Who cares about PGP... if companies and investors are not opting in, there is a reason... ponder that.
The reason is the complexity. Most people are not concerned with complex key ring schemes, expiring keys, and electronically signing e-mail. They just want a way to encrypt e-mail so that it's not easily sniffed.
I disagree (surprise!). "Among the best" does not include everything on the right half of the bell curve. In your world view, there is no one who is mediocre. Everyone is either "among the best" or "among the worst." I don't think that's how most people view it.
many reacted the same way as I did
And many pronounce nuclear as nuke-u-ler, but it doesn't make it right.;-)
Are you socialist?
No, just a liberal.
However, "coal mine worker" or "construction" is an entry-level job that anyone who is physically able can receive on-the-job training for and perform, therefore the supply (thousands) roughly equals the demand, creating a lower price. It's basic economics.
And that's why I objected to the claim that personal wealth is strongly correlated with hard work. It's the luck of the draw. Being born pretty, intelligent, or to wealthy parents has more impact on your chances of being rich than how hard you work.
I'll bet you never made anywhere close to 24/hr before you got your degree
I don't want to appear a cad so I won't go into specifics, but you would have lost that bet on all counts -- and not barely.
But griping about white collar vs. blue collar is totally ignorant and irrelevant.
Ignorance would be talking without a grasp of the facts. I'm not doing that.
The gap between rich and poor has grown so wide that, in 1999, the richest 2.7 million Americans, the top 1 percent, had as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million. That ratio has more than doubled since 1977, when the top 1 percent had as much as the bottom 49 million, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office.
We need to have an economy where a person of average intelligence, ability, and drive can earn a living wage. And we are quickly going away from that. We are almost at the point where a person who lacks the intelligence or aptitude to make it in the tech sector or corporate management has to choose between working in retail or food services for starvation wages.
If we don't do something about that, we are going to end up with a caste system like India had.
My reading skills are fine, your communications ones are off. This is what you said:
"The wealthiest people in the world are hardly the most hard-working."
And that is what I meant. I did not say that wealthy people were not hard-working. I said that, as a group, they "are hardly the most hard working." "Hardly the most hard working" is not synonymous with "lazy", "slovenly", or "shiftless."
Saying that "the Germans were hardly the best skaters in the Olympics" would not be the same as saying "the German skaters were amoung the worst in the Olympics."
My writing skills seem fine even when I review what I wrote. That you misinterpreted what I wrote is not a reflection on me.
using the examples of coal miners and construction workers (both of which are not really "low paying" because of the risk, they actually pay quite well)
If you think that they are paid well, read this from the United Mine Workers Journal:
The Journal recently conducted its own experiment, comparing the average coal miner's salary ($50,000) against American Electric Power CEO E. Linn Draper's year 2000 total earnings of $25,101,107--a figure that does not include the $7,612,500 Draper currently holds in unexercised stock options. After punching in all of our data, the reply came back that the average coal miner would "only" have to work 502 more years to equal Draper's one-year haul. It also noted that with Draper's salary alone, 21,941 workers could be enrolled in pension plans or health care coverage could be provided to 12,190 uninsured workers.
I hope that gives you a bit more perspective.
P.S. $50K/ year is not my idea of being paid "quite well" for hard work.
Some "work" is physical, some "work" is mental, some is a little of both, some is repetitious, some isn't...there's no "work level scale" and physical laborers are not the only hard workers of the world!
And my point was that being wealthy was no indication of how hard you worked. I thought that the Harry Potter books got you children reading again...
No, I'm a genius and have the test scores to prove it.
You think people get rich by sitting on their asses?
In some cases, yes. George W. Bush is a great example of that.
I fucking hate people like you.
Osama Bin Laden hates people like me, too. And your approval is equally important to me.
If it is so easy then why aren't you doing it?
Because I wasn't born with movie star looks, fantastic athletic skills, or rich parents. That's the point. It's not easy to get rich unless you were born lucky. Simply working hard won't make it happen for 99.999% of the people alive.
1. At what point do you make so much money that you cannot reasonably expect the law to protect your property? 2. At what point do you make so little money that the laws that protect property no longer apply to you?
Then I will give you answers:
1. You can never expect the law to protect your property. It might help you protect your property, but you have to be a realist and expect that you will have some losses. Every retailer in the world knows that and accounts for it in their financial projections. 2. Never.
If Valenti was lobbying for tougher enforcement of copyright laws, I'd have little gripe with him. But what he's doing is analogous to the publishing industry lobbying Congress to outlaw photocopying machines. He wants to cripple everything from computers to HDTV, costing consumers millions of dollars and degrading their overall quality of life, because a tiny minority of people pirate movies. He's still mad about the Supreme Court betamax decision in the 1970s in which they upheld the "fair use" concept. He wants legislation to make fair use illegal (through the DMCA) and impossible (through the SSSCA). And he's already half way there.
If Valenti represented retailers, he'd be lobbying for laws that made pockets, large coats, and handbags illegal -- because a tiny percentage of people use them to shoplift.
So the more sweat and muscle the work requires the more you should be paid, right?
No, but if you're making millions of dollars a year, then you should not be crying to Congress because a few working people have copied your DVDs to share with friends.
The vast majority of wealthy people either lucked into their money or were born into it. Some guy sitting in a leather chair in a spacious office pushing paper around is not working hard. The guy who built his office is the one who worked hard.
Everyone wants to believe that, with hard work, they, too, can be rich. Well grow up and stop listening to fairy tales. Most people, if they work really hard, will become middle to upper middle class. And that will be as far as they go.
I don't feel sorry for the person that is mining coal because they were too drunk to finish high school.
I would love to drop you off in a rural coal mining town with that little message tattooed on your forehead. It would bring me great pleasure to see you get the shit beaten out of you for your bigotry.
You are the most vile form of snob. There are many hard-working, sober coal miners, construction workers, assembly line workers, and and other tradesmen. You disgust me.
The loss of potential profits is a serious problem, especially if you can copy the stuff you sell infinitely.
So they propose legislation forcing each of us to pay more for our consumer electronics, and suffer with less capability, all so that they can protect against potential profit loss. It's not my job to protect their profits and neither is it the job of the government.
What the government should be doing is legislating fair use laws to keep consumers from finding themselves unable to copy music, record television programs, and fast-forward through commercials.
What next? Will we be required by law to pay a private security guard to stand over us and make sure we don't pirate software?
If you work harder and earn more than the common man, you should be brought to justice.
The wealthiest people in the world are hardly the most hard-working. Look at the cast of the TV show Friends: They will be paid one million dollars per episode to film a 1/2 hour TV show. How does that compare to some guy that's doing construction work for 8 hours every day? Think of the pity that the average coal miner would feel for the hard-working cast of Friends.
People like Jack Valenti aren't hard-working. They're just greedy.
As to the personal attacks, if you are going to try to portray me as a raving lunatic, don't be surprised when I question your credentials to do so.
My point is the Senator who's getting bad TV reception is going to have to gain a hell of a lot of support to get his bill passed in the Senate and House. Considering the computer industry is a pretty powerful lobby, I don't think he would have a chance.
As I pointed out, the computer industry giants would love such a bill. Dell, for instance, would be thrilled if you and I had no choice but to buy a pre-assembled machine. U.S. companies like HP, Compaq, Dell, and Gateway wopuld be in favor of such a law and they are the "computer lobby" about which you speak.
Add to that the Microsoft muscle that I initially mentioned: If I go to a computer show and buy a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM, I normally don't buy a new copy of Windows. Microsoft would much rather that every upgrade entailed buying a new Windows license. That's what happens with almost every pre-assembled system sale from the big manufacturers.
To add two more points:
1. If presented as an "anti-hacker" bill, any Congressional rep that opposed it might find his rivals painting him as "soft on crime."
2. Congressional reps trade votes: "You vote for my RF Protection Act and I'll vote in favor of federal funds to build that new highway through your state."
You're very idealistic. I would say most Senators are there to pass laws that are popular with the companies in their state that are likely to contribute the most to their campaign funds.
Read what you quoted. I included "campaign contributers" as one of the groups that they looked to please:
"They are looking for laws that will be popular with voters and campaign contributers."
Now, who contributes more to most U.S. campaigns? Microsoft, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, and HP or Lucky Goldstar, Asus, Data Flower Incorporated (DFI), and the other Asian parts firms?
I'm saying you could modify all these things so they cause interference.
People with enough knowledge to modify a ham radio also understands the concept of RF shielding and why it is important.
You are making the mistake of arguing the logic of this hypothetical legislation. Remember that the DMCA is now the law of the land and the SSSCA is being considered. Laws need not be logical in order to be passed.
I realize you're genuinely worried that someday you won't be able to buy a second harddrive, but I don't think it's going to happen because one in three million computer users screw up their computer's shielding.
Ever hear of "The Brady Bill" or "Megan's Law"? While those are addressing much more serious issues than RF pollution, they illustrate the point that there does not need to be a huge, pervasive problem before legislation is passed. There is a law on the books in one small town forbidding people from walking their pet alligators on leashes in public. I somehow think that law was passed to address something one person was doing.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that legislation banning the sale of computer components could be passed. It's in the interest of way too many very large, very wealthy U.S. companies.
The FCC already tracks down interference problems through their regional offices. Go to this link and get a clue. The FCC has three Regional Offices, 16 District Offices, and nine Resident Agent Offices located across the United States and each of them "Investigates and resolves interference." And they don't just do it for Senators. They do it for constituents, too, though probably with less vigor.
Then this lone senator will pass legislation outlawing all computer parts.
Where did you go to school? "Lone" Senators don't pass legislation. They introduce legislation and it gets discussed and voted on. How did you think legislation was introduced? By Moses on stone tablets?
Members of Congress are there to pass laws. They are looking for laws that will be popular with voters and campaign contributers. Laws that crack down on "hackers" are something that the majority of the voting public likes. This would just be another one of those laws.
And ham radios. And walkie-talkies. And Radio Shacks.
Ham radios, walkie talkies, etc. are all regulated by the FCC. They operate on specific bands with specific power outputs. They can't just randomly spew interference or the FCC takes action against the manufacturer.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Case mods are "rude."
Yes, I am. When you indiscriminantly remove shielding intended to prevent interference, it's rude. Grow up.
The chances of living next to a senator that uses a computer and would notice rf interference has to be non-existant.
A computer user is not the one that will notice the interference. It's the person in the condo above/beside/below that has RF equipment (radio, TV, cordless phone, etc.) that will. I just used the example of a Senator. It could be a Representative or other official. Or it could be a regular citizen that just gets pissed off and writes letters to his Congressional representatives.
Besides, creating RF interference is against FCC regulations as well as being rude and inconsiderate. Taking the shielding off of your computer case is ethically equivlent of taking the catalytic converter or muffler off of your car. Each creates pollution (RF, air, and noise respectively).
what do the people with computer case windows do about their EMF emmisions
The same thing that people on Harleys with straight pipes do about noise: They figure that it's okay to be a self-centered asshole that pisses everyone else off.
But how many Senators are living in apartment complexes watching TV on sets with rabbit ears?
A better question is "how many Senators are living in ritzy condos using cordless phones?" How many are using cell phones? How many have 2.4ghz video distribution? How many might be have 802.11b? How many listen to FM radio? RF interference does not restrict itself to televisions.
How many would be able to figure out what's causing interference on their TV when there must be dozens of possible causes?
All of them. One call to the FCC from a Senator and there would be more more field strength meters and RF triangulation equipment than you've ever seen. The FCC might just send you or me a pamphlet, but they'll send a team of experts out to a Senator's home.
A case mod that does away with shielding is rude, inconsiderate, and stupid. And, sooner or later, it may result in legislation that hurts all of us.
This may come as a shock to you, but there is a reason that the FCC limits RF emissions.
If i build a case just like that, and it causes no interference in my house, would somebody still suffer from the interference?
Very possibly. The antenna, downlead, shielding of the receiver (TV, Radio, phone, etc.) all play into it. You might have a 49mhz phone while your neighbor has a 2.4ghz that your 1.2ghz DDR system stomps all over, for example.
I dont' think so, but then again, I'm no expert.
Then leave case design to experts. You having a clear PC with neon lights does not justify one of your neighbors having to replace their cordless phone or suffer through herringbone interference on their TV.
1. Moron makes unshielded case because he thinks it looks cool.
2. Senator next door suddenly starts getting RF interference on his television.
3. FCC tracks it down to unshielded PC.
4. Senator introduces "Computer RF Protection Act" which bars the sale of computer components to the public.
5. Gateway, Dell, Compaq, HP, and Apple, seeing a way to kill off the screwdriver shops and hobbyist market, form "People Against Radio and Television Interference" (PARTI).
6. Microsoft, in its desire to sell a new Windows license each time someone wants a new PC, joins PARTI.
7. PARTI takes out millions of dollars worth of ads pretending to be a concerned citizens group who wants to "stop hackers from interfering with your television."
8. PARTI passes and the only ones who can get computer components are licensed manufacturers using them in FCC-approved computers.
Want to upgrade your RAM, hard drive, or CPU? Too bad. You will just have to buy a whole new computer, complete with Windows-du-jour, from one of the big manufacturers.
Think about that scenario next time you see a case built to show off about $500 worth of consumer-grade computer components.
Even simpler, he could have lined the inside using aluminum foil glued in place with an aerosol adhesive. Ground that, and it's a lot better RF shield than plastic.
That's what really ticks me off about these case modders. Most of them don't even expend the tiniest effort to shield their systems. Eventually, one of them will move into a condo right beside a Congressman and f*ck up the television reception. Then we will see the American RF Protection Act signed into law, forbidding the sale of computer components to anyone other than Dell/Gateway/Compaq/HP/etc. Microsoft and the big computer manufacturers will spend millions of dollars in lobbying efforts to get the bill passed (since Microsoft makes a sale almost every time someone buys an assembled system).
Even if Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, they are not required to write versions of IE for Linux, Solaris, *BSD, BeOS, etc.
What they said was that they didn't want to give away their intellectual property. That's all. They didn't say "We want to force people to use Windows in order to have access to Office and IE, which we have used our monopolistic powers to turn into must-have applications." They evil, not stupid.
I would also add that while I am no friend of MS, and think they should suffer badly for their transgressions, this whole "give us your code" thing going on in the settlement talks strikes me as trophy-hunting.
It's hard to come up with another option to address the wrongs. Microsoft crushed Netscape by bundling IE with the OS while Netscape had been charging for their browser. The average user looks for "a browser", not "a better browser" so Netscape was left out in the cold.
As a result of Microsoft's dominence of the browser market, combined with proprietary extensions (ActiveX, VBscript, etc.), web sites were written to support IE rather than a generic HTTP-compliant browser.
Now Microsoft is using the reliance on IE, and other proprietary products like Office, to keep Linux off of the desktop. Given that the browser was central to the trial, open-sourcing that would help put things back on an even keel.
In the future, I think that the Microsoft should be required to document and release all data storage and transmission standards. If that is not done, this pattern will be repeated over and over.
So what they're saying here is that when free software succeeds, they can't compete.
IE is free software. Just ask Netscape.
If ever one questioned whether Microsoft feared free software, this should quell such doubts. They know that as soon as the source is available better products can and probably will be made. And apparently that's competition they can't handle.
No, what they are saying is that they paid for the development of IE and don't want to be forced to give away their intellectual property. They don't want there to be a Linux version because the availability of IE in Windows gives them a market advantage over Linux. Say what you want about IE, but there are many sites, including e-commerce, that don't work correctly under other browsers. I don't care why. It's simply true. I run Opera and have to switch to IE occasionally for that reason. My friends who run Mozilla and Netscape report the same thing.
You need to look past your "open source rulez!" tattoo and think like a business person. Microsoft does not want to invest man-years in a wildly popular software product and then give the source away. That's not surprising, hard to understand, or indicative that they feel technologically inferior to the herd of cats that is the open source movement.
Now, in light of the verdict, the question must be asked if this is a fair remedy. I believe that it is. But it's not enough. I think that all Microsoft data file formats need to be open-source and that any change to a file format must be made public at least six months prior to release of a product (e.g., Office) that uses said format.
P.S. I have 50 Karma points so I don't have to be nice for a while. Mod this down as flamebait or troll if you wish.
Note the words Personal and the word obscene (as defined by the Supreme Court)
Whether something is obscene is a matter for the courts to decide, not something to be left up to the "judgement of consultants manning the labs." Sorry to tell you this, but you are a geek, not a judge.
Materials can be pornographic without being obscene. I suggest that you do a little work researching court decisions on these matters.
If someone is masturbating in the library, then kick them out for that, but don't kick someone out because of what they are viewing.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares about PGP... if companies and investors are not opting in, there is a reason... ponder that.
The reason is the complexity. Most people are not concerned with complex key ring schemes, expiring keys, and electronically signing e-mail. They just want a way to encrypt e-mail so that it's not easily sniffed.
I did the search for Crosssdressing Monkey Porno but there was no way that I was going to hit the I'm Feeling Lucky button!
I'm nit-picking, but I know I'm right.
;-)
I disagree (surprise!). "Among the best" does not include everything on the right half of the bell curve. In your world view, there is no one who is mediocre. Everyone is either "among the best" or "among the worst." I don't think that's how most people view it.
many reacted the same way as I did
And many pronounce nuclear as nuke-u-ler, but it doesn't make it right.
Are you socialist?
No, just a liberal.
However, "coal mine worker" or "construction" is an entry-level job that anyone who is physically able can receive on-the-job training for and perform, therefore the supply (thousands) roughly equals the demand, creating a lower price. It's basic economics.
And that's why I objected to the claim that personal wealth is strongly correlated with hard work. It's the luck of the draw. Being born pretty, intelligent, or to wealthy parents has more impact on your chances of being rich than how hard you work.
I'll bet you never made anywhere close to 24/hr before you got your degree
I don't want to appear a cad so I won't go into specifics, but you would have lost that bet on all counts -- and not barely.
But griping about white collar vs. blue collar is totally ignorant and irrelevant.
Ignorance would be talking without a grasp of the facts. I'm not doing that.
The gap between rich and poor has grown so wide that, in 1999, the richest 2.7 million Americans, the top 1 percent, had as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million. That ratio has more than doubled since 1977, when the top 1 percent had as much as the bottom 49 million, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office.
We need to have an economy where a person of average intelligence, ability, and drive can earn a living wage. And we are quickly going away from that. We are almost at the point where a person who lacks the intelligence or aptitude to make it in the tech sector or corporate management has to choose between working in retail or food services for starvation wages.
If we don't do something about that, we are going to end up with a caste system like India had.
My reading skills are fine, your communications ones are off. This is what you said:
"The wealthiest people in the world are hardly the most hard-working."
And that is what I meant. I did not say that wealthy people were not hard-working. I said that, as a group, they "are hardly the most hard working." "Hardly the most hard working" is not synonymous with "lazy", "slovenly", or "shiftless."
Saying that "the Germans were hardly the best skaters in the Olympics" would not be the same as saying "the German skaters were amoung the worst in the Olympics."
My writing skills seem fine even when I review what I wrote. That you misinterpreted what I wrote is not a reflection on me.
using the examples of coal miners and construction workers (both of which are not really "low paying" because of the risk, they actually pay quite well)
If you think that they are paid well, read this from the United Mine Workers Journal:
The Journal recently conducted its own experiment, comparing the average coal miner's salary ($50,000) against American Electric Power CEO E. Linn Draper's year 2000 total earnings of $25,101,107--a figure that does not include the $7,612,500 Draper currently holds in unexercised stock options. After punching in all of our data, the reply came back that the average coal miner would "only" have to work 502 more years to equal Draper's one-year haul. It also noted that with Draper's salary alone, 21,941 workers could be enrolled in pension plans or health care coverage could be provided to 12,190 uninsured workers.
I hope that gives you a bit more perspective.
P.S. $50K/ year is not my idea of being paid "quite well" for hard work.
Some "work" is physical, some "work" is mental, some is a little of both, some is repetitious, some isn't...there's no "work level scale" and physical laborers are not the only hard workers of the world!
And my point was that being wealthy was no indication of how hard you worked. I thought that the Harry Potter books got you children reading again...
You're an idiot.
No, I'm a genius and have the test scores to prove it.
You think people get rich by sitting on their asses?
In some cases, yes. George W. Bush is a great example of that.
I fucking hate people like you.
Osama Bin Laden hates people like me, too. And your approval is equally important to me.
If it is so easy then why aren't you doing it?
Because I wasn't born with movie star looks, fantastic athletic skills, or rich parents. That's the point. It's not easy to get rich unless you were born lucky. Simply working hard won't make it happen for 99.999% of the people alive.
Yes, very few in the scheme of things.
You raise 2 interesting questions:
1. At what point do you make so much money that you cannot reasonably expect the law to protect your property?
2. At what point do you make so little money that the laws that protect property no longer apply to you?
Then I will give you answers:
1. You can never expect the law to protect your property. It might help you protect your property, but you have to be a realist and expect that you will have some losses. Every retailer in the world knows that and accounts for it in their financial projections.
2. Never.
If Valenti was lobbying for tougher enforcement of copyright laws, I'd have little gripe with him. But what he's doing is analogous to the publishing industry lobbying Congress to outlaw photocopying machines. He wants to cripple everything from computers to HDTV, costing consumers millions of dollars and degrading their overall quality of life, because a tiny minority of people pirate movies. He's still mad about the Supreme Court betamax decision in the 1970s in which they upheld the "fair use" concept. He wants legislation to make fair use illegal (through the DMCA) and impossible (through the SSSCA). And he's already half way there.
If Valenti represented retailers, he'd be lobbying for laws that made pockets, large coats, and handbags illegal -- because a tiny percentage of people use them to shoplift.
So the more sweat and muscle the work requires the more you should be paid, right?
No, but if you're making millions of dollars a year, then you should not be crying to Congress because a few working people have copied your DVDs to share with friends.
some people DO/DID work to get where they are
The vast majority of wealthy people either lucked into their money or were born into it. Some guy sitting in a leather chair in a spacious office pushing paper around is not working hard. The guy who built his office is the one who worked hard.
Everyone wants to believe that, with hard work, they, too, can be rich. Well grow up and stop listening to fairy tales. Most people, if they work really hard, will become middle to upper middle class. And that will be as far as they go.
I don't feel sorry for the person that is mining coal because they were too drunk to finish high school.
I would love to drop you off in a rural coal mining town with that little message tattooed on your forehead. It would bring me great pleasure to see you get the shit beaten out of you for your bigotry.
You are the most vile form of snob. There are many hard-working, sober coal miners, construction workers, assembly line workers, and and other tradesmen. You disgust me.
The loss of potential profits is a serious problem, especially if you can copy the stuff you sell infinitely.
So they propose legislation forcing each of us to pay more for our consumer electronics, and suffer with less capability, all so that they can protect against potential profit loss. It's not my job to protect their profits and neither is it the job of the government.
What the government should be doing is legislating fair use laws to keep consumers from finding themselves unable to copy music, record television programs, and fast-forward through commercials.
What next? Will we be required by law to pay a private security guard to stand over us and make sure we don't pirate software?
If you work harder and earn more than the common man, you should be brought to justice.
The wealthiest people in the world are hardly the most hard-working. Look at the cast of the TV show Friends: They will be paid one million dollars per episode to film a 1/2 hour TV show. How does that compare to some guy that's doing construction work for 8 hours every day? Think of the pity that the average coal miner would feel for the hard-working cast of Friends.
People like Jack Valenti aren't hard-working. They're just greedy.
As to the personal attacks, if you are going to try to portray me as a raving lunatic, don't be surprised when I question your credentials to do so.
My point is the Senator who's getting bad TV reception is going to have to gain a hell of a lot of support to get his bill passed in the Senate and House. Considering the computer industry is a pretty powerful lobby, I don't think he would have a chance.
As I pointed out, the computer industry giants would love such a bill. Dell, for instance, would be thrilled if you and I had no choice but to buy a pre-assembled machine. U.S. companies like HP, Compaq, Dell, and Gateway wopuld be in favor of such a law and they are the "computer lobby" about which you speak.
Add to that the Microsoft muscle that I initially mentioned: If I go to a computer show and buy a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM, I normally don't buy a new copy of Windows. Microsoft would much rather that every upgrade entailed buying a new Windows license. That's what happens with almost every pre-assembled system sale from the big manufacturers.
To add two more points:
1. If presented as an "anti-hacker" bill, any Congressional rep that opposed it might find his rivals painting him as "soft on crime."
2. Congressional reps trade votes: "You vote for my RF Protection Act and I'll vote in favor of federal funds to build that new highway through your state."
You're very idealistic. I would say most Senators are there to pass laws that are popular with the companies in their state that are likely to contribute the most to their campaign funds.
Read what you quoted. I included "campaign contributers" as one of the groups that they looked to please:
"They are looking for laws that will be popular with voters and campaign contributers."
Now, who contributes more to most U.S. campaigns? Microsoft, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, and HP or Lucky Goldstar, Asus, Data Flower Incorporated (DFI), and the other Asian parts firms?
I'm saying you could modify all these things so they cause interference.
People with enough knowledge to modify a ham radio also understands the concept of RF shielding and why it is important.
You are making the mistake of arguing the logic of this hypothetical legislation. Remember that the DMCA is now the law of the land and the SSSCA is being considered. Laws need not be logical in order to be passed.
I realize you're genuinely worried that someday you won't be able to buy a second harddrive, but I don't think it's going to happen because one in three million computer users screw up their computer's shielding.
Ever hear of "The Brady Bill" or "Megan's Law"? While those are addressing much more serious issues than RF pollution, they illustrate the point that there does not need to be a huge, pervasive problem before legislation is passed. There is a law on the books in one small town forbidding people from walking their pet alligators on leashes in public. I somehow think that law was passed to address something one person was doing.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that legislation banning the sale of computer components could be passed. It's in the interest of way too many very large, very wealthy U.S. companies.
The FCC already tracks down interference problems through their regional offices. Go to this link and get a clue. The FCC has three Regional Offices, 16 District Offices, and nine Resident Agent Offices located across the United States and each of them "Investigates and resolves interference." And they don't just do it for Senators. They do it for constituents, too, though probably with less vigor.
Then this lone senator will pass legislation outlawing all computer parts.
Where did you go to school? "Lone" Senators don't pass legislation. They introduce legislation and it gets discussed and voted on. How did you think legislation was introduced? By Moses on stone tablets?
Members of Congress are there to pass laws. They are looking for laws that will be popular with voters and campaign contributers. Laws that crack down on "hackers" are something that the majority of the voting public likes. This would just be another one of those laws.
And ham radios. And walkie-talkies. And Radio Shacks.
Ham radios, walkie talkies, etc. are all regulated by the FCC. They operate on specific bands with specific power outputs. They can't just randomly spew interference or the FCC takes action against the manufacturer.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Case mods are "rude."
Yes, I am. When you indiscriminantly remove shielding intended to prevent interference, it's rude. Grow up.
The chances of living next to a senator that uses a computer and would notice rf interference has to be non-existant.
A computer user is not the one that will notice the interference. It's the person in the condo above/beside/below that has RF equipment (radio, TV, cordless phone, etc.) that will. I just used the example of a Senator. It could be a Representative or other official. Or it could be a regular citizen that just gets pissed off and writes letters to his Congressional representatives.
Besides, creating RF interference is against FCC regulations as well as being rude and inconsiderate. Taking the shielding off of your computer case is ethically equivlent of taking the catalytic converter or muffler off of your car. Each creates pollution (RF, air, and noise respectively).
what do the people with computer case windows do about their EMF emmisions
The same thing that people on Harleys with straight pipes do about noise: They figure that it's okay to be a self-centered asshole that pisses everyone else off.
But how many Senators are living in apartment complexes watching TV on sets with rabbit ears?
A better question is "how many Senators are living in ritzy condos using cordless phones?" How many are using cell phones? How many have 2.4ghz video distribution? How many might be have 802.11b? How many listen to FM radio? RF interference does not restrict itself to televisions.
How many would be able to figure out what's causing interference on their TV when there must be dozens of possible causes?
All of them. One call to the FCC from a Senator and there would be more more field strength meters and RF triangulation equipment than you've ever seen. The FCC might just send you or me a pamphlet, but they'll send a team of experts out to a Senator's home.
A case mod that does away with shielding is rude, inconsiderate, and stupid. And, sooner or later, it may result in legislation that hurts all of us.
This may come as a shock to you, but there is a reason that the FCC limits RF emissions.
If i build a case just like that, and it causes no interference in my house, would somebody still suffer from the interference?
Very possibly. The antenna, downlead, shielding of the receiver (TV, Radio, phone, etc.) all play into it. You might have a 49mhz phone while your neighbor has a 2.4ghz that your 1.2ghz DDR system stomps all over, for example.
I dont' think so, but then again, I'm no expert.
Then leave case design to experts. You having a clear PC with neon lights does not justify one of your neighbors having to replace their cordless phone or suffer through herringbone interference on their TV.
Where's the shielding?
Scary scenario:
1. Moron makes unshielded case because he thinks it looks cool.
2. Senator next door suddenly starts getting RF interference on his television.
3. FCC tracks it down to unshielded PC.
4. Senator introduces "Computer RF Protection Act" which bars the sale of computer components to the public.
5. Gateway, Dell, Compaq, HP, and Apple, seeing a way to kill off the screwdriver shops and hobbyist market, form "People Against Radio and Television Interference" (PARTI).
6. Microsoft, in its desire to sell a new Windows license each time someone wants a new PC, joins PARTI.
7. PARTI takes out millions of dollars worth of ads pretending to be a concerned citizens group who wants to "stop hackers from interfering with your television."
8. PARTI passes and the only ones who can get computer components are licensed manufacturers using them in FCC-approved computers.
Want to upgrade your RAM, hard drive, or CPU? Too bad. You will just have to buy a whole new computer, complete with Windows-du-jour, from one of the big manufacturers.
Think about that scenario next time you see a case built to show off about $500 worth of consumer-grade computer components.
Even simpler, he could have lined the inside using aluminum foil glued in place with an aerosol adhesive. Ground that, and it's a lot better RF shield than plastic.
That's what really ticks me off about these case modders. Most of them don't even expend the tiniest effort to shield their systems. Eventually, one of them will move into a condo right beside a Congressman and f*ck up the television reception. Then we will see the American RF Protection Act signed into law, forbidding the sale of computer components to anyone other than Dell/Gateway/Compaq/HP/etc. Microsoft and the big computer manufacturers will spend millions of dollars in lobbying efforts to get the bill passed (since Microsoft makes a sale almost every time someone buys an assembled system).
Even if Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, they are not required to write versions of IE for Linux, Solaris, *BSD, BeOS, etc.
What they said was that they didn't want to give away their intellectual property. That's all. They didn't say "We want to force people to use Windows in order to have access to Office and IE, which we have used our monopolistic powers to turn into must-have applications." They evil, not stupid.
As I said in the original post:
Now, in light of the verdict, the question must be asked if this is a fair remedy. I believe that it is.
We agree.
I would also add that while I am no friend of MS, and think they should suffer badly for their transgressions, this whole "give us your code" thing going on in the settlement talks strikes me as trophy-hunting.
It's hard to come up with another option to address the wrongs. Microsoft crushed Netscape by bundling IE with the OS while Netscape had been charging for their browser. The average user looks for "a browser", not "a better browser" so Netscape was left out in the cold.
As a result of Microsoft's dominence of the browser market, combined with proprietary extensions (ActiveX, VBscript, etc.), web sites were written to support IE rather than a generic HTTP-compliant browser.
Now Microsoft is using the reliance on IE, and other proprietary products like Office, to keep Linux off of the desktop. Given that the browser was central to the trial, open-sourcing that would help put things back on an even keel.
In the future, I think that the Microsoft should be required to document and release all data storage and transmission standards. If that is not done, this pattern will be repeated over and over.
So what they're saying here is that when free software succeeds, they can't compete.
IE is free software. Just ask Netscape.
If ever one questioned whether Microsoft feared free software, this should quell such doubts. They know that as soon as the source is available better products can and probably will be made. And apparently that's competition they can't handle.
No, what they are saying is that they paid for the development of IE and don't want to be forced to give away their intellectual property. They don't want there to be a Linux version because the availability of IE in Windows gives them a market advantage over Linux. Say what you want about IE, but there are many sites, including e-commerce, that don't work correctly under other browsers. I don't care why. It's simply true. I run Opera and have to switch to IE occasionally for that reason. My friends who run Mozilla and Netscape report the same thing.
You need to look past your "open source rulez!" tattoo and think like a business person. Microsoft does not want to invest man-years in a wildly popular software product and then give the source away. That's not surprising, hard to understand, or indicative that they feel technologically inferior to the herd of cats that is the open source movement.
Now, in light of the verdict, the question must be asked if this is a fair remedy. I believe that it is. But it's not enough. I think that all Microsoft data file formats need to be open-source and that any change to a file format must be made public at least six months prior to release of a product (e.g., Office) that uses said format.
P.S. I have 50 Karma points so I don't have to be nice for a while. Mod this down as flamebait or troll if you wish.
Note the words Personal and the word obscene (as defined by the Supreme Court)
Whether something is obscene is a matter for the courts to decide, not something to be left up to the "judgement of consultants manning the labs." Sorry to tell you this, but you are a geek, not a judge.
Materials can be pornographic without being obscene. I suggest that you do a little work researching court decisions on these matters.
If someone is masturbating in the library, then kick them out for that, but don't kick someone out because of what they are viewing.