The only real meat in the entire bill is the following vague paragraph;
knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally affects or impairs without authorization a computer of an elementary school or secondary school or institution of higher education;'.
This is so vague that doing anything on a school computer could be considered a crime. Back in school, when a CS assignment was due, the entire network would grind to a halt as everyone was compiling their assignments on the server. Now I could have everyone else charged for hindering my work!
This is what happens when politicians who don't know anything about computers start drafting laws that concern computers. How can we expect someone who barely knows how to use email (and like opening email attachments;o) draft a technical law? If we want things to change, we need to stop bitching about them on slashdot and contacting the people that represent us in government and make our views know. Don't bitch until you do something about it and that doesn't include posting here.
Here is a more complete summary of the workaround taken from the readme that comes with the cdfs.vxd driver replacement.
Use this alternate CDFS.VXD cd driver on Win9x to show Audio CD's as WAV files
IN THE FILE SYSTEM! This replacement driver shows WAV files in a variety of
qualities. It works on any CD drive that Windows can support.
Then you can use your favorite Wave Editor program to read directly from the CD.
Put it in your \Windows\System\IOSubSys directory, and reboot. You can rename the old CDFS.VXD
to CDFS.old for archive purposes.
Since the article on CDFreaks has been slashdotted (imagine?) and even if you do get through, the links to the workaround don't lead to the required file, here is a quick summary.
The workaround is simple, just replace the file cdfs.vxd on your Win9x machine, then when you go into explorer and open up a music CD, you will see a list of WAV files in various formats. Simply drag them onto your HD, then use whatever software you want to convert from WAV to MP3.
The author's site isn't responding, but you can download the file from Dave Central fairly reliably.
Hey, this isn't as serious as they make it out to be. The government is just concerned because they were stupid and choose Microsoft servers and probably think that's what most people use. The truth is though that Microsoft only accounts for 20% of the servers out there, but Apache runs on 63% (see Netcraft Web Survey)
With any luck, this will just wipe Microsoft servers off the map. Check back next month to see Apache hit >70% on the Web Server Survey.
Maybe you should check out the figures at Netcraft's Survey. Apache runs on over 63% of the web servers out there and MS IIS is only on 20%. I would bet that most of those Apache servers are running BSD, Linux or Solaris. The only reason that Microsoft has such a large share is that it takes a few Windows servers to do the work of one Linux server, so companies deploy more of them for their websites. Look at Microsoft's own attempts
Funny, another highly visible vulnerability in a Microsoft operating system. You think that sometime soon, people would start waking up and choose a more secure and efficient OS for important servers (like BSD or Linux of course.) There is an old adage that 'nobody can get fired for buying 'Microsoft' (used to be IBM). Well, maybe it's time that changed.
When people make statements like this;
The government relies on Microsoft and other technology companies to secure everything from defence networks to financial systems.
and then call this worm,
the largest ever dangers to the Internet.
and then go on to state
Code Red exploits a flaw discovered in June in Microsoft's Internet Information Services software used on Internet servers. It is found in Windows' NT and 2000 operating systems.
When are people going to put the pieces together and start holding the people that choose Microsoft and maybe even Microsoft responsible for these things?
Of course this is only a pipe dream. There are too many people out there willing to believe Microsofts propoganda.
Take a look at the concept painting from the site. What a great way to bring up kids. Send them out to play in their spacesuits. Kids being kids will probably fall over and crack their visors all the time. "Oops, Billy just fell over and killed himself Honey. That is the second child this month!"
Even though there is probably nothing else to do on Mars other than work on having babies, I doubt any woman could churn them out faster than they would manage to kill themselves. There are biological limits here...
This guy will probably have his case thrown out of court because agents, without a wiretap order, recorded a suspect's computer keystrokes which the FBI will then spin to make their point that common citizens should not have strong encryption. They will then push for one legal encryption scheme that they have a backdoor password to (deja-vu anyone?)
This falls perfectly into the government's propoganda that only criminals use encryption. Why is it that more of us don't use PGP for all of our emails? I would happily use it if any of my friends actually had public keys. We can't fight these fights unless we all pull together.
- Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or always-on connections should receive a/48.
This means that every home will have enough IP addresses for about everything in the home. Finally I will be able to telnet into my coffee machine from downstairs and brew a new pot of joe! The possibilities for us caffeine soaked programmers are endless!!!
It appears that there are some rational minds in the decision making process in Canada which leaves some hope for reasonable changes to the law. We must all get involved though and make our ideas known. Read CONSULTATION PAPER ON DIGITAL COPYRIGHT ISSUES. The following bit from it is what gives me some hope...
Domestically, some copyright stakeholders have indicated that in the absence of a prohibition against the manufacture and traffic in circumvention devices, would-be infringers can legally access the means that enable infringement. With respect to the possibility of sanctioning acts of circumvention alone, these stakeholders have also expressed the concern that attempts to seek legal recourse on the basis of such acts are costly and may not always be effective in providing a strong deterrent to infringement in a globally interconnected world.
The departments acknowledge the concerns of these copyright stakeholders, but must consider these concerns within the framework of Canadian copyright law, where certain uses of works and limitations on copyright protection are recognized as serving legitimate and important public policy objectives. Such limitations are evidenced by the finite term of copyright protection, the fair dealing provisions and the exception provisions. These elements of our copyright law have been the outcome of extensive debate, consultation, jurisprudence and legal obligation, both domestically and internationally. Any attempt to affect that balance may require a reconsideration of the current extent of the exceptions provisions.
The departments have considered the possibility of restricting or prohibiting the traffic in circumvention devices, while at the same time permitting devices that have, as their primary purpose, an activity that qualifies as legitimate, such as the enjoyment of an exception or access to material in the public domain. The difficulty is that devices which are suited to infringing uses are, by and large, equally suited to non-infringing uses. For example, a device used to circumvent a measure that prevents unauthorized copying will not distinguish between materials that continue to benefit from copyright protection from those that have fallen into the public domain.
Under these circumstances, the departments question whether it is possible to establish a legal framework which, on the one hand covers virtually all activities that undermine the use of technological measures, but at the same time continues to reflect the policy balance currently set out in the Act. Such a change in the Copyright Act could potentially result in a new right of access, the scope of which goes well beyond any existing right, and would represent a fundamental shift in Canadian copyright policy. It could serve to transform a measure designed for protection into a means of impeding legitimate uses. In essence, a change of this nature would be tantamount to bringing within the realm of copyright law, matters (e.g., restrictions on use) which may be more properly within the purview of contract law. Given the rate at which the technology underlying protection measures is changing, it is difficult, under present circumstances, to evaluate the public policy implications of such a step. Perhaps the role of technological changes warrants a careful study to examine what will be the dimensions of the intersection of anti-circumvention measures with the current Act.
It looks like Canada is going to start charging tarrifs to ISP's for transmissions of copyrighted materials such as songs. This was started in 95 by the Canadian version of the RIAA, SOCAN and it slipped quietly through. This is really scary that this stuff is going on with little public input. For more info, read CONSULTATION PAPER ON DIGITAL COPYRIGHT ISSUES and more specifically Liability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). For the lazy, here is an interesting bit from it;
In 1995, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) had filed a proposed tariff (Tariff 22) whereby ISPs were asked to pay royalties for the communication of the musical works in SOCAN's repertoire over digital networks such as the Internet. In its decision of October, 1999, the Board asserted its jurisdiction to certify such a tariff. The decision is currently under review by the Federal Court of Appeal.
How could the Internet be depressing? Sitting alone in my dark basement at all hours of the day and night reading mindless slashdot comments... No personal contact except for when the mailman comes... Jeeze, where did I leave my razor blades...
Experiments on the effects of zero gravity on bacteria doesn't really capture the imagination of the public. Everything they are doing has been done before, even probes to other planets. Just look at the reaction to rumours about manned missions to Mars and you can see what will rekindle interest in space travel. It was trying to land people on the Moon that originally fired our collective imagination. When NASA starts sending people (not probes) to other planets, then they will regain their fame (and with it their budget...)
Just because the EU is investigating Echelon, it does not mean that it is primarily targetted at Europe. Echelon sucks in everything in North America too. It was started here and they have much more control and access here...
NASA are planning to send a probe, the Europa Orbiter to study Europa in 2003, it should arrive in 2007.
The discovery of life on Europa would more or less confirm the ubiquity of life. If microbes were found on Mars, they could have originated on Earth and moved to Mars (or vice versa), but the chances are low indeed (although admittedly not zero) of Earth and Europan life having a common origin.
Having said that...
The Vostok life forms show only that life can exist in such environments; it says nothing about life forming there. It may well be possible for existing life to adapt to a shitty environment (from our POV), but it would, to my untrained eye, be far more difficult for life to start there.
{tele}machus_*1 wrote some interesting stuff on this in a recent post, read what he has to say;
The author of the article forgets one key component of enforcing a judgment: jurisdiction. He makes it sound as if all one has to do is go to France--for example--sue someone there, and bring the judgment to any Hague Treaty signatory to get the judgment enforced. However, the Hague Treaty is about jurisdiction, too. It has detailed rules governing how courts can establish jurisdiction over foreign parties.
There are two things which prevent judgments from being enforceable in foreign countries. The first is the simple idea of sovereignty: France cannot send its police over into the United States to seize the bank account of a person who has a French judgment against him. France has no power to enforce its laws outside its own borders (and the Hague Treaty will not change this). The second thing is related to sovereignty: a French court does not have jurisdiction to resolve questions of my rights unless I am within France's borders or have established some kind of contact with France that makes France's jurisdiction over me reasonable. In other words, if I am not within France's borders, France does not have the sovereign power to decide my rights, because France's sovereignty stops at the border. However, theoretically, if I have established some kind of sufficient contact with France (opening a store there, or selling goods over the internet specifically to people in France), then it sould be reasonable for France to decide my rights (even if they cannot force me to show up) and have that decision, or judgment, be enforceable.
Things do not work this way now. Right now most countries generally have laws governing jursidiction over foreign parties. For example, French law says that if you are a French citizen, you can obtain a judgment over a foreign party for a dispute that arose anywhere in the world just by bringing the case in French court. Then god help that foreign party when they show up in France and the French citizen gets to enforce that judgment. Further, in the United States we give respect to foreign judgments based on the principle of comity. Comity is basically reciprocal respect: the U.S. will enforce French judgments if France will enforce U.S. judgments. (Note that in practice, right now, the U.S. has more respect for French judgments than France has for U.S. judgments.) However, this principle of comity is limited by our notions of due process of law. The U.S. will not enforce judgments that fail to meet a minimum standard of due process protections. For example, I doubt if a U.S. court would enforce a judgment from a secret, Iranian military court (where people are tried without even being allowed to be present to mount a defense or confront their accusers).
The Hague Treaty will change all this for its signatories. First, of all, it provides general rules for jurisdiction. Thus, France would not be able to keep its law that any French citizen can sue any foreign party in a French court and get an enforceable judgment. Each country would have to provide reasonable rules for jurisdiction. Second, the principle of comity (as between signatories) would drop out of the picture. In the U.S., we would already have adequate assurance that a foreign judgment meets our standards of due process. France would be forced to give the same respect U.S. judgments as the U.S. gives to French judgments.
The upshot is that the article ignores the concept of jurisdiction. Just because a French business obtains a judgment against me in France, even under the Hague Treaty, that judgment is not automatically enforced unless it is valid, i.e., the French court had jurisdiction over me. If the French court did not follow the Hague Treaty rules on jurisdiction, which should be fair to all countries, then that judgment will not be valid (think of it as an ultra vires exercise of sovereignty) and it will not be enforceable in other Hague signatory nations.
For those of you with access to Westlaw or Lexis, you can read more about the concept of jurisdiction and the Hague Treaty in a Cornell Law Review article, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, by Professor Kevin Clermont, published in issue 1 of Volume 85 (November 1999). This is the legal cite: 85 Cornell L. Rev. 89. (You can also read my article for some background on the law of jurisdiction in the U.S., 85 Cornell L. Rev. 1742 (Sept. 2000).)The author of the article forgets one key component of enforcing a judgment: jurisdiction. He makes it sound as if all one has to do is go to France--for example--sue someone there, and bring the judgment to any Hague Treaty signatory to get the judgment enforced. However, the Hague Treaty is about jurisdiction, too. It has detailed rules governing how courts can establish jurisdiction over foreign parties.
There are two things which prevent judgments from being enforceable in foreign countries. The first is the simple idea of sovereignty: France cannot send its police over into the United States to seize the bank account of a person who has a French judgment against him. France has no power to enforce its laws outside its own borders (and the Hague Treaty will not change this). The second thing is related to sovereignty: a French court does not have jurisdiction to resolve questions of my rights unless I am within France's borders or have established some kind of contact with France that makes France's jurisdiction over me reasonable. In other words, if I am not within France's borders, France does not have the sovereign power to decide my rights, because France's sovereignty stops at the border. However, theoretically, if I have established some kind of sufficient contact with France (opening a store there, or selling goods over the internet specifically to people in France), then it sould be reasonable for France to decide my rights (even if they cannot force me to show up) and have that decision, or judgment, be enforceable.
Things do not work this way now. Right now most countries generally have laws governing jursidiction over foreign parties. For example, French law says that if you are a French citizen, you can obtain a judgment over a foreign party for a dispute that arose anywhere in the world just by bringing the case in French court. Then god help that foreign party when they show up in France and the French citizen gets to enforce that judgment. Further, in the United States we give respect to foreign judgments based on the principle of comity. Comity is basically reciprocal respect: the U.S. will enforce French judgments if France will enforce U.S. judgments. (Note that in practice, right now, the U.S. has more respect for French judgments than France has for U.S. judgments.) However, this principle of comity is limited by our notions of due process of law. The U.S. will not enforce judgments that fail to meet a minimum standard of due process protections. For example, I doubt if a U.S. court would enforce a judgment from a secret, Iranian military court (where people are tried without even being allowed to be present to mount a defense or confront their accusers).
The Hague Treaty will change all this for its signatories. First, of all, it provides general rules for jurisdiction. Thus, France would not be able to keep its law that any French citizen can sue any foreign party in a French court and get an enforceable judgment. Each country would have to provide reasonable rules for jurisdiction. Second, the principle of comity (as between signatories) would drop out of the picture. In the U.S., we would already have adequate assurance that a foreign judgment meets our standards of due process. France would be forced to give the same respect U.S. judgments as the U.S. gives to French judgments.
The upshot is that the article ignores the concept of jurisdiction. Just because a French business obtains a judgment against me in France, even under the Hague Treaty, that judgment is not automatically enforced unless it is valid, i.e., the French court had jurisdiction over me. If the French court did not follow the Hague Treaty rules on jurisdiction, which should be fair to all countries, then that judgment will not be valid (think of it as an ultra vires exercise of sovereignty) and it will not be enforceable in other Hague signatory nations.
For those of you with access to Westlaw or Lexis, you can read more about the concept of jurisdiction and the Hague Treaty in a Cornell Law Review article, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, by Professor Kevin Clermont, published in issue 1 of Volume 85 (November 1999). This is the legal cite: 85 Cornell L. Rev. 89. (You can also read my article for some background on the law of jurisdiction in the U.S., 85 Cornell L. Rev. 1742 (Sept. 2000).)
The difference is that the end user must actively translate the document, where SmartTags will add them automatically. The real problem with SmartTags though is that MS controls where these new links on your page go. Babelfish just gives you a bad translation;o) it doesn't lead you to MS approved sites that only contain MS approved versions of reality.
So why should I have to go out and edit every web page that I have out there to prevent MS from adding links that I did not intend. They are modifying MY content without MY permission! And do you think that every news site is going to go back and add the META tags to old news stories? I doubt it...
It's not that they will over-ride existing links, but that they will add links that never existed in the original page. For example, if I write a Linux HOWTO and post it on the web, then some PHB looks at it, all instances of the word Linux could have links to MS anti-Linux propoganda.
Likewise, if MS doesn't like my company, MS could add links to everywhere on the web that my company is mentioned leading to my competitors or to information that portrays me in a negative light.
This gives MS way too much control over web content and way too much power.
Since we're major advocates of consumer privacy, even at the cost of private property, how about we remove smoke detectors in hotels?
Because smoke detectors don't track my movement through the hotel, nor do they report back to my wife if I bring a girl back to my room.
This was started back in 1995
on
Protein Music
·
· Score: 5
A UK band called the Shamen started this back in 1995. The song S2 Translation on the '95 album, Axis Mutatis was generated using the software developed by one of the band members, Colin Angus. Colin worked with R. King who is now developing the Java version. The song was formed by translating part of the human DNA sequence of the S2 protien. The software was written for the Mac in C and as far as I can tell isn't available anymore. I only had a PC back in 95, so it is nice to see them still working on this and porting it to Java so we can all try it out.
If you want to check out a sound sample from the song, see this page.
Google has taken the archives off the web for now Aaagh!
Google has taken the archive down only until they can integrate it with their own archive. Once this is done, it sounds like we will once again have a reliable source of old newsgroup postings.
I highly doubt that they will ever open source the information though. The terabytes of data that they purchased as a part of deja.com is probably the most valuable part of the deal. Why would they then want to turn it over to the government? What financial incentive is there for them? The only way they are going to recover their investment is to create a service like Deja's, only better and integrated with their own.
The following is from Google's press release on their aquiring the data;
Available now at http://groups.google.com, this powerful new Usenet search feature enables Google users to access the wealth of information contained in more than six months of Usenet newsgroup postings and message threads. Once the full Deja Usenet archive is added, users will be able to search and browse more than 500 million archived messages with the speed and efficiency of a Google search. In addition to expanding the amount of searchable data, Google will soon provide improved browsing capabilities and newsgroup posting.
Slashdot Mirror
knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally affects or impairs without authorization a computer of an elementary school or secondary school or institution of higher education;'.
This is so vague that doing anything on a school computer could be considered a crime. Back in school, when a CS assignment was due, the entire network would grind to a halt as everyone was compiling their assignments on the server. Now I could have everyone else charged for hindering my work!
This is what happens when politicians who don't know anything about computers start drafting laws that concern computers. How can we expect someone who barely knows how to use email (and like opening email attachments ;o) draft a technical law? If we want things to change, we need to stop bitching about them on slashdot and contacting the people that represent us in government and make our views know. Don't bitch until you do something about it and that doesn't include posting here.
Use this alternate CDFS.VXD cd driver on Win9x to show Audio CD's as WAV files IN THE FILE SYSTEM! This replacement driver shows WAV files in a variety of qualities. It works on any CD drive that Windows can support.
Then you can use your favorite Wave Editor program to read directly from the CD.
Put it in your \Windows\System\IOSubSys directory, and reboot. You can rename the old CDFS.VXD to CDFS.old for archive purposes.
The workaround is simple, just replace the file cdfs.vxd on your Win9x machine, then when you go into explorer and open up a music CD, you will see a list of WAV files in various formats. Simply drag them onto your HD, then use whatever software you want to convert from WAV to MP3.
The author's site isn't responding, but you can download the file from Dave Central fairly reliably.
With any luck, this will just wipe Microsoft servers off the map. Check back next month to see Apache hit >70% on the Web Server Survey.
Maybe you should check out the figures at Netcraft's Survey. Apache runs on over 63% of the web servers out there and MS IIS is only on 20%. I would bet that most of those Apache servers are running BSD, Linux or Solaris. The only reason that Microsoft has such a large share is that it takes a few Windows servers to do the work of one Linux server, so companies deploy more of them for their websites. Look at Microsoft's own attempts
When people make statements like this;
The government relies on Microsoft and other technology companies to secure everything from defence networks to financial systems.
and then call this worm,
the largest ever dangers to the Internet.
and then go on to state
Code Red exploits a flaw discovered in June in Microsoft's Internet Information Services software used on Internet servers. It is found in Windows' NT and 2000 operating systems.
When are people going to put the pieces together and start holding the people that choose Microsoft and maybe even Microsoft responsible for these things?
Of course this is only a pipe dream. There are too many people out there willing to believe Microsofts propoganda.
Even though there is probably nothing else to do on Mars other than work on having babies, I doubt any woman could churn them out faster than they would manage to kill themselves. There are biological limits here...
This falls perfectly into the government's propoganda that only criminals use encryption. Why is it that more of us don't use PGP for all of our emails? I would happily use it if any of my friends actually had public keys. We can't fight these fights unless we all pull together.
> telnet fridge.appliance.myhome.org
/bottomshelf/beer /dev/null
Welcome to the FreezyFridge 2010
Running Linux 2.4.15
Login:root
Password:******
# mv
# exit
> _
Then no more beer!!!!
> telnet coffee.appliance.myhome.org
/dev
/dev/oldfilter /dev/null
/dev/newfilter /dev/filter
/var/spool/coffee /dev/filter
Welcome to the BrewMatic 4000
Running Linux 2.4.14
Login:root
Password:******
# cd
# mv
# cp
# mv
# brew --cups 12
# exit
> _
- Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or always-on connections should receive a /48.
This means that every home will have enough IP addresses for about everything in the home. Finally I will be able to telnet into my coffee machine from downstairs and brew a new pot of joe! The possibilities for us caffeine soaked programmers are endless!!!
Domestically, some copyright stakeholders have indicated that in the absence of a prohibition against the manufacture and traffic in circumvention devices, would-be infringers can legally access the means that enable infringement. With respect to the possibility of sanctioning acts of circumvention alone, these stakeholders have also expressed the concern that attempts to seek legal recourse on the basis of such acts are costly and may not always be effective in providing a strong deterrent to infringement in a globally interconnected world.
The departments acknowledge the concerns of these copyright stakeholders, but must consider these concerns within the framework of Canadian copyright law, where certain uses of works and limitations on copyright protection are recognized as serving legitimate and important public policy objectives. Such limitations are evidenced by the finite term of copyright protection, the fair dealing provisions and the exception provisions. These elements of our copyright law have been the outcome of extensive debate, consultation, jurisprudence and legal obligation, both domestically and internationally. Any attempt to affect that balance may require a reconsideration of the current extent of the exceptions provisions.
The departments have considered the possibility of restricting or prohibiting the traffic in circumvention devices, while at the same time permitting devices that have, as their primary purpose, an activity that qualifies as legitimate, such as the enjoyment of an exception or access to material in the public domain. The difficulty is that devices which are suited to infringing uses are, by and large, equally suited to non-infringing uses. For example, a device used to circumvent a measure that prevents unauthorized copying will not distinguish between materials that continue to benefit from copyright protection from those that have fallen into the public domain.
Under these circumstances, the departments question whether it is possible to establish a legal framework which, on the one hand covers virtually all activities that undermine the use of technological measures, but at the same time continues to reflect the policy balance currently set out in the Act. Such a change in the Copyright Act could potentially result in a new right of access, the scope of which goes well beyond any existing right, and would represent a fundamental shift in Canadian copyright policy. It could serve to transform a measure designed for protection into a means of impeding legitimate uses. In essence, a change of this nature would be tantamount to bringing within the realm of copyright law, matters (e.g., restrictions on use) which may be more properly within the purview of contract law. Given the rate at which the technology underlying protection measures is changing, it is difficult, under present circumstances, to evaluate the public policy implications of such a step. Perhaps the role of technological changes warrants a careful study to examine what will be the dimensions of the intersection of anti-circumvention measures with the current Act.
In 1995, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) had filed a proposed tariff (Tariff 22) whereby ISPs were asked to pay royalties for the communication of the musical works in SOCAN's repertoire over digital networks such as the Internet. In its decision of October, 1999, the Board asserted its jurisdiction to certify such a tariff. The decision is currently under review by the Federal Court of Appeal.
How could the Internet be depressing? Sitting alone in my dark basement at all hours of the day and night reading mindless slashdot comments... No personal contact except for when the mailman comes... Jeeze, where did I leave my razor blades...
Experiments on the effects of zero gravity on bacteria doesn't really capture the imagination of the public. Everything they are doing has been done before, even probes to other planets. Just look at the reaction to rumours about manned missions to Mars and you can see what will rekindle interest in space travel. It was trying to land people on the Moon that originally fired our collective imagination. When NASA starts sending people (not probes) to other planets, then they will regain their fame (and with it their budget...)
Just because the EU is investigating Echelon, it does not mean that it is primarily targetted at Europe. Echelon sucks in everything in North America too. It was started here and they have much more control and access here...
The discovery of life on Europa would more or less confirm the ubiquity of life. If microbes were found on Mars, they could have originated on Earth and moved to Mars (or vice versa), but the chances are low indeed (although admittedly not zero) of Earth and Europan life having a common origin.
Having said that...
The Vostok life forms show only that life can exist in such environments; it says nothing about life forming there. It may well be possible for existing life to adapt to a shitty environment (from our POV), but it would, to my untrained eye, be far more difficult for life to start there.
The author of the article forgets one key component of enforcing a judgment: jurisdiction. He makes it sound as if all one has to do is go to France--for example--sue someone there, and bring the judgment to any Hague Treaty signatory to get the judgment enforced. However, the Hague Treaty is about jurisdiction, too. It has detailed rules governing how courts can establish jurisdiction over foreign parties.
There are two things which prevent judgments from being enforceable in foreign countries. The first is the simple idea of sovereignty: France cannot send its police over into the United States to seize the bank account of a person who has a French judgment against him. France has no power to enforce its laws outside its own borders (and the Hague Treaty will not change this). The second thing is related to sovereignty: a French court does not have jurisdiction to resolve questions of my rights unless I am within France's borders or have established some kind of contact with France that makes France's jurisdiction over me reasonable. In other words, if I am not within France's borders, France does not have the sovereign power to decide my rights, because France's sovereignty stops at the border. However, theoretically, if I have established some kind of sufficient contact with France (opening a store there, or selling goods over the internet specifically to people in France), then it sould be reasonable for France to decide my rights (even if they cannot force me to show up) and have that decision, or judgment, be enforceable.
Things do not work this way now. Right now most countries generally have laws governing jursidiction over foreign parties. For example, French law says that if you are a French citizen, you can obtain a judgment over a foreign party for a dispute that arose anywhere in the world just by bringing the case in French court. Then god help that foreign party when they show up in France and the French citizen gets to enforce that judgment. Further, in the United States we give respect to foreign judgments based on the principle of comity. Comity is basically reciprocal respect: the U.S. will enforce French judgments if France will enforce U.S. judgments. (Note that in practice, right now, the U.S. has more respect for French judgments than France has for U.S. judgments.) However, this principle of comity is limited by our notions of due process of law. The U.S. will not enforce judgments that fail to meet a minimum standard of due process protections. For example, I doubt if a U.S. court would enforce a judgment from a secret, Iranian military court (where people are tried without even being allowed to be present to mount a defense or confront their accusers).
The Hague Treaty will change all this for its signatories. First, of all, it provides general rules for jurisdiction. Thus, France would not be able to keep its law that any French citizen can sue any foreign party in a French court and get an enforceable judgment. Each country would have to provide reasonable rules for jurisdiction. Second, the principle of comity (as between signatories) would drop out of the picture. In the U.S., we would already have adequate assurance that a foreign judgment meets our standards of due process. France would be forced to give the same respect U.S. judgments as the U.S. gives to French judgments.
The upshot is that the article ignores the concept of jurisdiction. Just because a French business obtains a judgment against me in France, even under the Hague Treaty, that judgment is not automatically enforced unless it is valid, i.e., the French court had jurisdiction over me. If the French court did not follow the Hague Treaty rules on jurisdiction, which should be fair to all countries, then that judgment will not be valid (think of it as an ultra vires exercise of sovereignty) and it will not be enforceable in other Hague signatory nations.
For those of you with access to Westlaw or Lexis, you can read more about the concept of jurisdiction and the Hague Treaty in a Cornell Law Review article, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, by Professor Kevin Clermont, published in issue 1 of Volume 85 (November 1999). This is the legal cite: 85 Cornell L. Rev. 89. (You can also read my article for some background on the law of jurisdiction in the U.S., 85 Cornell L. Rev. 1742 (Sept. 2000).)The author of the article forgets one key component of enforcing a judgment: jurisdiction. He makes it sound as if all one has to do is go to France--for example--sue someone there, and bring the judgment to any Hague Treaty signatory to get the judgment enforced. However, the Hague Treaty is about jurisdiction, too. It has detailed rules governing how courts can establish jurisdiction over foreign parties.
There are two things which prevent judgments from being enforceable in foreign countries. The first is the simple idea of sovereignty: France cannot send its police over into the United States to seize the bank account of a person who has a French judgment against him. France has no power to enforce its laws outside its own borders (and the Hague Treaty will not change this). The second thing is related to sovereignty: a French court does not have jurisdiction to resolve questions of my rights unless I am within France's borders or have established some kind of contact with France that makes France's jurisdiction over me reasonable. In other words, if I am not within France's borders, France does not have the sovereign power to decide my rights, because France's sovereignty stops at the border. However, theoretically, if I have established some kind of sufficient contact with France (opening a store there, or selling goods over the internet specifically to people in France), then it sould be reasonable for France to decide my rights (even if they cannot force me to show up) and have that decision, or judgment, be enforceable.
Things do not work this way now. Right now most countries generally have laws governing jursidiction over foreign parties. For example, French law says that if you are a French citizen, you can obtain a judgment over a foreign party for a dispute that arose anywhere in the world just by bringing the case in French court. Then god help that foreign party when they show up in France and the French citizen gets to enforce that judgment. Further, in the United States we give respect to foreign judgments based on the principle of comity. Comity is basically reciprocal respect: the U.S. will enforce French judgments if France will enforce U.S. judgments. (Note that in practice, right now, the U.S. has more respect for French judgments than France has for U.S. judgments.) However, this principle of comity is limited by our notions of due process of law. The U.S. will not enforce judgments that fail to meet a minimum standard of due process protections. For example, I doubt if a U.S. court would enforce a judgment from a secret, Iranian military court (where people are tried without even being allowed to be present to mount a defense or confront their accusers).
The Hague Treaty will change all this for its signatories. First, of all, it provides general rules for jurisdiction. Thus, France would not be able to keep its law that any French citizen can sue any foreign party in a French court and get an enforceable judgment. Each country would have to provide reasonable rules for jurisdiction. Second, the principle of comity (as between signatories) would drop out of the picture. In the U.S., we would already have adequate assurance that a foreign judgment meets our standards of due process. France would be forced to give the same respect U.S. judgments as the U.S. gives to French judgments.
The upshot is that the article ignores the concept of jurisdiction. Just because a French business obtains a judgment against me in France, even under the Hague Treaty, that judgment is not automatically enforced unless it is valid, i.e., the French court had jurisdiction over me. If the French court did not follow the Hague Treaty rules on jurisdiction, which should be fair to all countries, then that judgment will not be valid (think of it as an ultra vires exercise of sovereignty) and it will not be enforceable in other Hague signatory nations.
For those of you with access to Westlaw or Lexis, you can read more about the concept of jurisdiction and the Hague Treaty in a Cornell Law Review article, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, by Professor Kevin Clermont, published in issue 1 of Volume 85 (November 1999). This is the legal cite: 85 Cornell L. Rev. 89. (You can also read my article for some background on the law of jurisdiction in the U.S., 85 Cornell L. Rev. 1742 (Sept. 2000).)
The difference is that the end user must actively translate the document, where SmartTags will add them automatically. The real problem with SmartTags though is that MS controls where these new links on your page go. Babelfish just gives you a bad translation ;o) it doesn't lead you to MS approved sites that only contain MS approved versions of reality.
So why should I have to go out and edit every web page that I have out there to prevent MS from adding links that I did not intend. They are modifying MY content without MY permission! And do you think that every news site is going to go back and add the META tags to old news stories? I doubt it...
It's not that they will over-ride existing links, but that they will add links that never existed in the original page. For example, if I write a Linux HOWTO and post it on the web, then some PHB looks at it, all instances of the word Linux could have links to MS anti-Linux propoganda.
Likewise, if MS doesn't like my company, MS could add links to everywhere on the web that my company is mentioned leading to my competitors or to information that portrays me in a negative light.
This gives MS way too much control over web content and way too much power.
Because smoke detectors don't track my movement through the hotel, nor do they report back to my wife if I bring a girl back to my room.
If you want to check out a sound sample from the song, see this page.
Google has taken the archives off the web for now Aaagh!
Google has taken the archive down only until they can integrate it with their own archive. Once this is done, it sounds like we will once again have a reliable source of old newsgroup postings.
I highly doubt that they will ever open source the information though. The terabytes of data that they purchased as a part of deja.com is probably the most valuable part of the deal. Why would they then want to turn it over to the government? What financial incentive is there for them? The only way they are going to recover their investment is to create a service like Deja's, only better and integrated with their own.
The following is from Google's press release on their aquiring the data;
Available now at http://groups.google.com, this powerful new Usenet search feature enables Google users to access the wealth of information contained in more than six months of Usenet newsgroup postings and message threads. Once the full Deja Usenet archive is added, users will be able to search and browse more than 500 million archived messages with the speed and efficiency of a Google search. In addition to expanding the amount of searchable data, Google will soon provide improved browsing capabilities and newsgroup posting.