You're absolutely correct. However, he's using it to gripe about the use of the post as an editorial rather than to discuss the topic of the article; ergo, his use of the comments section is unlike "everyone else". It was meant to be farcical, aka a parody.
i think that dude is trying to say that editorial comments belong in the editorial/comments section and *only* in the editorial/comments section.
Perhaps, but he gives no reasons why that should be. He only asks for a certain behavior, indicating that the current one is wrong, but gives no clear reasons why one way is better than the other.
Additionally, I would like to see if this same person has made this same comment in every other topic that has editorials in the original story. Of the last 10, 9 of them have editorials in the submitted story.
Can we please have the submitters refrain from making editorial comments in their story submissions?
Can we please have the registered users' posts be on-topic? Please use the Comments section like everyone else. We get enough off-topic posts from Anonymous Cowards. We don't need it from registered users too.
The entire concept of Slashdot is to editorialize.
Does anyone think for a minute that if MS owned a major cable network that they would care about innovation? The only thing they'd care about is first expanding subscribers and then slowly cranking down the subscriptions to limit them to MS Home Terminal Software users only.
Seriously, are Republicans happy about this shit? The Bush Administration was bribed [opensecrets.org] by the RIAA to the tune of $201,355.
And the Democrats got only $10,000 less.... The point, once again, is not about which party, but the fact that both parties take similar bribes all the time. Until we dispose of everybody willing to take such blood money, there will be no change.
Likewise, a drowning man is only a drowning man because that's the word used to describe him.
The water filling his lungs doesn't care much, of course.
The act of drowning, whatever terminology you use, is very specifc, much more so than the state of being a criminal. Being a criminal merely means you did something illegal, and the law is extremely subjective. Somebody who speeds is technically a criminal. To say "Once a criminal, always a criminal" is to lump every type of crime together into one thing, which unfortunately has a connotation of also being "wrong" and "immoral", whatever that means.
But US law doesn't distinguish where the attacked systems are located. The offense is the attack. Boston, Birmingham, Berlin or Beijing is still a felony.
Firstly: IANAL
True the law doesn't distinguish where the attacked systems are located. However, neither do other laws distinguish that it matters where a murder happens. Yet if I murder somebody in Japan, the US can't prosecute me because the US has no jurisdiction in Japan. That's why extradition treaties exist....
There has to be a point of access, and if that point of access is not in the US, then the US can't prosecute, at least not for that particular crime (though they can probably prosecute for other things). Obviously, as in the Elcomsoft case, they can try, but you see that there the jury didn't buy the prosecution's bull. That set a lot of precedents for how DMCA cases will be handled in the future.
Are we going to do the same to China's 'net infrastructure? I'd love to see the DoD try to stuff an M1A1 Abhrams and six dozen marines through a 1 gigabit pipe.
So, if somebody who reads slashdot is privy to this list, why not send it to cryptome.org or 2600? They'll publish it. If not, just post it anonymously to USENET or something. In fact, email the PA governor, PA legislators, and even your congresscritters with it so that they will be in violation of the law. Or post it to slashdot!
B) A "CD" that is encrypted (etc) that uses software to un-encrypt it on a computer.
To do this, the entire CD would have to be data, which means you wouldn't be able to play the CD in even a standalone CD player. Since the goal is to allow playing in standalones and NOT in computers, I doubt they'll do this.
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
What were legislators smoking when they wrote that clause? That's so ridiculously overbroad that it could even be interpreted to make it illegal to call someone from a payphone without telling them where you are.
Forget payphones; what about cell phones? What constitutes "place of origin" -- street address? GPS coordinates? What if I'm on the train going to work? In my car? Walking down the street? Do I need to provide constant updates about the "place of origin"?
Additionally, does "place of origin" include the phone number? What about all those "Anonymous" or "Unavailable" phone calls I get?
I think I can assure you, it's not. _Attempted suicide_ may very well be prohibited, but if you do in fact succeed, I can safely guarantee you they won't try to prosecute you.
Well, I know suicide is illegal in England. Physician-assisted suicide is certainly illegal in a lot of places in the US.
In addition, unprosecuted illegal acts do not make those acts legal. I was thinking more about places that have laws or legislation against suicide. Sure, it is impossible to enforce, and that makes it a stupid law, but it still is illegal for as long as the law exists. I wonder, though, if any of the places where such a law exists have a statute of limitations on committing suicide....?
Hmmm, on second thought, some organizations are indeed stupid enough to conduct posthumous trials [uga.edu].
The patent system, as it was originally intended, is not evil. Google's technology tends to be novel and innovative, which is exactly what the patent system was intended to foster.
Exactly! And when Google's patents run out, at least we know their algorithms will be available to the public since they've already been released, as opposed to other companies that might try to hide or suppress such things.
So, if Google is basically following a system that has already been described, well in advance of Google's own implementation, wouldn't it's patents be null and void as prior art?
The list was sold to Sprint. If there isn't an infrastructure in place to delete unenrolled adresses from the DBs of all the companies that have purchased the list then there is no way that his name could have been taken off in two days. Even if there were such a system it would probably only run twice a week. Certainly not instantly. What do you think the odds are that such a system is even in place? I would be shocked if one exists.
I agree: I'm sure such a system doesn't exist, and if it did, then you're probably right that it would run at some interval greater than a day or two. I guess part of my problem with the whole thing is that, how would a person know that Company Y got their name from Company X? There isn't any way, unless you go through a whole slough of "customer service" representatives. So to say that the guy didn't give Sprint enough time isn't really valid, in my opinion, since he had no way of even knowing that Sprint had gotten his email address "legitimately". To him, it was unsolicited.
I pretty much agree with your reply, so there's not much more to say.
No, you misread it. He never signed up for Sprint's email. He signed up for email from another company, which then sold his address, along with others, to Sprint.
As for how long it should take to be removed from a systematic email--it should be immediate, or at least within the same 24 hours. It is so easy to provide a "reply to this email with the subject 'remove'" message in the email that's there's no reason companies shouldn't be doing it, or some other method such as providing a link to an opt-out HTML form. And this can be set up as an automated process to update any databases real-time. In fact, for those states that have spam laws, perhaps folks could suggest that to their legislatures. In addition, if a company sells my email address and I later opt-out of their email program, then they should be required to inform those companies they sold my address to that I no longer wish to receive such emails. I should not have to track down Sprint to have them stop sending me emails because if I never signed up for them in the first place.
I've seen several posts so far that deal primarily with terrorists causing nuclear plants to meltdown, but really that's an extreme point of the kind of information that is being held back. One poster said, basically, that a dead man doesn't have any civil liberties, and that's certainly true and there are some things that the government should keep secret, like the locations of military weapons depots and our own nuclear arsenal. But the article isn't about just nuclear plants and military weapons. It's about all sorts of ways that communities could make themselves safer. Maybe folks could brainstorm some things that the government should be telling us, and then we can get of this extremist example.
To refer to another post, somebody asked if "you would pour the concrete yourself," presumably in reference to making some sort of architectural structure safer in the event of a terrorist attack. There are a lot of people out there who know how to pour concrete, and I would bet quite a few of them would be willing to provide their knowledge and experience to help make their communities safer.
Finally, a lot of words have been given to the comparison of community security issues to open vs. closed software. Well, I have to say that it's simply not true that secrecy is the best policy because, as any Thursday-night sitcom can tell you, no matter how "secret" you keep something, it's going to be found out sooner or later. Last year sometime I remember hearing a report on NPR about how the government was trying to get libraries to remove from circulation CDs that contained information about reservoirs and water supply sheds, etc., because this information could be used to make a terrorist attack. But the problem with this, besides the fact that the information is already "out there" (you can't close Pandora's box, at least not effectively), is that terrorists obviously do their research, and they're gonna find the reservoirs they want anyway. Heck, all they need to do is read Stephen King's "Dreamcatcher" to take care of greater Boston...perhaps we should ban that! But it's not just about terrorist attacks. People should have the right to know where the water they drink comes from. Sure, a lot of people will do nothing with the information, but should the day come that they need it, god forbid the info isn't there!
Essentially, I do believe that some things should be kept secret, but not many things. Plans for WMDs? Certainly! The structural integrity of the bridge I drive over everyday to go to work? Certainly not!
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely correct. However, he's using it to gripe about the use of the post as an editorial rather than to discuss the topic of the article; ergo, his use of the comments section is unlike "everyone else". It was meant to be farcical, aka a parody.
Perhaps, but he gives no reasons why that should be. He only asks for a certain behavior, indicating that the current one is wrong, but gives no clear reasons why one way is better than the other.
Additionally, I would like to see if this same person has made this same comment in every other topic that has editorials in the original story. Of the last 10, 9 of them have editorials in the submitted story.
Can we please have the registered users' posts be on-topic? Please use the Comments section like everyone else. We get enough off-topic posts from Anonymous Cowards. We don't need it from registered users too.
The entire concept of Slashdot is to editorialize.
*cough* MSNBC *cough*
There already was a world like that: it's called "Earth before 1709". Quite a few innovators lived there, so I've heard....
And the Democrats got only $10,000 less.... The point, once again, is not about which party, but the fact that both parties take similar bribes all the time. Until we dispose of everybody willing to take such blood money, there will be no change.
The act of drowning, whatever terminology you use, is very specifc, much more so than the state of being a criminal. Being a criminal merely means you did something illegal, and the law is extremely subjective. Somebody who speeds is technically a criminal. To say "Once a criminal, always a criminal" is to lump every type of crime together into one thing, which unfortunately has a connotation of also being "wrong" and "immoral", whatever that means.
Firstly: IANAL
True the law doesn't distinguish where the attacked systems are located. However, neither do other laws distinguish that it matters where a murder happens. Yet if I murder somebody in Japan, the US can't prosecute me because the US has no jurisdiction in Japan. That's why extradition treaties exist....
There has to be a point of access, and if that point of access is not in the US, then the US can't prosecute, at least not for that particular crime (though they can probably prosecute for other things). Obviously, as in the Elcomsoft case, they can try, but you see that there the jury didn't buy the prosecution's bull. That set a lot of precedents for how DMCA cases will be handled in the future.
A criminal is only a criminal because the law says he is.
Well, as Howie Day says:
Just gotta upgrade the trans-pacific cable to fibber optick [sic] and we'll be all set.
Uh, last I knew China wasn't part of the US....
Yes, but where can you buy CDs for only $15? Enquiring minds want to know!
So, if somebody who reads slashdot is privy to this list, why not send it to cryptome.org or 2600? They'll publish it. If not, just post it anonymously to USENET or something. In fact, email the PA governor, PA legislators, and even your congresscritters with it so that they will be in violation of the law. Or post it to slashdot!
Like 15x more than the US National Debt.
To do this, the entire CD would have to be data, which means you wouldn't be able to play the CD in even a standalone CD player. Since the goal is to allow playing in standalones and NOT in computers, I doubt they'll do this.
Forget payphones; what about cell phones? What constitutes "place of origin" -- street address? GPS coordinates? What if I'm on the train going to work? In my car? Walking down the street? Do I need to provide constant updates about the "place of origin"?
Additionally, does "place of origin" include the phone number? What about all those "Anonymous" or "Unavailable" phone calls I get?
Well, I know suicide is illegal in England. Physician-assisted suicide is certainly illegal in a lot of places in the US.
In addition, unprosecuted illegal acts do not make those acts legal. I was thinking more about places that have laws or legislation against suicide. Sure, it is impossible to enforce, and that makes it a stupid law, but it still is illegal for as long as the law exists. I wonder, though, if any of the places where such a law exists have a statute of limitations on committing suicide....?
Why does this not surprise me....?
Just a small quibble: In a lot of places, suicide is in fact llegal.
Exactly! And when Google's patents run out, at least we know their algorithms will be available to the public since they've already been released, as opposed to other companies that might try to hide or suppress such things.
So what do you google to find them?
So, if Google is basically following a system that has already been described, well in advance of Google's own implementation, wouldn't it's patents be null and void as prior art?
Wouldn't it be even easier to just save it as a favorite? Then it's just a click on a toolbar....
I agree: I'm sure such a system doesn't exist, and if it did, then you're probably right that it would run at some interval greater than a day or two. I guess part of my problem with the whole thing is that, how would a person know that Company Y got their name from Company X? There isn't any way, unless you go through a whole slough of "customer service" representatives. So to say that the guy didn't give Sprint enough time isn't really valid, in my opinion, since he had no way of even knowing that Sprint had gotten his email address "legitimately". To him, it was unsolicited.
I pretty much agree with your reply, so there's not much more to say.
No, you misread it. He never signed up for Sprint's email. He signed up for email from another company, which then sold his address, along with others, to Sprint.
As for how long it should take to be removed from a systematic email--it should be immediate, or at least within the same 24 hours. It is so easy to provide a "reply to this email with the subject 'remove'" message in the email that's there's no reason companies shouldn't be doing it, or some other method such as providing a link to an opt-out HTML form. And this can be set up as an automated process to update any databases real-time. In fact, for those states that have spam laws, perhaps folks could suggest that to their legislatures. In addition, if a company sells my email address and I later opt-out of their email program, then they should be required to inform those companies they sold my address to that I no longer wish to receive such emails. I should not have to track down Sprint to have them stop sending me emails because if I never signed up for them in the first place.
This is a response to several posts made here.
I've seen several posts so far that deal primarily with terrorists causing nuclear plants to meltdown, but really that's an extreme point of the kind of information that is being held back. One poster said, basically, that a dead man doesn't have any civil liberties, and that's certainly true and there are some things that the government should keep secret, like the locations of military weapons depots and our own nuclear arsenal. But the article isn't about just nuclear plants and military weapons. It's about all sorts of ways that communities could make themselves safer. Maybe folks could brainstorm some things that the government should be telling us, and then we can get of this extremist example.
To refer to another post, somebody asked if "you would pour the concrete yourself," presumably in reference to making some sort of architectural structure safer in the event of a terrorist attack. There are a lot of people out there who know how to pour concrete, and I would bet quite a few of them would be willing to provide their knowledge and experience to help make their communities safer.
Finally, a lot of words have been given to the comparison of community security issues to open vs. closed software. Well, I have to say that it's simply not true that secrecy is the best policy because, as any Thursday-night sitcom can tell you, no matter how "secret" you keep something, it's going to be found out sooner or later. Last year sometime I remember hearing a report on NPR about how the government was trying to get libraries to remove from circulation CDs that contained information about reservoirs and water supply sheds, etc., because this information could be used to make a terrorist attack. But the problem with this, besides the fact that the information is already "out there" (you can't close Pandora's box, at least not effectively), is that terrorists obviously do their research, and they're gonna find the reservoirs they want anyway. Heck, all they need to do is read Stephen King's "Dreamcatcher" to take care of greater Boston...perhaps we should ban that! But it's not just about terrorist attacks. People should have the right to know where the water they drink comes from. Sure, a lot of people will do nothing with the information, but should the day come that they need it, god forbid the info isn't there!
Essentially, I do believe that some things should be kept secret, but not many things. Plans for WMDs? Certainly! The structural integrity of the bridge I drive over everyday to go to work? Certainly not!
Anybody looking for a good email address to use when signing up for pr0n? Try copyright-europe@bsa.org