Frankly, I'm suprised any defense attorney would WANT this - they'd rather that Joe Schmoe from the ISP, who only gathers evidence once a blue moon, gets called on the stand so they can twist his words, rather than a professional law enforcement officer who generally knows the rules of the game a lot better.
Good point, but it doesn't apply to the specifics of this case. I.e. the attorney in this case got what his client wants, which is to throw out the evidence.
I think in general, this will still favor defendents, or more realistically, could-be defendents, because it makes it harder for LE to ever get damning evidence to begin with.
In addition to its many other positive qualities, open source could provide the best resources for parental supervision and control of internet usage by kids. (Note: yes, I favor parents' rights to supervise what their kids see and do on the net. I know that's not a popular idea with many people here. Deal with it.) With a system like Linux it's much easier to set and enforce browser settings and other services on the computer. A parent could decide what access settings to put in the browser, monitor (or threaten to, more on that in a moment) chat sessions, etc.
I forsee a time when the home market for off-the-shelf Linux provides turnkey solutions to family computers that parents can feel good about giving to their kids. A solution of this type encourages civil liberties and privacy by showing that the market can handle its own problems without legislation. It encourages children's privacy by allowing parent to feel good about turing their kids loose on the web without watching over their shoulders (literally or figuratively). Yes, parents could secretly monitor chat sessions, but most parents don't really want to do that sort of thing. Parents will feel less need to do so if they can let the computer do the restricting and give the kids a little distance.
This could be a real problem if I ever get my idea of an All Commercial Network off the ground. I can just see the folks with their PVR's clicking on the 30-second buttons grumbling "man, these commercials go on FOREVER!".
I sympathize with what you're saying, but you're overlooking an important point: the behavior you describe is an imposition on other people's time and patience. The site described above is for people who want to discuss nitpicks in their own forum. Nobody has to go to the site and read the material.
The idea that discussing the details of a work of art remind me of people who like to ruin a perfectly good literary discussion by whining "you're analyzing it to death". If you don't want to participate, nobody's making you do so.
FWIW, nitpicking is a time-honored tradition inthe sci-fi community. Such luminaries as Isaac Asimov used to participate as a young kid in writing in nitpicks to Astounding Science Fiction. It's fun, and when it's not a rude imposition, it's a harmless activity.
Yet again somebody assumes that things can only be popular because of advertising, and that if it is advertised it must be bad.
I went to see Spider-Man because I've loved the character since I was a kid. I've since recommended the movie to anybody who wants to know because I liked it. Yes, Spider-Man was heavily advertised. None of that made any difference to me.
Obviously advertising can make a big difference in the popularity of a product, but if you would bother to read any Advertising 101 textbook you'll find out that advertising is most effective for differentiating products that have litle difference. That's why there's so much advertising for laundary detergent: they're all the same. Movies may appear to be very different to movie fans, but in terms of consumer perception movies are almost a commodity: they are one of several options for a weekend's entertainment. Lucas could have done no advertising whatsoever for AOTC and all the Star Wars fans would have still showed up with their plastic light sabers, but the general public who simply want to know what to do for a date or some time with the kids would have ignored it.
(There are also other intentions for advertising besides product differentiation. Insert standard AIDA lecture here.)
So now I put the question back to you: you've spent your money on products before. Do *you* only buy products because of advertising? If not, whty do you assume everyone else is an advertising drone?
The problem is that Microsoft releases a new product ever other year. Is it really worth it to them to have nearly a fourth of the time be spent in anarchy?
Which is why it's ironic that MS says that open source inherently results in rapidly changing software that customers can't keep up with.
... and now for another point of view. Microsoft may well be able to work this development to their advantage. I envision a debate where someone says "Ah hah! You were caught pirating yourself, Microsoft!", and Microsoft simply responds "You're right, we did make a mistake. We owned up to our mistake, paid the fine, and fixed the problem. We've proven our dedication to anti-piracy. Now those dirty pirating public schools need to do the same."
In politics, that's known as "innoculation": you accept a small penalty for a problem so that you avoid bigger problems later. I wouldn't be surprised if MS did that here.
Maybe MS isn't any more at fault than the school systems they are threatening, but if we hold them to the same standards as they hold others, they are guilty. MS is willing to claim that the owner of a computer system is guilty of piracy if that system has any unlicensed software on it, regardless of who actually put the software there. OK, now we hold them to the same standard: if you distribute programs without the appropriate licenses to do so, you're responsible, no excuses.
I wonder if this could be cited as a reason to call in an audit on Microsoft. After all, there's now more evidence that they pirated software than the school systems they are accusing.
... there is nothing stopping the country registrars from offering.pro.au or.pro.uk and the like.
I wonder if that is how it would really turn out. If.pro did become popular, and then other countries started offering.pro.au and.pro.us then I bet the.pro people would sue over some perceived brand dilution.
The problem is that the table is unstable
on
Periodic Table Table
·
· Score: 3, Funny
The left side of the table is nice and stable, but the right side keeps wanting to explode. Maybe he should combine some of the elements on the right side to stabilize it.
There once was a man from New Glup
Whose/. posts wouldn't mod up
When people asked why
He would simply reply
Maybe it's because for each posting I suddenly remember the point of what I was trying to say and instead of going back and correcting the post which would involve a lot of editing and retyping and other boring stuff like that I try to fit as many words on the last line to really fill it up.
There once was a man from Japan
Whose/. posts did not scan
When people asked why
He would simply reply
Maybe it's because for each posting I suddenly remember the point of what I was trying to say and instead of going back and correcting the post which would involve a lot of editing and retyping and other boring stuff like that I try to fit as many words on the last line as I possibly can.
(IANAL) That was the first thing I thought about. The problem (for MS) is that that's theoretically illegal. You aren't allowed to hold more reserves than you need just so your shareholders can avoid taxes.
That's the theory. I'm sure the MS lawyers have a more profitable reality. Personally I've always thought it was a stupid law: it punishes companies that build themselves a solid shelter for the rainy times.
The site looks like an official site ofthe law school to me. The "quick links" are entirely to specific areas in the law school web site. Even the banner, "LSULAW.com SUED" doesn't indicate it's not the LSU site, it just indicates that the site is being sued. I think LSU has a reasonable case. The webmaster could make it more clear that the site is an unnofficial portal for LSU students and other stakeholders. Instead it acts like the official site.
Interesting stuff. Hmm, it seems he was also one of the
von Trapp kids in The Sound of Music. IMDB says he's best known for that role. Pshaw, he'll always be Spidey to me, and Patrick Duffy will always be The Man From Atlantis.
Slashdot Mirror
Now THAT'S what I call "deep linking".
Good point, but it doesn't apply to the specifics of this case. I.e. the attorney in this case got what his client wants, which is to throw out the evidence. I think in general, this will still favor defendents, or more realistically, could-be defendents, because it makes it harder for LE to ever get damning evidence to begin with.
I forsee a time when the home market for off-the-shelf Linux provides turnkey solutions to family computers that parents can feel good about giving to their kids. A solution of this type encourages civil liberties and privacy by showing that the market can handle its own problems without legislation. It encourages children's privacy by allowing parent to feel good about turing their kids loose on the web without watching over their shoulders (literally or figuratively). Yes, parents could secretly monitor chat sessions, but most parents don't really want to do that sort of thing. Parents will feel less need to do so if they can let the computer do the restricting and give the kids a little distance.
This could be a real problem if I ever get my idea of an All Commercial Network off the ground. I can just see the folks with their PVR's clicking on the 30-second buttons grumbling "man, these commercials go on FOREVER!".
If you're interested in Enigma you'll probably find this interview with Jack Good very interesting.
What's wrong with having fun talking about the details of a movie? Do people always have to complain about how other people have harmless fun?
The idea that discussing the details of a work of art remind me of people who like to ruin a perfectly good literary discussion by whining "you're analyzing it to death". If you don't want to participate, nobody's making you do so.
FWIW, nitpicking is a time-honored tradition inthe sci-fi community. Such luminaries as Isaac Asimov used to participate as a young kid in writing in nitpicks to Astounding Science Fiction. It's fun, and when it's not a rude imposition, it's a harmless activity.
I went to see Spider-Man because I've loved the character since I was a kid. I've since recommended the movie to anybody who wants to know because I liked it. Yes, Spider-Man was heavily advertised. None of that made any difference to me.
Obviously advertising can make a big difference in the popularity of a product, but if you would bother to read any Advertising 101 textbook you'll find out that advertising is most effective for differentiating products that have litle difference. That's why there's so much advertising for laundary detergent: they're all the same. Movies may appear to be very different to movie fans, but in terms of consumer perception movies are almost a commodity: they are one of several options for a weekend's entertainment. Lucas could have done no advertising whatsoever for AOTC and all the Star Wars fans would have still showed up with their plastic light sabers, but the general public who simply want to know what to do for a date or some time with the kids would have ignored it.
(There are also other intentions for advertising besides product differentiation. Insert standard AIDA lecture here.)
So now I put the question back to you: you've spent your money on products before. Do *you* only buy products because of advertising? If not, whty do you assume everyone else is an advertising drone?
Which is why it's ironic that MS says that open source inherently results in rapidly changing software that customers can't keep up with.
In politics, that's known as "innoculation": you accept a small penalty for a problem so that you avoid bigger problems later. I wouldn't be surprised if MS did that here.
Maybe MS isn't any more at fault than the school systems they are threatening, but if we hold them to the same standards as they hold others, they are guilty. MS is willing to claim that the owner of a computer system is guilty of piracy if that system has any unlicensed software on it, regardless of who actually put the software there. OK, now we hold them to the same standard: if you distribute programs without the appropriate licenses to do so, you're responsible, no excuses.
I wonder if this could be cited as a reason to call in an audit on Microsoft. After all, there's now more evidence that they pirated software than the school systems they are accusing.
I wonder if that is how it would really turn out. If .pro did become popular, and then other countries started offering .pro.au and .pro.us then I bet the .pro people would sue over some perceived brand dilution.
The left side of the table is nice and stable, but the right side keeps wanting to explode. Maybe he should combine some of the elements on the right side to stabilize it.
This reminds me of Cosmo Kramer's coffee table book about coffee tables that folds out to become a coffee table.
Well shoot, it was on-topic when the page was broken. :-(
There once was a man from New Glup /. posts wouldn't mod up
Whose
When people asked why
He would simply reply
Maybe it's because for each posting I suddenly remember the point of what I was trying to say and instead of going back and correcting the post which would involve a lot of editing and retyping and other boring stuff like that I try to fit as many words on the last line to really fill it up.
There once was a man from Japan /. posts did not scan
Whose
When people asked why
He would simply reply
Maybe it's because for each posting I suddenly remember the point of what I was trying to say and instead of going back and correcting the post which would involve a lot of editing and retyping and other boring stuff like that I try to fit as many words on the last line as I possibly can.
(Yes, I'm getting really wide pages too.)
That's the theory. I'm sure the MS lawyers have a more profitable reality. Personally I've always thought it was a stupid law: it punishes companies that build themselves a solid shelter for the rainy times.
The site looks like an official site ofthe law school to me. The "quick links" are entirely to specific areas in the law school web site. Even the banner, "LSULAW.com SUED" doesn't indicate it's not the LSU site, it just indicates that the site is being sued. I think LSU has a reasonable case. The webmaster could make it more clear that the site is an unnofficial portal for LSU students and other stakeholders. Instead it acts like the official site.
- The world sucks
- The world will always suck
- Any efforts to make the world better is naive and will only make things worse
In short, cynicism is a loser attitude disguising itself as enlightenment.Interesting stuff. Hmm, it seems he was also one of the von Trapp kids in The Sound of Music. IMDB says he's best known for that role. Pshaw, he'll always be Spidey to me, and Patrick Duffy will always be The Man From Atlantis.
Thanks for the link! That's a great site.
"stunk", as in "my typing stunk". :-)