if the programmer of something wants to make money from his work, then he should be perfectly entitled to.
That's why they can copyright their code, to prevent it from being stolen. If they stay on the ball, they'll be able to outpace those who pick up the concept after them, because they have to start working on making something that does the same as your program all from scratch.
Unless ofcourse if the one who picks up the ball is Microsoft, but in that case you'd be screwed under patent too. Instead of outpacing you, they'd then simply buy you out or otherwise crush you and in the process get a hold of your patent.
See, when you patent code, you prevent anybody from making a program that does the same thing. You can sit back, relax, and rake in the cash. Under copyright, you'll have to stay on the ball, keep innovating, and Goddess forbid, actually fix bugs, otherwise other companies will pass you with their superior implimentation.
This discussion isn't about IP. You can copyright code to prevent it from being stolen, but that isn't enough for them apparently. Now they want to be able to patent software.
In the real world, you can only patent a specific process, for example, using such and such robots in such and such way to automate the process of making a car as Volvo no doubt holds - but other car companies can use a different process that is equally automated. That's the way it is now with copyright on programs. You can't do it that specific way, but you're free to make something compatible that does the same but in a different way.
With the ability to patent software, you're not patenting a specific process anymore, but all processes that do the same thing, effectively ruling out all competition.
Software is already intellectual property, and that's a good thing. Nobody can take the Linux kernel and put it into their commercial program without keeping the kernel's source open, because Linux is the intellectual property of Linus Torvalds. Anybody is able, however, to create a kernel that does the same things as the Linux kernel but with different code, but under patent that wouldn't be possible anymore. If the UNIX kernel were patented instead of copyrighted, Linux wouldn't have existed...
Anyway, the method used by the Nazi's was far more insideous than what you describe.
When they invaded the Netherlands at first they were very friendly. They saw the Netherlands as a province of Germany proper and the Dutch as proper Aryans and tried to convert us rather than subjugate us. When Hitler realised that wouldn't work, or at least not to the extent he wanted (way too many Dutch people did turn to Nazism), he stopped being Mr. Niceguy and started enforcing all the restrictions.
Risking my karma aswell (therefor switching the automagic +1 bonus off), I fully agree with you. From a webdesigner's point of view, Netscape is an utter disaster. You name tables, but frames are even worse. It's literally impossible to get frames to align correctly in Netscape for Linux. Now you may argue the usefulness of frames, and that if you use them, they shouldn't be used for pixel-precise artwork... Well, I agree, but I hate to burst your bubble: people do use frames that way, and it always makes sites (or rather, their graphical designs) break when viewed in Netscape.
Netscape sucks, the only reason I use it is because I use Linux and it's the least bad graphical browser for it. IE rules, and the two reasons I don't use it is 1) I don't have Windows and 2) I have personal ethical objections against Microsoft's marketing tactics.
But that doesn't keep me from admitting that MS IE is indeed the best browser out there at the moment.
justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
... things that are supposedly too hard for ordinary (read: stupid) people to understand... that only supersmart people who speak techiegook... are competent to testify in them.
Ah, so every American speaks fluent Legalese now?
How many people have read and actually understood Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft Monopoly case, for example? I didn't understand one bit of it - not because I'm not technically inclined, quite the contrary, but because I, like so many other people, don't fully understand legalese.
I quite liked the way the "silicon implants cause cancer" case was handled, where the judge appointed an expert panel that questioned the two sides expert witnesses and then gave an evaluation of the evidence in terms "the court" (ie. judges and jurors) could understand.
That would, imho, be the best solution: to assign a board of impartial technically savvy people to advise the existing court, maybe permanent, maybe on a case-to-case basis, instead of creating a separate court.
The above is the quality that you get when beurocrats are given any power over your life.
Exactly. What happens in that specialised tax court will likely also happen in a specialised tech court. Specialised judges will simply not be impartial because they know too much, and have over time formed too many personal opinions that will interfere with their impartiality.
As a judge (or lawyer?) said some distance up in this discussion, judges and lawyers are the most intelligent people in American society. As he said, a good judge (or lawyer) will be able to grasp the necessary knowledge about any field within a short time, from aerodynamics in case of a plane crash case to structural engineering in an unsafe building case. A judge should gather facts and knowledge about a field he previously had no knowledge about and draw an impartial conclusion based on only those relevant facts and knowledge.
Another reason why a tech court would probably be a bad thing is, how do you decide whether a judge has technical knowledge and in what fields? There's way too much risk of big corporations influencing judges by means other than relevant facts.
Why should a case which involves technical concepts merit its own special type of judge, one which is likely to be biased by dint of their interests and knowledge?
That indeed is very true... You can hardly expect a tech judge to be impartial to the Microsoft trial. They'll either love or hate Microsoft, which will affect their decision.
no judge could keep up with all of the advances in the various fields of computing unless they worked in them.
Indeed, but currently most judges have no knowledge of the various fields of computing whatsoever. How can you expect somebody who doesn't know anything about technology to effect an honest trial in a technology-based case? How can you expect a mostly a-technical jury (because, face it, most people are) to make an impartial and well informed decision about a technical case?
I don't think there's a need for a special technical court. A team of technically knowledgeable advisors to courts would be a much better idea, imho...
I walk around one of those halls and see a big Corel Linux stand, two stories tall, with a huge "COREL LINUX" billboard towards the nearest crossroads. When I approached the crossroads, diagonally across from the Corel Linux booth and right in sight of that big sign, was the Windows 2000 Plaza with an equally big billboard facing the crossroads...
And what stunned me most at CeBIT was the plethora of MP3 players. Not just the Rio, Lyra, Yepp and other well-known MP3 players, but also a huge host of them from Asia. The one that most impressed me was a credit card sized player, just thick enough to be able to put a 2mm jack socket in its side, with 128MB. CeBIT was all over this MP3 thing last year, and now they shun it? Quite the sudden change.
And the reason? To protect the content providers? That's absolutely crazy. Most people who buy MP3 players actually do mostly use them to play music from their own CD collection, or maybe one or two songs snatched from Napster.
I don't understand how a huge and influential organisation like CeBIT could possibly decide to ban all MP3-related stuff from their fair. Now that Creative is boycotting CeBIT, I'm pretty sure others like Diamond and Thomson may follow. And then suddenly CeBIT isn't the biggest computer fair anymore...
Oh, if anybody does go to CeBIT despite all this, don't forget to check out the Münchner Halle. Ugly waitresses, but good beer and a nice stereotypical German atmosphere:)
And with every step, we'll be told that this is necessary to "protect consumers" -- the exact words Jack Valenti is using today to justify the DeCSS lawsuits.
Excuse me? Since when does restricting access to cultural goods protect consumers? What would protect consumers is for the justice department to finally recognise the MPAA and RIAA for the cartels they are. Microsoft has to split up, yet AOL and Time Warner may merge. Where's the logic in that?
The judge ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the dissemination of certain kinds of information. In this case, the information was the code for decrypting DVDs, and the "compelling interest" was protecting the profits of Time Warner and Disney.
Excuse me? Isn't the government supposed to protect the public from evil corporations, and not the other way around? Time Warner doesn't need any government protection. They're big enough to fend for their own.
Kaplan's argument about the immediacy of links could even be used to explain why Congress needed to ban drug info on the Web, but not burn books down at the local library. "It's the immediacy, stupid!" But soon, you know, there will be no need for local libraries. Paper books will exist only in museums. So if you can censor the Web, there will eventually be nothing immune to your reach.
I don't think books will disappear, but that doesn't really detract from the rest of this argument. Slowly but surely they're moving for absolute control over the Internet while nobody, or at least not enough people are watching. So what if all people who know what's really going on vote against it? That wouldn't even make a dent. And it seems both parties have an equal interest in controlling the Internet. Where is the representative who is against all that? There isn't any? Nice democracy you've got there. "Sorry, but your opinion cannot be represented. Try again at the next election. Muahahaha."
And if Kaplan's decision stands, the First Amendment is dead.
Not immediately. But it'll definitely make it HIV positive...
Remember one thing: The government is YOUR government. You PAY their salaries, you vote them in/out, and your local MP is meant to listen to his/her constituents and relay this information to parliament.
That's all very true, but the US government, or rather, its parties, seem to care more about their steady revenue stream than about public opinion. Except in election times. Then they suddenly seem to care for both and awkwardly juggle them around to get the favour of both the people vote for them and the corporations who fund them. I love the smell of a conflict of interests in the morning.
Keep this junk in focus people, if you really think this is a violation of your first amendment rights, IGNORE IT.
In the Second World War, when laws against Jews were first instated by the Germans, they at first weren't enforced at all. Jews went to school, went to work, went along with their normal lives as they always had. Then suddenly when the Nazis had enough laws piled up against Jews (and they got pissed off at a mass peaceful protest against the German occupation by Dutch labourers in Amsterdam) they suddenly started to enforce those laws. Not all at once, mind you, but one by one, the same way they were introduced. First, jews couldn't go to school anymore. Then, they couldn't teach or practice medicine anymore. Then doctors couldn't treat Jews anymore. And in the end, everybody knows what happened.
What I mean by this is, you may ignore a law all you like, and it may be (partly) ignored by the government, but the law IS there, setting a precedent for worse laws in the future.
You cannot morally stand idle while your rights are being slowly but surely nibbled at. It seems the American government is boiling the frog by degrees, and up to now they seem to be quite successful. You're certainly falling for it...
From now on all anyone needs is a "Compelling Reason" to have a specific piece of information censored, they can pull this rabbit out of the hat and PRESTO the web is in the United States is as exciting as a rerun of "Leave it to Beaver".
Lets list a few reasons to move your internet service out of the US to, for example, Europe:
- COPPA, requiring you to infringe on everybody's privacy in order to protect American children.
- US Patent on Hyperlinking by British Telecom.
- Government censorship of websites. First porn, then drugs, now source code?
Though all this may be bad for the Internet in the US, it's very good for the Internet in other places around the world. Maybe people will suddenly be compelled to improve the infrastructure and lower the insane bandwidth prices in Europe. Why doesn't the US government understand that all they're doing with all these little laws and regulations is chase businesses and people away to other countries?
For example, that would seem to imply that it is subject to exactly the same copyright restrictions as a book - hence illegal to copy and share with a friend.
And where does that differ from the way most software is licenced nowadays? And another question, does it actually in any way prevent illegal copying?
Personally I think code would feel much better under copyright than under intellectual property. Under copyright, though it might not be Free, at least it would be open, and you'd be able to quote parts of it. That would be a Very Good Thing for developers.
But I don't think it will ever happen. The Corporate World will object severely against any such regulations and threaten to cut the immense flow of money to the various political parties if they don't drop this thing that would be an "extreme threat to their livelyhoods".
Code falling under copyright instead of intellectual property would be a very good thing for developers and consumers - the people who vote. But it would be a bad thing in the eyes of the corporate world - which doesn't vote, or since when do corporations as an entity vote? - yet the American government seems to pay more attention to money than to votes. Not exactly what I'd call a democracy.
A fully open source world wouldn't function. Code under copyright would be a very good way to give developers what they need while satisfying the corporate world aswell - if they would just think. And as for the Free Software movement: under copyright you can also create open licences.
What you bring forth is also mentioned in the original article by Eudora. Maybe/. should let people take a test about the original article before they can post a message to make sure they've actually read it?
* Warns you if your drafted email contains potentially offensive language Do they mean I don't know what's offensive or not? Besides, the things that most profoundly offend most people are things that wouldn't be caught by a "bad word filter" anyway.
* Alerts you to potentially offensive incoming messages So it scans the message for you before you read it, I presume? I smell possible exploits... But then again, anything can be exploited so that's not a big issue.
* Graphically monitors tone on a graduated scale One, two or three peppers? Spice up your life!
* Visual indicator is conveniently located in the user interface Peppers in the warning message, and on the toolbar too...
* And it's a whole lot of fun - maybe you're the sort who will wear the chillies with defiant pride. I can see it already: "I just sent the VP a triple chillie message!" "Watch out for the flame that's gonna come out of his arse in a day or so".
Q: Does this thing get ticked off if I use a few profanities?
A: Yes, and so does your mother. How dare they claim to know what my mother thinks?:)
Q: What if I get sick of it?
A: Turn it off The first bit of sound advice I've seen so far.
Q: If I don't use nasty words, will MoodWatch still notify me?
A: MoodWatch looks at both individual words and phrases that are commonly considered offensive, dictatorial, aggressive, insulting and rude. You don't have to write a nasty word to get a chili pepper, but it helps. So it's somewhat intelligent too. But is it also intelligent the other way around? Will kinologists be able to talk about their prize bitch without being peppered? When I send a message to a fellow Pagan, will I be able to call him/her a witch without risking the chillies? Can fundamentalist Christians have a discussion about what colour Jesus' ass (as in donkey, you donkey) was without getting spiced up?
In my opinion this MoodWatch thingy has about the same usefulness Clippy the Friendly Office Assistent: None Whatsoever.
And the whole thing seems to be aimed towards kids, especially the last "benifit" and that one Q/A about mom disapproving aswell.
Q: As long as I avoid commonly used offensive language MoodWatch will miss it, so what's the point?
A: The point is, at least you were being careful about what you wrote. That's something. I don't need an electronic conscience in my mail/news reader. My own will do just fine, thank you.
But I'm not classified under either "demon-worshipping dragon-killing weirdo" or "UFO-nut Vulcan-salutin' Trekkie"... I'm more of a "Klingon-speaking Trekkie Witch slash Pagan":)
You can ditch a faith just because it doesn't fit in with your lifestyle anymore...
Almost, but not quite. People change, their perceptions change, their angle on reality changes, and thus their faith changes too. Every religious person goes through his own personal spiritual evolution that never really ends, just like science changes when it uncovers new evidence.
I like computers (I'm even studyin comp sci at the moment), though I never played RPGs and I do definitely believe in magic. Where's your theory now?:)
For instance many of the US recent overseas milatary missions have been motivated by the moral outrage of viewers at home (think somalia).
Ask the average American what Somalia is and they'll think it's some sort of contageous disease. Ask the average American what Yugoslavia is, and they think it has something to do with bad cars. Ask them what Kosovo is and they may know that there was a war going on there, but they'll not know where the hell it is if you give them a map of the world. Heck, they probably can't even name 10 states if you gave them a map of the US.
I'm not saying it's better here in the Netherlands though. I'm constantly appalled about the Dutch people's ignorance about current events, politics and geography aswell. The point I'm trying to make is that the general public doesn't really care at all.
They're killing Muslems in Srebrenica, Christians on Ambon, Buddhists in Tibet, Witches in Africa... They're killing Hungarians in Romania, Kurds and Assyrians in Turkey and Iraq, Moluku in Indonesia, Tutsies in Ruanda, Albanians in Serbia, Serbs in Bosnia, Bosnians in Croatia, native Americans in Columbia, Chechens in Russia. Israel is occupying parts of its neighbours, China is occupying Tibet, Indonesia is occupying the RMS, in Yugoslavia everybody is occupying anything they can get their hands on, the United Kingdom is occupying Northern Ireland, England is occupying Gibraltar, Greece is occupying the islands off the coast of Turkey, the French are occupying Corsica, the Italians are occupying Sardegna...
But the US doesn't seem to care unless the American people care - or ofcourse unless American corporations care, which was the obvious case in the invasion the whole Desert Storm thingy - and the American people don't care if CNN doesn't care. So, in short, the US doesn't care if the CNN doesn't, and thus getting CNN's attention is a surefire way of getting American forces to support you.
Why did the Americans act in the Kosovo conflict? It was by all international standards an internal conflict, because Kosovo is a province of Serbia. And why, if they went into Kosovo, why didn't they go into Bosnia and Croatia, why don't they go into Chechenya or Tibet?
Slashdot Mirror
if the programmer of something wants to make money from his work, then he should be perfectly entitled to.
That's why they can copyright their code, to prevent it from being stolen. If they stay on the ball, they'll be able to outpace those who pick up the concept after them, because they have to start working on making something that does the same as your program all from scratch.
Unless ofcourse if the one who picks up the ball is Microsoft, but in that case you'd be screwed under patent too. Instead of outpacing you, they'd then simply buy you out or otherwise crush you and in the process get a hold of your patent.
See, when you patent code, you prevent anybody from making a program that does the same thing. You can sit back, relax, and rake in the cash. Under copyright, you'll have to stay on the ball, keep innovating, and Goddess forbid, actually fix bugs, otherwise other companies will pass you with their superior implimentation.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
And quoting him incorrectly too...
Crowley's Law is "Do what thou willt shall be the whole law".
The Wiccan Rede "An ye harm none, do what thou willt" is an adaptation of it.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
This discussion isn't about IP. You can copyright code to prevent it from being stolen, but that isn't enough for them apparently. Now they want to be able to patent software.
In the real world, you can only patent a specific process, for example, using such and such robots in such and such way to automate the process of making a car as Volvo no doubt holds - but other car companies can use a different process that is equally automated. That's the way it is now with copyright on programs. You can't do it that specific way, but you're free to make something compatible that does the same but in a different way.
With the ability to patent software, you're not patenting a specific process anymore, but all processes that do the same thing, effectively ruling out all competition.
Software is already intellectual property, and that's a good thing. Nobody can take the Linux kernel and put it into their commercial program without keeping the kernel's source open, because Linux is the intellectual property of Linus Torvalds. Anybody is able, however, to create a kernel that does the same things as the Linux kernel but with different code, but under patent that wouldn't be possible anymore. If the UNIX kernel were patented instead of copyrighted, Linux wouldn't have existed...
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Anyway, the method used by the Nazi's was far more insideous than what you describe.
When they invaded the Netherlands at first they were very friendly. They saw the Netherlands as a province of Germany proper and the Dutch as proper Aryans and tried to convert us rather than subjugate us. When Hitler realised that wouldn't work, or at least not to the extent he wanted (way too many Dutch people did turn to Nazism), he stopped being Mr. Niceguy and started enforcing all the restrictions.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Risking my karma aswell (therefor switching the automagic +1 bonus off), I fully agree with you. From a webdesigner's point of view, Netscape is an utter disaster. You name tables, but frames are even worse. It's literally impossible to get frames to align correctly in Netscape for Linux. Now you may argue the usefulness of frames, and that if you use them, they shouldn't be used for pixel-precise artwork... Well, I agree, but I hate to burst your bubble: people do use frames that way, and it always makes sites (or rather, their graphical designs) break when viewed in Netscape.
Netscape sucks, the only reason I use it is because I use Linux and it's the least bad graphical browser for it. IE rules, and the two reasons I don't use it is 1) I don't have Windows and 2) I have personal ethical objections against Microsoft's marketing tactics.
But that doesn't keep me from admitting that MS IE is indeed the best browser out there at the moment.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
... that only supersmart people who speak techiegook ... are competent to testify in them.
... things that are supposedly too hard for ordinary (read: stupid) people to understand
Ah, so every American speaks fluent Legalese now?
How many people have read and actually understood Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft Monopoly case, for example? I didn't understand one bit of it - not because I'm not technically inclined, quite the contrary, but because I, like so many other people, don't fully understand legalese.
I quite liked the way the "silicon implants cause cancer" case was handled, where the judge appointed an expert panel that questioned the two sides expert witnesses and then gave an evaluation of the evidence in terms "the court" (ie. judges and jurors) could understand.
That would, imho, be the best solution: to assign a board of impartial technically savvy people to advise the existing court, maybe permanent, maybe on a case-to-case basis, instead of creating a separate court.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
The above is the quality that you get when beurocrats are given any power over your life.
Exactly. What happens in that specialised tax court will likely also happen in a specialised tech court. Specialised judges will simply not be impartial because they know too much, and have over time formed too many personal opinions that will interfere with their impartiality.
As a judge (or lawyer?) said some distance up in this discussion, judges and lawyers are the most intelligent people in American society. As he said, a good judge (or lawyer) will be able to grasp the necessary knowledge about any field within a short time, from aerodynamics in case of a plane crash case to structural engineering in an unsafe building case. A judge should gather facts and knowledge about a field he previously had no knowledge about and draw an impartial conclusion based on only those relevant facts and knowledge.
Another reason why a tech court would probably be a bad thing is, how do you decide whether a judge has technical knowledge and in what fields? There's way too much risk of big corporations influencing judges by means other than relevant facts.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Why should a case which involves technical concepts merit its own special type of judge, one which is likely to be biased by dint of their interests and knowledge?
That indeed is very true... You can hardly expect a tech judge to be impartial to the Microsoft trial. They'll either love or hate Microsoft, which will affect their decision.
no judge could keep up with all of the advances in the various fields of computing unless they worked in them.
Indeed, but currently most judges have no knowledge of the various fields of computing whatsoever. How can you expect somebody who doesn't know anything about technology to effect an honest trial in a technology-based case? How can you expect a mostly a-technical jury (because, face it, most people are) to make an impartial and well informed decision about a technical case?
I don't think there's a need for a special technical court. A team of technically knowledgeable advisors to courts would be a much better idea, imho...
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Wait a second, doesn't Microsoft Windows have MP3 codecs in its standard installation? Doesn't that mean Windows should be banned from CeBIT aswell?
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
I walk around one of those halls and see a big Corel Linux stand, two stories tall, with a huge "COREL LINUX" billboard towards the nearest crossroads. When I approached the crossroads, diagonally across from the Corel Linux booth and right in sight of that big sign, was the Windows 2000 Plaza with an equally big billboard facing the crossroads...
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
And what stunned me most at CeBIT was the plethora of MP3 players. Not just the Rio, Lyra, Yepp and other well-known MP3 players, but also a huge host of them from Asia. The one that most impressed me was a credit card sized player, just thick enough to be able to put a 2mm jack socket in its side, with 128MB. CeBIT was all over this MP3 thing last year, and now they shun it? Quite the sudden change.
:)
And the reason? To protect the content providers? That's absolutely crazy. Most people who buy MP3 players actually do mostly use them to play music from their own CD collection, or maybe one or two songs snatched from Napster.
I don't understand how a huge and influential organisation like CeBIT could possibly decide to ban all MP3-related stuff from their fair. Now that Creative is boycotting CeBIT, I'm pretty sure others like Diamond and Thomson may follow. And then suddenly CeBIT isn't the biggest computer fair anymore...
Oh, if anybody does go to CeBIT despite all this, don't forget to check out the Münchner Halle. Ugly waitresses, but good beer and a nice stereotypical German atmosphere
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
And with every step, we'll be told that this is necessary to "protect consumers" -- the exact words Jack Valenti is using today to justify the DeCSS lawsuits.
Excuse me? Since when does restricting access to cultural goods protect consumers? What would protect consumers is for the justice department to finally recognise the MPAA and RIAA for the cartels they are. Microsoft has to split up, yet AOL and Time Warner may merge. Where's the logic in that?
The judge ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the dissemination of certain kinds of information. In this case, the information was the code for decrypting DVDs, and the "compelling interest" was protecting the profits of Time Warner and Disney.
Excuse me? Isn't the government supposed to protect the public from evil corporations, and not the other way around? Time Warner doesn't need any government protection. They're big enough to fend for their own.
Kaplan's argument about the immediacy of links could even be used to explain why Congress needed to ban drug info on the Web, but not burn books down at the local library. "It's the immediacy, stupid!" But soon, you know, there will be no need for local libraries. Paper books will exist only in museums. So if you can censor the Web, there will eventually be nothing immune to your reach.
I don't think books will disappear, but that doesn't really detract from the rest of this argument. Slowly but surely they're moving for absolute control over the Internet while nobody, or at least not enough people are watching. So what if all people who know what's really going on vote against it? That wouldn't even make a dent. And it seems both parties have an equal interest in controlling the Internet. Where is the representative who is against all that? There isn't any? Nice democracy you've got there. "Sorry, but your opinion cannot be represented. Try again at the next election. Muahahaha."
And if Kaplan's decision stands, the First Amendment is dead.
Not immediately. But it'll definitely make it HIV positive...
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Remember one thing: The government is YOUR government. You PAY their salaries, you vote them in/out, and your local MP is meant to listen to his/her constituents and relay this information to parliament.
That's all very true, but the US government, or rather, its parties, seem to care more about their steady revenue stream than about public opinion. Except in election times. Then they suddenly seem to care for both and awkwardly juggle them around to get the favour of both the people vote for them and the corporations who fund them. I love the smell of a conflict of interests in the morning.
Keep this junk in focus people, if you really think this is a violation of your first amendment rights, IGNORE IT.
In the Second World War, when laws against Jews were first instated by the Germans, they at first weren't enforced at all. Jews went to school, went to work, went along with their normal lives as they always had. Then suddenly when the Nazis had enough laws piled up against Jews (and they got pissed off at a mass peaceful protest against the German occupation by Dutch labourers in Amsterdam) they suddenly started to enforce those laws. Not all at once, mind you, but one by one, the same way they were introduced. First, jews couldn't go to school anymore. Then, they couldn't teach or practice medicine anymore. Then doctors couldn't treat Jews anymore. And in the end, everybody knows what happened.
What I mean by this is, you may ignore a law all you like, and it may be (partly) ignored by the government, but the law IS there, setting a precedent for worse laws in the future.
You cannot morally stand idle while your rights are being slowly but surely nibbled at. It seems the American government is boiling the frog by degrees, and up to now they seem to be quite successful. You're certainly falling for it...
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
From now on all anyone needs is a "Compelling Reason" to have a specific piece of information censored, they can pull this rabbit out of the hat and PRESTO the web is in the United States is as exciting as a rerun of "Leave it to Beaver".
Lets list a few reasons to move your internet service out of the US to, for example, Europe:
- COPPA, requiring you to infringe on everybody's privacy in order to protect American children.
- US Patent on Hyperlinking by British Telecom.
- Government censorship of websites. First porn, then drugs, now source code?
Though all this may be bad for the Internet in the US, it's very good for the Internet in other places around the world. Maybe people will suddenly be compelled to improve the infrastructure and lower the insane bandwidth prices in Europe. Why doesn't the US government understand that all they're doing with all these little laws and regulations is chase businesses and people away to other countries?
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Hey, Kaplan... ya wanna write an RFC on exactly what a "link" is?
Ask British Telecom. They've got a patent on it.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
For example, that would seem to imply that it is subject to exactly the same copyright restrictions as a book - hence illegal to copy and share with a friend.
And where does that differ from the way most software is licenced nowadays? And another question, does it actually in any way prevent illegal copying?
Personally I think code would feel much better under copyright than under intellectual property. Under copyright, though it might not be Free, at least it would be open, and you'd be able to quote parts of it. That would be a Very Good Thing for developers.
But I don't think it will ever happen. The Corporate World will object severely against any such regulations and threaten to cut the immense flow of money to the various political parties if they don't drop this thing that would be an "extreme threat to their livelyhoods".
Code falling under copyright instead of intellectual property would be a very good thing for developers and consumers - the people who vote. But it would be a bad thing in the eyes of the corporate world - which doesn't vote, or since when do corporations as an entity vote? - yet the American government seems to pay more attention to money than to votes. Not exactly what I'd call a democracy.
A fully open source world wouldn't function. Code under copyright would be a very good way to give developers what they need while satisfying the corporate world aswell - if they would just think. And as for the Free Software movement: under copyright you can also create open licences.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Chakotay... Nice to see you being original with your name...
Well, Anonymous Coward, at least I came up with one.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
What you bring forth is also mentioned in the original article by Eudora. Maybe /. should let people take a test about the original article before they can post a message to make sure they've actually read it?
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
You've just been awarded the Eudora Honourary 4th Chillie!
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Lets look over its features:
:)
* Warns you if your drafted email contains potentially offensive language
Do they mean I don't know what's offensive or not? Besides, the things that most profoundly offend most people are things that wouldn't be caught by a "bad word filter" anyway.
* Alerts you to potentially offensive incoming messages
So it scans the message for you before you read it, I presume? I smell possible exploits... But then again, anything can be exploited so that's not a big issue.
* Graphically monitors tone on a graduated scale
One, two or three peppers? Spice up your life!
* Visual indicator is conveniently located in the user interface
Peppers in the warning message, and on the toolbar too...
* And it's a whole lot of fun - maybe you're the sort who will wear the chillies with defiant pride.
I can see it already: "I just sent the VP a triple chillie message!" "Watch out for the flame that's gonna come out of his arse in a day or so".
Q: Does this thing get ticked off if I use a few profanities?
A: Yes, and so does your mother.
How dare they claim to know what my mother thinks?
Q: What if I get sick of it?
A: Turn it off
The first bit of sound advice I've seen so far.
Q: If I don't use nasty words, will MoodWatch still notify me?
A: MoodWatch looks at both individual words and phrases that are commonly considered offensive, dictatorial, aggressive, insulting and rude. You don't have to write a nasty word to get a chili pepper, but it helps.
So it's somewhat intelligent too. But is it also intelligent the other way around? Will kinologists be able to talk about their prize bitch without being peppered? When I send a message to a fellow Pagan, will I be able to call him/her a witch without risking the chillies? Can fundamentalist Christians have a discussion about what colour Jesus' ass (as in donkey, you donkey) was without getting spiced up?
In my opinion this MoodWatch thingy has about the same usefulness Clippy the Friendly Office Assistent: None Whatsoever.
And the whole thing seems to be aimed towards kids, especially the last "benifit" and that one Q/A about mom disapproving aswell.
Q: As long as I avoid commonly used offensive language MoodWatch will miss it, so what's the point?
A: The point is, at least you were being careful about what you wrote. That's something.
I don't need an electronic conscience in my mail/news reader. My own will do just fine, thank you.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
haha, I think I like you.
:)
But I'm not classified under either "demon-worshipping dragon-killing weirdo" or "UFO-nut Vulcan-salutin' Trekkie"... I'm more of a "Klingon-speaking Trekkie Witch slash Pagan"
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
You can ditch a faith just because it doesn't fit in with your lifestyle anymore ...
Almost, but not quite. People change, their perceptions change, their angle on reality changes, and thus their faith changes too. Every religious person goes through his own personal spiritual evolution that never really ends, just like science changes when it uncovers new evidence.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
I like computers (I'm even studyin comp sci at the moment), though I never played RPGs and I do definitely believe in magic. Where's your theory now? :)
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
http://home.student.utwente.nl/a.a.arendsen/zut/dv d.htm
:-)
Voilà
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
For instance many of the US recent overseas milatary missions have been motivated by the moral outrage of viewers at home (think somalia).
Ask the average American what Somalia is and they'll think it's some sort of contageous disease. Ask the average American what Yugoslavia is, and they think it has something to do with bad cars. Ask them what Kosovo is and they may know that there was a war going on there, but they'll not know where the hell it is if you give them a map of the world. Heck, they probably can't even name 10 states if you gave them a map of the US.
I'm not saying it's better here in the Netherlands though. I'm constantly appalled about the Dutch people's ignorance about current events, politics and geography aswell. The point I'm trying to make is that the general public doesn't really care at all.
They're killing Muslems in Srebrenica, Christians on Ambon, Buddhists in Tibet, Witches in Africa... They're killing Hungarians in Romania, Kurds and Assyrians in Turkey and Iraq, Moluku in Indonesia, Tutsies in Ruanda, Albanians in Serbia, Serbs in Bosnia, Bosnians in Croatia, native Americans in Columbia, Chechens in Russia. Israel is occupying parts of its neighbours, China is occupying Tibet, Indonesia is occupying the RMS, in Yugoslavia everybody is occupying anything they can get their hands on, the United Kingdom is occupying Northern Ireland, England is occupying Gibraltar, Greece is occupying the islands off the coast of Turkey, the French are occupying Corsica, the Italians are occupying Sardegna...
But the US doesn't seem to care unless the American people care - or ofcourse unless American corporations care, which was the obvious case in the invasion the whole Desert Storm thingy - and the American people don't care if CNN doesn't care. So, in short, the US doesn't care if the CNN doesn't, and thus getting CNN's attention is a surefire way of getting American forces to support you.
Why did the Americans act in the Kosovo conflict? It was by all international standards an internal conflict, because Kosovo is a province of Serbia. And why, if they went into Kosovo, why didn't they go into Bosnia and Croatia, why don't they go into Chechenya or Tibet?
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity