Before Mr. Edison made his new and improved telephone, there was an older version (which, I'm sure, had a patent on it). In order for him to make his own telephone, he either would have to work from scratch, get the details from the company/patent, or get a license. Patents exist, of course, to give the original creator money in compensation for his/her efforts. If a creator does not let others gain access to the technology, a monopoly is essentially created. Should patents be ignored under such circumstances (so we could have a better telephone for example)?
Whether or not this situation is historically accurate, is it right to do this? (unless there's some stupid patent on the whole concept which happens too much these days anyways)
First off, most of the screenshots showing "graphic" violence are showing somebody getting punched. Now if say Looney Toons and dropping anvils on characters all the time isn't graphic, then I don't know what is.
My main point here is that there is nothing to fear as long as the right message is sent. The cruel acts of violence always occur on behalf of the bad guys. You don't see the hero of Pokemon bashing people indiscriminately and stealing. Violence has always occured in cartoons and will do so- as long as the evil guys are defeated and the heroes act only in self defense, parents should not worry. Worry more about the good old Tom and Jerry where both cat and mouse are invincible to any violence. It's not to say that all violence is good, but that it cannot all be objected to so easily on the basis of how severe it is.
Absolutely truly spoken. I'd like to elaborate on what technology really means for a school. At my school (just for background, most of the students are well off and already fluent with computers), most computers have elaborate security on them. That shouldn't be a problem for letting people get on the web in most cases and typing up a few documents. It's a good start. Eventually the security is too restrictive however. When people graduate and go to the workforce someday, with the "access" and schooling provided by the school, I doubt many kids will know how to really work in a white-collar enviroment with computers. Students may know how to write e-mails, but can they attach and forward important documents? If they want to be engineers, will they know how to use advanced software like Autocad? What does word processing teach us about using spreadsheets? The security programs are more are less the result of a lack of drive to teach kids everything they ever wanted to know.
Even when it is assumed that all students have a computer when my english teacher tells us to write an essay, or my history teacher asks us to look up some extra information, many of my peers don't know very much. Some survive using AOL's simplified enviroment. For others the scope may expand to searching on Yahoo, using Hotmail, or Instant Messenger to swap answers and study. Beyond that there simply is no interaction with the Internet, and for applications few come to mind besides Word and Napster.
While computer access so far is limited and many of us still know how to do things the old fashioned way, I fear it will be much different for those still in kindergarten and such. Recently I visited my old elementary school, and there each group of classrooms has a bare minimum of 8 high speed computers. It scares me because I can think of no real good use for such power (while there is some potential in high school).
The same goes for the issue of bandwidth, etc. Bandwidth provides video and multimedia of all sorts, supposedly. Today however any useful content is just as well stated in plain old graphics and text. All I see are more mp3s and more frags in CS. I still run on my trusty 56k modem and I don't think I've lost anything. The only real example for the more money=more education formula I can see is for the journalism lab I maintain at the school- learning how to use Pagemaker etc does come easier with better technology. But then again, the students are actually being taught how to do that. Just my 2 cents.
Well of course we must trust ourselves. Don't let that fool you however, read many of the other replies along with my own rants. What the original post does is distort Left/Right severely and incorrectly. He also speaks in a hypocritical manner when it comes to the solution (see my big post once again)
Exactly where in the founding document of the United States of America (i.e. The Constitution) does it state "this country is founded upon the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" or anything near that?
For the record, the Declaration of Independence is not apart of the Founding of the U.S. It grants nor promises any rights. The closest the Constitution comes to any of that is saying "... to secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..."
For the record as well, please look at the fact that our founding fathers wanted to create a new nation because of the listed ideals in the Dec of Indep. To interpret the Constitution differently means the fathers wasted their time and should have stayed under British Rule/
Overall, the Left moves in the direction of a lot of personal Liberty in the areas of Morality, but a lot of centralized power/money in the government. The Right, of course, moves in the direction of a lot of centralized control of the nation's Morality in the government, and a lot of personal freedom/liberty/power, thus reducing that of the government...I feel that it is vitally important that if we want our Hacker ways to get out to the world, we have to stop the concentration of power and money in the government. We also need to stop the execessive restrictions on our freedoms.
The first problem I see with your statements is that its to general. In the case of the/. issues brought up, you may be absolutely correct. But does this mean that the Right will fight for your freedom from "big government" etc? You stated that you like a Libertarian view, such as getting rid of the War on Drugs. However, just because the Right stands for freedom, will they change the WOD that they named a "War" themselves? The Right may love to support freedom for/., but they'll restrict it in other area perhaps even more. Same goes for centralized power/money...how do you define that? Is it the Republicans or the Democrats that want the who-know-how-much-itll-cost-really "missile shield"? Of couse Bush may support his tax cuts, but it doesn't mean the Democrats didn't support their tax (albeit a much mroe complicated one). Bush also would support more rights for corporations, infringing on that of persons. Mpre freedom for one means less freedom for another, and in this society that is ideally equally shared instead of unfairly balanced. I have no problem with centralized power if it is necessary to protect an indvidual's rights, rather than have less power, more freedom for some, and less for others. ANother thing is money- by paying of the national debt, for example, is the government taking away our freedoms? Alan Greespan had one thing in mind- delocalize power as much as you want, as long as you fix the national problems first. The Left that you mention is no different from the Right, but only in that the Right lies about what it wants more than anything else (and hence seems better. btw, please dont see this as me saying that the Left is better than the Right, I'm only trying to prove that both are evils and thus they should be evaluated on fairer grounds)
However, the Libertarian Party hs never produced a candidate I would call anything but ridiculuous, and the Republican party is far closer to my ideals than the Democrats, so I vote for them (in general... I will always vote against a complete loser, regardless of party)...The reason that those in the Right direction of politics has made many bad decisions for the techies of world is because the individual people in power are ignorant of our thoughts. I fully believe that their ideology is the one we can benefit from the most... but they are still stuck in an old world. They'll come around and see what we have in common with them in time. If you leave the Left in power, they _will_ take your freedom to program, they will take your freedom to encrypt, and they will turn us into the world's newest socialist/fascist country if given enough rope to hang us with.
This is where my main question for you lies- are you going to vote for a candidate who can do their job or who can't? I have no problem with idealogy in the end, as long as it works in favor of the Constitution and the common good. You yourself state that you don't want to vote libertarian because there is no qualified candidate. THen you state that you would vote Republicans for their thinking even though they make bad decisions. Where is the fine line between qualified or not qualified? The same goes for the "Left"- we are already a socialist nation (how else can Alan Greenspan toy with the Bank of the United States). I doubt the "Left" would put the military out on us. What exists are less extreme forms of both, and ideally there may be nothing wrong with either. However, the abuse of a socialist/facist framework can create evil connotations for both. But on the real issue, you must give the "Left" the same credit as the "Right". You are willing to believe the "Right" can change while the left can't. Those politicians are mostly in to save their own skins, and they'll bend on both sides just as easily. On the same note, look at Bush's voucher plans. Whether or not it may sound like a good idea, it is so expensive and detrimental to those who cannot recieve them (hence losing any advantages) that it cannot work. I'd rather vote for a candidate who at least has relatively good experiences versus a candidate who stresses what they want to do over how they're actually going to achieve something. Your argument that the Left is so evil may be true, but it doesn't exempt the Right from the same standards.
I can provide more examples if you wish me to, and would be glad to discuss this further (Sorry don't have much time to write a really long post)
This message is right on. For those of you who think that this is communism or that it's stupid to talk about this, look at what this message states. It's not about sharing everything, since private property exists after all under what cosmosis states. It's not about throwing money to people equally, management or not, it's about throwing money more fairly.
For those who have screamed "Communist" already (even though some have stated that they're fine with that), does that mean there are only Communists and capitalists? There's a fine line between saying you can take anything you want from anybody and vice versa compared to saying that management must follow higher moral values and make a better effort to actually communicate and understand the needs of those who produce for them.
I do disagree with the "bad trend" statement made, in the perspective that a productive corporation that shares nicely should still work to survive. The issue I find most important here is that we must divide the spoils of the work done, instead of having the bosses steal and bail out. It's really a battle between getting what is already gained, not of capitalism trying to earn more.
For those who responded by stating Marixsm is motivated by "mystical secularized religious reasons", I wonder how that philosophy could ever be that. Marxism is not about answering to a higher power, in fact Karl himself said religion is bad for a Marxist society. Also to be noted is the fact that the reasons for a Marxist society are for sharing, where nothing is hidden. Marxism is something that benefits everybody, unlike capitalism, and any distortion of that instantly makes it not Marxism. Once again we must look at the basic requirement that we must act as ethical human beings, nothing more. To lie and cheat does not always benefit the consumer after all (citing the classical Microsoft examples).
And finally, I find it very disturbing that somebody would moderate this message as funny. Just because a statement is more or less out of line with common beliefs does not mean it has to be marked as funny. A post with serious consequences should be regarded more closely than just a joke.
Before you comment on the patent, I recommend you look at this. The idea seemed completely silly to me, and following a hunch, I looked up patents by Maureen E. Neitz from the US patent office. Since I don't know the patent # from the article, I checked the list and only one patent seems to match, 5,837,461
If you read the abstract and the rest of the patent, it's clear there is no claim on the gene itself. All that is stated is
A method of detecting cone-photoreceptor-based vision disorders is disclosed. In one embodiment, the method comprises the steps of examining the amino acid sequences of a patient's L or M photopigments and correlating the amino acid combinations associated with vision disorder.
That's all the abstract says, absolutely nothing like patenting human genes. That simply is a poorly written press release by the company. The only thing that is disturbing is that nobody must have questioned that statement and double checked its legitimacy.
One more thing, what can actually be patented. From the FAQ of the patent office, there are several key statements made
Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter. Any person whoinvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
This makes clear several things- firstly The Onion article about the patenting of one's and zero's by Microsoft cannot come true, that gravity and genes can't be patented as well, and finally processes such as the infamous one-click shopping system are legitimate (which is of course why some of those got past in the first place). The question lies in whether or not it's a new and original idea.
Now, while you are right and that I should have put it in more mild tones, let me tell you why I assumed they were rash at least(yes I do admit to that). The poster had a different opinion, yes, and I respect it if they show me it's what they believed. But in this case, there simply was no evidence backing up the person's points (I even quoted his entire post in sections already) and even admitted that their point was cruel. At the same time, I am forced to assume that this is a person who doesn't care about others, and that is compounded by the fact that the posting doesn't bother to tell me why I wouldn't be mad if I was discrimated against. That also goes for that person- what if they were discriminated against and treated cruelly, what would they think then? Just arbitrarilly making declarations without backup AND knowing that they offend people is what sickens me. Opinions are not right when others disagree strongly "just because".
This mandatory testing may be for the best. If such occurences, such as this woman ending up having her life saved, happen enough, then our society will be better off as a whole.
Nobody is saying the testing itself is wrong, its what people do with it that's wrong. Yes the woman's life was saved by the test. Yes she probably would not have known that her life was in danger because of that. But no, just because she may have a predeposition to such a disease does not mean she should be denied a job. In fact, that means she theoretically cannot get a single job anywhere and somebody's "saved" life has been ruined.
Another thing that this health issue could do is to provide a cheap way for poor people to get medical help. They could apply to these jobs, get the genetic testing, and then have treatment for their ailments.
That's an interesting twist on the situation, and in a sense it is true. However you must look at the end result, not just the instant result. Suddenly because somebody took a free genetic test they are denied ALL job holdings. Suddenly they have no source of income. And now how the hell will they possibly pay for the medical help required to remedy the situation? They either need to get additional help which that company sure as hell isn't going to pay for, or just carry some evil gene that the company doesn't like and lose a job opportunity AND know that while they will never get their disease, that company still denied them the job. (Citing the extra cost of health insurance for a child that will have the disease instead). Not to mention the fact that a genetic test is not medical coverage for everything anyways. Genetics provides the basis for many diseases and resistances as well, but does not trigger everything. The tests really cannot tell what a person will be for sure when they grow up because enviroment always makes a difference on a person.
This screening process may just be what the United States, even the World, needs for better health care and having a society without disease, maybe poverty and drugs, but not disease.
Once again let me reiterate on the last point. Just because you screened out a person does that mean you kill out all the diseases in the world. Maybe I'll be happy if you can kill AIDS by screening out people who will get it for sure since they carry the "AIDS gene", but that isn't going to happen. Plus where do you stop about ending diseases? It has been proven that everybody carries some sort of faulty gene. It goes against the idea of natural selection and we might as well kill ourselves right now because everybody is "diseased" under your standard. Then there's the issue of actually rejecting
"diseased" people, which brings me to my next point.
It may seem cruel, but this might be one of the best ways to screen for jobs. It will allow our businesses to have the best and healthiest employees. This will lead to increased production and satisfaction by the customer.
May seem cruel. May seem cruel. May seem crule. IT IS CRUEL YOU GODDAMN BASTARD!!! The other people that have responded already referring to your "elitist" talk are absolutely correct. Just because somebody loses money we should let a poor soul suffer. Increased production. What does that mean? It means that because Joe Smith was not hired on basis that he carries some gene or MIGHT get a disease, we lose productivity. That's BS. 99.9% of all inhibiting genetic factors in the workplace are simply not what they seem. The only thing a corporation will ever be cared about is paying the health insurance companies (and thus extra money for heavy usage of the coverage plan). If a person will get a disease because of some hazardous chemical enviroment, then the predesposition should be able to be treated by other means (unless, of course, the chemical causes cancer for people with that gene, and of course, everything causes cancer these days so what are we supposed to say? genetic tests are not the say all, end all of the line). I challenge you to even name one case where genetic tests will determine if a person will be affected in the workplace 100% of the time and where that condition does not show up already physically as well. Satisfaction by the customer as well. That's based on the idea that somehow big fat corporations will satisfy a customer just because they rejected a person who will most likely not have the disease. Not to mention they may have picked up a lazy slob who somehow passed the checks that leads to decreased production. Not to mention that that one individual is not a corporation and its the decisions of the guy in the big office who really determines customer satifaction for the most part. Not to mention that the customer is not just a customer. The customer is a relative to somebody, a loved and important one, someone who has to somehow produce as well in our capitalist society. And thus, that person does not necessarily have to be happy if he got a better product and lost his or her job.
To the first part of your argument, what makes the best and healthiest employees? Is it the person who might get a heart attack someday, or is it the employee who has that same condition but eats the rights food, excercies daily, etc, etc? And the best employees? Does your genome determine if you will be a team player, if you are willing to take blame, and all those other things. Genetics may one day prove a little about this, but in the end, it will always be the person attitude about themself that produces the best or worst employee. Genomes don't say all, and the current system works as well. Remember that genetic tests are flawed in determining EVERYTHING about a person.
And finally, answering that same quote and summarizing the issue at hand. Genetic discrimination is just another way to try to rid society of problems. Whether or not test results work, somebody is going to try and and use them to discriminate because they believe it works. Somebody else will as many already have. The whole idea of the capitalist system is flawed when some people have no sense of morality (and believe me, that is very much the case). The idea that we must compete and take no prisoners is detrimental to society in the end (in the words of my old history teacher about the "game" of capitalism: "Yeah! We took them out too!!!"). People have to learn what is the ethical line between making a profit and stomping on others. People that work at corporations aren't exactly poor like those who live out on the streets. Back in the 1930's eugenics movement, people were forced to sterilize themselves because they were alcoholic and their kids would thus be alcoholic based on their genes. Is this really the case or a falsehood due to the flawed concepts that we are who we are because our biological fate determined it? Is history repeating itself? We need to stop that from happening before it becomes completely true.
-----
To smash the little atom, all mankind was intent. Now any day the atom may return the compliment.
For those of you wondering what current laws cover here's a clarification:
Firstly, there is no specific federal law that says discrimination on the basis of your genetic information is illegal. Some judges have interpreted the ADA as doing so however, and also some people say the EEOC theoretically covers the issue. Of course, with the cases mentioned it's hard to say whether or not that actually works. There is another problem however. The ADA talks mostly about disabilties and to some extent refers to asymptomatic conditons (those not triggered yet for whatever reason) but the extent of asymptomatic coverage is also debated. For example, a woman was given health coverage but since she carried a gene for cystic fibrosis, her unborn baby was already denied insurance because it was most likely that it would develop such diseases.
Secondly, there ARE state laws protecting the rights to privacy- they just don't cover everything or everybody. Remember, since there is no uniform policy there is no uniform coverage in between any states. It is hard to generalize what protection is given, and in some cases the legislation only covers discrimination on insurance policies, by far not enough to include employment. Most advocates for a federal policy cite that these laws are too confusing, vague, and sometimes limited to actually help out the people in the cases mentioned.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been attempts to pass legislation in the past. The GPNA (Genetic Privacy and Non-Discrimination Act) of 1997 failed to pass through Congress, mostly in part because people saw the ADA as a good protection and that genetic privacy issues would thus never be a problem. If only Congress had the benefit of hindsight then. The GPNA would prevent disclosure of genetic data of a person to anybody without the written consent of that person (with a few lawful exceptions of course, such as body IDing and for criminal investigations). Generally speaking, if we get a comprehensive policy covering all Americans equally and specifically addressing the issues presented by genetic discrimination, most and hopefully all of the cases will never come up again.
--------
To smash the little atom, all mankind was intent. Now any day the atom may return the compliment.
Well remember the point that shipping still costs a lot. With shipping and product combined, you can often get charged more in the long run than if you bought within your state. That only is negated if you buy a very expensive product or a lot of stuff.
There also is the issue over losing revenue. Are the states actually losing anything over this? While I know they can gain potentially billions in revenue in the near future, does this mean that they've lost revenue? I doubt it. Commerce isn't only growing on the Internet, it's also growing for many other industries. In reality, this means that states aren't actually getting less money, and they are only complaining about how they could have so much more.
There's also the issue about tyranny. 26 states does not equal 50. As far as I can see, that means that 24 states do not see this as an issue for the near future or even harmful to the system.
Perhaps these states somehow get most of their revenue from sources that do not include sales taxes. This would disporportionately hurt the people in these states if suddenly they are taxed more than people in other states who already comply with sales taxes. Also, the fact that those states are not taking a stance on this backs up the fact that states should not be actually losing money from this. Finally, with these states opting out, that means that a patchwork of tax systems will lead to complaints and even more confusion when taxes to some states are actually mandated for once.
If the states actually lose revenue, maybe they could back off on the current taxes and try a different system. Perhaps they could tax something that is bought in-state, such as gas. This doesn't disporportionally hurt poor people and should not hurt anybody anymore if the state agrees to lessen its taxes elsewhere. Going against the Constitution should not be the only option.
------
To smash the atom, all mankind was intent.
But someday, the atom just may return the compliment.
Firstly, IceBox is right as in that the media will not present this as the whole patchwork as it is. Secondly, "other purposes" still doesn't help anything either. It's just as vague, but does mention the computer act at least.
With the AlphaGrip, gamers can continue playing without putting their controller down to use a keyboard. On the Internet the more popular games require text entry and Webmasters at gaming sites indicate that their visitors spend more time chatting and instant messaging their friends than they do actually playing games.
Yes, the text is definitely just written to get VC funding. Speaking of which, how many of actually use controllers to play games alone? Simply put, its much easier to just buy a mouse with enough buttons to equal a controller (with the exception of some Microsoft products and a few others). The keyboard always makes up for the rest and adds more EFFICIENT functionality than a controller could have. And finally, why the hell would you use a controller to chat in a room? I'd rather use one of those pens for a Palm than scrunch up if I don't have a computer around. And finally, most internet games do use a resolution so high that you'd need a laptop, not one of these things hooked up to a puny Palm screen or whatever else they have in mind. To sum it up, even if you can type faster, there simply is no practical use or advantage gained, especially if you already know how to use a keyboard.
One thing comes with simplicity- the inability to fix more complex problems. The article keeps on mentioning how software should be designed for basic use, and that the same software must be bug-free. However, the issue about how power users could not use simplified software has been addressed (one program to do all the tasks rather than 50 to each perform one is much better after all); and simplification also requires more coding. Design is another matter- programmers shouldn't be called on to do it if people complain so much. As for coding, much software requires special features for different users. If some installation or process requires automation, you get more code and more bugs in the end. Finally, simple design is not always best. Case in point- I help out with the Macs at my school, and while they may be simple for using software, it is a pain to install special hardware. All the problems mentioned turn up sooner or later, it's a matter how how easily they can be fixed.
Same goes for my high school. I essentially credit for being a part of Journalism while just doing computer work. There still is a serious lack of tech support anyway. Our school (which many people get the impression that it should be filled with working computers, etc. because it is in a influential neighborhood of Silicon Valley) has only a set of rusty Macs to work with for the most part and about one person working on all the computers in the district. I have to fix the computers, tweak them, run the fileserver, code/make the webpage, and assist in all sorts of Photoshop, Pagemaker, and word processing problems. Without students like me there simply would be nobody capable of doing the work. It's so bad in fact that my teacher just refers my services to all sorts of other organizations and schools which pay me to do even more work.
The job is worth it, but it just frightens me how capable the tech support is. During spring break when I was on vacation (our staff is very dedicated), there were printer problems. They finally got the district people to look at the problem when school started again, but they could not even fix it by dismantaling it. All it took was to load the paper more firmly. Another thing is that the teachers want to network the school (right now it is several disorganized sets of cables connected via the district hq miles away) and get some form of e-mail storage, file sharing, etc). The district was supposed to set it up over a year ago but now they're letting me go ahead by just installing Linux. There simply isn't enough competent people working hard to fix all the computers.
Heck, on the front page of slashdot today there is of course, the article about space satallites. If such broadcast power is in use someday, it will sure be interesting to watch what Granholm can say to that. Some people just have to learn that they aren't king of the world.
I do believe that much of the censorship that goes on today is frivulous. However, I let me be the devil's advocate just a bit.
Free speech is the major complaint behind all this. Free speech lets use the word "fuck" as we please (although I must say that is a different story in school). Free speech, most importantly, lets orginizations and corporations dictate their feelings. If a group of people are so offended by people who want to use the word "fuck", they have a right to say that is wrong and refuse service. That's all. They can't stop us from using such language. However, as long as there are other companies willing to accept the usage of such domain names, fuckedcompany.com (a most entertaing site at times, I might add) will still exist, for one. There is nothing (legally) wrong when nsi.com denies such service. There may only be a problem is a monopoly dictating such censorship exists, or the government takes a stance and bans the usage of "fuck"
We always hear about how all anti-cookie lawsuits mention the fact that users are not able to go against cookies. And of course, its obvious how easy it is to disable cookies.
Microsoft recently tried to show the public a new version of Internet Explorer which implemented "new" functions to let users easily determine which cookies they want and which they don't want as if none existed before. This only compounds the problem by giving the impression that we have no security at all unless we get the newest software.
In light of all of this, why does the media not report the other side? They are all caught up in the mode of earning money- scaring the public, getting ratings by users who want to know what is happening, keep them focused on updates to see if their privacy will be protected after all. After all, wtf is up with all this "constitutional crisis" crap? People talk about how the electoral system is messed up, and we need to get rid of it to save the world. I'm relieved to see that Time Magazine is willing to point out that "what would happen in a popular vote system where the margin is as narrow as the Gore-Bush margin...demands for recounts, not in two or three states but in 50". Even Hilary Clinton says she would support such a measure in Congress. Nobody is willing to truly speak for the electoral system and cite parallels when baseball series such as the one in 1997 ended up with one team scoring more runs and still losing overall, or even mention that things like this have happened before.
Back on the issue of online privacy, the media fails to mention the fact that most websites at least give a privacy policy- people are too lazy to read the legal information thrown in their face and then complain about how they never knew this or that. If the website never mentioned such a policy, it's the fault of the website, not the ad company which told the website to follow certain guidelines.
If anybody is wondering what "web bugs" are, they are only another cause of massive violations of privacy. (see the link/reference to them on the original article mentioned ). They are simply the one pixel gifs that many people use in invisible counters and such. Cookies are often only used in them to ensure that a person is not counted twice, not to monitor tracking- yet cnet portrays them to maliciously violate our privacy all the time.
These "web bugs" are described early on with the following excerpt from that article: Savvy Web surfers know they are being tracked when they see a banner ad. But people can't see Web bugs, and anti-cookie filters won't catch them. So the Web bugs wind up tracking surfers in areas online where banner ads are not present or on sites where people may not expect to be trailed.
Firstly, it is a sad thing when people assume that a banner ad = cookie when websites like Yahoo sell their own ads and place cookies even without banner ads. Secondly, it is even worse when the article seems to assume that anti-cookie filters look just for banner ads. The best filter is the options menu of course, and it is impossible to miss a cookie with that. And finally, the last part of the excerpt mentions that people expect to be trailed when there are banner ads around, when the article along with other cnet articles say that most people do not even know they are being tracked in the first place. The true savvy users like us know that cookies are everywhere, and are not synonymic with one another.
Do not blame the masses for making ridiculous lawsuits, but the law firms who go for money, not ethics, and the media for making stories sound good while only distorting the truth. And on a final note, it is interesting to see how 60 minutes aired a story on Echelon (sorry if I got the show wrong, but the segment was shown on a major network), the most powerful version of Big Brother that I can think of, and most people just shrug and accept it. Why can't people sue the government after all?
-------------------------------------------------- --
Faies "[This ISP] is completely secure if you are using a standard operating system like Windows 98"
If you can tell me what "exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" gives the creator the power to do with something, then I can believe that. The Constitution is also a moldable document. The elastic clause allows an interpretation that isn't set in stone, hence its nickname (the one talking about how Congress can use any means necessary to enforce its granted powers).
The Constitution did not refer to drugs. Why do we have the War on Drugs today that throws billions of taxpayer dollars around so rapidly? Or even more visible is bans on certain types of assault weapons. Did the second amendment mention anything about that? Income taxes? The Constitution is NOT set in stone? Why? Because of various, sometimes poor misinterpretations of the Constituion. "Any means necessary" is also a broad term- it can be used to step on individual rights easily- and create the IRS.
You talk about careful balances in the law. Reading case law does not help me in any way. I'll use the example of Kaplan's ruling. Kaplan at one point stated that "To begin with, all or substantially all motion pictures available on DVD are available also on videotape. In consequence, anyone wishing to make lawful use of a particular movie may buy or rent a videotape, play it, and even copy all or part of it with readily available equipment"- Why? Because digital format provides more information. For goodness sakes, this does not in any way justify ruling against 2600.com et al. even for linking. Just using a different format and older equipment makes you legal under the law supposedly- and that's wrong.
In fact, the entire DeCSS ruling contradicts. If a person builds a photocopier- and photocopies somebody's entire book, he/she has created a new copy of the book in a different format. Is that legal? Or should we ban photocopiers because they make copies of copyrighted material just like DeCSS can make copies? If a perfect copier makes a perfect copy, is that also illegal? DeCSS is supposedly designed for this purpose- to let people copy their movies to their computers- and as long as they don't give the extra copy to somebody else, then they haven't done anything wrong. And if Kaplan wants to ban linking to the means to make such copies, we should also eliminate VCR manufacturers and Kinkos since they provide the means necessary to make illegal copies.
I'm also not saying that the entire ruling is wrong. I do agree that reverse engineering the Xing player is illegal under the DMCA- just that also is a bad interpretation of "fair use". Same goes for the whole idea of linking, its only equivalent to punishing somebody else for what you do along with yourself. Copyright law is a set of many rules that contradict- but some people accept them because they have been taught this way.
Another quick point about what Kaplan says- you can view copyrighted material only with licensed DVD players. This is of course a monopoly, and because its so profitable, why don't we ban Company X's VCRs just because they never even looked at a contract for royalties. Same goes for criminal acts of piracy for must we stop all potential abuse or nab the criminals themselves? If the writers of the Constitution were as smart as you say, then they had good reason to add the Second Amendment soon after. This is because we don't get rid of guns because they MIGHT be able to kill somebody, and instead we catch the crooks themselves when they abuse that right to hurt others.
And finally, your post mentions "ill-informed opinions". I just quoted your post- are you going to tell me I can't even use a single part of it even if I give credit to you? Same goes if I make a mp3, name it, and give it to someone else- but not the rest of the CD with it. If I take one part and still mention who made it maybe I then am fully within legal bounds. Face it- law is indeterminate. There is no set standards on anything.
At least opinions can give another perspective. Conforming and accepting does nothing. Some previous posters are right- companies do have a right to do all this, but it does not help us in this capitalistic society. Things that have been the way they are for so long should be changed anyway if they still fall outside the bounds of the Constitution. To stop getting shafted for that little extra packaging or extra movie scene, we must speak out and fight with wallets.
Of course, with that definition that means that nobody even believes in our rights.
To express the will of the people, in this case their views on hackers, is to express the will of the majority.
"'What then can be depended upon to keep the government in close rein? ' The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may , by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. . . . It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. ' There are two ways of obviat-ing this danger: one is by establishing a monarch independent of popular will, and the other is by reflecting these contending interests ( so far as their representatives may be enfranchised ) in the very structure of the government itself so that a majority cannot dominate the minority - which minority is of course composed of those who possess property that may be attacked . ' Society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.'"
-Charles Beard
Well at the same time, the plantiffs in the Santa Clara Couty Supreme Court case decided to also send cease and desist orders to...Australia since the Aussies might be criminals depending on the California ruling. It's only a matter of how this nation views itself as most important more often than not.
Bush has won in Florida, and as some of you have said, by margins split by Nader. Doesn't look like Nader even got the 5% he wanted, but that's the fault of people who were scared of Bush...and that didn't help did it? Well if Bush screws things up you can be sure Nader will be back in 4 years and take far more than that 5%. That's my prediction.
Also, is it just me or did I hear something on CBS about 78% of pro-Bush voters voting just based on morals alone?
If so...I'm believing the Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton who wrote the Constitution that the common, uneducated man is incapable of electing a President. After all that's why the electoral college was set up in the first place.
---
"I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." G.W. Bush 8/21/2000
Sounds like they're just trying to prove a myth. Doesn't mean its wrong, just funny that's the first thing they can think of when they think of disrupting behavior.
It's interesting to see how the e-mail critiques the inability for huge groups of programmers to actually be productive when it also mentions how arguments are unfounded because Linux people supposedly just insult Microsoft. This letter is doing exactly that. It can laugh at the creation all it wants, but it doesn't say anything about what capabilities are actually lacking.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take a look at the telephone.
Before Mr. Edison made his new and improved telephone, there was an older version (which, I'm sure, had a patent on it). In order for him to make his own telephone, he either would have to work from scratch, get the details from the company/patent, or get a license. Patents exist, of course, to give the original creator money in compensation for his/her efforts. If a creator does not let others gain access to the technology, a monopoly is essentially created. Should patents be ignored under such circumstances (so we could have a better telephone for example)?
Whether or not this situation is historically accurate, is it right to do this? (unless there's some stupid patent on the whole concept which happens too much these days anyways)
First off, most of the screenshots showing "graphic" violence are showing somebody getting punched. Now if say Looney Toons and dropping anvils on characters all the time isn't graphic, then I don't know what is.
My main point here is that there is nothing to fear as long as the right message is sent. The cruel acts of violence always occur on behalf of the bad guys. You don't see the hero of Pokemon bashing people indiscriminately and stealing. Violence has always occured in cartoons and will do so- as long as the evil guys are defeated and the heroes act only in self defense, parents should not worry. Worry more about the good old Tom and Jerry where both cat and mouse are invincible to any violence. It's not to say that all violence is good, but that it cannot all be objected to so easily on the basis of how severe it is.
Absolutely truly spoken. I'd like to elaborate on what technology really means for a school. At my school (just for background, most of the students are well off and already fluent with computers), most computers have elaborate security on them. That shouldn't be a problem for letting people get on the web in most cases and typing up a few documents. It's a good start. Eventually the security is too restrictive however. When people graduate and go to the workforce someday, with the "access" and schooling provided by the school, I doubt many kids will know how to really work in a white-collar enviroment with computers. Students may know how to write e-mails, but can they attach and forward important documents? If they want to be engineers, will they know how to use advanced software like Autocad? What does word processing teach us about using spreadsheets? The security programs are more are less the result of a lack of drive to teach kids everything they ever wanted to know.
Even when it is assumed that all students have a computer when my english teacher tells us to write an essay, or my history teacher asks us to look up some extra information, many of my peers don't know very much. Some survive using AOL's simplified enviroment. For others the scope may expand to searching on Yahoo, using Hotmail, or Instant Messenger to swap answers and study. Beyond that there simply is no interaction with the Internet, and for applications few come to mind besides Word and Napster.
While computer access so far is limited and many of us still know how to do things the old fashioned way, I fear it will be much different for those still in kindergarten and such. Recently I visited my old elementary school, and there each group of classrooms has a bare minimum of 8 high speed computers. It scares me because I can think of no real good use for such power (while there is some potential in high school).
The same goes for the issue of bandwidth, etc. Bandwidth provides video and multimedia of all sorts, supposedly. Today however any useful content is just as well stated in plain old graphics and text. All I see are more mp3s and more frags in CS. I still run on my trusty 56k modem and I don't think I've lost anything. The only real example for the more money=more education formula I can see is for the journalism lab I maintain at the school- learning how to use Pagemaker etc does come easier with better technology. But then again, the students are actually being taught how to do that. Just my 2 cents.
Well of course we must trust ourselves. Don't let that fool you however, read many of the other replies along with my own rants. What the original post does is distort Left/Right severely and incorrectly. He also speaks in a hypocritical manner when it comes to the solution (see my big post once again)
For the record as well, please look at the fact that our founding fathers wanted to create a new nation because of the listed ideals in the Dec of Indep. To interpret the Constitution differently means the fathers wasted their time and should have stayed under British Rule/
The first problem I see with your statements is that its to general. In the case of the /. issues brought up, you may be absolutely correct. But does this mean that the Right will fight for your freedom from "big government" etc? You stated that you like a Libertarian view, such as getting rid of the War on Drugs. However, just because the Right stands for freedom, will they change the WOD that they named a "War" themselves? The Right may love to support freedom for /., but they'll restrict it in other area perhaps even more. Same goes for centralized power/money...how do you define that? Is it the Republicans or the Democrats that want the who-know-how-much-itll-cost-really "missile shield"? Of couse Bush may support his tax cuts, but it doesn't mean the Democrats didn't support their tax (albeit a much mroe complicated one). Bush also would support more rights for corporations, infringing on that of persons. Mpre freedom for one means less freedom for another, and in this society that is ideally equally shared instead of unfairly balanced. I have no problem with centralized power if it is necessary to protect an indvidual's rights, rather than have less power, more freedom for some, and less for others. ANother thing is money- by paying of the national debt, for example, is the government taking away our freedoms? Alan Greespan had one thing in mind- delocalize power as much as you want, as long as you fix the national problems first. The Left that you mention is no different from the Right, but only in that the Right lies about what it wants more than anything else (and hence seems better. btw, please dont see this as me saying that the Left is better than the Right, I'm only trying to prove that both are evils and thus they should be evaluated on fairer grounds)
However, the Libertarian Party hs never produced a candidate I would call anything but ridiculuous, and the Republican party is far closer to my ideals than the Democrats, so I vote for them (in general... I will always vote against a complete loser, regardless of party)...The reason that those in the Right direction of politics has made many bad decisions for the techies of world is because the individual people in power are ignorant of our thoughts. I fully believe that their ideology is the one we can benefit from the most... but they are still stuck in an old world. They'll come around and see what we have in common with them in time. If you leave the Left in power, they _will_ take your freedom to program, they will take your freedom to encrypt, and they will turn us into the world's newest socialist/fascist country if given enough rope to hang us with.
This is where my main question for you lies- are you going to vote for a candidate who can do their job or who can't? I have no problem with idealogy in the end, as long as it works in favor of the Constitution and the common good. You yourself state that you don't want to vote libertarian because there is no qualified candidate. THen you state that you would vote Republicans for their thinking even though they make bad decisions. Where is the fine line between qualified or not qualified? The same goes for the "Left"- we are already a socialist nation (how else can Alan Greenspan toy with the Bank of the United States). I doubt the "Left" would put the military out on us. What exists are less extreme forms of both, and ideally there may be nothing wrong with either. However, the abuse of a socialist/facist framework can create evil connotations for both. But on the real issue, you must give the "Left" the same credit as the "Right". You are willing to believe the "Right" can change while the left can't. Those politicians are mostly in to save their own skins, and they'll bend on both sides just as easily. On the same note, look at Bush's voucher plans. Whether or not it may sound like a good idea, it is so expensive and detrimental to those who cannot recieve them (hence losing any advantages) that it cannot work. I'd rather vote for a candidate who at least has relatively good experiences versus a candidate who stresses what they want to do over how they're actually going to achieve something. Your argument that the Left is so evil may be true, but it doesn't exempt the Right from the same standards.
I can provide more examples if you wish me to, and would be glad to discuss this further (Sorry don't have much time to write a really long post)
This message is right on. For those of you who think that this is communism or that it's stupid to talk about this, look at what this message states. It's not about sharing everything, since private property exists after all under what cosmosis states. It's not about throwing money to people equally, management or not, it's about throwing money more fairly.
For those who have screamed "Communist" already (even though some have stated that they're fine with that), does that mean there are only Communists and capitalists? There's a fine line between saying you can take anything you want from anybody and vice versa compared to saying that management must follow higher moral values and make a better effort to actually communicate and understand the needs of those who produce for them.
I do disagree with the "bad trend" statement made, in the perspective that a productive corporation that shares nicely should still work to survive. The issue I find most important here is that we must divide the spoils of the work done, instead of having the bosses steal and bail out. It's really a battle between getting what is already gained, not of capitalism trying to earn more.
For those who responded by stating Marixsm is motivated by "mystical secularized religious reasons", I wonder how that philosophy could ever be that. Marxism is not about answering to a higher power, in fact Karl himself said religion is bad for a Marxist society. Also to be noted is the fact that the reasons for a Marxist society are for sharing, where nothing is hidden. Marxism is something that benefits everybody, unlike capitalism, and any distortion of that instantly makes it not Marxism. Once again we must look at the basic requirement that we must act as ethical human beings, nothing more. To lie and cheat does not always benefit the consumer after all (citing the classical Microsoft examples).
And finally, I find it very disturbing that somebody would moderate this message as funny. Just because a statement is more or less out of line with common beliefs does not mean it has to be marked as funny. A post with serious consequences should be regarded more closely than just a joke.
If you read the abstract and the rest of the patent, it's clear there is no claim on the gene itself. All that is stated is
A method of detecting cone-photoreceptor-based vision disorders is disclosed. In one embodiment, the method comprises the steps of examining the amino acid sequences of a patient's L or M photopigments and correlating the amino acid combinations associated with vision disorder.
That's all the abstract says, absolutely nothing like patenting human genes. That simply is a poorly written press release by the company. The only thing that is disturbing is that nobody must have questioned that statement and double checked its legitimacy.
One more thing, what can actually be patented. From the FAQ of the patent office, there are several key statements made
Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
Any person whoinvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
This makes clear several things- firstly The Onion article about the patenting of one's and zero's by Microsoft cannot come true, that gravity and genes can't be patented as well, and finally processes such as the infamous one-click shopping system are legitimate (which is of course why some of those got past in the first place). The question lies in whether or not it's a new and original idea.
Now, while you are right and that I should have put it in more mild tones, let me tell you why I assumed they were rash at least(yes I do admit to that). The poster had a different opinion, yes, and I respect it if they show me it's what they believed. But in this case, there simply was no evidence backing up the person's points (I even quoted his entire post in sections already) and even admitted that their point was cruel. At the same time, I am forced to assume that this is a person who doesn't care about others, and that is compounded by the fact that the posting doesn't bother to tell me why I wouldn't be mad if I was discrimated against. That also goes for that person- what if they were discriminated against and treated cruelly, what would they think then? Just arbitrarilly making declarations without backup AND knowing that they offend people is what sickens me. Opinions are not right when others disagree strongly "just because".
This mandatory testing may be for the best. If such occurences, such as this woman ending up having her life saved, happen enough, then our society will be better off as a whole.
Nobody is saying the testing itself is wrong, its what people do with it that's wrong. Yes the woman's life was saved by the test. Yes she probably would not have known that her life was in danger because of that. But no, just because she may have a predeposition to such a disease does not mean she should be denied a job. In fact, that means she theoretically cannot get a single job anywhere and somebody's "saved" life has been ruined.
Another thing that this health issue could do is to provide a cheap way for poor people to get medical help. They could apply to these jobs, get the genetic testing, and then have treatment for their ailments.
That's an interesting twist on the situation, and in a sense it is true. However you must look at the end result, not just the instant result. Suddenly because somebody took a free genetic test they are denied ALL job holdings. Suddenly they have no source of income. And now how the hell will they possibly pay for the medical help required to remedy the situation? They either need to get additional help which that company sure as hell isn't going to pay for, or just carry some evil gene that the company doesn't like and lose a job opportunity AND know that while they will never get their disease, that company still denied them the job. (Citing the extra cost of health insurance for a child that will have the disease instead). Not to mention the fact that a genetic test is not medical coverage for everything anyways. Genetics provides the basis for many diseases and resistances as well, but does not trigger everything. The tests really cannot tell what a person will be for sure when they grow up because enviroment always makes a difference on a person.
This screening process may just be what the United States, even the World, needs for better health care and having a society without disease, maybe poverty and drugs, but not disease.
Once again let me reiterate on the last point. Just because you screened out a person does that mean you kill out all the diseases in the world. Maybe I'll be happy if you can kill AIDS by screening out people who will get it for sure since they carry the "AIDS gene", but that isn't going to happen. Plus where do you stop about ending diseases? It has been proven that everybody carries some sort of faulty gene. It goes against the idea of natural selection and we might as well kill ourselves right now because everybody is "diseased" under your standard. Then there's the issue of actually rejecting "diseased" people, which brings me to my next point.
It may seem cruel, but this might be one of the best ways to screen for jobs. It will allow our businesses to have the best and healthiest employees. This will lead to increased production and satisfaction by the customer.
May seem cruel. May seem cruel. May seem crule. IT IS CRUEL YOU GODDAMN BASTARD!!! The other people that have responded already referring to your "elitist" talk are absolutely correct. Just because somebody loses money we should let a poor soul suffer. Increased production. What does that mean? It means that because Joe Smith was not hired on basis that he carries some gene or MIGHT get a disease, we lose productivity. That's BS. 99.9% of all inhibiting genetic factors in the workplace are simply not what they seem. The only thing a corporation will ever be cared about is paying the health insurance companies (and thus extra money for heavy usage of the coverage plan). If a person will get a disease because of some hazardous chemical enviroment, then the predesposition should be able to be treated by other means (unless, of course, the chemical causes cancer for people with that gene, and of course, everything causes cancer these days so what are we supposed to say? genetic tests are not the say all, end all of the line). I challenge you to even name one case where genetic tests will determine if a person will be affected in the workplace 100% of the time and where that condition does not show up already physically as well. Satisfaction by the customer as well. That's based on the idea that somehow big fat corporations will satisfy a customer just because they rejected a person who will most likely not have the disease. Not to mention they may have picked up a lazy slob who somehow passed the checks that leads to decreased production. Not to mention that that one individual is not a corporation and its the decisions of the guy in the big office who really determines customer satifaction for the most part. Not to mention that the customer is not just a customer. The customer is a relative to somebody, a loved and important one, someone who has to somehow produce as well in our capitalist society. And thus, that person does not necessarily have to be happy if he got a better product and lost his or her job.
To the first part of your argument, what makes the best and healthiest employees? Is it the person who might get a heart attack someday, or is it the employee who has that same condition but eats the rights food, excercies daily, etc, etc? And the best employees? Does your genome determine if you will be a team player, if you are willing to take blame, and all those other things. Genetics may one day prove a little about this, but in the end, it will always be the person attitude about themself that produces the best or worst employee. Genomes don't say all, and the current system works as well. Remember that genetic tests are flawed in determining EVERYTHING about a person.
And finally, answering that same quote and summarizing the issue at hand. Genetic discrimination is just another way to try to rid society of problems. Whether or not test results work, somebody is going to try and and use them to discriminate because they believe it works. Somebody else will as many already have. The whole idea of the capitalist system is flawed when some people have no sense of morality (and believe me, that is very much the case). The idea that we must compete and take no prisoners is detrimental to society in the end (in the words of my old history teacher about the "game" of capitalism: "Yeah! We took them out too!!!"). People have to learn what is the ethical line between making a profit and stomping on others. People that work at corporations aren't exactly poor like those who live out on the streets. Back in the 1930's eugenics movement, people were forced to sterilize themselves because they were alcoholic and their kids would thus be alcoholic based on their genes. Is this really the case or a falsehood due to the flawed concepts that we are who we are because our biological fate determined it? Is history repeating itself? We need to stop that from happening before it becomes completely true.
-----
To smash the little atom, all mankind was intent. Now any day the atom may return the compliment.
For those of you wondering what current laws cover here's a clarification:
Firstly, there is no specific federal law that says discrimination on the basis of your genetic information is illegal. Some judges have interpreted the ADA as doing so however, and also some people say the EEOC theoretically covers the issue. Of course, with the cases mentioned it's hard to say whether or not that actually works. There is another problem however. The ADA talks mostly about disabilties and to some extent refers to asymptomatic conditons (those not triggered yet for whatever reason) but the extent of asymptomatic coverage is also debated. For example, a woman was given health coverage but since she carried a gene for cystic fibrosis, her unborn baby was already denied insurance because it was most likely that it would develop such diseases.
Secondly, there ARE state laws protecting the rights to privacy- they just don't cover everything or everybody. Remember, since there is no uniform policy there is no uniform coverage in between any states. It is hard to generalize what protection is given, and in some cases the legislation only covers discrimination on insurance policies, by far not enough to include employment. Most advocates for a federal policy cite that these laws are too confusing, vague, and sometimes limited to actually help out the people in the cases mentioned.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been attempts to pass legislation in the past. The GPNA (Genetic Privacy and Non-Discrimination Act) of 1997 failed to pass through Congress, mostly in part because people saw the ADA as a good protection and that genetic privacy issues would thus never be a problem. If only Congress had the benefit of hindsight then. The GPNA would prevent disclosure of genetic data of a person to anybody without the written consent of that person (with a few lawful exceptions of course, such as body IDing and for criminal investigations). Generally speaking, if we get a comprehensive policy covering all Americans equally and specifically addressing the issues presented by genetic discrimination, most and hopefully all of the cases will never come up again.
--------
To smash the little atom, all mankind was intent. Now any day the atom may return the compliment.
Well remember the point that shipping still costs a lot. With shipping and product combined, you can often get charged more in the long run than if you bought within your state. That only is negated if you buy a very expensive product or a lot of stuff.
There also is the issue over losing revenue. Are the states actually losing anything over this? While I know they can gain potentially billions in revenue in the near future, does this mean that they've lost revenue? I doubt it. Commerce isn't only growing on the Internet, it's also growing for many other industries. In reality, this means that states aren't actually getting less money, and they are only complaining about how they could have so much more.
There's also the issue about tyranny. 26 states does not equal 50. As far as I can see, that means that 24 states do not see this as an issue for the near future or even harmful to the system.
Perhaps these states somehow get most of their revenue from sources that do not include sales taxes. This would disporportionately hurt the people in these states if suddenly they are taxed more than people in other states who already comply with sales taxes. Also, the fact that those states are not taking a stance on this backs up the fact that states should not be actually losing money from this. Finally, with these states opting out, that means that a patchwork of tax systems will lead to complaints and even more confusion when taxes to some states are actually mandated for once.
If the states actually lose revenue, maybe they could back off on the current taxes and try a different system. Perhaps they could tax something that is bought in-state, such as gas. This doesn't disporportionally hurt poor people and should not hurt anybody anymore if the state agrees to lessen its taxes elsewhere. Going against the Constitution should not be the only option.
------
To smash the atom, all mankind was intent.
But someday, the atom just may return the compliment.
2 issues for this:
Firstly, IceBox is right as in that the media will not present this as the whole patchwork as it is. Secondly, "other purposes" still doesn't help anything either. It's just as vague, but does mention the computer act at least.
Yes, the text is definitely just written to get VC funding. Speaking of which, how many of actually use controllers to play games alone? Simply put, its much easier to just buy a mouse with enough buttons to equal a controller (with the exception of some Microsoft products and a few others). The keyboard always makes up for the rest and adds more EFFICIENT functionality than a controller could have. And finally, why the hell would you use a controller to chat in a room? I'd rather use one of those pens for a Palm than scrunch up if I don't have a computer around. And finally, most internet games do use a resolution so high that you'd need a laptop, not one of these things hooked up to a puny Palm screen or whatever else they have in mind. To sum it up, even if you can type faster, there simply is no practical use or advantage gained, especially if you already know how to use a keyboard.
One thing comes with simplicity- the inability to fix more complex problems. The article keeps on mentioning how software should be designed for basic use, and that the same software must be bug-free. However, the issue about how power users could not use simplified software has been addressed (one program to do all the tasks rather than 50 to each perform one is much better after all); and simplification also requires more coding. Design is another matter- programmers shouldn't be called on to do it if people complain so much. As for coding, much software requires special features for different users. If some installation or process requires automation, you get more code and more bugs in the end. Finally, simple design is not always best. Case in point- I help out with the Macs at my school, and while they may be simple for using software, it is a pain to install special hardware. All the problems mentioned turn up sooner or later, it's a matter how how easily they can be fixed.
Same goes for my high school. I essentially credit for being a part of Journalism while just doing computer work. There still is a serious lack of tech support anyway. Our school (which many people get the impression that it should be filled with working computers, etc. because it is in a influential neighborhood of Silicon Valley) has only a set of rusty Macs to work with for the most part and about one person working on all the computers in the district. I have to fix the computers, tweak them, run the fileserver, code/make the webpage, and assist in all sorts of Photoshop, Pagemaker, and word processing problems. Without students like me there simply would be nobody capable of doing the work. It's so bad in fact that my teacher just refers my services to all sorts of other organizations and schools which pay me to do even more work.
The job is worth it, but it just frightens me how capable the tech support is. During spring break when I was on vacation (our staff is very dedicated), there were printer problems. They finally got the district people to look at the problem when school started again, but they could not even fix it by dismantaling it. All it took was to load the paper more firmly. Another thing is that the teachers want to network the school (right now it is several disorganized sets of cables connected via the district hq miles away) and get some form of e-mail storage, file sharing, etc). The district was supposed to set it up over a year ago but now they're letting me go ahead by just installing Linux. There simply isn't enough competent people working hard to fix all the computers.
Heck, on the front page of slashdot today there is of course, the article about space satallites. If such broadcast power is in use someday, it will sure be interesting to watch what Granholm can say to that. Some people just have to learn that they aren't king of the world.
Free speech is the major complaint behind all this. Free speech lets use the word "fuck" as we please (although I must say that is a different story in school). Free speech, most importantly, lets orginizations and corporations dictate their feelings. If a group of people are so offended by people who want to use the word "fuck", they have a right to say that is wrong and refuse service. That's all. They can't stop us from using such language. However, as long as there are other companies willing to accept the usage of such domain names, fuckedcompany.com (a most entertaing site at times, I might add) will still exist, for one. There is nothing (legally) wrong when nsi.com denies such service. There may only be a problem is a monopoly dictating such censorship exists, or the government takes a stance and bans the usage of "fuck"
------------------------------
Faies
Microsoft recently tried to show the public a new version of Internet Explorer which implemented "new" functions to let users easily determine which cookies they want and which they don't want as if none existed before. This only compounds the problem by giving the impression that we have no security at all unless we get the newest software.
In light of all of this, why does the media not report the other side? They are all caught up in the mode of earning money- scaring the public, getting ratings by users who want to know what is happening, keep them focused on updates to see if their privacy will be protected after all. After all, wtf is up with all this "constitutional crisis" crap? People talk about how the electoral system is messed up, and we need to get rid of it to save the world. I'm relieved to see that Time Magazine is willing to point out that "what would happen in a popular vote system where the margin is as narrow as the Gore-Bush margin...demands for recounts, not in two or three states but in 50". Even Hilary Clinton says she would support such a measure in Congress. Nobody is willing to truly speak for the electoral system and cite parallels when baseball series such as the one in 1997 ended up with one team scoring more runs and still losing overall, or even mention that things like this have happened before.
Back on the issue of online privacy, the media fails to mention the fact that most websites at least give a privacy policy- people are too lazy to read the legal information thrown in their face and then complain about how they never knew this or that. If the website never mentioned such a policy, it's the fault of the website, not the ad company which told the website to follow certain guidelines. If anybody is wondering what "web bugs" are, they are only another cause of massive violations of privacy. (see the link/reference to them on the original article mentioned ). They are simply the one pixel gifs that many people use in invisible counters and such. Cookies are often only used in them to ensure that a person is not counted twice, not to monitor tracking- yet cnet portrays them to maliciously violate our privacy all the time.
These "web bugs" are described early on with the following excerpt from that article:
Savvy Web surfers know they are being tracked when they see a banner ad. But people can't see Web bugs, and anti-cookie filters won't catch them. So the Web bugs wind up tracking surfers in areas online where banner ads are not present or on sites where people may not expect to be trailed.
Firstly, it is a sad thing when people assume that a banner ad = cookie when websites like Yahoo sell their own ads and place cookies even without banner ads. Secondly, it is even worse when the article seems to assume that anti-cookie filters look just for banner ads. The best filter is the options menu of course, and it is impossible to miss a cookie with that. And finally, the last part of the excerpt mentions that people expect to be trailed when there are banner ads around, when the article along with other cnet articles say that most people do not even know they are being tracked in the first place. The true savvy users like us know that cookies are everywhere, and are not synonymic with one another.
Do not blame the masses for making ridiculous lawsuits, but the law firms who go for money, not ethics, and the media for making stories sound good while only distorting the truth. And on a final note, it is interesting to see how 60 minutes aired a story on Echelon (sorry if I got the show wrong, but the segment was shown on a major network), the most powerful version of Big Brother that I can think of, and most people just shrug and accept it. Why can't people sue the government after all?
-------------------------------------------------- --
Faies
"[This ISP] is completely secure if you are using a standard operating system like Windows 98"
If you can tell me what "exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" gives the creator the power to do with something, then I can believe that. The Constitution is also a moldable document. The elastic clause allows an interpretation that isn't set in stone, hence its nickname (the one talking about how Congress can use any means necessary to enforce its granted powers).
The Constitution did not refer to drugs. Why do we have the War on Drugs today that throws billions of taxpayer dollars around so rapidly? Or even more visible is bans on certain types of assault weapons. Did the second amendment mention anything about that? Income taxes? The Constitution is NOT set in stone? Why? Because of various, sometimes poor misinterpretations of the Constituion. "Any means necessary" is also a broad term- it can be used to step on individual rights easily- and create the IRS.
You talk about careful balances in the law. Reading case law does not help me in any way. I'll use the example of Kaplan's ruling. Kaplan at one point stated that "To begin with, all or substantially all motion pictures available on DVD are available also on videotape. In consequence, anyone wishing to make lawful use of a particular movie may buy or rent a videotape, play it, and even copy all or part of it with readily available equipment"- Why? Because digital format provides more information. For goodness sakes, this does not in any way justify ruling against 2600.com et al. even for linking. Just using a different format and older equipment makes you legal under the law supposedly- and that's wrong.
In fact, the entire DeCSS ruling contradicts. If a person builds a photocopier- and photocopies somebody's entire book, he/she has created a new copy of the book in a different format. Is that legal? Or should we ban photocopiers because they make copies of copyrighted material just like DeCSS can make copies? If a perfect copier makes a perfect copy, is that also illegal? DeCSS is supposedly designed for this purpose- to let people copy their movies to their computers- and as long as they don't give the extra copy to somebody else, then they haven't done anything wrong. And if Kaplan wants to ban linking to the means to make such copies, we should also eliminate VCR manufacturers and Kinkos since they provide the means necessary to make illegal copies.
I'm also not saying that the entire ruling is wrong. I do agree that reverse engineering the Xing player is illegal under the DMCA- just that also is a bad interpretation of "fair use". Same goes for the whole idea of linking, its only equivalent to punishing somebody else for what you do along with yourself. Copyright law is a set of many rules that contradict- but some people accept them because they have been taught this way.
Another quick point about what Kaplan says- you can view copyrighted material only with licensed DVD players. This is of course a monopoly, and because its so profitable, why don't we ban Company X's VCRs just because they never even looked at a contract for royalties. Same goes for criminal acts of piracy for must we stop all potential abuse or nab the criminals themselves? If the writers of the Constitution were as smart as you say, then they had good reason to add the Second Amendment soon after. This is because we don't get rid of guns because they MIGHT be able to kill somebody, and instead we catch the crooks themselves when they abuse that right to hurt others.
And finally, your post mentions "ill-informed opinions". I just quoted your post- are you going to tell me I can't even use a single part of it even if I give credit to you? Same goes if I make a mp3, name it, and give it to someone else- but not the rest of the CD with it. If I take one part and still mention who made it maybe I then am fully within legal bounds. Face it- law is indeterminate. There is no set standards on anything.
At least opinions can give another perspective. Conforming and accepting does nothing. Some previous posters are right- companies do have a right to do all this, but it does not help us in this capitalistic society. Things that have been the way they are for so long should be changed anyway if they still fall outside the bounds of the Constitution. To stop getting shafted for that little extra packaging or extra movie scene, we must speak out and fight with wallets.
-------------
Don't assume- think
Of course, with that definition that means that nobody even believes in our rights.
To express the will of the people, in this case their views on hackers, is to express the will of the majority.
"'What then can be depended upon to keep the government in close rein? ' The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may , by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. . . . It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. ' There are two ways of obviat-ing this danger: one is by establishing a monarch independent of popular will, and the other is by reflecting these contending interests ( so far as their representatives may be enfranchised ) in the very structure of the government itself so that a majority cannot dominate the minority - which minority is of course composed of those who possess property that may be attacked . ' Society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.'"
-Charles Beard
Well at the same time, the plantiffs in the Santa Clara Couty Supreme Court case decided to also send cease and desist orders to...Australia since the Aussies might be criminals depending on the California ruling. It's only a matter of how this nation views itself as most important more often than not.
Bush has won in Florida, and as some of you have said, by margins split by Nader. Doesn't look like Nader even got the 5% he wanted, but that's the fault of people who were scared of Bush...and that didn't help did it? Well if Bush screws things up you can be sure Nader will be back in 4 years and take far more than that 5%. That's my prediction.
Also, is it just me or did I hear something on CBS about 78% of pro-Bush voters voting just based on morals alone?
If so...I'm believing the Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton who wrote the Constitution that the common, uneducated man is incapable of electing a President. After all that's why the electoral college was set up in the first place.
---
"I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." G.W. Bush 8/21/2000
Canada doesn't sound that bad now.
And who just came up with that idea?
Sounds like they're just trying to prove a myth. Doesn't mean its wrong, just funny that's the first thing they can think of when they think of disrupting behavior.
It's interesting to see how the e-mail critiques the inability for huge groups of programmers to actually be productive when it also mentions how arguments are unfounded because Linux people supposedly just insult Microsoft. This letter is doing exactly that. It can laugh at the creation all it wants, but it doesn't say anything about what capabilities are actually lacking.