Like Carter trusted the USSR? Right before they went into Afghanistan?
Just like France trusted Germany? Just before Germany walked into France? (WWII)
Just like the USSR trusted Germany? Just before they walked into Poland? (WWII)
Shall I go on?
Ignorance is thinking everyone should get along. More ignorance is spouted by saying dumb shit like "other nations [rightly so] distrust the U.S.".
You obviously have not learned from history... as you seem doomed to repeat it.
Remember, the U.S. will allow the Chinese to "join" with us in our space ventures when they stop oppressing their own people for both political and religion reasons... and stop oppressing the free, democratic people of Taiwan by letting them have their own seat at the U.N.
Except for those of us who subscribe to Bugtraq or NTBugtraq. The number of e-mails sent to us containing the word 'Microsoft' would tax us into the ground causing most of the *bugtraq community to file Chapter 11 within minutes of such a keyword tax law.
This is the same group of people which applaud China's attempt for manned space missions. Then, the same people criticize the US and NASA for doing it.
The quote is 'God rolling dice'... but that's a minor point. And there is still no moral implication for playing dice... it's when money is introduced that is the problem.:)
In any case...
(Theological babble to follow)...
I believe that in a way God did roll the dice. God gave man free will. By doing this, he has essentially rolled the dice since he does not control what man does. If he did not give man free will, then he did not roll the dice (because he still controls everything, even ones' actions).
But then again, God rolled the dice knowing what the results would be, but maybe just didn't know what the actions involved in that result would be. Therefore, you could state the dice were weighted. =P
However, what they kind of hinted to in the article, but did not cleanly state, is that it's the plot that surrounds the science that makes the movie.
For instance, the original Hulk series on TV was more about the day-to-day events of a man plagued with tis disease of the 'Hulk'. It made great drama TV (not so much action, since he was 'the hulk' for like 5 minutes throughout the whole episode). The important thing was not so much how he became the hulk or why or who or when... but that this is a condition he lives with and has to deal with on a day to day basis.
Now compare it to the movie... which was just so dumb. It wasn't so much the science, but the fact that the story didn't have that great of a plot. While the *way* he became the Hulk is fiction (as was the one in the original TV series), there was no compelling plot to get people away from the fact that it could not be real.
Good examples of Sci-Fi with good plots is like Star Trek... where the science is kinda iffy, like food replicators and matter transportation, but the plot of each episode was interesting... the series had character development as well as character flaws which made STNG a good TV drama (again, very little action, but enough to catch the action freaks).
Everything in fiction is false... and everything in science fiction is "what if..." For example, LoTR, which does not necessarily sit within the same type of movie as say the Hulk, but because of the plot, storyline, character development, etc.. it makes a good movie.
So, no, Sci-Fi does not need to make the science believable, but the story surrounding the science believable so that people don't pay attention to the science as much. Making the surrounding story believable in ANY movie is the key, whether the plot centers around some freak science experiment or a murder.
That's right, everyone... by some weird cosmic coincidence, the stuff you see in Science FICTION movies is not real... and is, well at least in some cases, just plain impossible. Those of us who know better refer to this stuff as FICTION.
According to dictionary.com fiction is defined firstly as 'An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.'.
Ah hah! Imagine that! So in the world of science FICTION, they use imaginative creation to INVENT something that doesn't represent actuality. WOW! What a concept!
Look, if it was SCIENCE SCIENCE it just wouldnt be as fun to watch... if it was SCIENCE SCIENCE, it'd just be the Discovery Channel or TLS but costing you $8 per show (not to say these channels dont have anything of interest mind you).
Mention the bad effects of coffee and the good logic of religion, and you're destined to get modded down. Watch this post too... -1 Troll.
Of course, I'm sure I will also get 10 or so replies making various comments about the misdeeds of the catholic church over the years, blah blah... and all I have to say to them is:
<Jesus>Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake; Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in Heaven.</Jesus>
Maybe you need this spelled out to you... So I shall....
Quoting the Dallas Bar Association web site: "...the subpoena provision of the DMCA allows a third party, such as a copyright owner, to acquire the identity of the subscriber without filing a lawsuit."
RULES APPLICABLE TO SUBPOENA- Unless otherwise provided by this section or by applicable rules of the court, the procedure for issuance and delivery of the subpoena, and the remedies for noncompliance with the subpoena, shall be governed to the greatest extent practicable by those provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the issuance, service, and enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum.
Therefore, we can confidently say that by this text, all laws regarding current subpoena issuance must be followed which are not explicitly defined within the DMCA. The entirety of the text reads as:
SUBPOENA TO IDENTIFY INFRINGER-
`(1) REQUEST- A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner's behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection.
`(2) CONTENTS OF REQUEST- The request may be made by filing with the clerk--
`(A) a copy of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A);
`(B) a proposed subpoena; and
`(C) a sworn declaration to the effect that the purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title.
`(3) CONTENTS OF SUBPOENA- The subpoena shall authorize and order the service provider receiving the notification and the subpoena to expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner or person authorized by the copyright owner information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer of the material described in the notification to the extent such information is available to the service provider.
`(4) BASIS FOR GRANTING SUBPOENA- If the notification filed satisfies the provisions of subsection (c)(3)(A), the proposed subpoena is in proper form, and the accompanying declaration is properly executed, the clerk shall expeditiously issue and sign the proposed subpoena and return it to the requester for delivery to the service provider.
`(5) ACTIONS OF SERVICE PROVIDER RECEIVING SUBPOENA- Upon receipt of the issued subpoena, either accompanying or subsequent to the receipt of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A), the service provider shall expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner or person authorized by the copyright owner the information required by the subpoena, notwithstanding any other provision of law and regardless of whether the service provider responds to the notification.
`(6) RULES APPLICABLE TO SUBPOENA- Unless otherwise provided by this section or by applicable rules of the court, the procedure for issuance and delivery of the subpoena, and the remedies for noncompliance with the subpoena, shall be governed to the greatest extent practicable by those provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the issuance, service, and enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum.
Now with this, while it does not require a judge, it requires his clerk (which, btw, is a lawyer hired by the judge to perform minimal tasks within the office of the judge under his authority... this is the case in most judicial offices)... it also says that a sworn statement (in other words, a statement of record, in other words, if the person is lying about the statement, they can be held in contempt) must be submitted.
What defines due process? The law? So if the DMCA is "law" it can define "due process"... at least, that would be the logical thinking.
However, what part of the DMCA does violate the traditional form of due process? Holding a copyright? Sending subpoenas to ISPs which have the information regarding copyright violators? Suing copyright violators? Requesting damages for violating copyright LAW?
No, the problem is that the RIAA can get a rubber stamped subpoena that essentially reads "a gaggle of users on verizon DSL, whose names we'll figure out later, must show up in court". It's essentially a blank form.
Wrong. This is not a subpoena, this is a lawsuit naming individuals. Once the lawsuit is submitted, then the judge subpoenas the ISPs for the individuals which the RIAA wants to sue. However, enough evidence still has to be provided by the RIAA to the FEDERAL JUDGE in order for him/her to issue the subpoena.
Ah, but here's a question... Should a corporation be able to request a subpoena? Or should only law enforcement be able to request subpoenas?
Subpoenas are issued by the judge or the district attorney in a particular jurisdiction. In the case of the DMCA, subpoenas are issued by a Federal Judge.
Should the corporation be able to request a subpoena? Sure, shouldn't you be able to request one? Any entity in a lawsuit can request a subpoena from parties unwilling to cooperate in order to obtain evidence of the truth. If you were not allowed to ask for a subpoena, you'd be complaining about how this is a Police State and that the government was hiding the truth.
Is it right that a corporation can say, "We suspect the person connected to this IP# at this time of trading files illegally. Give us the name so we can prosecute." or would it be better to say, "We suspect the person connected to this IP# at this time of trading files illegally. Please investigate this as we believe this person has caused us harm."
No. It's not up to the ISP to investigate it customers' usage. In fact, if they did, they would be lose their 'Common Carrier' status and be held liable for the contact of those transfers.
See the difference? The RIAA is trying to act in place of the police or a licensed private investigator. This is kind of like me going down to the court and saying, "I think someone who lives at this address took my rake. I want you to tell that address's owner to give me all the tenant's personal information."
Correct! And this is perfectly legal, as long as you have enough evidence to support the fact you think this person is responsible for taking your rake. You would have to provide this evidence to a judge who would issue the subpoena for this person's name, address, phone number, and maybe even his employer's information so you can have them testify into court as to whether they took your property or not.
There's a lack of law-enforcement involvement here, and I think that's what's getting people upset. IF I traded files illegally and some company came along and said, "Hah! We found out who you are and you're in big trouble!" I'd be upset. If some police officer (or a legal document from a public offical, really) came along and said, "There was a complaint that you were trading files illegally. We obtained a warrant..." Now, that's a bit different.
The court of law is NOT law enforcement? It's not up to law enforcement to investigate and determine who is violating copyrights, but it is up to the copyright holder. Therefore, it's the RIAA's responsibility to do the investigation. Data from the investigation is turned over to a Federal Court judge in order to determine if the data is enough to request the subpoena.
This is about challenging the DMCA, which offsets due process by allowing subpoenas to be ordered by copyright holders without the approval of a judge.
Your assessment is wrong. See in the text below of the DMCA (section h1).
`(h) SUBPOENA TO IDENTIFY INFRINGER-
`(1) REQUEST- A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner's behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection.
`(2) CONTENTS OF REQUEST- The request may be made by filing with the clerk--
`(A) a copy of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A);
`(B) a proposed subpoena; and
`(C) a sworn declaration to the effect that the purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title.
Therefore, the copyright holder still needs approval of a clerk of a FEDERAL judge in order to issue the subpoena.
Copyright is law. Subpoenas, which are ordered by the court, also happens to be law. Therefore we can conclude, the court, has lawfully requested on behalf of the RIAA, the information requested in the form of a subpoena.
Are you saying the U.S. court system has no law enforcement capabilities? I would hope not.
And the FBI is violating the privacy rights of child pornographers who use the internet to distribute the content by using the same methods.
One should read their ISP's Terms of Service. If it says "we will assist law enforcement authorities and copyright holders" (maybe not in so many words) then yer screwed. And even if it does not say that, then your complaint is with the ISP and not the RIAA. Afterall, as far as they are concerned, you're violating their copyrights (or the copyrights of their members; no matter how much you agree with them or not).
So these days, instead of people becoming educated and reading contracts they get into, they get mommy and daddy to hire a lawyer to sue for them.
While I understand how Privacy Advocates might go to arms over this, I think there are benefits to the people who are tracked.
As I recall, there have been instances in the past where mentally handicapped have been confused by cops as criminals and shot or wrongly imprisoned. To be able to determine someone as mentally handicapped would be beneficial as the person may not him/herself be able to notify the officer he/she has a problem. Also, this would help hospitals treat patients they have never seen before, as it could assist them in identifying a mentally ill person that needs a specific form of medication.
But I guess you could say that the risks outweigh the benefits, and you are possibly correct.
Microsoft is using millions upon millions of line of code owned by me in many of their products, including Windows, Office, IIS, and MediaPlayer. I have proof and many high-priced lawyers that will confuse the issue even if I am wrong, and I will successfully destroy Microsoft from the market unless all Microsoft customers pay me a licensing fee of $300 per copy of Microsoft software on their desktop (even if the software is pirated!)
Please ignore the financial status of my organization while I collect multi-million dollar annual bonuses, as well as my unsuccessful attempts to sell slightly modified Microsoft products in the past at higher than market rates than Microsoft sells them for itself. Microsoft is violating my IP rights and must be stopped!
However, unlike SCO, I will release these lines of code. Examples of just a few such lines are below:
We're in the middle of a power outage and all/. editors can do is start the blame game.
There is no proof that deregulation or anything else is to blame for this. From what has been on the news thus far, it is due to a surge in the grid which turned off power distribution points by flipping their effective fuses... just like a surge in your home.
So why start to point fingers right now? It could have been a lightning strike, or a wandering bear, or terrorism, or maybe it was another Pinky and the Brain's scheme to take over the world!
Get over it... get the FACTS before you start to point fingers.
Everyone who runs a box on a cable modem or on a network should consider getting the LaBrea tarpit. For those who don't know, this software is used to slow down worm activity, however it can be used to hang DMCAbot as well.
Have this listen to port 21 on your networks and watch DMCAbot hang indefinately (your mileage may very).
Also, just to cause lots of fun, try doing the following: dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1024 count=142 | gzip -c > (MSOffice|PacMan|Zelda|Matrix|.gz) and let DMCAbot spam ISPs with worthless crap until they add an SMTP deny rule.
In addition to the current, community-based mechanisms in which free software is developed, wouldn't it be beneficial to have dedicated groups of professional free software developers, paid by national governments to serve the overall interests of society?
The "mechanisms" you mention are "services" (libraries, police, and fire). The government provides these for the good of all people
What you want is a "product" and not a "service". What you're asking for is for the government to provide free every product which does "good for the public". This would include, soap, laundry detergent, deoderant (heh), cars, bikes, clothes, scissors, pens, pencils, paper, toilet paper, paper clips, computers, books, magazines (aka toilet paper), etc etc (you get my point).
So what you're asking for is the government to determine what "product" is for the public good, subsidize it to limit business opprotunities to provide individuals who are looking to earn a living and profit from their work. Not to mention stock holders who make money on the profits made by companies who sell these products.
Doing this would not only affect the general moral of workers who provide such services, but will put thousands of people out of work while at the same time increasing our taxes to figures that I don't even want to imagine.
Generally, bad idea. Period. Besides, this "public good" is only to be for the public good of about 1/4 the US population.
Oh and by the way, most towns in the U.S. still have volunteer services where very little money is provided by the town.
I've lived in New Jersey 24 years, and I must say I have to contradict your statement.
The following reasons apply:
1) When leaving the country of New Jersey, you must always pay "export duties" on yourself. This is obviously an attempt by our ruthless dictator to keep us from leaving!
2) When traveling to see friends and/or family, you are taxed dutifully by what are call "tolls". These tools are again the attempt by our ruthless dictator to limit our movement and freedom of expression beyong our own neighborhood.
3) The currency exchange rate between US Dollars and NJ Dollars is horrendous. For example, a house that costs you $200,000 in Pennsylvania will translate to $500,000 just for crossing into our evil dictatorship. The worst part is, NJ does not have it's own currency so we must still use US dollars. The ruthless dictator obviuosly wants us to feel insignificant and poor compared to your Americans! We can't afford homes... we buy cardboard boxes and pay rent on sidewalk squares.
4) Same exchange rate goes for car insurance!
5) Speed limits are still 55mph on many roads! Even the residential ones! Obviously the evil dictator wants us all to conform to his strict policies!
6) We can't pump our own gas! Yes, that's right, the evil dictator has his hencemen pump gas for us... depriving our God given right to fuel our own automobiles!
The RIAA is only going after parents because the accounts being used for the activity is in their name. The example given in the article is about a 23 yr old girl who uses her parents' account. Whether it's her parents' responsibility for her actions with their service or not, I am not one to say, but if she was under 18, they would sure as hell be responsible (see, in the real world, you're responsible for the actions of your children until they are 18, whether you like it or not).
Slashdot Mirror
Like Carter trusted the USSR? Right before they went into Afghanistan?
Just like France trusted Germany? Just before Germany walked into France? (WWII)
Just like the USSR trusted Germany? Just before they walked into Poland? (WWII)
Shall I go on?
Ignorance is thinking everyone should get along. More ignorance is spouted by saying dumb shit like "other nations [rightly so] distrust the U.S.".
You obviously have not learned from history... as you seem doomed to repeat it.
Remember, the U.S. will allow the Chinese to "join" with us in our space ventures when they stop oppressing their own people for both political and religion reasons... and stop oppressing the free, democratic people of Taiwan by letting them have their own seat at the U.N.
Except for those of us who subscribe to Bugtraq or NTBugtraq. The number of e-mails sent to us containing the word 'Microsoft' would tax us into the ground causing most of the *bugtraq community to file Chapter 11 within minutes of such a keyword tax law.
This is the same group of people which applaud China's attempt for manned space missions. Then, the same people criticize the US and NASA for doing it.
A little bit hypocritical? I'd say so!
That explains why he's 19 and still in high school... doesn't like to follow the trend of graduated at 18 like everyone else!"
The quote is 'God rolling dice'... but that's a minor point. And there is still no moral implication for playing dice... it's when money is introduced that is the problem. :)
In any case...
(Theological babble to follow)...
I believe that in a way God did roll the dice. God gave man free will. By doing this, he has essentially rolled the dice since he does not control what man does. If he did not give man free will, then he did not roll the dice (because he still controls everything, even ones' actions).
But then again, God rolled the dice knowing what the results would be, but maybe just didn't know what the actions involved in that result would be. Therefore, you could state the dice were weighted. =P
Obviously not a troll since it's +5 Insightful...
However, what they kind of hinted to in the article, but did not cleanly state, is that it's the plot that surrounds the science that makes the movie.
For instance, the original Hulk series on TV was more about the day-to-day events of a man plagued with tis disease of the 'Hulk'. It made great drama TV (not so much action, since he was 'the hulk' for like 5 minutes throughout the whole episode). The important thing was not so much how he became the hulk or why or who or when... but that this is a condition he lives with and has to deal with on a day to day basis.
Now compare it to the movie... which was just so dumb. It wasn't so much the science, but the fact that the story didn't have that great of a plot. While the *way* he became the Hulk is fiction (as was the one in the original TV series), there was no compelling plot to get people away from the fact that it could not be real.
Good examples of Sci-Fi with good plots is like Star Trek... where the science is kinda iffy, like food replicators and matter transportation, but the plot of each episode was interesting... the series had character development as well as character flaws which made STNG a good TV drama (again, very little action, but enough to catch the action freaks).
Everything in fiction is false... and everything in science fiction is "what if..." For example, LoTR, which does not necessarily sit within the same type of movie as say the Hulk, but because of the plot, storyline, character development, etc.. it makes a good movie.
So, no, Sci-Fi does not need to make the science believable, but the story surrounding the science believable so that people don't pay attention to the science as much. Making the surrounding story believable in ANY movie is the key, whether the plot centers around some freak science experiment or a murder.
That's right, everyone... by some weird cosmic coincidence, the stuff you see in Science FICTION movies is not real... and is, well at least in some cases, just plain impossible. Those of us who know better refer to this stuff as FICTION.
According to dictionary.com fiction is defined firstly as 'An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.'.
Ah hah! Imagine that! So in the world of science FICTION, they use imaginative creation to INVENT something that doesn't represent actuality. WOW! What a concept!
Look, if it was SCIENCE SCIENCE it just wouldnt be as fun to watch... if it was SCIENCE SCIENCE, it'd just be the Discovery Channel or TLS but costing you $8 per show (not to say these channels dont have anything of interest mind you).
Mention the bad effects of coffee and the good logic of religion, and you're destined to get modded down. Watch this post too... -1 Troll.
Of course, I'm sure I will also get 10 or so replies making various comments about the misdeeds of the catholic church over the years, blah blah... and all I have to say to them is:
<Jesus>Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake; Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in Heaven.</Jesus>
Quoting the Dallas Bar Association web site: "...the subpoena provision of the DMCA allows a third party, such as a copyright owner, to acquire the identity of the subscriber without filing a lawsuit."
As per the DMCA text, section (h)(6) states:
Therefore, we can confidently say that by this text, all laws regarding current subpoena issuance must be followed which are not explicitly defined within the DMCA. The entirety of the text reads as:
Now with this, while it does not require a judge, it requires his clerk (which, btw, is a lawyer hired by the judge to perform minimal tasks within the office of the judge under his authority... this is the case in most judicial offices)... it also says that a sworn statement (in other words, a statement of record, in other words, if the person is lying about the statement, they can be held in contempt) must be submitted.
The DMCA doe
What defines due process? The law? So if the DMCA is "law" it can define "due process"... at least, that would be the logical thinking.
However, what part of the DMCA does violate the traditional form of due process? Holding a copyright? Sending subpoenas to ISPs which have the information regarding copyright violators? Suing copyright violators? Requesting damages for violating copyright LAW?
Top rated university for a degree in Life Studies.
Wrong. This is not a subpoena, this is a lawsuit naming individuals. Once the lawsuit is submitted, then the judge subpoenas the ISPs for the individuals which the RIAA wants to sue. However, enough evidence still has to be provided by the RIAA to the FEDERAL JUDGE in order for him/her to issue the subpoena.
Subpoenas are issued by the judge or the district attorney in a particular jurisdiction. In the case of the DMCA, subpoenas are issued by a Federal Judge.
Should the corporation be able to request a subpoena? Sure, shouldn't you be able to request one? Any entity in a lawsuit can request a subpoena from parties unwilling to cooperate in order to obtain evidence of the truth. If you were not allowed to ask for a subpoena, you'd be complaining about how this is a Police State and that the government was hiding the truth.
Is it right that a corporation can say, "We suspect the person connected to this IP# at this time of trading files illegally. Give us the name so we can prosecute." or would it be better to say, "We suspect the person connected to this IP# at this time of trading files illegally. Please investigate this as we believe this person has caused us harm."
No. It's not up to the ISP to investigate it customers' usage. In fact, if they did, they would be lose their 'Common Carrier' status and be held liable for the contact of those transfers.
See the difference? The RIAA is trying to act in place of the police or a licensed private investigator. This is kind of like me going down to the court and saying, "I think someone who lives at this address took my rake. I want you to tell that address's owner to give me all the tenant's personal information."
Correct! And this is perfectly legal, as long as you have enough evidence to support the fact you think this person is responsible for taking your rake. You would have to provide this evidence to a judge who would issue the subpoena for this person's name, address, phone number, and maybe even his employer's information so you can have them testify into court as to whether they took your property or not.
There's a lack of law-enforcement involvement here, and I think that's what's getting people upset. IF I traded files illegally and some company came along and said, "Hah! We found out who you are and you're in big trouble!" I'd be upset. If some police officer (or a legal document from a public offical, really) came along and said, "There was a complaint that you were trading files illegally. We obtained a warrant..." Now, that's a bit different.
The court of law is NOT law enforcement? It's not up to law enforcement to investigate and determine who is violating copyrights, but it is up to the copyright holder. Therefore, it's the RIAA's responsibility to do the investigation. Data from the investigation is turned over to a Federal Court judge in order to determine if the data is enough to request the subpoena.
Your assessment is wrong. See in the text below of the DMCA (section h1).
Therefore, the copyright holder still needs approval of a clerk of a FEDERAL judge in order to issue the subpoena.
BTW, this text comes from EFF.org itself.
Copyright is law. Subpoenas, which are ordered by the court, also happens to be law. Therefore we can conclude, the court, has lawfully requested on behalf of the RIAA, the information requested in the form of a subpoena.
Are you saying the U.S. court system has no law enforcement capabilities? I would hope not.
And the FBI is violating the privacy rights of child pornographers who use the internet to distribute the content by using the same methods.
One should read their ISP's Terms of Service. If it says "we will assist law enforcement authorities and copyright holders" (maybe not in so many words) then yer screwed. And even if it does not say that, then your complaint is with the ISP and not the RIAA. Afterall, as far as they are concerned, you're violating their copyrights (or the copyrights of their members; no matter how much you agree with them or not).
So these days, instead of people becoming educated and reading contracts they get into, they get mommy and daddy to hire a lawyer to sue for them.
While I understand how Privacy Advocates might go to arms over this, I think there are benefits to the people who are tracked.
As I recall, there have been instances in the past where mentally handicapped have been confused by cops as criminals and shot or wrongly imprisoned. To be able to determine someone as mentally handicapped would be beneficial as the person may not him/herself be able to notify the officer he/she has a problem. Also, this would help hospitals treat patients they have never seen before, as it could assist them in identifying a mentally ill person that needs a specific form of medication.
But I guess you could say that the risks outweigh the benefits, and you are possibly correct.
Microsoft is using millions upon millions of line of code owned by me in many of their products, including Windows, Office, IIS, and MediaPlayer. I have proof and many high-priced lawyers that will confuse the issue even if I am wrong, and I will successfully destroy Microsoft from the market unless all Microsoft customers pay me a licensing fee of $300 per copy of Microsoft software on their desktop (even if the software is pirated!)
Please ignore the financial status of my organization while I collect multi-million dollar annual bonuses, as well as my unsuccessful attempts to sell slightly modified Microsoft products in the past at higher than market rates than Microsoft sells them for itself. Microsoft is violating my IP rights and must be stopped!
However, unlike SCO, I will release these lines of code. Examples of just a few such lines are below:
1. $i++;
2. void main() {
3. while (true) {
4. return 0;
5. main();
Thank you for your support!
We're in the middle of a power outage and all /. editors can do is start the blame game.
There is no proof that deregulation or anything else is to blame for this. From what has been on the news thus far, it is due to a surge in the grid which turned off power distribution points by flipping their effective fuses... just like a surge in your home.
So why start to point fingers right now? It could have been a lightning strike, or a wandering bear, or terrorism, or maybe it was another Pinky and the Brain's scheme to take over the world!
Get over it... get the FACTS before you start to point fingers.
Everyone who runs a box on a cable modem or on a network should consider getting the LaBrea tarpit. For those who don't know, this software is used to slow down worm activity, however it can be used to hang DMCAbot as well.
:)
Have this listen to port 21 on your networks and watch DMCAbot hang indefinately (your mileage may very).
Also, just to cause lots of fun, try doing the following: dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1024 count=142 | gzip -c > (MSOffice|PacMan|Zelda|Matrix|.gz) and let DMCAbot spam ISPs with worthless crap until they add an SMTP deny rule.
Anyway, just some ideas.
The "mechanisms" you mention are "services" (libraries, police, and fire). The government provides these for the good of all people
What you want is a "product" and not a "service". What you're asking for is for the government to provide free every product which does "good for the public". This would include, soap, laundry detergent, deoderant (heh), cars, bikes, clothes, scissors, pens, pencils, paper, toilet paper, paper clips, computers, books, magazines (aka toilet paper), etc etc (you get my point).
So what you're asking for is the government to determine what "product" is for the public good, subsidize it to limit business opprotunities to provide individuals who are looking to earn a living and profit from their work. Not to mention stock holders who make money on the profits made by companies who sell these products.
Doing this would not only affect the general moral of workers who provide such services, but will put thousands of people out of work while at the same time increasing our taxes to figures that I don't even want to imagine.
Generally, bad idea. Period. Besides, this "public good" is only to be for the public good of about 1/4 the US population.
Oh and by the way, most towns in the U.S. still have volunteer services where very little money is provided by the town.
Weapons of Mass Destruction = Shore Traffic
I've lived in New Jersey 24 years, and I must say I have to contradict your statement.
The following reasons apply:
1) When leaving the country of New Jersey, you must always pay "export duties" on yourself. This is obviously an attempt by our ruthless dictator to keep us from leaving!
2) When traveling to see friends and/or family, you are taxed dutifully by what are call "tolls". These tools are again the attempt by our ruthless dictator to limit our movement and freedom of expression beyong our own neighborhood.
3) The currency exchange rate between US Dollars and NJ Dollars is horrendous. For example, a house that costs you $200,000 in Pennsylvania will translate to $500,000 just for crossing into our evil dictatorship. The worst part is, NJ does not have it's own currency so we must still use US dollars. The ruthless dictator obviuosly wants us to feel insignificant and poor compared to your Americans! We can't afford homes... we buy cardboard boxes and pay rent on sidewalk squares.
4) Same exchange rate goes for car insurance!
5) Speed limits are still 55mph on many roads! Even the residential ones! Obviously the evil dictator wants us all to conform to his strict policies!
6) We can't pump our own gas! Yes, that's right, the evil dictator has his hencemen pump gas for us... depriving our God given right to fuel our own automobiles!
The RIAA is only going after parents because the accounts being used for the activity is in their name. The example given in the article is about a 23 yr old girl who uses her parents' account. Whether it's her parents' responsibility for her actions with their service or not, I am not one to say, but if she was under 18, they would sure as hell be responsible (see, in the real world, you're responsible for the actions of your children until they are 18, whether you like it or not).
No way....
:)
There's already a better solution than Linux... it's called FreeBSD