> They've done so for the past few years, and it seems to work *very* well.
My previous ISP imposed Postini on me with no notice (they sent me an email bragging about it three days after they started using it). It passed 50% of the spam and stopped 20% of the ham. I turned it off.
His apartment has electric heat. Whenever it starts to get too cold the thermostat turns on the electric heaters, warming the place up by using electricity which he pays for. His computers act as auxilary electric heaters. When they are running the electric heat comes on less often. Whether his computers are on or not his electric bill is the same.
BTW you don't get charged per watt. You get charged per kilowatt-hour.
> MySpace may be great for 'social networking', but from a technical point of > view it's a nightmare. Malformed HTML, non-degradable Javascript, code > injection issues...
> and distribute only the translation, since the text may be copyright
I find it unlikely that there are no out-of-copyright texts of those works (indeed, it is not clear to me that texts would be protected under US law). And the manuscripts, of course, are public domain.
> There's a big difference between NRA.org and > WatchMeBlastEverythingThatMovesIntoBloodyPulp.net > - you can't lump them together as "gun sites" and block both.
But the anti-gun nuts really and truly cannot see any difference, any more than the "religious right" can see any difference between a gay porn site and a liberal site advocating tolerance for homosexuality.
> Is it possible for a blocking company to define a 'hate site' in a consistent > way, without including conservative groups that might file a First Amendment > lawsuit if their sites were blocked from public school computers?
The definition of "hate speech" is purely political, as evidenced by your evident inability to conceive of a "hate site" being associated with anything but "conservative" groups. Thus government-mandated blocking of "hate sites" is censorship.
If you didn't make any promises to the rep and have not yet installed it and agreed to the EULA you can give it away or sell it as you see fit. If you did agree not to transfer it and you did so anyway you would be in breach of contract but Microsoft would have no legal claim against whoever you transferred it to as they are not party to any contract with Microsoft.
> As far as I know, to contradict your info (and I'd love to be corrected on > this), any non-governmental company is allowed to use SSNs for whatever they > want.
They can ask you for one and refuse to do business with if you if you refuse to give them one, but there is little they can do if you give them a fake SSN because unless they are using it for permitted financial purposes they cannot check its validity with the government.
I also think that they are forbidden to ask to see your social security card.
If they are not using the SSN for financial purposes they have no right to check its validity. To choose a fake SSN to give to phone companies and such you can look up the rules for generating them and choose a not-yet-issued number. Give each business that demands your SSN a different number so that it can't be used to aggregate your personal information and so that you will be able to track "leaks".
> The answer is of course that some Chinese manufacturer will sell a HDCP dongle > that will strip HDCP. As for the keys, it will always be possible to bribe an > employee at a legit manufacturer and get some keys. In fact, I would bet that > someone will start a distributed.net style crack effort in any case.
> These DRM/anti-copy tactics are pointless, ineffective, and prevent the > masses from doing the kind of cool shit they should be allowed to...but it's > never going to stop the geeks - which gives us an avenue to showcase that > smugness we all carry.
They are not very concerned about stopping the geeks. They are not numerous enough to matter. They want to stop the masses, and they are succeeding.
Slashdot Mirror
> Imagine if the State charged for air.
It does. They call it "taxes".
Payola
So it was your application providers that were asleep. And, of course, you had no reason at all to test the apps yourselves.
> ...breaks utterly even though they use MS libraries and components to make it
> from...
"Even though"? You write that as if you are suprised.
> They've done so for the past few years, and it seems to work *very* well.
My previous ISP imposed Postini on me with no notice (they sent me an email bragging about it three days after they started using it). It passed 50% of the spam and stopped 20% of the ham. I turned it off.
Well, where is it?
His apartment has electric heat. Whenever it starts to get too cold the thermostat turns on the electric heaters, warming the place up by using electricity which he pays for. His computers act as auxilary electric heaters. When they are running the electric heat comes on less often. Whether his computers are on or not his electric bill is the same.
BTW you don't get charged per watt. You get charged per kilowatt-hour.
> MySpace may be great for 'social networking', but from a technical point of
> view it's a nightmare. Malformed HTML, non-degradable Javascript, code
> injection issues...
In other words, Web 2.0.
> I leave it to you all to draw your conclusions about this, but I still wonder
> what my hours of laptop-fu does to me.
You confound testosterone and sperm.
> Would be a nice touch to put that one into the public domain.
Look up the history. It almost certainly already is in the public domain.
> and distribute only the translation, since the text may be copyright
I find it unlikely that there are no out-of-copyright texts of those works (indeed, it is not clear to me that texts would be protected under US law). And the manuscripts, of course, are public domain.
Unauthorized copying is not theft, nor is it even always illegal.
You really ought to learn what "international law" actually is. Hint: the WTO does not have the power to "strike down" the laws of any nation.
> The law may be struck down by the World Trade Organization...
The WTO does not have the power to strike down any US law.
> It insults the intelligence of everyone who wants to have a rational debate
> about the immigration issue.
Thereby insulting the intelligence of you and I and maybe three other people.
> There's a big difference between NRA.org and
> WatchMeBlastEverythingThatMovesIntoBloodyPulp.net
> - you can't lump them together as "gun sites" and block both.
But the anti-gun nuts really and truly cannot see any difference, any more than the "religious right" can see any difference between a gay porn site and a liberal site advocating tolerance for homosexuality.
> Is it possible for a blocking company to define a 'hate site' in a consistent
> way, without including conservative groups that might file a First Amendment
> lawsuit if their sites were blocked from public school computers?
The definition of "hate speech" is purely political, as evidenced by your evident inability to conceive of a "hate site" being associated with anything but "conservative" groups. Thus government-mandated blocking of "hate sites" is censorship.
If you didn't make any promises to the rep and have not yet installed it and agreed to the EULA you can give it away or sell it as you see fit. If you did agree not to transfer it and you did so anyway you would be in breach of contract but Microsoft would have no legal claim against whoever you transferred it to as they are not party to any contract with Microsoft.
> There needs to be a way to uniquely identify someone...
Why?
The Department of Veteran's Affairs is completely seperate from the Department of Defense.
> As far as I know, to contradict your info (and I'd love to be corrected on
> this), any non-governmental company is allowed to use SSNs for whatever they
> want.
They can ask you for one and refuse to do business with if you if you refuse to give them one, but there is little they can do if you give them a fake SSN because unless they are using it for permitted financial purposes they cannot check its validity with the government.
I also think that they are forbidden to ask to see your social security card.
If they are not using the SSN for financial purposes they have no right to check its validity. To choose a fake SSN to give to phone companies and such you can look up the rules for generating them and choose a not-yet-issued number. Give each business that demands your SSN a different number so that it can't be used to aggregate your personal information and so that you will be able to track "leaks".
It's there for Joe Sixpack. They _don't_ _care_ if a few geeks crack it.
> The answer is of course that some Chinese manufacturer will sell a HDCP dongle
> that will strip HDCP. As for the keys, it will always be possible to bribe an
> employee at a legit manufacturer and get some keys. In fact, I would bet that
> someone will start a distributed.net style crack effort in any case.
But the results will never reach the masses.
> These DRM/anti-copy tactics are pointless, ineffective, and prevent the
> masses from doing the kind of cool shit they should be allowed to...but it's
> never going to stop the geeks - which gives us an avenue to showcase that
> smugness we all carry.
They are not very concerned about stopping the geeks. They are not numerous enough to matter. They want to stop the masses, and they are succeeding.