Clinton was BY NO MEANS a "liberal Democrat." He was a centrist... I would go so far as to call him a center-right Democrat.
Of course, you are right. And virtually all democrats know that (including, presumably, the parent poster). Nonetheless, the right wing has successfully managed to spend the last 10 years painting Clinton as an ultra-liberal. It's really ironic just how much the right hates Clinton, considering how much he managed to do for their causes. And all that in spite of the right's best efforts to make sure he got -nothing- done, regardless of how much they supported the end result.
Let's say that you aren't writing a 100% userspace OS, and you have your own hardware. Let's say you want to redo the networking code. Strip out SMP. And remove the virtual memory support because your system doesn't have a hardware MMU. Oh, and your memory layout is funky and you have to rewrite some of the start-up code (or most of it).
Well, in such a case, BSD might be an appropriate option. Of course, since many projects won't require such massive rewrites, your assertion that Linux is inadequate for the task based on this limitation is flawed.
In addition, even if you do need to do the rewrites, what's wrong with giving something back to the community? You seem to be arguing that you want the software for free, but you aren't willing to give any improvements back. Remember, any proprietary code can easily be written in such a way that you do not need to GPL it, so it's not like you are giving away trade secrets. If the GPL is unacceptable, why not chose some proprietary (& expensive) solution instead?
Your brief explaination says to me that Linux is in fact not useful unless you have an Intel or AMD cpu and a standard PC architechure.
I have no Idea where you got that since the word Linux doesn't even appear in my post, other then as the example I cited when I mentioned Oracle. I described the GPL, and it's effects on user-space code. That has nothing to do with it's usefulness on non-x86 platforms.
Note also, I DID NOT say not to use BSD. I did say that your interpretation of the GPL is flawed (an assertion that I stand by), but you are correct that you should consider both options before you decide what to deploy.
Now, as to why the CELF chose Linux over BSD, I suspect it is exactly -because- of the GPL. Imagine you are Sony. If you want to form a strategic partnership with Matsushita, you want to make sure that you get as much out of it as they do. If they were to choose BSD as the platform, there's nothing to force Matsushita from disclosing any improvements they make-- In which case, why should Sony? With the GPL, all parties are required to disclose improvements, so they all get an equal benefit. If you're only considering the short term, you may be right that BSD would be a better option, but if you are thinking five or ten years down the road (which you aren't, but these companies seem to be doing), Linux is the right choice.
If it were me, I'd be concerned that GPL would require me to release some part, or maybe all, of the special code written for the embedded device. I don't want to get into a GPL debate, just assume that someone wasn't careful and did write their code in such a way that it was deamed to be covered under the GPL.
The GPL only requires you to release your changes if you are actually changing GPL'd code. User space code (applications, modules) does not need to be released under the GPL simply because the underlying OS is. If this were not the case, Oracle (for example) would now be open source simply because it has been released on Linux.
Contrary to Microsoft FUD, the GPL is -not- infectious. You must actively choose to contaminate your code with GPL'd code in order for your code to fall under the GPL.
If my place burns, and somehow the computer makes out ok, but my original CD and packing get burned up, and IF the insurance company buys me a new copy of quickbooks, they are replacing the lost real property of the CD-ROM disc and book, the license for the copy installed on my workstation is still valid.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here. For all practical purposes, you are selling your old copy to the insurance company when you accept their reimbursement. The situation would be the same as if you took the software to the used software store and sold it there. Legally, once you sell it, you cannot continue to use the installed copy.
The only thing great about the august 14 blackout was that it protected power companies' plants, but it sucked majorly for the consumers. Instead of shutting down powerplants for protection as they did on the 14th, i can think of four other possibilities: 1) build more power plants to meet surge demand (most expensive option) 2) disable powerplants from overloading or shutting down -- just have it perform below (say) 130% all the time, but never over it. 3) make demand meet supply (by blacking out smaller regions, for example just northern Ohio). 4) detect where a short is occuring, disable that line only. But whatever you do, don't reduce supply when the demand is high!
You seem to be implying that the blackout was intentional. It wasn't. Your point #4 in particular is silly. That is the the way the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, do to a complex set of circumstances, the system didn't work the way it was intended to and the blackout occurred. Perhaps you should read up a bit more on the circumstances of the blackout before you suggest any further solutions?
I mean, I have nothing against arresting spammer, or even executing them, but getting the government involved is the most dangerous WRT freedom of speech, not the 'best option that doesn't limit it'.
As I've said in numerous other messages, there is a big difference between commercial speech and other forms of speech. Under current law, it is illegal to lie in many forms of commercial speech already (false advertising, the Nike case regarding truth in press-releases). This current law is no different. It DOES NOT restrict what you can say. All it does is say that if you are sending certain types of messages (in the current case, adult-oriented advertising) you must accurately describe the content of your message in the subject.
Blacklisting ISP's is a great idea, but it has only limited effect. Otherwise, why do I still recieve spam, even though I subscribe to Spamcop.net? If my ISP can safely filter out spam at the server level, without a danger of false positives, why bother blacklisting? And of course if spam is filtered at the ISP level, the economic incentive of spamming suddenly becomes less compelling.
The law already states that commercial speech requires a higher standard of honesty then non-commercial speech (see false-advertising laws). This law doesn't prevent you from saying what you want. It only requires that the nature of the content is accurately described. Could this be seen as an infringement of someone first ammendment rights? Probably, but the infringement is ridiculously minor. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the first ammendment grants you the right to say whatever you want, but doesn't say that I am required to listen to you. The first ammendment was drafted at a time when it was easy to avoid speech you didn't agree with. Since email, telemarketers, and cellular telemarketers no come to you, it is time the law took into consideration your "freedom-to-ignore", and required appropriate labeling of commercial messages, calls, etc.
It *is* really funny how the media is becoming so embedded in our lives (assuming you mean the U.S. or a country with a similar society)
Just to clarify, I'm using media in the broadest sense here. Certainly TV is media, but under the definition I'm using here, email is also.
Another example of the sort of advertising that this would effect is location based telemarketing, ie whe you walk past a restaurant, your cell-phone rings and tells you about the great specials they're having. That is an unreasonable intrusion into your private life, and you should have the right to choose whether you want to recieve that sort of advertising or not. I don't know of anyone using this sort of advertising, but the technology exists (it has been covered on slashdot), and it's only a matter of time.
Basically, in my opinion, ANY advertising that requires some sort of action on your part (pressing delete, answering the phone) and is not specifically tied to something you are getting value in return from (reading a magazine, watching televison, using a website) should be required to be appropriately labeled and a mechanism to avoid such advertising should be in place. Otherwise, as technology advances, it will become impossible to not be completely drowned out by such advertising.
The problem is that a lot of spammers are just one person.
The size of the business is irrelevent. If the main reason you want to contact me is commercial, then it is commercial speech. As such, it deserves a different set of protections from my freedom of speech.
Spam Pal, and similar tools (I use Spamcop.net personally) are great but they only help so much. I still need to manually go through all of the mail marked as a spam, and make sure that it really is, otherwise I may miss an important message. In addition, many actual spams don't get caught by the filters. The more people use that sort of spam filter, the better spammers will become at outwitting them. Labelling laws don't require a complicated set of filters to work, just a simple "if subject starts with 'adv-adult:', delete". Your friends an associates should be smart enough to not to use that in there subject, so there is extremely little chance of false positives, so you can safely delete the mail without screening it first.
As I said, the problem is one of enforcement. If there is a national mechanism to track down & punish spammers, and if the punishment is severe, the laws will work. Put a few spammers in jail for 5 years, and pretty soon, people will start to realize that maybe this isn't the best line of work after all. Will it absolutely stop spam? No, but I believe that it is the best option we have to address without dramatically effecting freedom-of-speech.
I'm afraid your argument only bolsters the parent's point that spam laws are retarded. Slashdot DOES NOT have rules about what you can and can't say, beyond simple junk filters. Neither should email.
You're right. Which is surprising since you are so completely off base. The law in question DOES NOT effect what you can say in email. The law simply requires that certain types of messages (specifically, adult-oriented advertising) be accurately described in the subject. This DOES NOT limit your freedom of speech. It only affects my ability to decide whether I want to listen or not.
A good reason not to do it: California has a similar law already on the books. Supposedly, any spam sent to someone here has to contain "adv:" in the subject line. Of the thousands of spam I've received today, not one has it. The law is completely useless, and not worth what it cost me to have it printed, debated and passed.
The problem with this law is that for it to be effective, it really needs to be national. In my opinion, it is the best possible way to prevent spam, but for it to work, it needs severe penalties & effective enforcement. Individual states don't have the resources necessary to enforce this sort of law with the vigor necessary to make it work.
It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok.
No, it's exactly the right way to handle things. This law gives you an easy way to filter spam accurately, at your ISP, while not creating a slippery-slope for freedom-of-speech issues. Because this makes filtering spam at the ISP level easy & accurate, you can prevent spammers from stealing from you by just blocking there email. Severe non-compliance penalties help ensure that the process works.
The only problem with this sort of law is that it really needs to be implemented nationally. Individual states probably won't have the resources to enforce the laws to the standards necessary to make them effective. If the law was implemented nationally, then spammers would begin to rethink their line of work.
As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online.
Oh, come on. Does the requirement to honestly label the content of a -commercial- message really affect your freedom that much? Businesses -do not- deserve the same rights that private individuals do. As an individual, I believe I have a right to control what mail arrives in my mailbox. That right trumps your right to send me whatever spam you may wish to.
I think it's high time that more first-ammendment acivists (and I consider myself almost a first-ammendment radical) realize that along with freedom-of-speech comes an equally important right to "freedom not to be forced to listen to someone elses freedom of speech". Historically, there was no need for such a law, since you could always go elsewhere if someone was saying something you didn't chjose to listen to. As media becomes more & more closely intertwined with our lives, however, it's becoming impossible to ignore content that you want to. It's important to remember that the proposed law does not prevent you from sending me as much junk mail as you want, it just allows me to easily filter out any messages that I don't want to recieve before they reach my inbox. Laebling laws such as this one (along with adequately severe penalties to ensure compliance) are the ideal way of deailing with the problem. It allows your freedom-of-speech, and me my freedom-to-ignore.
I remember reading once that responsibility is the flip side of freedom...when you ask someone to take care of something (e.g. regulation), you give up the responsibility, and therefor have no right to complain about the loss of freedom. Because we are only free to the level that we are willing to take personal repsonsibility for our lives and the society we live in.
And how does this theory relate to spam?
Your quote is accurate when it comes to consensual issues (drugs, prostituition, gambling, etc.), however is completely inappropriate when dealing with something that is directed at a non-consenting individual. Spam, by definition, is unsolicited, therefore regulating it will in no way restrict my rights as an individual.
(an argument could be made that regulating spam would restrict my freedom-of-speech. I strongly disagree. Spam is by definition commercial speech, and I do not believe that commercial speech should be granted the same protections as non-commercial speech.)
Ok, I think you are correct. However, wouldn't this logic would only apply to obvious inventions, which are invalid anyway? It seems to me that this line of reasoning is only a roundabout way of reaching the conclusion that the patent should not have been issued in the first place (which may or may not be the case here, I haven't read the patents).
Granted I'm not a patent lawyer, so I might be wrong.
Try finding woodcut illustrations of squid on googe, it is impossible.
Umm... how about searching "woodcut squid". Second link. Now, try finding a woodcut illustration of a squid WITHOUT google. I'll accept either URL's or your word that you found one (that you didn't already know about) somewhere in the real world.
Certainly, Google isn't magic. You may need to dig a bit to find your answer. Nonetheless, searches for obscure information are frequently simpler on Google then they are anywhere else, including the real world.
Of course, in the real world, you can go to the library, and search by using there categorized information (for example, go to the "art> woodcuts" section and go from there), but the same thing is true on the web (you can use Google Directory or Yahoo when you need categorized information). Unfortunately, due to the vast content and dynamic nature of the web, the directories are not as well organized or comprehensive as your libraries card catalog, but that's not Google's fault. And of course, going to the library means time, effort, etc. Sure, the actual search time MAY be less, but all told, Google will almost always be faster.
The solution is the same as to most other problems in the world: Use the right tool for the job, and use it in the right way. Choose reasonable keywords (apples instead of apple), and know when the best tool for the job is in fact the library.
Most accidents are fender-benders in rush-hour traffic. If you can avoid being in the traffic to begin with, you can avoid those sorts of accidents. The beauty of this device is that it's designed to be able to be read at a glance. The display is always the same, the only thing that changes is the specific time-sensitive data. Since the roads are always in the same place on the map, you can glance at your route & decide whether to take an alternative route or not in a second.
I agree with your basic premise, but I suspect that this sort of device will prevent far more accidents then it will contribute to. By reducing the volume of cars in traffic jams, slowdowns will clear quicker, driver moods will improve (thereby -increasing- driver attention), people will be more likely to not be running late (and therefore driving more sanely), etc.
So, I buy a Pocket PC for $300, a modem for $200+, and pay many many dollars a month for the connectivity... Or, pay $50 for the TrafficGuage and $5 a month for the service. I wonder which way is the way to go...
Up here in Canada, we thought that referring to French Fries as Freedom Fries was such a stupid idea that we've started referring to american cheese as "Processed Cheese."
Ah, but you're forgetting that the words "American" and "processed" are largely synonymous to begin with.
American Cheese == Processed cheese American culture == Processed culture
Look, I'm not very happy with emusic.com deciding to limit my unlimited subscription to 35 tracks at a time -- I don't want to baby-sit the track queue, I want to queue six albums at a time and go to bed...
To clarify this for those who may not be EMusic subscribers, EMusic recntly instituted a policy that limits your download queue to 45 (not 35) tracks at a time. You can download pretty much as many tracks as you want, but you can't queue more the 45 of them at a time. This is an annoying policy, but compared queueing as many as you want, but paying a buck a song, I can deal with it.
This may seem obvious, but that 45 song queue would cost you $44.55 on iTunes, and $35.55 on Real's service (before the subscription fee). It's free on emusic (again, before the $10 subscription fee). In addition, the downloaded tracks are actually yours to do with as you please. Burn them to CD, use them on your portable, whatever you want. And they probably sound better as well.
The limit is, from what I have heard, 2000 tracks a month. That's roughly 66 albums. I agree that it's slimy of them to advertise unlimited when there really is a limit, but compared to the alternatives, it's hard to complain.
I thought Bush was supposed to be in bed with the oil companies.
It would be more accurate to say that Bush is in bed with the energy comapnies. Enron was the most famous example of a company non-oil energy company (though they certainly had oil related holdings) that basically bought GWB the election. Most large companies in the energy industry are diversified, so if they have oil holdings, thay likely have nuclear holdings as well.
If you had read the article, you would know that it isn't critical of Hydrogen power, it's critical of the Bush plan to create the hydrogen. If you can't do that cleanly & safely (something the nuclear industry's record suggests they can't do), then what's the point of switching to hydrogen in the first place? The only group that will benefit from this plan is the energy industry who will get billions of dollars of free money for so called "R&D".
Finally, as for the spelling of "nucular" in the title... Get the joke, people! It's a rather obvious parody of GWB & his well known inability to pronounce nuclear. Just because there's an apparent error in slashdot, doesn't mean that you should immediately post pointing it out. Perhaps if you spent thirty seconds thinking about it, you'd see that it was intentional.
At first I was surprised that the slashdot crew hadn't fixed this yet, but maybe they hit the link, saw the same spelling in the VV title, and decided it was right?
Did you ever consider the possibility that the spelling was intentional? GWB Is well known for pronouncing nuclear "nucular", and the article is about GWB's energy policies. It follows that the author (most likely) intentionally mispelled the word for humor. The Slashdot editors, getting the joke, honored the spelling. All of the kneejerk slashdot bashers, on the other hand, don't seem to have a sense of humor.
Slashdot Mirror
Clinton was BY NO MEANS a "liberal Democrat." He was a centrist... I would go so far as to call him a center-right Democrat.
Of course, you are right. And virtually all democrats know that (including, presumably, the parent poster). Nonetheless, the right wing has successfully managed to spend the last 10 years painting Clinton as an ultra-liberal. It's really ironic just how much the right hates Clinton, considering how much he managed to do for their causes. And all that in spite of the right's best efforts to make sure he got -nothing- done, regardless of how much they supported the end result.
Let's say that you aren't writing a 100% userspace OS, and you have your own hardware. Let's say you want to redo the networking code. Strip out SMP. And remove the virtual memory support because your system doesn't have a hardware MMU. Oh, and your memory layout is funky and you have to rewrite some of the start-up code (or most of it).
Well, in such a case, BSD might be an appropriate option. Of course, since many projects won't require such massive rewrites, your assertion that Linux is inadequate for the task based on this limitation is flawed.
In addition, even if you do need to do the rewrites, what's wrong with giving something back to the community? You seem to be arguing that you want the software for free, but you aren't willing to give any improvements back. Remember, any proprietary code can easily be written in such a way that you do not need to GPL it, so it's not like you are giving away trade secrets. If the GPL is unacceptable, why not chose some proprietary (& expensive) solution instead?
Your brief explaination says to me that Linux is in fact not useful unless you have an Intel or AMD cpu and a standard PC architechure.
I have no Idea where you got that since the word Linux doesn't even appear in my post, other then as the example I cited when I mentioned Oracle. I described the GPL, and it's effects on user-space code. That has nothing to do with it's usefulness on non-x86 platforms.
Note also, I DID NOT say not to use BSD. I did say that your interpretation of the GPL is flawed (an assertion that I stand by), but you are correct that you should consider both options before you decide what to deploy.
Now, as to why the CELF chose Linux over BSD, I suspect it is exactly -because- of the GPL. Imagine you are Sony. If you want to form a strategic partnership with Matsushita, you want to make sure that you get as much out of it as they do. If they were to choose BSD as the platform, there's nothing to force Matsushita from disclosing any improvements they make-- In which case, why should Sony? With the GPL, all parties are required to disclose improvements, so they all get an equal benefit. If you're only considering the short term, you may be right that BSD would be a better option, but if you are thinking five or ten years down the road (which you aren't, but these companies seem to be doing), Linux is the right choice.
If it were me, I'd be concerned that GPL would require me to release some part, or maybe all, of the special code written for the embedded device. I don't want to get into a GPL debate, just assume that someone wasn't careful and did write their code in such a way that it was deamed to be covered under the GPL.
The GPL only requires you to release your changes if you are actually changing GPL'd code. User space code (applications, modules) does not need to be released under the GPL simply because the underlying OS is. If this were not the case, Oracle (for example) would now be open source simply because it has been released on Linux.
Contrary to Microsoft FUD, the GPL is -not- infectious. You must actively choose to contaminate your code with GPL'd code in order for your code to fall under the GPL.
If my place burns, and somehow the computer makes out ok, but my original CD and packing get burned up, and IF the insurance company buys me a new copy of quickbooks, they are replacing the lost real property of the CD-ROM disc and book, the license for the copy installed on my workstation is still valid.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here. For all practical purposes, you are selling your old copy to the insurance company when you accept their reimbursement. The situation would be the same as if you took the software to the used software store and sold it there. Legally, once you sell it, you cannot continue to use the installed copy.
Of course, I could be wrong...
The only thing great about the august 14 blackout was that it protected power companies' plants, but it sucked majorly for the consumers. Instead of shutting down powerplants for protection as they did on the 14th, i can think of four other possibilities: 1) build more power plants to meet surge demand (most expensive option) 2) disable powerplants from overloading or shutting down -- just have it perform below (say) 130% all the time, but never over it. 3) make demand meet supply (by blacking out smaller regions, for example just northern Ohio). 4) detect where a short is occuring, disable that line only. But whatever you do, don't reduce supply when the demand is high!
You seem to be implying that the blackout was intentional. It wasn't. Your point #4 in particular is silly. That is the the way the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, do to a complex set of circumstances, the system didn't work the way it was intended to and the blackout occurred. Perhaps you should read up a bit more on the circumstances of the blackout before you suggest any further solutions?
I mean, I have nothing against arresting spammer, or even executing them, but getting the government involved is the most dangerous WRT freedom of speech, not the 'best option that doesn't limit it'.
As I've said in numerous other messages, there is a big difference between commercial speech and other forms of speech. Under current law, it is illegal to lie in many forms of commercial speech already (false advertising, the Nike case regarding truth in press-releases). This current law is no different. It DOES NOT restrict what you can say. All it does is say that if you are sending certain types of messages (in the current case, adult-oriented advertising) you must accurately describe the content of your message in the subject.
Blacklisting ISP's is a great idea, but it has only limited effect. Otherwise, why do I still recieve spam, even though I subscribe to Spamcop.net? If my ISP can safely filter out spam at the server level, without a danger of false positives, why bother blacklisting? And of course if spam is filtered at the ISP level, the economic incentive of spamming suddenly becomes less compelling.
"This DOES NOT limit your freedom of speech."
law, require, freedom, limit -> ?
The law already states that commercial speech requires a higher standard of honesty then non-commercial speech (see false-advertising laws). This law doesn't prevent you from saying what you want. It only requires that the nature of the content is accurately described. Could this be seen as an infringement of someone first ammendment rights? Probably, but the infringement is ridiculously minor. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the first ammendment grants you the right to say whatever you want, but doesn't say that I am required to listen to you. The first ammendment was drafted at a time when it was easy to avoid speech you didn't agree with. Since email, telemarketers, and cellular telemarketers no come to you, it is time the law took into consideration your "freedom-to-ignore", and required appropriate labeling of commercial messages, calls, etc.
It *is* really funny how the media is becoming so embedded in our lives (assuming you mean the U.S. or a country with a similar society)
Just to clarify, I'm using media in the broadest sense here. Certainly TV is media, but under the definition I'm using here, email is also.
Another example of the sort of advertising that this would effect is location based telemarketing, ie whe you walk past a restaurant, your cell-phone rings and tells you about the great specials they're having. That is an unreasonable intrusion into your private life, and you should have the right to choose whether you want to recieve that sort of advertising or not. I don't know of anyone using this sort of advertising, but the technology exists (it has been covered on slashdot), and it's only a matter of time.
Basically, in my opinion, ANY advertising that requires some sort of action on your part (pressing delete, answering the phone) and is not specifically tied to something you are getting value in return from (reading a magazine, watching televison, using a website) should be required to be appropriately labeled and a mechanism to avoid such advertising should be in place. Otherwise, as technology advances, it will become impossible to not be completely drowned out by such advertising.
The problem is that a lot of spammers are just one person.
The size of the business is irrelevent. If the main reason you want to contact me is commercial, then it is commercial speech. As such, it deserves a different set of protections from my freedom of speech.
Spam Pal, and similar tools (I use Spamcop.net personally) are great but they only help so much. I still need to manually go through all of the mail marked as a spam, and make sure that it really is, otherwise I may miss an important message. In addition, many actual spams don't get caught by the filters. The more people use that sort of spam filter, the better spammers will become at outwitting them. Labelling laws don't require a complicated set of filters to work, just a simple "if subject starts with 'adv-adult:', delete". Your friends an associates should be smart enough to not to use that in there subject, so there is extremely little chance of false positives, so you can safely delete the mail without screening it first.
As I said, the problem is one of enforcement. If there is a national mechanism to track down & punish spammers, and if the punishment is severe, the laws will work. Put a few spammers in jail for 5 years, and pretty soon, people will start to realize that maybe this isn't the best line of work after all. Will it absolutely stop spam? No, but I believe that it is the best option we have to address without dramatically effecting freedom-of-speech.
I'm afraid your argument only bolsters the parent's point that spam laws are retarded. Slashdot DOES NOT have rules about what you can and can't say, beyond simple junk filters. Neither should email.
You're right. Which is surprising since you are so completely off base. The law in question DOES NOT effect what you can say in email. The law simply requires that certain types of messages (specifically, adult-oriented advertising) be accurately described in the subject. This DOES NOT limit your freedom of speech. It only affects my ability to decide whether I want to listen or not.
A good reason not to do it: California has a similar law already on the books. Supposedly, any spam sent to someone here has to contain "adv:" in the subject line. Of the thousands of spam I've received today, not one has it. The law is completely useless, and not worth what it cost me to have it printed, debated and passed.
The problem with this law is that for it to be effective, it really needs to be national. In my opinion, it is the best possible way to prevent spam, but for it to work, it needs severe penalties & effective enforcement. Individual states don't have the resources necessary to enforce this sort of law with the vigor necessary to make it work.
It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok.
No, it's exactly the right way to handle things. This law gives you an easy way to filter spam accurately, at your ISP, while not creating a slippery-slope for freedom-of-speech issues. Because this makes filtering spam at the ISP level easy & accurate, you can prevent spammers from stealing from you by just blocking there email. Severe non-compliance penalties help ensure that the process works.
The only problem with this sort of law is that it really needs to be implemented nationally. Individual states probably won't have the resources to enforce the laws to the standards necessary to make them effective. If the law was implemented nationally, then spammers would begin to rethink their line of work.
As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online.
Oh, come on. Does the requirement to honestly label the content of a -commercial- message really affect your freedom that much? Businesses -do not- deserve the same rights that private individuals do. As an individual, I believe I have a right to control what mail arrives in my mailbox. That right trumps your right to send me whatever spam you may wish to.
I think it's high time that more first-ammendment acivists (and I consider myself almost a first-ammendment radical) realize that along with freedom-of-speech comes an equally important right to "freedom not to be forced to listen to someone elses freedom of speech". Historically, there was no need for such a law, since you could always go elsewhere if someone was saying something you didn't chjose to listen to. As media becomes more & more closely intertwined with our lives, however, it's becoming impossible to ignore content that you want to. It's important to remember that the proposed law does not prevent you from sending me as much junk mail as you want, it just allows me to easily filter out any messages that I don't want to recieve before they reach my inbox. Laebling laws such as this one (along with adequately severe penalties to ensure compliance) are the ideal way of deailing with the problem. It allows your freedom-of-speech, and me my freedom-to-ignore.
I remember reading once that responsibility is the flip side of freedom...when you ask someone to take care of something (e.g. regulation), you give up the responsibility, and therefor have no right to complain about the loss of freedom. Because we are only free to the level that we are willing to take personal repsonsibility for our lives and the society we live in.
And how does this theory relate to spam?
Your quote is accurate when it comes to consensual issues (drugs, prostituition, gambling, etc.), however is completely inappropriate when dealing with something that is directed at a non-consenting individual. Spam, by definition, is unsolicited, therefore regulating it will in no way restrict my rights as an individual.
(an argument could be made that regulating spam would restrict my freedom-of-speech. I strongly disagree. Spam is by definition commercial speech, and I do not believe that commercial speech should be granted the same protections as non-commercial speech.)
Ok, I think you are correct. However, wouldn't this logic would only apply to obvious inventions, which are invalid anyway? It seems to me that this line of reasoning is only a roundabout way of reaching the conclusion that the patent should not have been issued in the first place (which may or may not be the case here, I haven't read the patents).
Granted I'm not a patent lawyer, so I might be wrong.
Try finding woodcut illustrations of squid on googe, it is impossible.
Umm... how about searching "woodcut squid". Second link. Now, try finding a woodcut illustration of a squid WITHOUT google. I'll accept either URL's or your word that you found one (that you didn't already know about) somewhere in the real world.
Certainly, Google isn't magic. You may need to dig a bit to find your answer. Nonetheless, searches for obscure information are frequently simpler on Google then they are anywhere else, including the real world.
Of course, in the real world, you can go to the library, and search by using there categorized information (for example, go to the "art> woodcuts" section and go from there), but the same thing is true on the web (you can use Google Directory or Yahoo when you need categorized information). Unfortunately, due to the vast content and dynamic nature of the web, the directories are not as well organized or comprehensive as your libraries card catalog, but that's not Google's fault. And of course, going to the library means time, effort, etc. Sure, the actual search time MAY be less, but all told, Google will almost always be faster.
The solution is the same as to most other problems in the world: Use the right tool for the job, and use it in the right way. Choose reasonable keywords (apples instead of apple), and know when the best tool for the job is in fact the library.
Most accidents are fender-benders in rush-hour traffic. If you can avoid being in the traffic to begin with, you can avoid those sorts of accidents. The beauty of this device is that it's designed to be able to be read at a glance. The display is always the same, the only thing that changes is the specific time-sensitive data. Since the roads are always in the same place on the map, you can glance at your route & decide whether to take an alternative route or not in a second.
I agree with your basic premise, but I suspect that this sort of device will prevent far more accidents then it will contribute to. By reducing the volume of cars in traffic jams, slowdowns will clear quicker, driver moods will improve (thereby -increasing- driver attention), people will be more likely to not be running late (and therefore driving more sanely), etc.
So, I buy a Pocket PC for $300, a modem for $200+, and pay many many dollars a month for the connectivity... Or, pay $50 for the TrafficGuage and $5 a month for the service. I wonder which way is the way to go...
Up here in Canada, we thought that referring to French Fries as Freedom Fries was such a stupid idea that we've started referring to american cheese as "Processed Cheese."
Ah, but you're forgetting that the words "American" and "processed" are largely synonymous to begin with.
American Cheese == Processed cheese
American culture == Processed culture
See?
Look, I'm not very happy with emusic.com deciding to limit my unlimited subscription to 35 tracks at a time -- I don't want to baby-sit the track queue, I want to queue six albums at a time and go to bed...
To clarify this for those who may not be EMusic subscribers, EMusic recntly instituted a policy that limits your download queue to 45 (not 35) tracks at a time. You can download pretty much as many tracks as you want, but you can't queue more the 45 of them at a time. This is an annoying policy, but compared queueing as many as you want, but paying a buck a song, I can deal with it.
This may seem obvious, but that 45 song queue would cost you $44.55 on iTunes, and $35.55 on Real's service (before the subscription fee). It's free on emusic (again, before the $10 subscription fee). In addition, the downloaded tracks are actually yours to do with as you please. Burn them to CD, use them on your portable, whatever you want. And they probably sound better as well.
The limit is, from what I have heard, 2000 tracks a month. That's roughly 66 albums. I agree that it's slimy of them to advertise unlimited when there really is a limit, but compared to the alternatives, it's hard to complain.
I thought Bush was supposed to be in bed with the oil companies.
It would be more accurate to say that Bush is in bed with the energy comapnies. Enron was the most famous example of a company non-oil energy company (though they certainly had oil related holdings) that basically bought GWB the election. Most large companies in the energy industry are diversified, so if they have oil holdings, thay likely have nuclear holdings as well.
If you had read the article, you would know that it isn't critical of Hydrogen power, it's critical of the Bush plan to create the hydrogen. If you can't do that cleanly & safely (something the nuclear industry's record suggests they can't do), then what's the point of switching to hydrogen in the first place? The only group that will benefit from this plan is the energy industry who will get billions of dollars of free money for so called "R&D".
Finally, as for the spelling of "nucular" in the title... Get the joke, people! It's a rather obvious parody of GWB & his well known inability to pronounce nuclear. Just because there's an apparent error in slashdot, doesn't mean that you should immediately post pointing it out. Perhaps if you spent thirty seconds thinking about it, you'd see that it was intentional.
At first I was surprised that the slashdot crew hadn't fixed this yet, but maybe they hit the link, saw the same spelling in the VV title, and decided it was right?
Did you ever consider the possibility that the spelling was intentional? GWB Is well known for pronouncing nuclear "nucular", and the article is about GWB's energy policies. It follows that the author (most likely) intentionally mispelled the word for humor. The Slashdot editors, getting the joke, honored the spelling. All of the kneejerk slashdot bashers, on the other hand, don't seem to have a sense of humor.
Seconded. A great book!