The bill states that anyone can independently compile their own database, even if it contains the same information that is in someone else's database. It is not the information but its arrangement in a database that is being protected.
Chopping down a large part of a forest will destroy the habitat for animals and other species living there, some of which may be very rare.
Redwood forests are, if I remember correctly, post-climax ecosystems, which mean that they have less biodiversity than a forest that is between 5 and 20 years old. When a forest is logged, it opens spaces where new growth (read: stuff that animals eat). I am not advocating cutting down all of the redwoods, but selective logging (leaving the healthiest trees to reseed the area) will certainly increase the health of the local ecosystem in the long run.
The first amendment does not only apply to journalists. Freedom of the press is a right held by all Americans, and indeed to all people iff they can get away with it. The thing that sets Americans apart from the Afghans is the first amendment.
The first amendment, and specifically the freedom of the press, was a direct reaction to the Revolutionary War. The cause of the patriots depended very much on the underground pamphleteering of men like Thomas Paine. A major criticism of the freedom of the press was that it may have applied to all, but it was only practical to those who had a printing press.
Enter the internet. Now, one does not have to own a basement filling machine and have access to a nationwide distribution network to make his opinions known. A computer from Sears and an internet account are all that is necessary for nationwide coverage. This court case is merely affirming the founder's intentions. A person has the right to make his opinion home.
Which of course brings me to freedom of association (see Warez in the previous story)...
Just to set the record straight, I am not concerned about Big Brother getting intelligence; I am concerned that my neighbor who has a grudge against me will film me through my window while I am reading, for instance, the alt.2600 newsgroup and submitting that as evidence of my plans to subvert the government. Government intelligence agencies do have oversight. Private individuals do not have oversight, they are not accountable to anyone. Maybe I am not cool enough to distrust everything about the government, but I fear the tyrrany of the minority more than an inefficient bureaucracy.
Bruce decided that our government should be the primary distributors of crypto, and that it should arm private citizens with secure transmitting devices. At first, this sounds like a great idea: the masses rise up in defense of their great nation and take the evil barbarians by storm! The intelligence agencies would love it because they would now have information streaming in, and they would not have to go through the trouble of getting a warrant for a wiretap or bugs. However, the problem arises when you consider the government presumably giving the worlds most powerful crypto to Joe and Jane Citizen These are the people who the government would not trust with conventional military hardware, much less something with the capability to destroy people's lives by ultimately providing their closest held secrets to Washington, free of charge. It brings to mind several scenes from Orwell's 1984, where it was the 'private' citizen who turned in his fellows to Big Brother.
There's no way these newfangled 'computors' will ever get my business! Just try to imagine an economy fifty years from now where all business is handled by these here 'computors'. Why, it would be possible to run an entire business without stock or inventory, all you'd need is one of these 'computors' to calculate as if you had them. If people found out about the lack of real, material products, the economy would colapse!
You have to remember that economics is what drives these things. If there are yuppies or geeks out there who want to have "every feature but the kitchen sink" in their cellphone, PDA, or whatever, there will be a company out there that will be happy to take their money to implement these technologies.
No. The key disqualifier being wickedly ingenious...
The bill states that anyone can independently compile their own database, even if it contains the same information that is in someone else's database. It is not the information but its arrangement in a database that is being protected.
Redwood forests are, if I remember correctly, post-climax ecosystems, which mean that they have less biodiversity than a forest that is between 5 and 20 years old. When a forest is logged, it opens spaces where new growth (read: stuff that animals eat). I am not advocating cutting down all of the redwoods, but selective logging (leaving the healthiest trees to reseed the area) will certainly increase the health of the local ecosystem in the long run.
...or in this case, less than 8k
Originally, Halo was going to be for Macintosh until Bungie Software was forced to sell out to M$.
The first amendment, and specifically the freedom of the press, was a direct reaction to the Revolutionary War. The cause of the patriots depended very much on the underground pamphleteering of men like Thomas Paine. A major criticism of the freedom of the press was that it may have applied to all, but it was only practical to those who had a printing press.
Enter the internet. Now, one does not have to own a basement filling machine and have access to a nationwide distribution network to make his opinions known. A computer from Sears and an internet account are all that is necessary for nationwide coverage. This court case is merely affirming the founder's intentions. A person has the right to make his opinion home.
Which of course brings me to freedom of association (see Warez in the previous story)...
Just to set the record straight, I am not concerned about Big Brother getting intelligence; I am concerned that my neighbor who has a grudge against me will film me through my window while I am reading, for instance, the alt.2600 newsgroup and submitting that as evidence of my plans to subvert the government. Government intelligence agencies do have oversight. Private individuals do not have oversight, they are not accountable to anyone. Maybe I am not cool enough to distrust everything about the government, but I fear the tyrrany of the minority more than an inefficient bureaucracy.
Bruce decided that our government should be the primary distributors of crypto, and that it should arm private citizens with secure transmitting devices. At first, this sounds like a great idea: the masses rise up in defense of their great nation and take the evil barbarians by storm! The intelligence agencies would love it because they would now have information streaming in, and they would not have to go through the trouble of getting a warrant for a wiretap or bugs. However, the problem arises when you consider the government presumably giving the worlds most powerful crypto to Joe and Jane Citizen These are the people who the government would not trust with conventional military hardware, much less something with the capability to destroy people's lives by ultimately providing their closest held secrets to Washington, free of charge. It brings to mind several scenes from Orwell's 1984, where it was the 'private' citizen who turned in his fellows to Big Brother.
There's no way these newfangled 'computors' will ever get my business! Just try to imagine an economy fifty years from now where all business is handled by these here 'computors'. Why, it would be possible to run an entire business without stock or inventory, all you'd need is one of these 'computors' to calculate as if you had them. If people found out about the lack of real, material products, the economy would colapse!
You have to remember that economics is what drives these things. If there are yuppies or geeks out there who want to have "every feature but the kitchen sink" in their cellphone, PDA, or whatever, there will be a company out there that will be happy to take their money to implement these technologies.