So here's a technology that is trying to PROTECT peoples' privacy, and the first thing you can fucking think of to say is that this has serious privacy PROBLEMS, and about cops blurring their faces so they can beat people?
We recently went through the same exercise. Our requirements were:
- Reasonably high quality at a relatively low datarate. - Video and audio formats should be open standards. - Primary target is Mac OS and Windows, but would be nice to play on other OSes, such as Linux and Solaris.
This has the advantage of providing a free, supported, full featured player for the vast majority of visitors (i.e., Mac OS and Windows), but also offers a reliable free open source player for many other platforms, in addition to Mac OS and Windows.
Soon, we'll be switching to H.264 (AVC or MPEG-4 Part 10), for which free playback support will be available in QuickTime 7 for Mac OS and Windows. Playback support will no doubt be added to the likes of VLC.
Also, yes, it's "nagware", in that it brings up the stupid "Why go Pro?" screen on launch. But you never have to pay for it. All of the included uses (playback, etc.) are free.
The problems is that he may indeed be doing something "for worse" -- that these actions may promote militant Islam rather than discouraging it. There is no question that the motives you provide are in large part the motives of the neoconservatives; there is also no question that these ambitions are broad and grand. The question is whether their methods will succeed. Time will tell.
I think this is a concept lost on many (like Sens. Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer in the last week or so): no doubt it's creating more problems, more militancy, and making us "less safe"...in the short term! There is no consideration for what might be if this strategy is ultimately successful.
All of the opponents of the Bush policy - and their supporters - cheer on this idea that the Bush policy is an incredible failure, and is actually hurting us and preventing us from fighting the war we should "really" be fighting, that is, against al-Qaeda.
So, naturally, my question is: how, exactly, do we fight this was against "al-Qaeda"?
Hold Saudi Arabia accountable, you say? Perhaps stop supporting the Saudi royalty and its oppression of the populace, and the entire infrastructure and system that breeds terror? Sure! Let's just do that today. Oh, wait. Saudi Arabia holds critical pricing control on the world oil markets, and any instability in Saudi Arabia, or any hint that there is any overt action by the US planned against Saudi Arabia, kiss petroleum market stability goodbye. And a large chunk of our economic stability for a long period of time. Not to mention any action against the extremist elements within Saudi Arabia would be viewed as the biggest assault on Islam itself yet. Yes, we know Saudi Arabia is a problem. It will be dealt with.
Or maybe stop supporting Israel? What a grand idea! Let's ride the moral relativism train: the Israelis and the Palestinians are equal, and neither side is good or bad, right or wrong. In fact, what the Palestinian militants do with suicide vests is merely the same thing Israel does with US-built F-16s and Apaches! Um, wrong. Israel is our shining star in the mideast: a sliver of democracy and freedom in a sea of backwards radicalism and militancy. If you put aside your own prejudices and consider that freedom and democracy may be inherently "good", and consider that some of the current administration literally believe this with the core of their being, you would understand that any suggestion to leave Israel to fend for itself would be the height of ridiculousness and lunacy.
Or how about get out of the mideast? I'm not going to even answer that one, except to say:
1. Anyone who even suggests this, wholesale, is a dumbass 2. The US is not to blame for everything wrong in the world 3. It is not EXCLUSIVELY, or even mostly, US actions that have led to the current situation in the mideast
Or perhaps the Kerry plan, and that of other liberal Democrats in the House and Senate: we need more troops, and we can get Europe to help! Oh, oops, wait: didn't the supporters of those same groups of people tirelessly say that we don't have enough troops, and if we need more, we'll need a draft? And then simultaneously agree with statements that say we don't have enough troops in Iraq (to me, implying that they think we do, in fact, need more troops)?
Or get out of Iraq altogether, which would be a nightmare, and would actually result in far more death and destruction that they purport to want to prevent?
Why aren't any of these people arguing for European participation? I don't care if Bush directly and personally said "FUCK YOU" in each nations' native tongue (if he could muster it); no matter how diplomatically snubbed they feel, THIS IS A LOT FUCKING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, and they have admitted as much.
So, pray tell, why the fuck are they still doing nothing, almost two years later? Especially given that they're just as aware of the real, not imaginary threat of Panislamic radicalism?
You have no idea what a "neoconservative" is; these are definitions you've made up yourself (along with others who wish to vilify neoconservatives and make "neocon" a dirty word).
Neocons are not the ultra conservative religious right.
Neocons are not killers of abortion doctors.
Neocons are not gay bashers.
Now, Bush IS a neoconservative. But there seems to be a disconnect here. Because if you think that Bush is anywhere CLOSE to this ultra fanatical religious right you think about, you have no fucking idea who those people are. Hint: it's the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons. Think some of those people and their followers got Bush elected? You bet. But that's not because Bush is one of them, it's just that viewed on a practical scale, Bush (or any conservative) is probably closer to their ideals than, say, Kerry.
Your attempt to associate neoconservatism with abortion doctor-killers, gay beaters/killers/bashers, and ultra right-wing fundamentalists is a ridiculously laughable one, but sadly typical among many liberals and leftists today. Go ahead, try to redefine the word. You and others like you have already been successful to an extent. But that's not what neoconservatism means, at all.
Neoconservatism is based generally in the following ideals:
Free markets and trade More social investment than traditional conservatives Aggressive and non-isolationist foreign policy Unilateralism Opposition to communism and non-democratic ideals
Your rants on religious fanaticism and gay bashing are utter fantasy.
If you're actually interested in neoconservatism and what it really means, and not what you think it means or what you'd like it to mean, see:
Interestingly, liberals are mortified when they read that. I have no earthly idea why, as it represents a critical and fundamental understanding that we have an obligation not only to ourselves but to the world at large to spread concepts of freedom and democratic principles for positive gain.
If you can't understand why we're in Iraq right now, here it is in a nutshell:
- NOT because of WMD (even though that was, correctly, presented as the primary reason at the time, since it was, again correctly, assumed that we would indeed find large stockpiles of said weapons, thus justifying the mission on its face)
- BECAUSE Iraq was a largely secular state, there wouldn't be as violent an Islamic fundamentalist backlash as if we had entered, say, Saudi Arabia
- BECAUSE we already had a history with Iraq, and the case could be relatively easily made to the US populace
- BECAUSE we have limited resources, do NOT have 500,000 or more troops to commit, and do NOT want the draft that all the liberals think Republicans want
- BECAUSE of those limited resources, we can only afford change on a single front, and have hopes that this will catalyze democratic reform in neighboring states, or at least begin the processes
- BECAUSE something needs to be done about Panislamic radicalism. Why Iraq, then, and not Saudi Arabia? Because going into Saudi Arabia would be viewed as a war directly on Islam (which this is NOT, by the way, dumbass) even more than going into Iraq is, and would simultaneously cause the oil market stability in the entire mideast to utterly collapse, which would gravely hurt the US economy as well as that of Europe
- BECAUSE the FREE flow of information and ideas and freedom of religion, government, speech, association, coupled with security and rule of law, have a chance at a quick modernization of several borderline nations in the mideast (e.g., Iran, Jordan, Egypt), and could have far-reaching long term implications for our own s
...you (and a few others who got partial downloads) probably got nailed when I restarted apache. It is indeed the full movie, but is currently up in the form of a locally hosted, locally seeded torrent (there's apparently another torrent out there now as well). So for now you can download the full movie via torrent here.
This decision has already been made, in the first week of December.
Not only that, the already-made decision has been covered by slashdot, not once, but twice! (If a duplicate story is "dupe", perhaps an incorrect triplicate story should be referred to, appropriately, as "tripe".)
And the answer is a resounding no, taxpayers will NOT have to "pay twice" for access to weather data.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this week began providing weather data in an open-access XML format, alleviating concerns that commercial providers would continue to play a dominant role in how weather data gets to the public.
"The public should not have to pay twice for access to basic government information that has been created at taxpayer expense," wrote Ari Schwartz, an associate director of the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, in a July 28, 2004, essay.
Earlier this year, NOAA made the data available in XML as a test, called the National Digital Forecast Database. After receiving comments from the public and commercial providers, the agency made the decision permanent this week. Now anyone can get information in an XML format directly from the National Digital Forecast Database website.
Of course, this information has always been publicly accessible: it's just a matter of ease. The National Weather Service now makes its weather feeds accessible to anyone in open formats, like XML and RSS. Of course the commercial weather reporting industry is against it: surprise, surprise.
And, the statement "It seems since now that a lot of documents are in electronic form, searching them is much easier than before, and for that reason the FBI is taking this action," is the diametric opposite of what is actually happening.
The story is that an individual made an FOIA request to the FBI for some specific information.
The FBI claimed that no such information was available.
The claimant found out in the meantime that such information WAS available, and, as such, requested a court order the FBI to provide it.
The FBI is arguing that its search was reasonable within department regulations and guidelines, and that it cannot and should not be expected to always undercover every single possible document. It's precisely BECAUSE documents are indexed electronically that is creating the difficulty: the FBI is claiming, essentially, that it can't predict every possibly keyword it should associate with a document for search purposes, and therefore shouldn't be held accountable if it misses documents during a good-faith search.
Whether or not the FBI was intentionally hiding OKBOMB memos, etc., is another story altogether.
CableCard is somewhat a half-baked implementation right now.
Currently, it's only one way, so there is no support for two way device communication required for PPV, VOD, etc., and there is no guide, because there is no memory or provision for the EPG (Electronic Program Guide).
If the industry evolves the CableCard into a truly two way design, with memory and programmability and support for EPG, then it will be interesting. Additionally, an all digital set top costs providers about $70 in volume, while a CableCard is slightly more and has none of the features of the set top.
Really all CableCard is good for at this juncture is tuning/accessing encrypted digital channels directly with your television or monitor, WITHOUT a separate set top; if that's all you want/need, then it works fine. But what would be really nice is if some third-party PVRs or PCI TV cards for computers supported CableCard: then, you don't really care about the guide or some of the other functionality. You just want to be able to get at, and record, content that you can't otherwise get to without some convoluted IR blaster-type setup with an external set top, or being locked into your provider's choice of PVR, and its features (or lack thereof).
Re:Other considerations, and identity of Nick dePl
on
Think Secret Gets Lawyer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You see it as a zero sum game, don't you? It's either Public, or Profit, and nowhere in between. No information should be kept secret, and all information should be free.
I hate to tell you this, but there's a balance. And sometimes the concept of "Profit" of "Corporations" - those who employ the Public - is good for that same Public. Sometimes the protection of the mechanisms that make us a prosperous society and protect the concept of fair competition are good for that same society.
Don't talk about information as if it's some fanciful abstract thing that should fly free as red breasted robins now that we have the amazing Interweb. You make a gentleman's agreement with your employer to not leak his secrets to the world, you fucking keep it. You don't surreptitiously break it, secretly leaking private information that you have been TOLD is private, and asked not to leak, as a condition of your employ, for years to feed your own sense of selfishness, or self righteousness, or self confidence.
Just because it's easy to do something doesn't mean you should do it. Please tell me how it is inappropriate for a business to want to keep its own ideas secret. If you're just one of those anti-corporate anti-business types, or think all information should always be free and unlimited under all circumstances, then you needn't reply, because we'll be in fundamental disagreement.
Re:Other considerations, and identity of Nick dePl
on
Think Secret Gets Lawyer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're missing something here.
And that something is the laws that may make Nick Ciarelli's actions illegal.
Whether or not you fundamentally think the laws are correct is the subject of another discussion.
Nick Ciarelli may be in violation of laws that prohibit knowingly disclosing information that was obtained as a result of a breach of a confidentiality agreement by any party to the chain of information. It can be argued that Nick KNOWS this information is confidential. How or if any of these laws can be applied in this case remains to be seen.
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 Nick 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 Nick's 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. I'm talking about the legality of this particular case, 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, and use the legal system as a backdrop for that fight.
But that doesn't change the fact that the laws are in force in the interim, and that persons, corporations, and other entities within the system will use the law to their advantage.
Other considerations, and identity of Nick dePlume
on
Think Secret Gets Lawyer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Here's the problem many people overlook: many states have specific laws making it illegal to divulge information from someone where it can be reasonably known or assumed that a binding confidentiality agreement was breached. (Don't like the law(s)? That's another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the first amendment.)
What remains to be seen is what, if any, of these laws apply, and whether or not the laws of Massachusetts, California, federal, etc., can be applied to this case.
And, as many people have said, they don't really care about Nick Ciarelli (yes, for those who don't know, he's 19 year oldHarvard student). They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to Think Secret. And no, it's not "known" elsewhere. He's got a very reliable mole, or a set of them, 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. Further, whether or not Nick should be publishing it is a subject of further debate, but he's the one person who knows who these people are. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws (the one I spoke of in the first paragraph) 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 Nick "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.)
Who on earth said that? You're not replying to anyone.
Numerous people said it in response to this story. Therefore, I'm not replying to anyone in particular. For many examples, view the main story with all comments, and search for "iWork".
Huh? Sun should be blamed for not porting OOo to the Mac?!?
Um, yes. In fact, PRECISELY Sun. Sun has provided massive engineering support and manhours to versions of OpenOffice for Solaris, Linux, and particularly Windows. They also offer full, commercial, supported versions of StarOffice for those platforms.
They do nothing even close for Mac OS X. The Mac OpenOffice.org porting folks don't have a fraction of the resources the Solaris/Linux/Windows people do.
And before you say "Well DUH, it's because there's no version of StarOffice for Mac OS X!!!!" I'd urge you to think a little bit harder about that statement. (I.e., why is there no version of StarOffice for Mac OS X, and the associated engineering and programming support for the associated OpenOffice.org project? Academic and institutional customers have been demanding it for more than three years.)
First of all, this is NOT related to Apple announcing iWork. At all. No, there's no conspiracy.
Second, this is OLD news. Anyone who's even remotely followed OpenOffice.org Mac OS X porting work knew any potential Aqua port was on the back burner. Way on the back burner. With the stove unplugged.
Third, the X11 port will ALWAYS continue to exist.
Fourth, there is a Mac OS X graphical port, albeit via Java, in the form of NeoOffice (1, 2). This project has come a LONG way since its relatively recent inception, and is an impressive work melding OpenOffice with the Mac OS X look and feel. There's more work to be done, but the latest 1.1 development release is impressive.
Fifth, there are gargantuan technical hurdles to maintaining a full Aqua port of OpenOffice without greater engineering support (perhaps from the likes of Sun, who has shown zero interest in maintaining OpenOffice for Mac OS X, much less maintaining a commercial StarOffice for Mac OS X). These are all detailed here, incidentally by one of NeoOffice's chief representatives.
So calm down. This isn't an Apple conspiracy, or the end of OpenOffice for Mac OS X. OpenOffice will continue, in X11 form AND in the likes of things such as NeoOffice. If anyone is to blame for the official OpenOffice.org Aqua port going by the wayside, frankly, it's a lot closer to Sun than anyone else.
Also, many large institutions, such as the University of Wisconsin System, have an even cheaper deal: we sell full versions of Mac OS X to faculty staff and students for $49.
Departmental/institutional purchasers can obtain a license for the latest version of Mac OS X for a period of 3 years for $69; in other words, they are licensed to run any full upgrades of Mac OS X for free for three years, at which time they have a permanent license for whatever the latest version is at that time.
Same for Mac OS X Server: unlimited is $499 (instead of $999), and 10-client (10-client applies ONLY to AppleShare file sharing clients; everything else is unlimited in every way) is $249 (instead of $499). Users can also, for the same price as that particular version of OS X Server, purchase a maintenance contract which gives them the latest version of OS X Server for free for the next three years.
This three year deal usually equates into getting two more updates to the OS for nothing. So it's not always just "$129".
Slashdot Mirror
So here's a technology that is trying to PROTECT peoples' privacy, and the first thing you can fucking think of to say is that this has serious privacy PROBLEMS, and about cops blurring their faces so they can beat people?
Please, sir, are you fucking serious?
We recently went through the same exercise. Our requirements were:
- Reasonably high quality at a relatively low datarate.
- Video and audio formats should be open standards.
- Primary target is Mac OS and Windows, but would be nice to play on other OSes, such as Linux and Solaris.
We found everything we were looking for in MPEG-4 (Part 2) video with AAC audio.
We recommend two solutions for players:
- QuickTime Player, for Mac OS and Windows
- VideoLan Client (VLC), for Mac OS and Windows, but also many other operating systems
This has the advantage of providing a free, supported, full featured player for the vast majority of visitors (i.e., Mac OS and Windows), but also offers a reliable free open source player for many other platforms, in addition to Mac OS and Windows.
Soon, we'll be switching to H.264 (AVC or MPEG-4 Part 10), for which free playback support will be available in QuickTime 7 for Mac OS and Windows. Playback support will no doubt be added to the likes of VLC.
also they don't offer version for xp without itunes anymore
e /
Wrong:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalon
Also, yes, it's "nagware", in that it brings up the stupid "Why go Pro?" screen on launch. But you never have to pay for it. All of the included uses (playback, etc.) are free.
...he got funding from a multinational corporation?
Aren't we supposed to, like, hate that, or something?
The problems is that he may indeed be doing something "for worse" -- that these actions may promote militant Islam rather than discouraging it. There is no question that the motives you provide are in large part the motives of the neoconservatives; there is also no question that these ambitions are broad and grand. The question is whether their methods will succeed. Time will tell.
I think this is a concept lost on many (like Sens. Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer in the last week or so): no doubt it's creating more problems, more militancy, and making us "less safe"...in the short term! There is no consideration for what might be if this strategy is ultimately successful.
All of the opponents of the Bush policy - and their supporters - cheer on this idea that the Bush policy is an incredible failure, and is actually hurting us and preventing us from fighting the war we should "really" be fighting, that is, against al-Qaeda.
So, naturally, my question is: how, exactly, do we fight this was against "al-Qaeda"?
Hold Saudi Arabia accountable, you say? Perhaps stop supporting the Saudi royalty and its oppression of the populace, and the entire infrastructure and system that breeds terror? Sure! Let's just do that today. Oh, wait. Saudi Arabia holds critical pricing control on the world oil markets, and any instability in Saudi Arabia, or any hint that there is any overt action by the US planned against Saudi Arabia, kiss petroleum market stability goodbye. And a large chunk of our economic stability for a long period of time. Not to mention any action against the extremist elements within Saudi Arabia would be viewed as the biggest assault on Islam itself yet. Yes, we know Saudi Arabia is a problem. It will be dealt with.
Or maybe stop supporting Israel? What a grand idea! Let's ride the moral relativism train: the Israelis and the Palestinians are equal, and neither side is good or bad, right or wrong. In fact, what the Palestinian militants do with suicide vests is merely the same thing Israel does with US-built F-16s and Apaches! Um, wrong. Israel is our shining star in the mideast: a sliver of democracy and freedom in a sea of backwards radicalism and militancy. If you put aside your own prejudices and consider that freedom and democracy may be inherently "good", and consider that some of the current administration literally believe this with the core of their being, you would understand that any suggestion to leave Israel to fend for itself would be the height of ridiculousness and lunacy.
Or how about get out of the mideast? I'm not going to even answer that one, except to say:
1. Anyone who even suggests this, wholesale, is a dumbass
2. The US is not to blame for everything wrong in the world
3. It is not EXCLUSIVELY, or even mostly, US actions that have led to the current situation in the mideast
Or perhaps the Kerry plan, and that of other liberal Democrats in the House and Senate: we need more troops, and we can get Europe to help! Oh, oops, wait: didn't the supporters of those same groups of people tirelessly say that we don't have enough troops, and if we need more, we'll need a draft? And then simultaneously agree with statements that say we don't have enough troops in Iraq (to me, implying that they think we do, in fact, need more troops)?
Or get out of Iraq altogether, which would be a nightmare, and would actually result in far more death and destruction that they purport to want to prevent?
Why aren't any of these people arguing for European participation? I don't care if Bush directly and personally said "FUCK YOU" in each nations' native tongue (if he could muster it); no matter how diplomatically snubbed they feel, THIS IS A LOT FUCKING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, and they have admitted as much.
So, pray tell, why the fuck are they still doing nothing, almost two years later? Especially given that they're just as aware of the real, not imaginary threat of Panislamic radicalism?
Questioning this strateg
You have no idea what a "neoconservative" is; these are definitions you've made up yourself (along with others who wish to vilify neoconservatives and make "neocon" a dirty word).
Neocons are not the ultra conservative religious right.
Neocons are not killers of abortion doctors.
Neocons are not gay bashers.
Now, Bush IS a neoconservative. But there seems to be a disconnect here. Because if you think that Bush is anywhere CLOSE to this ultra fanatical religious right you think about, you have no fucking idea who those people are. Hint: it's the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons. Think some of those people and their followers got Bush elected? You bet. But that's not because Bush is one of them, it's just that viewed on a practical scale, Bush (or any conservative) is probably closer to their ideals than, say, Kerry.
Your attempt to associate neoconservatism with abortion doctor-killers, gay beaters/killers/bashers, and ultra right-wing fundamentalists is a ridiculously laughable one, but sadly typical among many liberals and leftists today. Go ahead, try to redefine the word. You and others like you have already been successful to an extent. But that's not what neoconservatism means, at all.
Neoconservatism is based generally in the following ideals:
Free markets and trade
More social investment than traditional conservatives
Aggressive and non-isolationist foreign policy
Unilateralism
Opposition to communism and non-democratic ideals
Your rants on religious fanaticism and gay bashing are utter fantasy.
If you're actually interested in neoconservatism and what it really means, and not what you think it means or what you'd like it to mean, see:
Neoconservatism
And, critically, if you want to see what the entire US foreign policy is based on, see:
Statement of Principles
Interestingly, liberals are mortified when they read that. I have no earthly idea why, as it represents a critical and fundamental understanding that we have an obligation not only to ourselves but to the world at large to spread concepts of freedom and democratic principles for positive gain.
If you can't understand why we're in Iraq right now, here it is in a nutshell:
- NOT because of WMD (even though that was, correctly, presented as the primary reason at the time, since it was, again correctly, assumed that we would indeed find large stockpiles of said weapons, thus justifying the mission on its face)
- BECAUSE Iraq was a largely secular state, there wouldn't be as violent an Islamic fundamentalist backlash as if we had entered, say, Saudi Arabia
- BECAUSE we already had a history with Iraq, and the case could be relatively easily made to the US populace
- BECAUSE we have limited resources, do NOT have 500,000 or more troops to commit, and do NOT want the draft that all the liberals think Republicans want
- BECAUSE of those limited resources, we can only afford change on a single front, and have hopes that this will catalyze democratic reform in neighboring states, or at least begin the processes
- BECAUSE something needs to be done about Panislamic radicalism. Why Iraq, then, and not Saudi Arabia? Because going into Saudi Arabia would be viewed as a war directly on Islam (which this is NOT, by the way, dumbass) even more than going into Iraq is, and would simultaneously cause the oil market stability in the entire mideast to utterly collapse, which would gravely hurt the US economy as well as that of Europe
- BECAUSE the FREE flow of information and ideas and freedom of religion, government, speech, association, coupled with security and rule of law, have a chance at a quick modernization of several borderline nations in the mideast (e.g., Iran, Jordan, Egypt), and could have far-reaching long term implications for our own s
Try this. It should perform a lot better.
...you (and a few others who got partial downloads) probably got nailed when I restarted apache. It is indeed the full movie, but is currently up in the form of a locally hosted, locally seeded torrent (there's apparently another torrent out there now as well). So for now you can download the full movie via torrent here.
Because I made the torrent, I'm hosting the torrent, I'm providing the tracker for the torrent, and I'm seeding the torrent with three servers.
"The torrent" that I made, am hosting on that server, tracking on that server, and seeding on that server (as well as three others).
Here's a mirror, hosted, appropriately, on an Apple Xserve and Xserve RAID:
m acintro.mov
http://mirror.services.wisc.edu/mirrors/temp/1984
This decision has already been made, in the first week of December.
Not only that, the already-made decision has been covered by slashdot, not once, but twice! (If a duplicate story is "dupe", perhaps an incorrect triplicate story should be referred to, appropriately, as "tripe".)
And the answer is a resounding no, taxpayers will NOT have to "pay twice" for access to weather data.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this week began providing weather data in an open-access XML format, alleviating concerns that commercial providers would continue to play a dominant role in how weather data gets to the public.
"The public should not have to pay twice for access to basic government information that has been created at taxpayer expense," wrote Ari Schwartz, an associate director of the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, in a July 28, 2004, essay.
Earlier this year, NOAA made the data available in XML as a test, called the National Digital Forecast Database. After receiving comments from the public and commercial providers, the agency made the decision permanent this week. Now anyone can get information in an XML format directly from the National Digital Forecast Database website.
Full story
slashdot coverage #1
slashdot coverage #2
Of course, this information has always been publicly accessible: it's just a matter of ease. The National Weather Service now makes its weather feeds accessible to anyone in open formats, like XML and RSS. Of course the commercial weather reporting industry is against it: surprise, surprise.
...a modern remake of this epic tale!
;-)
What, expecting me to say something else?
That sounds like the beginnings of a cluster!
*ducks*
But kneejerk slashdot sensationalism as usual.
And, the statement "It seems since now that a lot of documents are in electronic form, searching them is much easier than before, and for that reason the FBI is taking this action," is the diametric opposite of what is actually happening.
The story is that an individual made an FOIA request to the FBI for some specific information.
The FBI claimed that no such information was available.
The claimant found out in the meantime that such information WAS available, and, as such, requested a court order the FBI to provide it.
The FBI is arguing that its search was reasonable within department regulations and guidelines, and that it cannot and should not be expected to always undercover every single possible document. It's precisely BECAUSE documents are indexed electronically that is creating the difficulty: the FBI is claiming, essentially, that it can't predict every possibly keyword it should associate with a document for search purposes, and therefore shouldn't be held accountable if it misses documents during a good-faith search.
Whether or not the FBI was intentionally hiding OKBOMB memos, etc., is another story altogether.
To summarize an engineer in the cable industry...
CableCard is somewhat a half-baked implementation right now.
Currently, it's only one way, so there is no support for two way device communication required for PPV, VOD, etc., and there is no guide, because there is no memory or provision for the EPG (Electronic Program Guide).
If the industry evolves the CableCard into a truly two way design, with memory and programmability and support for EPG, then it will be interesting. Additionally, an all digital set top costs providers about $70 in volume, while a CableCard is slightly more and has none of the features of the set top.
Really all CableCard is good for at this juncture is tuning/accessing encrypted digital channels directly with your television or monitor, WITHOUT a separate set top; if that's all you want/need, then it works fine. But what would be really nice is if some third-party PVRs or PCI TV cards for computers supported CableCard: then, you don't really care about the guide or some of the other functionality. You just want to be able to get at, and record, content that you can't otherwise get to without some convoluted IR blaster-type setup with an external set top, or being locked into your provider's choice of PVR, and its features (or lack thereof).
You see it as a zero sum game, don't you? It's either Public, or Profit, and nowhere in between. No information should be kept secret, and all information should be free.
I hate to tell you this, but there's a balance. And sometimes the concept of "Profit" of "Corporations" - those who employ the Public - is good for that same Public. Sometimes the protection of the mechanisms that make us a prosperous society and protect the concept of fair competition are good for that same society.
Don't talk about information as if it's some fanciful abstract thing that should fly free as red breasted robins now that we have the amazing Interweb. You make a gentleman's agreement with your employer to not leak his secrets to the world, you fucking keep it. You don't surreptitiously break it, secretly leaking private information that you have been TOLD is private, and asked not to leak, as a condition of your employ, for years to feed your own sense of selfishness, or self righteousness, or self confidence.
Just because it's easy to do something doesn't mean you should do it. Please tell me how it is inappropriate for a business to want to keep its own ideas secret. If you're just one of those anti-corporate anti-business types, or think all information should always be free and unlimited under all circumstances, then you needn't reply, because we'll be in fundamental disagreement.
You're missing something here.
And that something is the laws that may make Nick Ciarelli's actions illegal.
Whether or not you fundamentally think the laws are correct is the subject of another discussion.
Nick Ciarelli may be in violation of laws that prohibit knowingly disclosing information that was obtained as a result of a breach of a confidentiality agreement by any party to the chain of information. It can be argued that Nick KNOWS this information is confidential. How or if any of these laws can be applied in this case remains to be seen.
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 Nick 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 Nick's 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. I'm talking about the legality of this particular case, 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, and use the legal system as a backdrop for that fight.
But that doesn't change the fact that the laws are in force in the interim, and that persons, corporations, and other entities within the system will use the law to their advantage.
Here's the problem many people overlook: many states have specific laws making it illegal to divulge information from someone where it can be reasonably known or assumed that a binding confidentiality agreement was breached. (Don't like the law(s)? That's another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the first amendment.)
What remains to be seen is what, if any, of these laws apply, and whether or not the laws of Massachusetts, California, federal, etc., can be applied to this case.
And, as many people have said, they don't really care about Nick Ciarelli (yes, for those who don't know, he's 19 year old Harvard student). They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to Think Secret. And no, it's not "known" elsewhere. He's got a very reliable mole, or a set of them, 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. Further, whether or not Nick should be publishing it is a subject of further debate, but he's the one person who knows who these people are. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws (the one I spoke of in the first paragraph) 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 Nick "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.)
Just some things to think about.
Who on earth said that? You're not replying to anyone.
Numerous people said it in response to this story. Therefore, I'm not replying to anyone in particular. For many examples, view the main story with all comments, and search for "iWork".
Huh? Sun should be blamed for not porting OOo to the Mac?!?
Um, yes. In fact, PRECISELY Sun. Sun has provided massive engineering support and manhours to versions of OpenOffice for Solaris, Linux, and particularly Windows. They also offer full, commercial, supported versions of StarOffice for those platforms.
They do nothing even close for Mac OS X. The Mac OpenOffice.org porting folks don't have a fraction of the resources the Solaris/Linux/Windows people do.
And before you say "Well DUH, it's because there's no version of StarOffice for Mac OS X!!!!" I'd urge you to think a little bit harder about that statement. (I.e., why is there no version of StarOffice for Mac OS X, and the associated engineering and programming support for the associated OpenOffice.org project? Academic and institutional customers have been demanding it for more than three years.)
I don't see how you can say that this is not related to the announcement of new software from Apple.
The Aqua port has been dead for over a year and a half.
How is this related to an Apple announcement last week?
Regardless of your feelings about Pages, the same can be said about any open source competitor to any commercial product.
If there were 100 reasons why the Aqua port of OpenOffice isn't going forward, about 98 other reasons would be ahead of "Apple releasing iWork".
First of all, this is NOT related to Apple announcing iWork. At all. No, there's no conspiracy.
Second, this is OLD news. Anyone who's even remotely followed OpenOffice.org Mac OS X porting work knew any potential Aqua port was on the back burner. Way on the back burner. With the stove unplugged.
Third, the X11 port will ALWAYS continue to exist.
Fourth, there is a Mac OS X graphical port, albeit via Java, in the form of NeoOffice (1, 2). This project has come a LONG way since its relatively recent inception, and is an impressive work melding OpenOffice with the Mac OS X look and feel. There's more work to be done, but the latest 1.1 development release is impressive.
Fifth, there are gargantuan technical hurdles to maintaining a full Aqua port of OpenOffice without greater engineering support (perhaps from the likes of Sun, who has shown zero interest in maintaining OpenOffice for Mac OS X, much less maintaining a commercial StarOffice for Mac OS X). These are all detailed here, incidentally by one of NeoOffice's chief representatives.
So calm down. This isn't an Apple conspiracy, or the end of OpenOffice for Mac OS X. OpenOffice will continue, in X11 form AND in the likes of things such as NeoOffice. If anyone is to blame for the official OpenOffice.org Aqua port going by the wayside, frankly, it's a lot closer to Sun than anyone else.
The price for education/government is US$69.
Also, many large institutions, such as the University of Wisconsin System, have an even cheaper deal: we sell full versions of Mac OS X to faculty staff and students for $49.
Departmental/institutional purchasers can obtain a license for the latest version of Mac OS X for a period of 3 years for $69; in other words, they are licensed to run any full upgrades of Mac OS X for free for three years, at which time they have a permanent license for whatever the latest version is at that time.
Same for Mac OS X Server: unlimited is $499 (instead of $999), and 10-client (10-client applies ONLY to AppleShare file sharing clients; everything else is unlimited in every way) is $249 (instead of $499). Users can also, for the same price as that particular version of OS X Server, purchase a maintenance contract which gives them the latest version of OS X Server for free for the next three years.
This three year deal usually equates into getting two more updates to the OS for nothing. So it's not always just "$129".
According to the complaint, Think Secret generates revenue from online advertising.
Wow! And does the New York Times or 20/20 generate revenue from print or television advertising?!
The keynote was NOT shown in ANY Apple Stores. It was only shown at Apple corporate office facilities.
And it was posted well before 5; it was on the web by 3PM ET.