It is increasingly clear that the censorship crowd is using new media formats as an excuse. These new formats don't present a new problem. They should be censored exactly as much as the old formats, neither more nor less.
Physical objects sold--video games, CDs, DVDs, magazines, and books--need only one rule because possession of the object controls access.
Transmitted media--radio, over-the-air-television, cable television, the Internet (including games, music, and video)--need only one rule because possession of the device/account controls access.
We can debate what those rules should be, but this business of slapping stricter rules on new media than we had for old ones is just a sham.
But ask yourself: if a judge dismissed exculpatory DNA evidence because the defense didn't procure a geneticist/scientist to testify on the stand, what would you say?
I'd say, "Bravo!" DNA evidence, just like breathalyzer evidence, can't be interpreted without expert training. If there is no DNA testing technician to testify (prosecution or defense), it's not valid evidence.
Are you telling us that a court would admit a DNA testing report into evidence with no witness at all? You can't have a defendant walking into court with a letter from WillTypeFor$$ Labs Inc. and testify, "This letter says that a one-armed man did it."
No. It means a bunch of drunk drivers will be on the streets free to run whoever they want over. . . Tons of money have to be spent by the DA's office, which means higher taxes.
OK, I'll feed this troll.
Convictions based on these breathalyzers can still be had unless the company balks (which will result in CMI losing all business in Florida to a competing vendor).
The defense will have to pay an expert $$$ to check the code--he may find nothing.
The prosecution will only need to pay an expert $$$ once to check the code and can then reuse him in case after case for $.
If there really is something wrong with the code, it should be fixed, no?
Great. Now, when my HD projector comes on but the sound system doesn't, I'll know that to solve the problem I should debug the house's electrical system controller.
Whoever intentionally destroyed these records (which, by law, must be preserved) should be punished according to the law. It is mostly likely not the ex-President, but some underling who ordered the destruction 'for the good of the party'.
It is necessary to punish people who carry out and give illegal orders so that the next person who is asked to do something illegal will say, "No."
This is a big reason why the retroactive telecomm company immunity was so wrong: the next time the government asks those companies to do an illegal thing 'for the good of the nation', they'll do it again.
The States need to get their united asses in gear and go nuclear in a big way. Every green source should be used, too, but the base load currently generated by coal can't be replaced with intermittant sources like wind and solar.
The notion of seeding many supposedly-self-contained, definitely poorly-maintained modules all over the landscape seems like a poor substitute for carefully-monitored, well-secured nuclear power plants.
As other posters have noted, cyber fraud is hard to prove, since the evidence it leaves behind (data, transactions, account numbers) looks so much like legal commerce. It takes a lot of smart work by educated professionals to prove the difference.
Now you know one of the reasons that the police like drug laws so much: The key facts can be understood and collected by an officer with an IQ of 80 and just a couple months of training.
What makes a breathalyzer easy to use isn't just chemistry -- it's that alcohol is illegal in the body of a driver. I can easily build the police an out-of-the-box pattern recognizer for computers. They can start using it as soon as they pick a pattern and make it illegal.
Let's see, what pattern would be present in every instance of cyber crime? How about URLs? Let's outlaw them.;-)
As I understand 'troll' mods, they are intended to be used on comments that say something provocative and stupid that the poster does not really believe just to get a rise out of the/. readership.
Let me just say that I was quite in earnest. Calling some one's bluff (even a misplaced threat of disciplinary proceedings) is always a calculated risk.
Going through a university's internal judicial process can be fun and rewarding, though it is more likely to be an annoying waste of time with an unsatisfying outcome. Wrestling with a pig (as it's rightly called) can be educational--there are good careers to be had in such wrestling if you find that you like it.
TFA wrote: Furthermore, the new flashlight is priced at $170; although this might not be suitable for private use, military organizations, police units and search and rescue teams might . .. be conned into replacing a cheap, widely available, reliable technology with an expen$$$ive, proprietary one.
How many conventional rechargeable lights would $170 buy? How hard would it be to keep at least one charged at all times? Would they have a 2-hour limit?
I wish I had a nickle for every time I've told some one, "Don't be afraid of a technology just because you don't understand it."
Yet, with wireless power, my reasoned detachment can't get past: (i) a bunch of electricity from point A , (iii) is received at point C, and (ii) it is undeniable traveling through point ME.
Right! In a case like this, our first letter needs to be:
Dear Sir,
I was surprised and saddened to receive your letter and learn of your response to the events in your classroom. Once you have had a chance to educate yourself on the true facts, I believe that you will conclude that your student was acting entirely within the law and in accordance with the devout wishes of the authors of the software in question. Below are the facts of the situation, together with references that I am sure you will be able to verify for yourself.
First, linux is free. [CITE Microsoft.com; major news papers; etc] "Free" means . . . [CITE statements by closed-source companies]
Second, thousands of businesses and governments rely on linux. [CITE major newspapers, magazines, easily-obtainable books] Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry, with many career opportunities for your students. [CITE job statistics]
Third, linux is taught extensively at the university level. [CITE prestigious universities and local universities in his area]
Fourth, there are many excellent resources to assist you teaching your students about the existence of linux and the free software movement. [CITE things that will help this teacher do his job]
I hope that this letter has been helpful to you. If you have any further questions, I would be happy to address them. In addition, there are many helpful resources available at [CITE free software movement web sites].
After you have had a chance to review these materials, I am confident that you will conclude that you have been grossly mislead about what software is being used in the world's computers today and about who owns it.
Sincerely, Your-helpful-free-software-evangelist
In summary, (1) start from the beginning, (2) cite sources that people like him trust and can easily get copies of, (3) be helpful to him, and (4) do not insult the poor, ignorant, reactionary bastard. Remember, this guy has done something embarrassingly stupid and we want him to change his mind, not to dig in his heels.
She was already informed that she had violated policy, and she refused to change that. Civil disobedience is fine, IMO. Have at it, but don't come blubbering when Mr. Consequence arrives to the party.
Well, now she has bought herself an opportunity to experience the University's discipline procedures and to prove (a) that she didn't violate the email policy or (b) that the email policy should be changed or (c) that she will be attending school elsewhere next year.
What she will not be doing is making much progress on the calendar issue.
You go girl! I hope you still think this was your best available tactic this time next year.
Why not tell people, "you can smile if you want to for your license, but we also have to shoot a picture of you not smiling"? Then, record both images, so that the recognition software has two looks available for that individual. Heck, get a shot of them with and without glasses, too.
This approach would make people happy, promote friendliness, and improve security.
. ..browser speed has absolutely not been an issue since the Netscape days.
Well, no, not on a "computer" it hasn't been. On PDA-level devices, where processing resources are limited by battery, efficient code is still worth something.
I believe the theory is that buying up all the abandoned / firesale patents on the market is cheaper than getting hit up by 1-2 trolls who want real money. The phrase "cheap at twice the price" comes to mind.
Yes, they do ask their "licensees" to contribute money, but this troll-suppression scheme can't work without funding from somewhere. We'll see if it can work at all.
33) If taxes equal government spending, then: A. government debt is zero B. printing money no longer causes inflation C. government is not helping anybody D. [mean] tax per person equals [mean] government spending per person E. tax loopholes and special-interest spending are absent
. . . we defined our very existence by fighting for our freedom.
It would be interesting to compare flag behavior in the States to other nations that have fought revolutions in the last few hundred years, e.g. France, Finland, Russia, China, Cuba, Romania.
It might help us answer whether that 232-year old revolution is the explanation of the way flags are used in the States today.
It boils down to the fact that if a law enforcement official doesn't like your face he can find some ancient law you've been violating and put you away.
I was going to suggest that we ought to subject law enforcement officials/legislators to that sort of investigation regularly and see how they like it. Trouble is, that would drive all the decent people out of government service and replace them with humorless, puritanical, . . .
I'm betting . . . more than 1% would . . . be found to be violating some other pisant little law.
This is one of the great problems of 'the rule of law' that everyone claims to cherish. When we set up a government, any government, we assign some people to make rules. Every year, they add a few rules, but none ever go away. Pretty soon, we have so many rules that every single person is violating a few of them all the time. When everyone is a 'criminal', everyone is vulnerable to attack/intimidation.
What we need is a mechanism for making bad/pointless rules go away automatically.
What TSA, DHS, and their boosters don't value sufficiently are the costs of their actions (measured in freedom, time, $$, etc.). Any of these plans would stop the maulings:
Drive the tigers away.
Catch the tigers.
Give every villager an escort consisting of 76 trombones, 110 coronets, 1 bass, and a corps of 'people who hang around with musicians'.
Lock all the villagers in a large, steel cage.
That some of those plans are unacceptable is obvious to anyone but a TSA/DHS booster.
If some villagers are mauled by a tiger, and I promise to catch the tigers, . ..
I must respectfully disagree. The villagers don't care whether you catch tigers--the villagers care whether you stop the maulings. If the maulings stop, the villagers will be happy regardless of whether you catch the tiger or just scare him off.
Your analogy would be better if the traps injured/killed a few villagers every so often.
The summary used a lot of words to say it doesn't work.
What do you mean, it doesn't work?!! They caught 1266 criminals!!! Of course they can't reveal whether they caught any terrorists--that would endanger job^H^H^H national security!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
It is increasingly clear that the censorship crowd is using new media formats as an excuse. These new formats don't present a new problem. They should be censored exactly as much as the old formats, neither more nor less.
Physical objects sold--video games, CDs, DVDs, magazines, and books--need only one rule because possession of the object controls access.
Transmitted media--radio, over-the-air-television, cable television, the Internet (including games, music, and video)--need only one rule because possession of the device/account controls access.
We can debate what those rules should be, but this business of slapping stricter rules on new media than we had for old ones is just a sham.
But ask yourself: if a judge dismissed exculpatory DNA evidence because the defense didn't procure a geneticist/scientist to testify on the stand, what would you say?
I'd say, "Bravo!" DNA evidence, just like breathalyzer evidence, can't be interpreted without expert training. If there is no DNA testing technician to testify (prosecution or defense), it's not valid evidence.
Are you telling us that a court would admit a DNA testing report into evidence with no witness at all? You can't have a defendant walking into court with a letter from WillTypeFor$$ Labs Inc. and testify, "This letter says that a one-armed man did it."
No. It means a bunch of drunk drivers will be on the streets free to run whoever they want over. . . Tons of money have to be spent by the DA's office, which means higher taxes.
OK, I'll feed this troll.
Great. Now, when my HD projector comes on but the sound system doesn't, I'll know that to solve the problem I should debug the house's electrical system controller.
Whoever intentionally destroyed these records (which, by law, must be preserved) should be punished according to the law. It is mostly likely not the ex-President, but some underling who ordered the destruction 'for the good of the party'.
It is necessary to punish people who carry out and give illegal orders so that the next person who is asked to do something illegal will say, "No."
This is a big reason why the retroactive telecomm company immunity was so wrong: the next time the government asks those companies to do an illegal thing 'for the good of the nation', they'll do it again.
Because software is about as expensive as the hardware in these deals, the world could save up to $500 million each year by dumping Microsoft.
Why $500 million/year? Isn't it closer to $12.2 billion--the revenue generated by Microsoft's software licenses?
Chalk my vote up for 'go big'.
The States need to get their united asses in gear and go nuclear in a big way. Every green source should be used, too, but the base load currently generated by coal can't be replaced with intermittant sources like wind and solar.
The notion of seeding many supposedly-self-contained, definitely poorly-maintained modules all over the landscape seems like a poor substitute for carefully-monitored, well-secured nuclear power plants.
As other posters have noted, cyber fraud is hard to prove, since the evidence it leaves behind (data, transactions, account numbers) looks so much like legal commerce. It takes a lot of smart work by educated professionals to prove the difference.
Now you know one of the reasons that the police like drug laws so much: The key facts can be understood and collected by an officer with an IQ of 80 and just a couple months of training.
What makes a breathalyzer easy to use isn't just chemistry -- it's that alcohol is illegal in the body of a driver. I can easily build the police an out-of-the-box pattern recognizer for computers. They can start using it as soon as they pick a pattern and make it illegal.
Let's see, what pattern would be present in every instance of cyber crime? How about URLs? Let's outlaw them. ;-)
As I understand 'troll' mods, they are intended to be used on comments that say something provocative and stupid that the poster does not really believe just to get a rise out of the /. readership.
Let me just say that I was quite in earnest. Calling some one's bluff (even a misplaced threat of disciplinary proceedings) is always a calculated risk.
Going through a university's internal judicial process can be fun and rewarding, though it is more likely to be an annoying waste of time with an unsatisfying outcome. Wrestling with a pig (as it's rightly called) can be educational--there are good careers to be had in such wrestling if you find that you like it.
So, again I say, 'You go, girl'!
TFA wrote: Furthermore, the new flashlight is priced at $170; although this might not be suitable for private use, military organizations, police units and search and rescue teams might . . . be conned into replacing a cheap, widely available, reliable technology with an expen$$$ive, proprietary one.
How many conventional rechargeable lights would $170 buy? How hard would it be to keep at least one charged at all times? Would they have a 2-hour limit?
I wish I had a nickle for every time I've told some one, "Don't be afraid of a technology just because you don't understand it."
Yet, with wireless power, my reasoned detachment can't get past:
(i) a bunch of electricity from point A ,
(iii) is received at point C, and
(ii) it is undeniable traveling through point ME.
Right! In a case like this, our first letter needs to be:
Dear Sir,
I was surprised and saddened to receive your letter and learn of your response to the events in your classroom. Once you have had a chance to educate yourself on the true facts, I believe that you will conclude that your student was acting entirely within the law and in accordance with the devout wishes of the authors of the software in question. Below are the facts of the situation, together with references that I am sure you will be able to verify for yourself.
First, linux is free. [CITE Microsoft.com; major news papers; etc] "Free" means . . . [CITE statements by closed-source companies]
Second, thousands of businesses and governments rely on linux. [CITE major newspapers, magazines, easily-obtainable books] Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry, with many career opportunities for your students. [CITE job statistics]
Third, linux is taught extensively at the university level. [CITE prestigious universities and local universities in his area]
Fourth, there are many excellent resources to assist you teaching your students about the existence of linux and the free software movement. [CITE things that will help this teacher do his job]
I hope that this letter has been helpful to you. If you have any further questions, I would be happy to address them. In addition, there are many helpful resources available at [CITE free software movement web sites].
After you have had a chance to review these materials, I am confident that you will conclude that you have been grossly mislead about what software is being used in the world's computers today and about who owns it.
Sincerely,
Your-helpful-free-software-evangelist
In summary, (1) start from the beginning, (2) cite sources that people like him trust and can easily get copies of, (3) be helpful to him, and (4) do not insult the poor, ignorant, reactionary bastard. Remember, this guy has done something embarrassingly stupid and we want him to change his mind, not to dig in his heels.
She was already informed that she had violated policy, and she refused to change that. Civil disobedience is fine, IMO. Have at it, but don't come blubbering when Mr. Consequence arrives to the party.
Well, now she has bought herself an opportunity to experience the University's discipline procedures and to prove (a) that she didn't violate the email policy or (b) that the email policy should be changed or (c) that she will be attending school elsewhere next year.
What she will not be doing is making much progress on the calendar issue.
You go girl! I hope you still think this was your best available tactic this time next year.
Why not tell people, "you can smile if you want to for your license, but we also have to shoot a picture of you not smiling"? Then, record both images, so that the recognition software has two looks available for that individual. Heck, get a shot of them with and without glasses, too.
This approach would make people happy, promote friendliness, and improve security.
So, why are so many online journalists being jailed?
. . .browser speed has absolutely not been an issue since the Netscape days.
Well, no, not on a "computer" it hasn't been. On PDA-level devices, where processing resources are limited by battery, efficient code is still worth something.
. . . how are they not trolls?
I believe the theory is that buying up all the abandoned / firesale patents on the market is cheaper than getting hit up by 1-2 trolls who want real money. The phrase "cheap at twice the price" comes to mind.
Yes, they do ask their "licensees" to contribute money, but this troll-suppression scheme can't work without funding from somewhere. We'll see if it can work at all.
33) If taxes equal government spending, then:
A. government debt is zero
B. printing money no longer causes inflation
C. government is not helping anybody
D. [mean] tax per person equals [mean] government spending per person
E. tax loopholes and special-interest spending are absent
There, fixed that for you.
. . . we defined our very existence by fighting for our freedom.
It would be interesting to compare flag behavior in the States to other nations that have fought revolutions in the last few hundred years, e.g. France, Finland, Russia, China, Cuba, Romania.
It might help us answer whether that 232-year old revolution is the explanation of the way flags are used in the States today.
It boils down to the fact that if a law enforcement official doesn't like your face he can find some ancient law you've been violating and put you away.
I was going to suggest that we ought to subject law enforcement officials/legislators to that sort of investigation regularly and see how they like it. Trouble is, that would drive all the decent people out of government service and replace them with humorless, puritanical, . . .
I'm betting . . . more than 1% would . . . be found to be violating some other pisant little law.
This is one of the great problems of 'the rule of law' that everyone claims to cherish. When we set up a government, any government, we assign some people to make rules. Every year, they add a few rules, but none ever go away. Pretty soon, we have so many rules that every single person is violating a few of them all the time. When everyone is a 'criminal', everyone is vulnerable to attack/intimidation.
What we need is a mechanism for making bad/pointless rules go away automatically.
What TSA, DHS, and their boosters don't value sufficiently are the costs of their actions (measured in freedom, time, $$, etc.). Any of these plans would stop the maulings:
That some of those plans are unacceptable is obvious to anyone but a TSA/DHS booster.
If some villagers are mauled by a tiger, and I promise to catch the tigers, . . .
I must respectfully disagree. The villagers don't care whether you catch tigers--the villagers care whether you stop the maulings. If the maulings stop, the villagers will be happy regardless of whether you catch the tiger or just scare him off.
Your analogy would be better if the traps injured/killed a few villagers every so often.
The summary used a lot of words to say it doesn't work.
What do you mean, it doesn't work?!! They caught 1266 criminals!!! Of course they can't reveal whether they caught any terrorists--that would endanger job^H^H^H national security!!!!