First of all, I'd like to point out that before all this madness occured, it was thought that Bush may win the popular vote, but Gore win the electoral vote. Gore didn't complain about that possibility. Now we come to the interesting proposition that Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Now (gasp!) Gore doesn't think that the electoral system is fair.
You have evidence that Gore has a gripe with the Electoral College? Please show it.
No, you say, I'm a hardcore free-software supporter. Sure. You may be the hardest of the hard-core, but will even you continue to use a truly free, non-proprietary internet when the only people on it are you and RMS?
It was that way in the 1980s, and we liked it then.
There is a simple solution. However it is probably not politically correct to ICANN. That is to make ownership of a.com and a.biz domain mutually exclusive.
Sorry, that won't work.
Make that rule, and you'll find that every corporation spins off a new division, separately incorporated, to hold the.biz domain. Or you'll find brother-of-owner holding the.biz domain. And so on.
You just can't map domains on a one-to-one basis with domain holders. In business, it's not always simple to determine where one ownership leaves off and the other begins.
I mean, true, now the school *has* to comply. Doesn't mean that they have to make it easy.
Yes it does.
Judges don't appreciate being jerked around.
The school is going to have to comply with the
letter and the spirit of the ruling. Making
it gratuitously difficult to read the data
isn't in that spirit.
if your assertion is correct, i wonder if it would be useful at all for someone to develop a formal basic english language subset so that native english speakers could explicitly restrict themselves to that subset when communicating to an international community
It seemed a bit like having your cake and eating it too -- as if the Republicans had a red meat platform which banned abortions for the faithful and a milquetoast platform for the general public. You make it seem much more like standard messiness of the democratic process (democracy being the absolutely worst system of government except for all the rest of them).
But... ummmm... the Republicans do have two platforms. I mean, no, they're not coming out and saying it, but do you really think that the theocrats and other right-wing nuts have all left the Republican Party? No, they're staying quiet until after the election.
Bush is a stealth candidate for the Republican right-wingers. I don't believe he's really as moderate as he's trying to sound right now.
Open source splits this right down the middle--you get competent people to develop your products but you get access to the source to make changes if you want. cool, eh?
Indeed. And Open Source doesn't have to be "free beer" if you don't want it to be. Suppose the US Department of Transportation (DoT) were to put out a contract for a new ATCS on the condition that it be Open Source compliant. The DoT might pay tens of millions of dollars for such a system. Regional airport authorities would have the ability to make (or contract out) bug fixes or enhancements as needed, although they'd probably prefer to coordinate through the DoT.
This is a situation where you don't care if it's "free beer" as long as you can have "free speech."
Magazines *always* include lot's a free stuff with their subscriptions. This can hardly be claimed to be "unsolicited". Why, Just recently I recieved a poster with my Sys Admin magazine, and a CD with my Java Developers Journal. Oh, yeah, and a cuecat was sent to those who had Wired subscriptions.
Precisely. And if Sys Admin tried to tell you what you could and couldn't do with that poster,
that would be illegal too.
One of the places I went to, I first thought they'd lost my CV, when I gave it to them they said they'd get back to me to arrange an interview, instead they ignored me. I phoned them a few weeks later ("uh, we'll look at your CV and call you"). Six months later, long after I'd already found a decent job myself, they had the cheek to call me back and nag me to find a job for me. Now that I'd had a bit of fulltime work experience, *now* they suddenly wanted to help me. As if I was going to help them after that.
When I graduated from college, there were a couple of "search firms" who told me directly, "We don't do entry-level, but please call us when you have more experience." I didn't like that answer, but at least they had the courtesy to be forthright about what they wouldn't do.
There was a pretty good description of what happened in Seattle, as opposed to what was presented in mainstream media, in Paul Hawken's essay and more at the Red Rock Eater.
A similar "group of experts" was used to review the Clipper encryption chip.
Amazingly, the selected experts were all law-enforcement-friendly (in the pejorative sense) and amazingly, they all said it looked fine, no civil liberties worries.
Prepare to be amazed again if the court settles for a group of experts.
There's only one excuse, IMO, for a web design firm to put carp like that on a client site's "welcome" page... if the client company puts their foot down and absolutely demands it after being briefed about what a terrible idea it is.
And even then it might be a good idea to try to excuse oneself from the project rather than be associated with such stupid practices.
I would understand the designer's problem with this if they said, "We couldn't back out of the contract, and IAM absolutely insisted on an all-Javascript welcome page even though we told them in writing it was a very bad idea."
[regarding the five-day period to reject deliverables]
I just signed something like that. Couple-month project, client insists on a 45-day payment cycle. I came back with an offer to accommodate that with a ten-day period to reject deliverables.
The alternative was to allow for the possibility of the client letting me finish the whole project and then refusing to pay all the invoices after the fact. If they have a problem with my work, they have to say so before it's too late to get paid!
If these allegations are true, then I'd say there definitely was a breach of contract and that IAM.com has every right to sue.
I have no way of knowing the specifics, but there could be more to the story. IAM.com may have acted in a way that made it impossible to fulfill the contract. I've seen projects where the end-client imposed layers of complexity that hardly resembled the original contract, and refused to sign off on the job that was actually done to spec. Or sometimes what's in the contract differs from what the guy writing the checks wants, and the developer acting in good faith is caught in the crossfire.
That having been said, it's possible that this sad story is just a result of bad management on IAM's part.
The owner of a copyright has ABSOLUTE CONTROL over their work.
What gave you that idea? Copyright law imposes limits and obligations on all parties, including the copyright holder. Fair use being the most obvious one.
Hmmm but if the carnivore has spotted the names of various drugs in a disproportionately large number of ur emails, isnt that grounds for a warrant?
And then Kahuna wrote back:
But it can't do that. I mean, it won't just "notice" them. Its a computer. If its purpose was to scan for drug references in all emails, they could do that, but it would have to be
on purpose. They couldn't use the "plain sight" defense to validate the evidence, because it requires an extra deliberate step to gather. You can't get a warrent based on evidence that you should have needed a warrent to get. It taints the process all the way down the line.
That's true... if the FBI is interested in a criminal prosecution. As far as I know, but I am not a lawyer nor particularly knowledgeable in the area, the Exclusionary Rule (legal precedent that says you can't use tainted evidence in court) is the only significant disincentive for an illegal search.
If the FBI or other law enforcement agency is more interested in simply harrassing, intimidating, or embarrassing a target, then the Exclusionary Rule has no practical effect.
I just saw Guilty by Suspicion on video the other night. True story, McCarthy era: film director harrassed by FBI agents, blacklisted because he wouldn't testify that his friends were Communists.
Our protagonist in the movie (Robert DeNiro) was investigated and bullied on suspicion of something that isn't (and wasn't) even illegal. The only prosecutions coming out of the McCarthy investigations were for perjury and contempt of Congress, against people who either wouldn't talk to the HUAC or who were caught lying to it. Nobody was convicted of merely being a Party member. But that didn't stop the FBI and the HUAC from carrying out their dirty tricks. And the FBI couldn't be challenged under the Exclusionary Rule because they weren't presenting evidence at trial.
Yes, it would be extremely difficult or impossible for law enforcement to use evidence inappropriately gathered by Carnivore in a criminal trial--they really do have to follow the rules there. But it would be relatively easy to use Carnivore or a similar device to gather information for other purposes, given just a little cooperation from ISPs.
I honestly don't think harrassment or intimidation is the primary purpose of Carnivore. It actually seems pretty mild compared to other more intrusive and less targeted means of investigation. But don't assume that the Fourth Amendment will protect you outside of a criminal courtroom!
Re:Decentralization=Good, and Bad
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
Rumor has it that someone even came up with the idea of giving each state/local province their extension, (so North Carolina would have the extension of www.*****.ncs.us...
Some rumor you got there. Maybe you should check with the people who have run, for example, state.oh.us for years now. It's been done.
If you want to set up your own namespace, it is perfectly simple. ML.ORG did it years ago, and shut down only because it was getting difficult to provide as a free service.
Slashdot Mirror
You have evidence that Gore has a gripe with the Electoral College? Please show it.
Well, not if you're going to make things up.
It was that way in the 1980s, and we liked it then.
Sorry, that won't work.
Make that rule, and you'll find that every corporation spins off a new division, separately incorporated, to hold the .biz domain. Or you'll find brother-of-owner holding the .biz domain. And so on.
You just can't map domains on a one-to-one basis with domain holders. In business, it's not always simple to determine where one ownership leaves off and the other begins.
Yes it does.
Judges don't appreciate being jerked around. The school is going to have to comply with the letter and the spirit of the ruling. Making it gratuitously difficult to read the data isn't in that spirit.
Ideally, you're being assessed a user fee for the privilege of excluding others from the land.
It's been done. And it's called... Basic English.
But... ummmm... the Republicans do have two platforms. I mean, no, they're not coming out and saying it, but do you really think that the theocrats and other right-wing nuts have all left the Republican Party? No, they're staying quiet until after the election.
Bush is a stealth candidate for the Republican right-wingers. I don't believe he's really as moderate as he's trying to sound right now.
Indeed. And Open Source doesn't have to be "free beer" if you don't want it to be. Suppose the US Department of Transportation (DoT) were to put out a contract for a new ATCS on the condition that it be Open Source compliant. The DoT might pay tens of millions of dollars for such a system. Regional airport authorities would have the ability to make (or contract out) bug fixes or enhancements as needed, although they'd probably prefer to coordinate through the DoT.
This is a situation where you don't care if it's "free beer" as long as you can have "free speech."
He's wrong. All monopoly is Privilege, and all Privilege is a tax.
Walker says he's defending property, but he's really defending Privilege.
Precisely. And if Sys Admin tried to tell you what you could and couldn't do with that poster, that would be illegal too.
When I graduated from college, there were a couple of "search firms" who told me directly, "We don't do entry-level, but please call us when you have more experience." I didn't like that answer, but at least they had the courtesy to be forthright about what they wouldn't do.
There was a pretty good description of what happened in Seattle, as opposed to what was presented in mainstream media, in Paul Hawken's essay and more at the Red Rock Eater.
Check it out.
A similar "group of experts" was used to review the Clipper encryption chip.
Amazingly, the selected experts were all law-enforcement-friendly (in the pejorative sense) and amazingly, they all said it looked fine, no civil liberties worries.
Prepare to be amazed again if the court settles for a group of experts.
It is lame. Bugtraq lists a few more vulnerabilities, for all Linuces combined, than for NT. Big whoop, that's just another way of saying "many eyes."
Fred Moody writes flamebait.
When the took the third amendment, you didn't care because the military didn't like your house anyway.
Of course! Why didn't I think of it before? We should be just like China where all the journalists work for the government!
Seebs, you're right. The page sucks.
There's only one excuse, IMO, for a web design firm to put carp like that on a client site's "welcome" page... if the client company puts their foot down and absolutely demands it after being briefed about what a terrible idea it is.
And even then it might be a good idea to try to excuse oneself from the project rather than be associated with such stupid practices.
I would understand the designer's problem with this if they said, "We couldn't back out of the contract, and IAM absolutely insisted on an all-Javascript welcome page even though we told them in writing it was a very bad idea."
[regarding the five-day period to reject deliverables]
I just signed something like that. Couple-month project, client insists on a 45-day payment cycle. I came back with an offer to accommodate that with a ten-day period to reject deliverables.
The alternative was to allow for the possibility of the client letting me finish the whole project and then refusing to pay all the invoices after the fact. If they have a problem with my work, they have to say so before it's too late to get paid!
I have no way of knowing the specifics, but there could be more to the story. IAM.com may have acted in a way that made it impossible to fulfill the contract. I've seen projects where the end-client imposed layers of complexity that hardly resembled the original contract, and refused to sign off on the job that was actually done to spec. Or sometimes what's in the contract differs from what the guy writing the checks wants, and the developer acting in good faith is caught in the crossfire.
That having been said, it's possible that this sad story is just a result of bad management on IAM's part.
I wish companies like Microsoft would quit using the word "technology" to mean "feature," as in "element behavior technology."
I also wish publications like CNet would quit quoting such language abuse uncritically.
[snip comments about required chain of evidence.]
Yes, there is a concern on the part of LEOs that the chain of evidence/custody be maintained.
Gee, too bad for them. If the search becomes "unreasonable" then their concerns lose out to the Constitution.
What gave you that idea? Copyright law imposes limits and obligations on all parties, including the copyright holder. Fair use being the most obvious one.
Someone wrote:
And then Kahuna wrote back:
That's true... if the FBI is interested in a criminal prosecution. As far as I know, but I am not a lawyer nor particularly knowledgeable in the area, the Exclusionary Rule (legal precedent that says you can't use tainted evidence in court) is the only significant disincentive for an illegal search.
If the FBI or other law enforcement agency is more interested in simply harrassing, intimidating, or embarrassing a target, then the Exclusionary Rule has no practical effect.
I just saw Guilty by Suspicion on video the other night. True story, McCarthy era: film director harrassed by FBI agents, blacklisted because he wouldn't testify that his friends were Communists.
Our protagonist in the movie (Robert DeNiro) was investigated and bullied on suspicion of something that isn't (and wasn't) even illegal. The only prosecutions coming out of the McCarthy investigations were for perjury and contempt of Congress, against people who either wouldn't talk to the HUAC or who were caught lying to it. Nobody was convicted of merely being a Party member. But that didn't stop the FBI and the HUAC from carrying out their dirty tricks. And the FBI couldn't be challenged under the Exclusionary Rule because they weren't presenting evidence at trial.
Yes, it would be extremely difficult or impossible for law enforcement to use evidence inappropriately gathered by Carnivore in a criminal trial--they really do have to follow the rules there. But it would be relatively easy to use Carnivore or a similar device to gather information for other purposes, given just a little cooperation from ISPs.
I honestly don't think harrassment or intimidation is the primary purpose of Carnivore. It actually seems pretty mild compared to other more intrusive and less targeted means of investigation. But don't assume that the Fourth Amendment will protect you outside of a criminal courtroom!
Some rumor you got there. Maybe you should check with the people who have run, for example, state.oh.us for years now. It's been done.
If you want to set up your own namespace, it is perfectly simple. ML.ORG did it years ago, and shut down only because it was getting difficult to provide as a free service.
Why the hell not?
Nothing wrong with that job. If you like talking to people and don't need to make much money, it's really quite a good job.