allocating the spectrum to the technologies set to use it in the future.
Easily? Aside from UHF television, which is still very much in use by television stations, parts of the spectrum set for possibe future reallocation also contain public safety radio systems used by police and fire personnel, HAM radio equipment, and other non-trivial applications. You can't just yank the rug out from under all those current systems just because it would make things convenient for some other segment of the market. Not only would it be completely unworkable, it would also be unfair.
If the government was to let the free market allocate the spectrum, an entire new universe of wireless network services could become available.
Ok. First you want the gov't to re-allocate the spectrum by dictatorial decree, current users be damned. Now you want the free market to decide spectrum use. Perhaps you're confused, or maybe just a troll.
Er, how do you think Sony got where they are today? It's not like Joe Sony took out a loan at the Tokyo bank and started soldering Playstations together in his garage. They leveraged the huge profits they made from their other divisions to make a foray into the highly competitive and always risky home gaming console market. Hell, Atari and Nintendo did pretty much the same thing in their day, too.
First off, MS is not operating at a loss. It's an expense. A cost of doing business in a new market that has entrenched competitors. If they were selling the X-Box for $19.95 then, yeah, that would be kinda fishy. But they're not lowball pricing their product at all, just trying to keep up with the rapidly dropping market pricing set by the other dominant companies that are already there. (Pricing which is only possible because those companies already have a sizable investment of their own to protect and leverage.)
Besides, what would you suggest they do? Give up, fire that division's employees, and abandon the market? How would that benefit anyone at all, other than Nintendo and Sony?
The problem with all these arguments is that they miss the point of the First Amendment, which protects any speech, not just speech that national moral standards deem worthwhile.
Not so. The First Amendment most definitely does not protect "any" kind of speech, it never has, and it was never intended to. It prevents the gov't from passing laws that regulate speech for the sake of regulating speech. That doesn't mean that you have can say anything you want to anyone you want at any time you want and not expect the consequences. Nor does it mean that private non-gov't entities have to obey the same rules.
If I take out television ad that falsely claims that you're guilty of some horrible crime, then I am not protected by the First Amendment. If the TV station realizes that I'm lying and decides not to run my advertisment then they are also not guilty of violating my First Amendment rights. Nor can I exersize my free speech rights by casually violating private contracts, official oaths, privacy laws, etc.
People don't like to talk about this openly, but the fact is that most of us like porn, at least in some form. Admittedly, the vast majority of porn has no redeeming social value, but that's not enough to make it against national law. The only reason the laws are as strict as they are is that a rich, highly vocal minority are imposing their religious moral standards upon the rest of the country--standards which are technically unconstitutional because they violate the doctrine of separation of church and state.
Nonsense. First, the laws aren't strict. You can buy, view, or create pretty much any kind of porn you like in this country short of child porn, which is illegal for obvious reasons. The only question here is who funds the access to the porn.
Second, the fact that a given law parallels the moral beliefs of the majority of the population does not make it a violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment. If that were actually so then laws against murder and theft would also be unconstitutional, because, after all, the Bible teaches that those things are sins, and we can't have religion tainting things, can we?
Personally, I think that net filtering is stupid. Watching what people are doing while online and kicking out unruly patrons who break the rules seems to work just fine. Let the Libraries and the communities they exist to serve make these decisions.
This law might be a violation, and if it is the courts will say so. But don't pretend that everything law or government decision that you disagree with is automatically an unjustifiable violation of your rights, because it just ain't necessarily so.
Actually Bush and company are saying pretty much the same thing you are, though perhaps not as forthrightly. It's some scientists who are being dogmatic, presumably because scaring people into doing what you want them to do is much easier than educating them and allowing them to have a part in making a rational decision.
There are other reasons on why people wants to leave the countryside. It's not all about jobs, but the lifestyle you want.
True, but I think a lot of people overlook the advantages of living in a rural setting. Minimal traffic, peace and quiet, lower cost-of-living, less pollution, and nice scenery. Life is more than entertainment and restaurants.
People flock to the cities to enjoy the (generally overpriced) amenities of urban life, and then complain about crowds, crime, and the difficulty of making ends meet while they cram their lives into their $1000/mo efficiency apartments.
Here in rural Maryland I've got lots of coworkers who were willing to take a substantial pay cut to get away from the city and work in an environment that they actually enjoyed. And more options for speedy Internet connectivity would be just one more reason for some people to make the same move. Neither lifestyle is perfect for everyone, of course, but folks should give it a chance before they knock it.
Yes, I suppose MS could do that. But MS has been remarkably restrained about abusing intellectual property laws. I don't see why they'd change tactics at this point. While we're busy demonizing companies I'll point out that Apple and Adobe, just to name two, have been downright evil sometimes.
What ESR wants to do with his money is his own business, and it's unfair to bash him because of it.
But the same is true of Bill Gates. Gates doesn't have tens of billions of dollars stuffed into his matress. That's his net worth, including stock and all sort of assets other than cash. Furthermore, Gates has said that he intends to give away most of his fortune, over time (leaving some for his heirs.)
Many well-known charities are notoriously inefficient when it comes to handling money, and Gates understandably doesn't wish to see the money he gives away wasted. Which charities or philanthropoc efforts he supports and when he supports them is entirely up to him, as it should be. Leave the man alone.
The problem lies in having no probable cause and merely getting a listing of people who have checked out "book x". These people have done nothing wrong necessarily and therefore the government has no right to see those records. They have committed no crime. It is almost like saying that checking out that book is illegal.
No, it's not saying that, not even "almost". The gov't isn't preventing you from checking out the book, and it isn't doing anything to you because you checked out the book. After getting "a court order or a subpoena" (per the article) the FBI gets a list of who checked out a particular book of interest to their investigation. Just like the FBI can go over to the local Borders bookstore and get a list of who bought the same book. Again, why should libraries be exempt?
That's a good question. And if absolute anonymity is granted to public library patrons, then what makes them so special?
Let's say the FBI is investigating a poisoning. One of their possible suspects is known to have visited a hardware store a few days before the murder. An agent gets a warrant and asks the store manager for a copy of the suspect's receipt. The receipt indicates that the suspect purchased a poison, the same poison used in the murder. Aha. Obviously this suspect is worth investigating a bit more closely. Fearing that the suspect might panic, flee or destroy evidence, the employees of the hardware store are told not to say anything to the suspect about the investigation.
I hear that examining receipts and tracking purchases is a fairly common method of gathering evidence. And I'd imagine that most people involved in a criminal investigation are asked not to tell the person being investigated exactly what the police are doing, for obvious reasons.
So, any objections to that first scenario? Ok, try this variation:
Let's say the FBI is investigating a poisoning. One of their possible suspects is known to have visited a library a few days before the murder. An agent gets a warrant and asks the librarian for a copy of the suspect's borrowing records. The records indicate that the suspect borrowed a medical text about the dosages and effects of various poisons, including the same poison used in the murder. Aha. Obviously this suspect is worth investigating a bit more closely.
Fearing that the suspect might panic, flee or destroy evidence, the librarians are told not to say anything to the suspect about the investigation.
You tell me, what's the difference? Why should police investigating a crime be denied access to that information? And what is so ominious about librarians being asked to keep quiet about an ongoing investigation?
If different standards are to be enforced, should these same special rules apply to bookstores, newsstands, or private libraries? Or are the books and employees found in public libraries unique in some way?
Yes there was. Even more than there is now. Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it.
"Anyone" with access to printing press, you mean. And in Colonial America that's not a huge number of people. It's not like everyone had a laser printer at their house.
A better idea would be to leave the date where it is and make the day a national holiday. Among other problems, moving the elections to Saturday or Sunday would probably raise religious objections.
No, Intentia published the information when they put it up on their web site. Reuters just reported what Intentia made publically available to anyone who thought to look.
Anyone who has a web site probably has unlinked pages hanging around, or directories excluded from indexing with robots.txt. The difference is that most of us are smart enough to realize that those pages aren't private or secure, just out of the way and unlikely to be seen. Intentia apparently has trouble grasping this concept.
Sounds like the "Speeding Bullets" Elseworlds graphic novel. That was very well done.
Perhaps you should re-read it yourself.
Superman was reluctant to fight Batman. After all, he and Bruce Wayne had been allies many times in the past. But, in DKR, Superman operates as an agent of the United States Government, and the gov't is upset with Batman's unsanctioned activities. Law-and-order type that he is, Supes can't bring himself to defy a direct order and flies off to confront Batman.
Batman knows what's coming and has prepared for the inevitable. He's got himself a nifty exoskeleton with a pocketful of kryptonite. As the fight progresses and he inevitably finds himself outmatched Batman hauls out the kryptonite. Batman then drops dead of a heart attack.
Of course, he's really faking it so he can start over without being hounded by the authorities. Superman's fooled at the time, but while attending Batman's funeral he hears Bruce's heart start up again and he realizes what's going on. Having been reluctant to go after Batman in the first place he happily keeps the truth to himself and lets Batman "win".
But nobody really won. Superman's heart wasn't really in it, and, as you say, Batman threw the fight when he had an advantage.
Well spoken, but you're presenting a false dilemma. It's not a choice between feeding starving people OR giving them a computer. The volunteer resources, in particular, that are being directed toward the latter goal are unlikely to help very much if redirected to the first goal.
Nor is implementing technology a waste of time for people in dire straits, as you seem to imply. Consider email communications to experts in other parts of the country or on the other side of the planet; Internet access to scientific, medical and agricultural resources; and the ability to coordinate programs to avoid duplication of effort. These are some of the things we all take for granted, but take them away and your making a very hard job even more difficult.
Each time, the primary examiner has revalidated our patent - and then his boss overrides his conclusion & throws our patent out (the same boss each time), usually without a reason.
How about speaking to the boss's boss? Even if they can't directly intervene in the case they've gotta be able to take a look at what their own employees are doing.
I don't know of any rights granted to me by the constitution
Well, he's right, but not in the way he intended. The Constituion doesn't grant rights to the people, it witholds powers from the government. That is and always was the intent when it was created and ratified. The Bill of Rights, enumerating basic human rights explictly, were included in the Constitution at the same time as a safeguard. This was done at the insistence of those framers who were afraid that people/govt would forget that original intent. It's probably contributed to some confusion over the years, but in retrospect it was probably a wise decision.
As the saying goes, a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
Amen. It was after reviewing that thread that I bought a Dell 2000FP 20" display to replace my slowly dying 21" CRT. Very, very nice. And I personally prefer the understated black styling.
It could be that they're doing a clever bit of market segmentation. People who buy SCSI drives are already willing to pay a premium for their SCSI preference/requirement. If a drive manufacturer can keep that small but lucrative market happy with a longer warranty then it might be worth the additional cost. Especially if the mfr needs to keep a stock of older drives around anyway for those customers who require an identical replacement unit in their RAID arrays.
"If all browsers adhere to the standards very strictly then no non-compliant pages can be viewed with them."
No one except web designers care about whether a page is "compliant" or not. They just want to see the web page. Making a browser that doesn't browse what they want to see is hardly a step toward wider acessibility of information.
I agree that legislation is the wrong answer, but what we really need are better assistive technologies. You'll never get rid of all the stairs in the world, so instead concentrate on making a wheelchair that climb the stairs. Likewise, you'll never get rid of non-compliant pages, so instead make a smarter screen reader that can figure this stuff out.
It galls some people to say it, but slack standards and the ease of publishing that they faciltiated are what allowed the web to succeed in the first place. Sloppy commercial sites with dumb mistakes that make them inaccessible should be an embarrasment to the companies that make them, but maybe the fact that they don't care enough to make their web site usable should make you question how they feel about you as a customer.
The whole idea behind patents, copyright, etc. was to empower individual inventors, scholars, and other creative people for the public good. Instead, current IP law empowers corporate non-persons (who are only people on paper) for private advantage, totally turning the original concept on its head.
Since when? It's perfectly legitimate for corporations to hold patents, copyrights, and trademarks. If an invention is created by a dozen engineers working with their colleages, utilizing millions of dollars of equipment with all development costs and research paid for by the company that employes them, then what "individual" has a right to that patent?
Your initial premise is flawed. Copyrights and patents were designed to encourage the creation of new stuff, allow the creators to make a buck, and then have those creations slip back into the public domain after a set period of time. That's all. It never has mattered who came up with the idea, be it "powerless innovator" or those twisted and exploitative evil corporate monsters lurking under your bed.
"Why should one hesitate to call something what it is in plain language? Yes we all have biases, but I don't think the comments ammounted to bias, but an honest reaction to what was taking place in his courtroom."
Ok, let's say you're on trial for insurance fraud. In the middle of the case, while the trail is underway, the judge makes a statement to the media where he expresses his personal dislike for you, strongly implies that you're guilty as sin, and states that you should be severely punished for your crimes. That's his "honest reaction", so it's ok with you?
Of course it isn't. Judges have no business publically expressing their personal opinions on or being political pundits while in the middle of a legal proceeding. Their job is to be impartial, and anything less is unfair to everyone involved.
if you bought a house in the last 2 years, you're going to look worse than this guy after the bubble bursts in the housing market.
houses arent that great of investments, and unless you are sure you are going to be in it for 5-10 years, you will get screwed.
Houses aren't investments, at least not primarily. They're places to live. Don't buy a house based on what you think the next person might want. Buy a house that you like to live in, in a location that you like to live in.