I realized after I hit submit that I was thinking by the old rules -- I should have asked whether pilfering documents from their server wasn't punishable by a federal death penalty by now. (I wish that was entirely a joke.)
Also, isn't the paper just the opinion of the writer, and dismissable by MS like the tobacco industry dismissed the memo by one of its ad exec mapping out marketing cigarettes to children. They would never do such a thing, no.
That MS has one honest soul in its ranks shouldn't be all that much of a shocker, right? Oops, I guess that was a troll.
...constitute some sort of business tort, like disclosing trade secrets? I'm not trying to give MS lawyers any ideas (like they need them) but I've certainly seen Apple goes nuts over this sort of thing.
BTW, that it was on a "fairly insecure server" is as much a defense as "his house had cheap locks.":P
Actually, I had in mind the far less sinister but very annoying lyrics to a hit song by Bobby Mcferin. (I'm unclear why this is on an NIH site, or what therapeutic effect they think the synthesized tune could have on any but the already insane.)
But go with your gut reaction to discover within.:)
Popular Mechanics gave them a chipper write-up last year. As I suggested, all my knowledge of the creatures is second-hand. I'll have to take a look. As for comparisons to an Apache, I've heard complaints about those... but they do pack a wallop.
As a former fixed-wing owner, I've taken care of my aircraft-owning bug.:)
Your definition was tending towards the libertarian aspect of liberalism -- the "keep your laws off my body" sort of thing under the umbrella of "civil libertarianism." This IS very different from libertarianism in the American sense, which one friend described as "mutant Republicanism."
Liberalism goes beyond these prohibitions to impose affirmative obligations on society, as you note, and thus liberals tend to approve of government intervention to effectuate justice. This ranges from affirmative application of civil rights laws (desegregation, etc.) to welfare to social security to medicare and so on. (The older conservatives get the more sound these latter entitlements seem to them.)
I like the ring of "free-market liberal," intended to emphasize individual/group rights without the cloying overgoverning of socialism.
keep overhead to a minimum and provide content that isn't availabile elsewhere
Tough to do if you're not "created" by motivated volunteers or unaccountable flights of fancy (drudge). One would hope to see Internet journals that compete with conventional ones in every way but on paper. I do see quite a few/. cites to their exclusive content, as well as their AP clipping service. As for/. itself, I don't envision an IPO anytime soon, though it it is reasonably likely to be commercially viable. This is the period of shake-outs in the industry, we'll see.
Salon is a good deal more liberal than the "main course" press, so the more apt comparison is to other "second course" small-audience publications, which by definition have a tougher time surviving on the crumbs after we've paid for our NYT subscription and the like. I held out on subscribing to Salon for a long time, until I started to feel guilty and worried about losing the resource. As I mentioned earlier, I think it's stunning the stories Salon has broken (e.g., here; some argue Salon has lost its touch; another naysayer), and this distinguishes it from an also-ran journalistically if not economically.
But I concede I may be overcome by wishful thinking; Salon perhaps has permanently lost its edge and is headed for that place old CPU's go to die.
So I should troll the web for conspiracy theorists to prove the existence of conspiracies? Ingenious.
Every one of the allegations you throw out has been debunked, including the hilarious ones about the bin Ladens. Start at any urban legend site (e.g., snopes) and go from there.
I'm kidding, I do agree Salon is liberal-oriented but have no problem with it given my politics. I'm pretty moderate and don't read Mother Jones or the National Review. Most magazines on/offline are politically oriented one way or another, most to far greater extremes. Perhaps out of concern for "balance" Salon has recently brought on Andrew Sullivan. I wish they'd found a better writer, but oh well.
The remarkable thing about Salon is that it has actually broken a number of stories over the last half-dozen years. There are frequent examples of excellent writing (not all of it). Many people of influence keep track of what the journal is saying. That's quite an accomplishment, and a good deal more expensive to achieve than your average on-line reader-driven news clipping service (ahem).
I would not encourage them to try to be all things to all people, if such a thing were possible. Certainly there could be editorial improvements, but nothing would turn Salon into a fount of wealth. The fundamental problem is the as-yet unestablished business model for this kind of thing. Others are watching Salon cast about for the answer -- the magazine is even polling its readers' opinions -- to learn from their success or failure.
I finally did subscribe to Salon relatively recently -- I *hope* they don't go bankrupt! If they do, it will foretell decreased access to the online versions of traditional press, the failure of other online forums, and pressure on the rest to somehow raise profitability by increasing annoying advertising or other schemes. Despite it's far lower overhead,/. is not immune.
Some good points. But the thing is the gov't has to make a choice based on what is best to provide information to the population. It doesn't have to choose an OS based on wage-earning potential. It has to be very price-sensitive.
If India could simply choose between Linux (free) and pirated MS (free) that would be one thing. But it is very different for the state to steal software versus individuals. India will not be eager to provoke protests from U.S. copyright holders, even if it declines to pursue private piracy. (Unlike China, India actually appears sensitive to U.S. pressure.) Bill Gates is doubtlessly aware India could just steal what it needs, and is offering cheaper deals to avoid that while earning some diplomatic points.
Regardless of which OS is chosen, it will need support. I doubt the manpower is much greater for one over the other, and ultimately Linux would likely demand less supervision.
...and we should believe all this on your say-so? Impressive how you avoid citing even one fact. That's the miracle of conspiracy theory: the "absence" of facts proves the theory.
There are a thousand reasons this kind of thing is silly, and the most prominent is the myth of Washington competence to keep a secret. Oh yeah, and the lack of evidence.
Sooooooooo... is it harder to get established in real terms, or has the definition of "established" merely changed?
As a carpenter I marvel how this old-growth wood and plaster houses in my neighborhood were built affordably. The labor involved was staggering -- very few power tools, tremendous amount of hand labor, and so on. I can only assume the craftsman were paid next to nothing. Houses now are much lower quality and far less labor, but probably cost more only because of the value of the underlying dirt.
Alll is all, I'm pretty sure I'd rather live today than in any time yesteryear, on a health care perspective alone.
I've been lurking during this debate over who will (re)colonize India -- Linux or MS -- and am perplexed by one thing, the alleged reluctance of the Indian gov't (which apparently decides some things province by province?) to adopt a scheme like Linux that might not be completely turnkey. Everything I've read suggests that India is one of the biggest producers of computer technical talent, as the Silicon Valley drive for the U.S. to grant more worker visas attests. Also, much of U.S. tech support is being outsourced to India because of cheap fiber optic lines, cheaper tech labor, and the large number of fluent English speakers. (I've read in the NYT that some customer support reps even make up little American lives for chit-chat with unaware clients on the phone.)
So... doesn't India have the homegrown talents, and why do they need state visits from RMS and BG to make up their minds? Why does it seem politicians are getting in the middle of all this? (Oops, answered my own question.)
...as I think they were called in the states... my airman's exam included a few ancient questions about them, though to my knowledge they are essentially extinct. A helicopter pilot I quered described them as you do -- combining features of a fixed-wing and helicopter -- but as he put it, the gyroplane adopted all the worst aspects of each.
Most regular helicopters can land quite well by autorotation, in fact emergency autorotation is 75% of helicopter flight training if one already knows how to fly. Autorotating is basically diving to build up momentum in the rotor after a power failure, then increasing the pitch of the blades to slow descent into, one hopes, a half-decent landing. I tried this once with an instructor in a doorless Robinson, and as a fixed-wing pilot I admit it scared the heck out of me.:)
I glimpsed a gyroplane in flight for the first time the other night watching the classic It Happened One Night (1934; Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert). Highly recommended -- the movie, not the flying contraption.:)
Article V sets out the amendment procedure -- the Congress may propose the amendment by 2/3 vote, but the states must ratify it by a 3/4 vote for it to have any effect.
For history buffs, note the prohibition of amendments before 1808 to clauses concerning _______.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The sort of privacy rollbacks we're seeing have been hotly desired by certain groups for years. They probably already had their ideal statutes written up, ready for a quick edit in the wordprocessor. So it is more accurate to view this sort of legislation not as a kneejerk reaction but as a kneejerk opportunity for a long-simmering reaction. Many are exploiting the country's disarray to advance their law-and-order agendas, without even a pretense of any real advance in defending the nation against terrorism.
As for the near-unanimous Senate vote, you can imagine the fear of those who had qualms -- in the next election they'd have someone shaking a finger at them, accusing them of undermined the nation's security. It would be ludicrous if only it didn't work. Amazing how much political mileage a few bastards with boxcutters can provide.
Encrpyt now! And when the FBI drops by to interview you (the ones I've met have been unfailingly polite), give them the number of a lawyer (it doesn't have to be *your* lawyer:).
Seriously, the privacy issue demands active engagement by U.S. citizens (non-condescending foreigners are welcome to weigh in, too). Pick your favorite advocacy group as your antenna and tune in, this ain't over yet.
Congress is powerless to change the constitution. That's why it's called a constitution. So the 4th Amendment is safe. One thing Congress can do is raise the bar higher, placing more stringent requirements on law enforcement. It can also decide to provide effective remedies for privacy violations.
Whether a conversation or piece of property is protected depends on a complicated analysis called "reasonable expectation of privacy." That is, was there an expectation of privacy that was objectively reasonable, as opposed to what you privately desired.
However, the Supreme Court already trashed the 4th A. over the last couple of decades. It has more holes than cheesecloth, ask any drug defendant.
The one area where the rules have been fairly strict is wiretap, and the reason for it is a federal statute on point. It would be a shame to see this undermined. American sensitivities to abuse of wiretap were heightened by the Vietnam and Watergate era. But that indignation has faded over the years.
The tension between liberty and security is perennial.
No, it would be more like 60 years, with a 20-year phase-in, a 50-year sunset provision, crop subsidies, and special lawsuit exemptions for the pharmaceutical industry.
Here is a reference on when the copyrights will run out, and various other FAQ-like materials.
You're right, I should look at the books again. It's been a while. I don't generally assume the movie tracks the book very faithfully -- Harry Potter I was a first!
...do Bond women have to say? Especially in the more recent movies, when they're reduced to saying "Oh James!"
Nothing against the actresses personally -- but the women used to be more interesting, more sexy, more dangerous (don't the two go hand in hand). It seems like the franchise has taken an already vapid role and made it... vapider? When the Bond girl is tough at the outset, she pretty much melts once Bond shows up, which is OK, but stays melted. Boooooring.
OK, Ian Fleming wrote the books, it's his world. But didn't they run out of books a while ago?
I wouldn't want to cross Domino, though. Does she count as a Bond girl?
Who was the best Bond girl (woman) as pinup? As adversary?
The friend should take it "like a man" and be more like you, eh? Be a shame if she's a woman -- or in your vernacular "a whiny little pussy"?
Setting aside the difficulty of taking it like a man if your livelihood rather than ego is being destroyed, I'd like to point out that journalists can be a little biased on the topic of defamation. Think about -- virtually all of them risk defamation lawsuits all the time, whether malicious or justified. Journalists celebrate First Amendment protection, and journalistic institutions have litigated their freedom to publish to the highest levels of the judiciary.
There's more than a little risk they might pooh-pooh the woes of a defamed individual and decry litigation. At least John Wayne here surely does.
Slashdot Mirror
I realized after I hit submit that I was thinking by the old rules -- I should have asked whether pilfering documents from their server wasn't punishable by a federal death penalty by now. (I wish that was entirely a joke.)
Also, isn't the paper just the opinion of the writer, and dismissable by MS like the tobacco industry dismissed the memo by one of its ad exec mapping out marketing cigarettes to children. They would never do such a thing, no.
That MS has one honest soul in its ranks shouldn't be all that much of a shocker, right? Oops, I guess that was a troll.
...constitute some sort of business tort, like disclosing trade secrets? I'm not trying to give MS lawyers any ideas (like they need them) but I've certainly seen Apple goes nuts over this sort of thing.
:P
BTW, that it was on a "fairly insecure server" is as much a defense as "his house had cheap locks."
Don't worry, be happy.
:)
Actually, I had in mind the far less sinister but very annoying lyrics to a hit song by Bobby Mcferin. (I'm unclear why this is on an NIH site, or what therapeutic effect they think the synthesized tune could have on any but the already insane.)
But go with your gut reaction to discover within.
Popular Mechanics gave them a chipper write-up last year. As I suggested, all my knowledge of the creatures is second-hand. I'll have to take a look. As for comparisons to an Apache, I've heard complaints about those ... but they do pack a wallop.
:)
As a former fixed-wing owner, I've taken care of my aircraft-owning bug.
Your definition was tending towards the libertarian aspect of liberalism -- the "keep your laws off my body" sort of thing under the umbrella of "civil libertarianism." This IS very different from libertarianism in the American sense, which one friend described as "mutant Republicanism."
Liberalism goes beyond these prohibitions to impose affirmative obligations on society, as you note, and thus liberals tend to approve of government intervention to effectuate justice. This ranges from affirmative application of civil rights laws (desegregation, etc.) to welfare to social security to medicare and so on. (The older conservatives get the more sound these latter entitlements seem to them.)
I like the ring of "free-market liberal," intended to emphasize individual/group rights without the cloying overgoverning of socialism.
keep overhead to a minimum and provide content that isn't availabile elsewhere
/. cites to their exclusive content, as well as their AP clipping service. As for /. itself, I don't envision an IPO anytime soon, though it it is reasonably likely to be commercially viable. This is the period of shake-outs in the industry, we'll see.
Tough to do if you're not "created" by motivated volunteers or unaccountable flights of fancy (drudge). One would hope to see Internet journals that compete with conventional ones in every way but on paper. I do see quite a few
Salon is a good deal more liberal than the "main course" press, so the more apt comparison is to other "second course" small-audience publications, which by definition have a tougher time surviving on the crumbs after we've paid for our NYT subscription and the like. I held out on subscribing to Salon for a long time, until I started to feel guilty and worried about losing the resource. As I mentioned earlier, I think it's stunning the stories Salon has broken (e.g., here; some argue Salon has lost its touch; another naysayer), and this distinguishes it from an also-ran journalistically if not economically.
But I concede I may be overcome by wishful thinking; Salon perhaps has permanently lost its edge and is headed for that place old CPU's go to die.
So I should troll the web for conspiracy theorists to prove the existence of conspiracies? Ingenious.
Every one of the allegations you throw out has been debunked, including the hilarious ones about the bin Ladens. Start at any urban legend site (e.g., snopes) and go from there.
I'm kidding, I do agree Salon is liberal-oriented but have no problem with it given my politics. I'm pretty moderate and don't read Mother Jones or the National Review. Most magazines on/offline are politically oriented one way or another, most to far greater extremes. Perhaps out of concern for "balance" Salon has recently brought on Andrew Sullivan. I wish they'd found a better writer, but oh well.
/. is not immune.
The remarkable thing about Salon is that it has actually broken a number of stories over the last half-dozen years. There are frequent examples of excellent writing (not all of it). Many people of influence keep track of what the journal is saying. That's quite an accomplishment, and a good deal more expensive to achieve than your average on-line reader-driven news clipping service (ahem).
I would not encourage them to try to be all things to all people, if such a thing were possible. Certainly there could be editorial improvements, but nothing would turn Salon into a fount of wealth. The fundamental problem is the as-yet unestablished business model for this kind of thing. Others are watching Salon cast about for the answer -- the magazine is even polling its readers' opinions -- to learn from their success or failure.
I finally did subscribe to Salon relatively recently -- I *hope* they don't go bankrupt! If they do, it will foretell decreased access to the online versions of traditional press, the failure of other online forums, and pressure on the rest to somehow raise profitability by increasing annoying advertising or other schemes. Despite it's far lower overhead,
Ask not for whom the bell tolls....
Some good points. But the thing is the gov't has to make a choice based on what is best to provide information to the population. It doesn't have to choose an OS based on wage-earning potential. It has to be very price-sensitive.
If India could simply choose between Linux (free) and pirated MS (free) that would be one thing. But it is very different for the state to steal software versus individuals. India will not be eager to provoke protests from U.S. copyright holders, even if it declines to pursue private piracy. (Unlike China, India actually appears sensitive to U.S. pressure.) Bill Gates is doubtlessly aware India could just steal what it needs, and is offering cheaper deals to avoid that while earning some diplomatic points.
Regardless of which OS is chosen, it will need support. I doubt the manpower is much greater for one over the other, and ultimately Linux would likely demand less supervision.
...and we should believe all this on your say-so? Impressive how you avoid citing even one fact. That's the miracle of conspiracy theory: the "absence" of facts proves the theory.
;-)
There are a thousand reasons this kind of thing is silly, and the most prominent is the myth of Washington competence to keep a secret. Oh yeah, and the lack of evidence.
And we did land on the Moon, so there.
Sooooooooo... is it harder to get established in real terms, or has the definition of "established" merely changed?
As a carpenter I marvel how this old-growth wood and plaster houses in my neighborhood were built affordably. The labor involved was staggering -- very few power tools, tremendous amount of hand labor, and so on. I can only assume the craftsman were paid next to nothing. Houses now are much lower quality and far less labor, but probably cost more only because of the value of the underlying dirt.
Alll is all, I'm pretty sure I'd rather live today than in any time yesteryear, on a health care perspective alone.
I've been lurking during this debate over who will (re)colonize India -- Linux or MS -- and am perplexed by one thing, the alleged reluctance of the Indian gov't (which apparently decides some things province by province?) to adopt a scheme like Linux that might not be completely turnkey. Everything I've read suggests that India is one of the biggest producers of computer technical talent, as the Silicon Valley drive for the U.S. to grant more worker visas attests. Also, much of U.S. tech support is being outsourced to India because of cheap fiber optic lines, cheaper tech labor, and the large number of fluent English speakers. (I've read in the NYT that some customer support reps even make up little American lives for chit-chat with unaware clients on the phone.)
... doesn't India have the homegrown talents, and why do they need state visits from RMS and BG to make up their minds? Why does it seem politicians are getting in the middle of all this? (Oops, answered my own question.)
So
...as I think they were called in the states ... my airman's exam included a few ancient questions about them, though to my knowledge they are essentially extinct. A helicopter pilot I quered described them as you do -- combining features of a fixed-wing and helicopter -- but as he put it, the gyroplane adopted all the worst aspects of each.
:)
:)
Most regular helicopters can land quite well by autorotation, in fact emergency autorotation is 75% of helicopter flight training if one already knows how to fly. Autorotating is basically diving to build up momentum in the rotor after a power failure, then increasing the pitch of the blades to slow descent into, one hopes, a half-decent landing. I tried this once with an instructor in a doorless Robinson, and as a fixed-wing pilot I admit it scared the heck out of me.
I glimpsed a gyroplane in flight for the first time the other night watching the classic It Happened One Night (1934; Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert). Highly recommended -- the movie, not the flying contraption.
Isn't it lovely to complain ... about other people.
Giving liberals a bad name.
They tried that. Notice they don't mention their "other" brother, Wayne, who would've been fine if he hadn't struggled so much on the way up.
Veeeeeery clever! ;-)
For history buffs, note the prohibition of amendments before 1808 to clauses concerning _______.
Article V
The sort of privacy rollbacks we're seeing have been hotly desired by certain groups for years. They probably already had their ideal statutes written up, ready for a quick edit in the wordprocessor. So it is more accurate to view this sort of legislation not as a kneejerk reaction but as a kneejerk opportunity for a long-simmering reaction. Many are exploiting the country's disarray to advance their law-and-order agendas, without even a pretense of any real advance in defending the nation against terrorism.
:).
As for the near-unanimous Senate vote, you can imagine the fear of those who had qualms -- in the next election they'd have someone shaking a finger at them, accusing them of undermined the nation's security. It would be ludicrous if only it didn't work. Amazing how much political mileage a few bastards with boxcutters can provide.
Encrpyt now! And when the FBI drops by to interview you (the ones I've met have been unfailingly polite), give them the number of a lawyer (it doesn't have to be *your* lawyer
Seriously, the privacy issue demands active engagement by U.S. citizens (non-condescending foreigners are welcome to weigh in, too). Pick your favorite advocacy group as your antenna and tune in, this ain't over yet.
Don't worry, be happy.
Congress is powerless to change the constitution. That's why it's called a constitution. So the 4th Amendment is safe. One thing Congress can do is raise the bar higher, placing more stringent requirements on law enforcement. It can also decide to provide effective remedies for privacy violations.
Whether a conversation or piece of property is protected depends on a complicated analysis called "reasonable expectation of privacy." That is, was there an expectation of privacy that was objectively reasonable, as opposed to what you privately desired.
However, the Supreme Court already trashed the 4th A. over the last couple of decades. It has more holes than cheesecloth, ask any drug defendant.
The one area where the rules have been fairly strict is wiretap, and the reason for it is a federal statute on point. It would be a shame to see this undermined. American sensitivities to abuse of wiretap were heightened by the Vietnam and Watergate era. But that indignation has faded over the years.
The tension between liberty and security is perennial.
Indeed. As we all know, one small misplaced cheap product can doom a multi-billion dollar empire.
:)
Correction: isn't the "small misplaced cheap product" the very cornerstone of this particular "multi-billion dollar empire"?
Why does this remind me of some college lecture I woke up in the middle of?
No, it would be more like 60 years, with a 20-year phase-in, a 50-year sunset provision, crop subsidies, and special lawsuit exemptions for the pharmaceutical industry.
I'm speaking strictly for the U.S. here.
Here is a reference on when the copyrights will run out, and various other FAQ-like materials.
You're right, I should look at the books again. It's been a while. I don't generally assume the movie tracks the book very faithfully -- Harry Potter I was a first!
...do Bond women have to say? Especially in the more recent movies, when they're reduced to saying "Oh James!"
... vapider? When the Bond girl is tough at the outset, she pretty much melts once Bond shows up, which is OK, but stays melted. Boooooring.
Nothing against the actresses personally -- but the women used to be more interesting, more sexy, more dangerous (don't the two go hand in hand). It seems like the franchise has taken an already vapid role and made it
OK, Ian Fleming wrote the books, it's his world. But didn't they run out of books a while ago?
I wouldn't want to cross Domino, though. Does she count as a Bond girl?
Who was the best Bond girl (woman) as pinup? As adversary?
The friend should take it "like a man" and be more like you, eh? Be a shame if she's a woman -- or in your vernacular "a whiny little pussy"?
Setting aside the difficulty of taking it like a man if your livelihood rather than ego is being destroyed, I'd like to point out that journalists can be a little biased on the topic of defamation. Think about -- virtually all of them risk defamation lawsuits all the time, whether malicious or justified. Journalists celebrate First Amendment protection, and journalistic institutions have litigated their freedom to publish to the highest levels of the judiciary.
There's more than a little risk they might pooh-pooh the woes of a defamed individual and decry litigation. At least John Wayne here surely does.
If you have a good cause, sue their shorts off.