Re:Questions regarding "Redundancy & Survivability
on
When A Cable Dies
·
· Score: 2
While, I can't be positive, my guess would be that when the Internet became commericalized, survivability for commerical applications was not important. Instead, its more important to make a profit. To make a profit, you do things as cheaply as possible, and you cut some corners.
Furthermore, the internet _did_ survive. One cable was cut, and a small portion fell of the map. The rest of us could operate fine outside of the affected area.
Its mostly a matter of cost and importance of the system. Buying books from Australia just isn't "mission critical" so it doesn't need to survive a nuclear blast. However, I'm willing to bet that any mission critical military systems that are on the internet do have proper redundancy in place. They don't care about profit. ---
I don't see the point in caring about life on Mars. We know it won't be intelligent, planet jumping martians. We also know that it won't stop us from landing on Mars and exploiting it for our own purposes when we can. So who cares if we found life on Mars years ago? It doesn't change or proove anything.
Maybe you'll say "But this proves that there can be life on other planets!" I think the fact that we developed intelligent life on this hunk of rock is proof enough that micro-organisms can exist on other planets. Again, this doesn't prove anything important.
Besides, now this is a conflicting report. The previous one (and lots of other ones) said that there was no life on Mars. So now that a guy had to hire interpreters to translate the data, he suddenly has insight that conclusively prooves there is life on Mars (which half the world will deny).
I don't think everyone will be content of proof of life on Mars until they land there and bring back a live sample. And even if they do that, it still doesn't change anything. So what's the point? ---
I think it is important that Linux handhelds not do the same thing that we criticize large corporations for doing when a standard is developed. That means it should be an open standard. That means other people (who aren't running Linux) should be able to interface with it easily.
Yes, this does mean you are making it easier for your competitor to steal your work, but that was the whole point of being open. So you don't have to re-invent to wheel, and the person who impliments the standard the best rises to the top.
Word isn't evil because its a Microsoft Word Processor. Its evil because it uses a proprietary file format that is accepted in the business world. Linux hand helds would be just as propreitary if they closed their standards to corporations (like Microsoft) when, and if, they become the defacto standard. ---
Unless I'm given a good reason to hate this change, I think its something Microsoft should be congratulated on for taking a step in the right direction. This doesn't mean we should love them. It means we should send them a sign that says "That's a start, now keep going."
If we continue bashing people when they take steps towards openness, no one will ever see a benefit for moving in that direction. No, Microsoft isn't perfect, and no I don't plan on willingly using Microsoft products more than I have to. However, this does make me hate them less. Just a little bit. A tiny bit.
Then again, this is Slashdot. Not bashing Microsoft whenever possible is a good way to destroy your karma I guess. Ah well...its just Karma. ---
Plus the one mentioned earlier. I haven't seen this much hype in a long time. Then again, did anyone not expect the story to suck in this one? It was intended, from the very begining to be an experiment in computer graphics. Not an experiment in good film making. They don't need to have a good story for this one. ---
Um...I remember hearing about how evil global warming was back in the 1980's. And the Democrats have been pushing for environmental protections (including Global Warming) for as long as I can remember.
Generally, the technology sector has been more supportive of the Democrats, which most likely had to do with education levels (generally, 90% of those with PhD's tend to have a liberal bias). Up until very recently, the only people who worked with higher technology were the PhD's. Now, big business has embraced Technology, so we might see more of a lean towards the Republicans, but its hard to say.
All around, I think this "feature" sucks. Speaking as a student of Political Science, this isn't even a well phrased theory, let alone having any research, or even an informed opinon. If I handed something like this in for a paper for any of my Poli Sci classes, this would be a garunteed failing grade.
We have copyright law, and contractual agreements. I don't think a private corporation (ie, Microsoft) should have the power to bully anyone else into complying with the law. We have government institutions for that kind of stuff. It makes it worse that they're bullying a PUBLIC sector.
We have government for a reason. Mainly, to protect us. To protect us from our neighbors, private individuals, criminals, and corporations. The government should be handling this, not some vigilante style corporation. ---
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly...
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 3
First off, I think this is a fairly good idea. Barnes and Nobles no longer has to go from being a gigantic book store with tons of popular titles and a handful of not so popular titles. Furthermore, the little corner bookstore will have the same inventory (and same prices) as the big boys. Point for good.
Second, it should lower book prices (read the section of the article about expensive guess work). Also, good.
Third, chances are, you'll see an actual drop in the number of obscure books that get read. Why? Well, lets go into some depth here...
Whenever I feel like reading something new, and interesting, I go to the book store and just roam around for a bit hoping I'll stumble into something that looks interesting. When I find something, I pick it up, flip through it and decide to buy it or not.
With this system, the above situation is impossible. The book doesn't exist until I buy it. Sure, I can "flip through it" on a computer monitor, just like I can on Amazon. Though, I can honestly say I've never bought a random book off Amazon. Its always been something I planned for, and directly went for. Not to mention, they never put anything but reviews on monitors. After all, they want you to buy the book.
Point for evil. This isn't a good development. No longer will people be able to stumble on little jewels of good literature as easily. Instead they'll have to know what they want, before they can look at it. I'm not sure I feel peachy about that. ---
That's what advertizements are for. Content (be it the Internet, Television, or Print Magazines) have a customer, and its generally not the reader. Its the advertizers. The reader is what they market to the advertizer.
That's why most television programming you don't have to pay for. That's why Newspapers (and their websites) come cheap or completely free. And that's the way its been for who knows how long (I'd say at least twenty years, most likely since the dawn of Radio).
There are exceptions. The exceptions are stuff like HBO, Cinemax, and other pay channels. In return, you get premium content, as well as complete removal of commericals. That _is_ something that people are willing to pay for.
A good example of this can be found at Sluggy Freelance, where you can get an ad free version of the site, if you pay.
Actually, China wishes to be the big dog in all of Asia, which is why they resent the US presence there so much. My understanding is that they see themselves as the rightful leader of the whole Asian region. Taiwan is just the place China cares the most about right now, since its the closest to home. ---
If you've ever paid attention to how the American Law system generally (not 100% of the time, but most of the time) works, it sort of goes like this.
The State files a case against someone (or something), and they find every possible penalty they can lay on that person as possible. Generally, they do this to scare the crap out of the defendents to make them more willing to either settle out of court, or plea bargin to get a reduced sentence.
However, many state legislatures have been getting ticked at the judical system for behaving like this, so they've been writing up mandatory sentancing (Florida specifically has this sort of stuff in response to gun abuses).
My guess is that this case is the prior. Usually, the judicial system doesn't do everything the state demands. The courts are (sort of) good about that. ---
I saw this, and thought of something from my old Constititional Law class. So I pulled out my text book, and looked up the case, and here's what I found:
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., 940 F.Supp.836 (D.Md. 1996). This was ultimately decided by a Federal District court. Often refered to as the "Murder by the Book case." Paladin had published a couple books (namely "Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors" and "How to Make a Dispoasable Silencer, Vol II.).
Well, someone went and killed someone using the methods found in the books. Needless to say, the families of the victims were pretty pissed. So they brought Paladin to court. The first court said that Paladin could publish anything they want, after all, its Speech, and Speech is _always_ protected (limitations on speech is justified by claiming its not speech, just as a side note).
So the case gets appealed to the district appeals court. The appeals court basically says "This is speech, but its also aiding and abetting, which is not protected by the First Amendment."
Therefore, if the courts use this as an example (as they tend to do), producing the tools will most likely be considered protected as speech, and therefore not something you can provide a prior restraint on, however, if someone abuses your tools, chances are, you can be held responsible.
Based on the limited and informal associations I have with nuclear engineers, most US citizens became afraid of Nuclear power right around the time of the Three Mile Island accident. The feeling I generally get is that the majority of Slashdot doesn't remember three mile island.
Back in the 70's and 80's, Nuclear power was considered the clean solution to all of our energy problems. And they were considered increadibly safe. Until one melted down. Most Americans seem to remember Murphy's Law ("Everything that can go wrong, will go wrong"), and as such, prefer to err on the side of safety. Furthermore, there _is_ a problem with disposing of Nuclear waste. That stuff doesn't just disappear.
In response to a comment I saw earlier about how the first use for nuclear power being a weapon. That really doesn't apply. We detonated the first atomic weapons back in the 1940's. Our Nuclear Power industry was booming in the 60's and 70's. It died in the 80's. People didn't just wake up and realize that this same technology had intentionally killed thousands. No, they were more afraid that it might _unintentionally_ kill thousands more. ---
I was under the impression that Microsoft had intended on porting this to other platforms other than Windows. In fact, I thought that moving to.NET was integral to maintaining their monopolistic structure (ie, if.NET runs on all platforms, including Linux, and Microsoft is the only producer of.NET, then Microsoft still maintains control of the messenger).
If this is the case, you probably won't have to worry about Microsoft port this thing all over the place. Its in their interest to do so, since they won't have to maintain their OS monopoly anymore. They'll have another, more powerful one. Instead, I think you should focus more on producing an OpenSource/Free alternative (and possibly compatible) to.NET.
Porting isn't the issue here, I don't think at least. ---
The way the article makes it sound is that the compnay didn't exactly tell their customers they were going to be doing this. Most likely Acme saw this as an easy way to increase their revenue at a low cost.
Besides, its not Acme's job to enforce speeding limits in the traditional sense. For example, they may say in the contract "You are forbidden from driving above eighty miles per hour, because you will be putting an excessive amount of stress on our vehicle. If you choose to violate this provision, we will fine you."
Companies don't have any social responsibility. They only serve their own profit. You should know this by now. ---
My guess is that developers use clone names, because most of the time they're attempting to use clone projects.
You want GAIM to be associated with AIM, because that's what it does. If you name it something like NickerNackerFooFoo, how will anyone know what the heck that does?
KOffice is another one. It wasnt to be known as an office suite, so therefore, they call themselves what the competitor does, so that consumers will easily identify what the package does.
KIllustrator may have been a bit too close though I think. There are lots of alternative names for drawing programs. Similar might be said for KWord. Sometimes you are getting a little too close to cloning. ---
"I think we should bombard Adobe with Emails, Amnesty International Style. Does anyone have the Email address for the CXOs?"
Behaving like a spammer doesn't exactly help in arguments against spammers.
Now on the other hand, you might write an email saying "While I found your products useful in the past, your abuse of the US trademark system has left a sour taste in my mouth. As such, I will no longer be spending my money on your products, as a way to discourage these practices." Make a reference to the story, etc, etc. Whining like a baby, and spamming the crap out of them isn't exactly going to help your case.
If anything, it'll let them say "Look how immature these people are, all the more reason we want to distance ourself from such foolery." ---
Free Speech from a Constitutional Standpoint...
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 2
The Supreme Court has generally said "You can say whatever you want, but you're not always garunteed a listener, we can regulate that."
That being said, there are plenty of places that you can spam, and if people want to listen they can listen. I don't think its very hard to find a webpage that will make your penis larger or something like that.
The supreme court would most likely find a law that said "You must permit people to come into your house and speak to your children, whether you agree with them or not" to be completely unconstitutional. You have no garunteed right to an audience. However, if someone wishes to speak in a traditional public forum, like the sidewalk infront of a university, you're completely allowed.
This is why its not speech. You're forcing me to recieve your message at my expense. Similar to the example with the strangers speaking in your house. Any restrictions placed on it by government would be a "time, place, and manner restriction." You can spam all you like on the web, just not in people's mailboxes unless they ask to be spammed. ---
At least its somewhat reassuring that the online poll at CNN.com claimed that 60% of all participants thought it was a violating of privacy, while 40% thought it was fine.
Then again, if the people on Slashdot voted, it was probably 40/60 before it got slashdotted. Maybe that isn't reassuring at all. ---
Here are some important US Court Cases involving Speech, incase you want to read up on this stuff more than just slashdot editorials and newspaper articles.
Schenk v United States (249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed 470) - Debut of Clear and Present Danger Test
Gitlow v New York (268 U.S. 652, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138) - Overthrow of Government Speech protected
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. (940 F.Supp. 836 (D.Md. 1996) - A district court case, that allows for people who publish material advocating criminal activity to be sued for aiding and abetting, never made it to the US Supreme Court.
Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement (Lost my notes on this) - Discusses the Heckler's Veto.
Edwards v. South carolina (327 U.S. 229, 83 S.Ct 680) - Time, Place and Manner restrictions. Discussion of what constitutes a Public Forum.
Adderly v. Florida (385 U.S. 39, 87 S.Ct. 242, 17 L.Ed. 2d 149) - More Time, Place, and Manner. In this case, Prisons aren't a traditional Public Forum.
International Society for Krishna Conciousness, Inc. v Lee (505 U.S. 672, 112 S.Ct. 2701) - Has to do with leafletting at airports. More forum stuff.
Madsen v. Women's Health Center Inc. (512 U.S. 753, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593) - Limiting of speech around abortion clinics.
Cohen v. California (403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284) - "Fuck the Draft" case.
That's all I feel like posting right now...maybe later I'll go into the Symbolic speech stuff, and publisher rights, etc. Use this for a good starting point if you really like this stuff.
"But he has no immediate plans to patent fire, crop rotation or other fundamental advances in civilisation."
Fantastic! Then my favorite "Big Business" company can patent them instead, and then start suing aboriginal people who use fire. Damn those natives not obeying IP laws! ---
"They appear to be quite a good spec too, PIII-600mhz 128mb RAM, 17GB HD"
Are rack mounted computers always that far behind stuff in cases? You can get a computer with twice as much of everything for a fairly cheap. 1.2Ghz, 256mb RAM, 40GB HD, yada.
Granted, you usually don't need that much power. But how does this tiny bit of space saving compare to the spec difference? ---
I think that's technically what the US attempts to do by using its jury system. In theory, if there is a stupid case, a bunch of people say "That's dumb" and kick it out of court.
Though, its not as fast as doing it your way with flashing lights or something.
On the downside, there are a large number of dumb cases with juries. That usually implies that a) the cases aren't as dumb as we think, or b) the juries are dumber than we think. It can be dangerous to overestimate people like that sometimes. ---
Slashdot Mirror
While, I can't be positive, my guess would be that when the Internet became commericalized, survivability for commerical applications was not important. Instead, its more important to make a profit. To make a profit, you do things as cheaply as possible, and you cut some corners.
Furthermore, the internet _did_ survive. One cable was cut, and a small portion fell of the map. The rest of us could operate fine outside of the affected area.
Its mostly a matter of cost and importance of the system. Buying books from Australia just isn't "mission critical" so it doesn't need to survive a nuclear blast. However, I'm willing to bet that any mission critical military systems that are on the internet do have proper redundancy in place. They don't care about profit.
---
I don't see the point in caring about life on Mars. We know it won't be intelligent, planet jumping martians. We also know that it won't stop us from landing on Mars and exploiting it for our own purposes when we can. So who cares if we found life on Mars years ago? It doesn't change or proove anything.
Maybe you'll say "But this proves that there can be life on other planets!" I think the fact that we developed intelligent life on this hunk of rock is proof enough that micro-organisms can exist on other planets. Again, this doesn't prove anything important.
Besides, now this is a conflicting report. The previous one (and lots of other ones) said that there was no life on Mars. So now that a guy had to hire interpreters to translate the data, he suddenly has insight that conclusively prooves there is life on Mars (which half the world will deny).
I don't think everyone will be content of proof of life on Mars until they land there and bring back a live sample. And even if they do that, it still doesn't change anything. So what's the point?
---
I think it is important that Linux handhelds not do the same thing that we criticize large corporations for doing when a standard is developed. That means it should be an open standard. That means other people (who aren't running Linux) should be able to interface with it easily.
Yes, this does mean you are making it easier for your competitor to steal your work, but that was the whole point of being open. So you don't have to re-invent to wheel, and the person who impliments the standard the best rises to the top.
Word isn't evil because its a Microsoft Word Processor. Its evil because it uses a proprietary file format that is accepted in the business world. Linux hand helds would be just as propreitary if they closed their standards to corporations (like Microsoft) when, and if, they become the defacto standard.
---
Unless I'm given a good reason to hate this change, I think its something Microsoft should be congratulated on for taking a step in the right direction. This doesn't mean we should love them. It means we should send them a sign that says "That's a start, now keep going."
If we continue bashing people when they take steps towards openness, no one will ever see a benefit for moving in that direction. No, Microsoft isn't perfect, and no I don't plan on willingly using Microsoft products more than I have to. However, this does make me hate them less. Just a little bit. A tiny bit.
Then again, this is Slashdot. Not bashing Microsoft whenever possible is a good way to destroy your karma I guess. Ah well...its just Karma.
---
Movie Stars Fear Inroads by Upstart Digital Actors
They may look kind of cool, but the cast of ``Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within'' will never work in this town again.
'Final Fantasy' Changes Performer Role
Plus the one mentioned earlier. I haven't seen this much hype in a long time. Then again, did anyone not expect the story to suck in this one? It was intended, from the very begining to be an experiment in computer graphics. Not an experiment in good film making. They don't need to have a good story for this one.
---
Um...I remember hearing about how evil global warming was back in the 1980's. And the Democrats have been pushing for environmental protections (including Global Warming) for as long as I can remember.
Generally, the technology sector has been more supportive of the Democrats, which most likely had to do with education levels (generally, 90% of those with PhD's tend to have a liberal bias). Up until very recently, the only people who worked with higher technology were the PhD's. Now, big business has embraced Technology, so we might see more of a lean towards the Republicans, but its hard to say.
All around, I think this "feature" sucks. Speaking as a student of Political Science, this isn't even a well phrased theory, let alone having any research, or even an informed opinon. If I handed something like this in for a paper for any of my Poli Sci classes, this would be a garunteed failing grade.
Try doing some background research next time?
---
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
We have copyright law, and contractual agreements. I don't think a private corporation (ie, Microsoft) should have the power to bully anyone else into complying with the law. We have government institutions for that kind of stuff. It makes it worse that they're bullying a PUBLIC sector.
We have government for a reason. Mainly, to protect us. To protect us from our neighbors, private individuals, criminals, and corporations. The government should be handling this, not some vigilante style corporation.
---
First off, I think this is a fairly good idea. Barnes and Nobles no longer has to go from being a gigantic book store with tons of popular titles and a handful of not so popular titles. Furthermore, the little corner bookstore will have the same inventory (and same prices) as the big boys. Point for good.
Second, it should lower book prices (read the section of the article about expensive guess work). Also, good.
Third, chances are, you'll see an actual drop in the number of obscure books that get read. Why? Well, lets go into some depth here...
Whenever I feel like reading something new, and interesting, I go to the book store and just roam around for a bit hoping I'll stumble into something that looks interesting. When I find something, I pick it up, flip through it and decide to buy it or not.
With this system, the above situation is impossible. The book doesn't exist until I buy it. Sure, I can "flip through it" on a computer monitor, just like I can on Amazon. Though, I can honestly say I've never bought a random book off Amazon. Its always been something I planned for, and directly went for. Not to mention, they never put anything but reviews on monitors. After all, they want you to buy the book.
Point for evil. This isn't a good development. No longer will people be able to stumble on little jewels of good literature as easily. Instead they'll have to know what they want, before they can look at it. I'm not sure I feel peachy about that.
---
That's what advertizements are for. Content (be it the Internet, Television, or Print Magazines) have a customer, and its generally not the reader. Its the advertizers. The reader is what they market to the advertizer.
That's why most television programming you don't have to pay for. That's why Newspapers (and their websites) come cheap or completely free. And that's the way its been for who knows how long (I'd say at least twenty years, most likely since the dawn of Radio).
There are exceptions. The exceptions are stuff like HBO, Cinemax, and other pay channels. In return, you get premium content, as well as complete removal of commericals. That _is_ something that people are willing to pay for.
A good example of this can be found at Sluggy Freelance, where you can get an ad free version of the site, if you pay.
---
Actually, China wishes to be the big dog in all of Asia, which is why they resent the US presence there so much. My understanding is that they see themselves as the rightful leader of the whole Asian region. Taiwan is just the place China cares the most about right now, since its the closest to home.
---
If you've ever paid attention to how the American Law system generally (not 100% of the time, but most of the time) works, it sort of goes like this.
The State files a case against someone (or something), and they find every possible penalty they can lay on that person as possible. Generally, they do this to scare the crap out of the defendents to make them more willing to either settle out of court, or plea bargin to get a reduced sentence.
However, many state legislatures have been getting ticked at the judical system for behaving like this, so they've been writing up mandatory sentancing (Florida specifically has this sort of stuff in response to gun abuses).
My guess is that this case is the prior. Usually, the judicial system doesn't do everything the state demands. The courts are (sort of) good about that.
---
I saw this, and thought of something from my old Constititional Law class. So I pulled out my text book, and looked up the case, and here's what I found:
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., 940 F.Supp.836 (D.Md. 1996). This was ultimately decided by a Federal District court. Often refered to as the "Murder by the Book case." Paladin had published a couple books (namely "Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors" and "How to Make a Dispoasable Silencer, Vol II.).
Well, someone went and killed someone using the methods found in the books. Needless to say, the families of the victims were pretty pissed. So they brought Paladin to court. The first court said that Paladin could publish anything they want, after all, its Speech, and Speech is _always_ protected (limitations on speech is justified by claiming its not speech, just as a side note).
So the case gets appealed to the district appeals court. The appeals court basically says "This is speech, but its also aiding and abetting, which is not protected by the First Amendment."
Therefore, if the courts use this as an example (as they tend to do), producing the tools will most likely be considered protected as speech, and therefore not something you can provide a prior restraint on, however, if someone abuses your tools, chances are, you can be held responsible.
Then again, IANAL.
---
For EULA that you assent to before you open the package. Consider how its similar:
You don't see the license before you assent to it.
This could be a good case to cite it you decide to sue Microsoft at some point.
---
Based on the limited and informal associations I have with nuclear engineers, most US citizens became afraid of Nuclear power right around the time of the Three Mile Island accident. The feeling I generally get is that the majority of Slashdot doesn't remember three mile island.
Back in the 70's and 80's, Nuclear power was considered the clean solution to all of our energy problems. And they were considered increadibly safe. Until one melted down. Most Americans seem to remember Murphy's Law ("Everything that can go wrong, will go wrong"), and as such, prefer to err on the side of safety. Furthermore, there _is_ a problem with disposing of Nuclear waste. That stuff doesn't just disappear.
In response to a comment I saw earlier about how the first use for nuclear power being a weapon. That really doesn't apply. We detonated the first atomic weapons back in the 1940's. Our Nuclear Power industry was booming in the 60's and 70's. It died in the 80's. People didn't just wake up and realize that this same technology had intentionally killed thousands. No, they were more afraid that it might _unintentionally_ kill thousands more.
---
I was under the impression that Microsoft had intended on porting this to other platforms other than Windows. In fact, I thought that moving to .NET was integral to maintaining their monopolistic structure (ie, if .NET runs on all platforms, including Linux, and Microsoft is the only producer of .NET, then Microsoft still maintains control of the messenger).
.NET.
If this is the case, you probably won't have to worry about Microsoft port this thing all over the place. Its in their interest to do so, since they won't have to maintain their OS monopoly anymore. They'll have another, more powerful one. Instead, I think you should focus more on producing an OpenSource/Free alternative (and possibly compatible) to
Porting isn't the issue here, I don't think at least.
---
Great, now someone is going to go patent the battery that can power both your laptop and your heart. You need to stop giving ideas to these people!
By the way, why can't you have code morphing for human hearts?
---
The way the article makes it sound is that the compnay didn't exactly tell their customers they were going to be doing this. Most likely Acme saw this as an easy way to increase their revenue at a low cost.
Besides, its not Acme's job to enforce speeding limits in the traditional sense. For example, they may say in the contract "You are forbidden from driving above eighty miles per hour, because you will be putting an excessive amount of stress on our vehicle. If you choose to violate this provision, we will fine you."
Companies don't have any social responsibility. They only serve their own profit. You should know this by now.
---
My guess is that developers use clone names, because most of the time they're attempting to use clone projects.
You want GAIM to be associated with AIM, because that's what it does. If you name it something like NickerNackerFooFoo, how will anyone know what the heck that does?
KOffice is another one. It wasnt to be known as an office suite, so therefore, they call themselves what the competitor does, so that consumers will easily identify what the package does.
KIllustrator may have been a bit too close though I think. There are lots of alternative names for drawing programs. Similar might be said for KWord. Sometimes you are getting a little too close to cloning.
---
"I think we should bombard Adobe with Emails, Amnesty International Style. Does anyone have the Email address for the CXOs?"
Behaving like a spammer doesn't exactly help in arguments against spammers.
Now on the other hand, you might write an email saying "While I found your products useful in the past, your abuse of the US trademark system has left a sour taste in my mouth. As such, I will no longer be spending my money on your products, as a way to discourage these practices." Make a reference to the story, etc, etc. Whining like a baby, and spamming the crap out of them isn't exactly going to help your case.
If anything, it'll let them say "Look how immature these people are, all the more reason we want to distance ourself from such foolery."
---
The Supreme Court has generally said "You can say whatever you want, but you're not always garunteed a listener, we can regulate that."
That being said, there are plenty of places that you can spam, and if people want to listen they can listen. I don't think its very hard to find a webpage that will make your penis larger or something like that.
The supreme court would most likely find a law that said "You must permit people to come into your house and speak to your children, whether you agree with them or not" to be completely unconstitutional. You have no garunteed right to an audience. However, if someone wishes to speak in a traditional public forum, like the sidewalk infront of a university, you're completely allowed.
This is why its not speech. You're forcing me to recieve your message at my expense. Similar to the example with the strangers speaking in your house. Any restrictions placed on it by government would be a "time, place, and manner restriction." You can spam all you like on the web, just not in people's mailboxes unless they ask to be spammed.
---
At least its somewhat reassuring that the online poll at CNN.com claimed that 60% of all participants thought it was a violating of privacy, while 40% thought it was fine.
Then again, if the people on Slashdot voted, it was probably 40/60 before it got slashdotted. Maybe that isn't reassuring at all.
---
Here are some important US Court Cases involving Speech, incase you want to read up on this stuff more than just slashdot editorials and newspaper articles.
Schenk v United States (249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed 470) - Debut of Clear and Present Danger Test
Gitlow v New York (268 U.S. 652, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138) - Overthrow of Government Speech protected
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. (940 F.Supp. 836 (D.Md. 1996) - A district court case, that allows for people who publish material advocating criminal activity to be sued for aiding and abetting, never made it to the US Supreme Court.
Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement (Lost my notes on this) - Discusses the Heckler's Veto.
Edwards v. South carolina (327 U.S. 229, 83 S.Ct 680) - Time, Place and Manner restrictions. Discussion of what constitutes a Public Forum.
Adderly v. Florida (385 U.S. 39, 87 S.Ct. 242, 17 L.Ed. 2d 149) - More Time, Place, and Manner. In this case, Prisons aren't a traditional Public Forum.
International Society for Krishna Conciousness, Inc. v Lee (505 U.S. 672, 112 S.Ct. 2701) - Has to do with leafletting at airports. More forum stuff.
Madsen v. Women's Health Center Inc. (512 U.S. 753, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593) - Limiting of speech around abortion clinics.
Cohen v. California (403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284) - "Fuck the Draft" case.
That's all I feel like posting right now...maybe later I'll go into the Symbolic speech stuff, and publisher rights, etc. Use this for a good starting point if you really like this stuff.
---
"But he has no immediate plans to patent fire, crop rotation or other fundamental advances in civilisation."
Fantastic! Then my favorite "Big Business" company can patent them instead, and then start suing aboriginal people who use fire. Damn those natives not obeying IP laws!
---
"They appear to be quite a good spec too, PIII-600mhz 128mb RAM, 17GB HD"
Are rack mounted computers always that far behind stuff in cases? You can get a computer with twice as much of everything for a fairly cheap. 1.2Ghz, 256mb RAM, 40GB HD, yada.
Granted, you usually don't need that much power. But how does this tiny bit of space saving compare to the spec difference?
---
I think that's technically what the US attempts to do by using its jury system. In theory, if there is a stupid case, a bunch of people say "That's dumb" and kick it out of court.
Though, its not as fast as doing it your way with flashing lights or something.
On the downside, there are a large number of dumb cases with juries. That usually implies that a) the cases aren't as dumb as we think, or b) the juries are dumber than we think. It can be dangerous to overestimate people like that sometimes.
---