"Enough slashdotters are young professionals with a well paying job"
How many of us will be buying a new car in the next month? The next year? I know I won't be looking for a new car until at least after the warranty on my Hyundai wears out. And even then I won't be looking at Nissans anyway as they design their cars for Japanese drivers (and I'm a bit larger than the average Japanese driver). And I sure as hell won't be buying one of their "trucks" because I know that real trucks don't have sparkplugs (they're actually proud of helping to introduce the "light truck" class?).
At worst your boycott idea will rob Nissan of what, half a dozen vehicle sales in all the North American market?
"That's really the definition of "Civil Disobedience"."
Nah, that was the definition 100+ years ago. Today it involves chaining yourself to things, overturning cars, smashing windows, generally blocking public right-of-ways and using/damaging private property and then claiming that the First Amendment protects all this. None of it actually involves breaking a specific law that you're protesting.
On the other hand, places like Texas and Florida have the advantages of being able to put whatever you want to have thrown up into space into the back of a truck and simply driving it down to Texas or Florida. Just about any place else and you'll have to find a ship to bring your stuff out there, and unless we're talking about Hawaii or a US posession/territory, you'll then have to deal with import/export regulations, which may or may not include tariffs/duties/etc.
Just because it's somewhat cheaper to launch from lower latitudes doesn't mean it's also easier to reach the launch sitess down there. Name one country on the equator with a half-way modern trasportation infrastructure.
"What if your private rocket has a malfunction and goes slamming into a major city, killing thousands?"
That's why the US DOD requires that any and all space launches from the US have to be able to self-destruct into peices smaller than some threshold I don't know off the top of my head. Think of the various Delta II launch failures.
Besides, although I don't know what lattitude this site is at, the only major city that could be under their launch path is maybe Orlando, FL. And the rocket would probably be too high/fast to hit that target only a few seconds after launch.
"What wouldn't be legal? Its space, its like international waters."
First you have to get there. When last I checked, All of Texas and a good deal of the waters off its coast is under US airspace. If you want to go to space through US airpsace, you have to follow FAA and DOD rules
"I'm very skeptical. Its possible that a molten core can warm it enough to have a sea underneath the water, I suppose, but it seems to me that this wouldn't be nearly enough heat."
And what do you think creates a molten core? What's the heat source? Gravity and pressure. The deeper you go, the more weight you have pushing down on top of you, the higher the pressure, and the higher the temperature (pesky thermodynamics).
The same process that keeps a planetary core molten will keep water at depth from freezing. Especially so with water, as it has to expand as it freezes. How do you think Lake Vostok is able to exist to begin with?
According to DirecWay's FAQ bot thingie, they will be selling the DW4020 to consumers "fall of 2002" (read: "any day now").
The DW4020 is pretty much the standard DW4000 satellite modem boxen they currently sell, except it includes a third boxen that eliminates the need for a USB connection and presents 4 Fast Ethernet ports. Supposedly you'll also be able to buy this box separately to upgrade your existing DW4000.
Now the only question is when EarthLink will lower their monthly satellite service fees to match DirecWay through DirecTV. I just dropped BellSouth in favor of EarthLink this past June and I'm not interested in changing ISPs yet again so soon.
"The problem with California going after spammers in Sydney is the reverse of the problem with, say, France or China going after US companies that are violating their laws against say Nazi related items or free-speech related pages in China."
You put so much effort into your long post without even realizing how your analogy doesn't hold water. Such a shame. The difference between Yahoo.com (as opposed to Yahoo.fr) hosting objectionable material on web servers and unsolicited e-mail coming in from Australia is the nature of the media.
The world wide web is a pull-type medium. Barring pop-up ads (God bless Moz!) and typo-squatters, nobody has ever visited a website they didn't actually want to see. In this paritcular example, some French actually wanted to visit the sites hosted in the US and specifically requested the information be sent to their computers. France trying to uphold French laws on US servers is akin to France trying to get the US government to enforce their anti-speech laws on French citizens who happen to be in the US at the time. Or the US trying to get France to prevent US tourists (not from Nevada) from visiting French red-light districts. Essentially speaking, the "crime," the actual act, took place in a country where the act is not a crime.
On the other hand, e-mail is all push. You don't get it because you asked for it, you get it because somebody else decided to send it to you. The sender, not the recipient, is solely responsible for the e-mail in question. As a coarse analogy, it is illegal to mail a bomb into the US, not to receive one.
The spammers based in Australia were actively conducting "business" (if spam can be dignified with that word) in the State of California. While they may or may not have intended the spam to be delivered to e-mail addresses based in California, it is no accident that the spam was sent to begin with. Their actions directly and deliberately affected e-mail accounts in the State of California. They should be held just as accountable to laws in California as if they were snail-mailing unsolicited nudie magazines to US addresses.
"What California, China, France and Italy (among many others) are trying to do is to export their laws by extending their jurisdiction extra-territorially"
In this case, California is attempting to prosecute a violation of Californian law that happened to Californian e-mail accounts. The spammers are legally obliged to be aware of Californian laws before actively trying to do things to Californian e-mail accounts. I see no problem with jurisdiction in this particular trial.
"As I said in an earlier post on this thread, if they commit an act of theft or trespass, prosecute them for theft or trespass. There's no legitimate reason to outlaw spam in and of itself"
If the majority of the voters in a state don't like it to the point where they feel that a new law against it is necessary to protect their rights to own and use their property as they wish, I think that's a damn legitimate reason to ban it. If that doesn't show that it's in the public's interest, I don't know what does. This is exactly what happened to junk faxers and this is exactly what should happen to spammers.
"what about people who don't mind receiving it,"
Two words: opt-in. Spam by definition is unsolicited.
Of course, if someone actually likes the spam they receive, they are perfectly free not to press charges. But their desire not to press charges shouldn't inhibit my desire to see them punished for the spam I received.
My hypothetical neighbor throws some pretty wild parties in his house and just about any stranger can come and do whatever they want there. Does that somehow mean I let those same strangers to the same at my house? Should the practices of my neighbor inhibit my ability to to use and protect my property as I see fit?
"or network and server operators who don't mind channeling it?"
They can find themselves named as accessories to the crime with their blatent disreguard of my property rights if they so wish. If they have a history of consciously turning a blind eye to spam if not actually promoting it, I see no reason for me not to name them in my complaint.
" As their users are free to choose to use or not use the ISPs services, if they choose to connect to their network then they agree to accept whatever spam whatever may come their way."
It's legitimate only if the potential customers are made well aware that this is the ISP's policy. And since most people in the spam trade already seem to have a great deal of difficulty in meeting truth-in-advertising requirements... Let's just say I'll believe it when I see it.
Personally, I'd wager that Win2K is more secure than XP. Even ignoring the way XP SP 1 giving MS (or anybody posing as MS) remote admin rights, there is very little "new" code in Win2K. It's mostly an amalgamation of parts of NT 4 and Win98, code that has already gone through its own series of revisions and re-revisions long before Win2K was published.
XP, on the other hand, has a lot of new bells and whistles over Win2K, new features that have yet to really be tested in the real world. A lot more room for new exploits to be found.
However, the procedure is a little different from the BMW.
Rev engine to at least 4000 RPM
Remove left foot from clutch pedal
Viola!
What was that? You only have an automatic transmission? You can't drive stick? Then you're up a creek where you belong. The more you let a machine control your car the less control you have and you deserve to be stuck with having to look for these silly Easter Eggs in order to wrest control from the machine to do what you want the car to do.
"but you want me to pay your expensive lawyer too!? that should come out of your winnings."
...
"That way, people only sue if they are sure to win, and rich people or companies can't sue poorer people just to harass them into settling out of court."
You got it backwards. By not allowing the plaintiff seek reimbursement for legal fees from the defendant, only those that could afford a lawyer on their own would bring cases to court, such as the "rich people (and) companies" you mention above.
If you make me go so far as to drag you in to court to prove that I'm right and owed money, you, not I, should be responsible for paying for the legal fees as well. It's not like the actual trial is Step 1 in trying to receive your damages. There's a codified process where there is at least one "or else" document delivered to the defendant.
Hypothetical: You key your name and address on the hood of my car. I contact you and demand that you pay for the new paint job. You refuse and give me a Nelson laugh. What you're suggesting would prevent me from dragging you into court to pay for my new paint job until you do it over and over and over again until I reach the point where all the new paint jobs finally costs more than a lawyer.
By the way, what you're suggesting would make all loan interest rates (credit cards, mortgages, etc.) double or even triple overnight. If lenders aren't able to recoup legal fees from beligerent debtors directly, they'll have to make that money back some other way...
"And there's no risk in sticking your neck out if you know you are right."
Unless you're the plaintiff, because under your system he has to pay for his lawyer no matter how right he is. If you read something other than Slashdot every once in a while you might understand that not all plaintiffs wear black hats and defendents white.
If he says "I'm going to take you to court" or something similar...
Stop talking to him.
Give him your mailing address and demand that all further communications (especially those of the "I'm going to sue you" variety) be done in writing (no, e-mail doesn't count). Certified mail is preferable in this case.
If he DOES mail you something, make sure you put it somewhere safe. It may come in handy later.
While you really don't need a lawyer until you see a piece of paper that says "I'm going to sue you" bearing his signature, they are handy to have around to make sure you don't write something you shouldn't in a letter to him. If you must write him a letter, at the very least make sure to read, re-read, and re-re-read what you wrote before you mail it. Avoid things like personal attacks, admitting any wrong-doing and phrases that can be read as "I'm going to sue you."
Generally speaking, as soon as he says "I'm going to sue you," say nothing to him other than giving him your mailing address. Whether or not you need a lawyer depends on his follow-through and if he actually puts "I'm going to sue you" on paper.
Beyond that, if you end up needing a lawyer, I hear that talking to the local bar association is handy. You're supposed to tell them how you need a lawyer and they can reccomend those that specialize in that department.
"Why not simply say the department of justice instead of Ashcroft?"
Because one of the jobs of the Attourney General is to defend the laws Congress and the President have passed. He's named specifically because it's the job he was appointed to. If George of the Jungle happened to be Attourney General, the case would be "Eldred v. George of the Jungle."
"...if you didn't have to share bandwidth with all those spammers."
The sad thing is, in the USPS the "spammers" probably make things faster. They actually pay for the resources they use (postage) and justify (and pay for) improvements in sorting equipment and techniques. I've seen it argued somewhere that it's the bulk mailers that are keeping the price of first class postage so low and not the other way around.
Imagine what would happen if every spammer bought a new Fast Ethernet switch for the SMTP server they highjack.
"I'm not sure why I should personally be worried."
Because in its current incarnation, digital television will come hand-in-hand with digital "rights" management. Hope you werent' looking forward to using your VCR.
"There'll have to be analog outputs (at least on the first few generations of equipment), right?"
Who are you kidding? There is more money to be made by eliminating analog outputs and keeping the *AA folks happy. Digital outputs will both be manditory and your only option.
"And you can't really copy-protect analog video in any way that's genuinely difficult to bypass - a TBC alone nullifies most variants of Macrovision, for starters."
Which is why they'll be eliminating analog ASAP. Like with Tauzin's new legislation here.
Slashdot Mirror
"Enough slashdotters are young professionals with a well paying job"
How many of us will be buying a new car in the next month? The next year? I know I won't be looking for a new car until at least after the warranty on my Hyundai wears out. And even then I won't be looking at Nissans anyway as they design their cars for Japanese drivers (and I'm a bit larger than the average Japanese driver). And I sure as hell won't be buying one of their "trucks" because I know that real trucks don't have sparkplugs (they're actually proud of helping to introduce the "light truck" class?).
At worst your boycott idea will rob Nissan of what, half a dozen vehicle sales in all the North American market?
"That's really the definition of "Civil Disobedience"."
Nah, that was the definition 100+ years ago. Today it involves chaining yourself to things, overturning cars, smashing windows, generally blocking public right-of-ways and using/damaging private property and then claiming that the First Amendment protects all this. None of it actually involves breaking a specific law that you're protesting.
I could have sworn that Cronus was the Greek name for Saturn.
On the other hand, places like Texas and Florida have the advantages of being able to put whatever you want to have thrown up into space into the back of a truck and simply driving it down to Texas or Florida. Just about any place else and you'll have to find a ship to bring your stuff out there, and unless we're talking about Hawaii or a US posession/territory, you'll then have to deal with import/export regulations, which may or may not include tariffs/duties/etc.
Just because it's somewhat cheaper to launch from lower latitudes doesn't mean it's also easier to reach the launch sitess down there. Name one country on the equator with a half-way modern trasportation infrastructure.
And you'd have to go to Texas to see this? Apparently you haven't met some of the people living in the interior or central Florida... :)
"What if your private rocket has a malfunction and goes slamming into a major city, killing thousands?"
That's why the US DOD requires that any and all space launches from the US have to be able to self-destruct into peices smaller than some threshold I don't know off the top of my head. Think of the various Delta II launch failures.
Besides, although I don't know what lattitude this site is at, the only major city that could be under their launch path is maybe Orlando, FL. And the rocket would probably be too high/fast to hit that target only a few seconds after launch.
"What wouldn't be legal? Its space, its like international waters."
First you have to get there. When last I checked, All of Texas and a good deal of the waters off its coast is under US airspace. If you want to go to space through US airpsace, you have to follow FAA and DOD rules
"from the and-what-does-it-taste-like dept."
It tastes like grape-aid.
If Pluto doesn't exist, what's up with Charon?
"I'm very skeptical. Its possible that a molten core can warm it enough to have a sea underneath the water, I suppose, but it seems to me that this wouldn't be nearly enough heat."
And what do you think creates a molten core? What's the heat source? Gravity and pressure. The deeper you go, the more weight you have pushing down on top of you, the higher the pressure, and the higher the temperature (pesky thermodynamics).
The same process that keeps a planetary core molten will keep water at depth from freezing. Especially so with water, as it has to expand as it freezes. How do you think Lake Vostok is able to exist to begin with?
According to DirecWay's FAQ bot thingie, they will be selling the DW4020 to consumers "fall of 2002" (read: "any day now").
The DW4020 is pretty much the standard DW4000 satellite modem boxen they currently sell, except it includes a third boxen that eliminates the need for a USB connection and presents 4 Fast Ethernet ports. Supposedly you'll also be able to buy this box separately to upgrade your existing DW4000.
Now the only question is when EarthLink will lower their monthly satellite service fees to match DirecWay through DirecTV. I just dropped BellSouth in favor of EarthLink this past June and I'm not interested in changing ISPs yet again so soon.
"The problem with California going after spammers in Sydney is the reverse of the problem with, say, France or China going after US companies that are violating their laws against say Nazi related items or free-speech related pages in China."
You put so much effort into your long post without even realizing how your analogy doesn't hold water. Such a shame. The difference between Yahoo.com (as opposed to Yahoo.fr) hosting objectionable material on web servers and unsolicited e-mail coming in from Australia is the nature of the media.
The world wide web is a pull-type medium. Barring pop-up ads (God bless Moz!) and typo-squatters, nobody has ever visited a website they didn't actually want to see. In this paritcular example, some French actually wanted to visit the sites hosted in the US and specifically requested the information be sent to their computers. France trying to uphold French laws on US servers is akin to France trying to get the US government to enforce their anti-speech laws on French citizens who happen to be in the US at the time. Or the US trying to get France to prevent US tourists (not from Nevada) from visiting French red-light districts. Essentially speaking, the "crime," the actual act, took place in a country where the act is not a crime.
On the other hand, e-mail is all push. You don't get it because you asked for it, you get it because somebody else decided to send it to you. The sender, not the recipient, is solely responsible for the e-mail in question. As a coarse analogy, it is illegal to mail a bomb into the US, not to receive one.
The spammers based in Australia were actively conducting "business" (if spam can be dignified with that word) in the State of California. While they may or may not have intended the spam to be delivered to e-mail addresses based in California, it is no accident that the spam was sent to begin with. Their actions directly and deliberately affected e-mail accounts in the State of California. They should be held just as accountable to laws in California as if they were snail-mailing unsolicited nudie magazines to US addresses.
"What California, China, France and Italy (among many others) are trying to do is to export their laws by extending their jurisdiction extra-territorially"
In this case, California is attempting to prosecute a violation of Californian law that happened to Californian e-mail accounts. The spammers are legally obliged to be aware of Californian laws before actively trying to do things to Californian e-mail accounts. I see no problem with jurisdiction in this particular trial.
"As I said in an earlier post on this thread, if they commit an act of theft or trespass, prosecute them for theft or trespass. There's no legitimate reason to outlaw spam in and of itself"
If the majority of the voters in a state don't like it to the point where they feel that a new law against it is necessary to protect their rights to own and use their property as they wish, I think that's a damn legitimate reason to ban it. If that doesn't show that it's in the public's interest, I don't know what does. This is exactly what happened to junk faxers and this is exactly what should happen to spammers.
"what about people who don't mind receiving it,"
Two words: opt-in. Spam by definition is unsolicited.
Of course, if someone actually likes the spam they receive, they are perfectly free not to press charges. But their desire not to press charges shouldn't inhibit my desire to see them punished for the spam I received.
My hypothetical neighbor throws some pretty wild parties in his house and just about any stranger can come and do whatever they want there. Does that somehow mean I let those same strangers to the same at my house? Should the practices of my neighbor inhibit my ability to to use and protect my property as I see fit?
"or network and server operators who don't mind channeling it?"
They can find themselves named as accessories to the crime with their blatent disreguard of my property rights if they so wish. If they have a history of consciously turning a blind eye to spam if not actually promoting it, I see no reason for me not to name them in my complaint.
" As their users are free to choose to use or not use the ISPs services, if they choose to connect to their network then they agree to accept whatever spam whatever may come their way."
It's legitimate only if the potential customers are made well aware that this is the ISP's policy. And since most people in the spam trade already seem to have a great deal of difficulty in meeting truth-in-advertising requirements... Let's just say I'll believe it when I see it.
"Spammers have proven to be so stupid that only the most Flagrantly Over the Top Demonstration of Hatred will teach some of them a lesson."
Use of unnecessary force in apprehending the spammers has been approved.
How can the first post be "redundant?" What is the sound of one hand clapping?
"probably just as secure as XP"
Personally, I'd wager that Win2K is more secure than XP. Even ignoring the way XP SP 1 giving MS (or anybody posing as MS) remote admin rights, there is very little "new" code in Win2K. It's mostly an amalgamation of parts of NT 4 and Win98, code that has already gone through its own series of revisions and re-revisions long before Win2K was published.
XP, on the other hand, has a lot of new bells and whistles over Win2K, new features that have yet to really be tested in the real world. A lot more room for new exploits to be found.
Viola!
What was that? You only have an automatic transmission? You can't drive stick? Then you're up a creek where you belong. The more you let a machine control your car the less control you have and you deserve to be stuck with having to look for these silly Easter Eggs in order to wrest control from the machine to do what you want the car to do.
I just love how this stuff gets modded so high...
...
"but you want me to pay your expensive lawyer too!? that should come out of your winnings."
"That way, people only sue if they are sure to win, and rich people or companies can't sue poorer people just to harass them into settling out of court."
You got it backwards. By not allowing the plaintiff seek reimbursement for legal fees from the defendant, only those that could afford a lawyer on their own would bring cases to court, such as the "rich people (and) companies" you mention above.
If you make me go so far as to drag you in to court to prove that I'm right and owed money, you, not I, should be responsible for paying for the legal fees as well. It's not like the actual trial is Step 1 in trying to receive your damages. There's a codified process where there is at least one "or else" document delivered to the defendant.
Hypothetical: You key your name and address on the hood of my car. I contact you and demand that you pay for the new paint job. You refuse and give me a Nelson laugh. What you're suggesting would prevent me from dragging you into court to pay for my new paint job until you do it over and over and over again until I reach the point where all the new paint jobs finally costs more than a lawyer.
By the way, what you're suggesting would make all loan interest rates (credit cards, mortgages, etc.) double or even triple overnight. If lenders aren't able to recoup legal fees from beligerent debtors directly, they'll have to make that money back some other way...
"And there's no risk in sticking your neck out if you know you are right."
Unless you're the plaintiff, because under your system he has to pay for his lawyer no matter how right he is. If you read something other than Slashdot every once in a while you might understand that not all plaintiffs wear black hats and defendents white.
- Stop talking to him.
- Give him your mailing address and demand that all further communications (especially those of the "I'm going to sue you" variety) be done in writing (no, e-mail doesn't count). Certified mail is preferable in this case.
- If he DOES mail you something, make sure you put it somewhere safe. It may come in handy later.
- While you really don't need a lawyer until you see a piece of paper that says "I'm going to sue you" bearing his signature, they are handy to have around to make sure you don't write something you shouldn't in a letter to him. If you must write him a letter, at the very least make sure to read, re-read, and re-re-read what you wrote before you mail it. Avoid things like personal attacks, admitting any wrong-doing and phrases that can be read as "I'm going to sue you."
Generally speaking, as soon as he says "I'm going to sue you," say nothing to him other than giving him your mailing address. Whether or not you need a lawyer depends on his follow-through and if he actually puts "I'm going to sue you" on paper.Beyond that, if you end up needing a lawyer, I hear that talking to the local bar association is handy. You're supposed to tell them how you need a lawyer and they can reccomend those that specialize in that department.
"Why not simply say the department of justice instead of Ashcroft?"
Because one of the jobs of the Attourney General is to defend the laws Congress and the President have passed. He's named specifically because it's the job he was appointed to. If George of the Jungle happened to be Attourney General, the case would be "Eldred v. George of the Jungle."
"At this rate someone could have died durring WWII"
WWII was less than 60 years ago, so we've already reached that point. Try WWI.
"Those silly americans are suing everyone for everything.. there is always only one winner in the end and that's a lawyer. He always wins."
Perhaps I'm biased, but I would rather have too many lawsuits than too few. I fear a lack of discord.
"...if you didn't have to share bandwidth with all those spammers."
The sad thing is, in the USPS the "spammers" probably make things faster. They actually pay for the resources they use (postage) and justify (and pay for) improvements in sorting equipment and techniques. I've seen it argued somewhere that it's the bulk mailers that are keeping the price of first class postage so low and not the other way around.
Imagine what would happen if every spammer bought a new Fast Ethernet switch for the SMTP server they highjack.
"I'm not sure why I should personally be worried."
Because in its current incarnation, digital television will come hand-in-hand with digital "rights" management. Hope you werent' looking forward to using your VCR.
"There'll have to be analog outputs (at least on the first few generations of equipment), right?"
Who are you kidding? There is more money to be made by eliminating analog outputs and keeping the *AA folks happy. Digital outputs will both be manditory and your only option.
"And you can't really copy-protect analog video in any way that's genuinely difficult to bypass - a TBC alone nullifies most variants of Macrovision, for starters."
Which is why they'll be eliminating analog ASAP. Like with Tauzin's new legislation here.
... if they just passed some decent privacy legislation. Whoops!