No shit they urged the maximum sentence - that's what they practically always do. (Ask for the most, settle for what they can get.) Only someone supremely ignorant or biased would believe this to be noteworthy, let alone newsworthy - which pretty much proves my point.
Or to put it another way, the imbecilic with hunt you endorse (by try to pretend it doesn't exist) is the additional factor - because there isn't a story. A prosecutor asking for the maximum sentence is about as surprising as a prediction of rain in Seattle.
Look at who is buying newspapers now. Extreme right and left wing political donators. As if newspapers aren't PR machines for the politicians enough. Now they are literally being run by GOP and DNC donors.
The sad part is that you seem to believe that somehow this is a sea change... In reality, it's a return to "journalism's" roots. Newspapers have long been political organs, their "neutrality" over the last couple of decades nothing but a fig leaf to market themselves.
Read another liberal-leaning (more like propaganda) site like the Huff Post and you will see how far down journalism can go. The scary part is that many people get their news from the Huffington Post and think they just read something educational. I don't mean to pick on the Huff Post - it is just one example. There are conservative propaganda sites, natural food propaganda sites, etc - but none as polished and well disguised as a news site IMHO.
Which is pretty much how it's always been. For the bulk of their history, newspapers were in the main openly and significantly biased. A town of any size would have a Republican paper, a Democratic paper, if they had a machine they had a paper run by (or at least tacitly approved by) the machine (which may or may not be the same as one of the party papers), etc... etc...
I've been pounding on this drum for years, because most Slashdotters can't seem to grasp this - the newspapers of old they've constructed in their minds never actually existed. Newspapers hyped their 'honesty and integrity' to make the readers feel good about themselves. Upstart broadcast media news picked up on that hype to differentiate themselves from the paper, but equally relied on "sizzle" and superficiality to sell themselves. The campaign really picked up traction in the 60's when the number of papers began to contract (and they needed to sell themselves to people who formerly wouldn't be caught dead reading that particular paper) and TV 'journalism' also began to make serious inroads into their readership. But the bias has always been there - and it's so deep and pervasive people don't even realize it. (Like the frog in a blender.) In the same way, they've always been beholden to advertisers (who really pay the bills) and heavily reliant on re-written wire stories (when they didn't just print them directly). Why do you think wire services exist in the first place, except as a cheap alternative to staff reporters?
And of course, Fox News figured this out years ago on cable.
Fox news is just using a very old business model. So is NPR news.
Traditional newspapers are dead. There's way too much good free news to pay for it, especially when the free is better than the paid.
It must be a very nice place you live in where the free is better than the paid - welcome to Earth where that's generally not the case.
And the claim above is especially interesting since you don't go to any trouble to point out that the Illinois Times is better - just that it covers popular culture and gives tips on where to drink, had unobtrusive ads, and... oh, before I forget... does do investigative reporting. (The phrase "damming with faint praise" comes to mind.) Looking at their website, it looks like a typical alternative weekly, pop culture and entertainment predominate, along with just enough muckraking (by the same two authors) to give the readers the illusion that they're getting 'real' news instead of what amounts to street corner rag. But really, I shouldn't be surprised, "sizzle" and superficiality have always been the main stock-in-trade of the print newspaper. (Most Slashdotters wouldn't recognize a real paper from the height of the newspaper era as a newspaper - because, other than not being in four color, it won't in any way resemble the idealized paper they've constructed in their minds from whole cloth.) The Illinois Times just panders to that, quite blatantly to those with eyes to see.
Talking with them most were saying they will probably be gone in 3-4 years.
That attitude probably has more to do with why they'll be gone in 3-4 years than any tinfoil hat conspiracy about being driven out of business by dark forces. Seriously, I've seen any number of local businesses go under over the last decade, and the ruling factors in most of them seems to be inertia (I.E. failing to realize it's 2013 and still doing business like it was 1963) and failing to compete (I.E. more of the previous).
(Confusion between firmware vs. os version, etc. Keep in mind we are game devs not programmers.)
The mind boggles, not only that a place developing games for computers has no programmers on staff - but that they fail to see this as a problem. Worse yet, they think that programmers *are* the problem.
Furthermore, what Manning did had quite a big impact, the volume of the leak more than explains the harsh charges, there's no need to blame it on the 'hacker scare'.
Well, there's an additional factor as well - the digital generation seems to consider almost any charges as harsh, and any punishment but the lightest slap on the wrist as unconscionable. They seem to have no concept of right or wrong, and no grasp of the existence of other people's rights.
No shit they made a big deal out of in during trail. When someone uses a gun to murder someone, they make a big deal out of that. When someone steals a box of chewing gum, the prosecution makes a big deal out of that too.
Or, in other words, something that's central to the act being prosecuted gets mentioned a lot. No fucking duh.
The only scare tactic here is from the tinfoil hat crowd. I never suspected the EFF would stoop to such spin and ignorance.
Interesting - and another poster is reporting that their son was served with a warrant (he was wanted for questioning on various criminal activities as well).
But, as usual, that's confusing the issue with facts. The/. crowd just wants a Two Minute Hate and has no need of facts. Their minds are already made up and closed down tight.
Then you're a very lucky individual and you're on the right hand side of the bell curve of poor people. You're just too self centered and too stupid to grasp that.
Well, I've been both poor and a landlord... and my experience doesn't match yours. And yeah, I saw you move the goalposts with " living in poverty, as defined by the US Census Bureau". Nice try, but no. (And the same your "well, I drive old crap and buy crappy tv's.)
So, like him, you're just clueless and have never met actually poor people.
And in all of my years of eating I never even realized I needed a "spoon rest", but apparently I'll save up to $2000 by printing my own vs whatever barbaric technique I have been using to somehow keep my spoon on the table.
A spoon rest isn't for the table, they're for the cook and they're very common and useful for keeping the counter clean. I currently own four of them, one in the kitchen, one in RV, one with my BBQ tools, and the only plastic one is a kitschy piece o' krep my wife got from somewhere around last Christmas. (And the only reason we still have it is the box of stuff in the hall closet for Goodwill isn't full yet.)
So, before taking Michigan Technical University to task, set your own house in order.
Today's "poor" are wealthier than they've ever been. The poor in America now frequently own personal computers, cell phones, blu-ray players, playstations, big screen TV's, and don't have any problems paying for food.
You've obviously never actually been poor or have been around actual poor people, and thus have a very deranged and clueless view of how poor people live.
In order to recoup the ~$1,000 cost of the printer and save $2,000 on household items in a year, you'd need to buy $3,000 on household items a year in the first place.
How many shower curtain rings, spoon holders and smartphone cases do you buy every year?
This, precisely. I don't think I've spent $3k on cheap plastic household items in the last five years - let alone the last year. And that's not just because my spoon rest is ceramic, it's just that most of those items last for years.
And not just any household items, but only household items that are made of relatively weak plastic and don't have to look smooth.
Which frankly, doesn't describe any of the cheap plastic items TFA proposes that the average householder print.
Most of this sounds like greybeards nattering about the kids on their lawn - while ignoring reality.
A designer on the Falcon 9 today is wrestling with issues that plagued von Braun and Goddard. The guys across the sound at Boeing dreaming up the successor to the Dreamliner are coming up against, and with new solutions for, problems that Lilenthal and the Wright bothers had to deal with. When I go out to my woodshop, I face and come up with solutions to some of the same issues that Joseph did.
It doesn't matter what IBM or Apple did or didn't do mumble years ago, because this isn't mumble years ago. None of us are "ignoring the lessons of the past" because we aren't working with the methods, materials, or in the environment of the past. The solutions of the past may not be applicable in the present even if the problems are identical.
Why would you assume that? They built nuclear weapons in the 1950s that could survive being launched from a howitzer, there were (are?) missiles that were launched from naval 5 inch guns.
Apples and the thing most unlike apples you can imagine. In this case because size matters - a great deal. The vastly larger mass of the circularization motors (as compared to the small units you point to) mean exponentially higher stresses.
The advances in engineering and materials science in the last half century would imply (to me anyway) that this shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle.
You're trying to extrapolate from the Model-T to a Ferrari supercar. I wouldn't go far as to say 'insurmountable', but pretty damn hard (and very, very expensive) none the less.
Out of curiosity, why aren't mass drivers feasible for this sort of thing?
For the same reasons this isn't actually suitable for this sort of thing... In the first place, you not only have significant (read: incredible) amounts of atmospheric drag even at 6km, you also have the heating that comes with that drag. Just for reference, peak atmospheric heating for the Shuttle occurred at around 80km. (In atmosphere a fraction of density and at a speed a fraction of the muzzle velocity of these gadgets.) In the second place, neither a linear accelerator, slingatron, or gun can put you into a stable orbit - you still need a substantial rocket motor to circularize the orbit. (Which means you need tankage, motors, guidance and electrical systems... all hardened against extreme acceleration and insulated against extreme heating.)
There was an agent (DuÃ...an Popov) working for the British MI6 who was trying to tell the US military about Pearl Harbor for months before the attack, but the US military didn't want to listen. In other words, Pearl Harbor happened, not because of a lack of intelligence (in the information sense), but instead a lack of intelligence (in the IQ sense) amongst US military personnel.
Well, no. That's not quite what happened. That's not even close to what happened. He was asked (by his German to gather information on Pearl's harbor defenses - something military intelligence already knew that enemy agents were doing. (He was also gathering all manner of other intelligence information.) There's absolutely no evidence, except for his claim decades later, that he had any indication of or any information about an impending attack. Furthermore, he never contacted any US military personnel with his claims - he contacted the FBI.
The only lack of intelligence here is between your keyboard and chair - because you're either stupid enough to post crap like that without fact checking, or because you're aware of the facts but choose to ignore and twist them.
I'm not sure high school students are really going to enjoy it or even take away the right implications...
In other words, you're not teaching them computer science, you're going to indoctrinate them politically - and you want to be sure they aren't exposed to anything or reach any conclusions that doesn't agree with your views.
However, when we start talking about applying software representations to law and making it 'computable', we should remember that a fundamental property of software (at least so far) is that it is brittle. I don't think you want law to be brittle. I don't think you want legal contracts that can be subverted by a buffer overflow (although that definitely would make things interesting).
Legal contracts are routinely subverted through bugs - sorting out those bugs is what the court system spends a good deal of it's time doing. But that's the system working exactly as intended. It's a fuzzy system by default, and the last thing you want to do is to remove that property to make it 'software like'.
While the content obviously doesn't suddenly land in the public domain because of this, it could be argued that only content in the public domain should be allowed to be broadcast like this , as unless you view the copyright frame, it is just information being broadcast where everyone can see/hear it.
The only possible way to believe this is, like the original poster, to either be deliberately or blithely clueless about how copyright works.
Slashdot Mirror
No shit they urged the maximum sentence - that's what they practically always do. (Ask for the most, settle for what they can get.) Only someone supremely ignorant or biased would believe this to be noteworthy, let alone newsworthy - which pretty much proves my point.
Or to put it another way, the imbecilic with hunt you endorse (by try to pretend it doesn't exist) is the additional factor - because there isn't a story. A prosecutor asking for the maximum sentence is about as surprising as a prediction of rain in Seattle.
The sad part is that you seem to believe that somehow this is a sea change... In reality, it's a return to "journalism's" roots. Newspapers have long been political organs, their "neutrality" over the last couple of decades nothing but a fig leaf to market themselves.
Which is pretty much how it's always been. For the bulk of their history, newspapers were in the main openly and significantly biased. A town of any size would have a Republican paper, a Democratic paper, if they had a machine they had a paper run by (or at least tacitly approved by) the machine (which may or may not be the same as one of the party papers), etc... etc...
I've been pounding on this drum for years, because most Slashdotters can't seem to grasp this - the newspapers of old they've constructed in their minds never actually existed. Newspapers hyped their 'honesty and integrity' to make the readers feel good about themselves. Upstart broadcast media news picked up on that hype to differentiate themselves from the paper, but equally relied on "sizzle" and superficiality to sell themselves. The campaign really picked up traction in the 60's when the number of papers began to contract (and they needed to sell themselves to people who formerly wouldn't be caught dead reading that particular paper) and TV 'journalism' also began to make serious inroads into their readership. But the bias has always been there - and it's so deep and pervasive people don't even realize it. (Like the frog in a blender.) In the same way, they've always been beholden to advertisers (who really pay the bills) and heavily reliant on re-written wire stories (when they didn't just print them directly). Why do you think wire services exist in the first place, except as a cheap alternative to staff reporters?
Fox news is just using a very old business model. So is NPR news.
It must be a very nice place you live in where the free is better than the paid - welcome to Earth where that's generally not the case.
And the claim above is especially interesting since you don't go to any trouble to point out that the Illinois Times is better - just that it covers popular culture and gives tips on where to drink, had unobtrusive ads, and... oh, before I forget... does do investigative reporting. (The phrase "damming with faint praise" comes to mind.) Looking at their website, it looks like a typical alternative weekly, pop culture and entertainment predominate, along with just enough muckraking (by the same two authors) to give the readers the illusion that they're getting 'real' news instead of what amounts to street corner rag. But really, I shouldn't be surprised, "sizzle" and superficiality have always been the main stock-in-trade of the print newspaper. (Most Slashdotters wouldn't recognize a real paper from the height of the newspaper era as a newspaper - because, other than not being in four color, it won't in any way resemble the idealized paper they've constructed in their minds from whole cloth.) The Illinois Times just panders to that, quite blatantly to those with eyes to see.
That attitude probably has more to do with why they'll be gone in 3-4 years than any tinfoil hat conspiracy about being driven out of business by dark forces. Seriously, I've seen any number of local businesses go under over the last decade, and the ruling factors in most of them seems to be inertia (I.E. failing to realize it's 2013 and still doing business like it was 1963) and failing to compete (I.E. more of the previous).
The mind boggles, not only that a place developing games for computers has no programmers on staff - but that they fail to see this as a problem. Worse yet, they think that programmers *are* the problem.
Well, there's an additional factor as well - the digital generation seems to consider almost any charges as harsh, and any punishment but the lightest slap on the wrist as unconscionable. They seem to have no concept of right or wrong, and no grasp of the existence of other people's rights.
No shit they made a big deal out of in during trail. When someone uses a gun to murder someone, they make a big deal out of that. When someone steals a box of chewing gum, the prosecution makes a big deal out of that too.
Or, in other words, something that's central to the act being prosecuted gets mentioned a lot. No fucking duh.
The only scare tactic here is from the tinfoil hat crowd. I never suspected the EFF would stoop to such spin and ignorance.
By 'daughter' he could also mean Susan's mother.
Christ almighty - no more prepubescent Doctors!
Bully for you. But that doesn't excuse you being an ignorant git about their existence nor for being a jackass about other people finding them useful.
Interesting - and another poster is reporting that their son was served with a warrant (he was wanted for questioning on various criminal activities as well).
But, as usual, that's confusing the issue with facts. The /. crowd just wants a Two Minute Hate and has no need of facts. Their minds are already made up and closed down tight.
Then you're a very lucky individual and you're on the right hand side of the bell curve of poor people. You're just too self centered and too stupid to grasp that.
Well, I've been both poor and a landlord... and my experience doesn't match yours. And yeah, I saw you move the goalposts with " living in poverty, as defined by the US Census Bureau". Nice try, but no. (And the same your "well, I drive old crap and buy crappy tv's.)
So, like him, you're just clueless and have never met actually poor people.
A spoon rest isn't for the table, they're for the cook and they're very common and useful for keeping the counter clean. I currently own four of them, one in the kitchen, one in RV, one with my BBQ tools, and the only plastic one is a kitschy piece o' krep my wife got from somewhere around last Christmas. (And the only reason we still have it is the box of stuff in the hall closet for Goodwill isn't full yet.)
So, before taking Michigan Technical University to task, set your own house in order.
You've obviously never actually been poor or have been around actual poor people, and thus have a very deranged and clueless view of how poor people live.
This, precisely. I don't think I've spent $3k on cheap plastic household items in the last five years - let alone the last year. And that's not just because my spoon rest is ceramic, it's just that most of those items last for years.
Which frankly, doesn't describe any of the cheap plastic items TFA proposes that the average householder print.
Most of this sounds like greybeards nattering about the kids on their lawn - while ignoring reality.
A designer on the Falcon 9 today is wrestling with issues that plagued von Braun and Goddard. The guys across the sound at Boeing dreaming up the successor to the Dreamliner are coming up against, and with new solutions for, problems that Lilenthal and the Wright bothers had to deal with. When I go out to my woodshop, I face and come up with solutions to some of the same issues that Joseph did.
It doesn't matter what IBM or Apple did or didn't do mumble years ago, because this isn't mumble years ago. None of us are "ignoring the lessons of the past" because we aren't working with the methods, materials, or in the environment of the past. The solutions of the past may not be applicable in the present even if the problems are identical.
Apples and the thing most unlike apples you can imagine. In this case because size matters - a great deal. The vastly larger mass of the circularization motors (as compared to the small units you point to) mean exponentially higher stresses.
You're trying to extrapolate from the Model-T to a Ferrari supercar. I wouldn't go far as to say 'insurmountable', but pretty damn hard (and very, very expensive) none the less.
For the same reasons this isn't actually suitable for this sort of thing... In the first place, you not only have significant (read: incredible) amounts of atmospheric drag even at 6km, you also have the heating that comes with that drag. Just for reference, peak atmospheric heating for the Shuttle occurred at around 80km. (In atmosphere a fraction of density and at a speed a fraction of the muzzle velocity of these gadgets.) In the second place, neither a linear accelerator, slingatron, or gun can put you into a stable orbit - you still need a substantial rocket motor to circularize the orbit. (Which means you need tankage, motors, guidance and electrical systems... all hardened against extreme acceleration and insulated against extreme heating.)
Well, no. That's not quite what happened. That's not even close to what happened. He was asked (by his German to gather information on Pearl's harbor defenses - something military intelligence already knew that enemy agents were doing. (He was also gathering all manner of other intelligence information.) There's absolutely no evidence, except for his claim decades later, that he had any indication of or any information about an impending attack. Furthermore, he never contacted any US military personnel with his claims - he contacted the FBI.
The only lack of intelligence here is between your keyboard and chair - because you're either stupid enough to post crap like that without fact checking, or because you're aware of the facts but choose to ignore and twist them.
In other words, you're not teaching them computer science, you're going to indoctrinate them politically - and you want to be sure they aren't exposed to anything or reach any conclusions that doesn't agree with your views.
You must be new here - the hourly Two Minute Hate is a regular feature of /. nowadays.
Legal contracts are routinely subverted through bugs - sorting out those bugs is what the court system spends a good deal of it's time doing. But that's the system working exactly as intended. It's a fuzzy system by default, and the last thing you want to do is to remove that property to make it 'software like'.
The only possible way to believe this is, like the original poster, to either be deliberately or blithely clueless about how copyright works.