Thanks for your post. I never understood the subtleties of the law. My closest experience with it was when the German government wanted to have copies of Mein Kampf removed from bookstores located in US military bases in Germany. It was an interesting situation.
I submit to you that the reason to be optimistic is that you now live in the most enlightened times known to man. The fact that we are having this conversation over a matter of hours despite us living a world apart is one aspect of these times.
You can point to various current developments and call them signals of the End. But people have been pointing to supposed signs of the End throughout recorded history. Indeed, mankind's collective history does contain plenty examples of decay. Yet here we stand today.
When I was growing up, people knew that the end of the world was neigh; it would end in a nuclear fireball. This is reflected in popular culture (Dr. Strangelove, WarGames, The Day After, Missile Command). In a Cold War era, it was hard to maintain optimism. I even grew up to be stationed in Germany - part of the preparation for when your country was the battleground between NATO and the Warsaw Pact for Europe. And so I was there when the Berlin Wall fell. And here we stand today; The End still a distant fear.
As for hope - that's the nature of things. You can never be sure. You can't know until you've been tested. But we can prepare. We can be vigilant. And we can hope when, not if, we are tested we stand.
I very much agree with you, but I notice that less people care every day - for reasons we all could enumerate. It's like saying "will science provide solutions for the problems the future poses? Yes, of course!" but also asking "Will the powers that be listen to science? Or even only to reason?".
So, I guess we're screwed, all of us.
We're going to have rough times. Its part of the ebb and flow of it all; we're wired for, and a rational system requires, conflict. But I'm not convinced we're doomed (nor are we guaranteed to survive).
If you look through history, there is always a swing of growth and decay; enlightenment and ignorance. One is a part of the other. We can only hope that the general cycle is always positive and we've done all we can to limit the damage caused by negative swings.
Every government, ultimately, will be inclined to install a police state. It is the most efficient way for people who's main concern is enforcing the law to operate. Which would be fine if we could know that the laws were just and the people enforcing those laws were also just. But it is in human nature to disagree on such subjective terms as "just" even if we ignore that it is also human nature to abuse and become corrupted by power.
As it is a natural inclination to install a police state, the steps to do so will take many forms. Some quiet. Some with great pomp and circumstance. Some will be corrupt and self-serving. Some will be introduced with entirely good intention.
Eternal vigilance is required to maintain a check on this behavior. It is easy to point out the corrupt. It is harder to realize that the actions based on good intention leads to corruption and abuse. But ultimately, both must be identified and stopped.
It is a part of the process... an ongoing process that is likely to continue as long as we exist.
While I agree with all the points in your summery, I don't see them accurately describing the thread.
We have a post claiming that the individual is racist:
Also, from TFA she seems to be quite racist (probably exactly the sort of McCain voting lunatic who is going to condemn us to four more years):
The reply disagrees noting that illegal is illegal:
Why is it every time someone does not toe the liberal line of allowing ILLEGAL aliens into this country they are labelled racist??? If you do not like the law, do something about and get the law changed. Otherwise stop calling everyone a racist just because they dont agree with your particular point of view.
This is not an insightful post. Screaming ILLEGAL! doesn't get you anywhere when, you know, we're talking about changing the law.
...
White Woman: I am really in love with Denzel Washington. I would definitely marry him. You (a generation ago): BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL!
Next time you might want to try NOT spewing nonsense. "[A]llowing illegal aliens into this country" indeed. Hint: if the government "allow[s]" them in, it's not illegal.
This is when I make the point that an official ignoring laws does not negate the legality of their actions (which was my interpretation of "...the government 'allow[s]' them in.." as it is the only scenario that fits the current situation). Of course, I do it in a matter that tries to trump the obsurdity of the previous post. That probably wasn't the most constructive way of doing things. Looking back at it, I should have also noted that nobody seemed to be talking about changing the law (I'm sure there's a conversation going on elsewhere). And I should definately called out the playing of the race card (interracial marriage); which is exactly what the initial post in this thread was talking about.
The original poster is correct in that something being illegal is no argument against an amendment to a law, otherwise it would be impossible to amend any laws (as by definition if it needs amendment it's to allow something previously disallowed by said law). A law may always be overturned or amended, as has happened many times to even our most sacred laws (the constitution).
The grandparent poster had said:
Why is it every time someone does not toe the liberal line of allowing ILLEGAL aliens into this country they are labelled racist??? If you do not like the law, do something about and get the law changed. Otherwise stop calling everyone a racist just because they dont agree with your particular point of view.
So I'm at a loss how this thread ends up in the realm of being unable to change laws or claiming that the actions of a Government official trumps law.
"[A]llowing illegal aliens into this country" indeed. Hint: if the government "allow[s]" them in, it's not illegal.
I see how this works. So if the Government decides to tap phones without a warrant, that's legal. If the Government decides to confiscate property at a whim, it's now legal. If a Government official takes a sizable payment in turn for passing a law, well then... it's legal!
Note to self: more caffeine, better proof-reading.
I meant that Saddam was attempting to imply to IRAN (and perhaps others - maybe Iraq isn't so far off at that) that they had still had a chemical arsenal at their disposal.
I think once we already go to war with someone, then end that war, and then wait a decade, we cant consider anything that happened before that "evidence". After `91 anything would be fair game, but it looks like Saddam actually kept his nose pretty clean, He probably figured it was all he had to do to keep his position, and that bush wouldn't dare invade without a good reason. Little did he know how unstable our leaders were eh?
CNN may have lost interest but the war didn't end. There was a cease fire and a laundry list of requirements to maintain that cease fire. Saddam then played an interesting game with weapons inspectors (apparently attempting to prove to the US that chemical weapons didn't exist while implying to Iraq that they did) while siphoning funding from oil sales meant to maintain civilian infrastructure.
Actually I was advocating discussion based on facts when in the context of the slashdot article summary. I didn't see the summary as funny. It came across as a troll. But if it was meant to be funny then I can take it as such. But hell give me some context to do so, like a HA HA HA at the end or something.
I would suggest that your context is the commercial. Again - this isn't some "get the facts" style advertising campaign. This is a battle based on anything but fact (and yes, it is a battle - it's business after all).
I agree with your general sentiment. Too often I see these "M$ 5ux0rz" style rants and it becomes painfully obvious that the "criticism" has little basis (queue teenage angst references) beyond jumping on the bandwagon. These drown out real criticism based on real concern. Calling for sanity in these matters makes sense.
But having said that, one has to realize not every argument made is going to have fact as it's battleground. And not everything is a structured debate. Emotional response and humor is very much a part of this - especially when it is invoked in the opening salvo. Such things are going to occasionally come off as inaccurate (if not outright wrong) even if they echo certain truths. If this weren't the case, whole classes of very talented comedians would be out of a job.
Yeah, because TCP/IP, SMTP, and the Web are so valuable without an OS. Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft did connect billions by putting an OS on the desktop that made those technologies worth something to Joe Average.
Let's give credit where it is due. But only where it's due. Microsoft didn't invent the Internet. They didn't make the Internet possible nor did they even make it popular. And they didn't provide the only viable platform.
What they did do is provide one of the key components Compaq needed to start the Clone market and prime the pump for the commodity hardware market we enjoy today. It is possible someone else would have done it if it wasn't for Microsoft (CP/M was essentially the business model for DOS). But it wasn't someone else who did it - it was Microsoft.
Congratulations on growing up and gaining an appreciation for the real world. Meanwhile, others like myself have been in the real world all along. And we still understand the problems that Microsoft and Windows present. We've just never been blinded by youthful angst and "fighting the Man" (or at least - were over it long before Slashdot was around).
Why not just come with facts then and leave the flaming statements behind?...
You want me to criticize windows? I can write a laundry list using facts. You want me to criticize Linux? I can write a laundry list of facts. Facts speak volumes. Everything else is a waste of time and gets the us nowhere.
You do realize you're advocating a discussion based on facts in a conversation about a commercial that is, if anything, entirely devoid of fact? This marketing campaign seems to be attempting the use of humor and emotional icons to reframe the general feeling of the public for a brand (be that the company or a particular product - I suspect its Vista). It seems to me that it's certainly within the realm of the subject to also use humor to poke fun at the campaign if not the brand itself.
I'm a little surprised that SF hasn't worked this out. There are plenty of outfits eager to do what is necessary, for a fee of course.
From the article...
After a dramatic jailhouse meeting with San Francisco's mayor one week after his arrest, Childs handed over the data, but DTIS Chief Administrative Officer Ron Vinson said Wednesday that the city now expects to spend more than $1 million to clean up the mess. To date, DTIS has paid out $182,000 to Cisco contractors and $15,000 in overtime costs, he said in an e-mail interview.
The city has also set aside a further $800,000 to address the problem. Vinson did not specify what the additional money was expected to cover, but if the city has to hire network consultants to remap, reconfigure and lock down its network, this would not be an unreasonable estimate. The city has also retained a security consulting firm called Secure DNA to conduct a vulnerability assessment of its network.
And there you have it folks, a million-dollar employee; over-worked and under-appreciated by a management too incompetent to understand the issues the guy dealt with much less manage him and his work effectively. Sadly, it's not a very uncommon story.
One of the fun bug-a-boos that show up in these stories is the cost of damage an intruder (or in this case, rogue employee) "causes" the target. I've been on the inside of a number of US Government incidents and seen the cost estimate damages. To someone on the outside, they seem pretty insane. The question that the public often asks is something like "how can changing one password cause so much damage?" But the numbers I've seen are pretty much on target (plus or minus some variance for estimates) - they represent real expenses associated with work to properly ensure the systems are truely owned by their rightful owners again. And they cover resources (i.e. hard drives) lost to criminal investigative bodies / evidence lockers. But the real gotcha to these things is that these expenses either should have been spent as part of the normal management cycle without an attached incident or, even better, could have been a fraction of the eventual cost if the resources were spent to improve the environment or hire proper talent in the first place.
The thing is, I don't get the impression that "fictional facts" are now out of bounds because of this judgment. You guys are getting myopic - focusing too much on one single finding. The judge notes:
By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not recast the material in another medium to retell the story of Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the Lexicon no longer "represents [the] original work[s] of authorship." 17 U.S.C. Â 101. Under these circumstances, and because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Lexicon is a derivative work.
So how much of the Lexicon would have to be verbatim from the original works to be considered infringement? 51%? Perhaps more or is it up to the judge to decide what constitutes a substantial copying without sufficient original elaboration or commentary?
That's the danger of Fair Use. There are no firm boundaries on what amount of the original work can be reproduced. It is entirely up to the judge (or jury?) to decide.
There are attempts to establish some general guidelines and tests. But these tend to be very subjective in nature.
You'd think, then, that it'd be more effective in detecting the half-assed lies of the people promoting it...
It all depends on interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church tried something similar by keeping their holy texts locked in a (mostly) dead language. The flaw to this was that is was possible to learn the language. Scientology has managed to remove the flaw by replacing the language with a black box.
I didn't even start screaming. Maybe it's because I'm 33 and back in high school during the Kuwait liberation I knew Iraq was going to be an issue for a a couple of decades because we didn't finish the job because the first Bush and the weak EU members didn't want a drawn out war (Kurds got slaughtered, Saddam stayed, current situation set up).
Bush Senior and his administration had a really difficult issue to deal with. Iraq had the 4th largest standing army. Removing it would create a pretty severe power vacuum in the region. It would also invite considerable attention from Iraq's long-standing enemy, Iran.
Taking out Saddam creates another power vacuum. It would be much better if the Iraqis solved that problem themselves. Attempts were made. But Saddam was persistent. Removing him by external force has lead to part of the problems the US now has in Iraq.
I would say that the handling of the Gulf War era was done well. Gambles had to be made. They just didn't all pay off.
And then watched the next President cut military spending, take his piss ass time addressing blatent genocide in the now former Yugoslav states, and literally and figuratively fucked around.
The "peace dividend" was short sighted. However, dealing with world politics was hampered by the Congressional witch-hunt that made any military action appear to be a "wag the dog" scenario (and don't get me wrong - I believe Clinton was dirty but he was too good / careful to get caught). Yugoslav and Somalia were none the less battles the US could have ignored - but shouldn't have.
The IPod may have made Apple plenty of money, but the concept isn't revolutionary- its evolutionary. Any person/company could have imagined such a music player. The only thing the world was waiting for was the right technology to make it a reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your post. I never understood the subtleties of the law. My closest experience with it was when the German government wanted to have copies of Mein Kampf removed from bookstores located in US military bases in Germany. It was an interesting situation.
I submit to you that the reason to be optimistic is that you now live in the most enlightened times known to man. The fact that we are having this conversation over a matter of hours despite us living a world apart is one aspect of these times.
You can point to various current developments and call them signals of the End. But people have been pointing to supposed signs of the End throughout recorded history. Indeed, mankind's collective history does contain plenty examples of decay. Yet here we stand today.
When I was growing up, people knew that the end of the world was neigh; it would end in a nuclear fireball. This is reflected in popular culture (Dr. Strangelove, WarGames, The Day After, Missile Command). In a Cold War era, it was hard to maintain optimism. I even grew up to be stationed in Germany - part of the preparation for when your country was the battleground between NATO and the Warsaw Pact for Europe. And so I was there when the Berlin Wall fell. And here we stand today; The End still a distant fear.
As for hope - that's the nature of things. You can never be sure. You can't know until you've been tested. But we can prepare. We can be vigilant. And we can hope when, not if, we are tested we stand.
I very much agree with you, but I notice that less people care every day - for reasons we all could enumerate. It's like saying "will science provide solutions for the problems the future poses? Yes, of course!" but also asking "Will the powers that be listen to science? Or even only to reason?".
So, I guess we're screwed, all of us.
We're going to have rough times. Its part of the ebb and flow of it all; we're wired for, and a rational system requires, conflict. But I'm not convinced we're doomed (nor are we guaranteed to survive).
If you look through history, there is always a swing of growth and decay; enlightenment and ignorance. One is a part of the other. We can only hope that the general cycle is always positive and we've done all we can to limit the damage caused by negative swings.
Every government, ultimately, will be inclined to install a police state. It is the most efficient way for people who's main concern is enforcing the law to operate. Which would be fine if we could know that the laws were just and the people enforcing those laws were also just. But it is in human nature to disagree on such subjective terms as "just" even if we ignore that it is also human nature to abuse and become corrupted by power.
As it is a natural inclination to install a police state, the steps to do so will take many forms. Some quiet. Some with great pomp and circumstance. Some will be corrupt and self-serving. Some will be introduced with entirely good intention.
Eternal vigilance is required to maintain a check on this behavior. It is easy to point out the corrupt. It is harder to realize that the actions based on good intention leads to corruption and abuse. But ultimately, both must be identified and stopped.
It is a part of the process... an ongoing process that is likely to continue as long as we exist.
Look! I 'drew' ASCII Hitler!
Does that make your post illegal in Germany?
While I agree with all the points in your summery, I don't see them accurately describing the thread.
We have a post claiming that the individual is racist:
The reply disagrees noting that illegal is illegal:
To which the reply makes several points:
This is when I make the point that an official ignoring laws does not negate the legality of their actions (which was my interpretation of "...the government 'allow[s]' them in.." as it is the only scenario that fits the current situation). Of course, I do it in a matter that tries to trump the obsurdity of the previous post. That probably wasn't the most constructive way of doing things. Looking back at it, I should have also noted that nobody seemed to be talking about changing the law (I'm sure there's a conversation going on elsewhere). And I should definately called out the playing of the race card (interracial marriage); which is exactly what the initial post in this thread was talking about.
The original poster is correct in that something being illegal is no argument against an amendment to a law, otherwise it would be impossible to amend any laws (as by definition if it needs amendment it's to allow something previously disallowed by said law). A law may always be overturned or amended, as has happened many times to even our most sacred laws (the constitution).
The grandparent poster had said:
So I'm at a loss how this thread ends up in the realm of being unable to change laws or claiming that the actions of a Government official trumps law.
"[A]llowing illegal aliens into this country" indeed. Hint: if the government "allow[s]" them in, it's not illegal.
I see how this works. So if the Government decides to tap phones without a warrant, that's legal. If the Government decides to confiscate property at a whim, it's now legal. If a Government official takes a sizable payment in turn for passing a law, well then... it's legal!
Nonsense indeed.
Note to self: more caffeine, better proof-reading.
I meant that Saddam was attempting to imply to IRAN (and perhaps others - maybe Iraq isn't so far off at that) that they had still had a chemical arsenal at their disposal.
I think once we already go to war with someone, then end that war, and then wait a decade, we cant consider anything that happened before that "evidence". After `91 anything would be fair game, but it looks like Saddam actually kept his nose pretty clean, He probably figured it was all he had to do to keep his position, and that bush wouldn't dare invade without a good reason. Little did he know how unstable our leaders were eh?
CNN may have lost interest but the war didn't end. There was a cease fire and a laundry list of requirements to maintain that cease fire. Saddam then played an interesting game with weapons inspectors (apparently attempting to prove to the US that chemical weapons didn't exist while implying to Iraq that they did) while siphoning funding from oil sales meant to maintain civilian infrastructure.
Less like a rubber chicken and more like rubbing a chicken.
Exactly. With one of them, you're having the time of your life. With the other one you're stuck with a dumb rubber chicken.
I always wondered what happened to Gonzo when the theater shut down.
Oh. I get it. Less like a rubber chicken and more like rubbing a chicken.
I'm not sure how that applies to the telco. But I suspect it does.
Actually I was advocating discussion based on facts when in the context of the slashdot article summary. I didn't see the summary as funny. It came across as a troll. But if it was meant to be funny then I can take it as such. But hell give me some context to do so, like a HA HA HA at the end or something.
I would suggest that your context is the commercial. Again - this isn't some "get the facts" style advertising campaign. This is a battle based on anything but fact (and yes, it is a battle - it's business after all).
I agree with your general sentiment. Too often I see these "M$ 5ux0rz" style rants and it becomes painfully obvious that the "criticism" has little basis (queue teenage angst references) beyond jumping on the bandwagon. These drown out real criticism based on real concern. Calling for sanity in these matters makes sense.
But having said that, one has to realize not every argument made is going to have fact as it's battleground. And not everything is a structured debate. Emotional response and humor is very much a part of this - especially when it is invoked in the opening salvo. Such things are going to occasionally come off as inaccurate (if not outright wrong) even if they echo certain truths. If this weren't the case, whole classes of very talented comedians would be out of a job.
Someone needs a little explanation of the joke from the Ballmer Boys.
Yeah, because TCP/IP, SMTP, and the Web are so valuable without an OS. Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft did connect billions by putting an OS on the desktop that made those technologies worth something to Joe Average.
Let's give credit where it is due. But only where it's due. Microsoft didn't invent the Internet. They didn't make the Internet possible nor did they even make it popular. And they didn't provide the only viable platform.
What they did do is provide one of the key components Compaq needed to start the Clone market and prime the pump for the commodity hardware market we enjoy today. It is possible someone else would have done it if it wasn't for Microsoft (CP/M was essentially the business model for DOS). But it wasn't someone else who did it - it was Microsoft.
But be careful how far you take that praise.
Oh wait, there's nothing fair or balanced about this. It's not even news.
You've just summarized the whole subject. This is an advertising campaign. It is not news. It is not fair. It is not balanced.
You're expecting the discussion about it to be any different?
Congratulations on growing up and gaining an appreciation for the real world. Meanwhile, others like myself have been in the real world all along. And we still understand the problems that Microsoft and Windows present. We've just never been blinded by youthful angst and "fighting the Man" (or at least - were over it long before Slashdot was around).
Why not just come with facts then and leave the flaming statements behind? ...
You want me to criticize windows? I can write a laundry list using facts. You want me to criticize Linux? I can write a laundry list of facts. Facts speak volumes. Everything else is a waste of time and gets the us nowhere.
You do realize you're advocating a discussion based on facts in a conversation about a commercial that is, if anything, entirely devoid of fact? This marketing campaign seems to be attempting the use of humor and emotional icons to reframe the general feeling of the public for a brand (be that the company or a particular product - I suspect its Vista). It seems to me that it's certainly within the realm of the subject to also use humor to poke fun at the campaign if not the brand itself.
I'm a little surprised that SF hasn't worked this out. There are plenty of outfits eager to do what is necessary, for a fee of course.
From the article...
And there you have it folks, a million-dollar employee; over-worked and under-appreciated by a management too incompetent to understand the issues the guy dealt with much less manage him and his work effectively. Sadly, it's not a very uncommon story.
One of the fun bug-a-boos that show up in these stories is the cost of damage an intruder (or in this case, rogue employee) "causes" the target. I've been on the inside of a number of US Government incidents and seen the cost estimate damages. To someone on the outside, they seem pretty insane. The question that the public often asks is something like "how can changing one password cause so much damage?" But the numbers I've seen are pretty much on target (plus or minus some variance for estimates) - they represent real expenses associated with work to properly ensure the systems are truely owned by their rightful owners again. And they cover resources (i.e. hard drives) lost to criminal investigative bodies / evidence lockers. But the real gotcha to these things is that these expenses either should have been spent as part of the normal management cycle without an attached incident or, even better, could have been a fraction of the eventual cost if the resources were spent to improve the environment or hire proper talent in the first place.
Will you people please learn how to spell rogue correctly?
That's like lipstick on a pig.
The thing is, I don't get the impression that "fictional facts" are now out of bounds because of this judgment. You guys are getting myopic - focusing too much on one single finding. The judge notes:
So how much of the Lexicon would have to be verbatim from the original works to be considered infringement? 51%? Perhaps more or is it up to the judge to decide what constitutes a substantial copying without sufficient original elaboration or commentary?
That's the danger of Fair Use. There are no firm boundaries on what amount of the original work can be reproduced. It is entirely up to the judge (or jury?) to decide.
There are attempts to establish some general guidelines and tests. But these tend to be very subjective in nature.
You'd think, then, that it'd be more effective in detecting the half-assed lies of the people promoting it...
It all depends on interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church tried something similar by keeping their holy texts locked in a (mostly) dead language. The flaw to this was that is was possible to learn the language. Scientology has managed to remove the flaw by replacing the language with a black box.
Bush Senior and his administration had a really difficult issue to deal with. Iraq had the 4th largest standing army. Removing it would create a pretty severe power vacuum in the region. It would also invite considerable attention from Iraq's long-standing enemy, Iran.
Taking out Saddam creates another power vacuum. It would be much better if the Iraqis solved that problem themselves. Attempts were made. But Saddam was persistent. Removing him by external force has lead to part of the problems the US now has in Iraq.
I would say that the handling of the Gulf War era was done well. Gambles had to be made. They just didn't all pay off.
The "peace dividend" was short sighted. However, dealing with world politics was hampered by the Congressional witch-hunt that made any military action appear to be a "wag the dog" scenario (and don't get me wrong - I believe Clinton was dirty but he was too good / careful to get caught). Yugoslav and Somalia were none the less battles the US could have ignored - but shouldn't have.
The IPod may have made Apple plenty of money, but the concept isn't revolutionary- its evolutionary. Any person/company could have imagined such a music player. The only thing the world was waiting for was the right technology to make it a reality.
. No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.