Actually an interesting report, which may or may not be true, but which is absolutely irrelevant to the issues at hand. If true, then Clinton preferred to do his work using other mechanisms than email. Whoopee.
However, what is not questionable is that you are evading the issues with the usual blame-someone-else bullshit. How about if you take it to your "intellectual" peers at alt.fan.rush-limbaugh? Pretty please with sugar on it. You dildo hurler.
That's a fundamental epistemological problem, and you are just running away from the issues. Of course we can't know that anything is adequately proven. Maybe the entire universe is a figment of your imagination. We have to do the best we can with what we have here and now. Yes, it would be easy to put gibberish on any CD, but if the CD contains critical information of malfeasance or incompetence...
I'm not certain if you are just attempting to run away from the issue, but I'll clarify that my point is that it's increasingly easy to copy information these days. In this particular case of Morgan Stanley, the judge has made a big judgment against them based on the available evidence--and also based on the lack of exonerating evidence that might have existed in the email.
No, it is a firmly established legal principle that you cannot hold anyone liable for a crime that was defined after the event. About the closest they can do is to try to shoehorn something into an older law that has enough vagueness to it, but even that approach usually fails.
Well, it's more rational than the other comments, but still begs the main questions. However, I fundamentally disagree, and even though our corporate email system is relatively wasteful and inefficient. The cost of storage is trivial and declining, and any company that doesn't have a good backup system in place deserves to suffer severely when the inevitable crash comes. However, not even considering the corporate backup system, most people just copy the universe directly to their new computer, since hard disks keep growing. I haven't checked recently (which reminds me that it's time for a backup), but my home file personal system with 20+ years of accumulated writing and email will still fit on a single CD-R.
Actually, you reminded me of an interesting article that claimed that many of the Web pages now available will never be deleted. Not sure if I buy it, but the marginal cost of keeping the pages available is very small, and declining. The cost of creating them was vastly larger, but it's already expensed and there's nothing that can be done about that. On the other hand, to decide that a page should be deleted is a very difficult and expensive process, since someone has to really get a deep understanding of the material and be reasonably certain that the information will never be needed again. The cost of reproducing it will quite likely be prohibitive, even if it can be done. Ergo, the pages will simply be carried forward forever...
No, what you are trying to do is confuse the actual issues by quibbling over the meaning of "few".
Is Cheney a corrupt bastard?
You can answer yes or no, or you can quibble about "bastard". I hereby predict the quibble, except that the effect of predicting the quibble insures you won't.
I really don't think it's unprecedented, though the scale of the current corruption is way above average. Latest example I saw was the summary of the proposed base closings. They claim there was no port barrel politics involved, but the odds of that distribution coming up at random have to be less than for drawing to an inside straight.
And the hypocrisy is astounding. Faith-based or whatever, I still can't understand what keeps their heads from exploding.
Yeah, and I read an interview that says Dubya is completely clueless about reality. You're so full of crock. So I'll recycle the appropriate response:
I believe everything I read on the Web. Really.
Some interview says that Clinton, a brilliant student and vigorous reader never bothered to learn to use a computer. Makes perfect sense!
Whoops, I suppose I better clarify my statement. I really do believe everything I read on the Web. What I believe is that someone wrote it. (Actually even that belief is subject to some epistemological qualifications, such as that my computer and eyes are working properly, etc.) However, I do *NOT* believe in the sense of believing that it is true or even that it has meaning. I believe someone wrote it, and there is a context in which there were reasons why it was written. But true? Just for beginners, the author might be mistaken, though in this case the more obvious concern is that the source is full of shit. True? Sorry, I'm not going to believe it just because some moron on/. says so.
I keep thinking about what has been reported as the marketing slogan for Longhorn: "It just works." If so, that would be the first time in the history of Microsoft. I really doubt it. Yes, I appreciate that Microsoft is sincerely trying to make better software, but they continue to make their software more and more complex, and I'd certainly wager that Longhorn will have bugs. (Actually, I've already won that bet--Microsoft has already begun patching Longhorn's bugs.) There will be lots of times when it will *NOT* just work. They are building their entire marketing campaign on a bald lie.
Sadly, Microsoft is very much in touch with our times--just like Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert is in touch with modern "reality". Truth is becoming a meaningless notion. Creating "proper" images and making money are apparently the only things that count.
Sad to watch, though from a historical perspective I don't care that much. However, that's just my faith in truth and democracy. I think they are good, and therefore will ultimately prevail--but the current evidence is that the places where they prevail will be elsewhere than my beloved homeland.
Okay, "few" is a subjective term, but your "defense" of Cheney mostly reminds me of page 248 in Imperial Hubris where he talks about the corrupting changes he's witnessed. His claim is that the current retirees have changed their refrain. They used to say "Now I'll be able to relax and do what as I please," but these days what they say on retiring is "Now I can go and make some real money." I'd be willing to say that a long one-job career is probably not a "few years", but that is NOT the case for Cheney. In addition, our life expectancies have increased to the point where some people "complete" two careers.
Just because Cheney was faster to the trough doesn't make him less of a corrupt pig.
I notice you didn't touch the thorny issue of Cheney's continuing compensation from Haliburton, but I'll add another bit that really annoys me. When Cheney returned to government "service", Haliburton was so sorry to see him go that they gave him a special bonus. My recollection is that it was around $40 million. <sarcasm> Purely coincidental that Haliburton received so much government money under Cheney's watch.</sarcasm>
And no, I am not defending that book as a reliable source, though it's quite interesting in many ways. Actually, it's more of liar's clinic, with an amazing mix of truth, lies, self-contradictions, tautologies, propaganda, and just plain silliness. I plan to write an extensive review this weekend.
What actually strikes me as interesting about this is the battle for control of reality and truth. As you noted, many companies want to delete email quickly, but you ignore the question of why. If they are only doing good and honest things, then (you would think) they should be delighted to be able to conclusively prove their innocence. Yet they want to delete the email?
Aha! Maybe they aren't so innocent, and the email tends to reveal their real intentions and actions.
Point one: You can't make a lot of money by being completely and absolutely honest. Just how much a "lot" means is subject to debate. The original quote was $1 million, if I recall correctly, but that isn't so much money these days, so I think it would sound better with $1 billion.
Point two: I don't really blame them for going along with the modern trend. Look at the political leaders we have these days--and their popular support. I think Cheney is the No.1 poster child for corporate corruption. A few years of government "service", then he goes to Haliburton and rakes in the big bucks, then goes back to politics and starts an unnecessary war that "purely coincidentally" throws billions of dollars back to his old company--which is STILL paying him deferred compensation. However, he'll be back in business before the government has to try and pay the piper. If he lives so long, I'll have to count it as evidence against the existence of a just God. I really think a just God would have thoroughly smitten Cheney a good while ago.
You'll note that BushCo is also very eager to control their little secrets, and I'd bet they'd be delighted to erase all of their email, too. The next interesting question is whether or not they can do it, given the state of modern technology. How can they make sure someone hasn't burned a CD that contains the truth?
I wish they would not waste/. front page space on these silly overclocking stories. The kernal of the whole overclocking fantasy is a kind of very American delusion, of how the "rugged individualist" can beat the "corporate drone".
Question: If you frigging overclockers are so frigging smart, why don't you design faster chips?
Answer: It's bleeding hard work.
Of course the real laugher is what the overclockers do with their "extra" cycles. Nothing useful, let me assure you. At least I've never seen a claim of utility. Moore's Law has given us cycles out the wazoo, and the overclockers are just silly fools, like the guy in the cheese shop with no cheese.
You want to improve the world? Write better software. God knows there is VAST room for real improvements there, and no help from Moore's Law.
Microsoft's Hotmail? You've already forgotten that Microsoft *BOUGHT* Hotmail?
I'm really hard pressed to think of any innovation Microsoft has come up with. Even cutting the gonads off of your competitors is old news, though Microsoft is exceptionally good at it.
What's with the Funny moderation? This was funny the first few dozen times it was used, but now it's boring. Are there really so many n00b moderators out there?
Since spam is fundamentally an economic problem, not a technical problem, economic solutions are at least the proper tool. However, I think the cost should be up front, so legitimate businesses will see it as normal advertising costs and spammers will be unable to divide by zero mo matter how they lie.
That said, the ultimate system I want would involve auctions for my time. I would specify how much advertising I'm willing to see, say 15 minutes worth per day. I would provide some personal information to a trusted intermediary who would lose out if my informatin ever leaked (since he would then be out of the loop). The information would include such things as what I am currently interested in buying, my location, and even my credit rating, and the intermediary would then auction my 15 minutes of advertising time to the highest bidders, with the profits split between me and the intermediary. Legitimate businesses would be able to reach pre-qualified customers, so that would be their incentive, and for big purchases like a car or a house, it would easily be worth paying to reach good candidates.
Hmm... To me I think it depends on how they went about it and how quickly they reported it, but the main problem was that the system was not secure. That the students managed to exploit the schools' failure to make the information secure is also wrong, but not the main problem. Actually, the biggest problem would be if the existing security hole/s was/were already exploited by someone else.
One easy scenario to imagine: They heard rumors that someone else had hacked into the database. Not knowing anything for sure, they started probing for how it might have been done, only to suddenly discover themselves in the middle of the data. I don't see any way to excuse it if they then copied some or all of the data, no matter what they claim about destruction of those copies--but that certainly won't do much if there actually was an earlier and more "discreet" breakin. Not nearly enough data in the article to really understand what went on there, though it sounds like they never actually reported it, but rather were caught for boasting about it. That makes me think they were idiots, too, and some more cunning and diabolical students may have followed the rumors and also obtained the data.
Now why wasn't that post moderated to insightful? Shucks and darn, somehow it makes me doubt the "accuracy" of the moderation system, even for +5 funny. (And what the heck is an "overrated moderation"?)
What you said is basically very sensible, but I will add one minor comment by way of extension. I am not at all convinced that we need to encourage creativity these days. Modern technology allows all of us to have quite a bit of free time. Some people want to sacrifice it to extra work to make more money, some spend it with their family, others want to kill the time being couch potatoes or in other ways that I regard as less useful. A few people will use it for creativity, creating just because they love to create.
My own belief is that there are plenty of enthusiastic amateurs and they would create enough new work to satisfy most of the social needs for things like mystery novels and paintings and songs. Yeah, most of it would be pretty amateurish, but most of everything is under the 80:20 rule. However, I also think the best of those creators are going to find support for doing it full time, whether or not they can be regarded as "professionals" in the way the current system sees things. Remember that these people would be doing it for love of creativity.
I frankly think we would not (and should not) miss such commercial "creative" endeavors as Desperate Housewives.
Actually, I just thought of one more thing that should be noted. Modern technology is making creative resources more accessible to average people, so the argument about "needing lots of money to do creative work" is also increasingly specious. Really creative people will *NEVER* feel like they have all the resources they can use, but we are already reaching the visual limits. As Lucas put it, the current state of computer graphics is already adequte to allow him to create any image he can imagine. The cost of such computing power continues to decline, but it's also easy to imagine shared P2P projects to provide cycles. "Like this movie? Please let me have some of your unused cycles for my work on the next one. Go to http://www.moviegrid.org/ and register to help." (No, there isn't any such URL. Yet.)
Duh. Mickey Mouse was basically copied from several sources. Actually, the original name of the mouse was (if I remember correctly) Steamboat Willie, which was more directly related to one of the major sources. I think it was actually Buster Keaton, and the mouse was supposed to be an animated version.
Balderdash. Are you just trying to be moderated as a troll?
The natural extension of your "argument" is that the creative people should create one adequately "good" thing, and then they can sit on their arses for the rest of their lives. That most definitely is *NOT* the purpose of copyright.
Of course, I admit that is not actually a problem of the present system, since these days the actual creators have generally signed over all their rights. Most of them make pretty mediocre livings, but they hope for the second round effect: If one of their creations does very well, they can generally start negotiating for much more favorable contracts. The MPAA gang is quite willing to play along with those rules, since it's relatively more convenient to control a small market defined by a few "megastars".
I think the most extreme example is for manufactured "talents" in Japan, where some very mediocre artists are hyped to "superstardom". This has absolutely *NOTHING* to to with creativity, and *EVERYTHING* to do with brand marketing and profit maximization.
I feel like I'm restating the obvious, but the MPAA is perverting the intention of copyright. The idea was to *ENCOURAGE* creativity, not to maximize anyone's profits in perpetuity. The idea was that you would get some profits for your creative efforts, not that you would forever strangle anyone who tried to create after you.
Mickey Mouse is the poster child for one part of the abuse. In Mickey's case, they are extending the copyright forever so that they can continue to milk the mouse. If you don't like mouse milk, that's just too effing bad. They have also greatly extended the coverage of copyright against derivative work, again to keep the mouse (and friends) alive and "uncontaminated".
The Marx Brothers represent a different kind of abuse. That's a case where they use (extended) copyright to suppress distribution of works that ought to be in the public domain. In this case, those works would compete very favorably with the tripe Hollywood produces--so they avoid the competition by suppressing those golden oldies.
I was focusing on the last part of the question, but I should have worded it more strongly regarding the source of the problem. Copyright is supposed to support public benefits from creativity, not private profits from protected monopolies. However, the quest for private profits is highly motivating, and politicians are highly subject to manipulation...
Anyway, my basic thought about fair use is that the presumption should be in the direction of the user of the material. After all, the goal of copyright is supposed to be to encourage creation so more people can *USE* and benefit from the results of the creativity. If you are not deriving personal financial profit from it, then that should be a strong defense. Of course, that's a pipe dream, since popular content would be so widely shared...
Okay, I admit that I scan a lot of/. articles looking for the funny side of things, but really... Doesn't look like anyone can think of any aspect of this thing that has any humor to it?
Don't look at me. I have a humor deficiency or impairment. My relationship to jokes is parallel to my relationship to hard work. "I love hard work. I could watch it all day." I can sort of appreciate a good joke, but the probability of my coming up with one is negligible.
(Coming to you from the 14th WWW Conference in Chiba, Japan.)
Slashdot Mirror
However, what is not questionable is that you are evading the issues with the usual blame-someone-else bullshit. How about if you take it to your "intellectual" peers at alt.fan.rush-limbaugh? Pretty please with sugar on it. You dildo hurler.
I'm not certain if you are just attempting to run away from the issue, but I'll clarify that my point is that it's increasingly easy to copy information these days. In this particular case of Morgan Stanley, the judge has made a big judgment against them based on the available evidence--and also based on the lack of exonerating evidence that might have existed in the email.
No, it is a firmly established legal principle that you cannot hold anyone liable for a crime that was defined after the event. About the closest they can do is to try to shoehorn something into an older law that has enough vagueness to it, but even that approach usually fails.
Please stop repeating the bullshit just because you like to run away from the actual issues. Go play with your butt buddies in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.
Actually, you reminded me of an interesting article that claimed that many of the Web pages now available will never be deleted. Not sure if I buy it, but the marginal cost of keeping the pages available is very small, and declining. The cost of creating them was vastly larger, but it's already expensed and there's nothing that can be done about that. On the other hand, to decide that a page should be deleted is a very difficult and expensive process, since someone has to really get a deep understanding of the material and be reasonably certain that the information will never be needed again. The cost of reproducing it will quite likely be prohibitive, even if it can be done. Ergo, the pages will simply be carried forward forever...
Is Cheney a corrupt bastard?
You can answer yes or no, or you can quibble about "bastard". I hereby predict the quibble, except that the effect of predicting the quibble insures you won't.
Sorry, I'm not here to argue with morons. You can find your soulmates over in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, and your playmates in alt.flame.rush-limbaugh.
And the hypocrisy is astounding. Faith-based or whatever, I still can't understand what keeps their heads from exploding.
Sorry, I'm not here to argue with idiots. Perhaps you'd have better luck on the newsgroups. May I recommend alt.flame.rush-limbaugh?
I believe everything I read on the Web. Really.
Some interview says that Clinton, a brilliant student and vigorous reader never bothered to learn to use a computer. Makes perfect sense!
Whoops, I suppose I better clarify my statement. I really do believe everything I read on the Web. What I believe is that someone wrote it. (Actually even that belief is subject to some epistemological qualifications, such as that my computer and eyes are working properly, etc.) However, I do *NOT* believe in the sense of believing that it is true or even that it has meaning. I believe someone wrote it, and there is a context in which there were reasons why it was written. But true? Just for beginners, the author might be mistaken, though in this case the more obvious concern is that the source is full of shit. True? Sorry, I'm not going to believe it just because some moron on /. says so.
I keep thinking about what has been reported as the marketing slogan for Longhorn: "It just works." If so, that would be the first time in the history of Microsoft. I really doubt it. Yes, I appreciate that Microsoft is sincerely trying to make better software, but they continue to make their software more and more complex, and I'd certainly wager that Longhorn will have bugs. (Actually, I've already won that bet--Microsoft has already begun patching Longhorn's bugs.) There will be lots of times when it will *NOT* just work. They are building their entire marketing campaign on a bald lie.
Sadly, Microsoft is very much in touch with our times--just like Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert is in touch with modern "reality". Truth is becoming a meaningless notion. Creating "proper" images and making money are apparently the only things that count.
Sad to watch, though from a historical perspective I don't care that much. However, that's just my faith in truth and democracy. I think they are good, and therefore will ultimately prevail--but the current evidence is that the places where they prevail will be elsewhere than my beloved homeland.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be too surprised if Dubya barely knows how to turn a computer on. He doesn't need high-tech newspapers, either.
Just because Cheney was faster to the trough doesn't make him less of a corrupt pig.
I notice you didn't touch the thorny issue of Cheney's continuing compensation from Haliburton, but I'll add another bit that really annoys me. When Cheney returned to government "service", Haliburton was so sorry to see him go that they gave him a special bonus. My recollection is that it was around $40 million. <sarcasm> Purely coincidental that Haliburton received so much government money under Cheney's watch.</sarcasm>
And no, I am not defending that book as a reliable source, though it's quite interesting in many ways. Actually, it's more of liar's clinic, with an amazing mix of truth, lies, self-contradictions, tautologies, propaganda, and just plain silliness. I plan to write an extensive review this weekend.
I'm not here to argue with you overclocking fools. I am only complaining that they waste front page space on /. with your silliness.
Aha! Maybe they aren't so innocent, and the email tends to reveal their real intentions and actions.
Point one: You can't make a lot of money by being completely and absolutely honest. Just how much a "lot" means is subject to debate. The original quote was $1 million, if I recall correctly, but that isn't so much money these days, so I think it would sound better with $1 billion.
Point two: I don't really blame them for going along with the modern trend. Look at the political leaders we have these days--and their popular support. I think Cheney is the No.1 poster child for corporate corruption. A few years of government "service", then he goes to Haliburton and rakes in the big bucks, then goes back to politics and starts an unnecessary war that "purely coincidentally" throws billions of dollars back to his old company--which is STILL paying him deferred compensation. However, he'll be back in business before the government has to try and pay the piper. If he lives so long, I'll have to count it as evidence against the existence of a just God. I really think a just God would have thoroughly smitten Cheney a good while ago.
You'll note that BushCo is also very eager to control their little secrets, and I'd bet they'd be delighted to erase all of their email, too. The next interesting question is whether or not they can do it, given the state of modern technology. How can they make sure someone hasn't burned a CD that contains the truth?
Of course the real laugher is what the overclockers do with their "extra" cycles. Nothing useful, let me assure you. At least I've never seen a claim of utility. Moore's Law has given us cycles out the wazoo, and the overclockers are just silly fools, like the guy in the cheese shop with no cheese.
You want to improve the world? Write better software. God knows there is VAST room for real improvements there, and no help from Moore's Law.
I'm really hard pressed to think of any innovation Microsoft has come up with. Even cutting the gonads off of your competitors is old news, though Microsoft is exceptionally good at it.
What's with the Funny moderation? This was funny the first few dozen times it was used, but now it's boring. Are there really so many n00b moderators out there?
That said, the ultimate system I want would involve auctions for my time. I would specify how much advertising I'm willing to see, say 15 minutes worth per day. I would provide some personal information to a trusted intermediary who would lose out if my informatin ever leaked (since he would then be out of the loop). The information would include such things as what I am currently interested in buying, my location, and even my credit rating, and the intermediary would then auction my 15 minutes of advertising time to the highest bidders, with the profits split between me and the intermediary. Legitimate businesses would be able to reach pre-qualified customers, so that would be their incentive, and for big purchases like a car or a house, it would easily be worth paying to reach good candidates.
One easy scenario to imagine: They heard rumors that someone else had hacked into the database. Not knowing anything for sure, they started probing for how it might have been done, only to suddenly discover themselves in the middle of the data. I don't see any way to excuse it if they then copied some or all of the data, no matter what they claim about destruction of those copies--but that certainly won't do much if there actually was an earlier and more "discreet" breakin. Not nearly enough data in the article to really understand what went on there, though it sounds like they never actually reported it, but rather were caught for boasting about it. That makes me think they were idiots, too, and some more cunning and diabolical students may have followed the rumors and also obtained the data.
What you said is basically very sensible, but I will add one minor comment by way of extension. I am not at all convinced that we need to encourage creativity these days. Modern technology allows all of us to have quite a bit of free time. Some people want to sacrifice it to extra work to make more money, some spend it with their family, others want to kill the time being couch potatoes or in other ways that I regard as less useful. A few people will use it for creativity, creating just because they love to create.
My own belief is that there are plenty of enthusiastic amateurs and they would create enough new work to satisfy most of the social needs for things like mystery novels and paintings and songs. Yeah, most of it would be pretty amateurish, but most of everything is under the 80:20 rule. However, I also think the best of those creators are going to find support for doing it full time, whether or not they can be regarded as "professionals" in the way the current system sees things. Remember that these people would be doing it for love of creativity.
I frankly think we would not (and should not) miss such commercial "creative" endeavors as Desperate Housewives.
Actually, I just thought of one more thing that should be noted. Modern technology is making creative resources more accessible to average people, so the argument about "needing lots of money to do creative work" is also increasingly specious. Really creative people will *NEVER* feel like they have all the resources they can use, but we are already reaching the visual limits. As Lucas put it, the current state of computer graphics is already adequte to allow him to create any image he can imagine. The cost of such computing power continues to decline, but it's also easy to imagine shared P2P projects to provide cycles. "Like this movie? Please let me have some of your unused cycles for my work on the next one. Go to http://www.moviegrid.org/ and register to help." (No, there isn't any such URL. Yet.)
Duh. Mickey Mouse was basically copied from several sources. Actually, the original name of the mouse was (if I remember correctly) Steamboat Willie, which was more directly related to one of the major sources. I think it was actually Buster Keaton, and the mouse was supposed to be an animated version.
The natural extension of your "argument" is that the creative people should create one adequately "good" thing, and then they can sit on their arses for the rest of their lives. That most definitely is *NOT* the purpose of copyright.
Of course, I admit that is not actually a problem of the present system, since these days the actual creators have generally signed over all their rights. Most of them make pretty mediocre livings, but they hope for the second round effect: If one of their creations does very well, they can generally start negotiating for much more favorable contracts. The MPAA gang is quite willing to play along with those rules, since it's relatively more convenient to control a small market defined by a few "megastars".
I think the most extreme example is for manufactured "talents" in Japan, where some very mediocre artists are hyped to "superstardom". This has absolutely *NOTHING* to to with creativity, and *EVERYTHING* to do with brand marketing and profit maximization.
Mickey Mouse is the poster child for one part of the abuse. In Mickey's case, they are extending the copyright forever so that they can continue to milk the mouse. If you don't like mouse milk, that's just too effing bad. They have also greatly extended the coverage of copyright against derivative work, again to keep the mouse (and friends) alive and "uncontaminated".
The Marx Brothers represent a different kind of abuse. That's a case where they use (extended) copyright to suppress distribution of works that ought to be in the public domain. In this case, those works would compete very favorably with the tripe Hollywood produces--so they avoid the competition by suppressing those golden oldies.
Who said crime doesn't pay?
Anyway, my basic thought about fair use is that the presumption should be in the direction of the user of the material. After all, the goal of copyright is supposed to be to encourage creation so more people can *USE* and benefit from the results of the creativity. If you are not deriving personal financial profit from it, then that should be a strong defense. Of course, that's a pipe dream, since popular content would be so widely shared...
Don't look at me. I have a humor deficiency or impairment. My relationship to jokes is parallel to my relationship to hard work. "I love hard work. I could watch it all day." I can sort of appreciate a good joke, but the probability of my coming up with one is negligible. (Coming to you from the 14th WWW Conference in Chiba, Japan.)