The FBI is a very major government organization paid for by our tax dollars. I may not agree with their moves all the time, but I trust that they are only concerned about the best interest of our country. Why would they go out of their way to harm the very citizens who keep them running?
Should revenge enter into the equation of how justice is distributed? And doesn't it seem at all contradictory that the laws say that killing is wrong, unless you are with the government? I trust the government with my life even less than I trust them with my money.
IMHO, these issues bring up many salient points in regards to the way our intellectual property laws are structured, and how advances in technology affect them. Whether the powers that be like it or not, file sharing will continue. Closed-source software companies have been trying to prohibit copying for years, and they have found it just as difficult as the entertainment industry is.
It seems to me to be almost a law of physics that if it can be put into digital form, it's distribution cannot be controlled. The hacker credo we are all familiar with says it best: "Information wants to be free." As cliched as that statement has become, it is frequently a truism. Without a totalitarian system of government -- and maybe even with it -- the distribution of MP3s,.RARs, and other ph1l3z is almost impossible to control.
So where does this leave us? With the increasingly apparent realization that the current IP structure must be changed or perhaps (in a world inhabited by Katzians) discarded. Corporate IP attorneys can sue until they are blue in the face, but there will still be FreeNet, Gnutella, et al.
An offensive T-Shirt is illegal if it breaks decency laws. If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, then its propogation via T-shirt print is, sadly, as illegal. There's nothing special about T-Shirts, they're merely another medium.
First: Name a single "decency" law that has withstood Constitutional scrutiny, please. There was a case in the early 70's (I forget the case name) where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a biker who was thrown in jail for wearing a leather jacket with the word "FUCK" emblazoned in large letters across the back. (He was on trial for marijuana possession, wore it to court, and the judge was not amused.)
The Court takes free speech *very* seriously. There are a very, very limited set of circumstances wherein prior restraint will withstand Constitutional muster:
It must be a clear and present danger to national security.
It must "appeal solely to the prurient interest and hold no artistic, scientific, or educational value" [from memory], i.e. it must be obscene. This is a very difficult thing to prove.
"Fighting words" are also unprotcted. If you are black, and I walk up to you and say "you dumb nigger", and you promptly beat my ass, I will have very little protection under the law.
So if the T-Shirt can be viewed as a political statement, even if it takes a stretch of the imagination to do so, then it will very probably be considered speech by the courts.
Remember, the First Amendment is the higher law whenever it conflicts with copyrights. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; copyright laws are enacted by Congress. T-Shirts are special, and are viewed so by the courts, merely because they are an expression of speech.
> It's not about the record companies screwing the little guys... It never has been, and I've definitely had enough of this bloody topic!
Not correct. This is definately about just what you said it isn't: namely, the record companies screwing the "little guys". But not only them--which I assume you mean the consumers--but the artists as well. The only people in the entire marketplace who are happy with the RIAA, MPAA, et. al., are the RIAA, MPAA, et. al. Both the consumer and the artist have bitch gripes with these entities; Napster is the lighting rod for brining these issues to the foreground.
Which issues? Namely that intellectual property in the digital age is a conept that needs major legal readjustments, especially in the face of the following facts:
1) MP3 and similar audio & video compression technologies allow media to be stored in a compact format.
2) The slow but steady increase in the availability of high-bandwidth services allows for distribution of these.
3) The distributed nature of the Net makes it very difficult to prosecute individual users. Centralized services such as Napster are easy targets; Gnutella & FreeNet are next to impossible to control.
The issue is whether or not these factors lead to the conclusion that the record companies are out of date. The primary purpose of a record company is as a distribution mechanism. Once upon a time it was economically beneficial for artists to work with record companies in order to efficiently distribute their works. This is no longer true. An artist can simply set up a web page with their tunes readily available; the record company as distributor has become unnecessary. With technology being at the state it is now, BMG, Sony, and all the rest are simply unneeded middleman. They are hurting, not helping, the market in this respect by impeding the free-flow of goods. (And by free, I mean free.)
The secondary purpose of a record company is marketing. Bill Hicks once said "If you're in marketing or advertising do me a favor and kill yourself. You serve no rational purpose." Definately not-PC, but there is a kernel of truth to this: namely, that marketing is about lies and deception. The desire to buy is inflated by advertisers not because of intrinsic worth, but because of chicks in bikinis, or making it look uncool, or whatever means are available that mostly do not reflect the truth of the situation. Advertising is about emotive responses; advertisers get scared whenever consumers begin to actually use their brains as a reasoning tool.
I can't speak for everyone, but this really annoys me. I do not believe people should lie unless it is absolutely necessary. That's just wrong. I don't have many scruples, but this is one that seems to be pretty workable. Since advertising is mostly based upon lying, I hold advertisers to be worthless turds as a whole. This is admittedly a crass ad hominem attack, but it is one that I find difficult to escape.
If record companies are removed from the equation, then musicians will rise to the top based upon whatever factors currently resonate with the listeners. There will be no corporate executives deciding what the market does or does not want (which happens, I imagine, quite frequently.) More variety will be available, and I cannot help but believe that this will be a Good Thing(tm). In my fantasy world, banal tripe such as Backstreet Sync and Brittney Aguillera will be delegated to Saturday morning "Say No To Drugs" propaganda.
By impeding the way for MP3 distribution channels to function unmolested, the record companies are serving their bottom line only, not artists, not consumers, not the music industry as a whole, not the market as a whole. They are an unneeded barrier towards a smoothly functioning economy. They act as a pseudo-governmental entity, using the power of their attorneys to coerce both listener and artist to do their bidding. Their lobbying of Congress is famous, their rhetoric almost religious in its tone.
The facts being what they are, there are two obvious remedies available:
1) Do not change IP laws. Step up enforcement of existing copyright laws. This will entail more law enforcement officers, perhaps even necessitating a new UN enforcement agency or something under the Department of Justice in the US.
2) Change IP laws. Allow artists control of their works to distribute as they wish. Encourage a "common carrier" interpretation of the laws insofar as Napster-ish companies are concerned. Don't panic! The world will not end EVEN IF 95% of the population downloads their songs, movies, or books of of the internet.
There are only two absolutely necessary components to music: a performer, and an audience. Technology has frequently been a means to streamline business processes. This can lead to short-term losses such as when robots replace factory workers, cow-milking machines replace udder-pullers, or spreadsheet programs make bookkeepers unnecessary. Similary, the recording industry is an antiquated business schema that only serves to hinder the relationships between artists and their afficiandos. Radical changes to IP law are unlikly, considering the fact that so much precedent exists. But changes on the edges can (and should) be made, lest we have rapant wiretapping and further swells in our prison population.
It is indeed Switzerland. Every adult male there is required to serve in the military, and they are all issued a weapon after they leave the service. This is to be kept in their homes in case their services become necessary at a later date.
I would argue that we can't trust anyone. I think we should ban the whole mess.
Call me an optimist, or just naive. But I have just now finally come to the conclusion that the moderation system needs some fundamental changes. I've been holding out because it seems to work more often than not. But if morons like this guy can get modded up to a 4, then please break out them O'Reilley Perl books and let's get crackin.
Or maybe this was just a PETA AI-bot they have spamming slashdot.
Yes, this is flamebait and should not be moderated up, either. Sheesh.
I doubt this. There are foreign corporations with both the means and the money to check out those chips backwards & forwards. Although I do wonder about the US's about-face on crypto. This does seem ominous, especially since the FBI has been screaming about this for years and when the restrictions are wholly dropped they make nary a peep. Interesting. Maybe Carnivore is more widespread than is commonly believed.
Dammit! You stole my idea! I was fully intending to post subject:"Bruce Campbell!" before I even read this damn thread, and there you are spoiling my karma whoring. Rat mutant telepathic prescient bastard!
Wiccans? Sweet Jesus, nobody hates and fears wiccans.
Oh man, you are so wrong. I had the misfortune of finding myself in a BAPTIST CHURCH not too long ago. They have "prayer requests" before their service, and one of the requests was for some ladies niece who had joined that "Satanic cult", Wicca. This caused an audible and angry murmor from the audience. These people are witches, after all, and the Bible says we gots ta BURN those people!
Come to Texas and flip on some of the local religious AM stations. You'll be bound to hear somebody bemoaning the onset of this evil cult. I've heard it plenty of times. [Full disclosure: When I'm in a foul mood I listen to Christian radio. It gives me something solid to get self-righteous about.]
This is totally OT, but there's no "general/. bitch area" that I know about..
Can we PLEASE make it an unspoken rule that by default posters are NOT lawyers. I swear every fifth post has "IANAL, but..." It's driving me nutso! Whenever lawyers DO pop their heads up and post, they clearly indicate that they are lawyers, this isn't legal advice, etc., etc. If you don't do this then you ain't an attorney and we just assume as much.
Personally, I think all the sexually repressed geeks around here are subconsciously making up for it by throwing ANAL into as many posts as they can realisitically get away with. Freud would chuckle, that's for sure.
If it wasn't completely resolved in the film, it doesn't matter. The uncertainty was made part of the film (a very interesting and important part), the conclusion was not.
I think that is one of the most shallow comments I've ever read. I can not BELIEVE it got modded up to a 5. HOly cow.
Look, I know this might be hard to comprehend with your sophomore level of literary analysis, but ambiguity is very often the essence of good literature (of which I definately consider Blade Runner to be a part of.) The things which aren't in the work are sometimes more important than the things that are in it. Subtle implications are difficult to communicate; the hints strewn throughout the film were just substantial enough that astute viewers figured it out. It's the dull dolts like you that take away all the intelligent discussion in topics like this. The fact that the director has come out and said this is definately worthwhile, considering the existence of these hints.
Go back to watching Dukes of Hazzard. Try and steer clear of complex plots. They seem to confuse you.
Every day, it seems, we see more and more stories about how group X is violating privacy. From Echelon to RealNetworks, privacy abuse is very, very obviously pervasive and almost totally unchecked.
And what does the/. crowd do? They bitch. Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch. Katz spews out another horror piece. User comments that amount to little more than "that sucks!" are moderated up to 5. Endless debate occurs over the rights of states & corporations vs. the rights of the individuals. On and on and on...
In the meantime, little harm occurs to those who violate these rights. Have you written or called your Congresscritter to bitch about this? Yes, money rules politics. But so does the ballot box. If they think that there are concerned citizens out there it will at least give them pause before voting for the "Feinstein-Helms Let's Give the Corporations More Power to Eavesdrop Bill of 2000". PLEASE spend less time posting comments here and more time calling up Congressmembers. Bitch to THEM. Get active! As cool as/. is, it affects policy only marginally. "They've got the guns but we've got the numbers" as Jim Morrison famously said. Bitch, moan, complain and do so loudly and consistently.
[Note: This message applies worldwide: just replace "Congress" with "Parliament" or "Duma" or whatever happens to apply to your particular locale. But fucking DO it. Nothing positive will happen in the "real world", no matter how high your karma is here.]
This should probably be modded as flamebait, because I am trying to be inflammatory. I *want* people to get pissed.
And while we're at it, can someone email me & tell me why IPv6/IPsec hasn't been widely implemented yet? Packet level encryption would help in situations like this.
That is so monumentally naive as to be borderline retarded. Sue the FBI for wiretapping? Yeah... A couple of questions:
A) Do YOU have the technical resources to be able to to tell they are wiretapping on your phone, let alone an ISP?
B) Do you really think that such a lawsuit could be successfully brought, let alone won?
C) "Innocent until proven guilty." Repeat this 10 times until it sinks in, please, because it is the foundation upon which our justice system is built.
D) Many times what is legal is a matter of controversy. That's why we have Courts and lawyers. If it were cut-and-dry we could have some M$ run expert-system doling out justice. The fact that we still have humans behind the bench is good evidence that the law is sometimes a mirky bog. Just because the FBI thinks something is illegal does not necessarily make it so.
Ummm, that's not necessarily the case, especially with the current makeup of the Court. The Justices who are "tough on crime" hold a solid majority, although Rhenquist and Scalia surprise me somtimes. Wiretapping has traditionally been held by the Court to be within the realm of powers granted to the Federal government, and very few wiretapping cases seen favorable outcomes as far as civil libertarians are concerned. As such, I doubt that there would even be enough votes cast for the Court to hear such a case, yet alone have an outcome that would be unfavorable to the LEAs.
MAn, we sound like our grandparents. But I happen to agree with you. Usenet is basically 100% crap now, especially alt.binaries.pictures.erotica. I mean, there's nuthin but spam. I just want my porn. I say that we need new rules: Anyone can WWW, but you have to take a test before you can get on usenet. - Rev.
Bush, if he is elected (which seems likely, alas) will be powerless to stop the drug war. The allegations of coke use that have dogged him throughout the campaign will prohibit this because he has lost credibility on the issue. If he even begins to weaken the existing statutes, he will be criticized roundly as a hypocrite. Further, he is tied so heavily to coporate interests (of which the prison industry is a major sponsor, especially in Texas) it is doubtful that the good Guv will even consider it. Legalization is, after all, something only left-wing hippie types want, and we all know that liberals are always wrong.
This is sad, because I firmly believe that drug reform must come from the Republicans. Democrats, after getting burned on being labeled "soft on crime" for so long, are loathe to pursue any criminal legislation that doesn't result in grater rates of incarceration or death. The Republicans, traditionally viewed as the harsher disciplinarians, don't have this weakness, and calls for legalization/decrim from them will therefore carry more weight.
<begin blatant ad hominem attack>>Man I tell you what, and them queers just keep wantin people to not kill 'em, too. K-K-K-linton has just been a whorin for the UN, workin on gettin those chips in our hayds so that they c'n knows where whur at ALL DA TIME. It's just like da Bible sez, mayne. And we get Algore in office and man Satan's gonna be walkin down dis here street, knowwhatImean? lt;end>
Look mon: The fact that you're too dumb to use PGP isn't Clinton's fault. And I just keep re-reading that article and NO WHERE does it say that they were using cookies as a "positive show of technology at work", like you claimed.
The ONDBC should be abolished, there's no doubt of that. BUT if you're gonna critisize someone or something, get your facts straight. You just sound like yet another mindless sheep of a dittohead when you don't.
wa1t, this msg is flamebait, but it's insightful, too! What do I do!
...is available at here. This has a crapload of doubclick type sites that are all redirected to a blank domain. I did not put the work into this, someone else did, but I don't remember who.
<lapclapclapclapclapclap> Hear, hear! Couldn't have said it better m'self.
The "official" line: "Drugs aren't fun! People who do them aren't having more fun than you! Marijuana doesn't make you feel good! LSD doesn't lead to a strange sort of philosophical enlightenment! We only talk about bad things! We will lie to you, use underhanded and shady techniques, take away your personal property, and put you in jail if you disagree with us and act on that disagreement!
"You are free to do what we tell you. You are free to do what we tell you."
Y'know, for all the MS bashing that goes on here and elsewhere, it's stuff like this that at least makes the market lumber forward. Sun, I am sure, is at least remotely concerned at the prospect of this biting into the Java market. Sun will therefore add some new bells & whistles, about 10% of which will actually be useful. MS will respond similarly. Rinse, lather, repeat. Yes, MS sometimes puts out shoddy product. But they also are a huge motivator for everyone to kick ass, lest the huge beast from Redmon trample them. Or better yet, devour them in a buyout.
Would it really be so bad if Walt Disney, Co. lost their copyright protections to Mickey & Co? Sure, we'd start seeing Mickey pop up in all sorts of unexpected places, and Disney might suffer harm because of this. But economics is not a zero-zum game. Were Disney to be terminally damaged by this and soon thereafter be relegated to the nostalgia bin, there would be another entertainment conglomerate to rise in its place.
My point? That the "overly strong" copyright laws that exist today are actually weaking our economy. For certain, these copyright laws are benefiting the status quo: Disney, Seagrams, etc. But by putting up legislative barriers to innovation such as these, companies are protected from having to compete in the arena of ideas. Further, I have a very hard time with the idea of almost perpetual protection for cartoon characters, jingles, and pop horror films. There are always the so-called "experts" who frighten Congresscritters with their gloom-and-doom predictions were Mickey to go into the public domain. I hardly believe the world economy would crash. We'd just start seeing more Mickey, and probably in ways that Disney doesn't like. That is not a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The FBI is a very major government organization paid for by our tax dollars. I may not agree with their moves all the time, but I trust that they are only concerned about the best interest of our country. Why would they go out of their way to harm the very citizens who keep them running?
Oh that's easy. Because they're assholes.
- Rev.Should revenge enter into the equation of how justice is distributed? And doesn't it seem at all contradictory that the laws say that killing is wrong, unless you are with the government? I trust the government with my life even less than I trust them with my money.
- Rev.
IMHO, these issues bring up many salient points in regards to the way our intellectual property laws are structured, and how advances in technology affect them. Whether the powers that be like it or not, file sharing will continue. Closed-source software companies have been trying to prohibit copying for years, and they have found it just as difficult as the entertainment industry is.
It seems to me to be almost a law of physics that if it can be put into digital form, it's distribution cannot be controlled. The hacker credo we are all familiar with says it best: "Information wants to be free." As cliched as that statement has become, it is frequently a truism. Without a totalitarian system of government -- and maybe even with it -- the distribution of MP3s, .RARs, and other ph1l3z is almost impossible to control.
So where does this leave us? With the increasingly apparent realization that the current IP structure must be changed or perhaps (in a world inhabited by Katzians) discarded. Corporate IP attorneys can sue until they are blue in the face, but there will still be FreeNet, Gnutella, et al.
- Rev.An offensive T-Shirt is illegal if it breaks decency laws. If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, then its propogation via T-shirt print is, sadly, as illegal. There's nothing special about T-Shirts, they're merely another medium.
First: Name a single "decency" law that has withstood Constitutional scrutiny, please. There was a case in the early 70's (I forget the case name) where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a biker who was thrown in jail for wearing a leather jacket with the word "FUCK" emblazoned in large letters across the back. (He was on trial for marijuana possession, wore it to court, and the judge was not amused.)
The Court takes free speech *very* seriously. There are a very, very limited set of circumstances wherein prior restraint will withstand Constitutional muster:
It must be a clear and present danger to national security.
It must "appeal solely to the prurient interest and hold no artistic, scientific, or educational value" [from memory], i.e. it must be obscene. This is a very difficult thing to prove.
"Fighting words" are also unprotcted. If you are black, and I walk up to you and say "you dumb nigger", and you promptly beat my ass, I will have very little protection under the law.
So if the T-Shirt can be viewed as a political statement, even if it takes a stretch of the imagination to do so, then it will very probably be considered speech by the courts.
The ACLU has a good briefing on this here.
Remember, the First Amendment is the higher law whenever it conflicts with copyrights. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; copyright laws are enacted by Congress. T-Shirts are special, and are viewed so by the courts, merely because they are an expression of speech.
- Rev.> It's not about the record companies screwing the little guys... It never has been, and I've definitely had enough of this bloody topic!
Not correct. This is definately about just what you said it isn't: namely, the record companies screwing the "little guys". But not only them--which I assume you mean the consumers--but the artists as well. The only people in the entire marketplace who are happy with the RIAA, MPAA, et. al., are the RIAA, MPAA, et. al. Both the consumer and the artist have bitch gripes with these entities; Napster is the lighting rod for brining these issues to the foreground.
Which issues? Namely that intellectual property in the digital age is a conept that needs major legal readjustments, especially in the face of the following facts:
1) MP3 and similar audio & video compression technologies allow media to be stored in a compact format.
2) The slow but steady increase in the availability of high-bandwidth services allows for distribution of these.
3) The distributed nature of the Net makes it very difficult to prosecute individual users. Centralized services such as Napster are easy targets; Gnutella & FreeNet are next to impossible to control.
The issue is whether or not these factors lead to the conclusion that the record companies are out of date. The primary purpose of a record company is as a distribution mechanism. Once upon a time it was economically beneficial for artists to work with record companies in order to efficiently distribute their works. This is no longer true. An artist can simply set up a web page with their tunes readily available; the record company as distributor has become unnecessary. With technology being at the state it is now, BMG, Sony, and all the rest are simply unneeded middleman. They are hurting, not helping, the market in this respect by impeding the free-flow of goods. (And by free, I mean free.)
The secondary purpose of a record company is marketing. Bill Hicks once said "If you're in marketing or advertising do me a favor and kill yourself. You serve no rational purpose." Definately not-PC, but there is a kernel of truth to this: namely, that marketing is about lies and deception. The desire to buy is inflated by advertisers not because of intrinsic worth, but because of chicks in bikinis, or making it look uncool, or whatever means are available that mostly do not reflect the truth of the situation. Advertising is about emotive responses; advertisers get scared whenever consumers begin to actually use their brains as a reasoning tool.
I can't speak for everyone, but this really annoys me. I do not believe people should lie unless it is absolutely necessary. That's just wrong. I don't have many scruples, but this is one that seems to be pretty workable. Since advertising is mostly based upon lying, I hold advertisers to be worthless turds as a whole. This is admittedly a crass ad hominem attack, but it is one that I find difficult to escape.
If record companies are removed from the equation, then musicians will rise to the top based upon whatever factors currently resonate with the listeners. There will be no corporate executives deciding what the market does or does not want (which happens, I imagine, quite frequently.) More variety will be available, and I cannot help but believe that this will be a Good Thing(tm). In my fantasy world, banal tripe such as Backstreet Sync and Brittney Aguillera will be delegated to Saturday morning "Say No To Drugs" propaganda.
By impeding the way for MP3 distribution channels to function unmolested, the record companies are serving their bottom line only, not artists, not consumers, not the music industry as a whole, not the market as a whole. They are an unneeded barrier towards a smoothly functioning economy. They act as a pseudo-governmental entity, using the power of their attorneys to coerce both listener and artist to do their bidding. Their lobbying of Congress is famous, their rhetoric almost religious in its tone.
The facts being what they are, there are two obvious remedies available:
1) Do not change IP laws. Step up enforcement of existing copyright laws. This will entail more law enforcement officers, perhaps even necessitating a new UN enforcement agency or something under the Department of Justice in the US.
2) Change IP laws. Allow artists control of their works to distribute as they wish. Encourage a "common carrier" interpretation of the laws insofar as Napster-ish companies are concerned. Don't panic! The world will not end EVEN IF 95% of the population downloads their songs, movies, or books of of the internet.
There are only two absolutely necessary components to music: a performer, and an audience. Technology has frequently been a means to streamline business processes. This can lead to short-term losses such as when robots replace factory workers, cow-milking machines replace udder-pullers, or spreadsheet programs make bookkeepers unnecessary. Similary, the recording industry is an antiquated business schema that only serves to hinder the relationships between artists and their afficiandos. Radical changes to IP law are unlikly, considering the fact that so much precedent exists. But changes on the edges can (and should) be made, lest we have rapant wiretapping and further swells in our prison population.
It is indeed Switzerland. Every adult male there is required to serve in the military, and they are all issued a weapon after they leave the service. This is to be kept in their homes in case their services become necessary at a later date.
- Rev.
Call me an optimist, or just naive. But I have just now finally come to the conclusion that the moderation system needs some fundamental changes. I've been holding out because it seems to work more often than not. But if morons like this guy can get modded up to a 4, then please break out them O'Reilley Perl books and let's get crackin.
Or maybe this was just a PETA AI-bot they have spamming slashdot.
Yes, this is flamebait and should not be moderated up, either. Sheesh.
- Rev.I doubt this. There are foreign corporations with both the means and the money to check out those chips backwards & forwards. Although I do wonder about the US's about-face on crypto. This does seem ominous, especially since the FBI has been screaming about this for years and when the restrictions are wholly dropped they make nary a peep. Interesting. Maybe Carnivore is more widespread than is commonly believed.
Use PGP goddammit!
- Rev.
Dammit! You stole my idea! I was fully intending to post subject:"Bruce Campbell!" before I even read this damn thread, and there you are spoiling my karma whoring. Rat mutant telepathic prescient bastard!
- Rev.
Wiccans? Sweet Jesus, nobody hates and fears wiccans.
Oh man, you are so wrong. I had the misfortune of finding myself in a BAPTIST CHURCH not too long ago. They have "prayer requests" before their service, and one of the requests was for some ladies niece who had joined that "Satanic cult", Wicca. This caused an audible and angry murmor from the audience. These people are witches, after all, and the Bible says we gots ta BURN those people!
Come to Texas and flip on some of the local religious AM stations. You'll be bound to hear somebody bemoaning the onset of this evil cult. I've heard it plenty of times. [Full disclosure: When I'm in a foul mood I listen to Christian radio. It gives me something solid to get self-righteous about.]
- Rev.This is really simple. Go get PGP from MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.htmlIt's free. It's strong. It's open-source. Annoy the government. Use it.
- Rev.This is totally OT, but there's no "general /. bitch area" that I know about..
Can we PLEASE make it an unspoken rule that by default posters are NOT lawyers. I swear every fifth post has "IANAL, but..." It's driving me nutso! Whenever lawyers DO pop their heads up and post, they clearly indicate that they are lawyers, this isn't legal advice, etc., etc. If you don't do this then you ain't an attorney and we just assume as much.
Personally, I think all the sexually repressed geeks around here are subconsciously making up for it by throwing ANAL into as many posts as they can realisitically get away with. Freud would chuckle, that's for sure.
- Rev.If it wasn't completely resolved in the film, it doesn't matter. The uncertainty was made part of the film (a very interesting and important part), the conclusion was not.
I think that is one of the most shallow comments I've ever read. I can not BELIEVE it got modded up to a 5. HOly cow.
Look, I know this might be hard to comprehend with your sophomore level of literary analysis, but ambiguity is very often the essence of good literature (of which I definately consider Blade Runner to be a part of.) The things which aren't in the work are sometimes more important than the things that are in it. Subtle implications are difficult to communicate; the hints strewn throughout the film were just substantial enough that astute viewers figured it out. It's the dull dolts like you that take away all the intelligent discussion in topics like this. The fact that the director has come out and said this is definately worthwhile, considering the existence of these hints.
Go back to watching Dukes of Hazzard. Try and steer clear of complex plots. They seem to confuse you.
- Rev.You know, for someone who posts so much you sure don't get moderated up very often.
^^--- This ad hominem attack was brought to you by the letter "M" and the number "23" -- ^^
- Rev.
Every day, it seems, we see more and more stories about how group X is violating privacy. From Echelon to RealNetworks, privacy abuse is very, very obviously pervasive and almost totally unchecked.
And what does the /. crowd do? They bitch. Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch. Katz spews out another horror piece. User comments that amount to little more than "that sucks!" are moderated up to 5. Endless debate occurs over the rights of states & corporations vs. the rights of the individuals. On and on and on...
In the meantime, little harm occurs to those who violate these rights. Have you written or called your Congresscritter to bitch about this? Yes, money rules politics. But so does the ballot box. If they think that there are concerned citizens out there it will at least give them pause before voting for the "Feinstein-Helms Let's Give the Corporations More Power to Eavesdrop Bill of 2000". PLEASE spend less time posting comments here and more time calling up Congressmembers. Bitch to THEM. Get active! As cool as /. is, it affects policy only marginally. "They've got the guns but we've got the numbers" as Jim Morrison famously said. Bitch, moan, complain and do so loudly and consistently.
[Note: This message applies worldwide: just replace "Congress" with "Parliament" or "Duma" or whatever happens to apply to your particular locale. But fucking DO it. Nothing positive will happen in the "real world", no matter how high your karma is here.]
This should probably be modded as flamebait, because I am trying to be inflammatory. I *want* people to get pissed.
And while we're at it, can someone email me & tell me why IPv6/IPsec hasn't been widely implemented yet? Packet level encryption would help in situations like this.
- Rev.That is so monumentally naive as to be borderline retarded. Sue the FBI for wiretapping? Yeah... A couple of questions:
A) Do YOU have the technical resources to be able to to tell they are wiretapping on your phone, let alone an ISP?
B) Do you really think that such a lawsuit could be successfully brought, let alone won?
C) "Innocent until proven guilty." Repeat this 10 times until it sinks in, please, because it is the foundation upon which our justice system is built.
D) Many times what is legal is a matter of controversy. That's why we have Courts and lawyers. If it were cut-and-dry we could have some M$ run expert-system doling out justice. The fact that we still have humans behind the bench is good evidence that the law is sometimes a mirky bog. Just because the FBI thinks something is illegal does not necessarily make it so.
- Rev.
Ummm, that's not necessarily the case, especially with the current makeup of the Court. The Justices who are "tough on crime" hold a solid majority, although Rhenquist and Scalia surprise me somtimes. Wiretapping has traditionally been held by the Court to be within the realm of powers granted to the Federal government, and very few wiretapping cases seen favorable outcomes as far as civil libertarians are concerned. As such, I doubt that there would even be enough votes cast for the Court to hear such a case, yet alone have an outcome that would be unfavorable to the LEAs.
- Rev.
MAn, we sound like our grandparents. But I happen to agree with you. Usenet is basically 100% crap now, especially alt.binaries.pictures.erotica. I mean, there's nuthin but spam. I just want my porn. I say that we need new rules: Anyone can WWW, but you have to take a test before you can get on usenet. - Rev.
Bush, if he is elected (which seems likely, alas) will be powerless to stop the drug war. The allegations of coke use that have dogged him throughout the campaign will prohibit this because he has lost credibility on the issue. If he even begins to weaken the existing statutes, he will be criticized roundly as a hypocrite. Further, he is tied so heavily to coporate interests (of which the prison industry is a major sponsor, especially in Texas) it is doubtful that the good Guv will even consider it. Legalization is, after all, something only left-wing hippie types want, and we all know that liberals are always wrong.
This is sad, because I firmly believe that drug reform must come from the Republicans. Democrats, after getting burned on being labeled "soft on crime" for so long, are loathe to pursue any criminal legislation that doesn't result in grater rates of incarceration or death. The Republicans, traditionally viewed as the harsher disciplinarians, don't have this weakness, and calls for legalization/decrim from them will therefore carry more weight.
THIS POST IS OFF TOPIC.
- Rev.<begin blatant ad hominem attack>>Man I tell you what, and them queers just keep wantin people to not kill 'em, too. K-K-K-linton has just been a whorin for the UN, workin on gettin those chips in our hayds so that they c'n knows where whur at ALL DA TIME. It's just like da Bible sez, mayne. And we get Algore in office and man Satan's gonna be walkin down dis here street, knowwhatImean? lt;end>
Look mon: The fact that you're too dumb to use PGP isn't Clinton's fault. And I just keep re-reading that article and NO WHERE does it say that they were using cookies as a "positive show of technology at work", like you claimed.
The ONDBC should be abolished, there's no doubt of that. BUT if you're gonna critisize someone or something, get your facts straight. You just sound like yet another mindless sheep of a dittohead when you don't.
wa1t, this msg is flamebait, but it's insightful, too! What do I do!
- Rev....is available at here. This has a crapload of doubclick type sites that are all redirected to a blank domain. I did not put the work into this, someone else did, but I don't remember who.
Yes, this will filter out 90% of all banner ads.
- Rev.<lapclapclapclapclapclap> Hear, hear! Couldn't have said it better m'self.
The "official" line: "Drugs aren't fun! People who do them aren't having more fun than you! Marijuana doesn't make you feel good! LSD doesn't lead to a strange sort of philosophical enlightenment! We only talk about bad things! We will lie to you, use underhanded and shady techniques, take away your personal property, and put you in jail if you disagree with us and act on that disagreement!
"You are free to do what we tell you. You are free to do what we tell you."
- Rev.Y'know, for all the MS bashing that goes on here and elsewhere, it's stuff like this that at least makes the market lumber forward. Sun, I am sure, is at least remotely concerned at the prospect of this biting into the Java market. Sun will therefore add some new bells & whistles, about 10% of which will actually be useful. MS will respond similarly. Rinse, lather, repeat. Yes, MS sometimes puts out shoddy product. But they also are a huge motivator for everyone to kick ass, lest the huge beast from Redmon trample them. Or better yet, devour them in a buyout.
- Rev.Would it really be so bad if Walt Disney, Co. lost their copyright protections to Mickey & Co? Sure, we'd start seeing Mickey pop up in all sorts of unexpected places, and Disney might suffer harm because of this. But economics is not a zero-zum game. Were Disney to be terminally damaged by this and soon thereafter be relegated to the nostalgia bin, there would be another entertainment conglomerate to rise in its place.
My point? That the "overly strong" copyright laws that exist today are actually weaking our economy. For certain, these copyright laws are benefiting the status quo: Disney, Seagrams, etc. But by putting up legislative barriers to innovation such as these, companies are protected from having to compete in the arena of ideas. Further, I have a very hard time with the idea of almost perpetual protection for cartoon characters, jingles, and pop horror films. There are always the so-called "experts" who frighten Congresscritters with their gloom-and-doom predictions were Mickey to go into the public domain. I hardly believe the world economy would crash. We'd just start seeing more Mickey, and probably in ways that Disney doesn't like. That is not a bad thing.
- Rev.Ok ok, I screwed up. Would someone moderate my original post DOWN please? Egg on MY face, fer shure.
- Rev.