I am currently in the processing of mirroring CNN's website (three cheers for wget). As soon as I have finished, it will be available at http://www.aviation.ou.edu. I am only mirroring their main site (www.cnn.com), not their sub-sites (cnnfn.cnn.com and sportsillustrated.cnn.com), so you will still have to visit their servers to get those stories (and cnnfn does have some stories), but hopefully getting at least some of the Slashdot community off of CNN's servers can help them somewhat. It will probably be slightly behind CNN (possibly as much as 30 minutes, hopefully not that long), so I apologize in advance for any outdated content, as well as for any delay in posting new stories.
Incidentally, I am not certain about the capacity of my server, so if it should get slashdotted under the load (and it would probably be the server, not the network), please send me an e-mail at dbuckles@ou.edu, and I will try to restore it as quickly as possible.
--Dave
First of all, I hope and pray for the safety of all involved, and commend the rescue workers who are putting their lives on the line to save others. These people are heroes in the truest sense, and deserve our undying admiration and respect.
Watching the news, all of the stations, particularly the military correspondents (Gen. Schwarzkopf included) talked about the complete failure of our intelligence community to provide us with any warning about this attack. Reporters asking "how could such a thing have happened with no warning," "haven't we infiltrated these groups," "how can you maintain secrecy on something this widespread," etc.
In a couple of weeks, I'm going to look like a prophet for this one. I predict that somebody will mention data security, including e-mail encryption. Whether correctly or not, somebody will propose it, and encryption, already a hot topic in National Security circles, will gain focus.
I predict that within a month, Congress will have drafted, and probably passed, a National Security Act to address the threat of terrorism. In that act, I fully expect to see severe restrictions on the use of secure data systems, including encryption of any form (e-mail, PGP file encryption/encrypted file systems, even SSH and SSL), anonymity (anonymous bulletin boards, including such things as Slashdot), and relaxation of wiretapping laws. E-mail will be required to be send in plaintext, Carnivore will be restored to active duty, and put on more servers with more keywords and more aggressive monitoring. Cell phones, already ruled to be not private, will be actively monitored by the government, as will landline phones--remember, cordless phones (you know you all have them) emit RF too, and the few that have scrambling systems are easily compromised.
Also expect to see civil liberties severely curtailed, at least for a while. Meeting with friends at odd hours (odd to the rest of the world, normal to geeks)? Suspicious. Phone calls to friends in other countries, or of other nationailities (particularly Middle Eastern)? Suspicious. Use of encryption/security? Suspicious squared--after all, what do you have to hide?
My big prediction, though, is that the American Sheeple will hail this as a Good Thing, and support it wholeheartedly. The Sheeple will automatically say that anything that improves security must be a Good Idea, and will fall into line without even considering the ramifications.
Mark my words, my friends: today has been one small step for terrorism, but one giant leap for the police state.
...I don't know how these guys think they can get car manufacturers and the American pubic to agree to volunatary constant surveillance via an "air tap."
Probably the same way they always do things: automakers would be "encouraged" to include them in all new cars. Inclusion would not be mandatory, but probably in the same way that compliance with the mafia is not mandatory. The government could simply say "we think this is a good idea," and mutter things under their breath to the effect of "...and you'll get a looser tax audit if you comply." Same way they got the "black box" into airbags (you do know that if your airbag goes off, a vehicle data recorder notes your speed, whether or not your seatbelt was on, magnitude of acceleration (g-forces), etc.). Once the manufacturers include the devices, including the radio transmitters, the police wouldn't need a warrant--they would need only to listen to off-the-air broadcasts, which is perfectly legal.
Getting these things into cars and into use wouldn't really be that difficult, and the people could probably be convinced to accept them: "The Chevy Boozer: the first car that will warn you if the kid driving next to you is drunk." Include an interlock device, you get "The Ford Fuzzy Navel: parents, don't you want to keep your kids from driving drunk?" With the proper marketing, the American sheeple will assent to anything. You'd be a "bad parent" if you didn't use the technology.
The big problem is that sooner, rather than later, somebody (somebody like me, for instance) will find a way to toy with the unit...take a paper towel soaked in pure ethanol and wrap it around the sensor to indicate a 50% blood alcohol level, particularly to somebody else's car (great practical joke!), or route a tube to the outside of the vehicle so that it only receives outside air, thus never registering alcohol. Oh, sure, this will be made illegal, just like smoking in the lavatory on an airliner and rolling back an odometer. Works pretty well, too.
In short, yes, this can happen. Be afraid, be very afraid.
The Concorde flies high, above 40.000 ft, where airspace is not controlled, so the pilot can gradually increase altitude during the trip.
Almost. Class A airspace extends from 18,000 feet to 60,000 feet (Actually, 18,000 feet to FL600, but I digress). Class E airspace overlies Class A, extending from FL600 upward, presumably indefinitely (I have never heard of an official top to that Class E). Class E is also controlled airspace for those aircraft on an IFR flight plan.
Concorde flies in Class A airspace above FL400, so it is controlled. They do climb during cruise, though--instead of a specific altitude, they are cleared to cruise at a "block altitude," an altitude range with a lower and upper limit. Such a clearance might read "maintain between FL390 and 550," which would indicate that the aircraft may be operated between FL390 (approximately 39,000 feet) and FL550 (approx. 55,000').
Incidentally, I mentioned that Class E is only controlled to IFR aircraft; if you are VFR, Class E is uncontrolled (for all practical purposes). Entry into Class A requires that you be on an IFR flight plan, so to climb to the overlying Class E, you would have to be on an IFR flight plan. You can cancel your IFR clearance after leaving Class A, but it would be impractical, and airliners are required to fly IFR at all times anyway, so Concorde would never be uncontrolled, even if it were in Class E airspace.
even if they aren't able to use it for stem cell research directly
Sure they can. President Bush's decision was that federal money may not be used to generate new stem cell lines from fetuses. Private money, like Clark's, can be used for anything. Federal money can even be used for some research, including research on existing cell lines, and creating new lines that do not come from fetuses (i.e. cells coming from adults, or from umbilical cords). Bush's decision does not affect Stanford's use of Clark's money in any way; Clark is just throwing a hissy-fit.
You don't see world-renound lecturers shouting out scathing political commentaries to hords of screaming fans who paid $139 for a seat. You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.
No, you don't. Specifically, the fans aren't screaming, and the tickets cost more like $1390 (and up). Political figures often give speeches at which the cost of attendence runs to four, and even five figures (hint: see Clinton, William J.). No, the fans aren't screaming, but that's because they (usually) have (slightly) more class than the average teenage rock fan. And "world-renowed" lecturers (particularly politicians) do get mobbed as hey step out of their strech limousines (again, see Clinton, William J.), even after they are out of the situation which originally thrust them into the limelight.
Fame and money are not rights, I agree; the opportunity to earn them, however, should not be restricted. If a performer wishes to sign a record contract and make big money, why should they be prevented from doing so? Can every slashdotter out there honestly say that he does not like any "popular" artist, and that he has never bought even one CD, or attended one concert, by such a group? I know I can't.
Furthermore, what of people famous in areas other than the performing arts? Has John Carmack earned his fame and money? How about Linus Torvalds--has he earned his name recognition? What about Stallman, Raymond, or even Cmdr Taco? Even Bill Gates earned his fame (or infamy, as the case may be)--his money may be a different story, but his name recognition is certainly deserved. Outside of software, what about famous engineers and technologists: Bill Lear, the father of the business jet, the eight track, and the car stereo, among other things--did he earn his fame and fortune? What of the thousands of inventors who created something, or improved something, that took hold in the market--have those people earned their fame and their money, or should they be ignored.
Fact is, if people can't profit from their works, the progress of science and technology will slow. It would not necessarily cease, as there would always be "backyard builders," but without financial rewards (either cash or other tangible compensation), there would be little incentive to invent; exacerbating this situation would be the fact that "inventor" or "researcher" would necessarily be relegated to hobby status--you have to pay the bills, and if you can't do it with academic work, then that work must, must take a secondary role in your life.
I agree that the system has problems, and that certain no-talent hacks end up being paid millions for screeching out noises that make my dog run for the door, but they have managed to convince people that purchasing recordings of that noise is a worthwhile expenditure of their money; by so doing, they have earned the money. While you and I can think of better uses for it, they have the right to spend it as they wish. If they were to see some of the purchases we might make with the same money (hardware, garage band CD's, hardware, ballet/opera tickets, hardware...), they might say we are nuts. Who is right, and who is wrong? Or are both right--perhaps they really do enjoy listening to the latest from Britney Spears, N*SYNC, and whatever else the industry has told them to like--more power to them. If you remove the incentive for those artists to perform their works, then the people who do enjoy their work, for whatever reason, would miss out on it. While some might think this a good thing, doing so would restrict their freedom, their right to choose for themselves what they listen to/watch/think about/what have you.
No, fame and money are not rights; the option to choose what you like, and the option to choose what or whom you will support, are. If enough people choose to support a given artist, why should that artist be denied the opportunity to reap the rewards of their work? Denying them that opportunity stifles the market, and ultimately reduces the choices available to all. Remember, every man who reduces the liberty available to another sets a precedent that will eventually reach back to himself, and probably bite him in the ass.
In that rig, it looks like the car/semi/fire truck/airplane/horse/whatever kind of ride outside of most Wal-Mart stores...
(Real) spaceship ride at a science museum, perhaps?
As a recent high school graduate myself, I hear about laws like this and start quivering uncontrollably. This sort of sweeping regulation will do little, if anything, to stop the actual problem; even worse, though, it will make nearly any use of a computer a criminal action, to be dealt with at the discretion of the school.
Consider the following:
Spamming is illegal.
Making threats of bodily harm to another person is illegal.
Damaging, compromising, or otherwise interfering with the functionality of a computer network is illegal.
If these are already illegal, why do we need another law to criminalize them? If it is illegal to vandalize somebody's property, do we really need a separate law to cover mailbox bashing? Of course not--it was already covered by the vandalization law! So, if these acts are already illegal, how will passing another, totally redundant, law help the situation? "Oh!" "I didn't realize I that the laws already on the books meant I can't do that! Now that they've passed another law, I understand! I shall stop immediately!" Get serious. This law won't help anything.
To make matters worse, a law of this type will (not might, will) be used improperly against students. It's not a question of if, just a question of when. By using the language "affects . ..a computer" (editing for emphasis and clarity), any use of a computer is criminalized. Dictionary.com defines the word "affect" to mean "[t]o have an influence on or effect a change in." Now, last I checked, the Big Red Switch will cause a change in sthe state of a computer--do we really want to send our kids to a Federal Pound-me-in-the-Ass prison for turning on a computer? Sound outlandish? Maybe, but the language of the law makes it a possibility.
But of course, no teacher or school administrator would ever dream of taking advantage of a legal technicality to punish a student, right? Bah. I was frequently on the wrong end of my high school's computer policy, usually through no fault of my own (admittedly, sometimes I deserved it, but most of the time, no). Certain administrators would have used anthing they could have found to get me booted from the school. Many of the teachers would have supported me, but just as many would not have. Consider the average public-school teacher: overworked, underpaid, and resents the responsibility placed upon him by society, and society's lawyers. By and large, they want to stand up, give their lectures to a bunch of quiet, attentive students, then go back to their desks and have the students do their busywork. (Exceptions to this stereotype do exist, and I had some of them. Among the best teachers, and the best people, I have ever had the privilege of knowing--one of them was just awarded a national award for excellence in teaching. But I digress.) These teachers are annoyed by problem childred at both ends of the intellectual spectrum--at one end, the mindless, disruptive, "dropout" group, and at the other end, the intelligent, occasionally brilliant, disruptive ones. I was one of the latter (please excuse my lack of humility). In physics class, I would work out problems in my head more quickly than the teacher could on a calculator. Many of you (Slashdotters) are probably familiar with this feeling. Teachers , at least the "bad" ones, resent such students, and generally make their lives difficult in some way or another--I know they did for me. Now, consider the group of people most likely to be taking full advantage of the capabilities of the network. You'll find that they are approximately the same group. Now, even if the kids don't do anything wrong in the current sense of the word (damage/UCE/otherwise impair functionality), by even logging in, they're breaking the law. Let a teacher, who frequently understands computers almost as well as a Congresscritter, overhear him talking about Linux, or writing his own program, or using bash (/bin/bash), and all they'll hear is "hacker" ("cracker," to us). Particularly bash--they won't hear an acronym for Bourne Again SHell, they'll hear a term for destruction often applied to mailboxes. Put this perception in their minds, associate it with a student they already dislike, and you have a student who is automatically distrusted and prone to being accused of illicit computer use. Make everything criminal, and, well, you do the math. (Hint: don't ask my sophomore math teacher for help--my classmates and I had to correct half of everything she said.)
The point of this little rant is that a law like this will do no good, and that it will be used as a tool of retribution by resentful teachers toward any student who doesn't kiss ass like he's supposed to. Demonstrate proficiency on your English test, and you get an A. Demonstrate a little independence of thought and spirit, and you get five-to-ten.
The "Boson" is the longest-running joke in the history of physics. "Boson" is the term physicists use to refer to the commonfolk. Think about it in the context of the history of physics. First, remember that many of the great physicists have been German. In German, the suffix -n (-en for words ending in consonants) is usually used to denote a plural. The English equivalent of "Boson," then, would be "Bosos," or "Boso's," as seen on Slashdot. Now consider that, in German, the letter 's' is frequently as the English 'z.' Substitute a 'z' for the 's,' and you have "Bozos." So all this time, when the physicists talk about "Boson" particles, they're talking about you! And you thought those physicists were nice guys...
'Course, they could also be thinking about sailing (boatswain...never mind)
2. Incompetent (either hasn't read the Constitution, or think it means only what HE thinks it means)
Actually, it does. As a practical matter, anyway. If you look at your average high-school civics (OK, government/social studies, most high schools don't have a proper civics class any more) textbook, they will give you the following standard definitions for the three branches of government (or derivatives thereof):
Legislative: makes the laws.
Executive: enforces the laws
Judicial: determines the meaning of the laws
That's right: it is the duty of the judicial branch to determine the meaning of the laws, including the Constitution. They do this every day: when a law is challenged as unconstitutional, the court must determine the meaning of the Constitution, whether or not it precludes the law being challenged, etc.
I am not saying that I agree with the law; quite the contrary. I think the DMCA is one of the best examples we have yet produced of bad law, and would be struck down immediately by a strict constructionist judge. Unfortunately, many judges take a very liberal (not politically liberal, but "willing to take liberty with interpretation" liberal) view of the constitution; this results in a very flexible Constitution, and when that flexibility exists, it will be bent to suit the will of somebody. In this case, it was bent to suit the will of the Corporations. (It usually is, but I won't go there....)
Anyhow, the point is, any law, from a city ordinance all the way up to the Constitution, means exactly what the ruling judge says it means. If you don't like his interpretation, you can appeal--the system is set up with that capability for just this reason. If this DMCA were to go to the Supreme Court, and be struck down, we would all cheer, but the fact is, it would be 9 people determining what the Constitution means; a majority of those 9 would decide that "they say it means" what we wanted to hear. Would we complain about the interpretation then? No. Would it still be individual people making a determination on the meaning of the law? Yes.
Actually, they should be actively targeting individuals. Whether you believe in the concept of IP or not (this is not the time for the debate), the fact of the matter is that it is the individual who breaks the law, not Napster. If I rip a Dave Matthews CD and post it online, I have published copyrighted material; that is against the law. If I post the file to the web, and add it to AltaVista's index, I have published it an easily-searchable and easily-accessible venue. Is AltaVista responsible for the material? No. I, personally, am responsible. Napster is functionally equivalent to AltaVista. I use(d) the Napster service, but never shared anything I didn't know was public domain, or otherwise unrestricted (I know, I'm a bastard user. Deal with it.); all of my copyrighted songs were explicitly kept off the service (on a separate hard drive, on a separate machine, which didn't have a copy of Napster). I did this as a CYA move; our network admins (University of x) watched for outgoing MP3 transfers. A side result of this is that I did not publish or cause to be downloaded any copyrighted material (I did publish some stuff, such as Bizet's Farandole, but the copyright has long since expired). The fact that I published non-copyrighted material doesn't make me a criminal any more than it makes Napster, Inc. a criminal for indexing it. If I had published my Chicago collection, I, and I alone, would have been responsible for violating the copyright law; Napster would simply have been the vehicle. Actively targeting individuals is absolutely the correct way to combat copyright violation; the reason the RIAA went after Napster is because it was an easy target, not a legally valid one.
I don't know about the online activation (haven't run a sniffer on it, yet), but I tried the telephone activation today, and there was no personal information exchanged. I called the toll-free number, waited on hold for about 10 minutes (and we're still in the beta stage--just wait until this thing hits mainstream), then finally talked to a patronizing tech support drone. He asked me for the product activation key, a numeric string that makes MS CD keys look sane--32 digits, IIRC. He then read back a 36-digit numeric string to be entered in the activation window. That was it--no e-mail address, no name, phone number/address, etc. I suppose it could have been a hash code containing my name, but that's all it could have contained, as I had not entered any other information to that point. Probably just a hardware ID.
Incidentally, I recommend everybody register every copy of Windows by phone. First of all, you know what you're telling them, at least directly, but more importantly, it costs them more money. Think about it: ten minutes on hold on a toll-free line (their expense), five minutes of techie-time. Even at a modest $10/hr for the techie, that's almost a dollar spent on him, plus the phone charge. Now, imagine ten million copies of Windows being registered by phone. The infrastructure cost alone would be enormous--you know they haven't planned for that many people to call. Just one more example of my favorite form of vengeance: use their own weapons against them.
cat/dev/random to your favorite e-mail program, format it like a PGP message, and send it. Do this several times a day. See how suspicious they get. Remember, you're not sending any data, just random garbage.
Think about what they'll get when they try to brute-force it:-)
Hate to break it to you, bud, but they don't do processing or sorting during flight. During flight, the packages are in small containers in the cargo hold. The containers are packed tightly against each other, so you cannot access anything that is not immediately adjacent to a door. I don't know for sure about FedEx, but I've seen Airborne airplanes as they are being unpacked (I have a friend who's a captain with them, and I was invited to see the airplane while it was being unloaded), and there is no way to do anything with them while in flight.
Actually, the rules are fine as they are. 14 CFR 91.21 states:
91.21Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to --
Portable voice recorders;
Hearing aids;
Heart pacemakers;
Electric shavers; or
Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.
(All italics mine)
Not only does the law allow for them to be approved, but approval comes from the operator, not the FAA. Furthermore, the prohibition on cell phones, the most common prohibition with which we deal, comes primarily not from the FAA (the operator can authorize their use), but from the FCC, because operating a cell phone at FL350 activates too many cell towers (think about it--what kind of signal will you get from an antenna on a 35,000 foot tower?).
Anyhow, there's the story. And yes, I did look it up the FAR/AIM. I'm a flight student at the University of Oklahoma (go Sooners!), and just happen to have a copy in my desk.
Anybody remember DIVX? You know, the DVD thing from Circuit City? It went over like a lead balloon. What, exactly, makes these people think this will work any better? Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Region-coded DVD's cannot be moved from one region to another (assuming "legit" players). The object is to prevent people from moving DVD's out of the intended region, but the law of unintended consequences brings about the problem that you cannot move DVD's out of the intended region. Why is this a problem? Because people move occasionally.
The MPAA, when faced with this argument, would probably argue that very few people are affected by the problem, and that they choose to move anyway, so no biggie. There is, however, a large-ish group of people who move internationally, sometimes frequently, and really don't have a choice in the matter. These people are called "military."
Yup, the men and women of the US Armed Forces may represent a bit of hope for us. These people get transferred (PCS'd) overseas, to different DVD regions. They may spend a several years there, so saying "oh, just give up your movies until you get back" really doesn't fly. The use of region coding results in disenfranchisement of military members. Herein is our solution to the problem.
The MPAA member organizations disenfranchising (discriminating against?) our servicemen could probably be successfully sued for the problem. Even if active-duty servicemen were unsuccessful, reservists might have a chance--if a reservist is activated, federal law prohibits any form of discrimination based on that fact: employers must keep his job available when he returns (or an equivalent position), etc. If he is stationed overseas for some time, and decided to buy some movies on DVD, he would not be able to use them when he PCS'd back to the states. Most of the DVD packaging I have seen states the region in very small print, and nowhere is the concept of regions explained, so a reasonable argument could be made that the serviceman didn't know he would have trouble playing it elsewhere.
This being the case, the company that produced the DVD could probably be sued for replacement of the DVD with one valid in the next region in which the serviceman is stationed. One serviceman wouldn't be a big deal to the MPAA, but imagine this on a class-action scale. Imagine the MPAA having to have an office on every base for exchanging DVD's. This would quickly become a major problem for the MPAA, who would be forced to either start taking DVD exchanges (from everybody, ultimately), or come out with a new region for "those who move," or scrap the system entirely. They would likely choose the first option, but it would quickly grow to be a significant problem for them.
Remember the DMCA? That lovely little law that, among other things, prohibits circumvention of access controls? That's an important argument to use in court--"I can't circumvent region coding--that's illegal! Guess they'll just have to give me a new DVD!" Law's a real bitch when it works against you, and there would be poetic justice in using it against the group that so desperately wanted it. (Incidentally, since the MPAA doesn't do this right now, you could probably use this argument to challenge DMCA, saying it has a disproportionate effect on servicemen.)
Anyhow, there's my idea. The things I think of in the morning after I drink! If anybody thinks it's worth trying (IANAL, but dad is, and I can't help picking up a little, no matter how well I wash), thinks it might fly in court, post a reply. And go start getting real friendly with servicemen, especially those who just PCS'd to or from another region. We might just be able to get them legally, and make them the "bad guy" in the eyes of the law.
With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. The free speech issue is absolutely the most critical part of the case. Free speech is one of our most cherished rights; to lose it is to lose a portion of that which defines our society. Furthemore, the idea that "because it's impossible to enforce, it must be OK" is dead wrong. Think abot it this way: it is impossible to enforce murder laws completely--somebody always gets away with it. Therefore, murder should be legal. Somehow, I don't see that happening. Whenever you're tempted to use this arument, substitute a heinous crime for the offense you describe; if it doesn't fly that way, don't use it.
Don't shoot the messenger (Please don't shoot!)
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
I have no intention to defend the arguments of the Connecticut, but I do have one point to add on the consitutionality of the proposed law. The law appears to inhibit, among other things, free speech; ordinarily, this would be clearly unconsitutional. With the age proviso, however (the law is specifically targeted at minors), the consitutional question becomes much more complex. The US Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that minors are not entitled to the full protections and freedoms of the Consitution and Bill of Rights. As such, the proposed law could pass muster in the Supreme Court, if the impact on adults is shown to be trivial. This is the same situation as pornography laws--a minor cannot walk into a bookstore and buy a copy of Playboy, but an adult can. Those laws have been challenged, and upheld; if this law were passed, it would likely be defended with the same legal strategy. Mind you, I do not agree with either law, I only say that "this is the situation." IANAL, but dad is, and it's inevitable that I will pick up a little bit from him, no matter how well I wash.
That said, there is a very real problem here. The problem is not so much with the politicians. When you get right down to it, politicians (in general, I know there are exceptions) have exactly one goal: to be re-elected. To achieve that goal, they have to convince a majority of their voting constituents that they are doing a better-than-average job of governing society. The politician, therefore, is just a mirror of what the voting constituents believe. The politician is just the symptom! The cause is not in the legislature, it is in the constituency.
The problem with the constituency is the complacency. The people have chosen not to take the time to become informed on the issues; they do not take the time to educate themselves about the true nature of the problem, of the possible solutions, and the ramifications of each potential solution. They still form opinions on the subject, but without that effort, their opinions are uninformed, and their choice of solution if usually poor. Furthermore, the people have decided, by conscious choice or by fiat, to shirk their responsibilities as parents and allow (nay, require) the government to raise their children. In many cases, it is due to the parents worshipping the Almighty Dollar, both parents spending more time with their cow-orkers than with their children. Any developmental psychologist worth his salt will tell you that perhaps the single most important factor in the development of a child is the involvement of his parents, particularly the mother. With both parents working long hours, the involvement of the parents is effectively nil, so the child must be raised by somebody else. Enter Big Brother. A further consequence of the lack of parental involvement is that the parents develop guilt complexes stemming from their lack of care for their children, and frequently ease their consciences by attempting to "buy" their way back into their children's hearts. They buy their children anything they ask for; after all, they have the money, why shouldn't little Junior have what he wants? Junior ends up with a TV, VCR, computer, PlayStation, etc. in his room, his own phone line, a car on his sixteenth birthday, etc. This has several disastrous consequences: 1. Junior spends increasing amounts of time secluded from others, leading to social problems, 2. Junior becomes accustomed to having everything he wants, and fails to become accustomed to the reality that you can't always have everything, and 3. Junior becomes accustomed to instant gratification.
With this culture of parental disinvolvement, Junior being used to getting what he wants, when he wants it, and Junior lacking social skills, it is only natural that he will have problems when he starts being forced to deal with other people. Recent studies have confirmed this: children raised by babysitters, nannies, and even day-care centers (yes, there are other children, but social skills are not taught at most) show a much stronger tendency to have serious problems in school.
There is only one real solution to this problem, and that is to get parents to get involved in the lives of their children. I heard one of the parents of the Columbine thugs (and that's what they are, just schoolyard bullies with bigger toys) say "Oh, that was his room, I couldn't go in there" about the room where he assembled some of the explosives he took. Parents, YES, YOU CAN go in there! His name is not on the mortgage, that is not his room--it is yours! You are responsible for raising your children. Think about it this way: if he is to be caught and prevented from taking those weapons to school, his room will need to be searched. Would you like to raise your own child, and search his room, or would you like the government to raise him? Do you really want Big Brother inpecting your house? My parents rarely went through my stuff, because I rarely made it necessary. But when I did, you'd better believe I got the third degree. When my dad found a copy of The Terrorist's Cookbook hidden in my stuff, I was interrogated for a week. I wasn't doing anything else that even hinted I was doing anything wrong; indeed, I was actually doing research (I have a keen interest in fireworks and pyrotechnics; I did a search on the internet, and came across that book. I printed it out, read it, and proceeded to talk to my Chemistry teacher about the book on an academic, chemical level (thank you, Mrs. B for understanding what I was doing!). Oh, and by the way, don't ever use that book--most of the recipies will get you killed.). It took me a week to convince dad that I wasn't planning to blow anything up, and even then, he kept an eye on me for a while. About a year later, when I got interested in nuclear physics, I got some raised eyebrows, and had to answer some questions to again convince my parents I was only interested academically. (It helped that I mentioned that you can't exactly buy fissionable material at Ace Hardware...things like that tend to make people more rational.) Parents, you have to do this. Not only will it help your children develop properly, it will also build a healthy relationship between you and your child (truly an enjoyable thing to have--there's nothing quite like that feeling of having a close bond with your family), it will also build a trust between you and them, so that you don't have to worry. Now that my parents understand what I'm doing, I can walk in the door with just about anything and not have them worry (for example, when I walked in with a half-pound of magnesium turnings).
Not to pick on the women, but it's doubly important for mothers to be around for their children, especially at the younger ages. I'm not saying you can't, or shouldn't, have a career--God knows I'm a strong supporter of equal rights for everybody, and I think you should have every right to have a career for yourself. However, kids are in fact a full-time job--if you don't believe me, go ask your own mother. Every job has certain responsibilities associated with it; it just goes with the territory. This includes having children. You need to consider whether or not having children is worth the loss of other opportunities. I do not mean to tell you how to live your life or how to raise your children, but the fact is that a child forms and especially strong bond with his mother, particularly early in life; this is, in fact, true in most species, not just humans. It's a lousy deal, but that's how it works. The father gains influence later in life (so you dads can't run away, either!). This is not just my opinion, either--again, if you ask a decent developmental psychologist, they'll say most of the same stuff.
Anyhow, that's how I see the problem. Parents who refuse to be parents force the government to raise their children. The people (mostly the same parents) refuse to educate themselves about the issues; they think with their emotions, and allow themselves to be swayed by emotional arguments (if I ever hear the words "it's for the children, think of the children," again, I'll puke), instead of looking at facts and logic. They don't act, they react. This leads to the people clamoring for a solution that they think they want, even though it will not solve the problem--it's a band-aid, mere window dressing. The politicians hear a clear, loud voice from a majority of the voters, and glad to have such a clear choice act on it. They act in their own best interest--you can't blame them for that, really; would you do something that you know would get you fired? As long as the people don't take responsibility for their own choices, the problem will continue to exist. It may manifest itself in different forms, but the underlying problem will still be there.
Enough of my rant. Now that I've told you all how to live your lives and how to raise your kids and how to vote and basically everything else, I'll shut up. What significance you choose to give my opinion is entirely up to you; reject it, ignore it, write it on nice paper and put it on a pedestal, I don't care (OK, I'm lying; I rather you do the latter!). All I ask is that you think about it before you pass judgement, and if you decide to reply to any of my arguments (agree or disagree), please support your ideas. I promise to listen to all well-reasoned replies and give them due consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
I am currently in the processing of mirroring CNN's website (three cheers for wget). As soon as I have finished, it will be available at http://www.aviation.ou.edu. I am only mirroring their main site (www.cnn.com), not their sub-sites (cnnfn.cnn.com and sportsillustrated.cnn.com), so you will still have to visit their servers to get those stories (and cnnfn does have some stories), but hopefully getting at least some of the Slashdot community off of CNN's servers can help them somewhat. It will probably be slightly behind CNN (possibly as much as 30 minutes, hopefully not that long), so I apologize in advance for any outdated content, as well as for any delay in posting new stories.
Incidentally, I am not certain about the capacity of my server, so if it should get slashdotted under the load (and it would probably be the server, not the network), please send me an e-mail at dbuckles@ou.edu, and I will try to restore it as quickly as possible.
--Dave
First of all, I hope and pray for the safety of all involved, and commend the rescue workers who are putting their lives on the line to save others. These people are heroes in the truest sense, and deserve our undying admiration and respect.
Watching the news, all of the stations, particularly the military correspondents (Gen. Schwarzkopf included) talked about the complete failure of our intelligence community to provide us with any warning about this attack. Reporters asking "how could such a thing have happened with no warning," "haven't we infiltrated these groups," "how can you maintain secrecy on something this widespread," etc.
In a couple of weeks, I'm going to look like a prophet for this one. I predict that somebody will mention data security, including e-mail encryption. Whether correctly or not, somebody will propose it, and encryption, already a hot topic in National Security circles, will gain focus.
I predict that within a month, Congress will have drafted, and probably passed, a National Security Act to address the threat of terrorism. In that act, I fully expect to see severe restrictions on the use of secure data systems, including encryption of any form (e-mail, PGP file encryption/encrypted file systems, even SSH and SSL), anonymity (anonymous bulletin boards, including such things as Slashdot), and relaxation of wiretapping laws. E-mail will be required to be send in plaintext, Carnivore will be restored to active duty, and put on more servers with more keywords and more aggressive monitoring. Cell phones, already ruled to be not private, will be actively monitored by the government, as will landline phones--remember, cordless phones (you know you all have them) emit RF too, and the few that have scrambling systems are easily compromised.
Also expect to see civil liberties severely curtailed, at least for a while. Meeting with friends at odd hours (odd to the rest of the world, normal to geeks)? Suspicious. Phone calls to friends in other countries, or of other nationailities (particularly Middle Eastern)? Suspicious. Use of encryption/security? Suspicious squared--after all, what do you have to hide?
My big prediction, though, is that the American Sheeple will hail this as a Good Thing, and support it wholeheartedly. The Sheeple will automatically say that anything that improves security must be a Good Idea, and will fall into line without even considering the ramifications.
Mark my words, my friends: today has been one small step for terrorism, but one giant leap for the police state.
Probably the same way they always do things: automakers would be "encouraged" to include them in all new cars. Inclusion would not be mandatory, but probably in the same way that compliance with the mafia is not mandatory. The government could simply say "we think this is a good idea," and mutter things under their breath to the effect of "...and you'll get a looser tax audit if you comply." Same way they got the "black box" into airbags (you do know that if your airbag goes off, a vehicle data recorder notes your speed, whether or not your seatbelt was on, magnitude of acceleration (g-forces), etc.). Once the manufacturers include the devices, including the radio transmitters, the police wouldn't need a warrant--they would need only to listen to off-the-air broadcasts, which is perfectly legal.
Getting these things into cars and into use wouldn't really be that difficult, and the people could probably be convinced to accept them: "The Chevy Boozer: the first car that will warn you if the kid driving next to you is drunk." Include an interlock device, you get "The Ford Fuzzy Navel: parents, don't you want to keep your kids from driving drunk?" With the proper marketing, the American sheeple will assent to anything. You'd be a "bad parent" if you didn't use the technology.
The big problem is that sooner, rather than later, somebody (somebody like me, for instance) will find a way to toy with the unit...take a paper towel soaked in pure ethanol and wrap it around the sensor to indicate a 50% blood alcohol level, particularly to somebody else's car (great practical joke!), or route a tube to the outside of the vehicle so that it only receives outside air, thus never registering alcohol. Oh, sure, this will be made illegal, just like smoking in the lavatory on an airliner and rolling back an odometer. Works pretty well, too.
In short, yes, this can happen. Be afraid, be very afraid.
The Concorde flies high, above 40.000 ft, where airspace is not controlled, so the pilot can gradually increase altitude during the trip.
Almost. Class A airspace extends from 18,000 feet to 60,000 feet (Actually, 18,000 feet to FL600, but I digress). Class E airspace overlies Class A, extending from FL600 upward, presumably indefinitely (I have never heard of an official top to that Class E). Class E is also controlled airspace for those aircraft on an IFR flight plan.
Concorde flies in Class A airspace above FL400, so it is controlled. They do climb during cruise, though--instead of a specific altitude, they are cleared to cruise at a "block altitude," an altitude range with a lower and upper limit. Such a clearance might read "maintain between FL390 and 550," which would indicate that the aircraft may be operated between FL390 (approximately 39,000 feet) and FL550 (approx. 55,000').
Incidentally, I mentioned that Class E is only controlled to IFR aircraft; if you are VFR, Class E is uncontrolled (for all practical purposes). Entry into Class A requires that you be on an IFR flight plan, so to climb to the overlying Class E, you would have to be on an IFR flight plan. You can cancel your IFR clearance after leaving Class A, but it would be impractical, and airliners are required to fly IFR at all times anyway, so Concorde would never be uncontrolled, even if it were in Class E airspace.
even if they aren't able to use it for stem cell research directly
Sure they can. President Bush's decision was that federal money may not be used to generate new stem cell lines from fetuses. Private money, like Clark's, can be used for anything. Federal money can even be used for some research, including research on existing cell lines, and creating new lines that do not come from fetuses (i.e. cells coming from adults, or from umbilical cords). Bush's decision does not affect Stanford's use of Clark's money in any way; Clark is just throwing a hissy-fit.
You don't see world-renound lecturers shouting out scathing political commentaries to hords of screaming fans who paid $139 for a seat. You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.
No, you don't. Specifically, the fans aren't screaming, and the tickets cost more like $1390 (and up). Political figures often give speeches at which the cost of attendence runs to four, and even five figures (hint: see Clinton, William J.). No, the fans aren't screaming, but that's because they (usually) have (slightly) more class than the average teenage rock fan. And "world-renowed" lecturers (particularly politicians) do get mobbed as hey step out of their strech limousines (again, see Clinton, William J.), even after they are out of the situation which originally thrust them into the limelight.
Fame and money are not rights, I agree; the opportunity to earn them, however, should not be restricted. If a performer wishes to sign a record contract and make big money, why should they be prevented from doing so? Can every slashdotter out there honestly say that he does not like any "popular" artist, and that he has never bought even one CD, or attended one concert, by such a group? I know I can't.
Furthermore, what of people famous in areas other than the performing arts? Has John Carmack earned his fame and money? How about Linus Torvalds--has he earned his name recognition? What about Stallman, Raymond, or even Cmdr Taco? Even Bill Gates earned his fame (or infamy, as the case may be)--his money may be a different story, but his name recognition is certainly deserved. Outside of software, what about famous engineers and technologists: Bill Lear, the father of the business jet, the eight track, and the car stereo, among other things--did he earn his fame and fortune? What of the thousands of inventors who created something, or improved something, that took hold in the market--have those people earned their fame and their money, or should they be ignored.
Fact is, if people can't profit from their works, the progress of science and technology will slow. It would not necessarily cease, as there would always be "backyard builders," but without financial rewards (either cash or other tangible compensation), there would be little incentive to invent; exacerbating this situation would be the fact that "inventor" or "researcher" would necessarily be relegated to hobby status--you have to pay the bills, and if you can't do it with academic work, then that work must, must take a secondary role in your life.
I agree that the system has problems, and that certain no-talent hacks end up being paid millions for screeching out noises that make my dog run for the door, but they have managed to convince people that purchasing recordings of that noise is a worthwhile expenditure of their money; by so doing, they have earned the money. While you and I can think of better uses for it, they have the right to spend it as they wish. If they were to see some of the purchases we might make with the same money (hardware, garage band CD's, hardware, ballet/opera tickets, hardware...), they might say we are nuts. Who is right, and who is wrong? Or are both right--perhaps they really do enjoy listening to the latest from Britney Spears, N*SYNC, and whatever else the industry has told them to like--more power to them. If you remove the incentive for those artists to perform their works, then the people who do enjoy their work, for whatever reason, would miss out on it. While some might think this a good thing, doing so would restrict their freedom, their right to choose for themselves what they listen to/watch/think about/what have you.
No, fame and money are not rights; the option to choose what you like, and the option to choose what or whom you will support, are. If enough people choose to support a given artist, why should that artist be denied the opportunity to reap the rewards of their work? Denying them that opportunity stifles the market, and ultimately reduces the choices available to all. Remember, every man who reduces the liberty available to another sets a precedent that will eventually reach back to himself, and probably bite him in the ass.
In that rig, it looks like the car/semi/fire truck/airplane/horse/whatever kind of ride outside of most Wal-Mart stores... (Real) spaceship ride at a science museum, perhaps?
As a recent high school graduate myself, I hear about laws like this and start quivering uncontrollably. This sort of sweeping regulation will do little, if anything, to stop the actual problem; even worse, though, it will make nearly any use of a computer a criminal action, to be dealt with at the discretion of the school.
Consider the following:
If these are already illegal, why do we need another law to criminalize them? If it is illegal to vandalize somebody's property, do we really need a separate law to cover mailbox bashing? Of course not--it was already covered by the vandalization law! So, if these acts are already illegal, how will passing another, totally redundant, law help the situation? "Oh!" "I didn't realize I that the laws already on the books meant I can't do that! Now that they've passed another law, I understand! I shall stop immediately!" Get serious. This law won't help anything.
To make matters worse, a law of this type will (not might, will) be used improperly against students. It's not a question of if, just a question of when. By using the language "affects . . .a computer" (editing for emphasis and clarity), any use of a computer is criminalized. Dictionary.com defines the word "affect" to mean "[t]o have an influence on or effect a change in." Now, last I checked, the Big Red Switch will cause a change in sthe state of a computer--do we really want to send our kids to a Federal Pound-me-in-the-Ass prison for turning on a computer? Sound outlandish? Maybe, but the language of the law makes it a possibility.
But of course, no teacher or school administrator would ever dream of taking advantage of a legal technicality to punish a student, right? Bah. I was frequently on the wrong end of my high school's computer policy, usually through no fault of my own (admittedly, sometimes I deserved it, but most of the time, no). Certain administrators would have used anthing they could have found to get me booted from the school. Many of the teachers would have supported me, but just as many would not have. Consider the average public-school teacher: overworked, underpaid, and resents the responsibility placed upon him by society, and society's lawyers. By and large, they want to stand up, give their lectures to a bunch of quiet, attentive students, then go back to their desks and have the students do their busywork. (Exceptions to this stereotype do exist, and I had some of them. Among the best teachers, and the best people, I have ever had the privilege of knowing--one of them was just awarded a national award for excellence in teaching. But I digress.) These teachers are annoyed by problem childred at both ends of the intellectual spectrum--at one end, the mindless, disruptive, "dropout" group, and at the other end, the intelligent, occasionally brilliant, disruptive ones. I was one of the latter (please excuse my lack of humility). In physics class, I would work out problems in my head more quickly than the teacher could on a calculator. Many of you (Slashdotters) are probably familiar with this feeling. Teachers , at least the "bad" ones, resent such students, and generally make their lives difficult in some way or another--I know they did for me. Now, consider the group of people most likely to be taking full advantage of the capabilities of the network. You'll find that they are approximately the same group. Now, even if the kids don't do anything wrong in the current sense of the word (damage/UCE/otherwise impair functionality), by even logging in, they're breaking the law. Let a teacher, who frequently understands computers almost as well as a Congresscritter, overhear him talking about Linux, or writing his own program, or using bash (/bin/bash), and all they'll hear is "hacker" ("cracker," to us). Particularly bash--they won't hear an acronym for Bourne Again SHell, they'll hear a term for destruction often applied to mailboxes. Put this perception in their minds, associate it with a student they already dislike, and you have a student who is automatically distrusted and prone to being accused of illicit computer use. Make everything criminal, and, well, you do the math. (Hint: don't ask my sophomore math teacher for help--my classmates and I had to correct half of everything she said.)
The point of this little rant is that a law like this will do no good, and that it will be used as a tool of retribution by resentful teachers toward any student who doesn't kiss ass like he's supposed to. Demonstrate proficiency on your English test, and you get an A. Demonstrate a little independence of thought and spirit, and you get five-to-ten.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
"Your honor, this videotape clearly shows what my client has been arguing all along."
"Well, I'll be damned! The tiger really was break-dancing!"
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
Even more ironic was the popup that opened when I closed the window after visiting your link.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
The "Boson" is the longest-running joke in the history of physics. "Boson" is the term physicists use to refer to the commonfolk. Think about it in the context of the history of physics. First, remember that many of the great physicists have been German. In German, the suffix -n (-en for words ending in consonants) is usually used to denote a plural. The English equivalent of "Boson," then, would be "Bosos," or "Boso's," as seen on Slashdot. Now consider that, in German, the letter 's' is frequently as the English 'z.' Substitute a 'z' for the 's,' and you have "Bozos." So all this time, when the physicists talk about "Boson" particles, they're talking about you! And you thought those physicists were nice guys...
'Course, they could also be thinking about sailing (boatswain...never mind)
2. Incompetent (either hasn't read the Constitution, or think it means only what HE thinks it means)
Actually, it does. As a practical matter, anyway. If you look at your average high-school civics (OK, government/social studies, most high schools don't have a proper civics class any more) textbook, they will give you the following standard definitions for the three branches of government (or derivatives thereof):
That's right: it is the duty of the judicial branch to determine the meaning of the laws, including the Constitution. They do this every day: when a law is challenged as unconstitutional, the court must determine the meaning of the Constitution, whether or not it precludes the law being challenged, etc.
I am not saying that I agree with the law; quite the contrary. I think the DMCA is one of the best examples we have yet produced of bad law, and would be struck down immediately by a strict constructionist judge. Unfortunately, many judges take a very liberal (not politically liberal, but "willing to take liberty with interpretation" liberal) view of the constitution; this results in a very flexible Constitution, and when that flexibility exists, it will be bent to suit the will of somebody. In this case, it was bent to suit the will of the Corporations. (It usually is, but I won't go there....)
Anyhow, the point is, any law, from a city ordinance all the way up to the Constitution, means exactly what the ruling judge says it means. If you don't like his interpretation, you can appeal--the system is set up with that capability for just this reason. If this DMCA were to go to the Supreme Court, and be struck down, we would all cheer, but the fact is, it would be 9 people determining what the Constitution means; a majority of those 9 would decide that "they say it means" what we wanted to hear. Would we complain about the interpretation then? No. Would it still be individual people making a determination on the meaning of the law? Yes.
You went too far with that analysis. You should have translated it to "very wrong," and stopped there.
Actually, they should be actively targeting individuals. Whether you believe in the concept of IP or not (this is not the time for the debate), the fact of the matter is that it is the individual who breaks the law, not Napster. If I rip a Dave Matthews CD and post it online, I have published copyrighted material; that is against the law. If I post the file to the web, and add it to AltaVista's index, I have published it an easily-searchable and easily-accessible venue. Is AltaVista responsible for the material? No. I, personally, am responsible. Napster is functionally equivalent to AltaVista. I use(d) the Napster service, but never shared anything I didn't know was public domain, or otherwise unrestricted (I know, I'm a bastard user. Deal with it.); all of my copyrighted songs were explicitly kept off the service (on a separate hard drive, on a separate machine, which didn't have a copy of Napster). I did this as a CYA move; our network admins (University of x) watched for outgoing MP3 transfers. A side result of this is that I did not publish or cause to be downloaded any copyrighted material (I did publish some stuff, such as Bizet's Farandole, but the copyright has long since expired). The fact that I published non-copyrighted material doesn't make me a criminal any more than it makes Napster, Inc. a criminal for indexing it. If I had published my Chicago collection, I, and I alone, would have been responsible for violating the copyright law; Napster would simply have been the vehicle. Actively targeting individuals is absolutely the correct way to combat copyright violation; the reason the RIAA went after Napster is because it was an easy target, not a legally valid one.
I don't know about the online activation (haven't run a sniffer on it, yet), but I tried the telephone activation today, and there was no personal information exchanged. I called the toll-free number, waited on hold for about 10 minutes (and we're still in the beta stage--just wait until this thing hits mainstream), then finally talked to a patronizing tech support drone. He asked me for the product activation key, a numeric string that makes MS CD keys look sane--32 digits, IIRC. He then read back a 36-digit numeric string to be entered in the activation window. That was it--no e-mail address, no name, phone number/address, etc. I suppose it could have been a hash code containing my name, but that's all it could have contained, as I had not entered any other information to that point. Probably just a hardware ID.
Incidentally, I recommend everybody register every copy of Windows by phone. First of all, you know what you're telling them, at least directly, but more importantly, it costs them more money. Think about it: ten minutes on hold on a toll-free line (their expense), five minutes of techie-time. Even at a modest $10/hr for the techie, that's almost a dollar spent on him, plus the phone charge. Now, imagine ten million copies of Windows being registered by phone. The infrastructure cost alone would be enormous--you know they haven't planned for that many people to call. Just one more example of my favorite form of vengeance: use their own weapons against them.
I think it's a typo, but having read some of the licenses, "warped" may be a very apropos description...
cat /dev/random to your favorite e-mail program, format it like a PGP message, and send it. Do this several times a day. See how suspicious they get. Remember, you're not sending any data, just random garbage.
Think about what they'll get when they try to brute-force it :-)
Hate to break it to you, bud, but they don't do processing or sorting during flight. During flight, the packages are in small containers in the cargo hold. The containers are packed tightly against each other, so you cannot access anything that is not immediately adjacent to a door. I don't know for sure about FedEx, but I've seen Airborne airplanes as they are being unpacked (I have a friend who's a captain with them, and I was invited to see the airplane while it was being unloaded), and there is no way to do anything with them while in flight.
91.21 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to --
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.
(All italics mine)
Not only does the law allow for them to be approved, but approval comes from the operator, not the FAA. Furthermore, the prohibition on cell phones, the most common prohibition with which we deal, comes primarily not from the FAA (the operator can authorize their use), but from the FCC, because operating a cell phone at FL350 activates too many cell towers (think about it--what kind of signal will you get from an antenna on a 35,000 foot tower?).
Anyhow, there's the story. And yes, I did look it up the FAR/AIM. I'm a flight student at the University of Oklahoma (go Sooners!), and just happen to have a copy in my desk.
Anybody remember DIVX? You know, the DVD thing from Circuit City? It went over like a lead balloon. What, exactly, makes these people think this will work any better? Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Just a thought:
Region-coded DVD's cannot be moved from one region to another (assuming "legit" players). The object is to prevent people from moving DVD's out of the intended region, but the law of unintended consequences brings about the problem that you cannot move DVD's out of the intended region. Why is this a problem? Because people move occasionally.
The MPAA, when faced with this argument, would probably argue that very few people are affected by the problem, and that they choose to move anyway, so no biggie. There is, however, a large-ish group of people who move internationally, sometimes frequently, and really don't have a choice in the matter. These people are called "military."
Yup, the men and women of the US Armed Forces may represent a bit of hope for us. These people get transferred (PCS'd) overseas, to different DVD regions. They may spend a several years there, so saying "oh, just give up your movies until you get back" really doesn't fly. The use of region coding results in disenfranchisement of military members. Herein is our solution to the problem.
The MPAA member organizations disenfranchising (discriminating against?) our servicemen could probably be successfully sued for the problem. Even if active-duty servicemen were unsuccessful, reservists might have a chance--if a reservist is activated, federal law prohibits any form of discrimination based on that fact: employers must keep his job available when he returns (or an equivalent position), etc. If he is stationed overseas for some time, and decided to buy some movies on DVD, he would not be able to use them when he PCS'd back to the states. Most of the DVD packaging I have seen states the region in very small print, and nowhere is the concept of regions explained, so a reasonable argument could be made that the serviceman didn't know he would have trouble playing it elsewhere.
This being the case, the company that produced the DVD could probably be sued for replacement of the DVD with one valid in the next region in which the serviceman is stationed. One serviceman wouldn't be a big deal to the MPAA, but imagine this on a class-action scale. Imagine the MPAA having to have an office on every base for exchanging DVD's. This would quickly become a major problem for the MPAA, who would be forced to either start taking DVD exchanges (from everybody, ultimately), or come out with a new region for "those who move," or scrap the system entirely. They would likely choose the first option, but it would quickly grow to be a significant problem for them.
Remember the DMCA? That lovely little law that, among other things, prohibits circumvention of access controls? That's an important argument to use in court--"I can't circumvent region coding--that's illegal! Guess they'll just have to give me a new DVD!" Law's a real bitch when it works against you, and there would be poetic justice in using it against the group that so desperately wanted it. (Incidentally, since the MPAA doesn't do this right now, you could probably use this argument to challenge DMCA, saying it has a disproportionate effect on servicemen.)
Anyhow, there's my idea. The things I think of in the morning after I drink! If anybody thinks it's worth trying (IANAL, but dad is, and I can't help picking up a little, no matter how well I wash), thinks it might fly in court, post a reply. And go start getting real friendly with servicemen, especially those who just PCS'd to or from another region. We might just be able to get them legally, and make them the "bad guy" in the eyes of the law.
Personally, I'd like to see it used on lawyers.
Haven't I heard of this before? More correctly, hasn't my dog heard of this before?
With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. The free speech issue is absolutely the most critical part of the case. Free speech is one of our most cherished rights; to lose it is to lose a portion of that which defines our society. Furthemore, the idea that "because it's impossible to enforce, it must be OK" is dead wrong. Think abot it this way: it is impossible to enforce murder laws completely--somebody always gets away with it. Therefore, murder should be legal. Somehow, I don't see that happening. Whenever you're tempted to use this arument, substitute a heinous crime for the offense you describe; if it doesn't fly that way, don't use it.
I have no intention to defend the arguments of the Connecticut, but I do have one point to add on the consitutionality of the proposed law. The law appears to inhibit, among other things, free speech; ordinarily, this would be clearly unconsitutional. With the age proviso, however (the law is specifically targeted at minors), the consitutional question becomes much more complex. The US Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that minors are not entitled to the full protections and freedoms of the Consitution and Bill of Rights. As such, the proposed law could pass muster in the Supreme Court, if the impact on adults is shown to be trivial. This is the same situation as pornography laws--a minor cannot walk into a bookstore and buy a copy of Playboy, but an adult can. Those laws have been challenged, and upheld; if this law were passed, it would likely be defended with the same legal strategy. Mind you, I do not agree with either law, I only say that "this is the situation." IANAL, but dad is, and it's inevitable that I will pick up a little bit from him, no matter how well I wash.
That said, there is a very real problem here. The problem is not so much with the politicians. When you get right down to it, politicians (in general, I know there are exceptions) have exactly one goal: to be re-elected. To achieve that goal, they have to convince a majority of their voting constituents that they are doing a better-than-average job of governing society. The politician, therefore, is just a mirror of what the voting constituents believe. The politician is just the symptom! The cause is not in the legislature, it is in the constituency.
The problem with the constituency is the complacency. The people have chosen not to take the time to become informed on the issues; they do not take the time to educate themselves about the true nature of the problem, of the possible solutions, and the ramifications of each potential solution. They still form opinions on the subject, but without that effort, their opinions are uninformed, and their choice of solution if usually poor. Furthermore, the people have decided, by conscious choice or by fiat, to shirk their responsibilities as parents and allow (nay, require) the government to raise their children. In many cases, it is due to the parents worshipping the Almighty Dollar, both parents spending more time with their cow-orkers than with their children. Any developmental psychologist worth his salt will tell you that perhaps the single most important factor in the development of a child is the involvement of his parents, particularly the mother. With both parents working long hours, the involvement of the parents is effectively nil, so the child must be raised by somebody else. Enter Big Brother. A further consequence of the lack of parental involvement is that the parents develop guilt complexes stemming from their lack of care for their children, and frequently ease their consciences by attempting to "buy" their way back into their children's hearts. They buy their children anything they ask for; after all, they have the money, why shouldn't little Junior have what he wants? Junior ends up with a TV, VCR, computer, PlayStation, etc. in his room, his own phone line, a car on his sixteenth birthday, etc. This has several disastrous consequences: 1. Junior spends increasing amounts of time secluded from others, leading to social problems, 2. Junior becomes accustomed to having everything he wants, and fails to become accustomed to the reality that you can't always have everything, and 3. Junior becomes accustomed to instant gratification.
With this culture of parental disinvolvement, Junior being used to getting what he wants, when he wants it, and Junior lacking social skills, it is only natural that he will have problems when he starts being forced to deal with other people. Recent studies have confirmed this: children raised by babysitters, nannies, and even day-care centers (yes, there are other children, but social skills are not taught at most) show a much stronger tendency to have serious problems in school.
There is only one real solution to this problem, and that is to get parents to get involved in the lives of their children. I heard one of the parents of the Columbine thugs (and that's what they are, just schoolyard bullies with bigger toys) say "Oh, that was his room, I couldn't go in there" about the room where he assembled some of the explosives he took. Parents, YES, YOU CAN go in there! His name is not on the mortgage, that is not his room--it is yours! You are responsible for raising your children. Think about it this way: if he is to be caught and prevented from taking those weapons to school, his room will need to be searched. Would you like to raise your own child, and search his room, or would you like the government to raise him? Do you really want Big Brother inpecting your house? My parents rarely went through my stuff, because I rarely made it necessary. But when I did, you'd better believe I got the third degree. When my dad found a copy of The Terrorist's Cookbook hidden in my stuff, I was interrogated for a week. I wasn't doing anything else that even hinted I was doing anything wrong; indeed, I was actually doing research (I have a keen interest in fireworks and pyrotechnics; I did a search on the internet, and came across that book. I printed it out, read it, and proceeded to talk to my Chemistry teacher about the book on an academic, chemical level (thank you, Mrs. B for understanding what I was doing!). Oh, and by the way, don't ever use that book--most of the recipies will get you killed.). It took me a week to convince dad that I wasn't planning to blow anything up, and even then, he kept an eye on me for a while. About a year later, when I got interested in nuclear physics, I got some raised eyebrows, and had to answer some questions to again convince my parents I was only interested academically. (It helped that I mentioned that you can't exactly buy fissionable material at Ace Hardware...things like that tend to make people more rational.) Parents, you have to do this. Not only will it help your children develop properly, it will also build a healthy relationship between you and your child (truly an enjoyable thing to have--there's nothing quite like that feeling of having a close bond with your family), it will also build a trust between you and them, so that you don't have to worry. Now that my parents understand what I'm doing, I can walk in the door with just about anything and not have them worry (for example, when I walked in with a half-pound of magnesium turnings).
Not to pick on the women, but it's doubly important for mothers to be around for their children, especially at the younger ages. I'm not saying you can't, or shouldn't, have a career--God knows I'm a strong supporter of equal rights for everybody, and I think you should have every right to have a career for yourself. However, kids are in fact a full-time job--if you don't believe me, go ask your own mother. Every job has certain responsibilities associated with it; it just goes with the territory. This includes having children. You need to consider whether or not having children is worth the loss of other opportunities. I do not mean to tell you how to live your life or how to raise your children, but the fact is that a child forms and especially strong bond with his mother, particularly early in life; this is, in fact, true in most species, not just humans. It's a lousy deal, but that's how it works. The father gains influence later in life (so you dads can't run away, either!). This is not just my opinion, either--again, if you ask a decent developmental psychologist, they'll say most of the same stuff.
Anyhow, that's how I see the problem. Parents who refuse to be parents force the government to raise their children. The people (mostly the same parents) refuse to educate themselves about the issues; they think with their emotions, and allow themselves to be swayed by emotional arguments (if I ever hear the words "it's for the children, think of the children," again, I'll puke), instead of looking at facts and logic. They don't act, they react. This leads to the people clamoring for a solution that they think they want, even though it will not solve the problem--it's a band-aid, mere window dressing. The politicians hear a clear, loud voice from a majority of the voters, and glad to have such a clear choice act on it. They act in their own best interest--you can't blame them for that, really; would you do something that you know would get you fired? As long as the people don't take responsibility for their own choices, the problem will continue to exist. It may manifest itself in different forms, but the underlying problem will still be there.
Enough of my rant. Now that I've told you all how to live your lives and how to raise your kids and how to vote and basically everything else, I'll shut up. What significance you choose to give my opinion is entirely up to you; reject it, ignore it, write it on nice paper and put it on a pedestal, I don't care (OK, I'm lying; I rather you do the latter!). All I ask is that you think about it before you pass judgement, and if you decide to reply to any of my arguments (agree or disagree), please support your ideas. I promise to listen to all well-reasoned replies and give them due consideration.