I want nobody to ever mess with 30 second skip. DO NOT FUCK WITH 30 SECOND SKIP.
I got the Charter DVR service from Charter Communications as a test, which is a Motorola BMC9012 running Digeo's MOXI software.
When first set up, the skip button was a 30 second skip, and replay was a 7 second reverse jump.
After the box downloaded its first software update, the skip button stopped working. It became a 15 minute skip. What the fuck purpose is a 15 minute skip?
I called Charter to inquire about this. I asked what the purpose of the 15 minute skip button was; they responded that it was to jump quickly into a program (WTF?). I asked them why it was no longer a 30 second skip. The person I was talking to responded that it was "illegal" to have a 30 second skip.
After I recovered myself from this egregiously wrong statement, I informed him there was no state of federal law prohibiting a 30 second skip on a PVR, and further informed him of other PVRs that do just that. He insisted there was "a law". I asked to speak to his supervisor, who again told me it was "against the law" to have a 30 second skip, and that Charter had to "obey they law". I again informed him there was no such law, and asked him to cite any such law. The conversation essentially went nowhere. I tried the next day with the same result.
While pondering the absurdity of it all, I got a call back from a manager at Charter who had apparently become aware of my call. He apologized for the phone representatives saying that it was "illegal"...he said, essentially, that they shouldn't have said it was "illegal" or "against the law", but that Charter had "legal concerns" with its content providers and advertisers. I pointed out that Charter's corporate "legal concerns" are a lot different than something being "illegal", and that the phone agents might not want to tell people that.
But ultimately, how many people will get DVR services like this and never know there was such a thing as a 30-second skip? They'll be tickled that they can record 40 hours of video (not knowing they could record 400 by just adding a drive, which of course is disabled on this box) and fast forward through commercials like a VCR, and that they can pay Charter an extra monthly fee to watch the recorded content on another TV in their own home (not knowing that it's technically possible to also watch it on their laptop, PDA, portable media player, or anywhere else they should be able to watch it). And the ones who do know about the 30-second skip will probably swallow Charter's "we can't do it because it's illegal" copout.
And when July rolls around, those same people won't wonder how we're unable to do things we could do 30 years ago with the VCR when their DVR box tells them they're not allowed to record ER in HD (and that they must watch it live), and a call to Charter only elicits the blameless "Well, we have to follow what the TV networks make us do - it's not our fault..."
The cable and satellite providers might be in the best position to provide DVR services that can tune all of the subscribed channels on their networks directly, without having to have some kind of convoluted IR Blaster setup or multiple settops, but they're also in the best position to severely restrict the featuresets and functionality of those boxes as well...
[Open to the sound of one set of hands clapping...]
But, if, as you say "Electricity is distributed and available everywhere. There are green sources of electricity which are cost-competitive, and improving," and "anyone can [build an electric] in his garage", it seems that will be able to happen anyway, regardless of what happens with hydrogen, eh?
But, seriously, bravo on your attempt to link the two together and evoke thoughts of conspiracies. Further, if the response is "well, if the big players and government were putting time into electrics rather than hydrogen, we'd be closer to that goal ever sooner!" Yes. And encumbered with all of the myriad patents you associate with hydrogen. If the big players went full-on into electrics, they'd be discovering - and patenting - new technologies for efficiency, delivery, etc., in that realm just the same.
The bottom line is regardless of how many people explore hydrogen - and even if it IS a "boondoggle" - this does NOT preclude ANYTHING you allege with regard to electrics.
This post somewhat reminds me of the West Wing episode where various green power advocates came to the White House as champions of their respective technologies - and viciously denigrated each others', some as scams, handouts, or boondoggles, even though they were all after the same goal.
I've been a Linux user since 1998, and I admin Mac OS X machines at work, but I have yet to find a distribution that comes out-of-the-box with modern directory services.
...including Mac OS X by implication in your conclusion that you have "yet to find a distribution that comes out-of-the-box with modern directory services."
To me, this also implied you had server or other hardware capable of running Mac OS X family operating systems. Therefore, the logical answer, and the first thing I thought of when I read your post, was Open Directory on Mac OS X Server. It's based on OpenLDAP and other open technologies, such as SAMBA, and does everything your asking for.
And to the other poster who asked how Open Directory behaves with mixed Windows/Mac/Linux clients: very well. It's just an LDAP- and Kerberos-based directory and authentication server, and it works very, very well. And it will be even better on Tiger.
Animals living on earth cause changes in their environment in various ways.
Film at 11.
(Yes, yes, humans have the potential to cause *more* change in some respects. From transportation, thousands of years of farming, damming rivers, factories, and so on and so on. As cliche as this sounds, we do have the RIGHT to do things that might make changes - changes which can neither with any certainty be defined as "positive" or "negative" in the broad sense - to our surroundings. Should we go out of our way to destroy life, land, or air? Of course not. But, at the same time, we can't, and frankly shouldn't, have no impact whatsoever. So, once again, it's about THRESHOLDS, and is NOT a black and white discussion. But I think that this continued "HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING" agenda has taken on a life of its own...)
In the most recent slashdot story posted on this topic, I asked the question, "What is a 'journalist'," considering that there are current, in force US law(s) that may have been violated by a 3rd party knowingly revealing information that could reasonably be assumed to be protected by a confidentiality agreement, and in the ensuing insistence that these web sites should be protected as "journalists", I got an array of replies about what constitutes a "journalist":
Now, considering all of these replies that insist that Nick Ciarelli (of Think Secret) and these other websites are "journalists", and anyone who's apparently got any kind of website at all on any topuc should be considered a "journalist", certainly that means that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) is a "journalist" too?
I don't see how bringing mod-history into this discussion has anything to do with me stating that you trolled in the past two days. You trolled in the past two days and you even admitted it (twice now -- see above).
So let me get this straight:
You accused me of "trolling" by "posting crap" and then just "standing back" to watch the ensuing argument, implying I posted flamebait or trolled to get people to respond, but really wasn't interested in having a discussion.
I said this was categorically not true, because I HAVE, in fact, carried on continuing conversations about the topics in the threads, including yesterday's UTSA thread, and with YOU, no less.
So first, I was, according to you, "trolling" by posting an initial post and NOT responding (which wasn't true anyway), and now I'm "trolling" because I DO respond?
...
And for the record, to be clear, I have not "admitted" to "trolling", dipshit. But thanks. And unlike you, I can actually put my name to my posts.
Well, yeah. People ought to be able to disobey unjust laws.
Ok, fine.
But what's "unjust"? Funnily enough, I just had this discussion yesterday. The whole idea of rule of law in a civilized society is that, ordinarily, you don't get to arbitrarily decide which laws to obey and which to disobey based on what you think is "unjust". I mean, yeah, sure, you CAN disobey them, but then there are consequences.
I'm not talking about how it used to be illegal for blacks to ride in some particular seats on the bus, or the American Revolution. I'm talking about routine laws and most ordinary people: in a civilized society, in theory anyway, we all agree to obey the laws our elected officials make, for the good of society as a whole. If you're so jaded that you think all laws are designed to either help corporations or lead to a police state, then, yeah, I guess I can see your trepidation. It's become clear to me that many people, particularly among the ranks of places like slashdot, do, in fact, believe it has gotten grave enough that we should be thinking about serious civil disobedience, if not outright "revolution", of sorts, at some point in the future.
I believe I already stated that you didn't have a view.
I said:
"[...] how is this fundamentally any different from the electronic monitoring systems that have been used to restrict offenders to their home or to a city. Wait - let me guess - now not only do you know they're in the city, but you know *exactly where they are* - *gasp*! Information that could be, you know, useful in the case of people who have violated restraining orders, of which information about the subjects location in proximity to someone else is fundamental. / Or, wait: would you rather send them to jail?"
and
"Yes. Technology can be used to fix problems. [...] If having a probation officer physically assigned to the criminal 24x7 would be ok, then so is this."
How is that "not having a view" on this specific story at hand?
You only propose questions that you even admit are nothing more than trolls.
No, asshole. I said yes, you could say that ONE SENTENCE was perhaps "trollish", but it was also true. It was also a fucking rhetorical question. I thought that was obvious, and, since it was one sentence out of my entire post (which anyone can easily see), it still does not represent the majority of content in the post, most of which was directly related to the posted story.
Additionally, it is indisputable that some here come out with vehement arguments AGAINST technology used for particular applications, while at the same time vigorously DEFENDING other technology on that basis that technology is just an innocent tool, including some "technology" that is clearly used mostly for illegal activities (in some jurisdictions). (Note: I don't think that ANY technology, including things like P2P, should be "banned", so at least I'm consistent - the hypocrisy of some on the other side is what I'm really getting at.
As for responding to your post: I refuse to fall into your trolltraps again.
Whatever. If this is you, you're a fucking subscriber, and you can go back through my posting history. Most of my posts are highly moderated and/or informative, and I maintain continuing discussions with people throughout threads.
Again, it's sad that your debating skills apparently relegate you to:
1.) Posting anonymously, and
2.) Hinting that you won't reply again so you can make false statements (i.e., that "I didn't have a view" even though I clearly did) and then get not have to defend it by simply not responding under the guise of calling me a "troll", though I'm clearly not, as anyone, especially subscribers, can see for themselves by my posting history. Also, if I'm a "troll", why I posting with a +1 karma bonus right now?
Not trolling, but if you want to think it, go ahead.
All your posts are the same crap rehashed.
One might say the same thing about yours...
I'm sorry I have positions that you disagree with.
You propose a trollish question (calling slashdotters "latent luddites in the normally pro-tech slashdot community")
Trollish, but true. People who are ordinarily proponents of technology, who pretend that things like P2P are just the nature of things, and content providers will have to find a way to deal with it because it's just an "innocent technology" that can be used for anything come out full force AGAINST, e.g., RFID in the California school district, which is just really a glorified way of keeping track of the students, which the school is charged with doing anyway, albeit using technological means. But oooh, let's call it a "tracking beacon" and throw in some 1984 and Ben Franklin quotes, and maybe a little Bush bashing to boot, and we've got ourselves a slashdot thread! Yes, I'm being a little sarcastic here, but you think *my* fucking posts are "the same crap rehashed"? Take a look at the majority of groupthink posts to pretty much any politically oriented article here, and then we can talk about "crap rehashed".
and then you give some stupid opinion under the guise of you standing back and having nothing to do w/the argument that will ensue.
Huh? I had 14 replies in my own UTSA thread yesterday. Don't know how that's "standing back", exactly.
Especially considering I'm, you know, responding to you right now.
In the future state and opinion or a fact.
I did. And have. Thank you.
Do not state your boring and open-ended questions that are only there for the amusement you apparently receive out of watching people state their case while you get modded up over asking people to answer your questions more than once.
*Sigh*
First of all, I posted both of those questions within minutes of each other, before NEITHER had been answered, in separate subthreads. Secondly, they were both modded DOWN, one to "0, Flamebait", so my goal isn't to "get modded up". But thanks for your concern. Speaking of posting crap, why don't you actually respond to my fucking post instead of trolling me simply because you (apparently) disagree with some of my views.
With all the reports of [X] being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is [using X to track criminals] any better?
The answer, I think, is, "What the hell does the assertion that something might inappropriately be used for 'innocent' people have to do with it being used with criminals?"
That's like saying, "With all the reports that innocent people don't like being thrown into prison cells, is it really any better to do it to criminals?"
With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people,
Huh? All what reports? I.e., of things that have actually happened? (Yes, yes, GPS in rental cars and speeding tickets and pay-by-the-mile and yadda yadda yadda. How is that restricting "rights", exactly? The "right" to break the law without having someone look over your shoulder?)
is this any better?
Um, I fail to see the connection. Because saying, for a moment, that I accept your thesis of GPS being used to "restrict the rights" of innocent people, yes, using GPS to track convicted criminals is definitely "better". How are these two things even related? Further, how is this fundamentally any different from the electronic monitoring systems that have been used to restrict offenders to their home or to a city. Wait - let me guess - now not only do you know they're in the city, but you know *exactly where they are* - *gasp*! Information that could be, you know, useful in the case of people who have violated restraining orders, of which information about the subjects location in proximity to someone else is fundamental.
Or, wait: would you rather send them to jail?
Will it fix the problem?
Yes. Technology can be used to fix problems.
Or is this going to be one of those things that draws out the latent Luddites in the normally pro-technology slashdot community?
If having a probation officer physically assigned to the criminal 24x7 would be ok, then so is this. Now, if you fundamentally disagree with the criminal justice system or "the Man" in general, then you'll likely disagree with this just for the sake of it.
I cannot believe you were modded up twice over a repeat question. Redundant.
Don't worry. They've been back and forth between "Flamebait"/"Troll" and "Insightful"/"Interesting" several times now.
The Act you keep referring to is nothing more than proof that corporations own the government and that the people are no longer protected from anything. Because of this, it's irrelevant and needs to be ignored by anyone and everyone, including those who were coerced by donations to create it.
Now I understand where you're coming from. That's the answer I was looking for. Thanks. You believe that a law such as this is unjust and was essentially the result of corporate bribery, and as such, should be ignored. Implicitly, this means you think it's ok, in a society that presumably has rule of law, for people to personally decide which laws are ok to follow and which laws aren't. I'm not passing judgment here, just summarizing what must be your conclusions.
The lost of trust is not worth the bad precedent that Apple is trying to whine its way into.
First of all, note that I've never, in any of my posts on this subject, said what I thought Apple was doing was a good idea, or even right. I've also left room - several times in my original post, actually - for the idea that the legal action against Apple's subpoena(s) could be considered protest against an unjust law. I was just trying to present the notion that a law could have been broken at all. Whether you think the law is RIGHT or WRONG was beside the point of that argument; it was more along the lines of "a law may have been broken, and an entity [Apple] might attempt to use that fact in its favor to obtain an outcome that is favorable for itself". If it's ok for individuals to personally ignore laws, no matter on what grounds, then certainly it is ok for others to make a determination to operate within the bounds of the law? (Unless, of course, you think that anything that is generally pro-corporation is automatically "wrong" and should be ignored.)
And since you apparently missed it, I'll repeat it here:
But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," [Andrew] Beckerman-Rodau[, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School] said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."
Funny how it's completely relevant!
- Trade secret information likely protected by binding confidentiality agreement or NDA: check
- Third party disclosing that information: check
- Legal expert in Intellectual Property law saying it's relevant, and even that the first amendment doesn't always protect you, and that legal precedent is NOT on the side of "first amendment" arguments here: check
I await what is sure to me another insightful commentary!
I think it's you that is overlooking at lot of stuff.
He has an anonymous web form, email, and anonymous voicemail. And pretty much everything Think Secret has published has come to pass, down to extremely specific details, and this has been consistent for at least a couple of years. He's found a source, and that's undeniable. He has clearly developed a trust releationship - even if anonymous - with the source that is feeding him this accurate information. He KNOWS it is under NDA.
Note that I never said that what I think Apple is doing is a good idea, or whether or not it's really even fundamentally right for Apple to be able to use the UTSA (if it so chooses) in this manner. Everyone just jumped to that conclusion. All I'm saying is that he knew what he was doing, period, and now, there may be legal repercussions if they're unsuccessful in arguing against them.
And no, he didn't pull the info out of his ass. If you followed Think Secret, you'd know that. Think Secret is so reliable that it's information is now picked up by mainstream press when it's reported (as in the case of the sub-$500 Mac, which was massive news). They're probably over 95% right on everything they post, with only minor details and dates sometimes being incorrect. They've got one or more deeply placed sources, and we'll see if Apple is successful in using this method to find out who it is.
Note that it is not immoral or unethical to disobey an immoral or unethical law.
Who says what's immoral or unethical?
You?
So, each individual person can make decisions based on what they think is immoral or unethical, and then disobey laws based on that? Rule of law in a civilized society has no value? Or only when you personally agree with the law?
And further, all speech and information can and should always be free, regardless?
How is this Flamebait? Can no one answer the simple question of what constitutes a "journalist"? And if it's anyone, then what is the value of the distinction between "press" and everyone else (as has been presented in other posts in reply to my original)? Or is there no distinction at all, and anyone who puts ideas in print in any forum is now considered a "journalist"?
This isn't about trade secrets, but Apple trying to control which publications get the story first and which don't
Companies may in fact do purposeful leaks to do what you're describing. I frankly don't know for an absolute fact whether Apple has. But this isn't about controlling which publications get news first: Apple didn't want ANYONE to know about the sub-$500 Mac before Steve Jobs got up on stage at Macworld and announced it, period. Not Think Secret. Not Time. Further, your argument about how a web site "can't know" whether it's an intentional leak or not is kind of BS. It's *irrelevant*. Either way, if it's covered by a confidentiality agreement, it's off limits.
Likewise if Apple has told so many people its "secrets" that they can't come up with a short list of who may have "leaked" the information, then it isn't a secret and no one outside the company should be expected to respect it as such.
That's just the thing. They don't. The vast majority of people at Apple didn't know (aside from Think Secret) about the sub-$500 Mac. Think Secret has probably one or two extremely well placed sources, and it's precisely because of this that Apple is trying to find out who it is, using the legal system as it stands (i.e., likely the UTSA) as the most expeditious way to attempt to reveal the culprit.
They're trying to paint these people as "bloggers". What constitutes a "blog"? If I post information in a journal-like style in chronological order to a web page, does that automatically make me a "journalist", and exempt me from any legal requirements pertaining to, e.g., trade secrets?
He started running this site when he was what, 13? I didn't even know that the UTSA existed when I was 13, let alone know what an NDA was. Since that point in time, has he openly requested that apple employees break their NDAs? No, he hasn't. He put out an open call for any information from anyone who may or may not have it, and he released it online.
First of all, I don't buy the ignorance excuse. In Nick's case, he's been doing this a LONG time, so he does know what's going in, and the issues at hand have happened since he was over 18 years of age.
While the information in question was classified as a trade secret, without him knowing that it was coming from someone under NDA he's not in violation of the UTSA, which is what he's being sued under.
It's if he *reasonably* should have known it was coming from someone bound by an NDA. This isn't one of those "if you ask if someone's a cop they have to tell you" myths (they don't), and likewise, you just can't claim ignorance when you're getting information about things like a sub-$500 Mac, probably one of Apple's most closely guarded secrets ever (until Think Secret published it); one which most Apple employees themselves didn't even know about until Macworld. He has sources within Apple or within Apple contractors, period, and he knows damned well they're bound by NDAs. Of course, I can't categorically prove that, and the legal process will attempt to discover this, and his disposition, etc., and his legal team will no doubt paint him as hapless, innocent "blogger", when in reality, he knows damned well what he's doing.
All that said, the UTSA is valid, but it's not that hard to get around. Simply not asking whether or not the source of information is bound by a NDA is more than enough to protect you from liability under the UTSA.
Untrue. See above.
Bottom line, Apple is bringing it's weight to bear on someone in order to coerce the names of his sources, and those are protected by 1st amendment rights. I say good on the EFF for stepping up on this one.
Ok, if it's because you think the UTSA is fundamentally "wrong", I'll agree with you. They can definitely protest. However, as I thought was clear in my initial post,
- 3rd parties, including possibly "journalists", might be prohibited from revealing information that was obtained from someone who can reasonably be assumed to have broken a confidentiality agreement (and, further, if anyone with a web site can claim to be a "journalist", then it would seem that a law like the UTSA would be rendered useless - try to at least understand that, whether you agree with the law or not)
- The first amendment has already been *unsuccessful* in various similar cases of trade secret leaks, even by 3rd parties, as noted in the Washington Post article
So while you can make the argument you're making, it might not represent the reality of the situation.
Well, these web sites are making their cases on Freedom of Speech grounds, specifically (as has been stated by various lawyers and legal briefs multiple times), and, more generally on First Amendment grounds.
No laws are broken but you can be sued using this contract.
Wrong. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act law(s) in various jurisdictions may have been broken. Sure, it may all revolve around civil and contractual issues, but that's somewhat irrelevant. The reason this law *exists* is to prevent people from skirting NDAs by simply leaking information to a 3rd party.
In this case Think Secret is a 4th party and is NOT subject to the NDA.
How do you figure Think Secret is a "4th" party? It is extremely likely that Think Secret is getting its information directly from people who are themselves bound by confidentiality agreements. How does that make them a 4th party?
This is an "Apple leaking info" problem.
Yes. And it still may violate statutes to disseminate the information that was obtained. That's what the legal system will determine, eh?
If Apple wants to "out" the leaks they should create "special projects" and place their suspects in that project. Then watch the Think Secret web site...
That's one way to do it. And they may have even already done things along those lines. But there are laws that exist that may have been violated, which you're choosing to conveniently ignore.
Just because something is a law, doesn't make it write.
Indeed.
...
There is a long history in this country of civil disobedience against unjust, unconstitutional, or wrongheaded laws. Just because corporate interest have the power to get laws like this passed, this does not make it right or constitutional.
I believe I made several references to that in my post, which you apparently glossed over or otherwise ignored. The point I was trying to make was that, regardless, the actions MAY BE ILLEGAL. Now, if you want to consider this civil disobedience to test laws you believe are unjust, fine. But the point is that there is a law, currently, that may have been broken by a third party (A "journalist"? So can anyone with a web site claim to be a "journalist"?) disclosing known-confidential information.
Also, from your attitude, it's clear that you feel that agreements employees make with employers in good faith are worthless and can be utterly ignored.
So do you, or do you not, fundamentally agree with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which "prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements"?
Also, what constitutes a "journalist"? Anyone who has a web site? How is that defined? And yes, this is a serious question.
I guess it will be up to the courts to determine when, how, and to whom the provisions of the UTSA can be applied, then, eh?
Also, the "1st Amendment" applies generally to everyone. What is the basis for your claim that the press is afforded a privilege that may exempt it from laws preventing the disclosure of confidential information by third parties?
Slashdot Mirror
I want nobody to ever mess with 30 second skip. DO NOT FUCK WITH 30 SECOND SKIP.
I got the Charter DVR service from Charter Communications as a test, which is a Motorola BMC9012 running Digeo's MOXI software.
When first set up, the skip button was a 30 second skip, and replay was a 7 second reverse jump.
After the box downloaded its first software update, the skip button stopped working. It became a 15 minute skip. What the fuck purpose is a 15 minute skip?
I called Charter to inquire about this. I asked what the purpose of the 15 minute skip button was; they responded that it was to jump quickly into a program (WTF?). I asked them why it was no longer a 30 second skip. The person I was talking to responded that it was "illegal" to have a 30 second skip.
After I recovered myself from this egregiously wrong statement, I informed him there was no state of federal law prohibiting a 30 second skip on a PVR, and further informed him of other PVRs that do just that. He insisted there was "a law". I asked to speak to his supervisor, who again told me it was "against the law" to have a 30 second skip, and that Charter had to "obey they law". I again informed him there was no such law, and asked him to cite any such law. The conversation essentially went nowhere. I tried the next day with the same result.
While pondering the absurdity of it all, I got a call back from a manager at Charter who had apparently become aware of my call. He apologized for the phone representatives saying that it was "illegal"...he said, essentially, that they shouldn't have said it was "illegal" or "against the law", but that Charter had "legal concerns" with its content providers and advertisers. I pointed out that Charter's corporate "legal concerns" are a lot different than something being "illegal", and that the phone agents might not want to tell people that.
But ultimately, how many people will get DVR services like this and never know there was such a thing as a 30-second skip? They'll be tickled that they can record 40 hours of video (not knowing they could record 400 by just adding a drive, which of course is disabled on this box) and fast forward through commercials like a VCR, and that they can pay Charter an extra monthly fee to watch the recorded content on another TV in their own home (not knowing that it's technically possible to also watch it on their laptop, PDA, portable media player, or anywhere else they should be able to watch it). And the ones who do know about the 30-second skip will probably swallow Charter's "we can't do it because it's illegal" copout.
And when July rolls around, those same people won't wonder how we're unable to do things we could do 30 years ago with the VCR when their DVR box tells them they're not allowed to record ER in HD (and that they must watch it live), and a call to Charter only elicits the blameless "Well, we have to follow what the TV networks make us do - it's not our fault..."
The cable and satellite providers might be in the best position to provide DVR services that can tune all of the subscribed channels on their networks directly, without having to have some kind of convoluted IR Blaster setup or multiple settops, but they're also in the best position to severely restrict the featuresets and functionality of those boxes as well...
[Open to the sound of one set of hands clapping...]
But, if, as you say "Electricity is distributed and available everywhere. There are green sources of electricity which are cost-competitive, and improving," and "anyone can [build an electric] in his garage", it seems that will be able to happen anyway, regardless of what happens with hydrogen, eh?
But, seriously, bravo on your attempt to link the two together and evoke thoughts of conspiracies. Further, if the response is "well, if the big players and government were putting time into electrics rather than hydrogen, we'd be closer to that goal ever sooner!" Yes. And encumbered with all of the myriad patents you associate with hydrogen. If the big players went full-on into electrics, they'd be discovering - and patenting - new technologies for efficiency, delivery, etc., in that realm just the same.
The bottom line is regardless of how many people explore hydrogen - and even if it IS a "boondoggle" - this does NOT preclude ANYTHING you allege with regard to electrics.
This post somewhat reminds me of the West Wing episode where various green power advocates came to the White House as champions of their respective technologies - and viciously denigrated each others', some as scams, handouts, or boondoggles, even though they were all after the same goal.
I've been a Linux user since 1998, and I admin Mac OS X machines at work, but I have yet to find a distribution that comes out-of-the-box with modern directory services.
...including Mac OS X by implication in your conclusion that you have "yet to find a distribution that comes out-of-the-box with modern directory services."
To me, this also implied you had server or other hardware capable of running Mac OS X family operating systems. Therefore, the logical answer, and the first thing I thought of when I read your post, was Open Directory on Mac OS X Server. It's based on OpenLDAP and other open technologies, such as SAMBA, and does everything your asking for.
And to the other poster who asked how Open Directory behaves with mixed Windows/Mac/Linux clients: very well. It's just an LDAP- and Kerberos-based directory and authentication server, and it works very, very well. And it will be even better on Tiger.
...is linked in the summary.
(Last sentence, "Mersenne Primes".)
Sheesh.
Animals living on earth cause changes in their environment in various ways.
Film at 11.
(Yes, yes, humans have the potential to cause *more* change in some respects. From transportation, thousands of years of farming, damming rivers, factories, and so on and so on. As cliche as this sounds, we do have the RIGHT to do things that might make changes - changes which can neither with any certainty be defined as "positive" or "negative" in the broad sense - to our surroundings. Should we go out of our way to destroy life, land, or air? Of course not. But, at the same time, we can't, and frankly shouldn't, have no impact whatsoever. So, once again, it's about THRESHOLDS, and is NOT a black and white discussion. But I think that this continued "HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING" agenda has taken on a life of its own...)
In the most recent slashdot story posted on this topic, I asked the question, "What is a 'journalist'," considering that there are current, in force US law(s) that may have been violated by a 3rd party knowingly revealing information that could reasonably be assumed to be protected by a confidentiality agreement, and in the ensuing insistence that these web sites should be protected as "journalists", I got an array of replies about what constitutes a "journalist":
... and hence the creators of the journal are called 'journalists'"
"A person is acting in a journalist capacity when they provide non fiction information about contemporary events to an audience [via a medium other than direct speech]. Those are the criteria."
"I don't see why bloggers can't be considered journalists."
"...anyone can be a journalist if by journalist you mean someone who distributes information (regardless of accuracy) to a public audience (regardless of size). Bloggers? They're journalists. Editor of your high school newspaper? Yep, journalist, too."
"I think that many websites constitute being called a 'journal'
"...a journalist is anyone who can get their documented beliefs published."
"Even the lamest 'blog is a "journal" unarguably. So yes, anyone with a web site is a "journalist". The government should not get into the business of determining who's a "legitimate journalist" and who's a "illegitimate journalist not worthy of the protections of freedom of the press". To do so would amount to licensing journalists, which I think is very much the wrong idea."
"It's 2005. "Journalism" means everything and everything."
"A journalist is anyone reporting news to the public. That could be by handbill, newspaper, broadside, web site, word of mouth, by scribbling on a piece of paper. It should be as broad as possible. Spreading of information == good."
Now, considering all of these replies that insist that Nick Ciarelli (of Think Secret) and these other websites are "journalists", and anyone who's apparently got any kind of website at all on any topuc should be considered a "journalist", certainly that means that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) is a "journalist" too?
Or does it not work both ways?
So let me get this straight:
You accused me of "trolling" by "posting crap" and then just "standing back" to watch the ensuing argument, implying I posted flamebait or trolled to get people to respond, but really wasn't interested in having a discussion.
I said this was categorically not true, because I HAVE, in fact, carried on continuing conversations about the topics in the threads, including yesterday's UTSA thread, and with YOU, no less.
So first, I was, according to you, "trolling" by posting an initial post and NOT responding (which wasn't true anyway), and now I'm "trolling" because I DO respond?
...
And for the record, to be clear, I have not "admitted" to "trolling", dipshit. But thanks. And unlike you, I can actually put my name to my posts.
Well, yeah. People ought to be able to disobey unjust laws.
Ok, fine.
But what's "unjust"? Funnily enough, I just had this discussion yesterday. The whole idea of rule of law in a civilized society is that, ordinarily, you don't get to arbitrarily decide which laws to obey and which to disobey based on what you think is "unjust". I mean, yeah, sure, you CAN disobey them, but then there are consequences.
I'm not talking about how it used to be illegal for blacks to ride in some particular seats on the bus, or the American Revolution. I'm talking about routine laws and most ordinary people: in a civilized society, in theory anyway, we all agree to obey the laws our elected officials make, for the good of society as a whole. If you're so jaded that you think all laws are designed to either help corporations or lead to a police state, then, yeah, I guess I can see your trepidation. It's become clear to me that many people, particularly among the ranks of places like slashdot, do, in fact, believe it has gotten grave enough that we should be thinking about serious civil disobedience, if not outright "revolution", of sorts, at some point in the future.
I believe I already stated that you didn't have a view.
I said:
"[...] how is this fundamentally any different from the electronic monitoring systems that have been used to restrict offenders to their home or to a city. Wait - let me guess - now not only do you know they're in the city, but you know *exactly where they are* - *gasp*! Information that could be, you know, useful in the case of people who have violated restraining orders, of which information about the subjects location in proximity to someone else is fundamental. / Or, wait: would you rather send them to jail?"
and
"Yes. Technology can be used to fix problems. [...] If having a probation officer physically assigned to the criminal 24x7 would be ok, then so is this."
How is that "not having a view" on this specific story at hand?
You only propose questions that you even admit are nothing more than trolls.
No, asshole. I said yes, you could say that ONE SENTENCE was perhaps "trollish", but it was also true. It was also a fucking rhetorical question. I thought that was obvious, and, since it was one sentence out of my entire post (which anyone can easily see), it still does not represent the majority of content in the post, most of which was directly related to the posted story.
Additionally, it is indisputable that some here come out with vehement arguments AGAINST technology used for particular applications, while at the same time vigorously DEFENDING other technology on that basis that technology is just an innocent tool, including some "technology" that is clearly used mostly for illegal activities (in some jurisdictions). (Note: I don't think that ANY technology, including things like P2P, should be "banned", so at least I'm consistent - the hypocrisy of some on the other side is what I'm really getting at.
As for responding to your post: I refuse to fall into your trolltraps again.
Whatever. If this is you, you're a fucking subscriber, and you can go back through my posting history. Most of my posts are highly moderated and/or informative, and I maintain continuing discussions with people throughout threads.
Again, it's sad that your debating skills apparently relegate you to:
1.) Posting anonymously, and
2.) Hinting that you won't reply again so you can make false statements (i.e., that "I didn't have a view" even though I clearly did) and then get not have to defend it by simply not responding under the guise of calling me a "troll", though I'm clearly not, as anyone, especially subscribers, can see for themselves by my posting history. Also, if I'm a "troll", why I posting with a +1 karma bonus right now?
Two days in a row of trolling from you.
Not trolling, but if you want to think it, go ahead.
All your posts are the same crap rehashed.
One might say the same thing about yours...
I'm sorry I have positions that you disagree with.
You propose a trollish question (calling slashdotters "latent luddites in the normally pro-tech slashdot community")
Trollish, but true. People who are ordinarily proponents of technology, who pretend that things like P2P are just the nature of things, and content providers will have to find a way to deal with it because it's just an "innocent technology" that can be used for anything come out full force AGAINST, e.g., RFID in the California school district, which is just really a glorified way of keeping track of the students, which the school is charged with doing anyway, albeit using technological means. But oooh, let's call it a "tracking beacon" and throw in some 1984 and Ben Franklin quotes, and maybe a little Bush bashing to boot, and we've got ourselves a slashdot thread! Yes, I'm being a little sarcastic here, but you think *my* fucking posts are "the same crap rehashed"? Take a look at the majority of groupthink posts to pretty much any politically oriented article here, and then we can talk about "crap rehashed".
and then you give some stupid opinion under the guise of you standing back and having nothing to do w/the argument that will ensue.
Huh? I had 14 replies in my own UTSA thread yesterday. Don't know how that's "standing back", exactly.
Especially considering I'm, you know, responding to you right now.
In the future state and opinion or a fact.
I did. And have. Thank you.
Do not state your boring and open-ended questions that are only there for the amusement you apparently receive out of watching people state their case while you get modded up over asking people to answer your questions more than once.
*Sigh*
First of all, I posted both of those questions within minutes of each other, before NEITHER had been answered, in separate subthreads. Secondly, they were both modded DOWN, one to "0, Flamebait", so my goal isn't to "get modded up". But thanks for your concern. Speaking of posting crap, why don't you actually respond to my fucking post instead of trolling me simply because you (apparently) disagree with some of my views.
Both use GPS?
Um. Yeah. Not what I was getting at.
The poster asked, essentially:
With all the reports of [X] being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is [using X to track criminals] any better?
The answer, I think, is, "What the hell does the assertion that something might inappropriately be used for 'innocent' people have to do with it being used with criminals?"
That's like saying, "With all the reports that innocent people don't like being thrown into prison cells, is it really any better to do it to criminals?"
Yes. It was that dumb.
With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people,
Huh? All what reports? I.e., of things that have actually happened? (Yes, yes, GPS in rental cars and speeding tickets and pay-by-the-mile and yadda yadda yadda. How is that restricting "rights", exactly? The "right" to break the law without having someone look over your shoulder?)
is this any better?
Um, I fail to see the connection. Because saying, for a moment, that I accept your thesis of GPS being used to "restrict the rights" of innocent people, yes, using GPS to track convicted criminals is definitely "better". How are these two things even related? Further, how is this fundamentally any different from the electronic monitoring systems that have been used to restrict offenders to their home or to a city. Wait - let me guess - now not only do you know they're in the city, but you know *exactly where they are* - *gasp*! Information that could be, you know, useful in the case of people who have violated restraining orders, of which information about the subjects location in proximity to someone else is fundamental.
Or, wait: would you rather send them to jail?
Will it fix the problem?
Yes. Technology can be used to fix problems.
Or is this going to be one of those things that draws out the latent Luddites in the normally pro-technology slashdot community?
If having a probation officer physically assigned to the criminal 24x7 would be ok, then so is this. Now, if you fundamentally disagree with the criminal justice system or "the Man" in general, then you'll likely disagree with this just for the sake of it.
I cannot believe you were modded up twice over a repeat question. Redundant.
Don't worry. They've been back and forth between "Flamebait"/"Troll" and "Insightful"/"Interesting" several times now.
The Act you keep referring to is nothing more than proof that corporations own the government and that the people are no longer protected from anything. Because of this, it's irrelevant and needs to be ignored by anyone and everyone, including those who were coerced by donations to create it.
Now I understand where you're coming from. That's the answer I was looking for. Thanks. You believe that a law such as this is unjust and was essentially the result of corporate bribery, and as such, should be ignored. Implicitly, this means you think it's ok, in a society that presumably has rule of law, for people to personally decide which laws are ok to follow and which laws aren't. I'm not passing judgment here, just summarizing what must be your conclusions.
The lost of trust is not worth the bad precedent that Apple is trying to whine its way into.
First of all, note that I've never, in any of my posts on this subject, said what I thought Apple was doing was a good idea, or even right. I've also left room - several times in my original post, actually - for the idea that the legal action against Apple's subpoena(s) could be considered protest against an unjust law. I was just trying to present the notion that a law could have been broken at all. Whether you think the law is RIGHT or WRONG was beside the point of that argument; it was more along the lines of "a law may have been broken, and an entity [Apple] might attempt to use that fact in its favor to obtain an outcome that is favorable for itself". If it's ok for individuals to personally ignore laws, no matter on what grounds, then certainly it is ok for others to make a determination to operate within the bounds of the law? (Unless, of course, you think that anything that is generally pro-corporation is automatically "wrong" and should be ignored.)
Gee, that's funny, the Washington Post did mention it:
3 7-2005Jan13_2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A79
And since you apparently missed it, I'll repeat it here:
But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," [Andrew] Beckerman-Rodau[, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School] said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."
Funny how it's completely relevant!
- Trade secret information likely protected by binding confidentiality agreement or NDA: check
- Third party disclosing that information: check
- Legal expert in Intellectual Property law saying it's relevant, and even that the first amendment doesn't always protect you, and that legal precedent is NOT on the side of "first amendment" arguments here: check
I await what is sure to me another insightful commentary!
I think it's you that is overlooking at lot of stuff.
He has an anonymous web form, email, and anonymous voicemail. And pretty much everything Think Secret has published has come to pass, down to extremely specific details, and this has been consistent for at least a couple of years. He's found a source, and that's undeniable. He has clearly developed a trust releationship - even if anonymous - with the source that is feeding him this accurate information. He KNOWS it is under NDA.
Note that I never said that what I think Apple is doing is a good idea, or whether or not it's really even fundamentally right for Apple to be able to use the UTSA (if it so chooses) in this manner. Everyone just jumped to that conclusion. All I'm saying is that he knew what he was doing, period, and now, there may be legal repercussions if they're unsuccessful in arguing against them.
And no, he didn't pull the info out of his ass. If you followed Think Secret, you'd know that. Think Secret is so reliable that it's information is now picked up by mainstream press when it's reported (as in the case of the sub-$500 Mac, which was massive news). They're probably over 95% right on everything they post, with only minor details and dates sometimes being incorrect. They've got one or more deeply placed sources, and we'll see if Apple is successful in using this method to find out who it is.
Note that it is not immoral or unethical to disobey an immoral or unethical law.
Who says what's immoral or unethical?
You?
So, each individual person can make decisions based on what they think is immoral or unethical, and then disobey laws based on that? Rule of law in a civilized society has no value? Or only when you personally agree with the law?
And further, all speech and information can and should always be free, regardless?
How is this Flamebait? Can no one answer the simple question of what constitutes a "journalist"? And if it's anyone, then what is the value of the distinction between "press" and everyone else (as has been presented in other posts in reply to my original)? Or is there no distinction at all, and anyone who puts ideas in print in any forum is now considered a "journalist"?
This isn't about trade secrets, but Apple trying to control which publications get the story first and which don't
Companies may in fact do purposeful leaks to do what you're describing. I frankly don't know for an absolute fact whether Apple has. But this isn't about controlling which publications get news first: Apple didn't want ANYONE to know about the sub-$500 Mac before Steve Jobs got up on stage at Macworld and announced it, period. Not Think Secret. Not Time. Further, your argument about how a web site "can't know" whether it's an intentional leak or not is kind of BS. It's *irrelevant*. Either way, if it's covered by a confidentiality agreement, it's off limits.
Likewise if Apple has told so many people its "secrets" that they can't come up with a short list of who may have "leaked" the information, then it isn't a secret and no one outside the company should be expected to respect it as such.
That's just the thing. They don't. The vast majority of people at Apple didn't know (aside from Think Secret) about the sub-$500 Mac. Think Secret has probably one or two extremely well placed sources, and it's precisely because of this that Apple is trying to find out who it is, using the legal system as it stands (i.e., likely the UTSA) as the most expeditious way to attempt to reveal the culprit.
I'll ask again.
What constitutes a "journalist"?
Anyone who publishes information on a web site?
They're trying to paint these people as "bloggers". What constitutes a "blog"? If I post information in a journal-like style in chronological order to a web page, does that automatically make me a "journalist", and exempt me from any legal requirements pertaining to, e.g., trade secrets?
He started running this site when he was what, 13? I didn't even know that the UTSA existed when I was 13, let alone know what an NDA was. Since that point in time, has he openly requested that apple employees break their NDAs? No, he hasn't. He put out an open call for any information from anyone who may or may not have it, and he released it online.
First of all, I don't buy the ignorance excuse. In Nick's case, he's been doing this a LONG time, so he does know what's going in, and the issues at hand have happened since he was over 18 years of age.
While the information in question was classified as a trade secret, without him knowing that it was coming from someone under NDA he's not in violation of the UTSA, which is what he's being sued under.
It's if he *reasonably* should have known it was coming from someone bound by an NDA. This isn't one of those "if you ask if someone's a cop they have to tell you" myths (they don't), and likewise, you just can't claim ignorance when you're getting information about things like a sub-$500 Mac, probably one of Apple's most closely guarded secrets ever (until Think Secret published it); one which most Apple employees themselves didn't even know about until Macworld. He has sources within Apple or within Apple contractors, period, and he knows damned well they're bound by NDAs. Of course, I can't categorically prove that, and the legal process will attempt to discover this, and his disposition, etc., and his legal team will no doubt paint him as hapless, innocent "blogger", when in reality, he knows damned well what he's doing.
All that said, the UTSA is valid, but it's not that hard to get around. Simply not asking whether or not the source of information is bound by a NDA is more than enough to protect you from liability under the UTSA.
Untrue. See above.
Bottom line, Apple is bringing it's weight to bear on someone in order to coerce the names of his sources, and those are protected by 1st amendment rights. I say good on the EFF for stepping up on this one.
Ok, if it's because you think the UTSA is fundamentally "wrong", I'll agree with you. They can definitely protest. However, as I thought was clear in my initial post,
- 3rd parties, including possibly "journalists", might be prohibited from revealing information that was obtained from someone who can reasonably be assumed to have broken a confidentiality agreement (and, further, if anyone with a web site can claim to be a "journalist", then it would seem that a law like the UTSA would be rendered useless - try to at least understand that, whether you agree with the law or not)
- The first amendment has already been *unsuccessful* in various similar cases of trade secret leaks, even by 3rd parties, as noted in the Washington Post article
So while you can make the argument you're making, it might not represent the reality of the situation.
Well, these web sites are making their cases on Freedom of Speech grounds, specifically (as has been stated by various lawyers and legal briefs multiple times), and, more generally on First Amendment grounds.
No laws are broken but you can be sued using this contract.
Wrong. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act law(s) in various jurisdictions may have been broken. Sure, it may all revolve around civil and contractual issues, but that's somewhat irrelevant. The reason this law *exists* is to prevent people from skirting NDAs by simply leaking information to a 3rd party.
In this case Think Secret is a 4th party and is NOT subject to the NDA.
How do you figure Think Secret is a "4th" party? It is extremely likely that Think Secret is getting its information directly from people who are themselves bound by confidentiality agreements. How does that make them a 4th party?
This is an "Apple leaking info" problem.
Yes. And it still may violate statutes to disseminate the information that was obtained. That's what the legal system will determine, eh?
If Apple wants to "out" the leaks they should create "special projects" and place their suspects in that project.
Then watch the Think Secret web site...
That's one way to do it. And they may have even already done things along those lines. But there are laws that exist that may have been violated, which you're choosing to conveniently ignore.
Indeed.
...
There is a long history in this country of civil disobedience against unjust, unconstitutional, or wrongheaded laws. Just because corporate interest have the power to get laws like this passed, this does not make it right or constitutional.
I believe I made several references to that in my post, which you apparently glossed over or otherwise ignored. The point I was trying to make was that, regardless, the actions MAY BE ILLEGAL. Now, if you want to consider this civil disobedience to test laws you believe are unjust, fine. But the point is that there is a law, currently, that may have been broken by a third party (A "journalist"? So can anyone with a web site claim to be a "journalist"?) disclosing known-confidential information.
Also, from your attitude, it's clear that you feel that agreements employees make with employers in good faith are worthless and can be utterly ignored.
So do you, or do you not, fundamentally agree with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which "prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements"?
Also, what constitutes a "journalist"? Anyone who has a web site? How is that defined? And yes, this is a serious question.
I guess it will be up to the courts to determine when, how, and to whom the provisions of the UTSA can be applied, then, eh?
Also, the "1st Amendment" applies generally to everyone. What is the basis for your claim that the press is afforded a privilege that may exempt it from laws preventing the disclosure of confidential information by third parties?