After reading the article and seeing that S3G has stated "No comment" after being asked about including HDMI on their cards, perhaps they may want to shoot for the, ummm, grey market where people who DO NOT want their computers controlled by outside forces buy their equipment? Maybe even supply areas of the world that want HDMI but without the annoying HDCP that goes along with it so they can still use older monitors/TVs _AND_ still get high definition video - not "oh, that's not a registered device with Central Command Authority! Thou shalt have only 480i. No HD for you!!"
Personally, I'm getting beyond tired of technology companies who, some singularly and definitely collectively, make more money than Holly-hood, err, Hollywood bending over backward to placate them. Yes, I know that the studios/**AA control the media/content for the most part but if the _major_ technology players stand up and say "Well, we control the technology everyone uses to your content and there is no other tech company(ies) large enough to challenge all of us so THIS is how we're going to play ball." then WTF would Hollywood do except try to get more laws passed? Then all the technology companies that opposed Hollywood could band together to fight that off as well - dollar for dollar and then some. What would happen to the products that those companies that stood up to Hollywood do - especially when the tech-oriented crowd started praising them to friends/family/etc? Sell multiple, multiples of items that are free of DRM and friendly to the CONSUMER? Wow, what a frigging concept! Make products friendly towards the consumer, don't treat them like a dollar with a body attached, treat fair use rights as they should be treated, don't treat the customer like a criminal from the get-go, tell the **AAs to fuck off and fight piracy where it counts (you know, those media distributors in Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Russia, etc), and make millions upon millions of dollars.
Whew, I've had a very long day.. I think I need lots of sleep now. Sorry for the rant.
Didn't they do this one and it sucked? Yes, they did. I'm betting that this one will be much better since Marvel has, in general, improved on the amount of cash it can spend, the talent it can acquire, and scriptwriters/scripts.
The Avengers
A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group. Umm, yeah, see Captain America. Not to mention Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Thor, Iron Man, Wasp, Black Panther, Moon Kinght, Black Knight, Ant Man (I believe - see a pattern forming here?), and numerous others.
Nick Fury
I guess because the Punisher movie worked so well... I am not sure why they can't seem to get The Punisher to work correctly.. Maybe they need to tell the story WITHOUT putting in a love interest, touchy-feely crap. Show the Punisher as he is/was in the 80s - a driven, kill-em-all-let-God-sort-em-out kind of a guy. Sure, he concentrates on the evil people most of the time but his methods are usually quite brutal and to the point. Nick Fury is along those same lines. Linked to several superhero groups and to a TON of evilness and bad guys/girls. Close ties with Captain America as well. Wow, still seeing a pettern here?
Black Panther
Ah, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that. The Black Panther has been around for a long time in the Marvel Universe with no backlash that I am aware of and I have read/collected/followed comics and the comic world for a LONG time. He is usually well-written and with pretty good story lines. Yes, he would probably be considered B-list in the Marvel Universe but then again, so would the majority of superheros in their universe - including one I truly enjoy, Dr. Strange.
Ant-Man
Honey, I shrunk the superhero! Yeah, Ant-Man is another B-list superhero but it could make an interesting movie since he has been around for a LONG time and is affiliated with several of the Marvel superhero groups. Could have lots of walk-ons/tie-ins with other superheros.
Cloak & Dagger
Not that Cloak was a completely contrived character, or that Dagger wore far too little clothing, but how could this movie possibly be interesting? Well, I see this movie going one of two ways - it will either be marketed directly toward the teen crowd (since Cloak & Dagger were teens) with lots of "in" things going on in the movie or Marvel will push the PG-13 rating, make Cloak much darker, and dress Dagger with much less clothing and try to appeal to teens/twenties/horny males.:-p
Dr. Strange
Who? Dr. Strange, Master of the Mystic Arts. Think of a little like Call of Cthulu meets Marvel but Dr. Strange doesn't go all psychotic because he has delved into the occult. Faces some pretty cool enemies like Mephisto, The Mindless Ones, Shuma Gorath, Dormammu, and several others - all of them demonic or Cthulu-ish in nature. So, done correctly, Dr. Strange could make a great Occult/Horror movie. Done correctly.
Hawkeye
Ah, Daredevil without charisma, but empowered with a ridiculous costume. Heh, well, yeah. Decent back story on Hawkeye though AND, like Ant-Man, ties in with lots of Marvel superhero groups so there could easily be tie-ins and walk-ons and cameos. They could also make him a little darker of a character along the lines of Batman and probably make a cool story out of it.
Power Pack
Never heard of them. DEFINITELY aimed at the under-teen crowd. Child marketing at its best I'm sure. Power Pack is a group of children with, well, super powers. Rainbow-like and all that. See: not for those above 12.
Shang-Chi
Is this like the token Asian guy? Shang-Chi, The Master of Kung-fu. Son of Fu Manchu. One of the licensed products of Marvel and it had a pretty long run. Some pretty cool villians and, of course, Shang-Chi has a Bruce Lee feel to it. Linked to several Marvel s
Yeah... right. I know you were just being funny but here is one thing to think about: I am the geek next door (not a kid) and I own firearms. Which I know how to use _very_ well. I'm definitely not the only "geek" type with firearms either;-) as I know a LOT of people who could be considered geek/nerd enjoy firearms of all types. Welcome to the well-armed new geek world!
And what part of this isn't achievable with dial-up?
Well, my thinking is speed. Even heavily laden text only pages take a WHILE to download on a 56k modem. Speed is key! We are a society of the "instant" - fast food, keyless entry for cars, 1 hour instant photomats, digital cameras (snap! ooh, look, pretty picture), and so on and so forth. No one wants to sit around twirling their thumbs while waiting on pages to download - and, let's face it, the majority of the web has graphics somewhere on the page even if it is a basically text site. So, to facilitate the well-informed public, FAST access to the information - or think of it as TIMELY access to the information - is crucial. It would take a radical shift in how webpage designers, err, design pages not to mention a _lot_ of work to redo current pages to make ubiquitous web access on a 56k connection work. Therefore, universal broadband is a major key for the well-informed public. Does that clarify my universal broadband stance?
I'll play advocate to your advocate: What will universal broadband access give us? In due course (and with help from people like us - tech savvy, net smart, somewhat politically inclined, and - in general - more knowledgable about tech issues) universal broadband access can give us a WELL-INFORMED PUBLIC that is better able to make decisions and therefore elect BETTER leaders for the USA. Not only that, but a well-informed public is also less likely to be overwhelmed by bullshit like the "free Iraq" campaign the current regime, errrr, powers that be have foisted on the citizens of the United States.
How about the fact that universal broadband access can give those who desperately want an education and a way out of their current level of living a place to get it? Access to the almost sum total of human knowledge at their fingertips - my God, what could an intelligent, curious, free-thinking child do with the knowledge they can access over the internet? Universal broadband access could, conceivably, level the education field by filling in gaps in children's education left by what is currently called school in the United States. Sure, this will take some time, _parental_ involvement (beyond just paying the bills), and maybe outside help (the digital village as it were - I know I always seem to connect with like-minded people who, it seems, never fail to turn me on to new knowledge both in and outside my fields).
Universal broadband access will also give the citizens of the United States access to OTHER news sources than just the claptrap fed to them by Fox News and CNN and others. Places like the BBC and other international news organizations and just by having access to these other news sources it will help fulfill the first point I made - a well-informed public. Let me take a moment and freely admit that the level of apathy in the world and the US especially will make getting the public to that well-informed state a task, I also believe that - just as I stated above - with the help of those citizens who are tech savvy, know the web, and are more knowledgable reaching out to our friends, family, and others and sharing that knowledge (information wants to be free has multiple meanings my friends) then we can spread the memes we hold dear... knowledge is power, the power to be free, the power to make informed decisions based on multiple views of the "facts" and not one-sided opinions based on the media conglomerates in the US, and there are many more ideals/memes that/. as a whole holds dear along these lines. Too numerous to mention them all.
Here are a few quotes to illustrate a couple of my points:
---> If good government ultimately follows the will of the people, then good government requires a well-informed public. When the public is misled, seeds of bad government are sown. (David P. Rall speaking on the Envrironment and Public Health but I think it holds true _regardless_ of what the topic is.)
---> God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. (Thomas Jefferson - November 13, 1787, letter to William Stephens Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy)
---> Here is a link to an interesting article titled Is Media a Danger to Democracy? I haven't read the whole thing but what I did gives some insight into issues I've stated.
If a cop pulls you over for speeding and sees your stash in the back seat, then he has every right to search the rest of your vehicle and arrest you (according to the law, anyway).
This is an incorrect analogy for one MAJOR reason: If the cop stops me and sees my stash in the back seat of my car then he sees it because it is IN PLAIN SIGHT. If the files in question above are not on the desktop and are not in a directory that a technician would need to be in (/win,/win32,/winnt, etc) then the files were NOT in plain sight and the technician was "fishing" around in my system without my authorization. The technician probably had NO business being in the folder he was in and was _tresspassing_ on my private property. If I drop off my computer to a technician to fix, I expressly grant him permission to my operating system and those file necessary to fix the issue - AND ONLY THOSE FILES. Period. That technician has no business whatsoever for tresspassing on my private files on my computer and he certainly has no reason to do searches for.jpg files,.wav files,.mov files,.wmv files, or ANY OTHER frigging filetype along those lines since 99.999 percent of the time those filetypes are not involved in fixing a computer issue.
On the rest of your statements, I pretty much agree - it was not the person who found the pics responsibility to call the police and it was a bad move on the police's part to not get a search warrant based on the "tip". As for the files not being in plain view being moot, I don't think it is. I would argue this case based on the fact the tech was clearly looking for information outside of his job function (tresspassing on private property) as well as the fact the police screwed up by not getting a search warrant (fourth amendment violation). As usual, the IANAL applies to this post... but I'd still argue it that way and argue with my lawyer to argue it that way;-).
First off... redundant? Posting in the first 30 responses and get modded redundant. Lovely. Oh well, to be expected I guess.
To respond to my respondents: As far as buying textbooks that you will never use again, you can always sell back the non e-Book version and, according to TFA, you cannot get any money back on ye olde e-Book. This whole issue still smacks of exactly what the article touches on: the ability for publishers to cut out the used book market where students can save money for next term and make a little money at the end of term.
As far as me NOT reading the frigging answer before replying - what I said still holds true. The whole 33% off is a ploy by the publishers. It doesn't matter that, for now, they are still selling dead tree varieties of books. If they managed to get 1% of the sales as e-Books I'm sure the publishers will hail it as a success and start ranting and raving about how they no longer see the need to print good old dead tree books when the electronic versions work JUST as well. Except, of course, they don't. You paid for electrons that you no longer have access to. No reference materials for later courses or later in life when you might need them. Nothing physical to show what you just dropped $50 - $250 or more on. No way to make back 1/3 of that money at the end of term selling the book back to the store or to another student. Suddenly the publisher is in complete control and all that money you spent was wasted since even the best and brightest still refer back to texts every now and then - but, oh yeah, you have nothing but vanished electrons and that 1/3 of the cash you didn't spend on books.
this is bullshit. I didn't read TFA and really do not need to. Anytime I see time-limited access to knowledge I am paying a ton of money for (like my textbooks - which I can use as references later) then I call bullshit. Knowledge should always be for the good of all, not for the good of a few. Trying to lock it away under the guise of a DISCOUNT for the student is utter nonsense and a sham. I was hoping our Universities and academia would stand up for the freedoms that most of us hold dear - they want you to pay for the knowledge they impart to you, but they also want it to be free (as in free thinkers). My humble $.02 US.
lol! Yeah, I know, I was _trying_ to be funny. Guess Monday isn't my day to be funny. Come to think on it, any day ending in Y probably isn't my day for being funny '-)
Err, no. Besides, your statements contradict themselves. First you say that the FBI statistics imply that 99% of privately owned weapons haven't been used and then you say that it could be ANY percentage. Unless the FBI is completely clueless, I think their stats are pretty accurate - especially since I was discussing the narrow range of just fully auctomatic weapons. Not to mention that I didn't say privately owned weapons, I said privately owned FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons. There are a lot of privately owned weapons that have been used in crimes, I was speaking ONLY of fully automatic weapons which narrows the field a lot. It is very hard, but not impossible, for a privately owned fully automatic weapon to be used in the commission of a crime in the US due to the fact that those guns have their ballistic profiles on file with the BATF/FBI. Now, unlicensed, unregistered, and stolen fully automatic weapons are used in the commission of crimes - but those that were stolen are tracked back to their orignal owners via ballistic profiles (if possible, I admit there are times when it might not be possible). So, please compare apples to apples and not overly broad "weapons" vs. narrowly defined "fully automatic weapons".
but your statement is only partially correct. Yes, we can go out and buy a rifle fairly easily but Americans cannot go out and _legally_ buy a machine-gun (a fully automatic weapon) without a lot of background checks, a class III Federal Firearms License/permit (I believe I have the right one), and paying a fee per year to own said weapon. Plus, I believe with the license/permit it goes that if someone uses a machine-gun weapon in a crime in your area the police/FBI/etc can drop by your house and ask to check your weapon plus they have the ballistics on file as well. So the notion that Americans all own Uzis, M-16s, and other fully automatic weapons is highly overblown. Yes, there are a LOT of these style weapons in private citizens hands but according to FBI statistics, less than 1% of ALL privately-owned fully automatic weapons have ever been used in the comission of a crime. Please reread that - less than 1%. That means that 99% of the crimes that are committed with fully automatic weapons are done so with illegally obtained weapons. Hence my statement to everyone who talks about gun control and removing guns from private citizens hands - "When the police/FBI/etc. can make criminals follow the law, I'll consider giving up my gun. Until a criminal, who BY DEFINITION doesn't follow the law anyway, give up his guns I will not give up mine." I mean, why should I _not_ have the same degree of latitude to defend myself as the criminal has to attack me?
As far as the consensual sex in a video game, yeah, I think American prudish behavior is completely fucked - pun intended:)
that no one in their right minds would ever adopt Longhorn. All it will take is word of mouth from the technically inclined explaining to the general public that this is BAD. That this is only one example of how Microsoft and the "content providers" want to be able to CONTROL what you can and cannot do with the computer/monitor that YOU paid YOUR hard-earned money for. Microsoft damn sure didn't pay for your computer, **AA damn sure didn't pay for your computer, and no one else paid for it either! YOU paid for your computer system and YOU should be in control of what "content" you view on it, how you view it, and what you do with that content (except, of course, for selling copyrighted material for profit) INCLUDING the ability to time-shift, format-shift, and any other damn shift you wish. Under no cicrumstances should Microsoft be the arbiter of what a person can view, at what resolution, how they can view it, or any thing else. Until Microsoft buys a computer for me then _I_ decide the hows, whys, and wherefors of material on my computer.
As a group, Slashdot should rise up and vehemently oppose this in public. Start talking to local newspapers, friends, neighbors, and anyone else and explain in easily understood terms that this is an invasion of your person and private property and that it is BAD, BAD, BAAAAAAD. Do no support it.
Riiiiiight, flamebait. Like you posting flamebait about me not doing research when there was no need to - the person running the site was found guilty. Hey, guess what? I READ TFA. How about the flamebait of you not understanding that I posted a hypothetical response to the question "And what else do you expect to happen when you host a site named "mp3s4free"?" that the original poster had posited? I offered an ALTERNATIVE response that could very well have been the truth for anyone browsing, say, Google looking for an mp3 site - they COULD have been looking for indy music, they COULD have been looking for a site that had links to bands that allowed bootlegs, they COULD have been searching for a site with a lot of links that led to both free and non-free mp3s AND the site mp3s4free COULD have been that site. Nowhere, NOWHERE, did I say that the site mp3s4free WAS that kind of site. Nowhere. I responded with an alternative answer to WHAT THE SITE COULD HAVE BEEN. Not what the site was. Fuck, talk about taking things out of context - you two brilliant people should write articles for the New York Times.
So, I guess in your case, why post an intelligent reponse based on reading comprehension when you can post flamebait on slashdot accusing someone else of not understanding the issue.
And what else do you expect to happen when you host a site named "mp3s4free"?
Oh, I don't know, maybe a link to a lot of indy sites where you can download really good music without all the claptrap of the **AAs hanging on? How about some links to sites that provide a one-stop shop for MP3s that both independent AND **AA artist have put out there for free? You know, like an aggregator of knowledge so that I'm not searching the entire frigging web for those free MP3s so that I can sample what a band has to offer musically? Maybe that is what _I_ expect to happen if I hosted/viewed/linked/browsed a site named "mp3s4free"...
Here is a novel concept for you: Innocent _until_ proven guilty. Yeah, I know, this guy was proven guilty - at least until he appeals to a higher court with better sense than to make LINKING to another site illegal (regardless of content) - they just made the entire frigging internet illegal. It is like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon -- every site on the 'net connects to another which connects to another and so on. This ruling would also make Google, MSN search, Yahoo, and all the other search portals and search engines basically illegal because I can search for a term and then get LINKS to sites that have those terms in them. This ruling is an attack on dissemination of knowledge. Yeah, think about it for a minute - with this ruling in Australia they can CONTROL all that you see and hear, literally.
Bah, basically the judge in this case fucked up. Period. I guess it is time for everyone to start running Freenet or TOR - or both. And no, I am NOT advocating copyright infringement but I am advocating that my ability to view any content (information/knowledge) on the internet should not be constrained by CORPORATIONS wanting to control the flow of "content" but by my morals and the LAWS already on the books that cover the content/information/knowledge that I am accessing (whether it is copyrighted material, pr0n, whatever).
I did not RTFA yet, but unless helioquake did a copy and paste from the FA then I'd suggest he, and editor Zonk (wtf good is an editor if he doesn't edit, ah?) go read this article as published on Slashdot. You know, that whole grammar thing?;)
that needed to be highlighted. Let's try this again:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I, for one (and I'm sure MANY others), am pretty positive that this ruling, which goes against 200+ years of Constitutionally protected rights, IN NO WAY follows anything resembling due process of law and definitely does not follow the "nor shall private property" part of the Fifth Amendment. This is nothing more than a land grab from one private citizen to another private citizen WITH MORE MONEY TO SPEND and no moral compass. The overall benefit of this is that Citizen B, who decided they could put your land to better use, gets richer and can do it all again. And again. And so on. I really do see this ending in bloodshed unless Congress can wake up and do something about it OR each state enacts legislation guaranteeing that private property can not be seized and given from one citizen to another - regardless of tax revenue increase or the supposed "good" for the community. If taking the land from one citizen makes another citizen rich(er) by giving them the land to develop or it is not for governmental use (schools, right of ways, infrastructure such as sewer/water/electricity, etc.) then that land grab is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IMMORAL, and ILLEGAL. In my humble opinion it should be treated as such and defended by every means necessary.
Before anyone starts bashing me saying "You're advocating violence" - I am not. There is a person on Slashdot with a signature that says something like "There are five boxes in defense of liberty - Soap, ballot, something, jury, and ammo. Use in that order." THAT is what I am advocating - get involved, defend what is YOURS, what you've worked your life for, put those people in power who DON'T want to give your property to their good buddy George so he can build a hotel, tell all your friends what a catastrophe the ruling by the Supreme Court is, and, yes, if it comes down to it gain national press by defending your personal property by force if necessary. But I am not saying that should be anyone's first choice - I just believe that it will come to that. I truly hope I'm wrong.
I have NEVER had a problem with PayPal but I, like others, have heard the stories about those people with severe problems at PayPal. So, here is what I did and what I suggest anyone else dealing with PayPal do:
1) Set up a secondary bank account with only enough money to pay the fees on the account (for instance, my bank only charges me $5.00 per month for my PayPal only checking account so I only put $60 in the account) and link that account - and ONLY that account - to PayPal. 2) Whenever you buy something using PayPal, transfer money from your primary account into the PayPal only account and then send the money via PayPal. 3) Whenever you sell something and the seller pays you via PayPal, as SOON as the money hits your PayPal only account remove it from the account and then deposit it into your primary account. 4) IF you ever have problems with PayPal wanting to freeze your account or try to pull money out of your account or anything else (and you have been diligent about emptying your PayPal only account at your bank), then the only damn thing PayPal will get is whatever money you had in that account. Which, in my case, is never more than $60.00 unless I was about to pay for something with PayPal or someone paid me and I have not removed it.
Basically, this is a big FUCK YOU! to PayPal for not acting in a responsible manner. This will alleviate any chargebacks by PayPal since once your account you have with PayPal reaches $0 then the bank _should_ reject any further requests for money from that account and thus no -$xxxx.xx. Basically, I'll be out $60 and I will then close that account with my bank, open up a new one, and if necessary create another PayPal account. If PayPal can't be a responsible company and account for chargebacks, fraud, and other related sundries then there is no reason for me to leave them money in an account to take at their whim.
Would you be OK with it if you had to go to court and your lawyer showed up with all sorts of visible tats and strange body piercings?
Well, all I have to ask about my lawyer is one thing: Is he competent? What is his win/loss percentage on cases along the lines of the one I'm involved in? Have any of his cases been skewed simply because he has tattoos and body piercings or were the judge and jury blown away by the fact that he had those things AND was extremely eloquent, tactful, respectful, and knowledgable?? Me personally, I don't care if my lawyer is covered from head to toe in a naked Betty Page tattoo as long as when he/she opens their mouth they rip the opponent to shreds and my case is dismissed (or I win my case as the case may be).
Slashdot Mirror
Can I have option 1. Slackware Spam without the Spam?
After reading the article and seeing that S3G has stated "No comment" after being asked about including HDMI on their cards, perhaps they may want to shoot for the, ummm, grey market where people who DO NOT want their computers controlled by outside forces buy their equipment? Maybe even supply areas of the world that want HDMI but without the annoying HDCP that goes along with it so they can still use older monitors/TVs _AND_ still get high definition video - not "oh, that's not a registered device with Central Command Authority! Thou shalt have only 480i. No HD for you!!"
Personally, I'm getting beyond tired of technology companies who, some singularly and definitely collectively, make more money than Holly-hood, err, Hollywood bending over backward to placate them. Yes, I know that the studios/**AA control the media/content for the most part but if the _major_ technology players stand up and say "Well, we control the technology everyone uses to your content and there is no other tech company(ies) large enough to challenge all of us so THIS is how we're going to play ball." then WTF would Hollywood do except try to get more laws passed? Then all the technology companies that opposed Hollywood could band together to fight that off as well - dollar for dollar and then some. What would happen to the products that those companies that stood up to Hollywood do - especially when the tech-oriented crowd started praising them to friends/family/etc? Sell multiple, multiples of items that are free of DRM and friendly to the CONSUMER? Wow, what a frigging concept! Make products friendly towards the consumer, don't treat them like a dollar with a body attached, treat fair use rights as they should be treated, don't treat the customer like a criminal from the get-go, tell the **AAs to fuck off and fight piracy where it counts (you know, those media distributors in Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Russia, etc), and make millions upon millions of dollars.
Whew, I've had a very long day.. I think I need lots of sleep now. Sorry for the rant.
Yeah... right. I know you were just being funny but here is one thing to think about: I am the geek next door (not a kid) and I own firearms. Which I know how to use _very_ well. I'm definitely not the only "geek" type with firearms either ;-) as I know a LOT of people who could be considered geek/nerd enjoy firearms of all types. Welcome to the well-armed new geek world!
Well, my thinking is speed. Even heavily laden text only pages take a WHILE to download on a 56k modem. Speed is key! We are a society of the "instant" - fast food, keyless entry for cars, 1 hour instant photomats, digital cameras (snap! ooh, look, pretty picture), and so on and so forth. No one wants to sit around twirling their thumbs while waiting on pages to download - and, let's face it, the majority of the web has graphics somewhere on the page even if it is a basically text site. So, to facilitate the well-informed public, FAST access to the information - or think of it as TIMELY access to the information - is crucial. It would take a radical shift in how webpage designers, err, design pages not to mention a _lot_ of work to redo current pages to make ubiquitous web access on a 56k connection work. Therefore, universal broadband is a major key for the well-informed public. Does that clarify my universal broadband stance?
How about the fact that universal broadband access can give those who desperately want an education and a way out of their current level of living a place to get it? Access to the almost sum total of human knowledge at their fingertips - my God, what could an intelligent, curious, free-thinking child do with the knowledge they can access over the internet? Universal broadband access could, conceivably, level the education field by filling in gaps in children's education left by what is currently called school in the United States. Sure, this will take some time, _parental_ involvement (beyond just paying the bills), and maybe outside help (the digital village as it were - I know I always seem to connect with like-minded people who, it seems, never fail to turn me on to new knowledge both in and outside my fields).
Universal broadband access will also give the citizens of the United States access to OTHER news sources than just the claptrap fed to them by Fox News and CNN and others. Places like the BBC and other international news organizations and just by having access to these other news sources it will help fulfill the first point I made - a well-informed public. Let me take a moment and freely admit that the level of apathy in the world and the US especially will make getting the public to that well-informed state a task, I also believe that - just as I stated above - with the help of those citizens who are tech savvy, know the web, and are more knowledgable reaching out to our friends, family, and others and sharing that knowledge (information wants to be free has multiple meanings my friends) then we can spread the memes we hold dear... knowledge is power, the power to be free, the power to make informed decisions based on multiple views of the "facts" and not one-sided opinions based on the media conglomerates in the US, and there are many more ideals/memes that /. as a whole holds dear along these lines. Too numerous to mention them all.
Here are a few quotes to illustrate a couple of my points: ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. (Thomas Jefferson - November 13, 1787, letter to William Stephens Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy)
---> If good government ultimately follows the will of the people, then good government requires a well-informed public. When the public is misled, seeds of bad government are sown. (David P. Rall speaking on the Envrironment and Public Health but I think it holds true _regardless_ of what the topic is.)
---> God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
---> Here is a link to an interesting article titled Is Media a Danger to Democracy? I haven't read the whole thing but what I did gives some insight into issues I've stated.
This is an incorrect analogy for one MAJOR reason: If the cop stops me and sees my stash in the back seat of my car then he sees it because it is IN PLAIN SIGHT. If the files in question above are not on the desktop and are not in a directory that a technician would need to be in (/win, /win32, /winnt, etc) then the files were NOT in plain sight and the technician was "fishing" around in my system without my authorization. The technician probably had NO business being in the folder he was in and was _tresspassing_ on my private property. If I drop off my computer to a technician to fix, I expressly grant him permission to my operating system and those file necessary to fix the issue - AND ONLY THOSE FILES. Period. That technician has no business whatsoever for tresspassing on my private files on my computer and he certainly has no reason to do searches for .jpg files, .wav files, .mov files, .wmv files, or ANY OTHER frigging filetype along those lines since 99.999 percent of the time those filetypes are not involved in fixing a computer issue.
On the rest of your statements, I pretty much agree - it was not the person who found the pics responsibility to call the police and it was a bad move on the police's part to not get a search warrant based on the "tip". As for the files not being in plain view being moot, I don't think it is. I would argue this case based on the fact the tech was clearly looking for information outside of his job function (tresspassing on private property) as well as the fact the police screwed up by not getting a search warrant (fourth amendment violation). As usual, the IANAL applies to this post... but I'd still argue it that way and argue with my lawyer to argue it that way ;-).
First off... redundant? Posting in the first 30 responses and get modded redundant. Lovely. Oh well, to be expected I guess.
To respond to my respondents:
As far as buying textbooks that you will never use again, you can always sell back the non e-Book version and, according to TFA, you cannot get any money back on ye olde e-Book. This whole issue still smacks of exactly what the article touches on: the ability for publishers to cut out the used book market where students can save money for next term and make a little money at the end of term.
As far as me NOT reading the frigging answer before replying - what I said still holds true. The whole 33% off is a ploy by the publishers. It doesn't matter that, for now, they are still selling dead tree varieties of books. If they managed to get 1% of the sales as e-Books I'm sure the publishers will hail it as a success and start ranting and raving about how they no longer see the need to print good old dead tree books when the electronic versions work JUST as well. Except, of course, they don't. You paid for electrons that you no longer have access to. No reference materials for later courses or later in life when you might need them. Nothing physical to show what you just dropped $50 - $250 or more on. No way to make back 1/3 of that money at the end of term selling the book back to the store or to another student. Suddenly the publisher is in complete control and all that money you spent was wasted since even the best and brightest still refer back to texts every now and then - but, oh yeah, you have nothing but vanished electrons and that 1/3 of the cash you didn't spend on books.
this is bullshit. I didn't read TFA and really do not need to. Anytime I see time-limited access to knowledge I am paying a ton of money for (like my textbooks - which I can use as references later) then I call bullshit. Knowledge should always be for the good of all, not for the good of a few. Trying to lock it away under the guise of a DISCOUNT for the student is utter nonsense and a sham. I was hoping our Universities and academia would stand up for the freedoms that most of us hold dear - they want you to pay for the knowledge they impart to you, but they also want it to be free (as in free thinkers). My humble $.02 US.
SILENCE!!! For the love of all that is holy, don't give George any ideas. ;-)
lol! Yeah, I know, I was _trying_ to be funny. Guess Monday isn't my day to be funny. Come to think on it, any day ending in Y probably isn't my day for being funny '-)
He's not shitting! That's a good estimate for it. Why did you all mod Camel Pilot as funny?? What? Why are you all laughing at me? ;)
Err, no. Besides, your statements contradict themselves. First you say that the FBI statistics imply that 99% of privately owned weapons haven't been used and then you say that it could be ANY percentage. Unless the FBI is completely clueless, I think their stats are pretty accurate - especially since I was discussing the narrow range of just fully auctomatic weapons. Not to mention that I didn't say privately owned weapons , I said privately owned FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons. There are a lot of privately owned weapons that have been used in crimes, I was speaking ONLY of fully automatic weapons which narrows the field a lot. It is very hard, but not impossible, for a privately owned fully automatic weapon to be used in the commission of a crime in the US due to the fact that those guns have their ballistic profiles on file with the BATF/FBI. Now, unlicensed, unregistered, and stolen fully automatic weapons are used in the commission of crimes - but those that were stolen are tracked back to their orignal owners via ballistic profiles (if possible, I admit there are times when it might not be possible). So, please compare apples to apples and not overly broad "weapons" vs. narrowly defined "fully automatic weapons".
but your statement is only partially correct. Yes, we can go out and buy a rifle fairly easily but Americans cannot go out and _legally_ buy a machine-gun (a fully automatic weapon) without a lot of background checks, a class III Federal Firearms License/permit (I believe I have the right one), and paying a fee per year to own said weapon. Plus, I believe with the license/permit it goes that if someone uses a machine-gun weapon in a crime in your area the police/FBI/etc can drop by your house and ask to check your weapon plus they have the ballistics on file as well. So the notion that Americans all own Uzis, M-16s, and other fully automatic weapons is highly overblown. Yes, there are a LOT of these style weapons in private citizens hands but according to FBI statistics, less than 1% of ALL privately-owned fully automatic weapons have ever been used in the comission of a crime. Please reread that - less than 1%. That means that 99% of the crimes that are committed with fully automatic weapons are done so with illegally obtained weapons. Hence my statement to everyone who talks about gun control and removing guns from private citizens hands - "When the police/FBI/etc. can make criminals follow the law, I'll consider giving up my gun. Until a criminal, who BY DEFINITION doesn't follow the law anyway, give up his guns I will not give up mine." I mean, why should I _not_ have the same degree of latitude to defend myself as the criminal has to attack me?
:)
As far as the consensual sex in a video game, yeah, I think American prudish behavior is completely fucked - pun intended
that no one in their right minds would ever adopt Longhorn. All it will take is word of mouth from the technically inclined explaining to the general public that this is BAD. That this is only one example of how Microsoft and the "content providers" want to be able to CONTROL what you can and cannot do with the computer/monitor that YOU paid YOUR hard-earned money for. Microsoft damn sure didn't pay for your computer, **AA damn sure didn't pay for your computer, and no one else paid for it either! YOU paid for your computer system and YOU should be in control of what "content" you view on it, how you view it, and what you do with that content (except, of course, for selling copyrighted material for profit) INCLUDING the ability to time-shift, format-shift, and any other damn shift you wish. Under no cicrumstances should Microsoft be the arbiter of what a person can view, at what resolution, how they can view it, or any thing else. Until Microsoft buys a computer for me then _I_ decide the hows, whys, and wherefors of material on my computer.
As a group, Slashdot should rise up and vehemently oppose this in public. Start talking to local newspapers, friends, neighbors, and anyone else and explain in easily understood terms that this is an invasion of your person and private property and that it is BAD, BAD, BAAAAAAD. Do no support it.
So, I guess in your case, why post an intelligent reponse based on reading comprehension when you can post flamebait on slashdot accusing someone else of not understanding the issue.
Oh, I don't know, maybe a link to a lot of indy sites where you can download really good music without all the claptrap of the **AAs hanging on? How about some links to sites that provide a one-stop shop for MP3s that both independent AND **AA artist have put out there for free? You know, like an aggregator of knowledge so that I'm not searching the entire frigging web for those free MP3s so that I can sample what a band has to offer musically? Maybe that is what _I_ expect to happen if I hosted/viewed/linked/browsed a site named "mp3s4free"...
Here is a novel concept for you: Innocent _until_ proven guilty. Yeah, I know, this guy was proven guilty - at least until he appeals to a higher court with better sense than to make LINKING to another site illegal (regardless of content) - they just made the entire frigging internet illegal. It is like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon -- every site on the 'net connects to another which connects to another and so on. This ruling would also make Google, MSN search, Yahoo, and all the other search portals and search engines basically illegal because I can search for a term and then get LINKS to sites that have those terms in them. This ruling is an attack on dissemination of knowledge. Yeah, think about it for a minute - with this ruling in Australia they can CONTROL all that you see and hear, literally.
Bah, basically the judge in this case fucked up. Period. I guess it is time for everyone to start running Freenet or TOR - or both. And no, I am NOT advocating copyright infringement but I am advocating that my ability to view any content (information/knowledge) on the internet should not be constrained by CORPORATIONS wanting to control the flow of "content" but by my morals and the LAWS already on the books that cover the content/information/knowledge that I am accessing (whether it is copyrighted material, pr0n, whatever).
I did not RTFA yet, but unless helioquake did a copy and paste from the FA then I'd suggest he, and editor Zonk (wtf good is an editor if he doesn't edit, ah?) go read this article as published on Slashdot. You know, that whole grammar thing? ;)
Amendment V
I, for one (and I'm sure MANY others), am pretty positive that this ruling, which goes against 200+ years of Constitutionally protected rights, IN NO WAY follows anything resembling due process of law and definitely does not follow the "nor shall private property" part of the Fifth Amendment. This is nothing more than a land grab from one private citizen to another private citizen WITH MORE MONEY TO SPEND and no moral compass. The overall benefit of this is that Citizen B, who decided they could put your land to better use, gets richer and can do it all again. And again. And so on. I really do see this ending in bloodshed unless Congress can wake up and do something about it OR each state enacts legislation guaranteeing that private property can not be seized and given from one citizen to another - regardless of tax revenue increase or the supposed "good" for the community. If taking the land from one citizen makes another citizen rich(er) by giving them the land to develop or it is not for governmental use (schools, right of ways, infrastructure such as sewer/water/electricity, etc.) then that land grab is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IMMORAL, and ILLEGAL. In my humble opinion it should be treated as such and defended by every means necessary.
Before anyone starts bashing me saying "You're advocating violence" - I am not. There is a person on Slashdot with a signature that says something like "There are five boxes in defense of liberty - Soap, ballot, something, jury, and ammo. Use in that order." THAT is what I am advocating - get involved, defend what is YOURS, what you've worked your life for, put those people in power who DON'T want to give your property to their good buddy George so he can build a hotel, tell all your friends what a catastrophe the ruling by the Supreme Court is, and, yes, if it comes down to it gain national press by defending your personal property by force if necessary. But I am not saying that should be anyone's first choice - I just believe that it will come to that. I truly hope I'm wrong.
I have NEVER had a problem with PayPal but I, like others, have heard the stories about those people with severe problems at PayPal. So, here is what I did and what I suggest anyone else dealing with PayPal do:
1) Set up a secondary bank account with only enough money to pay the fees on the account (for instance, my bank only charges me $5.00 per month for my PayPal only checking account so I only put $60 in the account) and link that account - and ONLY that account - to PayPal.
2) Whenever you buy something using PayPal, transfer money from your primary account into the PayPal only account and then send the money via PayPal.
3) Whenever you sell something and the seller pays you via PayPal, as SOON as the money hits your PayPal only account remove it from the account and then deposit it into your primary account.
4) IF you ever have problems with PayPal wanting to freeze your account or try to pull money out of your account or anything else (and you have been diligent about emptying your PayPal only account at your bank), then the only damn thing PayPal will get is whatever money you had in that account. Which, in my case, is never more than $60.00 unless I was about to pay for something with PayPal or someone paid me and I have not removed it.
Basically, this is a big FUCK YOU! to PayPal for not acting in a responsible manner. This will alleviate any chargebacks by PayPal since once your account you have with PayPal reaches $0 then the bank _should_ reject any further requests for money from that account and thus no -$xxxx.xx. Basically, I'll be out $60 and I will then close that account with my bank, open up a new one, and if necessary create another PayPal account. If PayPal can't be a responsible company and account for chargebacks, fraud, and other related sundries then there is no reason for me to leave them money in an account to take at their whim.
There are actually TWO bills proposed with that same topic. Still scary though.
Well, the first is more of a wormhole and the second IS a worm. By most folks reckoning anyway.. :-p
Yeah, like most people do when posting on Slashdot. ;)
Well, all I have to ask about my lawyer is one thing: Is he competent? What is his win/loss percentage on cases along the lines of the one I'm involved in? Have any of his cases been skewed simply because he has tattoos and body piercings or were the judge and jury blown away by the fact that he had those things AND was extremely eloquent, tactful, respectful, and knowledgable?? Me personally, I don't care if my lawyer is covered from head to toe in a naked Betty Page tattoo as long as when he/she opens their mouth they rip the opponent to shreds and my case is dismissed (or I win my case as the case may be).