In this case the task before the Supreme Court was not to interpret the Constitution but to interpret a federal statute--namely, the federal Copyright Act. If you'll notice, the majority opinion doesn't even mention the Constitution.
What use is an audio in port on a PDA? The only application I can think of that would use the port would be voice recording, which would require a lot of memory. Seems like it wouldn't be worth the cost of including the port on such a device. (Powerbooks don't even have audio in)
anthrax--careful, John
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It hasn't been shown to any degree of conclusiveness that the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists or fundamentalists of any sort. For all we know so far, it could have been some disgruntled biotech industry worker.
A couple posters have mentioned AT&T Business Internet--you should know this is not the same as AT&T WorldNet, it is a separate service. It offers coverage in a large number of countries; the address is www.attbusiness.net
As others have pointed out, the U.S. government is not advocating cracker attacks; it's "Cyberangels."
How come when the "major media" get stuff wrong, it's due to pro-corporate bias and part of an evil conspiracy, but when michael or someone else on Slashdot publishes falsehoods, it's an honest mistake?
On the other hand, the fact that it's illegal to stiff your employees out of wages due them, even in a bankruptcy, isn't mentioned in the article...
If (ex-)employees have a legitimate grievance with their employers, they can bring them to court. If they win, they get paid, and if they don't, they can chalk it up to misfortune and move on. It's ludicrous to suggest that getting stiffed out of wages goes anywhere toward justifying theft.
My point was to bring up examples from history of the terrible consequences of ideologically driven revolutions conducted in the name of "the people," but based on a concept of justice decided on unilaterally by an enlightened few. Railing against The New York Times as a tool of the capitalists, and threatening that "it's all comin' down, baby" is a lot closer to the ideals of Maoist revolutions than to democratic ideals of freedom and participatory government.
If you want to ignore history, that's your prerogative, and you do so at your own peril, but the "troll" label is not supposed to be used to silence opinions you disagree with.
I'll take the tyranny of The New York Times and their corporate fatcat sponsors over your brand of "revolution" anyday, since, even though you didn't mention it, your idea of rule by "citizen voices" is to hand power to exactly those few citizen voices who assent to *your* idea of what is right and just, and to hell with anyone else.
We've already tried it that way a number of times--China under Mao, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. It got pretty ugly, to say the least.
Jeez, and Slashdot is always ranting about how journalists in the "major media" are biased and lack credibility. Given the choice, I'll pick the New York Times over Slashdot anyday.
They can send it to me. It would make a nice paperweight and conversation piece, don't you think? And not just because of the value of the precious metals.
Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (Smith) are outraged to learn that kids online are flaming the movie based on the comic book -- Bluntman and The Chronic -- that the pair inspired. Besides, they're not getting a dime out of any of it.
Don't patronize this movie; it is subliminally advocating strong intellectual property rights. Everyone on Slashdot knows that Jay and Silent Bob have no "natural right" to determine what others can do with their creations. Intellectual property protection is evil! Information wants to be free!
Can't offer any help on access, but unless there is some factor you didn't mention the dropped e-mail messages problem is pretty easy to solve. Just get SMTP and incoming mail service from a provider based in the US or somewhere else. So you'll be connected to the Internet through your local access provider, but you'll be using the foreign provider's mail servers. Even if your connection is spotty, you won't be losing messages.
No need to be insulting. I understood the movie just fine, it wasn't Dostoeyevsky. But it seems to me that now that Neo has transcended the Matrix and can reshape the world, pretty much all the work has been done. Yes, the rest of humanity is still in bondage and must be freed, and human society will have to be rebuilt, etc., and those tasks could take up several movies and still never get done. But I'm assuming that the sequel(s) will retain the form of the original--science fiction with special effects, martial arts action etc. I just don't see how rebuilding human society is going to involve kung fu--if there are any Agents left over to put up a fight, Neo won't need martial arts; he can just reshape the Matrix to his will.
Obviously there is *SOME* way out of this, otherwise they wouldn't have a script. I'm just curious what it is.
I don't see how they are going to do a sequel. At the end of the first movie, the "resistance" won, and Neo transcended the Matrix. So what's the deal, are they going to bring back the machines/Matrix, and have it turn out that they didn't beat the machines after all?
I agree that this is scary, but to say simply that UK libel laws are being applied to a US Web site exaggerates the case.
The Guardian is a UK paper, and it was sued under UK law. Palast was working on their dime. The story doesn't provide much detail on how the company forced Palast to remove the work from his personal U.S. site, but it suggests that he removed it to protect the Guardian from further legal trouble in UK courts.
So this case, while disturbing, isn't quite what Slashdot frames it to be. There are no British bobbies knocking on Palast's door in the U.S., no FBI agents running around enforcing British law.
A quick search on the New York Times Web site turns up five stories since July 18, six if you count the Lawrence Lessig essay mentioned by Katz.
This story maybe hasn't been covered as much as you would like, but to say that it's being grossly underreported or ignored by the news media.
If you're looking for coverage of the story on the local news, don't hold your breath. They're too busy with stories about lost kittens and "news you can use." TV news ignores a lot of important stories, not just this one.
I agree that Sixth Sense can be considered a surprise ending, but what are you talking about with The Shawshank Redemption??? I remember the ending pretty clearly, and it wasn't a shocking surprise-twist ending at all.
We've all seen Katz's rants against the concentration of money and power in huge media corporations, and the dangers he sees in the homogenization of culture in those corporations' hands.
So why is he so enthralled by big-budget Hollywood movies, which probably more than any other product exemplify what he claims to oppose? Does he think it's possible to produce entertainment products on the scale of Planet of the Apes or The Matrix without the multi-billion dollar corporate machine?
You can't have it both ways. If you're so attached to the products of capitalism run amok and the homogenized mass media, you can't turn and rail against them as soon as you leave the movie theater.
I don't know about all the legal niceties involved, but this smells to me like the type of prior restraint that is endangering programmers who crack encryption, DVD copy-protection, etc etc. Microsoft's side is the free-speech side in this case, methinks.
I believe the merger conditions didn't require that AOL open their IM system. I think they required that *if* AOL introduced multimedia (e.g. streaming video) features linked to AIM, they would then be required to *either* connect AIM to another competing proprietary IM service (they could still keep their network "closed") *or* open up their protocol.
That makes sense, but that doesn't explain to me how his resignation prevents USENIX conventions from being run in the US. On the other hand, if he remained in his position as the US rep, could he not still urge programmers not to attend events in the US, and additionally operate within the organization to urge that no events be held in the US?
Maybe I don't understand how USENIX works?
Slashdot Mirror
In this case the task before the Supreme Court was not to interpret the Constitution but to interpret a federal statute--namely, the federal Copyright Act. If you'll notice, the majority opinion doesn't even mention the Constitution.
What use is an audio in port on a PDA? The only application I can think of that would use the port would be voice recording, which would require a lot of memory. Seems like it wouldn't be worth the cost of including the port on such a device. (Powerbooks don't even have audio in)
It hasn't been shown to any degree of conclusiveness that the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists or fundamentalists of any sort. For all we know so far, it could have been some disgruntled biotech industry worker.
A couple posters have mentioned AT&T Business Internet--you should know this is not the same as AT&T WorldNet, it is a separate service. It offers coverage in a large number of countries; the address is www.attbusiness.net
As others have pointed out, the U.S. government is not advocating cracker attacks; it's "Cyberangels."
How come when the "major media" get stuff wrong, it's due to pro-corporate bias and part of an evil conspiracy, but when michael or someone else on Slashdot publishes falsehoods, it's an honest mistake?
Which is it?
If (ex-)employees have a legitimate grievance with their employers, they can bring them to court. If they win, they get paid, and if they don't, they can chalk it up to misfortune and move on. It's ludicrous to suggest that getting stiffed out of wages goes anywhere toward justifying theft.
Situations like this are pretty much the reason the Post has an ombudsman.
As Zimmermann says, the Washington Post usually takes accuracy very seriously. I'm sure they will give this the attention it deserves.
My point was to bring up examples from history of the terrible consequences of ideologically driven revolutions conducted in the name of "the people," but based on a concept of justice decided on unilaterally by an enlightened few. Railing against The New York Times as a tool of the capitalists, and threatening that "it's all comin' down, baby" is a lot closer to the ideals of Maoist revolutions than to democratic ideals of freedom and participatory government.
If you want to ignore history, that's your prerogative, and you do so at your own peril, but the "troll" label is not supposed to be used to silence opinions you disagree with.
'Cause it's all comin' down, baby.
I'll take the tyranny of The New York Times and their corporate fatcat sponsors over your brand of "revolution" anyday, since, even though you didn't mention it, your idea of rule by "citizen voices" is to hand power to exactly those few citizen voices who assent to *your* idea of what is right and just, and to hell with anyone else.
We've already tried it that way a number of times--China under Mao, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. It got pretty ugly, to say the least.
Jeez, and Slashdot is always ranting about how journalists in the "major media" are biased and lack credibility. Given the choice, I'll pick the New York Times over Slashdot anyday.
What do you think it would cost to get people to stop saying "virii" and start using the proper plural of "virus," which is "viruses"?
They can send it to me. It would make a nice paperweight and conversation piece, don't you think? And not just because of the value of the precious metals.
Don't patronize this movie; it is subliminally advocating strong intellectual property rights. Everyone on Slashdot knows that Jay and Silent Bob have no "natural right" to determine what others can do with their creations. Intellectual property protection is evil! Information wants to be free!
Can't offer any help on access, but unless there is some factor you didn't mention the dropped e-mail messages problem is pretty easy to solve. Just get SMTP and incoming mail service from a provider based in the US or somewhere else. So you'll be connected to the Internet through your local access provider, but you'll be using the foreign provider's mail servers. Even if your connection is spotty, you won't be losing messages.
Obviously there is *SOME* way out of this, otherwise they wouldn't have a script. I'm just curious what it is.
I don't see how they are going to do a sequel. At the end of the first movie, the "resistance" won, and Neo transcended the Matrix. So what's the deal, are they going to bring back the machines/Matrix, and have it turn out that they didn't beat the machines after all?
The Guardian is a UK paper, and it was sued under UK law. Palast was working on their dime. The story doesn't provide much detail on how the company forced Palast to remove the work from his personal U.S. site, but it suggests that he removed it to protect the Guardian from further legal trouble in UK courts.
So this case, while disturbing, isn't quite what Slashdot frames it to be. There are no British bobbies knocking on Palast's door in the U.S., no FBI agents running around enforcing British law.
A quick search on the New York Times Web site turns up five stories since July 18, six if you count the Lawrence Lessig essay mentioned by Katz. This story maybe hasn't been covered as much as you would like, but to say that it's being grossly underreported or ignored by the news media. If you're looking for coverage of the story on the local news, don't hold your breath. They're too busy with stories about lost kittens and "news you can use." TV news ignores a lot of important stories, not just this one.
I agree that Sixth Sense can be considered a surprise ending, but what are you talking about with The Shawshank Redemption??? I remember the ending pretty clearly, and it wasn't a shocking surprise-twist ending at all.
So why is he so enthralled by big-budget Hollywood movies, which probably more than any other product exemplify what he claims to oppose? Does he think it's possible to produce entertainment products on the scale of Planet of the Apes or The Matrix without the multi-billion dollar corporate machine?
You can't have it both ways. If you're so attached to the products of capitalism run amok and the homogenized mass media, you can't turn and rail against them as soon as you leave the movie theater.
I don't know about all the legal niceties involved, but this smells to me like the type of prior restraint that is endangering programmers who crack encryption, DVD copy-protection, etc etc. Microsoft's side is the free-speech side in this case, methinks.
I believe the merger conditions didn't require that AOL open their IM system. I think they required that *if* AOL introduced multimedia (e.g. streaming video) features linked to AIM, they would then be required to *either* connect AIM to another competing proprietary IM service (they could still keep their network "closed") *or* open up their protocol.
It's the Associated Press.
kill troll with sword
That makes sense, but that doesn't explain to me how his resignation prevents USENIX conventions from being run in the US. On the other hand, if he remained in his position as the US rep, could he not still urge programmers not to attend events in the US, and additionally operate within the organization to urge that no events be held in the US? Maybe I don't understand how USENIX works?