So in this case youtube's protection of free speech against the wishes of a US politician tends to highlight the morality of the US general public and their desire to protect free speech While I have not seen the videos in question I would guess that many terrorist videos, or at least parts of them, cross over the line of free speech and into threats of death or severe bodily harm. If you make a threat against a person or group of people AND you have the means, motive, and opportunity to make good on your threat then you have gone beyond protected speech and entered into the realm of potentially criminal speech. If YouTube cannot or will not edit the videos to remove segments of the speeches where specific threats are made then they probably should remove the videos as the Senator suggested. On the other hand, there is some value in reminding Americans, who generally don't have first-hand knowledge of how nasty, brutish, and violent the areas outside of the first world can be, that some of our enemies would rather cut off our heads than speak with us. Talking with our enemies is important, but we must not so engage them without the threat of the stick.
The cost is not just in the writing but also in the peer review, editing, and re-checking of facts to ensure accuracy and completeness. That is why really good textbooks are relatively more expensive than their page count, material, and binding might suggest.
But you already know that, you're trying to find my pot gambling hooker farm! Because it is really important to prevent you from having a good time while Osama's still on the loose. We have to keep our priorities straight after all...
I find that people who claim to dislike PvP have very often not tried it for themselves. You say that you enjoy PvE play, but for me there is nothing like going head to head against other players in a free-for-all type world where anyone can attack anyone else at anytime, anywhere, and for whatever reason. It really brings out the realistic and dangerous aspect when there is completely open PvP and that is what makes the games fun and challenging in ways that no AI can presently match. Also, there are not nearly as many problems with item farmers or spawn campers in open PvP games (among other benefits) because you can attack them for being lame.
As soon as Carl Ichan got involved it was almost a forgone conclusion that Microsoft would be back to deal with Yahoo given Ichan's reputation for bringing together bickering parties in merger deals which deliver value to the shareholders (including Ichan). I had previously predicted that Yahoo would be able to resist a takeover offer from Microsoft (that was before Ichan got involved and started buying millions of shares) but even then I thought that it was a bit strange for Yahoo to turn down a 70%+ premium on their share price (initial offer of Microsoft) to be acquired (a good price by almost any recknoning, irrespective of the long term outcome of the merger). The onus will now be upon the Yahoo board to detail their plan to the shareholders and prove that they can offer a better value with a Google partnership (which seems to be their proposed direction) than Ichan (who will push for resumption of talks with Microsoft in light of a limited alternative pool of qualified bidders) can with a resumption of talks and possibly a sale to Microsoft. Even if Yahoo manages to hold off Ichan, they would really have to outperform in the next 3-5 years to beat the upfront 70%+ premium that they originally turned down to remain independent and the prosepct of a protacted duel with Ichan will make that independent stance even tougher to justify in the months ahead (possibly allowing Ichan to buy up more battered Yahoo shares and strengthen his hand even more).
Finally, there's the trick the movie industry tried the last time things got really desperate, back in the 1950s - stereoscopic 3D. It didn't work last time. You forgot about Cinerama
This whole Air Force concept speaks to a larger issue or misconception within our society, particularly among non-IT professionals, that it is somehow possible for technology to be available for use by the "good guys" and yet not also available for use by the "bad guys". There was a similar case (sorry have no citation) where a senator expressed the viewpoint that copyright holders should have the capability to remotely "break in" to any computer system and "destroy it" once they have shown to a judge, perhaps through some warrant processes, that it contains their copyrighted materials (of course nothing was mentioned about how this would be achieved or even could be achieved in practice). If we want the benefits of a secure operating system and strong encryption then we must also be willing to accept the possibility that such tools might be used against us, but in such cases it is wise to remember the words of one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who said that, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
It wasn't entirely the fault of the judge. As NYCL has already said, the defense attorney failed in his duty to his client, Mr. Thomas, by not mentioning the precedent and the RIAA attorneys failed in their professional responsibility as officers of the court in not mentioning it to the judge, even though it might have damaged their "making available equals distribution" argument. Apparently, although IANAL, it the responsibility of the lawyers to present precedents, whether positive or negative, that have bearing upon the essential matters currently at hand in any particular case.
You, by setting your preferences to filter out comments under a certain threshold, you remove someone's ability to be read. Yes, but there is a difference between deciding for yourself what comments you would like to read and making that decision on behalf of someone else in spite of their wishes. If you don't agree with the moderators and want to be sure that you don't miss anything then set your comment filter to browse at -1. People have the right to speak yes, but I also have the right not to listen if I choose.
They think that prestige means that everybody is so scared of the state that no one dares to speak against it. Then Bashar al-Assad and his cronies are believing their own propaganda. The definition of prestige, in the hard-power sense, is and always has been what even your external enemies will grudgingly acknowledge. Syria is a third-rate military power and their economy is below average at best. Their lack of prestige is the result of poor leadership, not people speaking their minds.
The State of Mississippi was for many years among the poorest and most litigious states in the entire United States. There have been some recent attempts at reforms which seem to be bearing fruit, but it is not surprising that a new innovation in lawyers and lawsuits has come out of the State of Mississippi. The Wall Street Journal had a recent article describing the litigious history of Mississippi.
its not about liking. you are beaten down to it in repressive regimes. its not as if you have a choice.
Yes, but then you are an unhappy follower who secretly grumbles behind the backs of the mullahs and enjoys western satellite television, music, and other things in secret. These are the kind of people who can be reached through a concerted effort by a foreign intelligence agency to spread western influences and break up the cohesiveness of the "group think" which goes on in public. This can be done by both overt (i.e. fighting the "battle of ideas" about which system is better in open and honest dialog and debate) and also through clandestine (i.e. distributing western entertainments and other seductive goods and services on the sly) and perhaps even covert (reserved for infiltrating and breaking up the really dangerous hard core groups within the group which attempt to recruit for terrorist acts and other violence) means.
I agree that brainwashing and increasing influence of hard-line Islamic ideology is troubling and that the west, in cooperation with those Muslims who are tired of the violence and the hateful messages, should definitely work actively to counter their growing influence. Basically we have to convince them that life here on earth is worth living (so that the 72 virgins argument is less effective in recruiting suicide bombers) AND then also convince them that they will get more of what they want here on earth with freedom of choice than they will with authoritarian Islam and the sword.
It is interesting to hear your perspective coming from a Muslim country, but I think that you overestimate their chances of converting the European Union and all of western civilization into their version of something resembling medieval 6th century Islam. Their young people, and particularly those who have grown up in Europe, Britain, and the United States, have the same basic desires and after exposure to western culture and ideas with all of the sports, sex, drugs, fast food, movies, and other influences they will become just as corrupted and apathetic as young people everywhere. They can be as religious as they want to be, but how many of them will fall to the temptations and decedent pleasures of western culture when they are away from their group? For example, look at all of the young people in Saudi Arabia and other "conservative" Arab countries who go off to Damascus to let their hair down, ditch the Niqab, and "have a good time". There will always be the hardcore fanatics, but the masses will never give up modern life for 6th century Islam, even the tribesman in Afghanistan, hardly the most cosmopolitan of peoples, kicked the Taliban out when they started to ban the simple pleasures that had been enjoyed by tribesmen for generations. People don't like being told how to live by a bunch of stuffy old men or religious fanatics, or at least most people don't, and so they will not seriously follow or adhere to these ideologies because secretly they just want to live and human nature is human nature no matter where you grew up.
Can you imagine the paranoid Soviet reaction if they believed a nuclear-like enemy attack had already taken place?
You misunderstand. It was the Soviets who built the gas pipeline and installed the western (i.e. American) pumping turbines and software that their KGB agents had bought through intermediary companies in violation of export restrictions (i.e. they used cloak and dagger to acquire the technology, hence the reason for the United States to introduce the 'bug' into the system...to prevent their thieving ways from paying off when they stole the fruits of our national defense technology research). It was the US satellites that detected the explosion (the Soviet satellites are probably monitoring the United States and not their home country). The Soviets knew EXACTLY what happened. It was either a faulty engineering job (which is probably what they did believe before the story became public since Soviet technology and construction had a reputation for being unreliable at best and dangerous at worst...this was not the first time that Soviet industry had experienced a major accident) OR perhaps they did realize that the turbines and pumps acquired by the KGB were sabotaged by the Americans and that any other technology that they had stolen was by implication also suspect (which was the real purpose of the American operation). There is no chance that the Soviets would have some how misinterpreted this as an attack, in fact the pipeline was in such a remote location that nobody actually saw the explosion (only its aftermath and the aforementioned satellite detection). Even if they did want to start a war over it (unlikely...the accident cost money and not even a single life) they would be too embarrassed to admit that either they had been slipped bad technology by the Americans OR worse, that their own incompetence had led to the economic disaster of the pipeline explosion. It was better for both sides to learn a lesson about stealing foreign technology and simply keep quiet about it.
My point was that America has pulled the 'bad technology' trick in the past so there is every reason to suspect that someone else could attempt the same with us. The Chinese are notably able and willing to engage in just such activities because of their prominence in the international electronics and chip trade.
Unfortunately, it is people like this RIAA lawyer who give the legal profession such a bad reputation among the general public whereas honest and upright lawyers, like our friend NewYorkCountryLawyer, receive much of the ill will associated with that negative reputation and very little recognition for the good work that they do. I for one would like to take this opportunity to thank NewYorkCountryLawyer for the excellent work that he has done in compiling the various briefs, decisions, along with his own original commentary and arguments, and other related materials on his blog to assist in the defense of the ordinary working folks who are being crushed by the RIAA and their unscrupulous attorneys.
Some of the defendants may have sinned yes, but was their crime (assuming that they are convicted and that is not a certainty) really so great as to merit the complete destruction of their lives and their utter financial ruin? It is really too bad that the RIAA has chosen to take the lowest of the low roads with their lawsuit campaign, but hopefully with interested people like NewYorkCountryLawyer and Slashdot staying on top of things we can eventually compel the RIAA and their members to quit harassing the public in lieu of actually having a business plan.
I fail to see how they expect to change things through obedience. They don't expect to change anything, they expect to make money. That is the purpose of the corporation, that is it and that is all.
They have a larger base of potential customers. That may be true in theory, but practically speaking, if one accepts the premise that it will be more difficult or expensive to develop a game which is certain to be released on Windows anyway (since it is the largest PC gaming platform) using OpenGL instead of DirectX then is it really worth the extra trouble to capture whatever potential Mac and Linux customers are left over after all of the Windows sales have been tallied up? I submit that for most games the answer to that question is no, so it is a moot point.
Even automatic checking and testing can be subverted by a determined adversary. For example consider the program, approved by President Reagan and beginning in 1982, whereby the CIA arranged for the Soviets, who were actively attempting to acquire western technology and hardware, to receive natural gas pipeline software and equipment that was designed to "go haywire" after a set amount of time in normal operation. When the pipeline software and hardware, which would have appeared totally normal at first even if the Soviets had bothered to test it, eventually went haywire (i.e. it ran the ultra high pressure scenario) the resulting explosion was so large that it was detected by satellites designed to monitor nuclear explosions from space. The following article from the Washington Post describes this and other programs and operations that took place during the Cold War as part of a coordinated CIA effort to slip bad technology to our enemies.
How can openGL, Mac, and Linux have a larger share of the game market than Windows (DirectX) when just about every PC game on the shelf these days says "requires DirectX"? DirectX is also behind the xbox and xbox360 console platforms which means all of those xbox console games are also DirectX. Seriously, who uses exclusively OpenGL for games besides ID and Carmack? They might make OpenGL an option (which doesn't result in a gain for either platform against the other), but how many games are OpenGL only? On the other hand, there are many games which are DirectX only. I like open source too, but I am not wrong.
How can you be sure that you won't be singled out for "special attention" by the cable company, perhaps of the "hired goons" variety, for being an organizer and a "trouble maker"?
no the reason there are no games for OSX is because developers are lazy and MSFT has everyone coding for directX, instead of OpenGL. It is not lazy developers but rather market realities that limit gaming on Apple platforms. First, Microsoft invested in DirectX, even though it lost money as a division for years, specifically to attract game developers to their platform whereas Apple made no such special effort to attract third party game developers. Second, OpenGL, has not received the same amount of usability enhancements (making the libraries easier to work with and supporting other game features like sound and exotic input devices) and promotion that DirectX has. There are other reasons too, but the end result of all of this is that it is cheaper to develop a game for Windows than it is for Mac AND there are more potential customers (i.e. gamers) on the Windows platform than the Mac. Why would a game developer want to spend MORE to create his game and then be forced to sell it into a smaller market? It is tough enough to make money in game development without having to worry about crap like that.
Why do you think doom came out on the mac at the same time as on Windows, with a linux client a few weeks later?
Because John Carmack is one of the rare game developers who is wealthy enough due to his previous and ongoing successes (and being first and best into a massively successful niche...the first-person shooter) to own and run his own company which means that he calls all of the shots. Obviously Mr. Carmack enjoys proving the technical superiority of his code and games by running them on many platforms, even if those platforms don't earn a lot of extra revenue, but most game developers don't have these luxuries.
As for Adobe, Microsoft, and backwards compatibility, there are always trade-offs to be made with regard to supporting existing customers and ditching the old in favor of the new. These include not just technical issues, but money issues too. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback previous corporate decisions when one has the benefit of hindsight, but for those of us who are not prescient we make the best choices (or what we believe are the best choices) we can with the information that we have in the time available.
Slashdot Mirror
The cost is not just in the writing but also in the peer review, editing, and re-checking of facts to ensure accuracy and completeness. That is why really good textbooks are relatively more expensive than their page count, material, and binding might suggest.
I find that people who claim to dislike PvP have very often not tried it for themselves. You say that you enjoy PvE play, but for me there is nothing like going head to head against other players in a free-for-all type world where anyone can attack anyone else at anytime, anywhere, and for whatever reason. It really brings out the realistic and dangerous aspect when there is completely open PvP and that is what makes the games fun and challenging in ways that no AI can presently match. Also, there are not nearly as many problems with item farmers or spawn campers in open PvP games (among other benefits) because you can attack them for being lame.
As soon as Carl Ichan got involved it was almost a forgone conclusion that Microsoft would be back to deal with Yahoo given Ichan's reputation for bringing together bickering parties in merger deals which deliver value to the shareholders (including Ichan). I had previously predicted that Yahoo would be able to resist a takeover offer from Microsoft (that was before Ichan got involved and started buying millions of shares) but even then I thought that it was a bit strange for Yahoo to turn down a 70%+ premium on their share price (initial offer of Microsoft) to be acquired (a good price by almost any recknoning, irrespective of the long term outcome of the merger). The onus will now be upon the Yahoo board to detail their plan to the shareholders and prove that they can offer a better value with a Google partnership (which seems to be their proposed direction) than Ichan (who will push for resumption of talks with Microsoft in light of a limited alternative pool of qualified bidders) can with a resumption of talks and possibly a sale to Microsoft. Even if Yahoo manages to hold off Ichan, they would really have to outperform in the next 3-5 years to beat the upfront 70%+ premium that they originally turned down to remain independent and the prosepct of a protacted duel with Ichan will make that independent stance even tougher to justify in the months ahead (possibly allowing Ichan to buy up more battered Yahoo shares and strengthen his hand even more).
This whole Air Force concept speaks to a larger issue or misconception within our society, particularly among non-IT professionals, that it is somehow possible for technology to be available for use by the "good guys" and yet not also available for use by the "bad guys". There was a similar case (sorry have no citation) where a senator expressed the viewpoint that copyright holders should have the capability to remotely "break in" to any computer system and "destroy it" once they have shown to a judge, perhaps through some warrant processes, that it contains their copyrighted materials (of course nothing was mentioned about how this would be achieved or even could be achieved in practice). If we want the benefits of a secure operating system and strong encryption then we must also be willing to accept the possibility that such tools might be used against us, but in such cases it is wise to remember the words of one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who said that, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
It wasn't entirely the fault of the judge. As NYCL has already said, the defense attorney failed in his duty to his client, Mr. Thomas, by not mentioning the precedent and the RIAA attorneys failed in their professional responsibility as officers of the court in not mentioning it to the judge, even though it might have damaged their "making available equals distribution" argument. Apparently, although IANAL, it the responsibility of the lawyers to present precedents, whether positive or negative, that have bearing upon the essential matters currently at hand in any particular case.
The State of Mississippi was for many years among the poorest and most litigious states in the entire United States. There have been some recent attempts at reforms which seem to be bearing fruit, but it is not surprising that a new innovation in lawyers and lawsuits has come out of the State of Mississippi. The Wall Street Journal had a recent article describing the litigious history of Mississippi.
Yes, but then you are an unhappy follower who secretly grumbles behind the backs of the mullahs and enjoys western satellite television, music, and other things in secret. These are the kind of people who can be reached through a concerted effort by a foreign intelligence agency to spread western influences and break up the cohesiveness of the "group think" which goes on in public. This can be done by both overt (i.e. fighting the "battle of ideas" about which system is better in open and honest dialog and debate) and also through clandestine (i.e. distributing western entertainments and other seductive goods and services on the sly) and perhaps even covert (reserved for infiltrating and breaking up the really dangerous hard core groups within the group which attempt to recruit for terrorist acts and other violence) means.
I agree that brainwashing and increasing influence of hard-line Islamic ideology is troubling and that the west, in cooperation with those Muslims who are tired of the violence and the hateful messages, should definitely work actively to counter their growing influence. Basically we have to convince them that life here on earth is worth living (so that the 72 virgins argument is less effective in recruiting suicide bombers) AND then also convince them that they will get more of what they want here on earth with freedom of choice than they will with authoritarian Islam and the sword.
It is interesting to hear your perspective coming from a Muslim country, but I think that you overestimate their chances of converting the European Union and all of western civilization into their version of something resembling medieval 6th century Islam. Their young people, and particularly those who have grown up in Europe, Britain, and the United States, have the same basic desires and after exposure to western culture and ideas with all of the sports, sex, drugs, fast food, movies, and other influences they will become just as corrupted and apathetic as young people everywhere. They can be as religious as they want to be, but how many of them will fall to the temptations and decedent pleasures of western culture when they are away from their group? For example, look at all of the young people in Saudi Arabia and other "conservative" Arab countries who go off to Damascus to let their hair down, ditch the Niqab, and "have a good time". There will always be the hardcore fanatics, but the masses will never give up modern life for 6th century Islam, even the tribesman in Afghanistan, hardly the most cosmopolitan of peoples, kicked the Taliban out when they started to ban the simple pleasures that had been enjoyed by tribesmen for generations. People don't like being told how to live by a bunch of stuffy old men or religious fanatics, or at least most people don't, and so they will not seriously follow or adhere to these ideologies because secretly they just want to live and human nature is human nature no matter where you grew up.
You misunderstand. It was the Soviets who built the gas pipeline and installed the western (i.e. American) pumping turbines and software that their KGB agents had bought through intermediary companies in violation of export restrictions (i.e. they used cloak and dagger to acquire the technology, hence the reason for the United States to introduce the 'bug' into the system...to prevent their thieving ways from paying off when they stole the fruits of our national defense technology research). It was the US satellites that detected the explosion (the Soviet satellites are probably monitoring the United States and not their home country). The Soviets knew EXACTLY what happened. It was either a faulty engineering job (which is probably what they did believe before the story became public since Soviet technology and construction had a reputation for being unreliable at best and dangerous at worst...this was not the first time that Soviet industry had experienced a major accident) OR perhaps they did realize that the turbines and pumps acquired by the KGB were sabotaged by the Americans and that any other technology that they had stolen was by implication also suspect (which was the real purpose of the American operation). There is no chance that the Soviets would have some how misinterpreted this as an attack, in fact the pipeline was in such a remote location that nobody actually saw the explosion (only its aftermath and the aforementioned satellite detection). Even if they did want to start a war over it (unlikely...the accident cost money and not even a single life) they would be too embarrassed to admit that either they had been slipped bad technology by the Americans OR worse, that their own incompetence had led to the economic disaster of the pipeline explosion. It was better for both sides to learn a lesson about stealing foreign technology and simply keep quiet about it.
My point was that America has pulled the 'bad technology' trick in the past so there is every reason to suspect that someone else could attempt the same with us. The Chinese are notably able and willing to engage in just such activities because of their prominence in the international electronics and chip trade.
Unfortunately, it is people like this RIAA lawyer who give the legal profession such a bad reputation among the general public whereas honest and upright lawyers, like our friend NewYorkCountryLawyer, receive much of the ill will associated with that negative reputation and very little recognition for the good work that they do. I for one would like to take this opportunity to thank NewYorkCountryLawyer for the excellent work that he has done in compiling the various briefs, decisions, along with his own original commentary and arguments, and other related materials on his blog to assist in the defense of the ordinary working folks who are being crushed by the RIAA and their unscrupulous attorneys.
Some of the defendants may have sinned yes, but was their crime (assuming that they are convicted and that is not a certainty) really so great as to merit the complete destruction of their lives and their utter financial ruin? It is really too bad that the RIAA has chosen to take the lowest of the low roads with their lawsuit campaign, but hopefully with interested people like NewYorkCountryLawyer and Slashdot staying on top of things we can eventually compel the RIAA and their members to quit harassing the public in lieu of actually having a business plan.
Where are my mod points when I need them? I am falling out of my chair laughing....hahaha MOD THE PARENT UP
Even automatic checking and testing can be subverted by a determined adversary. For example consider the program, approved by President Reagan and beginning in 1982, whereby the CIA arranged for the Soviets, who were actively attempting to acquire western technology and hardware, to receive natural gas pipeline software and equipment that was designed to "go haywire" after a set amount of time in normal operation. When the pipeline software and hardware, which would have appeared totally normal at first even if the Soviets had bothered to test it, eventually went haywire (i.e. it ran the ultra high pressure scenario) the resulting explosion was so large that it was detected by satellites designed to monitor nuclear explosions from space. The following article from the Washington Post describes this and other programs and operations that took place during the Cold War as part of a coordinated CIA effort to slip bad technology to our enemies.
How can openGL, Mac, and Linux have a larger share of the game market than Windows (DirectX) when just about every PC game on the shelf these days says "requires DirectX"? DirectX is also behind the xbox and xbox360 console platforms which means all of those xbox console games are also DirectX. Seriously, who uses exclusively OpenGL for games besides ID and Carmack? They might make OpenGL an option (which doesn't result in a gain for either platform against the other), but how many games are OpenGL only? On the other hand, there are many games which are DirectX only. I like open source too, but I am not wrong.
How can you be sure that you won't be singled out for "special attention" by the cable company, perhaps of the "hired goons" variety, for being an organizer and a "trouble maker"?
Because John Carmack is one of the rare game developers who is wealthy enough due to his previous and ongoing successes (and being first and best into a massively successful niche...the first-person shooter) to own and run his own company which means that he calls all of the shots. Obviously Mr. Carmack enjoys proving the technical superiority of his code and games by running them on many platforms, even if those platforms don't earn a lot of extra revenue, but most game developers don't have these luxuries.
As for Adobe, Microsoft, and backwards compatibility, there are always trade-offs to be made with regard to supporting existing customers and ditching the old in favor of the new. These include not just technical issues, but money issues too. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback previous corporate decisions when one has the benefit of hindsight, but for those of us who are not prescient we make the best choices (or what we believe are the best choices) we can with the information that we have in the time available.
Well, if they were planning to sell the pilfered information then it helps if their...ahem...customers cannot simply help themselves.