It kind of pisses me off that this is one of a few instances where the government realizes that a law as it stands is ineffective, and the reason they suddenly "got it" this time is because the hardware industry put monetary and political pressure on them. Eventually, the software industry may do the same. But for porn filtering in schools, there's no large economic pressure, so they may continue to be blissfully ignorant that the legislation is little more than an annoyance, yet is a bad legal precident. --
Well, software exports are much harder to control (border guards can't randomly inspect large shipments, because the large shipments could easily be encrypted. And you only need to get one shipment through, and then potentially everyone has a copy). So how long until they decide that this software-control thing won't work (unless maybe if they install back doors into the most powerful software).
--
give schools/colleges/universities free licences for educational purposes
Ahh, but students might get into the mindset that the license is NOT inherently tied to the physical CD. Solution? Charge $5 for a CD, to get them in the habit of using a "legitimate" copy. --
Facilitate conversion to and from other mathematical formats, both presentational and semantic. Output formats should include... other mathematics typesetting languages, such as TeX.
...because of the many legacy documents in TeX, and because of the large authoring community versed in TeX, a priority in the design of MathML was the ability to convert TEX mathematics input into MathML format.
industry execs who have little if any clue about the technical implications of their requirements... requirements driven solely by greed and the pursuit of market share
Just like the porn filtering stuff...
Republican Congress: We want porn filters! Conservative Mothers: We want porn filters! Worried Techies: But they don't work well enough, and there's potential for political activism by the filter companies. Republican Congress:shhh... the parents want porn filters... Republican Congress: We want porn filters! --
Well, it's a bit semantic, but... there IS a difference between... being aware that your ideas about a specific group are guesses at best... and on the other hand, taking your beliefs to be obviously true and acting on them in life-threatening or permanently-economically-damaging ways.
Sure, it's somewhat easy to slide into being discriminatory and one should guard against that, but I wouldn't say that everyone handles their perceptions in an equally poor or evil way.
I would also suggest that prejudice occurs naturally because we have imperfect knowledge. And that as the learning process continues, old prejudices disappear and new ones come into being. So it would be my opinion that if you are aware that humans often unfairly stigmatize outgroups and you try to guard against that, then you're somewhat morally superior to those who don't. --
Well, it's somewhat obvious that Yahoo was influenced by the French government... before, Yahoo didn't enforce their TOS, now they do.
The precedent is a social one... that countries are allowed to pressure offshore companies to take on their values. In effect, that it's socially acceptable for the more conservative (and politically influential) countries to partially limit access for citizens all over the world.
But perhaps that's a desired effect of globalization, I don't know... Political influence is not always a bad thing (eg. one person, one vote).
As far as an international governing body goes... if a law were to be made that said "no Nazi stuff ever", then that would obviously be in conflict with some countries basic tenets. Nor could the governing body demand that access be restricted for France only-- that's technically impossible. So all that is left is political/social pressure, which is current situation. (Not that there aren't plausible arguments for an international governing body, I just don't see how it would help here) --
Notice the word ratio? The choice of the units is left to the creator and doesn't matter much. Though a 9cm x 4cm x 1cm monolith might be slightly less impressive. --
What are the things that have prompted you to expand your hard drive? For me, it was the following in succession:
Collecting GIFs and JPGs (back in the BBS days)
Collecting pirated games
Collecting tons of MP3's
Collecting movies
I'd bet that most large home hard drives are filled with similar things. The conclusion? Piracy is good for the hard drive industry.
Heck... P2P is good for the hard drive industry. Instead of having the songs stored on a few central servers, you have them stored in many locations, and the cost is spread out over lots of people. --
Part of the role of a parent is to shield the child from various things until they are mature enough to not be permanently jaded from them. Eg. children are more impressionable than adults. So, while the child is in the temporary care of the state, the parent wants the child to be shielded in a similar manner, especially because the parent is paying the state for the education of their children. --
Actually, it's easier than that. The FCC is put in charge of determining "good enough", so they would probably look down on those who try to comply with the letter of the law while going against the spirit of it. --
In libraries, the bill mandates different things for minors and adults. For adults, child porn shall be blocked. For minors, the same blocking criteria that is used in schools shall be used.
Re: Loudoun County case... CIPA is a financial incentive, not an absolute mandate like in Loudoun County. CIPA doesn't block much of adult access. Also, "It must also be noted that the Loudoun court did hold that minimizing access to illegal pornography and avoidance of creation of a sexually hostile environment are compelling interests. The court went on to hold that, although the challenged policy was over inclusive because it restricted adult Internet access, it would be possible to create a policy which would protect children. Id. at 567." (Testimony, Jay Sekulow Esq., The American Center for Law and Justice (yuck))
--
It's not actually an official law until President Clinton signs it.
The very same day that the president signed COPA into law, the ACLU filed a suit
against it (and they've been winning so far).
CIPA is different from COPA and CDA though, in many ways. One of the main differences is that COPA and CDA were criminal statutes, bound by stricter
due-process considerations. CIPA is just an incentive-based "suggestion", similar to the 55mph thing, and so it's not bound by constitutional
considerations as much.
This law has been introduced 9 times over the past two years, all by Republicans.
Also, one of the peices of evidence that the proponents put forth was a statement
by the CEO of Net Nanny Software (yeah, he'll be objective):
A general perception exists that Internet filtering is seriously flawed and in many situations unusable. It is also perceived that schools and
libraries don't want filtering. These notions are naive and based largely on problems associated with earlier versions of client-based software that are
admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an extensive evolution and is not only good
at protecting children but also well-received and in high demand.
This is obvious political FUD, and very dangerous IMHO because it goes along with the innovation-meme and it gives critics a way to immediately brush off
any counter-evidence. But the opponents of porn filtering DO useoutdated evidence
often, and it's something they should be careful of. Because there are a lot of currentstudies that show
that filters still suck badly.
--
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the compelling interest of the government in protecting children from exposure to sexually explicit material. As stated by the Court: "It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that the State's interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling."
... a court is also likely to look to related, non-Internet situations that have arisen in the past. These precedents include decisions regarding the selection or removal of books in schools or libraries, and the selection of content for publication in school-sponsored student newspapers. The Supreme Court has ruled that schools are non-public forums that are outside the general marketplace of expression. Accordingly, school boards have significant discretion to restrict content and expression within that environment. Under this doctrine, school officials only violate the First Amendment when they limit access to materials "for the purpose of restricting access to the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in them, when that action is motivated simply by the official's disapproval of the ideas involved."
In situations where a school has restricted access to certain material, courts tend to consider whether the school's decision bore a reasonable relationship to a legitimate pedagogical concern. For example, a school district's decision that students exposed to violence, nudity, or "hard" language is a view-point neutral "legitimate pedagogical concern."
There's a clause that "allows" local schools to target more material if they want to, but makes local schools responsible for any repercussions of that. --
Re:A good step in the right direction
on
Deja.com Vu!
·
· Score: 3
Now that dotcoms are starting to realise that banner revenue just doesn't cut it, they are going back to their original good ideas.
CNet-News: Deja.com reported a loss of $1.25 million on revenue of $922,000 in the first quarter of 1998.
Original good ideas = spend money on a service that's given away for free? --
The long-term plan of most free service sites is to eventually find a way to make money other than banner ads. Because it's a simple fact that most free services cost more to run than they can bring in via banner ads.
So, "getting back to its roots" really means "still not profitable", which could lead to "showing up on FuckedCompany.com soon".
Hrm. I might go along with #1 -- a benevolent dictator is the optimum form of government. And even a not-completely-benevolent dictator is possibly better than a democratic process in some cases. But I take strong exception to suggesting that MS should be put in such a position. --
Slashdot Mirror
It kind of pisses me off that this is one of a few instances where the government realizes that a law as it stands is ineffective, and the reason they suddenly "got it" this time is because the hardware industry put monetary and political pressure on them. Eventually, the software industry may do the same. But for porn filtering in schools, there's no large economic pressure, so they may continue to be blissfully ignorant that the legislation is little more than an annoyance, yet is a bad legal precident.
--
Well, software exports are much harder to control (border guards can't randomly inspect large shipments, because the large shipments could easily be encrypted. And you only need to get one shipment through, and then potentially everyone has a copy). So how long until they decide that this software-control thing won't work (unless maybe if they install back doors into the most powerful software).
--
I took it to mean "We're concerned that we might not be required to release this information (in which case, we won't)."
--
Ahh, but students might get into the mindset that the license is NOT inherently tied to the physical CD. Solution? Charge $5 for a CD, to get them in the habit of using a "legitimate" copy.
--
...because of the many legacy documents in TeX, and because of the large authoring community versed in TeX, a priority in the design of MathML was the ability to convert TEX mathematics input into MathML format.
--
Just like the porn filtering stuff...
Republican Congress: We want porn filters!
Conservative Mothers: We want porn filters!
Worried Techies: But they don't work well enough, and there's potential for political activism by the filter companies.
Republican Congress: shhh... the parents want porn filters...
Republican Congress: We want porn filters!
--
Sure, it's somewhat easy to slide into being discriminatory and one should guard against that, but I wouldn't say that everyone handles their perceptions in an equally poor or evil way.
I would also suggest that prejudice occurs naturally because we have imperfect knowledge. And that as the learning process continues, old prejudices disappear and new ones come into being. So it would be my opinion that if you are aware that humans often unfairly stigmatize outgroups and you try to guard against that, then you're somewhat morally superior to those who don't.
--
The precedent is a social one... that countries are allowed to pressure offshore companies to take on their values. In effect, that it's socially acceptable for the more conservative (and politically influential) countries to partially limit access for citizens all over the world.
But perhaps that's a desired effect of globalization, I don't know... Political influence is not always a bad thing (eg. one person, one vote).
As far as an international governing body goes... if a law were to be made that said "no Nazi stuff ever", then that would obviously be in conflict with some countries basic tenets. Nor could the governing body demand that access be restricted for France only-- that's technically impossible. So all that is left is political/social pressure, which is current situation. (Not that there aren't plausible arguments for an international governing body, I just don't see how it would help here)
--
Notice the word ratio? The choice of the units is left to the creator and doesn't matter much. Though a 9cm x 4cm x 1cm monolith might be slightly less impressive.
--
LeTaco didn't check the link before posting?
--
But no pages on Linux Today at all? (search for freetype resulted in 4 old hits)
--
What are the things that have prompted you to expand your hard drive? For me, it was the following in succession:
- Collecting GIFs and JPGs (back in the BBS days)
- Collecting pirated games
- Collecting tons of MP3's
- Collecting movies
I'd bet that most large home hard drives are filled with similar things. The conclusion? Piracy is good for the hard drive industry.Heck... P2P is good for the hard drive industry. Instead of having the songs stored on a few central servers, you have them stored in many locations, and the cost is spread out over lots of people.
--
Scientific American's current issue contains several articles on optical networks and prospects for switching and routing them without electronics.
--
Part of the role of a parent is to shield the child from various things until they are mature enough to not be permanently jaded from them. Eg. children are more impressionable than adults. So, while the child is in the temporary care of the state, the parent wants the child to be shielded in a similar manner, especially because the parent is paying the state for the education of their children.
--
Actually, it's easier than that. The FCC is put in charge of determining "good enough", so they would probably look down on those who try to comply with the letter of the law while going against the spirit of it.
--
Re: Loudoun County case... CIPA is a financial incentive, not an absolute mandate like in Loudoun County. CIPA doesn't block much of adult access. Also, "It must also be noted that the Loudoun court did hold that minimizing access to illegal pornography and avoidance of creation of a sexually hostile environment are compelling interests. The court went on to hold that, although the challenged policy was over inclusive because it restricted adult Internet access, it would be possible to create a policy which would protect children. Id. at 567." (Testimony, Jay Sekulow Esq., The American Center for Law and Justice (yuck))
--
CDA and COPA tried that, but they were both ruled against as unconstitutional.
--
- It's not actually an official law until President Clinton signs it.
- The very same day that the president signed COPA into law, the ACLU filed a suit
against it (and they've been winning so far).
- CIPA is different from COPA and CDA though, in many ways. One of the main differences is that COPA and CDA were criminal statutes, bound by stricter
due-process considerations. CIPA is just an incentive-based "suggestion", similar to the 55mph thing, and so it's not bound by constitutional
considerations as much.
- This law has been introduced 9 times over the past two years, all by Republicans.
- The American Library Association strongly opposes such a law.
Also, one of the peices of evidence that the proponents put forth was a statement by the CEO of Net Nanny Software (yeah, he'll be objective):- A general perception exists that Internet filtering is seriously flawed and in many situations unusable. It is also perceived that schools and
libraries don't want filtering. These notions are naive and based largely on problems associated with earlier versions of client-based software that are
admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an extensive evolution and is not only good
at protecting children but also well-received and in high demand.
This is obvious political FUD, and very dangerous IMHO because it goes along with the innovation-meme and it gives critics a way to immediately brush off any counter-evidence. But the opponents of porn filtering DO use outdated evidence often, and it's something they should be careful of. Because there are a lot of current studies that show that filters still suck badly.--
But they can if the librarians or the community want to.
--
... a court is also likely to look to related, non-Internet situations that have arisen in the past. These precedents include decisions regarding the selection or removal of books in schools or libraries, and the selection of content for publication in school-sponsored student newspapers. The Supreme Court has ruled that schools are non-public forums that are outside the general marketplace of expression. Accordingly, school boards have significant discretion to restrict content and expression within that environment. Under this doctrine, school officials only violate the First Amendment when they limit access to materials "for the purpose of restricting access to the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in them, when that action is motivated simply by the official's disapproval of the ideas involved."
In situations where a school has restricted access to certain material, courts tend to consider whether the school's decision bore a reasonable relationship to a legitimate pedagogical concern. For example, a school district's decision that students exposed to violence, nudity, or "hard" language is a view-point neutral "legitimate pedagogical concern."
--
There's a clause that "allows" local schools to target more material if they want to, but makes local schools responsible for any repercussions of that.
--
CNet-News: Deja.com reported a loss of $1.25 million on revenue of $922,000 in the first quarter of 1998.
Original good ideas = spend money on a service that's given away for free?
--
So, "getting back to its roots" really means "still not profitable", which could lead to "showing up on FuckedCompany.com soon".
Enjoy it while they last.
--
I thought one of the reasons for TLD's was so that one company could have blah.com and another could have blah.tv?
--
- 1) Dictators are good in some instances.
Hrm. I might go along with #1 -- a benevolent dictator is the optimum form of government. And even a not-completely-benevolent dictator is possibly better than a democratic process in some cases. But I take strong exception to suggesting that MS should be put in such a position.2) It's okay if Microsoft is that dictator.
--