... but not necessarily in the sense you're thinking of. Allow me to explain by way of example:
When I saw the new Final Fantasy trailer, I was completely blown away. But it wasn't until I had watched the trailer a couple of times and explored the rest of the web site that I realized that one of the reasons was because the characters seemed to move so very realistically -- especially their clothes.
"Is this really an issue?" Yes, but in one of those subtle ways that is often hard to justify to the bean-counters. To me, the best special effects are the ones that don't call attention to themselves, but rather let the storyline continue. And that goes for movies and games. Since we are beginning to see more and more CG characters on the silver and game screens, any little bit towards realism is a step in the right direction.
In the attempt to escape from reality, are you really satisfied with blocky characters that jerk across the screen? Realistic cloth simulation in no way limits the possibility for "unrealistic" plot, action, character movements, etc. It only makes the characters themselves seem more realistic. If you really want to escape from "realistic" characters, go play on an old NES, or better yet an Atari. Their games have as much action, plot, and challenges as today's games -- but they don't look so realistic.
.xxx would be a place where you'd be guaranteed (!) to see nudity, and.kids a place you'd be guaranteed to not see nudity.
I partially disagree. The.xxx TLD would pretty much guarantee "nudity" (but I think you mean pr0n). As mentioned in this earlier post, it would be all-but-impossible to restrict abuse of a ".kids" domain -- a daring website could register something innocuous like "notebook.kids" and fill it with pr0n. Yes, it would probably get shut down, but after how much time? A day? A week? It might be economically feasible to run a company that kept registering domains in.kids that only lasted for a few hours|days|weeks...
I took a great class while an undergrad at USC: CNTV-466, taught by Leonard Maltin (the movie critic guy). The nature of the class is a discussion unto itself, but my point here is Maltin's philosophy of watching movies, which you have hit on the head of the proverbial nail.
Maltin's philosophy is to try to understand what the intentions of a particular movie are, so that it can be reviewed in that context. As you and others have mentioned, most movies are not of the caliber of American Beauty (which we screened a month before opening night, with Anette Benning as the guest!). Yes, comparatively, Mars Attacks! is a pile of mindless drivel -- but as a hokey comedy, I don't think it gets much better. And for me, Waterworld is a decent movie (average plot, nice scenery), if you ignore the whole "smokers" sub-plot as well as the end of the movie, when all of the lame-ass morallity sub-plots come to fruition.
Yes, there are some truly horrible movies out there. These tend to be the ones that fail to live up to their own intentions. (Waterworld, for example: in a world without dirt -- a major plot element and intention of the movie -- how were they growing the tobacco for their cigarettes? Hydroponics? In the dark bowels of the Exxon Valdez? Get rid of the whole "smokers" thing and it isn't so bad...) But summarily judging against a movie because it is not Academy Award(tm) quality is stupid and shortsighted.
Most movie critics are idiots. But after that class, I have respect for what Maltin says -- even if I later disagree with his opinion.
And for the record, I saw Red Planet last night. The shower scene does not live up to my expectations, but there are enough gratuitous "nippy" scenes to keep me happy. The only two "errors" that really stood out in my mind were the DNA code messup (ATGC, not ATGP) and calling the little critters "nematodes" -- they look a lot more like crustaceans or insects, not little worms.
With respect to the above, this movie is much better than Mission to Mars. I would rather have limited, unemotional dialogue (RP) than hokey, overly emotional dialogue (M2M), and the only product placement that I noticed were the technical labels on their space suits (Toshiba and Hughes are the only two I can recall). And the dramatic scene where one person EVA's to rescue the other while tied by umbillicus to the main ship: a nice, happy ending in RP. That one scene in M2M is what pushed me over the edge -- I was willing to forgive its faults until that point, and after that I was looking at my watch, waiting for it to end...
From the Newsbytes article, a quote from the first sentence:
...a New Hampshire court granted the father of a public school student the right to obtain Internet usage records...[emphasis mine]
However, I happen to agree that this seems to be overkill if the guy in question is just a "concerned parent." And to the original poster: I would hope that you would at least ask your daughter if she was using drugs before you started rummaging through her personal effects. Even though you are in a position of authority over her, tyrannical dictatorships rarely work out as well as trusting partnerships. I would even go as far as to ask permission before commencing the search. That doesn't mean you necessarily have to honor her request not to search: if you have a trust-based relationship with your daughter, then you should be able to explain why you think it is necessary to search through her belongings, and she should be able to explain why (if at all) she doesn't want you to. And if you do decide to go forward with the search, allow her to be present.
Of course, I'm not a parent. But I was a kid for 18 years...
Yeah, I got a kick out of the Kitty Lick 3 parody when I first saw it -- over three years ago. It's part of The Corporation, which is AFAICT a proof-of-concept diversion. It was (and sometimes still is) funny, but not really since they stopped updating it with fresh content (though I noticed recently that they added another icon section).
I used to feature some of their original icons on my old (and I mean old) website; I have it archived here, though I'd be surprised if it works properly.
Partially a reply to the parent, partially a reply to the AC post that will probably be modded down:
Like the poor employee could really answer this truthfully. If he works in a crappy company and says that his boss is a total bastard, he'll get punished for it.
I have found two ways to deal with this (very real) issue: First, you can go ahead and ask the "poor employee" and watch for his/her body language. Does she pause before answering? Does she get nervous? Stop making eye contact with you? Lower her voice? Suddenly become busy? Or does she answer immediately, confidently, and maintain eye contact? Body language can say more than her politically-correct response.
If you can't interview other imployees during your own interview/tour (not always an option -- one place I interviewed, I only experienced the lobby and the first conference room off of it), see if you can get the name(s) of other employees working there. A few hours/days after your interview, call the company and ask to speak to ($nameOfEmployee). Depending on your "feel" of the company, you can either be straightforward ("Hi, my name is So-and-so, and I interviewed at Company X a few days back, and I was wondering what you thought about your company..."), or you can be secretive ("Hi, you don't know me, but I'm considering working for your company. I know the environment might be sensitive, so you can just answer me 'yes' or 'no,' okay?...").
Admittedly, sometimes neither option is available. Then you have to rely on other sources, such as investor information (check SEC filings if it is publicly traded or about to be).
But for the love of Mike, don't walk into a company blind. It is quite literally like walking across the Interstate with a paper sack over your head.
Not that far-fetched a thought, when you consider how many people out there learn Grafitti to write on their Palms... Of course, they're not really using it to communicate with their PDA, just inputting data, so the comparison isn't perfect.
On ICANN's TLD correspondence page, there are two cases in particular that I find tragically hillarious. The first involves the folks that brib... er, bought the marketing rights to Belize's ccTLD, ".bz", which they have decided to market as "dot-biz." The second involves the company marketing (Western) Samoa's ccTLD, ".ws", which they are marketing as "dot-website" (though I swear I recall they were selling it as "dot-worldsite" -- whatever).
Anyway, ICANN's response to both is that the ccTLDs are established to serve the geographical community they represent, and should never be taken to mean anything other than what their ISO definitions imply: in this case, Belize and (Western) Samoa.
But what I found really interesting was that ccTLDs are assigned by IANA to be held in trustee by the particular country, and that discussions of "rights" are specifically "inappropriate" in regards to ccTLDs. In other words, the countries don't own their ccTLDs -- they are merely trustees acting on behalf of IANA -- and therefore they have no legal authority to transfer "rights" to said ccTLDs.
And what is more, ICANN's repsonses point to several authoritative sources, including USPTO guidelines prohibiting assignment of trademark status to TLDs alone (i.e., ".com" cannot be a trademark, but "biz.com" can). They also link to a particularly interesting court decision that holds TLDs indicate the type of services (like "fast food") rather than the source of services (like "McDonald's"), and therefore cannot qualify for protection.
At any rate, the correspondence links provide an insightful read.
I never throw away anything, and a couple of years ago I dug my old NES out of the storage bin, dusted it off, and plugged it in. Not only did it still work, but my Legend of Zelda game still had my original games saved. (ISTR that the Zelda booklet warned that the internal battery would only function for 3-5 years... mine has made it ~14 years and counting!)
I've moved twice since then, and the NES has come with me. I suppose I could pluck down the couple-hundred needed for one of the much newer and better console systems, but why? Most of the games I would be interested in playing on a new system are also available for my computer -- and I already have the hardware. No, I enjoy playing my old Nintendo half for nostalgia and half for the "mind-numbingly simple" plot lines that most follow. (Which is a good thing, 'cause with few exceptions -- like Zelda -- you can't save your session.)
And even after all these years, I can still navigate the first level of Contra without looking at the screen -- with the help of up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A-select-s tart. 8^)
I signed up with MediaOne (Los Angeles) just about one month before the AT&T merger deal was announced. If I had known that was in the works, I would have passed.
(Background: I used to be a (fairly) happy AT&T long-distance phone customer. Then one month I noticed this "minimum usage fee" on my phone bill: suddenly, my long-distance costs went from about $0.89 (I don't call that many people out of my area, and those who do all have 800 numbers) to over $10.00! (Higher tax rates, etc.) Needless to say, I was pissed, namely becuase, I was never informed of this new charge. I bitched to the poor customer support lady until she rescinded the charge for the first three months. But that got me looking for a new long-distance provider, anyone other than AT&T. (I switched to MCI -- same lame-ass minimum monthly fee, but at least I get frequent-flier miles...))
Anyway, I am now an "AT&T Broadband" customer (in addition to AT&T Cable, and AT&T Telephone -- with MCI Long Distance, I just love the irony). For the first month -- the "money-back guarantee" period, and approximately the time span before the Mediaone-AT&T merger finalized -- my cable modem kicked ass. D/L speeds of 1.8 Mbps were the norm, and the slowest I ever measured it was just shy of 900 Kbps. (U/L speeds suck, of course, but I rarely need to upload anything other than website images and text documents... and telnet doesn't exactly require a lot of bandwidth...) Like I said, this lasted until about the end of the trial period. Then, over the span of about one week, the service totally went to shit. Dont' get me wrong, the speed was still there -- but the cable modem would randomly reset itself anywhere from every 30 seconds to every 30 minutes. Not a huge problem when you're browsing the web, but it was wreaking havoc on my ssh and ftp connections.
It took over a week for the tech to make it out, but I finally got it fixed. Works like a charm now (even better than originally, AFAICT). The solution? Swap out the 31337 Toshiba cable modem with this old clunky mutha (no manufacturer easily visible) that has cooling fins across the top -- and puts out enough heat that the design is justified!
So what's the moral of the story? Right now I am happy again, but I am also waiting for the next problem with my service. (Knocking on wood as I hope that I remain one of the only people in my area that has a cable modem...) But if AT&T does try some kind of shit like this -- and trust me, if they're considering it, they probably already have it approved by upper management -- I don't think I could in good conscience continue being their customer.
Locked into a contract? (I am in a nice 12-monther.) IANAL, but I seem to recall that a contract can be severed if one of the parties tries to impose "unconscionable" clauses on the other. Going to charge me a private tax on items I buy? I find that unconscionable.
Three final thoughts:
Breaking out of the contract means I no longer get those services. Not a Good Thing (tm).
AT&T would certainly bring a lot of Congressional attention upon itself (considering the government's relative unwillingness to tax internet sales itslef), and Congressional oversight is probably the last thing a monopol... er, diversified business like AT&T wants.
Would this violate the common-carrier defense that allows ISPs to be blissfully unaware of what their customers transmit? I mean, if they're monitoring my connection enough to notice when I enter an online retail website, that means they're monitoring my connection enough to notice when I visit a site that is illegal in my jurisdiction. Since they are monitoring it, doesn't that mean that they lose the common carrier protection?
...add a bill saying that patents can only be awarded to things that could have been kept as trade secrets, if the inventor had chose to not patent it.
I disagree that this would be a good idea, at least in the universal sense. (I think it could be a good idea as part of the bill mentioned in the article.) The reason this would be bad is that there are lots of things that could not be kept trade secrets yet IMHO deserve patent protection. Things like the design of those speakers on your desk -- you couldn't sell them to people without revealing their design (similar to the problems DC is experiencing). Yet if they are a truly original idea, some invention for speakers that no one has thought of, why shouldn't it be granted patent protection? I'm not advocating the ability to patent speakers -- only the ability to patent a specific implementation of speakers. I think that is the problem with patents: things that are way too general in nature are getting patents and stamping out inventions that deal with specific subsets.
Back in my 10th-grade U.S. Government class (many, many moons ago) one of the assignments was to write a congressional bill. The teacher gave out awards (nothing valuable) to the longest, funniest, most realistic, etc. I tried to stretch mine but gave up after 50 pages; the longest was over 80! But your observations are correct: bills are written with tiny margins, large fonts, and double spaced. IIRC, bills are bound at the top so side margins are pointless; look at the demographics of Congress, and you see why large fonts are a necessisty (though it doesn't seem to make much difference); and the double-spacing is for quickly editing the text of the bill (given that the side margins are tiny). Now, granted, these are the half-memories of a time half a life ago, so don't quote me for your Civics class. 8^)
"I think there's going to be a lot of work for consumer advocates and lawyers as the new e-signature law unfolds," said Susan Grant of the National Consumers League.
Great. So lawyers get richer while every click of my mouse becomes a legally binding contract. Pay attention to this, boys and girls, this makes all those website disclaimers ("By visiting this site, you agree to the following terms and conditions...") legally binding.
Well, in theory anyway. Anyone wanna test that one?
Yeah, I've been sending email to my legislators, too. So far, the only "response" I have received is (obviously, since I have received the same message multiple times) an email autoresponder, and that from only one of the three (two senators, one representative). But I don't really consider it a response to my email. Here it is, in its entirety (sans header):
Thank you for contacting my office to express your views.
I believe that all citizens should become involved in our legislative process by letting their voices be heard. I appreciate the time and effort that you took to share your thoughts. One of the most important aspects of my job is keeping informed about the views of my constituents, and I welcome your comments so that I may continue to represent California to the best of my ability.
IIRC, "billion" in England is equivalent to "trillion" in the US -- the British equivalent of the US "billion" is "milliard". Of course, I could have this backwards... But if I'm right, that means about $1130 per account (trusting the math of another poster).
While reading the letter-and-commentary on the noted website, I was struck by an interesting thought. My impression (see above) is that, as a general rule, you're allowed to make a single copy of software/etc. for backup purposes only. (I think that's pretty much standard on every commercial EULA I have ever seen.) But what if there are technological barriers to making that backup? It is common for CDs/DVDs to include "features" designed to make it almost impossible to do a bit-for-bit copy. (Lots of times this is because the available media is rendered defective -- preburning track 0 and so forth.)
It is one thing to allow users to make a backup; but what use is this if the company knows that such backups are impossible using "legitimate" equipment or methods? That seems to be exactly what is going on here: you can't make a direct copy of the Dreamcast games to back them up; said website provides information on how to do it; now Sega is upset and threatening to sue.
Okay, Sega, then how am I supposed to backup my game? Or do I get to return it as defective whenever it breaks/wears out?
I would think that your "backup plan" is actually a dangerous course of action. It seems that you would get a lot more sympathy from the public and the courts if your defense were "The idea that what I was doing might be considered illegal never crossed my mind, ever," rather than your current situation of "I wasn't sure if it was illegal or not, so instead of consulting a lawyer who could tell me for certain, I decided to just keep going and hope that no one noticed."
On the other side: It irritates me that people have to walk around on eggshells for fear of offending someone or violating ill-defined laws. Granted, it is your responsibility to familiarize yourself with any and all applicable laws to whatever activity you partake in, but the way laws are written it almost always forces you to employ a lawyer. (Or maybe a really good paralegal -- people forget that paralegals can do a lot of the things a lawyer does, and usually for a lot less.) And considering how expensive it is to talk to a lawyer, unless you're lucky enough to have one as a friend or relative, that pretty much means that you either go into serious debt for a hobby, or you get bullied into not pursuing it at all.
Corporate America, with its army of vague laws, wins against John Q. Public yet again...
I wonder if anyone is inside these record companies preaching this kind of... common sense.
Probably not if they want to keep their job. I'm reminded of an excellent quote: In any given organization, there is exactly one person who knows what is going on. This person must be found and fired.
IIRC, most EULAs allow the software maker (but not the user) to change the terms of the license, subject to agreement by only one of the two parties. So, the company lawyer says, "Sure, I agree to that change," and there you go: the EULA has changed, and you are still bound by it.
Of course, this assumes that click-/shrink-wrap licenses are binding, which will become law when UCITA gets passed. (And don't fret, it will, just like the DMCA did. You don't have enough money to brib... er, donate to your elected representatives.)
I wonder if this is a way to sell more (new) Palms?
Don't be ridiculous. Why, that would be like buying a whole new computer just to get the latest version of Windows (or MacOS, or pick your OS) pre-installed.
At least here in California -- according to my ecological design prof -- not only do they have to compensate you, they also have to foot the bill to connect you to the grid in the first place!
Just think: you could have a quaint little cabin out in the middle of BFE. Put up some solar cells and/or a windmill so that you're generating a slight excess of what you actually need... and bang, now the utility company has to connect you to the grid at their expense. Why is this so cool? Suppose its a cloudy day, or suppose there isn't any wind. You're still connected to the grid; all you have to do is throw the switch on your AC-DC converter, and viola! you're back in business.
Ever since I read about the computer room "security system" used in Stephenson's Cryptonomicon -- you know, the one that involves turing the doorway into a giant electromagnet -- I have been itching to implement the same thing. Of course, I don't think the apartment manager would like me ripping out the door frame to my room...
Two questions for discussion: Would a system like the one described actually work as intended -- that is, would it completely wipe the computer? And: Has anyone out there actually built such a system?
I would like to be the first to congratulate Mr. Poag on his wonderful choice of action. It seems to me that he could have done either of two things:
Offer friendly advice and counsel to K5 on the "dangers" of working with VA Linux, from the position of someone who has been in K5's position on the receiving end of something that did not turn out to be the altruistic gift it appeared to be.
Or, he could whine about his mistreatment and "punish" K5 by removing his link to them. (Which, in the long run, is going to be meaningless in the light of the publicity K5 has received thanks to this/. article.)
Well, it takes a lot of courage to give up on a member of your community and move on. It's nice to know that Mr. Poag has that courage.
On a more general topic, I find the cutthroat bitterness some members of the Linux/BSD communities exhibit toward other members to be simultaneously amusing and depressing: amusing because it often leads to humorously juvenile posts, and depressing because these communities are supposed to be "better" than mainstream press -- yet there is just as much bitter infighting as anywhere.
Easy. He bypassed Network Solutions (and most other registrars) and went straight to the (open) source. From the Network Solutions WHOIS ("Nature, it seems, is not without a sense of irony..."):
Domain Name: FUCKEDCOMPANY.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
Referral URL: www.opensrs.org
Name Server: DS1.VIRTUALSCAPE.COM
Name Server: DS2.VIRTUALSCAPE.COM
Updated Date: 26-jun-2000
Slashdot Mirror
... but not necessarily in the sense you're thinking of. Allow me to explain by way of example:
When I saw the new Final Fantasy trailer, I was completely blown away. But it wasn't until I had watched the trailer a couple of times and explored the rest of the web site that I realized that one of the reasons was because the characters seemed to move so very realistically -- especially their clothes.
"Is this really an issue?" Yes, but in one of those subtle ways that is often hard to justify to the bean-counters. To me, the best special effects are the ones that don't call attention to themselves, but rather let the storyline continue. And that goes for movies and games. Since we are beginning to see more and more CG characters on the silver and game screens, any little bit towards realism is a step in the right direction.
In the attempt to escape from reality, are you really satisfied with blocky characters that jerk across the screen? Realistic cloth simulation in no way limits the possibility for "unrealistic" plot, action, character movements, etc. It only makes the characters themselves seem more realistic. If you really want to escape from "realistic" characters, go play on an old NES, or better yet an Atari. Their games have as much action, plot, and challenges as today's games -- but they don't look so realistic.
I partially disagree. The .xxx TLD would pretty much guarantee "nudity" (but I think you mean pr0n). As mentioned in this earlier post, it would be all-but-impossible to restrict abuse of a ".kids" domain -- a daring website could register something innocuous like "notebook.kids" and fill it with pr0n. Yes, it would probably get shut down, but after how much time? A day? A week? It might be economically feasible to run a company that kept registering domains in .kids that only lasted for a few hours|days|weeks...
I took a great class while an undergrad at USC: CNTV-466, taught by Leonard Maltin (the movie critic guy). The nature of the class is a discussion unto itself, but my point here is Maltin's philosophy of watching movies, which you have hit on the head of the proverbial nail.
Maltin's philosophy is to try to understand what the intentions of a particular movie are, so that it can be reviewed in that context. As you and others have mentioned, most movies are not of the caliber of American Beauty (which we screened a month before opening night, with Anette Benning as the guest!). Yes, comparatively, Mars Attacks! is a pile of mindless drivel -- but as a hokey comedy, I don't think it gets much better. And for me, Waterworld is a decent movie (average plot, nice scenery), if you ignore the whole "smokers" sub-plot as well as the end of the movie, when all of the lame-ass morallity sub-plots come to fruition.
Yes, there are some truly horrible movies out there. These tend to be the ones that fail to live up to their own intentions. (Waterworld, for example: in a world without dirt -- a major plot element and intention of the movie -- how were they growing the tobacco for their cigarettes? Hydroponics? In the dark bowels of the Exxon Valdez? Get rid of the whole "smokers" thing and it isn't so bad...) But summarily judging against a movie because it is not Academy Award(tm) quality is stupid and shortsighted.
Most movie critics are idiots. But after that class, I have respect for what Maltin says -- even if I later disagree with his opinion.
And for the record, I saw Red Planet last night. The shower scene does not live up to my expectations, but there are enough gratuitous "nippy" scenes to keep me happy. The only two "errors" that really stood out in my mind were the DNA code messup (ATGC, not ATGP) and calling the little critters "nematodes" -- they look a lot more like crustaceans or insects, not little worms.
With respect to the above, this movie is much better than Mission to Mars. I would rather have limited, unemotional dialogue (RP) than hokey, overly emotional dialogue (M2M), and the only product placement that I noticed were the technical labels on their space suits (Toshiba and Hughes are the only two I can recall). And the dramatic scene where one person EVA's to rescue the other while tied by umbillicus to the main ship: a nice, happy ending in RP. That one scene in M2M is what pushed me over the edge -- I was willing to forgive its faults until that point, and after that I was looking at my watch, waiting for it to end...
From the Newsbytes article, a quote from the first sentence:
However, I happen to agree that this seems to be overkill if the guy in question is just a "concerned parent." And to the original poster: I would hope that you would at least ask your daughter if she was using drugs before you started rummaging through her personal effects. Even though you are in a position of authority over her, tyrannical dictatorships rarely work out as well as trusting partnerships. I would even go as far as to ask permission before commencing the search. That doesn't mean you necessarily have to honor her request not to search: if you have a trust-based relationship with your daughter, then you should be able to explain why you think it is necessary to search through her belongings, and she should be able to explain why (if at all) she doesn't want you to. And if you do decide to go forward with the search, allow her to be present.
Of course, I'm not a parent. But I was a kid for 18 years...
Yeah, I got a kick out of the Kitty Lick 3 parody when I first saw it -- over three years ago. It's part of The Corporation, which is AFAICT a proof-of-concept diversion. It was (and sometimes still is) funny, but not really since they stopped updating it with fresh content (though I noticed recently that they added another icon section).
I used to feature some of their original icons on my old (and I mean old) website; I have it archived here, though I'd be surprised if it works properly.
Partially a reply to the parent, partially a reply to the AC post that will probably be modded down:
I have found two ways to deal with this (very real) issue: First, you can go ahead and ask the "poor employee" and watch for his/her body language. Does she pause before answering? Does she get nervous? Stop making eye contact with you? Lower her voice? Suddenly become busy? Or does she answer immediately, confidently, and maintain eye contact? Body language can say more than her politically-correct response.
If you can't interview other imployees during your own interview/tour (not always an option -- one place I interviewed, I only experienced the lobby and the first conference room off of it), see if you can get the name(s) of other employees working there. A few hours/days after your interview, call the company and ask to speak to ($nameOfEmployee). Depending on your "feel" of the company, you can either be straightforward ("Hi, my name is So-and-so, and I interviewed at Company X a few days back, and I was wondering what you thought about your company..."), or you can be secretive ("Hi, you don't know me, but I'm considering working for your company. I know the environment might be sensitive, so you can just answer me 'yes' or 'no,' okay?...").
Admittedly, sometimes neither option is available. Then you have to rely on other sources, such as investor information (check SEC filings if it is publicly traded or about to be).
But for the love of Mike, don't walk into a company blind. It is quite literally like walking across the Interstate with a paper sack over your head.
Not that far-fetched a thought, when you consider how many people out there learn Grafitti to write on their Palms... Of course, they're not really using it to communicate with their PDA, just inputting data, so the comparison isn't perfect.
On ICANN's TLD correspondence page, there are two cases in particular that I find tragically hillarious. The first involves the folks that brib... er, bought the marketing rights to Belize's ccTLD, ".bz", which they have decided to market as "dot-biz." The second involves the company marketing (Western) Samoa's ccTLD, ".ws", which they are marketing as "dot-website" (though I swear I recall they were selling it as "dot-worldsite" -- whatever).
Anyway, ICANN's response to both is that the ccTLDs are established to serve the geographical community they represent, and should never be taken to mean anything other than what their ISO definitions imply: in this case, Belize and (Western) Samoa.
But what I found really interesting was that ccTLDs are assigned by IANA to be held in trustee by the particular country, and that discussions of "rights" are specifically "inappropriate" in regards to ccTLDs. In other words, the countries don't own their ccTLDs -- they are merely trustees acting on behalf of IANA -- and therefore they have no legal authority to transfer "rights" to said ccTLDs.
And what is more, ICANN's repsonses point to several authoritative sources, including USPTO guidelines prohibiting assignment of trademark status to TLDs alone (i.e., ".com" cannot be a trademark, but "biz.com" can). They also link to a particularly interesting court decision that holds TLDs indicate the type of services (like "fast food") rather than the source of services (like "McDonald's"), and therefore cannot qualify for protection.
At any rate, the correspondence links provide an insightful read.
I never throw away anything, and a couple of years ago I dug my old NES out of the storage bin, dusted it off, and plugged it in. Not only did it still work, but my Legend of Zelda game still had my original games saved. (ISTR that the Zelda booklet warned that the internal battery would only function for 3-5 years... mine has made it ~14 years and counting!)
I've moved twice since then, and the NES has come with me. I suppose I could pluck down the couple-hundred needed for one of the much newer and better console systems, but why? Most of the games I would be interested in playing on a new system are also available for my computer -- and I already have the hardware. No, I enjoy playing my old Nintendo half for nostalgia and half for the "mind-numbingly simple" plot lines that most follow. (Which is a good thing, 'cause with few exceptions -- like Zelda -- you can't save your session.)
And even after all these years, I can still navigate the first level of Contra without looking at the screen -- with the help of up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A-select-s tart. 8^)
I signed up with MediaOne (Los Angeles) just about one month before the AT&T merger deal was announced. If I had known that was in the works, I would have passed.
(Background: I used to be a (fairly) happy AT&T long-distance phone customer. Then one month I noticed this "minimum usage fee" on my phone bill: suddenly, my long-distance costs went from about $0.89 (I don't call that many people out of my area, and those who do all have 800 numbers) to over $10.00! (Higher tax rates, etc.) Needless to say, I was pissed, namely becuase, I was never informed of this new charge. I bitched to the poor customer support lady until she rescinded the charge for the first three months. But that got me looking for a new long-distance provider, anyone other than AT&T. (I switched to MCI -- same lame-ass minimum monthly fee, but at least I get frequent-flier miles...))
Anyway, I am now an "AT&T Broadband" customer (in addition to AT&T Cable, and AT&T Telephone -- with MCI Long Distance, I just love the irony). For the first month -- the "money-back guarantee" period, and approximately the time span before the Mediaone-AT&T merger finalized -- my cable modem kicked ass. D/L speeds of 1.8 Mbps were the norm, and the slowest I ever measured it was just shy of 900 Kbps. (U/L speeds suck, of course, but I rarely need to upload anything other than website images and text documents... and telnet doesn't exactly require a lot of bandwidth...) Like I said, this lasted until about the end of the trial period. Then, over the span of about one week, the service totally went to shit. Dont' get me wrong, the speed was still there -- but the cable modem would randomly reset itself anywhere from every 30 seconds to every 30 minutes. Not a huge problem when you're browsing the web, but it was wreaking havoc on my ssh and ftp connections.
It took over a week for the tech to make it out, but I finally got it fixed. Works like a charm now (even better than originally, AFAICT). The solution? Swap out the 31337 Toshiba cable modem with this old clunky mutha (no manufacturer easily visible) that has cooling fins across the top -- and puts out enough heat that the design is justified!
So what's the moral of the story? Right now I am happy again, but I am also waiting for the next problem with my service. (Knocking on wood as I hope that I remain one of the only people in my area that has a cable modem...) But if AT&T does try some kind of shit like this -- and trust me, if they're considering it, they probably already have it approved by upper management -- I don't think I could in good conscience continue being their customer.
Locked into a contract? (I am in a nice 12-monther.) IANAL, but I seem to recall that a contract can be severed if one of the parties tries to impose "unconscionable" clauses on the other. Going to charge me a private tax on items I buy? I find that unconscionable.
Three final thoughts:
I disagree that this would be a good idea, at least in the universal sense. (I think it could be a good idea as part of the bill mentioned in the article.) The reason this would be bad is that there are lots of things that could not be kept trade secrets yet IMHO deserve patent protection. Things like the design of those speakers on your desk -- you couldn't sell them to people without revealing their design (similar to the problems DC is experiencing). Yet if they are a truly original idea, some invention for speakers that no one has thought of, why shouldn't it be granted patent protection? I'm not advocating the ability to patent speakers -- only the ability to patent a specific implementation of speakers. I think that is the problem with patents: things that are way too general in nature are getting patents and stamping out inventions that deal with specific subsets.
Back in my 10th-grade U.S. Government class (many, many moons ago) one of the assignments was to write a congressional bill. The teacher gave out awards (nothing valuable) to the longest, funniest, most realistic, etc. I tried to stretch mine but gave up after 50 pages; the longest was over 80! But your observations are correct: bills are written with tiny margins, large fonts, and double spaced. IIRC, bills are bound at the top so side margins are pointless; look at the demographics of Congress, and you see why large fonts are a necessisty (though it doesn't seem to make much difference); and the double-spacing is for quickly editing the text of the bill (given that the side margins are tiny). Now, granted, these are the half-memories of a time half a life ago, so don't quote me for your Civics class. 8^)
From Rep. Boucher's web site:
There doesn't seem to be anything in Thomas, probably because it hasn't been assigned a bill number yet...
Great. So lawyers get richer while every click of my mouse becomes a legally binding contract. Pay attention to this, boys and girls, this makes all those website disclaimers ("By visiting this site, you agree to the following terms and conditions...") legally binding.
Well, in theory anyway. Anyone wanna test that one?
Yeah, I've been sending email to my legislators, too. So far, the only "response" I have received is (obviously, since I have received the same message multiple times) an email autoresponder, and that from only one of the three (two senators, one representative). But I don't really consider it a response to my email. Here it is, in its entirety (sans header):
Gee, no really, thank you.
IIRC, "billion" in England is equivalent to "trillion" in the US -- the British equivalent of the US "billion" is "milliard". Of course, I could have this backwards... But if I'm right, that means about $1130 per account (trusting the math of another poster).
Standard IANAL Boilerplate...
While reading the letter-and-commentary on the noted website, I was struck by an interesting thought. My impression (see above) is that, as a general rule, you're allowed to make a single copy of software/etc. for backup purposes only. (I think that's pretty much standard on every commercial EULA I have ever seen.) But what if there are technological barriers to making that backup? It is common for CDs/DVDs to include "features" designed to make it almost impossible to do a bit-for-bit copy. (Lots of times this is because the available media is rendered defective -- preburning track 0 and so forth.)
It is one thing to allow users to make a backup; but what use is this if the company knows that such backups are impossible using "legitimate" equipment or methods? That seems to be exactly what is going on here: you can't make a direct copy of the Dreamcast games to back them up; said website provides information on how to do it; now Sega is upset and threatening to sue.
Okay, Sega, then how am I supposed to backup my game? Or do I get to return it as defective whenever it breaks/wears out?
I would think that your "backup plan" is actually a dangerous course of action. It seems that you would get a lot more sympathy from the public and the courts if your defense were "The idea that what I was doing might be considered illegal never crossed my mind, ever," rather than your current situation of "I wasn't sure if it was illegal or not, so instead of consulting a lawyer who could tell me for certain, I decided to just keep going and hope that no one noticed."
On the other side: It irritates me that people have to walk around on eggshells for fear of offending someone or violating ill-defined laws. Granted, it is your responsibility to familiarize yourself with any and all applicable laws to whatever activity you partake in, but the way laws are written it almost always forces you to employ a lawyer. (Or maybe a really good paralegal -- people forget that paralegals can do a lot of the things a lawyer does, and usually for a lot less.) And considering how expensive it is to talk to a lawyer, unless you're lucky enough to have one as a friend or relative, that pretty much means that you either go into serious debt for a hobby, or you get bullied into not pursuing it at all.
Corporate America, with its army of vague laws, wins against John Q. Public yet again...
Probably not if they want to keep their job. I'm reminded of an excellent quote: In any given organization, there is exactly one person who knows what is going on. This person must be found and fired.
IIRC, most EULAs allow the software maker (but not the user) to change the terms of the license, subject to agreement by only one of the two parties. So, the company lawyer says, "Sure, I agree to that change," and there you go: the EULA has changed, and you are still bound by it.
Of course, this assumes that click-/shrink-wrap licenses are binding, which will become law when UCITA gets passed. (And don't fret, it will, just like the DMCA did. You don't have enough money to brib... er, donate to your elected representatives.)
Don't be ridiculous. Why, that would be like buying a whole new computer just to get the latest version of Windows (or MacOS, or pick your OS) pre-installed.
Oh, wait, people do that...
At least here in California -- according to my ecological design prof -- not only do they have to compensate you, they also have to foot the bill to connect you to the grid in the first place!
Just think: you could have a quaint little cabin out in the middle of BFE. Put up some solar cells and/or a windmill so that you're generating a slight excess of what you actually need... and bang, now the utility company has to connect you to the grid at their expense. Why is this so cool? Suppose its a cloudy day, or suppose there isn't any wind. You're still connected to the grid; all you have to do is throw the switch on your AC-DC converter, and viola! you're back in business.
Ever since I read about the computer room "security system" used in Stephenson's Cryptonomicon -- you know, the one that involves turing the doorway into a giant electromagnet -- I have been itching to implement the same thing. Of course, I don't think the apartment manager would like me ripping out the door frame to my room...
Two questions for discussion: Would a system like the one described actually work as intended -- that is, would it completely wipe the computer? And: Has anyone out there actually built such a system?
I would like to be the first to congratulate Mr. Poag on his wonderful choice of action. It seems to me that he could have done either of two things:
Well, it takes a lot of courage to give up on a member of your community and move on. It's nice to know that Mr. Poag has that courage.
On a more general topic, I find the cutthroat bitterness some members of the Linux/BSD communities exhibit toward other members to be simultaneously amusing and depressing: amusing because it often leads to humorously juvenile posts, and depressing because these communities are supposed to be "better" than mainstream press -- yet there is just as much bitter infighting as anywhere.
Easy. He bypassed Network Solutions (and most other registrars) and went straight to the (open) source. From the Network Solutions WHOIS ("Nature, it seems, is not without a sense of irony..."):