Received from The Ferrengi at 15:34:49 PM S.D. 04/01/02: Greetings HooMan! This is DaihmonTaco commanding the/. Lower your shields and prepare to be boarded.
We will exact tribute from you and then be on our way, otherwise we will turn your excuse for a ship into so many pieces of space junk.
Your fighters: 1 vs. theirs: 1259
Choose your action, Captain : (F)lee, (A)ttack, (S)urrender, (I)nfo ?
Don't forget Tradewars!
A good site that I have not had time to visit in a long time is:
bbs.ufies.org
telnet to it, and enjoy all those games that we used to play.
It seems that code somehow falls between a construction/thing that is useful or an expression which I would consider speech. Some code certainly falls into the "tool" category - like the example of the bridge above. Bridges are not protected as free speech, because their purpose is not to express something, even if they are constructed in an artful way. Their main purpose is to function as a bridge, and that is how they are looked at by the law - an idea. Bridge design seems more like a patent issue than a speech issue.
That being said, I don't particularly like the idea that useful, but none-the-less expressive creations are not protected like speech.
Finally, some code that I would consider free speech: wordcircuts
recently, authors and poets have been delving into code to create "hyper-texts." I'm sure everyone would consider such works expressions of free speech. However, I think that is because their purpose is to be artful, not to do something that would be useful to anyone beyond adding to culture.
and at this point in time I don't think too many people would point fingers at another nation for an astroid falling on them. This might be a way to attack without retaliation. I mean astroids seem like they would fall under "acts of god" in most nations' books.
Anytime that science comes out without the peer review and editing process of a scientific journal it makes me question it. I don't know if anyone remembers the national geographic filled with the story about dinosaurs with feathers. A "find" in china was dubbed the missing link between T-rex and today's birds. Since the guys who "found" the fossil and wrote the story couldn't get published right off in a scientific journal, they published it in National Geographic - here is ABC's shorter version of the story
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNe ws/dinobird980623.html
of course, some time later, it was realized that they rushed to their conclusions and their missing link was likely a hoax.
(this story:)
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Dinos/ all_mixed_up_over_birds_and_dino.htm
Anyway, I don't think that the human genome story is a hoax, but I'm not willing to buy into anything that comes out quickly claiming to be conclusive proof of anything.
"judges would be trained to understand the complex issues that arise in technology disputes."
It seems to me that if Michigan can accomplish this goal, the rest is mainly show. A lot of legal work is done on paper - transfering it electronically won't be a big change. It just looks more techy to say "cyber court." I'd like to see some judges trained for today's technology - then maybe we could send congress to those classes.
Slashdot Mirror
That will only work if you are going to form a river dancing troupe. And this time, keep Pinky's toe-nails out of the cloning machine.
but suddenly:
/. Lower your shields and prepare to be boarded.
Received from The Ferrengi at 15:34:49 PM S.D. 04/01/02:
Greetings HooMan! This is DaihmonTaco commanding the
We will exact tribute from you and then be on our way, otherwise we will turn your excuse for a ship into so many pieces of space junk.
Your fighters: 1 vs. theirs: 1259
Choose your action, Captain : (F)lee, (A)ttack, (S)urrender, (I)nfo ?
Don't forget Tradewars!
A good site that I have not had time to visit in a long time is:
bbs.ufies.org
telnet to it, and enjoy all those games that we used to play.
It seems that code somehow falls between a construction/thing that is useful or an expression which I would consider speech. Some code certainly falls into the "tool" category - like the example of the bridge above. Bridges are not protected as free speech, because their purpose is not to express something, even if they are constructed in an artful way. Their main purpose is to function as a bridge, and that is how they are looked at by the law - an idea. Bridge design seems more like a patent issue than a speech issue.
That being said, I don't particularly like the idea that useful, but none-the-less expressive creations are not protected like speech.
Finally, some code that I would consider free speech: wordcircuts
recently, authors and poets have been delving into code to create "hyper-texts." I'm sure everyone would consider such works expressions of free speech. However, I think that is because their purpose is to be artful, not to do something that would be useful to anyone beyond adding to culture.
and at this point in time I don't think too many people would point fingers at another nation for an astroid falling on them. This might be a way to attack without retaliation. I mean astroids seem like they would fall under "acts of god" in most nations' books.
for instance: sex.com.somewhereoffshore
Character in User Friendly (the comic) do you most identify with?
Sans Education and Research Organization
Is it just a coincidence that sans means "in the absence of?"
Anytime that science comes out without the peer review and editing process of a scientific journal it makes me question it. I don't know if anyone remembers the national geographic filled with the story about dinosaurs with feathers. A "find" in china was dubbed the missing link between T-rex and today's birds. Since the guys who "found" the fossil and wrote the story couldn't get published right off in a scientific journal, they published it in National Geographic - here is ABC's shorter version of the storye ws/dinobird980623.html
/ all_mixed_up_over_birds_and_dino.htm
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyN
of course, some time later, it was realized that they rushed to their conclusions and their missing link was likely a hoax.
(this story:)
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Dinos
Anyway, I don't think that the human genome story is a hoax, but I'm not willing to buy into anything that comes out quickly claiming to be conclusive proof of anything.
"judges would be trained to understand the complex issues that arise in technology disputes." It seems to me that if Michigan can accomplish this goal, the rest is mainly show. A lot of legal work is done on paper - transfering it electronically won't be a big change. It just looks more techy to say "cyber court." I'd like to see some judges trained for today's technology - then maybe we could send congress to those classes.