What I'm wondering is why guys who are obviously talented at this type of reengineering don't design new and wicked cases *from the ground up*.
I have to confess that I just don't understand this kind of attitude. Some guy goes out, on his own, with his own money, scratching his own itch, and The Taco feels it's worthy of/.. You then, feel the need to bitch that he didn't do what you wanted him to do. Guess what?
Do it yourself!
Don't know how? Learn. Don't have the skill? Practice. Don't have the time? Make some. But don't fscking whine that this guy didn't make your dream spherical box.
Plants are too common...I had a friend set up a desk aquarium and put a betta in it. They're colorful and active enough to be interesting, hardy enough to be ignored for the weekend, and you don't have to wait a minute for the screensaver to start up. And at least you can rest assured that something has to spend more time in the office than you do.
That sounds like my last tech job (now in politics) at John Deere. As the tech guy for a dept. though, I had a great desk. Three full sized desks in a U-shape in a large sectioned-off area with full walls with massive storage U-shaped behind me. I could see someone coming from just far enough away that I could minimize my freecell game and bring up something official looking Everyone else had a single desk and a shelf with absolutely no privacy.
-sk
A cold day in the internet
on
Taming the Web
·
· Score: 2
The Hague Conference on Private International Law is developing an international treaty explicitly intended to make outfits like Swaptor more vulnerable to legal pressure--"a bold set of rules that will profoundly change the Internet," in the phrase of James Love, director of the activist Consumer Project on Technology. (The draft treaty will be discussed at a diplomatic meeting next year.) By making it possible to apply the laws of any one country to any Internet site available in that country, the draft treaty will, Love warns, "lead to a great reduction in freedom, shrink the public domain, and diminish national sovereignty."
I found this paragraph the most frightening of all, especially the bold section. What this seems to mean is that by publishing my web page, I'm opening myself to prosecution in any contry with an internet connection. Right now, I can't see anything too objectionable on my site, but what if I post a section from the Bible that some Islamic fundamentalist government has outlawed? What if I post the Declaration of Independance and China outlaws that?
The United State Supreme Court has routinely found in favor of free speech when the restrictions against speech were chilling to other speech. A law targeted against porn, but which affected medical discussion would typically be found to be "over-broad" and stricken by the courts.
A treaty like this, however, is more than overbroad, it's overboard. In a questionable justifed attempt to make laws enforceable internationally, this treaty would quell Constitutionally-protected speech because even though it's protected within our borders, you'd be prosecuted on your first step onto foreign land. Why would you speak (or publish on the internet) if you'd get arrested when you traveled abroad? (The similarities to the Skylarov case are very much in mind here.
I don't mind too much if corporations want to lock their customers into "their" internet, and I don't care if the government attempt to regulate because they'll fail for a variety of reasons. I'm much more concerned about the rights issues. While treaties like this won't kill the internet(no, there's no immenient demise of the internet), but it will surely make it a less interesting place.
Huh?!? In your world, lawsuits can be filed wherever the plantiff wants. Is it right that the initiator of a law suit force the defendant to come to them to defend themselves. Assuming Bigcorp doesn't do buisness in CA, why should they have to spend all kinds of money to defend themselves anyplace someone feels like suing them?
Let's personalize it. You've insinuated that I'm smoking something. If I were a prick, I'd call that libelous (actually, if I were a prick, I'd call it slander without knowing the difference) and sue you. Because we're playing by your rules, I get to sue you in the Iowa court system. Hrm...that means (assuming that you don't live near Iowa and that you want to be there to know how the suit's going) that you get to foot the bill not only for the legal expenses you're going to rack up, but also airfare, housing, lost wages, etc...
Check out this site for a plain English review of jurisdictional rules, it's not complete, but it's servicable. The law is supposed to be blind to big guy vs. little guy conflict and the defendent is presumed to be innocent until proved otherwise by the plaintiff/prosecutor.
BTW - In your example, it's unlikely that little Joey would be without a lawyer for very long. Most attorneys would jump at the chance to represent such a client for a percentage of the settlement.
-sk
Note: I've been using the whole rock thing as a metaphor for any actions taken outside a jurisdiction that have an effect within it. A real rock, or Bigcorp's giant catapult assult would constitute a criminal assult and battery. IANAL and I doubt my observations would hold in such a case.
Of course it's illogical to say that a suit can't be filed beacuse the plaintiff could be wrong. So the question becomes "Who has jurisdiction?" It seems to me that even if someone throws a rock from NV into CA, the proper jurisdiction to try them is NV.
A guy walks into a CA hospital with a rock lodged in his head, and blames a guy in NV. NV guy says that he's never set foot in CA and the CA guy asked for the rock. Since this would be a criminal case, presumtion lies with the NV guy (innocent until guilty and all that), and baring evidence that he threw the rock in CA, would be tried in NV, not CA. However due to the diversity of the litigants, this theoretical case might qualify for federal jurisdiction. IANAL YMMV TNSTAAFL.
I'd dispute your characterization of Pavlovich's motion to quash. It's not "I don't care who I hurt, you can't touch me!" It's more along the lines of "Everything I did was in IN, why should I be forced to defend myself 1500 miles away in CA?" (Ignoring that he now lives in TX.)
Presumption of innocence is the governing spirit in jurisdiction (or at least ought to be). If you want to sue me, fine, but you need to come to me to sue me. Should a FL vacationer sue in FL courts because he slipped on a AK store's floor?
While this "independent" consulting firm sounds pretty non-independent (esp. with their definitions of "restrictive" and "liberal"), I wouldn't completely trash their weighing the responses as a draw.
Almost 1200 of the 1447 responses came off of an online petition. Online petitions have as much credibility as a/. poll. What if MS sent out a company memo to all of their European employees to respond to this call for comments? Either way, it's astroturfing. (Ironic that this story follows the apology for astrotrufing.)
How come the location of the servers where Pavlovich doesn't come into play here? I mean, Calder, which the court cites, deals with the National Enquirer publishing an unsavory article about Shirley Jones, which they then sold in California. Seems only natural that they can get sued where they do business.
But Pavlovich (and presumably his server) was in Indiana. Web servers don't indiscriminately push content, it has to be requested by a networked computer. Therefore, I wonder if the legal logic would be not that Pavlovich was everywhere at once (and could be sued be via any numerable long-arm statutes) but that he and his server from Indiana were just responding to requests. The requests coming from CA were illegal, thus the client requests were illegal, not the server responses.
Of course, that line of reasoning could be blown out of the water if his server was physically in California. But otherwise it explains away the legal absurdity that by publishing something on the Internet, you are exposed to the laws of all jurisdictions. If this reasoning holds, the chilling effect on Internet speech is incredible.
Put a tiny Gnome footprint on the left corner of a taskbar at the top of the screen and the non-techies they had participating in the study probably would have gotten it.
They might have also gotten it if this wasn't the first time they had seen the GNOME logo. Instead of that nice sunset picture on the login page, they should have the GNOME logo with the word "GNOME" overlaid on it. The login page, if anything, confuses the issue by putting Xiamin's logo in.
Tying the logo with the name might have helped on the terminal emulator problem too, although they really ought change that to "Command Line Prompt" or something similar.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but everything has a learning curve, computers especially. While Windows' learning curve might be shallower than Linux's, don't tell me that you knew out-of-the-box, no-manual, no-hint to go to Start | Settings to configure a printer.
Maybe you should have JAAGL (Just Asked A German Lawyer).
The law firm was not retained by anyone, especially not Adobe. The firm was acting alone, in an apparently common move in the German legal system, when it sent it's letter demanding money. How this law benefits Adobe or is different from extortion, I'm not sure.
Due to all the other points made here, a moon hotel is unfeasible at this time.
All of your points refer to this particular moon hotel design. While IANARocket Scientist, I think that a moon hotel is certainly feasible, although outrageously expensive at this time.
Ten years down the road, when print and real-world formats will (might) go by the wayside...
I have no doubt that in 10 years time, we'll still have all of the real world formats that you say will have gone by the way side.
I don't know what they said when Gutenberg invented his press, but when the radio was introduced, they said newspapers would die. When TV was introduced, they said that newspapers and radio would die. When cable was introduced, they said that newspapers, radio, and broadcast TV would die. When the Internet was introduced, they said that newspapers, radio, broadcast TV, cable TV, home stereos, bookstores, and malls would die. They haven't.
The utopian idea of a paperless society is still far off. As long as people still like and demand their morning paper, their drive-time morning radio, their mid-morning/. news fix, their evening news, their "get-in-the-mood" jazz CD, and the shopping "experience" content publishers won't be able to force consumers into one all-encompassing format.
Not that we won't move to such a format in the future, but it's still a ways off. Personally, I like the rich diversity of the media experiences that all of these formats provide. I like the sense of completion when I'm done with a newspaper, I feel like I know all of the important news. On the internet, however, I feel a need to check out just one more news site. I like sitting down with a good book and turning the pages as my imagination runs wild. Other times, I like zoning to a movie based on the same book. As long as consumers demand it, there will be someone to offer it.
This guy isn't trying to start a business selling books made on this machine, he's starting a business selling the machines that make the books. That's the key difference. In the first situation, he's competing with booksellers, distributors, and publishers. By just selling the machine, they all become potential customers.
As the article notes, there's a huge amount of waste in the book industry. Ever stop and think that if your Barnes & Noble or Borders is able to stock the entire O'Reilly library that every other B&N and Borders does too? O'Reilly pays to print all of those copies, but doesn't get paid until they get sold. If Microsoft Bob in a Nutshell turns out to be a bomb, O'Reilly takes it on the chin.
So this guy would sell his machine to publishers, distributors, and booksellers to eliminate all that wasted printing. B&N gets the machine to offer more titles than they fit in their shelf space. Borders gets the machine because the distributor is tired of renting all that wharehouse space. Your local indie bookseller gets one because the publisher wants to offer their titles everywhere possible, but can't take the risk to print enough copies of a potential blockbuster. The corner mega-store gets one of their own so that they can sell you a library as you pick up your groceries and get your oil changed. Finally, your city library gets one so that when some little snot steals Harry Potter and the Increasingly Over-Commercialized Pot of Gold, they can just print another copy.
At $30k, it's affordable for all those applications and more. This guy could sell a ton of machines without ever having to listen to one whiny retail-level customer or worry about the ever-changing copyright law.
From a logical perspective, there is no way a EULA is a meeting of the minds, a meeting of the minds implies that both sides have a impact on the outcome. "Meeting of the minds", however, conveys the fact that there is a legal agreement going on here.
What part of "I agree to not use gcc, perl, etc... when using this software" is illegal?
The EULA is a license that you agree to in order to use their (MS's) software. The right to use free tools is what you (apparently) give up to use it. Whether or not such a license clause is enforcible or would be upheld in court is another question, but it's surely legal for you to agree to be bound by restrictions in order to use someone else's software.
It's a "meeting of the minds" sort of thing. They agree to let you use their software, and you, in turn, agree to be bound by their restrictions. Don't like their restrictions? Fine, don't use their software.
Gary Oldman does a pretty decent job of American accents. I remember when he was on Dennis Miller, and at the end of the interview Miller said, "You're such a great actor that I never realized before now that you're British!"
It's called a system of checks and balances. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judical branch interprets them.
It's not a dictatorship of the Supreme Court. If we don't like what they decide about the Constitution and laws, we can go to back to the legislative branch and change the Constitution or the laws. And if you don't like the system as a whole, guess what? You can change the system with Consititutional amendments.
It kinda sounds like you might be miffed about the Bush v. Gore decision that handed the election to Bush. Get over it, that decision will be seen in 100 years as a great decision. Think about what it would mean had it gone the other way. Then candidates could demand selective recounts based on whatever standards that favor them the most. Gore's mistake was to sue to extend the recount deadline. He should have let the recount finish, then challenged the results (as provided for in Florida law) based on the widespread reports of voting irregularities.
Also, you might want to inform O'Connor's and Ginsburg's husbands that their wives are actually grumpy old men. I'm sure it'll be news to them.
PERSONAL DATA:
Born August 24, 1949, in New York City, New York, but considers San Pedro, California, to be her hometown. Married to Dr. William F. Fisher of Dallas, Texas. They have two children. She enjoys snow and water skiing, jogging, flying, scuba diving, reading, photography, and spending time with her daughters.
I have to agree with you about Jamie's postings. He is so far over the top that I can't trust his stories. When I started reading this story, my blood was boiling. Then I took a step back, looked at the author, and figured the guy was probably just a anti-COS kook who went overboard and then got himself a stupid lawyer.
Jamie, I know you've read my critisms before, but please take this constructively. By being so one-sided in your reporting, you're encouraging the people you're trying to persuade to distrust you. Your style might generate a lot of posts, but a mis-guided/. effect launched against an innocent school district, judge or whoever will dramatically damage your cause. (This says nothing of the guilt/innocence of the judge in this case.)
Why would you damage you cause? Remember when fax machines were becoming popular and there were tons of junk faxes. It was spam that cost you a lot due to the high cost of fax paper back then. Legislators started considering legislation to restrict spam faxing. How did the spammers react?
They flooded legislative offices with faxes trying to persuade them to not pass the legislation. Hrm...I wonder how legislators reacted to having to go through rolls of thermal paper a day? A huge response might be a grassroots movement, or it's more likely a bunch of idiots who don't have their facts straight motivated by some muckraker who either doesn't have all the facts or is motivated by one side or the other to mis-represent those facts.
Jamie, I'm saying this as constructive criticism. Whether you like it or not, you're a journalist. People rely on you and take action based on what you say, without realizing that you are only giving one side of the story. Those actions may negatively impact the very people you want to help with your article. As more and more people realize that you let your biases color your reporting, they'll start to distrust you and your stories. Since there will still be a force who'll follow you dispite you bias, you'll lose both ways. Your followers will hurt those you want to help, and you'll lose your reputation with those who see through your bias.
-sk
I don't even want to think about downloading this
on
PanQuake
·
· Score: 1
I got nauseous from the discussion alone. I don't want to have to get a plastic cover for my keyboard just to play.
Ok, I haven't read RGB Mars, Clarke's 3001, or even CYMK Uranus, but I have read the article, and from that limited research, I think you've got it wrong.
Following the "thought experiment" given in the article, if the space elevator is cut from the earth base at the bottom, nothing would happen. The space base of the elevator is in geostationary orbit. It is then extended both toward the earth and away from it so that the center of gravity remains at the space base. It's extended this way until the shaft reaches the earth base. The earth base is likely to be quite tall to make the shaft as short as possible. The shaft, space base, and counterweight do not rely on the earth base for support. Want to get freaky? Build the elevator so that the shaft doesn't even touch the earth base.
So what happens when some terrorist blows part of it up or it crumbles because the maintenance guy slacked off? I don't know, let's ask the experts here...What happens to a geostationary satellite that's overly weighted away from the planet? (Assuming the shaft is the section that gets bombed/crumbles.)
-sk
...as an aside, could you build the counterweight so that it serves as a sheild and/or solar array for the space base and shaft sections?
The defense made a great analogy by comparing DeCSS to publishing a bank's safe combination. The problem with analogies is that they are so powerful, yet frequently, they are so wrong. But if the analogy looks to fit, the persuadee will likely take it to heart.
DeCSS is not like publishing a safe combination. Safecrackers aren't interested in making several hundred copies of the safe, they just want illegitimate access to the content of the safe. DeCSS doesn't allow pirates to mass duplicate DVD's, it just allow legitimate access to the content of the DVD.
The problem is that the "safe combination" analogy is great. It's colorful. It paints the picture in clear black and white. Everyone can relate to it. I expect that if the decision goes against 2600, there will be a snippet in the decision that will reference it. 2600 should knock that analogy down with a tank, if it can. Even if all the other arguments go their way, the judge will be sitting there deciding how to decide and come back to "Despite everything, I don't want 2600 publishing safe combination". It they don't kill the analogy, the judge might decide the case based on the ignorance of a faulty analogy.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to confess that I just don't understand this kind of attitude. Some guy goes out, on his own, with his own money, scratching his own itch, and The Taco feels it's worthy of /.. You then, feel the need to bitch that he didn't do what you wanted him to do. Guess what?
Don't know how? Learn. Don't have the skill? Practice. Don't have the time? Make some. But don't fscking whine that this guy didn't make your dream spherical box.
-sk
-sk
-sk
The United State Supreme Court has routinely found in favor of free speech when the restrictions against speech were chilling to other speech. A law targeted against porn, but which affected medical discussion would typically be found to be "over-broad" and stricken by the courts.
A treaty like this, however, is more than overbroad, it's overboard. In a questionable justifed attempt to make laws enforceable internationally, this treaty would quell Constitutionally-protected speech because even though it's protected within our borders, you'd be prosecuted on your first step onto foreign land. Why would you speak (or publish on the internet) if you'd get arrested when you traveled abroad? (The similarities to the Skylarov case are very much in mind here.
I don't mind too much if corporations want to lock their customers into "their" internet, and I don't care if the government attempt to regulate because they'll fail for a variety of reasons. I'm much more concerned about the rights issues. While treaties like this won't kill the internet(no, there's no immenient demise of the internet), but it will surely make it a less interesting place.
-sk
Let's personalize it. You've insinuated that I'm smoking something. If I were a prick, I'd call that libelous (actually, if I were a prick, I'd call it slander without knowing the difference) and sue you. Because we're playing by your rules, I get to sue you in the Iowa court system. Hrm...that means (assuming that you don't live near Iowa and that you want to be there to know how the suit's going) that you get to foot the bill not only for the legal expenses you're going to rack up, but also airfare, housing, lost wages, etc...
Check out this site for a plain English review of jurisdictional rules, it's not complete, but it's servicable. The law is supposed to be blind to big guy vs. little guy conflict and the defendent is presumed to be innocent until proved otherwise by the plaintiff/prosecutor.
BTW - In your example, it's unlikely that little Joey would be without a lawyer for very long. Most attorneys would jump at the chance to represent such a client for a percentage of the settlement.
-sk
Note: I've been using the whole rock thing as a metaphor for any actions taken outside a jurisdiction that have an effect within it. A real rock, or Bigcorp's giant catapult assult would constitute a criminal assult and battery. IANAL and I doubt my observations would hold in such a case.
A guy walks into a CA hospital with a rock lodged in his head, and blames a guy in NV. NV guy says that he's never set foot in CA and the CA guy asked for the rock. Since this would be a criminal case, presumtion lies with the NV guy (innocent until guilty and all that), and baring evidence that he threw the rock in CA, would be tried in NV, not CA. However due to the diversity of the litigants, this theoretical case might qualify for federal jurisdiction. IANAL YMMV TNSTAAFL.
I'd dispute your characterization of Pavlovich's motion to quash. It's not "I don't care who I hurt, you can't touch me!" It's more along the lines of "Everything I did was in IN, why should I be forced to defend myself 1500 miles away in CA?" (Ignoring that he now lives in TX.)
Presumption of innocence is the governing spirit in jurisdiction (or at least ought to be). If you want to sue me, fine, but you need to come to me to sue me. Should a FL vacationer sue in FL courts because he slipped on a AK store's floor?
-sk
Almost 1200 of the 1447 responses came off of an online petition. Online petitions have as much credibility as a /. poll. What if MS sent out a company memo to all of their European employees to respond to this call for comments? Either way, it's astroturfing. (Ironic that this story follows the apology for astrotrufing.)
-sk
-sk
But Pavlovich (and presumably his server) was in Indiana. Web servers don't indiscriminately push content, it has to be requested by a networked computer. Therefore, I wonder if the legal logic would be not that Pavlovich was everywhere at once (and could be sued be via any numerable long-arm statutes) but that he and his server from Indiana were just responding to requests. The requests coming from CA were illegal, thus the client requests were illegal, not the server responses.
Of course, that line of reasoning could be blown out of the water if his server was physically in California. But otherwise it explains away the legal absurdity that by publishing something on the Internet, you are exposed to the laws of all jurisdictions. If this reasoning holds, the chilling effect on Internet speech is incredible.
-sk
Tying the logo with the name might have helped on the terminal emulator problem too, although they really ought change that to "Command Line Prompt" or something similar.
-sk
-sk
The law firm was not retained by anyone, especially not Adobe. The firm was acting alone, in an apparently common move in the German legal system, when it sent it's letter demanding money. How this law benefits Adobe or is different from extortion, I'm not sure.
-sk
All of your points refer to this particular moon hotel design. While IANARocket Scientist, I think that a moon hotel is certainly feasible, although outrageously expensive at this time.
-sk
I have no doubt that in 10 years time, we'll still have all of the real world formats that you say will have gone by the way side.
I don't know what they said when Gutenberg invented his press, but when the radio was introduced, they said newspapers would die. When TV was introduced, they said that newspapers and radio would die. When cable was introduced, they said that newspapers, radio, and broadcast TV would die. When the Internet was introduced, they said that newspapers, radio, broadcast TV, cable TV, home stereos, bookstores, and malls would die. They haven't.
The utopian idea of a paperless society is still far off. As long as people still like and demand their morning paper, their drive-time morning radio, their mid-morning /. news fix, their evening news, their "get-in-the-mood" jazz CD, and the shopping "experience" content publishers won't be able to force consumers into one all-encompassing format.
Not that we won't move to such a format in the future, but it's still a ways off. Personally, I like the rich diversity of the media experiences that all of these formats provide. I like the sense of completion when I'm done with a newspaper, I feel like I know all of the important news. On the internet, however, I feel a need to check out just one more news site. I like sitting down with a good book and turning the pages as my imagination runs wild. Other times, I like zoning to a movie based on the same book. As long as consumers demand it, there will be someone to offer it.
-sk
As the article notes, there's a huge amount of waste in the book industry. Ever stop and think that if your Barnes & Noble or Borders is able to stock the entire O'Reilly library that every other B&N and Borders does too? O'Reilly pays to print all of those copies, but doesn't get paid until they get sold. If Microsoft Bob in a Nutshell turns out to be a bomb, O'Reilly takes it on the chin.
So this guy would sell his machine to publishers, distributors, and booksellers to eliminate all that wasted printing. B&N gets the machine to offer more titles than they fit in their shelf space. Borders gets the machine because the distributor is tired of renting all that wharehouse space. Your local indie bookseller gets one because the publisher wants to offer their titles everywhere possible, but can't take the risk to print enough copies of a potential blockbuster. The corner mega-store gets one of their own so that they can sell you a library as you pick up your groceries and get your oil changed. Finally, your city library gets one so that when some little snot steals Harry Potter and the Increasingly Over-Commercialized Pot of Gold, they can just print another copy.
At $30k, it's affordable for all those applications and more. This guy could sell a ton of machines without ever having to listen to one whiny retail-level customer or worry about the ever-changing copyright law.
-sk
Their right to free speech stops when they're speaking over my personal, private communications with someone else.
What part of "I agree to not use gcc, perl, etc... when using this software" is illegal?
-sk
It's a "meeting of the minds" sort of thing. They agree to let you use their software, and you, in turn, agree to be bound by their restrictions. Don't like their restrictions? Fine, don't use their software.
-sk (oh yeah, IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot.)
Gary Oldman does a pretty decent job of American accents. I remember when he was on Dennis Miller, and at the end of the interview Miller said, "You're such a great actor that I never realized before now that you're British!"
It's not a dictatorship of the Supreme Court. If we don't like what they decide about the Constitution and laws, we can go to back to the legislative branch and change the Constitution or the laws. And if you don't like the system as a whole, guess what? You can change the system with Consititutional amendments.
It kinda sounds like you might be miffed about the Bush v. Gore decision that handed the election to Bush. Get over it, that decision will be seen in 100 years as a great decision. Think about what it would mean had it gone the other way. Then candidates could demand selective recounts based on whatever standards that favor them the most. Gore's mistake was to sue to extend the recount deadline. He should have let the recount finish, then challenged the results (as provided for in Florida law) based on the widespread reports of voting irregularities.
Also, you might want to inform O'Connor's and Ginsburg's husbands that their wives are actually grumpy old men. I'm sure it'll be news to them.
-sk
Not that that proves that no one's ever "done it" in space. Cecil Adams of Straight Dope fame, however, throws water on the idea that anyone ever has "done it".
Jamie, I know you've read my critisms before, but please take this constructively. By being so one-sided in your reporting, you're encouraging the people you're trying to persuade to distrust you. Your style might generate a lot of posts, but a mis-guided /. effect launched against an innocent school district, judge or whoever will dramatically damage your cause. (This says nothing of the guilt/innocence of the judge in this case.)
Why would you damage you cause? Remember when fax machines were becoming popular and there were tons of junk faxes. It was spam that cost you a lot due to the high cost of fax paper back then. Legislators started considering legislation to restrict spam faxing. How did the spammers react?
They flooded legislative offices with faxes trying to persuade them to not pass the legislation. Hrm...I wonder how legislators reacted to having to go through rolls of thermal paper a day? A huge response might be a grassroots movement, or it's more likely a bunch of idiots who don't have their facts straight motivated by some muckraker who either doesn't have all the facts or is motivated by one side or the other to mis-represent those facts.
Jamie, I'm saying this as constructive criticism. Whether you like it or not, you're a journalist. People rely on you and take action based on what you say, without realizing that you are only giving one side of the story. Those actions may negatively impact the very people you want to help with your article. As more and more people realize that you let your biases color your reporting, they'll start to distrust you and your stories. Since there will still be a force who'll follow you dispite you bias, you'll lose both ways. Your followers will hurt those you want to help, and you'll lose your reputation with those who see through your bias.
-sk
I got nauseous from the discussion alone. I don't want to have to get a plastic cover for my keyboard just to play.
Following the "thought experiment" given in the article, if the space elevator is cut from the earth base at the bottom, nothing would happen. The space base of the elevator is in geostationary orbit. It is then extended both toward the earth and away from it so that the center of gravity remains at the space base. It's extended this way until the shaft reaches the earth base. The earth base is likely to be quite tall to make the shaft as short as possible. The shaft, space base, and counterweight do not rely on the earth base for support. Want to get freaky? Build the elevator so that the shaft doesn't even touch the earth base.
So what happens when some terrorist blows part of it up or it crumbles because the maintenance guy slacked off? I don't know, let's ask the experts here...What happens to a geostationary satellite that's overly weighted away from the planet? (Assuming the shaft is the section that gets bombed/crumbles.)
-sk
...as an aside, could you build the counterweight so that it serves as a sheild and/or solar array for the space base and shaft sections?
DeCSS is not like publishing a safe combination. Safecrackers aren't interested in making several hundred copies of the safe, they just want illegitimate access to the content of the safe. DeCSS doesn't allow pirates to mass duplicate DVD's, it just allow legitimate access to the content of the DVD.
The problem is that the "safe combination" analogy is great. It's colorful. It paints the picture in clear black and white. Everyone can relate to it. I expect that if the decision goes against 2600, there will be a snippet in the decision that will reference it. 2600 should knock that analogy down with a tank, if it can. Even if all the other arguments go their way, the judge will be sitting there deciding how to decide and come back to "Despite everything, I don't want 2600 publishing safe combination". It they don't kill the analogy, the judge might decide the case based on the ignorance of a faulty analogy.
It'd be like using Windows to run the ISS.
-sk