IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you can't sue the ISP. Well, you can but you wouldn't get anywhere. They probably do have some sort of terminate-at-will clause in the service agreement. In fact, it does seem like they were doing a fairly reasonable thing (from their perspective). That said, I'd probably try to switch ISPs anyway if that happened to me.
MPAA is another story. You could almost certainly sue them for slander. They said something about you that wasn't true. As a result of that, you had to undergo a certain degree of "hardship". Pretty sure that's just about textbook slander. And it'd be really nice to see the MPAA get hit with that.:-)
Hmmmm...I wonder how this is phrased in the law. Defense: "No counselor, we were not told of a case of copyright infringement. We were told of an alledged case of copyright infringement." Just a thought.
Been a while since i studied this stuff in school, but I'm pretty sure it's slander. Or defamation of character. Means the same thing. Somebody said something bad about you that wasn't true. You have to deal with negative consequences due to their lie. That is actionable. The best example I know of is that if I say that another person is HIV positive when they're not, they can sue me. That's because me saying that could seriously inhibit their ability to get laid. That's almost exactly the example the instructor in my Business Law (we started with general coverage of criminal and tort law) class used.
Okay, we're a little off topic here, but it's a slashback, and I think it's a fairly interesting discussion so I'm gonna put in my $0.02.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you refer to libertarianism as a "left-wing, liberal idealogy". I assume you're talking about US "liberalism" here, which is a horrible misnomer. US "liberals" don't want to liberate us from anything except personal responsibility. But that's another issue. US "liberalism" is extremely close to socialism. They haven't quite managed to push us into a truly socialist system, but that is certainly what they are trying to do. They attract votes by telling the less well off that they've been screwed by the system, and that they'll take lots of money from the "rich" to institute all sorts of social programs to make things better. Well, they don't actually accomplish much, but they seem to have the masses gulled into thinking that voting Demokrat is their only hope of achieving the "American Dream".
The Republicans aren't really much different. They do have the evil influence of the "Religious" Right, but that's balanced by their slightly closer adherence to the Constitution in other areas. The point is that both parties are primarily interested in preserving the status quo which places them jointly in control of the country. And those in control (with the exception of the occasional statesman [read: politician with a conscience]) will always be interested in increasing the size and power of the government. That means less freedom for the average citizen. Unfortunately, the average citizen (at least here in the US) isn't all that smart, so when a politician tells him that adding this shiny new social program is gonna make things better, he believes it. Especially if the tax jump to support it is only applied to the "rich".
Note: There are a number of definitions of "rich". For the purposes of this comment, there are two important definitions, that for the average US citizen and that for politicians. To the average US citizen, "rich" means "anybody who is making more money than I am." To determine who is rich to a politician, you have to pick an income cut off line. That line has to be high enough that the "rich" people represent a minority of the population, but low enough that they represent a sizeable minority. If it is too low, there will be enough "rich" people that when you screw them they can probably make sure you don't get reelected. If it is too high, there aren't enough to exploit effectively because you simply don't bring in enough money for the government.
I guess you do have a fairly good point here, but think about something else. Military officers are expected to exercize their own judgement about whether an order they receive is moral (enlisted personel are pretty much screwed here, they're not allowed to exercise such judgement). Any soldier can be prosecuted for war crimes for following an immoral order (even enlisted personel, which is why I say they get screwed). The military is generally considered to have a higher degree of discipline than law enforcement organizations. So what happens if the elected officials pass a new sedition act requiring that anyone speaking out against the government be silenced. And if they refuse to shut up, they are to be shot. Now, this is clearly pretty extreme. And the Constitutional implications are obvious. But it could happen. Our politicians (yes, I am American...I live in the People's Socialist Democratic Republik of Maryland) have proved time and again that they don't much care for the Constitution (or even ethics and morality on many occasions). So, if such a law were to be passed, by your argument, the FBI should go ahead and shoot anybody who speaks against the government and won't shut up. And since arguing a court case against the law could be constituted as speaking against the government, we would have a real impasse. And as for cases against the DMCA, Felten v. RIAA is currently in progress. Are you also saying that blatantly unconstitutional laws are perfectly legal until the legal battle to strike them down (often taking months or years) finishes? I guess in some cases that's not too much of a problem. On the other hand, in the hypothetical I posed above, it would be a huge problem. Perhaps with recently passed laws, they should be temporarily nullified while they are being argued in the courts. If we got by without them up to this point, it seems pretty likely that we can continue to survive without them until the courts have decided on them.
"If the FBI breaks the law while doing their job then they goto jail as well."
Last I checked, the Constitution of the United States was still the highest law in the land. Despite the morons who try to undermine it at every pass (ie Demokrats and Republicans), the Constitution is still technically the law that guides all others. In fact, I'd be pretty surprized if FBI agents don't have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they take office. Since the DMCA is flagrantly unconstitutional, I'd say that they're not only breaking the law by upholding it, but they're breaking the highest law in the land. Oops.
This makes it a little better even. From the FBI Mission Statement:
In 1998, Director Freeh articulated five core values that guide employees in support of the FBI's mission; rigorous obedience to the Constitution; respect for the dignity of all those we protect; compassion; fairness; and uncompromising personal and institutional integrity.
Rigorous obedience to the Constitution...hmmmmm. Fairness...hmmmmm. Uncompromising personal and institutional integrity? Well, I tend to agree with those five core values. Too bad the FBI apparently doesn't.
Okay, but I still don't see how splitting Office and Windows into 2 companies will help the situation. Unless the courts severely limit the degree to which Microsoft is allowed to "innovate" the OS. And I think that would be dangerous because it probably would stifle true innovation. So you can't include IE with Windows? Fine...what about Media Player? Or the photo stuff? What happens if this gets to a point where the courts really are cutting things out that really do have a legitimate place in the OS. -Perrin.
I'm not really sure why everybody seems so keen on Jackson's idea of splitting Microsoft. If memory serves, it would have been split into Windows and Office. And that is supposed to help how? Last I checked, Exploiter was not a part of Office (except on the Mac, but the Mac Business Unit seems to be pretty independent). And I'm pretty sure Media Player and the photo stuff aren't part of office either. So they'd just be back up to their old tricks again. The only exception is that competing office products might have a little more of a chance. On the other hand, probably not. My experience with MS Office is that it's actually of reasonably good quality, and it seems unlikely that the masses of corporate users are going to switch to something else now unless Office really takes a crap.
The point here shouldn't be simply "Punish Microsoft!!!" The point should be to prevent them from doing it again. And I think that's a pretty great danger. I actually don't much buy into the argument that IE beat Netscape because of the bundling. My experience is that IE is and was (at least by the time bundling started) simply better. Netscape 4.x is, IMHO, pretty much a POS. Hopefully Mozilla will manage to make a bit of a comeback, but I'm still waiting on maturity there too. The environment has changed, though. I think these days people are more likely to just go with what's included with the OS. From a certain perspective (especially that of the fairly computer illiterate consumer) the included (commingled) products are a pretty good added value. My mom doesn't really want to go out and download Winamp over her carrier pidgeon modem, but if there's a music player included with windows, she might actually use it. It genuinely does make it easier for the "idiot" end user. So it's pretty easy for Microsoft to make a strong argument to justify it. The problem is that it IS using the OS monopoly in an anti-competitive manner.
Or you advertize using another medium and specify a phone number in your add. I'd imagine that LL Bean makes a whole lot more money than a telemarketter (this is on the assumption that a catalog is just a compound advertizement). I think a really sound business model involves quite a few different mediums.
LOL...would that I had some moderator points for that. I can just see the lowly airman restraining The General from mobilizing a squadron of F-16s to pave that guy's office.
I'm inclined to reword that to say:
The Internet is for COMMUNICATION!
I'm not exactly sure how to define the difference here, but communication can be an essential part of business too. For example, me viewing an online catalog, then placing an order online using my credit card is a means of communication (and information sharing). I don't see why it should be unreasonable to base a business model off of this. And if you're trying to improve the internet to make this even more reasonable, then great. The danger is in doing something that will improve the net for some, and damage it's usefulness for others. There is definately a possibility of that here, but I think we need more details (just how smart do you want these routers to be?) to know for sure.
Just because it was originally created as an academic research tool doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. In fact, I'd be surprized if the vast majority of internet use is not commercial and recreational instead of academic.
I'm not saying that I agree with the businesses here. I'm not really sure what to think about that yet. It certainly has some pretty dangerous posibilities (imagine if a backbone company decided to put censorware on their routers...and that's just to start), but if done right, I think it also has some pretty attractive possibilities. I'm not really sure whatever came of the Valve/Cisco alliance to improve internet latencies and reliability for games, but that seemed like a reasonably good idea. This kinda seems like a logical extension of that. It's just a question of making sure the companies that control the routers are behaving. I'm not sure how practical even that would be, though.
Anyway, I don't think it's fair to say that the internet's academic (and don't forget military!) roots should prevent it from growing and evolving. It has certainly done that since it's inception. It's mostly just an issue of making sure it grows in the right directions. I think the greatest value of the internet is it's empowerment of free speech. A lot of established organizations (including governments) have tried very hard to block this (DMCA anyone?), but so far they have only had limited success. It would be a shame if part of the internet's evolution was to squeeze out the little guys (like me) who can get online and speak their minds where millions of people can (though probably won't) read it. On the other hand, it's totally reasonable for businesses to go out and try to make money with the net. At least so long as they behave and don't go and try to limit what the net can do. There's nothing wrong with a business trying to make money (in fact, most businesses have an ethical and legal obligation to their shareholders/investors to try to make money, and as much of it as possible), but they have to be ethical about it. I fear that the proposed modifications make it very easy to be pretty under-handed about it.
Nor did they report a thing about the millions of times last year that violent crimes were prevented because the intended victims had guns. They just report the times crimes are committed with guns, and try to advance their "liberal" socialist agenda of so-called "gun-control". As for liber-biased mainstream newspapers, have you ever read the Washington Post? I don't know if I would even dignify the Baltimore Sun by calling it mainstream, but it may even be worse than the post.
Ireland isn't so impoverished any more. They've done a better job of capitalizing on the tech boom then just about anybody. The only large part of Ireland that doesn't have a thriving economy is Northern Ireland. Go figure. With military occupation that fires on peaceful demonstrators and a police force that historically has frequently employed assasination and collusion with paramilitary organizations (and I'm not talking about the IRA) as a means of squelching dissent, I wouldn't want to put a business there either.
So called "Gun Control" (I think that means using 2 hands) increases crime in the United States. The only truly comprehensive study of the effects of gun control in the States (that I know of) clearly shows that as states pass "Right to Carry" laws guaranteeing law-abiding citizens the right to carry concealed weapons, violent crime in those areas drops, and continues to drop on a long term. I think this is fairly intuitive. If I were going to rob a bank, I'd really think twice if I thought a lot of people there would be carrying. The same goes for muggings and rape. Same for just about any violent crime.
After the study was released, most of the so-called "liberals" in the US started screaming about how Lott was a gun-nut. This is pure bollocks. Lott was a univeristy professor who knew very little about guns before he wrote the book. He was teaching an economics or econometrics class (iirc) and wanted to incorporate gun-control. But when he looked for papers to assign to his students, he discovered that there weren't any decent studies. In fact, the most comprehensive took into account a couple hundred of the several thousand cities and counties in the US. So after the class he decided to conduct a comprehensive study of ALL the cities and counties in the US. It showed clearly that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime. Contrary to popular (and ignorant) oppinion, the "liberal" FUD campaign can't change the truth. Unfortunately, it can change the law.
Another fairly strong case against gun-control is the UK. Since they have banned guns (or pretty close to it), their crime rates have hit 100-year highs, and their beat cops are starting to carry guns again for the first time in a century. I also found it fairly interesting when I was at London Gatwick airport just over a year ago that they have regular security there carrying MP5 sub-machine-guns. We don't even have that here in the US. I expect that we have special response teams that are similarly armed, but not regular patrols.
Anyway, sorry about the off-topic post. Gun-control is just an issue that really irritates me because of the ignorance of the vast majority (not necessarly all) of gun-control advocates.
I think the barrier here is the astronomical start-up cost of laying new cable. That's one of the reasons why DSL companies have to rent space from Verizon et al instead of running their own loops.
I don't really share your cynical view of the "Iron Prison", but even if I were to accept that, I think you're missing the point. The fact is that you are in the minority of people who even recognize that school tends to be as Katz (and especially those who wrote to Katz) portrays it. If he can make enough people understand, then perhaps we will be able to effect some changes to improve the whole system. I personally am not willing to accept the rather defeatist attitude that society and the way the world works suck, and there's nothing we can do about it. If you see a problem, then try to fix it.
I agree. I always respected Jon for the Hellmouth series, but other than that, I thought his articles were pretty silly. This post really puts it in perspective, though. This deserves 5: Insightful!
I agree. I signed up with Megapath about a month ago. I was switching from another ISP who still (after many moons) had not managed to get me even close to inside wiring. Well, my inside wiring for Megapath is on friday. The only reason it's taken this long is because I'm in Verizon territory, and Verizon is a completely worthless company. The folks at Megapath have been nothing but helpful. Yes, their prices are a little higher than the competition, but if you go with the lower prices, you might get screwed the way I did with my previous ISP. They charged over $500 to my check card, and then sat and wanked when they were supposed to be making sure my install went through. I haven't seen a penny of refund, and I don't expect to (though I do intend to contact a lawyer). It's well worth the higher price at Megapath. They are #1 on dslreports.com for a very good reason.
"try 'endure irish meddling in a british nation'" Hmmmm...yes, I suppose the British have always laid claim to all the Celtic nations. And then they did their level best to KILL the culture. In the case of Ireland, they even attempted genocide. ("Famine" and Cromwell) Then they tried transplanting Scots and English to Ireland (especially Ulster) to dilute Irish nationalism. I guess that's why you're there.
"dont comment about things you know fuck all about... " Hahahaha. I just have to laugh at this because it is such a studied textbook response. "They tell me I don't understand 'cause I'm American " (Chris Byrne -- Black 47). Just because I don't live there doesn't mean that I know fuck all about the situation.
"which has a protestant and British MAJORITY." Yes, I know that there's a BARE protestant majority in the Six Counties. In fact, it represents a perfect example of "tyrrany of the majority", one of the problems that must be overcome in a democratic form of government. That's one of the reasons that the Brits felt that they had to reinstitute direct rule.
As for that majority being British, I guess it's easy to feel that way while you're still in NI and get to enjoy the British administration kissing your asses. Go over to Britain some time and tell them that you're British. Listen to them laugh at you when you tell them you're from Belfast (or somewhere else in the Six Counties). See how British you feel then.
"British unemployment benefit." Thank you for bringing that up. I wouldn't have really thought of it, but it is an important issue. It's a great example of your beloved British system at work. While the Celtic Tiger is strong, that corner of the island still under the British gun founders. Unemployment is ridiculous. If the Brits had let go of the Six Counties long ago, they'd be enjoying the success of the Celtic Tiger and would not need British unemployment benefits. Just talk to your working class Protestants who have been pimped out, fucked, and sold up the river by Trimble and Paisley.
"clean out your own house before criticising others" Not when the mess in my house pales by comparison. I objected to the problems in South Africa, and I object to British tyrrany in Ireland. Perhaps more so because as an Irish American I have a great love for the Irish nation and the Irish culture. Furthermore, the nation I currently live in has an interest in the situation because we helped to mediate the first productive agreement in the Six Counties. Unfortunately, the agreement has been repetedly sabotaged by fools. And while we're on the subject of the Good Friday Agreement, lets just clear something up. The Unionist assertion that Sinn Fein violated the GFA is absolute horse-shit. I really wish people would do their damned homework and read the agreement. Nowhere did Sinn Fein violate the agreement. The Unionists, however, DID violate the agreement by deliberately stalling the implementation of the institutions. And the British also violated the GFA and blatantly violated international law when they implemented the Unionist Veto and suspended the executive.
So yes, I absolutely stand by my use of the word "endure" with respect to British rule in the Six Counties.
My major objection to smartguns right now is that the technology is just not reliable enough yet, and no gun manufacturers make smartguns. A ban on non-smartguns (MD governor tried to pass one) at this point would be pretty much equivalent to a ban on the sale of firearms. I obviously would oppose that.
As for the buying guns for younger people bit, gun laws aren't really going to help for that. But I am pretty sure that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun. I've been carded just buying handgun ammo. Not sure about other types of guns. It's not all that much an issue of age, though. The issue at Columbine was not age. It was partly simple mental instability in the kids. Mostly, though, it was the fact that the entire system had turned its back on those kids. Heavilly restricting/banning guns would treat one of the symptoms of the problem, but it's really the system that betrayed them that should be changed.
As for your comment about something wrong with society, there really is no way to completely prevent that sort of thing. In fact, I have no problem with the idea of a parent buying a gun for a child who is underage (within reason...I'm not advocating guns for 6-year-olds here). The parent should, of course, make sure that the child has been taught gun safety, and is fairly responsible.
I think that there IS something very wrong with a society in which two high-school students feel that they have no outlet for their problems (often inflicted by others) except to murder other kids and teachers, then themselves.
"It's people like you who truly make me sick." You know almost nothing about me. I tried to make a resonable response to the post. If that makes you sick, then that's your problem, not mine.
As for the gun issues: For a semiautomatic pistol which has a magazine, I do not object to having to insert the mag before firing the gun.
As for the unlocked drawer issue, for me it doesn't matter. I am unmarried and have no children. My apartment-mate is going into the military, and my future apartment-mate is also a shooter. We all know about gun safety. Who raised the issue of a safety? I'll have you know that my gun always has the safety on when I'm not shooting it. Ao, as a matter of fact, keeping a loaded gun in an unlocked drawer would actually enhance the safety of those around me, were I to do it. I would be more inclined to keep an unloaded gun next to a loaded clip. Regardless, I and those I live with all know that the first thing you should do after picking up a gun is check to see whether it's loaded.
If I had children it'd be another story. Then if I wanted a home defense weapon, I'd keep it in a drawer well out of reach of small children. I would also teach my children about gun safety and teach them a healthy respect for firearms as soon as I judged that they were old enough to understand.
I grew up in a house where there were a fair number of guns. My dad spent a few years in the army, and he was a hunter. For quite a long time, I didn't know about his home defense weapon. My brother and I were curious little bastards, but it was kept well out of our reach. By the time we did learn about it, we had been taught a healthy respect for guns.
Part of Ireland had been independent when Churchill became PM. He had been deeply involved in British government for quite some time before that, though. I seem to remember hearing his name associated with the Anglo-Irish War fairly often.
This Six Counties of northern Ireland still endure foreign rule.
I'm not talking about the UK. I'm talking about the United States. And look at all the improvements we've seen in the US due to recent gun control measures. Oh wait, what improvements? There are already a huge number of guns in the US. Furthermore, as the drug trade has shown, our borders are extremely permeable. If you make guns illegal here, they'll just be shipped in from other countries. Probably in the same shipments as the drugs. Not to mention all the guns that are already here. Are you going to require me to give up my gun? If so, I hope you're planning on paying me pretty well for it. And where's that money going to come from?
And if you're not going to force law abiding citizens to give up the guns we currently own, then there's another source of guns in the US. I can just see the headlines now: US Congress outlaws the transfer of firearms; rates of gun theft skyrocket.
Recent history: Oops, missed the word recent. Honest mistake. You still didn't address the use of guns in defending against crime, though.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you can't sue the ISP. Well, you can but you wouldn't get anywhere. They probably do have some sort of terminate-at-will clause in the service agreement. In fact, it does seem like they were doing a fairly reasonable thing (from their perspective). That said, I'd probably try to switch ISPs anyway if that happened to me.
:-)
MPAA is another story. You could almost certainly sue them for slander. They said something about you that wasn't true. As a result of that, you had to undergo a certain degree of "hardship". Pretty sure that's just about textbook slander. And it'd be really nice to see the MPAA get hit with that.
Hmmmm...I wonder how this is phrased in the law. Defense: "No counselor, we were not told of a case of copyright infringement. We were told of an alledged case of copyright infringement." Just a thought.
Been a while since i studied this stuff in school, but I'm pretty sure it's slander. Or defamation of character. Means the same thing. Somebody said something bad about you that wasn't true. You have to deal with negative consequences due to their lie. That is actionable. The best example I know of is that if I say that another person is HIV positive when they're not, they can sue me. That's because me saying that could seriously inhibit their ability to get laid. That's almost exactly the example the instructor in my Business Law (we started with general coverage of criminal and tort law) class used.
Okay, we're a little off topic here, but it's a slashback, and I think it's a fairly interesting discussion so I'm gonna put in my $0.02.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you refer to libertarianism as a "left-wing, liberal idealogy". I assume you're talking about US "liberalism" here, which is a horrible misnomer. US "liberals" don't want to liberate us from anything except personal responsibility. But that's another issue. US "liberalism" is extremely close to socialism. They haven't quite managed to push us into a truly socialist system, but that is certainly what they are trying to do. They attract votes by telling the less well off that they've been screwed by the system, and that they'll take lots of money from the "rich" to institute all sorts of social programs to make things better. Well, they don't actually accomplish much, but they seem to have the masses gulled into thinking that voting Demokrat is their only hope of achieving the "American Dream".
The Republicans aren't really much different. They do have the evil influence of the "Religious" Right, but that's balanced by their slightly closer adherence to the Constitution in other areas. The point is that both parties are primarily interested in preserving the status quo which places them jointly in control of the country. And those in control (with the exception of the occasional statesman [read: politician with a conscience]) will always be interested in increasing the size and power of the government. That means less freedom for the average citizen. Unfortunately, the average citizen (at least here in the US) isn't all that smart, so when a politician tells him that adding this shiny new social program is gonna make things better, he believes it. Especially if the tax jump to support it is only applied to the "rich".
Note: There are a number of definitions of "rich". For the purposes of this comment, there are two important definitions, that for the average US citizen and that for politicians. To the average US citizen, "rich" means "anybody who is making more money than I am." To determine who is rich to a politician, you have to pick an income cut off line. That line has to be high enough that the "rich" people represent a minority of the population, but low enough that they represent a sizeable minority. If it is too low, there will be enough "rich" people that when you screw them they can probably make sure you don't get reelected. If it is too high, there aren't enough to exploit effectively because you simply don't bring in enough money for the government.
I guess you do have a fairly good point here, but think about something else. Military officers are expected to exercize their own judgement about whether an order they receive is moral (enlisted personel are pretty much screwed here, they're not allowed to exercise such judgement). Any soldier can be prosecuted for war crimes for following an immoral order (even enlisted personel, which is why I say they get screwed). The military is generally considered to have a higher degree of discipline than law enforcement organizations. So what happens if the elected officials pass a new sedition act requiring that anyone speaking out against the government be silenced. And if they refuse to shut up, they are to be shot. Now, this is clearly pretty extreme. And the Constitutional implications are obvious. But it could happen. Our politicians (yes, I am American...I live in the People's Socialist Democratic Republik of Maryland) have proved time and again that they don't much care for the Constitution (or even ethics and morality on many occasions). So, if such a law were to be passed, by your argument, the FBI should go ahead and shoot anybody who speaks against the government and won't shut up. And since arguing a court case against the law could be constituted as speaking against the government, we would have a real impasse. And as for cases against the DMCA, Felten v. RIAA is currently in progress. Are you also saying that blatantly unconstitutional laws are perfectly legal until the legal battle to strike them down (often taking months or years) finishes? I guess in some cases that's not too much of a problem. On the other hand, in the hypothetical I posed above, it would be a huge problem. Perhaps with recently passed laws, they should be temporarily nullified while they are being argued in the courts. If we got by without them up to this point, it seems pretty likely that we can continue to survive without them until the courts have decided on them.
"If the FBI breaks the law while doing their job then they goto jail as well." Last I checked, the Constitution of the United States was still the highest law in the land. Despite the morons who try to undermine it at every pass (ie Demokrats and Republicans), the Constitution is still technically the law that guides all others. In fact, I'd be pretty surprized if FBI agents don't have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they take office. Since the DMCA is flagrantly unconstitutional, I'd say that they're not only breaking the law by upholding it, but they're breaking the highest law in the land. Oops.
This makes it a little better even. From the FBI Mission Statement:
In 1998, Director Freeh articulated five core values that guide employees in support of the FBI's mission; rigorous obedience to the Constitution; respect for the dignity of all those we protect; compassion; fairness; and uncompromising personal and institutional integrity.
Rigorous obedience to the Constitution...hmmmmm. Fairness...hmmmmm. Uncompromising personal and institutional integrity? Well, I tend to agree with those five core values. Too bad the FBI apparently doesn't.
If you're trying to show him things that don't suck, I hope you're not planning on getting him American beer! Guinness aught to do the trick.
I wish I wasn't on the east coast. I'd love to join in taking him out for a beer and some good chow. I hope you manage to pull it off.
Okay, but I still don't see how splitting Office and Windows into 2 companies will help the situation. Unless the courts severely limit the degree to which Microsoft is allowed to "innovate" the OS. And I think that would be dangerous because it probably would stifle true innovation. So you can't include IE with Windows? Fine...what about Media Player? Or the photo stuff? What happens if this gets to a point where the courts really are cutting things out that really do have a legitimate place in the OS.
-Perrin.
I'm not really sure why everybody seems so keen on Jackson's idea of splitting Microsoft. If memory serves, it would have been split into Windows and Office. And that is supposed to help how? Last I checked, Exploiter was not a part of Office (except on the Mac, but the Mac Business Unit seems to be pretty independent). And I'm pretty sure Media Player and the photo stuff aren't part of office either. So they'd just be back up to their old tricks again. The only exception is that competing office products might have a little more of a chance. On the other hand, probably not. My experience with MS Office is that it's actually of reasonably good quality, and it seems unlikely that the masses of corporate users are going to switch to something else now unless Office really takes a crap.
The point here shouldn't be simply "Punish Microsoft!!!" The point should be to prevent them from doing it again. And I think that's a pretty great danger. I actually don't much buy into the argument that IE beat Netscape because of the bundling. My experience is that IE is and was (at least by the time bundling started) simply better. Netscape 4.x is, IMHO, pretty much a POS. Hopefully Mozilla will manage to make a bit of a comeback, but I'm still waiting on maturity there too. The environment has changed, though. I think these days people are more likely to just go with what's included with the OS. From a certain perspective (especially that of the fairly computer illiterate consumer) the included (commingled) products are a pretty good added value. My mom doesn't really want to go out and download Winamp over her carrier pidgeon modem, but if there's a music player included with windows, she might actually use it. It genuinely does make it easier for the "idiot" end user. So it's pretty easy for Microsoft to make a strong argument to justify it. The problem is that it IS using the OS monopoly in an anti-competitive manner.
-Perrin.
Or you advertize using another medium and specify a phone number in your add. I'd imagine that LL Bean makes a whole lot more money than a telemarketter (this is on the assumption that a catalog is just a compound advertizement). I think a really sound business model involves quite a few different mediums.
-Perrin.
LOL...would that I had some moderator points for that. I can just see the lowly airman restraining The General from mobilizing a squadron of F-16s to pave that guy's office.
-Perrin.
I'm inclined to reword that to say:
The Internet is for COMMUNICATION!
I'm not exactly sure how to define the difference here, but communication can be an essential part of business too. For example, me viewing an online catalog, then placing an order online using my credit card is a means of communication (and information sharing). I don't see why it should be unreasonable to base a business model off of this. And if you're trying to improve the internet to make this even more reasonable, then great. The danger is in doing something that will improve the net for some, and damage it's usefulness for others. There is definately a possibility of that here, but I think we need more details (just how smart do you want these routers to be?) to know for sure.
-Perrin.
Just because it was originally created as an academic research tool doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. In fact, I'd be surprized if the vast majority of internet use is not commercial and recreational instead of academic.
I'm not saying that I agree with the businesses here. I'm not really sure what to think about that yet. It certainly has some pretty dangerous posibilities (imagine if a backbone company decided to put censorware on their routers...and that's just to start), but if done right, I think it also has some pretty attractive possibilities. I'm not really sure whatever came of the Valve/Cisco alliance to improve internet latencies and reliability for games, but that seemed like a reasonably good idea. This kinda seems like a logical extension of that. It's just a question of making sure the companies that control the routers are behaving. I'm not sure how practical even that would be, though.
Anyway, I don't think it's fair to say that the internet's academic (and don't forget military!) roots should prevent it from growing and evolving. It has certainly done that since it's inception. It's mostly just an issue of making sure it grows in the right directions. I think the greatest value of the internet is it's empowerment of free speech. A lot of established organizations (including governments) have tried very hard to block this (DMCA anyone?), but so far they have only had limited success. It would be a shame if part of the internet's evolution was to squeeze out the little guys (like me) who can get online and speak their minds where millions of people can (though probably won't) read it. On the other hand, it's totally reasonable for businesses to go out and try to make money with the net. At least so long as they behave and don't go and try to limit what the net can do. There's nothing wrong with a business trying to make money (in fact, most businesses have an ethical and legal obligation to their shareholders/investors to try to make money, and as much of it as possible), but they have to be ethical about it. I fear that the proposed modifications make it very easy to be pretty under-handed about it.
-Perrin.
Nor did they report a thing about the millions of times last year that violent crimes were prevented because the intended victims had guns. They just report the times crimes are committed with guns, and try to advance their "liberal" socialist agenda of so-called "gun-control". As for liber-biased mainstream newspapers, have you ever read the Washington Post? I don't know if I would even dignify the Baltimore Sun by calling it mainstream, but it may even be worse than the post.
Cheers,
Perrin.
Ireland isn't so impoverished any more. They've done a better job of capitalizing on the tech boom then just about anybody. The only large part of Ireland that doesn't have a thriving economy is Northern Ireland. Go figure. With military occupation that fires on peaceful demonstrators and a police force that historically has frequently employed assasination and collusion with paramilitary organizations (and I'm not talking about the IRA) as a means of squelching dissent, I wouldn't want to put a business there either.
Oops...looks like I'm off-topic again. Sorry.
Cheers,
Perrin.
After the study was released, most of the so-called "liberals" in the US started screaming about how Lott was a gun-nut. This is pure bollocks. Lott was a univeristy professor who knew very little about guns before he wrote the book. He was teaching an economics or econometrics class (iirc) and wanted to incorporate gun-control. But when he looked for papers to assign to his students, he discovered that there weren't any decent studies. In fact, the most comprehensive took into account a couple hundred of the several thousand cities and counties in the US. So after the class he decided to conduct a comprehensive study of ALL the cities and counties in the US. It showed clearly that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime. Contrary to popular (and ignorant) oppinion, the "liberal" FUD campaign can't change the truth. Unfortunately, it can change the law.
Another fairly strong case against gun-control is the UK. Since they have banned guns (or pretty close to it), their crime rates have hit 100-year highs, and their beat cops are starting to carry guns again for the first time in a century. I also found it fairly interesting when I was at London Gatwick airport just over a year ago that they have regular security there carrying MP5 sub-machine-guns. We don't even have that here in the US. I expect that we have special response teams that are similarly armed, but not regular patrols.
Anyway, sorry about the off-topic post. Gun-control is just an issue that really irritates me because of the ignorance of the vast majority (not necessarly all) of gun-control advocates.
Cheers,
Perrin.
I think the barrier here is the astronomical start-up cost of laying new cable. That's one of the reasons why DSL companies have to rent space from Verizon et al instead of running their own loops.
Cheers,
Perrin.
I don't really share your cynical view of the "Iron Prison", but even if I were to accept that, I think you're missing the point. The fact is that you are in the minority of people who even recognize that school tends to be as Katz (and especially those who wrote to Katz) portrays it. If he can make enough people understand, then perhaps we will be able to effect some changes to improve the whole system. I personally am not willing to accept the rather defeatist attitude that society and the way the world works suck, and there's nothing we can do about it. If you see a problem, then try to fix it.
Cheers,
Perrin.
I agree. I always respected Jon for the Hellmouth series, but other than that, I thought his articles were pretty silly. This post really puts it in perspective, though. This deserves 5: Insightful!
Cheers,
Perrin.
I agree. I signed up with Megapath about a month ago. I was switching from another ISP who still (after many moons) had not managed to get me even close to inside wiring. Well, my inside wiring for Megapath is on friday. The only reason it's taken this long is because I'm in Verizon territory, and Verizon is a completely worthless company. The folks at Megapath have been nothing but helpful. Yes, their prices are a little higher than the competition, but if you go with the lower prices, you might get screwed the way I did with my previous ISP. They charged over $500 to my check card, and then sat and wanked when they were supposed to be making sure my install went through. I haven't seen a penny of refund, and I don't expect to (though I do intend to contact a lawyer). It's well worth the higher price at Megapath. They are #1 on dslreports.com for a very good reason.
Cheers,
Perrin.
"try 'endure irish meddling in a british nation'"
Hmmmm...yes, I suppose the British have always laid claim to all the Celtic nations. And then they did their level best to KILL the culture. In the case of Ireland, they even attempted genocide. ("Famine" and Cromwell) Then they tried transplanting Scots and English to Ireland (especially Ulster) to dilute Irish nationalism. I guess that's why you're there.
"dont comment about things you know fuck all about... "
Hahahaha. I just have to laugh at this because it is such a studied textbook response. "They tell me I don't understand 'cause I'm American
" (Chris Byrne -- Black 47). Just because I don't live there doesn't mean that I know fuck all about the situation.
"which has a protestant and British MAJORITY."
Yes, I know that there's a BARE protestant majority in the Six Counties. In fact, it represents a perfect example of "tyrrany of the majority", one of the problems that must be overcome in a democratic form of government. That's one of the reasons that the Brits felt that they had to reinstitute direct rule.
As for that majority being British, I guess it's easy to feel that way while you're still in NI and get to enjoy the British administration kissing your asses. Go over to Britain some time and tell them that you're British. Listen to them laugh at you when you tell them you're from Belfast (or somewhere else in the Six Counties). See how British you feel then.
"British unemployment benefit."
Thank you for bringing that up. I wouldn't have really thought of it, but it is an important issue. It's a great example of your beloved British system at work. While the Celtic Tiger is strong, that corner of the island still under the British gun founders. Unemployment is ridiculous. If the Brits had let go of the Six Counties long ago, they'd be enjoying the success of the Celtic Tiger and would not need British unemployment benefits. Just talk to your working class Protestants who have been pimped out, fucked, and sold up the river by Trimble and Paisley.
"clean out your own house before criticising others"
Not when the mess in my house pales by comparison. I objected to the problems in South Africa, and I object to British tyrrany in Ireland. Perhaps more so because as an Irish American I have a great love for the Irish nation and the Irish culture. Furthermore, the nation I currently live in has an interest in the situation because we helped to mediate the first productive agreement in the Six Counties. Unfortunately, the agreement has been repetedly sabotaged by fools. And while we're on the subject of the Good Friday Agreement, lets just clear something up. The Unionist assertion that Sinn Fein violated the GFA is absolute horse-shit. I really wish people would do their damned homework and read the agreement. Nowhere did Sinn Fein violate the agreement. The Unionists, however, DID violate the agreement by deliberately stalling the implementation of the institutions. And the British also violated the GFA and blatantly violated international law when they implemented the Unionist Veto and suspended the executive.
So yes, I absolutely stand by my use of the word "endure" with respect to British rule in the Six Counties.
Cheers,
Perrin.
My major objection to smartguns right now is that the technology is just not reliable enough yet, and no gun manufacturers make smartguns. A ban on non-smartguns (MD governor tried to pass one) at this point would be pretty much equivalent to a ban on the sale of firearms. I obviously would oppose that.
As for the buying guns for younger people bit, gun laws aren't really going to help for that. But I am pretty sure that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun. I've been carded just buying handgun ammo. Not sure about other types of guns. It's not all that much an issue of age, though. The issue at Columbine was not age. It was partly simple mental instability in the kids. Mostly, though, it was the fact that the entire system had turned its back on those kids. Heavilly restricting/banning guns would treat one of the symptoms of the problem, but it's really the system that betrayed them that should be changed.
As for your comment about something wrong with society, there really is no way to completely prevent that sort of thing. In fact, I have no problem with the idea of a parent buying a gun for a child who is underage (within reason...I'm not advocating guns for 6-year-olds here). The parent should, of course, make sure that the child has been taught gun safety, and is fairly responsible.
I think that there IS something very wrong with a society in which two high-school students feel that they have no outlet for their problems (often inflicted by others) except to murder other kids and teachers, then themselves.
Cheers,
Perrin.
"It's people like you who truly make me sick."
You know almost nothing about me. I tried to make a resonable response to the post. If that makes you sick, then that's your problem, not mine.
As for the gun issues: For a semiautomatic pistol which has a magazine, I do not object to having to insert the mag before firing the gun.
As for the unlocked drawer issue, for me it doesn't matter. I am unmarried and have no children. My apartment-mate is going into the military, and my future apartment-mate is also a shooter. We all know about gun safety. Who raised the issue of a safety? I'll have you know that my gun always has the safety on when I'm not shooting it. Ao, as a matter of fact, keeping a loaded gun in an unlocked drawer would actually enhance the safety of those around me, were I to do it. I would be more inclined to keep an unloaded gun next to a loaded clip. Regardless, I and those I live with all know that the first thing you should do after picking up a gun is check to see whether it's loaded.
If I had children it'd be another story. Then if I wanted a home defense weapon, I'd keep it in a drawer well out of reach of small children. I would also teach my children about gun safety and teach them a healthy respect for firearms as soon as I judged that they were old enough to understand.
I grew up in a house where there were a fair number of guns. My dad spent a few years in the army, and he was a hunter. For quite a long time, I didn't know about his home defense weapon. My brother and I were curious little bastards, but it was kept well out of our reach. By the time we did learn about it, we had been taught a healthy respect for guns.
Cheers,
Perrin.
Part of Ireland had been independent when Churchill became PM. He had been deeply involved in British government for quite some time before that, though. I seem to remember hearing his name associated with the Anglo-Irish War fairly often.
This Six Counties of northern Ireland still endure foreign rule.
Cheers,
Perrin.
I'm not talking about the UK. I'm talking about the United States. And look at all the improvements we've seen in the US due to recent gun control measures. Oh wait, what improvements? There are already a huge number of guns in the US. Furthermore, as the drug trade has shown, our borders are extremely permeable. If you make guns illegal here, they'll just be shipped in from other countries. Probably in the same shipments as the drugs. Not to mention all the guns that are already here. Are you going to require me to give up my gun? If so, I hope you're planning on paying me pretty well for it. And where's that money going to come from?
And if you're not going to force law abiding citizens to give up the guns we currently own, then there's another source of guns in the US. I can just see the headlines now: US Congress outlaws the transfer of firearms; rates of gun theft skyrocket.
Recent history: Oops, missed the word recent. Honest mistake. You still didn't address the use of guns in defending against crime, though.
Cheers,
Perrin.