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. [i.e., an NDA]
"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."
Just because you don't agree with the UTSA doesn't make it disappear. It remains to be seen whether the UTSA can be legally asserted by Apple, as they haven't publicly commented on this case beyond saying "Apple's DNA is innovation", etc., but the fact of the matter is that a law may indeed have been broken in the publication of information reasonably known to have been protected by a confidentiality agreement, period.
Oh, I don't know, data that the agencies that make up DHS already legitimately have as a matter of course?
Jeez, people berated the agencies for NOT sharing information before 9/11, and now they get berated for TRYING to share information. It's a lose-lose situation.
Funny how almost no story or commentary about this ever mentions that current, in-force US laws may have been broken in the publication of this information:
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."
Apple doesn't really care about these web sites. They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to web sites (such as Think Secret). And no, it's not information that's "known" elsewhere. Some of these sites have got very reliable moles, and Apple wants to know who they are. Hint: yes, these are people who definitely have binding confidentiality agreements with Apple.
Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
And remember, whether or not you fundamentally *agree* with the law is irrelevant. It's either illegal, or not. (Yes, yes, sure, there's gray areas, but that's not the point I'm making. And sure, maybe these sites "fighting it" in this way is one mechanism to examine the validity of these laws, and further, the role of an online journalist and his information gathering mechanisms, what can be construed as soliciting known confidential information, what constitutes a violation of these laws in this context, etc.)
If Apple's goal is to find out who leaked this information - indeed, if it considers that information critical to its business - and there is a legal mechanism for perhaps recovering that information, is it not within its rights to file suit seeking that information, especially when criminal and/or civil laws pertinent to that very information may have been violated? You might THINK they should hire a private detective. You might THINK any laws prohibiting these sites from revealing such information are incorrect, immoral, or unjust. But those are subjects not relevant to the case at hand, unless, of course, you believe the EFF challenge is a fundamental challenge of these laws.
I'm not talking philosophy here, or whether or not government officials can/should leak to the press. This is not about the Seymour Hershes of the world and the Pentagon Papers. I'm talking about the legality of this particular case, which involves a corporate entity, not issues of "throwing reporters in jail" to "reveal sources". Note that under some conditions, journalists HAVE, in fact, violated the law, and have, properly, been thrown in jail. The concept of not revealing confidential sources isn't some high and mighty ethical concept; in fact, it's a rather selfish one: at some level, it ensures them more sources in the future. It makes them more effective as a journalist. Whether they've got lofty ideals or what have you is again irrelevant. The point is, we either enforce rule of law as set by society in this country, or we don't. And yes, we can work to change law(s), protest against them, a
...that there's no accountability (and "other bloggers" don't count).
Bloggers - many with vicious partisan political and personal agendas - post "news" stories, and want all the visibility and rights of journalists, with none of the responsibility, and definitely no representation of the "other side of the story", as it were. Stories that are nothing more than glorified op-ed get passed around as gospel, and get read by many who are less discriminating about the sources for their information, and take it at face value, because if it's written intelligently on a decent looking site and a bunch of people are agreeing with it, it must be the complete truth.
If, say, Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich were president, UCS would not have even conducted this "survey" in the first place, without regard to whether or not the problem actually exists.
Does anything I've said speak to the actual problem? No, and I realize that. But I'm not sure UCS really directly cares about that specific issue either; they're more concerned with vilifying people they perceive as their opponents[1] because it has a greater chance of allowing them to advance their general agenda, which I'm sure they all believe is a good and righteous one.
[1] Whether they explicitly state it or not, it's clear from their web site and other materials that they really don't like Bush. And don't be so quick to just say "Well, maybe it's because Bush is a problem." That's not the point: you could uncover "problems" like this in any administration, but their zeal isn't consistently applied. That's what I'm getting at.
Sure. In fact, nearly every group or person could be argued to have an "agenda" of some sort. Frankly, it's the balance and exchange of ideas thats valuable. But UCS isn't really interested in having a discussion. They're more interested in promoting a political ideology, disguised as an "impartial" group of "concerned scientists". Where were all these findings under Clinton? And no, it's not because they weren't there. It's because they didn't look, and didn't concoct surveys. What about their condemnation of Bush's stem cell policy? Granted, it's partly a matter of the timing of Bush's presidency with scientific developments, but Bush is the first president to allow any federal funding for any sort of stem cell research at all. Ever. And if we're going to allow the indiscriminate destruction of embryos, well, there really are some serious ethical questions. Forget about all the religious crap. I'm sure a lot could be learned if we farmed infants for research - and yes, I realize that's absurd, but I'm not really trying to be absurd. I'm just exaggerating to make a point. Where do you draw the line?
But back on point, here: I didn't say I'm happy that scientists within FWS have said they've felt pressured. But, it happens. And it's not exclusively because of Bush. We have business interests - that, believe it or not, do actually contribute a lot to this country proper - that try to do what's best for themselves, and we've got idealists of all stripes who believe their agenda or torch they're carrying is the right one. But a lot of these people - on both sides - can't see the forest for the trees. Frankly, the endangered species legislation is a little overly restrictive. But wait: others will no doubt say it's nowhere near strong enough. Who's "right"? "Science"? But wait: different scientists, with different political orientations, will often interpret things in different ways. Like it or not, personal experience colors abstract areas of science as well.
Kind of like people don't gratuitously bash, say FOX News on slashdot?
This is exactly the same, just going the other direction now. Something you're not, you know, used to, I'm sure.
(And for the record, I'm sure their findings are just fine. Ideally, scientific results shouldn't be "fudged" to support any interests. But this is the federal government, and politics are involved, no matter who's president. If Howard Dean was president, UCS wouldn't even be doing these "surveys"...because you know what? They'd find the SAME FUCKING THING, assuming they asked the questions in the same way. That's the point I'm making. Good that some scientists feel pressured to alter findings? No. A liberal activist organization that continually tries to vilify Bush as part of its political agenda behind the survey? Yes.)
No. Do you get paid to be an insufferable asshole?
(Yes?)
Really, what was the point of your post? At least mine had one. Which is, in case you missed it, that UCS has a *huge* political agenda. Which, in and of itself, isn't bad, but let's call a spade a spade. Is it any surprise that a group founded to protest the Vietnam war and oppose any capitalist/pro-business policy has a decidedly anti-Bush agenda (implied or explicitly stated in pretty much all of their "findings" since Bush was elected), but tries to cleverly present itself as innocently impartial?
1. In the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;
2. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" has been a liberal activist organization throughout its history, originally organized to protest the Vietnam war, and with less than 10% of its membership actually from the scientific community[1];
3. Most scientists in FWS reported no such pressure;
To quote the submitter: "I'm not surprised anymore when I read these things."
But since it's an organization with a decidedly and unabashedly liberal political agenda, I guess they must be telling the truth 100%, whereas anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar who would just LOVE to see an end to all environmental concerns. Because, you know, there's no balance or anything in environmentalism. I mean, economic development is always bad, and any edict on "endangered species", no matter how shaky, is always good, right?
[1], more: In 1969, forty-eight professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology formed the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to protest America's involvement in the Vietnam War. The group conducted a highly publicized strike in March 1969, that included such speakers as leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky, and Eric Mann of the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society. (SDS was the terrorist organization responsible for bombing the U.S. Capitol Building in 1971.) The Union used the strike as a forum to declare that "misuse of scientific and technical knowledge presents a major threat to the existence of mankind." This philosophy was starkly articulated by key organizer, Jonathan Kabat: ""You've got to say, 'No, we want capitalism to come to an end."
The Union's trendy radicalism launched it into money, power and influence. A permanent office was opened in Cambridge, and UCS grew into a multimillion dollar activist organization. Three of its original founders still sit on the board: James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering (MIT); Kurt Gottfried, Chairman of the Physics Department at Cornell University; and Victor Weisskopf, Professor Emeritus of Physics (MIT). The Board of Directors of this organization also includes the standard litany of corporate America special interests, liberal nonprofit foundations, and former government agency employees.
Political activism in UCS's early years was confined primarily to opposing nuclear power and the military defense establishment. Emphasis later shifted to include all energy policy issues and global warming. In 1989, the Union commissioned Republican pollster Vince Breglio of Research/Strategy/Management to conduct a survey on global warming and environmental protection. Breglio found that "the environment is becoming a political issue with some bite." This poll convinced the group to change its focus. In 1990, UCS brought together forty-nine Nobel laureates, and 700 members of the U.S. Academy of Scientists to sign an appeal for action against global warming. The event was highly publicized and called for tougher fuel efficiency standards for U.S. automobiles, centralized government control of energy issues and the continued deactivation of America's nuclear power generating industry. That same year, however, 425 scientists and intellectual leaders presented another document to the world at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio. Entitled The Heidelberg Appeal, it condemned UCS's document as "an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development." Today, more than 2,700 signatories, including dozens of Nobel Prize winners, from 102 countries have signed The Heidelberg Appeal.
So... what technology were they accounting for in the part where authorities no longer needed probable-cause in order to tap my phone?
First of all, I said "mostly [...] to account for technology"
Second, since persons planning on doing harm on a mass scale are more likely to use technological means to communicate without having previously committed any overt illegal acts, this does, in a way, "account for technology" and its uses.
Third, and one thing you people always seem to forget, is that the wiretap order still needs to be approved by a judge and requires a warrant.
Does it broaden the definitions and lower the standard? Never said it didn't. But it's all about thresholds. This isn't as black and white as you'd like to think.
So let me get this straight: even though the school is implicitly and explicitly responsible for minor children during the day, they have no right to keep track of them with technology?
Are cameras ok?
Is physically looking at someone ok?
Would full-time bathroom and hall monitors be ok?
Or is this just not ok because it makes it *easy* on a large scale? Also, your argument implies that the school administration doesn't have a right to know where they are. But they do. Secondly, everyone seems to be talking about the bathrooms (which, for drug reasons is probably a good place to track [as I hear all the pro-drug slashdotters cringe]), but that's one of the places they REMOVED scanners, so it's moot.
Further, you're pretty "freaked out" about something that no longer exists. There is no "PATRIOT Act" law. The "PATRIOT Act" was a bill that MODIFIED EXISTING STATUTES across the entire body of code. It's not some new monolithic set of laws. It expanded definitions in some areas - mostly for modern times to account for technology - and it expanded rules and regulations in other areas. It, like all bills that become law, wasn't perfect. But it's hardly the abomination you think it is. (And it seems like we need some more Schoolhouse Rock specials about what happens to a "bill" when it becomes "law".)
The code changes enacted by PATRIOT are just a symbol for you; something to hate for people who irrationally hate anything done by anyone described as "conservative" or "Republican" (ESPECIALLY the nasty "neocons").
So in sum, the school district does have a right to keep track of the students at all times, and it would probably be ok if they did it manually, but all of a sudden it's not ok if they do it with RFID. (Ooooh...scary TRACKING BEACON!) Then, you use it as a soapbox to talk about unrelated federal legislation (???).
And, to top it all off, you opened with saying you had no problems with tracking the kids...sheesh. (AND it gets modded to +5, mind-bending contradictions and irrelevance and all, naturally, since this is slashdot.) Can your own brain keep up with your doubletalk?
...because Bush saying something and a local municipality's school district have a LOT in common, dipshit.
Maybe we should have all of the faculty, staff, and administrators at the school wear earplugs and blindfolds, and ban surveillance cameras of any kind, because the people who are the stewards of minors and entrusted with their protection in a public, tax-funded school system have NO RIGHT to no where those students are, and definitely don't have a right to use technology to make their lives easier.
Fight the power, man! Oceania was always at war with Eurasia, dude! Power to the people!
The study analyzed 93 undergraduate students from Michigan State University to determine their working-memory capacities. The students were divided into two groups, a high working-memory group (HWM) and a low working-memory group (LWM). Each person was given a 24-problem math test in a low-pressure environment. The HWM group did substantially better.
Then the two groups were given the same test, but were told that they were part of a "team effort" and an improved score would earn the team a cash reward. They were also told their performance was being evaluated by math professors.
Under this higher, real world pressure situation, the HWM group's score dropped to that of the LWM group, which was not affected by the increased pressure.
Since working memory is known to predict many higher-level brain functions, the research calls into question the ability of high-pressure tests such as the SAT, GRE, LSAT, and MCAT to accurately gauge who will succeed in future academic endeavors.
Hmm, that must mean that no one scores extremely high on standardized tests, then.
Oh, wait.
They do.
How can that be possible?! Could it be that some people are very bright, have good memories, AND can do well in high pressure situations?
Does that mean that no one who might not do the best on standardized tests wouldn't make a good doctor or lawyer or graduate student? Of course not. But standardized tests are an imperfect solution for weeding out candidates, period. It's just like college: does college "prove" that you're smart? No, but it shows you have the willpower and wherewithal to perform the task, and many other intangibles that go along with it. Does standardized testing prove anything? No, but a lot is implicit in an outstanding test score, and THEN, for most of the things discussed here, such as medical school, law school, and other graduate programs, you go to the next level: personalized interviewing and personalized attention. Standardized tests are, again, just an imperfect way of whittling down the candidate pool in the most sensible way possible.
You can't ignore people who perform extremely well on standardized tests.
2 of the 4 major model families of G4 would have interested you:
Power Mac G4 (QuickSilver) and Power Mac G4 (Mirrored Drive Door) systems both had room for 2 5.25" optical drives, PLUS 4 internal 3.5" drive bays. In the case of the MDD, there were two ATA/100 busses and one ATA/66 bus (for optical drives).
Additionally, how many accessories are you talking about adding to Mac mini? A drive and a tuner? And if someone makes a Mac mini-like enclosure for this - which is very likely, given the history of Mac and iPod peripheral makers - then it's even less desirable to cram it into an ugly PC case.
...without ripping your Mac mini apart and sticking it in a PC enclosure, you could use any capacity 3.5" disk you wished in conjunction with Mac mini by using any 3.5" drive enclosure with FireWire (and/or USB 2.0), including some sure-to-be-released FireWire/USB 2.0 enclosures that will mimic Mac mini's appearance, and be designed to sit underneath or near a Mac mini and still be aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps some vendor like El Gato will even make a FireWire PVR/tuner solution WITH an integrated 3.5" drive bay, in the same type of case as Mac mini.
(Preemptive response: Yes, FireWire 400 is more than fast enough for this application. Yes, even for a media server. Yes, even for a PVR. Yes, I know USB 2.0 doesn't support booting. If you want booting, use FireWire. Yes, I know Apple says you shouldn't stack anything on top of Mac mini. That's why I said Mac mini would stack on top of it. Further, it's very likely NOT because of heat, but because the AirPort and Bluetooth antennas are directly in the top of the case, and instead of making a bunch of convoluted requirements about when and if it's ok to stack something on it, they just said no stacking. But, again, moot, because you could stack the mini itself on top of such a hypothetical enclosure or device. Or, set them side by side.)
The Mac mini really is almost a perfect media center box:
Acceptable processor and video card DVI, VGA, S-video, and Composite video out 1/8" stereo audio out, or digital audio via FireWire with one of several adapters FireWire and USB 2.0 10/100 ethernet and modem Optional 802.11g and Bluetooth CD-RW/DVD or optional CD-RW/DVD+/-RW Remote control via Apple Remote Desktop or VNC (included in the free ARD Client 2.1) Very small, very elegant, and very quiet operation
All that's missing is a tuner and a PVR application, and that's a nightmare to wade into, what with what's necessary to tune satellite services, and the infancy of CableCard.
I think the point is: what's the fucking point of these lame searches at all?
It's just melding its conventional search results - especially from the myriad articles on leftist blogs - into the map search.
So you search for "evil liars in Washionton, DC" and Bush comes back! Yay! OMG, let's post to slashdot about at all day long and laugh and pat each other on the back about how clever we are! Better include "Santorum", too!
The point is that it proves nothing except that the insufferable whining bloggers with too much time on their hands can pack search results with mis- and dis-information, and that their unfortunate impact on the internet at large has overflowed into an otherwise useful service (aka Google Maps).
Only the protests, and the sensible chord they strike in most Americans, hold the politicians back from throwing us back fullscale into the bad old days of unquestioned nuclear development.
Sensible chord? Which is?
And I see: you're tying this to weapons development (I'm assuming, since you made references to "bad old days", unless you think nuclear power itself is bad). Which in itself may be an accurate assessment, but alone doesn't justify the scale of wholesale abandonment of nuclear power that we've seen in the US in recent times.
You brought up alternatives to oil and nuclear only to dismiss them
Not to dismiss them, but to say that by themselves, they are nowhere near enough, and, for the third time, this article was about nuclear power, not renewable energy (I have in other posts, several times, berated the administration for not bringing energy policy to the forefront of the national public policy debate, for not encouraging conservation, for not heavily promoting and rewarding conservation at all levels from personal to corporate and supporting the mechanics and infrastructure needed to support such plans (way beyond Energy Star), etc.);
called nuclear power "the" answer
Because it is the primary one - no matter what levels of conservation are achieved, nuclear power, if pursued, would represent a massively greater ratio of power production than all other sources typically referred to as "renewable" combined, which itself would remain constant regardless of usage levels...it's just the pure physics of it all (and let's be serious with ourselves here: the world's energy needs are skyrocketing, not declining);
and expressed indisputable admiration for China
Now you are starting to irritate me. I do NOT admire China. In any way, shape, or form. I simply was reflecting on the IRONY, which I should have explicitly referenced in my original post. To clarify: regardless of your repeated accusations, I do not "admire" China's government, nor did I intend to convey admiration in my original post. I intended to convey irony - that irony being that a brutal Communist regime can sometimes affect what may be beneficial progress in spite of itself - which was apparently lost on you. I am not certain how much more precisely I can say this. Perhaps, viewed in a vacuum, one might view the original post as ambiguous at best. But certainly since the rest of my post has an air of anti-liberalism, one would presume that, if anything, I would also be anti-Communist. Further, in the context of everything else I've ever posted to slashdot, my intent would have been clear. To reiterate: I did NOT express admiration for "China". If I "admired" anything - which itself would be stretching the usage of the word - it would be China's ability to push forward in this arena. Of course, the very reasons it CAN push forward are because of grave injustices overall on balance. My initial reaction to your continued assertion that I "admire" China (and the implications of that assertion along the lines of human rights, other abuses, etc.) was to tell you in no uncertain terms to "fuck off", but I hope this explanation has clarified things for you.
Did I say that NO renewable sources should be pursued? You also still haven't addressed the undeniable energy density of nuclear sources, or the fact that a single site, or several sites, like Yucca, however imperfect, would be much safer and more manageable than our current situation. I didn't say nuclear was perfect, or the end-all be-all of everything.
But this article is about China pursuing nuclear power.
Like it or not, China's political situation likely makes it easier for them to pursue this path, does it not? Does that mean I "admire" totalitarianism or Communism? Does that mean I wish the United States were a totalitarian regime?
But I'll bite at your last statement:
it's certainly a popular position, especially among American politicians who control the nuclear industry.
Let me guess: it's American politicians - who are in the pockets of powerful energy (oil) lobbies - that are preventing or derailing any meaningful discourse about safe nuclear power (or any other alternative sources of energy for that matter). Would that about sum it up?
2. I didn't present it as the "only way out" of any crisis, but the energy density of nuclear power and return on investment is difficult to ignore.
3. There are problems. Yucca Mountain, for example, is LESS of a problem than the situation we are CURRENTLY IN. Is it perfect? No. Is there seepage? Yes. Will it last "10,000 years"? Probably not. But the current storage is leaps and bounds WORSE in every category, not to mention being in dozens of different locations, in different conditions, monitored and maintained by different personnel, in different states, by different stewards. What's wrong with having one or a few reasonable safe, reasonably long term storage areas?
4. I don't admire China. At all. I simply think that it's ironic that their totalitarian control may allow them to pursue nuclear alternatives more easily. If you read any of my posting history (unfortunately you might not be able to see much of it, since you're not a subscriber), I'm the biggest anti-Communist, and all of the negatives that come along with it (among other things), there is.
So you're wrong on all counts. But there are indeed plenty out there who protest anything having to do with "nuclear", and are vehemently opposed to nuclear power and plants. Further, I acknowledged conservation, alternative energy, and various other things in my post, in passing. But the article is not about that. It's about China, specifically, building nuclear power plants.
It's funny how often the energy production appears the sole focus of a discussion like this. There are 2 sides you know: the production side, and the consumption side.
Didn't I just say:
Yes, there can be conservation...
...in addition to references about, e.g., efficient lighting? But I'm talking about production. Just as the article summary was.
Many energy savings can be both significant and easy: isolate your home, use energy efficient lighting, replace that stupid SUV with a hybrid car, drive with 2 people from A to B instead of on your own, use public transport where possible, use natural gas instead of electricity for cooking and heating, use a water-saving (=heat-saving) shower head, etc. etc. All measures that don't affect your lifestyle much, but your energy consumption a lot.
I already do all these things. And what's with the SUV argument? That's just as stupid as the stupidity you're accusing my argument of. What about a hybrid SUV? Or does it only qualify as a "hybrid" if it looks like a complete utter pile of shit on wheels?
Yes. Because I didn't have time to write a novel on the subject. Yes, a lot of our oil use goes into transportation (~70%). A lot also goes into plastics, food processing, water purification, fertilizers, medical technology, etc. But the key is to reduce our usage where we can. Can we do it in transportation? Sure. But that's not what this article was about.
And I realize the people aren't always the same. But sometimes they are, and that's when it smacks of hypocrisy.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, um, did you like, read my post or anything?
3 7-2005Jan13_2.html
I'll repeat, just in case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A79
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. [i.e., an NDA]
"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."
Just because you don't agree with the UTSA doesn't make it disappear. It remains to be seen whether the UTSA can be legally asserted by Apple, as they haven't publicly commented on this case beyond saying "Apple's DNA is innovation", etc., but the fact of the matter is that a law may indeed have been broken in the publication of information reasonably known to have been protected by a confidentiality agreement, period.
Oh, I don't know, data that the agencies that make up DHS already legitimately have as a matter of course?
Jeez, people berated the agencies for NOT sharing information before 9/11, and now they get berated for TRYING to share information. It's a lose-lose situation.
Funny how almost no story or commentary about this ever mentions that current, in-force US laws may have been broken in the publication of this information:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A793 7-2005Jan13_2.html
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."
Apple doesn't really care about these web sites. They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to web sites (such as Think Secret). And no, it's not information that's "known" elsewhere. Some of these sites have got very reliable moles, and Apple wants to know who they are. Hint: yes, these are people who definitely have binding confidentiality agreements with Apple.
Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
And remember, whether or not you fundamentally *agree* with the law is irrelevant. It's either illegal, or not. (Yes, yes, sure, there's gray areas, but that's not the point I'm making. And sure, maybe these sites "fighting it" in this way is one mechanism to examine the validity of these laws, and further, the role of an online journalist and his information gathering mechanisms, what can be construed as soliciting known confidential information, what constitutes a violation of these laws in this context, etc.)
If Apple's goal is to find out who leaked this information - indeed, if it considers that information critical to its business - and there is a legal mechanism for perhaps recovering that information, is it not within its rights to file suit seeking that information, especially when criminal and/or civil laws pertinent to that very information may have been violated? You might THINK they should hire a private detective. You might THINK any laws prohibiting these sites from revealing such information are incorrect, immoral, or unjust. But those are subjects not relevant to the case at hand, unless, of course, you believe the EFF challenge is a fundamental challenge of these laws.
I'm not talking philosophy here, or whether or not government officials can/should leak to the press. This is not about the Seymour Hershes of the world and the Pentagon Papers. I'm talking about the legality of this particular case, which involves a corporate entity, not issues of "throwing reporters in jail" to "reveal sources". Note that under some conditions, journalists HAVE, in fact, violated the law, and have, properly, been thrown in jail. The concept of not revealing confidential sources isn't some high and mighty ethical concept; in fact, it's a rather selfish one: at some level, it ensures them more sources in the future. It makes them more effective as a journalist. Whether they've got lofty ideals or what have you is again irrelevant. The point is, we either enforce rule of law as set by society in this country, or we don't. And yes, we can work to change law(s), protest against them, a
...you apparently didn't read the *summary*. From the first *sentence* of the summary:
"The NSA may be appointed 'Internet traffic cop', overseeing data sharing among US government agencies for Homeland Security [...]"
I don't think it's "rot" that you're smelling...
...that there's no accountability (and "other bloggers" don't count).
Bloggers - many with vicious partisan political and personal agendas - post "news" stories, and want all the visibility and rights of journalists, with none of the responsibility, and definitely no representation of the "other side of the story", as it were. Stories that are nothing more than glorified op-ed get passed around as gospel, and get read by many who are less discriminating about the sources for their information, and take it at face value, because if it's written intelligently on a decent looking site and a bunch of people are agreeing with it, it must be the complete truth.
This is what we want from journalism?
If, say, Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich were president, UCS would not have even conducted this "survey" in the first place, without regard to whether or not the problem actually exists.
Does anything I've said speak to the actual problem? No, and I realize that. But I'm not sure UCS really directly cares about that specific issue either; they're more concerned with vilifying people they perceive as their opponents[1] because it has a greater chance of allowing them to advance their general agenda, which I'm sure they all believe is a good and righteous one.
[1] Whether they explicitly state it or not, it's clear from their web site and other materials that they really don't like Bush. And don't be so quick to just say "Well, maybe it's because Bush is a problem." That's not the point: you could uncover "problems" like this in any administration, but their zeal isn't consistently applied. That's what I'm getting at.
Sure. In fact, nearly every group or person could be argued to have an "agenda" of some sort. Frankly, it's the balance and exchange of ideas thats valuable. But UCS isn't really interested in having a discussion. They're more interested in promoting a political ideology, disguised as an "impartial" group of "concerned scientists". Where were all these findings under Clinton? And no, it's not because they weren't there. It's because they didn't look, and didn't concoct surveys. What about their condemnation of Bush's stem cell policy? Granted, it's partly a matter of the timing of Bush's presidency with scientific developments, but Bush is the first president to allow any federal funding for any sort of stem cell research at all. Ever. And if we're going to allow the indiscriminate destruction of embryos, well, there really are some serious ethical questions. Forget about all the religious crap. I'm sure a lot could be learned if we farmed infants for research - and yes, I realize that's absurd, but I'm not really trying to be absurd. I'm just exaggerating to make a point. Where do you draw the line?
But back on point, here: I didn't say I'm happy that scientists within FWS have said they've felt pressured. But, it happens. And it's not exclusively because of Bush. We have business interests - that, believe it or not, do actually contribute a lot to this country proper - that try to do what's best for themselves, and we've got idealists of all stripes who believe their agenda or torch they're carrying is the right one. But a lot of these people - on both sides - can't see the forest for the trees. Frankly, the endangered species legislation is a little overly restrictive. But wait: others will no doubt say it's nowhere near strong enough. Who's "right"? "Science"? But wait: different scientists, with different political orientations, will often interpret things in different ways. Like it or not, personal experience colors abstract areas of science as well.
Kind of like people don't gratuitously bash, say FOX News on slashdot?
This is exactly the same, just going the other direction now. Something you're not, you know, used to, I'm sure.
(And for the record, I'm sure their findings are just fine. Ideally, scientific results shouldn't be "fudged" to support any interests. But this is the federal government, and politics are involved, no matter who's president. If Howard Dean was president, UCS wouldn't even be doing these "surveys"...because you know what? They'd find the SAME FUCKING THING, assuming they asked the questions in the same way. That's the point I'm making. Good that some scientists feel pressured to alter findings? No. A liberal activist organization that continually tries to vilify Bush as part of its political agenda behind the survey? Yes.)
No. Do you get paid to be an insufferable asshole?
(Yes?)
Really, what was the point of your post? At least mine had one. Which is, in case you missed it, that UCS has a *huge* political agenda. Which, in and of itself, isn't bad, but let's call a spade a spade. Is it any surprise that a group founded to protest the Vietnam war and oppose any capitalist/pro-business policy has a decidedly anti-Bush agenda (implied or explicitly stated in pretty much all of their "findings" since Bush was elected), but tries to cleverly present itself as innocently impartial?
Who is behind "The Center for Media & Democracy"?
:P
Don't get me wrong, it does look like Activist Cash is partisan. But it's not like the rebuttal is coming from a totally neutral voice, either.
...even though:
1. In the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;
2. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" has been a liberal activist organization throughout its history, originally organized to protest the Vietnam war, and with less than 10% of its membership actually from the scientific community[1];
3. Most scientists in FWS reported no such pressure;
To quote the submitter: "I'm not surprised anymore when I read these things."
But since it's an organization with a decidedly and unabashedly liberal political agenda, I guess they must be telling the truth 100%, whereas anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar who would just LOVE to see an end to all environmental concerns. Because, you know, there's no balance or anything in environmentalism. I mean, economic development is always bad, and any edict on "endangered species", no matter how shaky, is always good, right?
[1], more: In 1969, forty-eight professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology formed the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to protest America's involvement in the Vietnam War. The group conducted a highly publicized strike in March 1969, that included such speakers as leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky, and Eric Mann of the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society. (SDS was the terrorist organization responsible for bombing the U.S. Capitol Building in 1971.) The Union used the strike as a forum to declare that "misuse of scientific and technical knowledge presents a major threat to the existence of mankind." This philosophy was starkly articulated by key organizer, Jonathan Kabat: ""You've got to say, 'No, we want capitalism to come to an end."
The Union's trendy radicalism launched it into money, power and influence. A permanent office was opened in Cambridge, and UCS grew into a multimillion dollar activist organization. Three of its original founders still sit on the board: James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering (MIT); Kurt Gottfried, Chairman of the Physics Department at Cornell University; and Victor Weisskopf, Professor Emeritus of Physics (MIT). The Board of Directors of this organization also includes the standard litany of corporate America special interests, liberal nonprofit foundations, and former government agency employees.
Political activism in UCS's early years was confined primarily to opposing nuclear power and the military defense establishment. Emphasis later shifted to include all energy policy issues and global warming. In 1989, the Union commissioned Republican pollster Vince Breglio of Research/Strategy/Management to conduct a survey on global warming and environmental protection. Breglio found that "the environment is becoming a political issue with some bite." This poll convinced the group to change its focus. In 1990, UCS brought together forty-nine Nobel laureates, and 700 members of the U.S. Academy of Scientists to sign an appeal for action against global warming. The event was highly publicized and called for tougher fuel efficiency standards for U.S. automobiles, centralized government control of energy issues and the continued deactivation of America's nuclear power generating industry. That same year, however, 425 scientists and intellectual leaders presented another document to the world at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio. Entitled The Heidelberg Appeal, it condemned UCS's document as "an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development." Today, more than 2,700 signatories, including dozens of Nobel Prize winners, from 102 countries have signed The Heidelberg Appeal.
*sigh*
So... what technology were they accounting for in the part where authorities no longer needed probable-cause in order to tap my phone?
First of all, I said "mostly [...] to account for technology"
Second, since persons planning on doing harm on a mass scale are more likely to use technological means to communicate without having previously committed any overt illegal acts, this does, in a way, "account for technology" and its uses.
Third, and one thing you people always seem to forget, is that the wiretap order still needs to be approved by a judge and requires a warrant.
Does it broaden the definitions and lower the standard? Never said it didn't. But it's all about thresholds. This isn't as black and white as you'd like to think.
...the luddites.
Or at least so it seems.
So let me get this straight: even though the school is implicitly and explicitly responsible for minor children during the day, they have no right to keep track of them with technology?
Are cameras ok?
Is physically looking at someone ok?
Would full-time bathroom and hall monitors be ok?
Or is this just not ok because it makes it *easy* on a large scale? Also, your argument implies that the school administration doesn't have a right to know where they are. But they do. Secondly, everyone seems to be talking about the bathrooms (which, for drug reasons is probably a good place to track [as I hear all the pro-drug slashdotters cringe]), but that's one of the places they REMOVED scanners, so it's moot.
Further, you're pretty "freaked out" about something that no longer exists. There is no "PATRIOT Act" law. The "PATRIOT Act" was a bill that MODIFIED EXISTING STATUTES across the entire body of code. It's not some new monolithic set of laws. It expanded definitions in some areas - mostly for modern times to account for technology - and it expanded rules and regulations in other areas. It, like all bills that become law, wasn't perfect. But it's hardly the abomination you think it is. (And it seems like we need some more Schoolhouse Rock specials about what happens to a "bill" when it becomes "law".)
The code changes enacted by PATRIOT are just a symbol for you; something to hate for people who irrationally hate anything done by anyone described as "conservative" or "Republican" (ESPECIALLY the nasty "neocons").
So in sum, the school district does have a right to keep track of the students at all times, and it would probably be ok if they did it manually, but all of a sudden it's not ok if they do it with RFID. (Ooooh...scary TRACKING BEACON!) Then, you use it as a soapbox to talk about unrelated federal legislation (???).
And, to top it all off, you opened with saying you had no problems with tracking the kids...sheesh. (AND it gets modded to +5, mind-bending contradictions and irrelevance and all, naturally, since this is slashdot.) Can your own brain keep up with your doubletalk?
...because Bush saying something and a local municipality's school district have a LOT in common, dipshit.
Maybe we should have all of the faculty, staff, and administrators at the school wear earplugs and blindfolds, and ban surveillance cameras of any kind, because the people who are the stewards of minors and entrusted with their protection in a public, tax-funded school system have NO RIGHT to no where those students are, and definitely don't have a right to use technology to make their lives easier.
Fight the power, man! Oceania was always at war with Eurasia, dude! Power to the people!
Shut the fuck up.
From TFA:
The study analyzed 93 undergraduate students from Michigan State University to determine their working-memory capacities. The students were divided into two groups, a high working-memory group (HWM) and a low working-memory group (LWM). Each person was given a 24-problem math test in a low-pressure environment. The HWM group did substantially better.
Then the two groups were given the same test, but were told that they were part of a "team effort" and an improved score would earn the team a cash reward. They were also told their performance was being evaluated by math professors.
Under this higher, real world pressure situation, the HWM group's score dropped to that of the LWM group, which was not affected by the increased pressure.
Since working memory is known to predict many higher-level brain functions, the research calls into question the ability of high-pressure tests such as the SAT, GRE, LSAT, and MCAT to accurately gauge who will succeed in future academic endeavors.
Hmm, that must mean that no one scores extremely high on standardized tests, then.
Oh, wait.
They do.
How can that be possible?! Could it be that some people are very bright, have good memories, AND can do well in high pressure situations?
Does that mean that no one who might not do the best on standardized tests wouldn't make a good doctor or lawyer or graduate student? Of course not. But standardized tests are an imperfect solution for weeding out candidates, period. It's just like college: does college "prove" that you're smart? No, but it shows you have the willpower and wherewithal to perform the task, and many other intangibles that go along with it. Does standardized testing prove anything? No, but a lot is implicit in an outstanding test score, and THEN, for most of the things discussed here, such as medical school, law school, and other graduate programs, you go to the next level: personalized interviewing and personalized attention. Standardized tests are, again, just an imperfect way of whittling down the candidate pool in the most sensible way possible.
You can't ignore people who perform extremely well on standardized tests.
...for people who think of themselves as "geeks" to be able to justify why they fuck up under pressure?
I hope not.
2 of the 4 major model families of G4 would have interested you:
Power Mac G4 (QuickSilver) and Power Mac G4 (Mirrored Drive Door) systems both had room for 2 5.25" optical drives, PLUS 4 internal 3.5" drive bays. In the case of the MDD, there were two ATA/100 busses and one ATA/66 bus (for optical drives).
Additionally, how many accessories are you talking about adding to Mac mini? A drive and a tuner? And if someone makes a Mac mini-like enclosure for this - which is very likely, given the history of Mac and iPod peripheral makers - then it's even less desirable to cram it into an ugly PC case.
...without ripping your Mac mini apart and sticking it in a PC enclosure, you could use any capacity 3.5" disk you wished in conjunction with Mac mini by using any 3.5" drive enclosure with FireWire (and/or USB 2.0), including some sure-to-be-released FireWire/USB 2.0 enclosures that will mimic Mac mini's appearance, and be designed to sit underneath or near a Mac mini and still be aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps some vendor like El Gato will even make a FireWire PVR/tuner solution WITH an integrated 3.5" drive bay, in the same type of case as Mac mini.
(Preemptive response: Yes, FireWire 400 is more than fast enough for this application. Yes, even for a media server. Yes, even for a PVR. Yes, I know USB 2.0 doesn't support booting. If you want booting, use FireWire. Yes, I know Apple says you shouldn't stack anything on top of Mac mini. That's why I said Mac mini would stack on top of it. Further, it's very likely NOT because of heat, but because the AirPort and Bluetooth antennas are directly in the top of the case, and instead of making a bunch of convoluted requirements about when and if it's ok to stack something on it, they just said no stacking. But, again, moot, because you could stack the mini itself on top of such a hypothetical enclosure or device. Or, set them side by side.)
The Mac mini really is almost a perfect media center box:
Acceptable processor and video card
DVI, VGA, S-video, and Composite video out
1/8" stereo audio out, or digital audio via FireWire with one of several adapters
FireWire and USB 2.0
10/100 ethernet and modem
Optional 802.11g and Bluetooth
CD-RW/DVD or optional CD-RW/DVD+/-RW
Remote control via Apple Remote Desktop or VNC (included in the free ARD Client 2.1)
Very small, very elegant, and very quiet operation
All that's missing is a tuner and a PVR application, and that's a nightmare to wade into, what with what's necessary to tune satellite services, and the infancy of CableCard.
I think the point is: what's the fucking point of these lame searches at all?
It's just melding its conventional search results - especially from the myriad articles on leftist blogs - into the map search.
So you search for "evil liars in Washionton, DC" and Bush comes back! Yay! OMG, let's post to slashdot about at all day long and laugh and pat each other on the back about how clever we are! Better include "Santorum", too!
The point is that it proves nothing except that the insufferable whining bloggers with too much time on their hands can pack search results with mis- and dis-information, and that their unfortunate impact on the internet at large has overflowed into an otherwise useful service (aka Google Maps).
*That* is the point.
Only the protests, and the sensible chord they strike in most Americans, hold the politicians back from throwing us back fullscale into the bad old days of unquestioned nuclear development.
Sensible chord? Which is?
And I see: you're tying this to weapons development (I'm assuming, since you made references to "bad old days", unless you think nuclear power itself is bad). Which in itself may be an accurate assessment, but alone doesn't justify the scale of wholesale abandonment of nuclear power that we've seen in the US in recent times.
You brought up alternatives to oil and nuclear only to dismiss them
Not to dismiss them, but to say that by themselves, they are nowhere near enough, and, for the third time, this article was about nuclear power, not renewable energy (I have in other posts, several times, berated the administration for not bringing energy policy to the forefront of the national public policy debate, for not encouraging conservation, for not heavily promoting and rewarding conservation at all levels from personal to corporate and supporting the mechanics and infrastructure needed to support such plans (way beyond Energy Star), etc.);
called nuclear power "the" answer
Because it is the primary one - no matter what levels of conservation are achieved, nuclear power, if pursued, would represent a massively greater ratio of power production than all other sources typically referred to as "renewable" combined, which itself would remain constant regardless of usage levels...it's just the pure physics of it all (and let's be serious with ourselves here: the world's energy needs are skyrocketing, not declining);
and expressed indisputable admiration for China
Now you are starting to irritate me. I do NOT admire China. In any way, shape, or form. I simply was reflecting on the IRONY, which I should have explicitly referenced in my original post. To clarify: regardless of your repeated accusations, I do not "admire" China's government, nor did I intend to convey admiration in my original post. I intended to convey irony - that irony being that a brutal Communist regime can sometimes affect what may be beneficial progress in spite of itself - which was apparently lost on you. I am not certain how much more precisely I can say this. Perhaps, viewed in a vacuum, one might view the original post as ambiguous at best. But certainly since the rest of my post has an air of anti-liberalism, one would presume that, if anything, I would also be anti-Communist. Further, in the context of everything else I've ever posted to slashdot, my intent would have been clear. To reiterate: I did NOT express admiration for "China". If I "admired" anything - which itself would be stretching the usage of the word - it would be China's ability to push forward in this arena. Of course, the very reasons it CAN push forward are because of grave injustices overall on balance. My initial reaction to your continued assertion that I "admire" China (and the implications of that assertion along the lines of human rights, other abuses, etc.) was to tell you in no uncertain terms to "fuck off", but I hope this explanation has clarified things for you.
Did I say that NO renewable sources should be pursued? You also still haven't addressed the undeniable energy density of nuclear sources, or the fact that a single site, or several sites, like Yucca, however imperfect, would be much safer and more manageable than our current situation. I didn't say nuclear was perfect, or the end-all be-all of everything.
But this article is about China pursuing nuclear power.
Like it or not, China's political situation likely makes it easier for them to pursue this path, does it not? Does that mean I "admire" totalitarianism or Communism? Does that mean I wish the United States were a totalitarian regime?
But I'll bite at your last statement:
it's certainly a popular position, especially among American politicians who control the nuclear industry.
Let me guess: it's American politicians - who are in the pockets of powerful energy (oil) lobbies - that are preventing or derailing any meaningful discourse about safe nuclear power (or any other alternative sources of energy for that matter). Would that about sum it up?
1. I'm not a "nuke booster" or a "nuke crank".
2. I didn't present it as the "only way out" of any crisis, but the energy density of nuclear power and return on investment is difficult to ignore.
3. There are problems. Yucca Mountain, for example, is LESS of a problem than the situation we are CURRENTLY IN. Is it perfect? No. Is there seepage? Yes. Will it last "10,000 years"? Probably not. But the current storage is leaps and bounds WORSE in every category, not to mention being in dozens of different locations, in different conditions, monitored and maintained by different personnel, in different states, by different stewards. What's wrong with having one or a few reasonable safe, reasonably long term storage areas?
4. I don't admire China. At all. I simply think that it's ironic that their totalitarian control may allow them to pursue nuclear alternatives more easily. If you read any of my posting history (unfortunately you might not be able to see much of it, since you're not a subscriber), I'm the biggest anti-Communist, and all of the negatives that come along with it (among other things), there is.
So you're wrong on all counts. But there are indeed plenty out there who protest anything having to do with "nuclear", and are vehemently opposed to nuclear power and plants. Further, I acknowledged conservation, alternative energy, and various other things in my post, in passing. But the article is not about that. It's about China, specifically, building nuclear power plants.
Good show, though.
Didn't I just say:
Yes, there can be conservation...
...in addition to references about, e.g., efficient lighting? But I'm talking about production. Just as the article summary was.
Many energy savings can be both significant and easy: isolate your home, use energy efficient lighting, replace that stupid SUV with a hybrid car, drive with 2 people from A to B instead of on your own, use public transport where possible, use natural gas instead of electricity for cooking and heating, use a water-saving (=heat-saving) shower head, etc. etc. All measures that don't affect your lifestyle much, but your energy consumption a lot.
I already do all these things. And what's with the SUV argument? That's just as stupid as the stupidity you're accusing my argument of. What about a hybrid SUV? Or does it only qualify as a "hybrid" if it looks like a complete utter pile of shit on wheels?
Insightful?
Yes. Because I didn't have time to write a novel on the subject. Yes, a lot of our oil use goes into transportation (~70%). A lot also goes into plastics, food processing, water purification, fertilizers, medical technology, etc. But the key is to reduce our usage where we can. Can we do it in transportation? Sure. But that's not what this article was about.
And I realize the people aren't always the same. But sometimes they are, and that's when it smacks of hypocrisy.