He has given no evidence for his wild suppositions. Why do the British know more about tea than anyone?
What is it in English or British culture that makes them more knowledgable about tea than a group of people who have been exposed to it for more than 2,000 years? Experience generally does contribute to knowledge. If it did not, why would it matter that a family in France had produced the same wine for generations? If sophistication is the important factor, the English were the primitive culture when they first came in contact with China (this is why the Emperor refused to see the represtative of the Queen as barbarians were not admitted into the palace).
This seems to me a typical example of the boastful nature of Europeans in general. "We must be the best because we are English. There is no real reason for it, really, other than being English. We are English, so we are great." This sort of ego centric logic has no basis in reason. Then again, neither does much English common sense.
Finally, if Earl Grey is piss, then with all that precious knowledge of tea in which the English are possessed, why do the English still drink it? Claiming that you are not profane does not make you not so.
The moderators must have been English themselves to consider such a post insightful. (Score -1: Predictable) might be a fairer assessment. B-)
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything could not possibly be English tea. The English do not even know the first thing about good tea. The "black" (should be red but the English brew it too dark) tea that the English love so much is the worst variety of tea available.
Furthermore, the Chinese merchant who sold the first measure of red tea to the Portugese, sold them the lowest grade because he knew they were incapable of appreciating it, and it appears he has been demonstrated to be right. English teas such as Earl Grey also contain other contaminants (the English would call them flavors) that ruin the flavor of the tea.
Yet more barbaric is the fact that the English put lemon and/or milk and/or sugar in their tea. Here is a little hint: tea is to Eastern culture as wine is to Western culture. Try putting milk and sugar in your wine, and tell me how that tastes. One who needs milk or sugar or lemon cannot claim to enjoy the flavor of tea.
If something as crass and profane as English tea is The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, it is time to move to another universe! B-)
I totally agree that this is not a criminal matter and that guilt is not a factor in this situation. What the post had to do with however was
the parent's implication that she was guilty. I quote:
She also "participated" in the Kazaa file-swapping community but tried to prevent other people from accessing files on her computer, the documents state. So, while she was using it as a media player (*cough*) she was also "participating" (whatever that means). Just because she "tried to block it" doesn't excuse her.
So, my post was commenting on garcia's implication of guilt and not legal guilt. So, in addition to the fact that Jane Doe has not been proved to be guilty and the fact that whether or not she would be guilty is irrelevant to her lawsuit, Wylfing adds that she cannot possibly be guilty as it is a civil matter.
This is incorrect. The problem with the DMCA is that the subpoenas are issued without any sort of judicial review or oversight. The court clerks can issue these subpoenas. The RIAA would not be issuing so many if judges had to take time to evaluate the validity of their claims.
The only thing the RIAA has to "prove" when requesting a subpoena is that they are an authorized agent for the copyright holder. They do this by signing a piece of paper. There is nothing to insure that the claim is valid.
Here is what the Department of Injustice lawyers said in partial answer to question 9 in
this Slashdot interview (which everyone should read):
...it appears your interpretation of the language in 512 (c)(3)(vi) is in error. The phrase "under penalty of perjury," applies to the representation that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. It does not apply to the accuracy of the information about the alleged infringement. Quoting federal district Judge Bates in Verizon v. RIAA, The DMCA also requires a person seeking a subpoena to state, under penalty of perjury, that he is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, 257 F. Supp.2d 244, at 262. In other words, the perjury clause may be violated if you seek a DMCA subpoena without the authorization of the copyright owner.
So, basically, the RIAA can lie on their subpoenas and no one will check. They only have to claim that they are an authorized agent for an affected copyright holder to obtain a subpoena.
If that is not a violation of due process, or a lack of it, there is something very wrong with the law.
As a couple of others have pointed out, it does not matter if she is guilty or not. She could be the bloody Boston Strangler (and I am sure Jack Valenti would liken her to that) for all anybody should care. Rights are something that everybody has, and they have to be protected.
She is innocent until proven guilty (remember that phrase?). In other words, she is innocent until convicted in another trial with another jury completely unrelated to this.
The RIAA and the record industry as a whole are on trial here, not Jane Doe.
She should have your blessing, too, because she is fighting for your freedom from tyranny.
SCO and its lawyers also say that even if that were a workable solution, they would still want damages for the illegal use of their code in Linux until the "fix" was implemented. They say Unix code has been in Linux since 2001 and that vendors and end users have been profiting from this since then, and they want to be compensated for that. Who, they ask, would compensate them under this scenario.
Who is going to compensate us the users of Linux for all the stress we have suffered over SCO's fraudulent stock manipulation scam? Are they going to pay the entire Linux community all the profits they have made from their artificial inflations of their stock plus punitive damages?
Better yet: How about a class action suit against Canopy Group? They have made millions during the course of this scam while threatening busnesses and everyone's freedom. People of the World v. Canopy Group sounds nice. They should pay for our anguish with a multiple of the profit they made by these actions.
I am surprised that I did not see people talking about
this right off the bat. Superworms were a concept where worms/viruses would use a P2P type of organization to enhance their infections, remain undetected, and update themselves. In
the original paper I read (linked from
this Slasdot story), the author postulated that the eventual outcome would be to have two or maybe multiple competing worm distributors battling for control over the entire Internet. Sounds like something from James Bond.
Are we seeing the dawn of Superworms that update our computers and themselves without our knowledge or permission?
In the case of Windoze, I do not mind. Windoze users gave up their freedom when they paid Big Brother Bill to lobby Washington to take away their freedom. But a few or even one individual controlling the entire Internet and, by extrapolation, most if not all world communication: That is frightening.
Yeah, but MS is vulnerable to these exploits out of the box. Somebody usually has to put some time and/or effort in to root a Linux box. Windoze hands the keys to whatever stupid bot/virus is out there.
How many UNIX/Linux viruses have there been again? Was it 3 or 5? It certainly was not several per month like Windoze.
Windoze sucks for lots of reasons... Security is only one.
Okay, that is finally it.
I have been holding onto
this idea for too long.
In a way, I am surprised
that I have not seen or
read anything like this idea,
but here it goes:
What about Open Source/Free
Software code
having been used by
Micro$oft?
Given what is known about
Micro$oft, it is reasonable
to suspect that Micro$oft
has used Open Source/Free
Software code to enhance
its software.
What do you we
know about Micro$oft?
We know:
Micro$oft's programmers are lazy.
(What programmers are not?:)
Micro$oft's programmers are
subject to deadlines, and therefore
are probably more willing to cut
corners or engage in shady practices
to meet those deadlines.
Micro$oft's programmers have access
to all Open Source code (as does
everybody else).
Open Source/Free Software
is a great source (pun not intended)
of well documented, well written
code.
Micro$oft has a history of
appropriating other companies'
innovations.
Micro$oft is willing to break
the law to improve their bottom
line. (This has been amply
demonstrated by their activities
before, during, and after their
antitrust conviction.)
Micro$oft considers Open
Source/Free Software to be a direct
threat to its very existence.
Micro$oft is incapable of
competing with the speed and
quality that results from
Open Source/Free Software
programming methodologies.
Micro$oft's source code is
not subject to review outside
of the company. Appropriated
software in unaudited source
code may as well be written
from scratch for all the general
public knows.
Micro$oft did not apply to
the Open Source/Free Software
community for a licence to
use GPL'd software.
Given all this, it seems more
than reasonably likely that Micro$oft
has unlawfully appropriated Open
Source/Free Software code into its
operating system and tools.
This brings me to the question:
Can the Open Source/Free Software
community audit Micro$oft's source
code for GPL compliance?
If they did use GPL'd code, is
the Micro$oft now required to
Open Source all of the code that
depends on the appropriated code?
In this case, Micro$oft might
finally be able to acurately claim
that Open Source/Free Software is
"viral".
Can the Open Source/Free Software
community receive a billion dollars
from Micro$oft, as SCO is asking from
IBM? (A billion dollars would go a
long way for the EFF:)
Micro$oft may be using its closed
source approach to conceal illegal
activities. It seems it is time
for the Open Source/Free Software
community to ask Micro$oft to
demonstrate that their
code is free of taint before they
can continue to accuse Open
Source/Free Software programmers
of "stealing" code.
Is this a case of the pot calling
the kettle black? Or worse, the
pot calling the white porcelain cup
black?
It should be illegal for the NYTimes to prevent access to those articles. If they do not want to pay to host the sites, fine, they can give them to another archive that will, but that information is ours to access like it would be if we were to visit a library.
Part One: As far as what I have read about copyright law in the United States, there seem to be only two criminal offenses in
Title 17, the anticircumvention provisions in
Chapter 12 and the criminal penalties for "willful" copying of copyrighted works "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or" copying copyrighted works that "have a total retail value of more than $1,000" in
Chapter 5
(which is obviously arguable -- especially since the statute goes on to say that having committed the act does not prove guilt).
Unless there are other criminal offenses in Title 17, the vast majority of copyright law is civil and not criminal. How do you justify your use of public funds to help private corporations with their civil cases?
Part Two: Almost everything I have read about copyright, patent, and trademark law has stated that ideas are not property. Copyright, patent, and trademark are specific sets of privileges (not rights, as rights are given by God or nature and cannot be taken away by law) with respect to ideas, but are not ownership over those ideas per se.
If ideas are not property, then what is "intellectual property"? Can you justly call yourself "intellectual property" lawyers when you are actually intellectual privilege lawyers?
I'd dump my landline entirely and get another cell if I didn't need it for dial up internet, since I live in the sticks and there is no cable, no DSL, and the top speed for dialup is 28.8.
I had not realized that the US was such a technological backwater. Do you realize that Japan now has 8 to 12 Mbps Net connections for residential use in Tokyo?
Is not Internet service better than this in Mexico?
What are other people using for alternatives to their local telephone provider?
Why do you not just get a satellite dish? Is there a place on the continent of North America that is not covered? I do not know what the pricing for something like that might be, but it should not be too much more than ADSL in most places (that have it, that is).
What about a cellular Internet connection? That would probably be very expensive (if, of course, it is available), but it would remain connected wherever you might be.
...the dedicated readers are far superior from standpoint of their display quality.
I would like to see the ebook which has a display that beats my
Zaurus C-700. Is there one that gets 640x480? Most of those ebook devices don't fit in one's pocket, either, do they?
Granted, it's not your "average handheld," but it will be in a year or two.
This Cringely quote (from
this article) always struck me as strange:
Even Linus Torvalds is paid by Transmeta to be the God of Linux.
Now I know why. In this post Linus said:
Transmeta has always been very good at letting me spend even an
inordinate amount of time on Linux, but as a result I've been feeling a
little guilty at just how little "real work" I got done lately.
[emphasis mine]
Now I know why. Linus was working at transmeta because he was a god of the i386, not the god of Linux.
I agree completely. I feel bad for Daniel, but he should be sueing the RIAA for extortion. They call him a theif and start a lawsuit they know they will not win. If he defends, he is broken finantially. If he settles, he pays them for their attack. Now if we contribute money to him, we are also paying the RIAA to sue more students.
The IFPI
pulledthissamething
in Taiwan
(Slashdot's version),
and it turned out the
same way.
When are these highway robbers, these brigands, these privateers, these pirates, going to stop holding a legal gun to our heads to get our money?
If we are the pirates, why are they in possession of all the gold?
In my opinion, the RIAA should be sued for intimidating innocent students. Furthermore, the resulting money should be put into a legal defence fund specifically created to defend unfortunate victims of the RIAA/IFPI's reign of terror.
US residents all live behind the paper curtain. The tyranny of litigation has reached alarming levels.
Definitely. Qualcomm sucks. They are monopolists, and they have helped to destroy the cellphone market in the US. Why should their technology be allowed to be used elsewhere until they have decided to stop being so anti-competitive?
People who back freedom do not back monopolies. Does that mean the US government does not back freedom?
Since most (if not all) viruses are Windoze specific, why don't you institute a large Windoze surcharge (and double it if the user happens to be running IIS)?
This would mean that the people generating the traffic would be paying for it, not the people receiving it.
They are not suing you to win. They are suing you to sue you.
You may argue that IRC has substantial noninfringing uses, but so does P2P. P2P is a file sharing system, not a music/movie sharing system. The fact that it is perfectly legal to trade information and that there are more substantial noninfringing uses than infringing ones in P2P has not caused the RIAA or the MPAA to skip a beat.
Why would the RIAA/MPAA not use the same tactic against IRC? IRC is not decentralized. It needs servers to run. Not only that, but they would gain the side benefit of shutting down a major avenue of criticism against and communication about their activities.
I would not be even slightly surprised if the RIAA/MPAA were behind the DALnet DDoS attacks, anyway. If it is not them, then it has to be somebody that wants to silence communication. Why would script kiddies want to keep up a sustained attack? I am sure their friends would get bored of them bragging about it for more than a week, and then they would have to find a harder target to get more bragging rights. Long term communications breakdowns do not come from people who are cracking for entertainment. They come from people who want to silence others.
Another substantial element to this new development is that they are not sueing the people supplying the filesharing tools. They are talking about putting people who swap files in Federal Prison. It does not matter how many apps are available, how easy they are to use, or how well they mask your identity. If people are afraid of Federal Prison time, they probably will not use it. The threat of punishment is a deterrent. Look at all the
consequences
of the DMCA. Most of those are the result of fear about what might happen. If that is not enough, go to
ChillingEffects.org
to see the effects of cease and desist letters that have never even been exposed to the odor of a courtroom upon legitimate people engaged in legitimate activities.
Conclusion: Bill Clinton has scewed us once again. The law has to be changed.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this insightful?
He has given no evidence for his wild suppositions. Why do the British know more about tea than anyone?
What is it in English or British culture that makes them more knowledgable about tea than a group of people who have been exposed to it for more than 2,000 years? Experience generally does contribute to knowledge. If it did not, why would it matter that a family in France had produced the same wine for generations? If sophistication is the important factor, the English were the primitive culture when they first came in contact with China (this is why the Emperor refused to see the represtative of the Queen as barbarians were not admitted into the palace).
This seems to me a typical example of the boastful nature of Europeans in general. "We must be the best because we are English. There is no real reason for it, really, other than being English. We are English, so we are great." This sort of ego centric logic has no basis in reason. Then again, neither does much English common sense.
Finally, if Earl Grey is piss, then with all that precious knowledge of tea in which the English are possessed, why do the English still drink it? Claiming that you are not profane does not make you not so.
The moderators must have been English themselves to consider such a post insightful. (Score -1: Predictable) might be a fairer assessment. B-)
Perhaps your right. Perhaps Europeans just perceive color incorrectly. ;-)
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything could not possibly be English tea. The English do not even know the first thing about good tea. The "black" (should be red but the English brew it too dark) tea that the English love so much is the worst variety of tea available.
Furthermore, the Chinese merchant who sold the first measure of red tea to the Portugese, sold them the lowest grade because he knew they were incapable of appreciating it, and it appears he has been demonstrated to be right. English teas such as Earl Grey also contain other contaminants (the English would call them flavors) that ruin the flavor of the tea.
Yet more barbaric is the fact that the English put lemon and/or milk and/or sugar in their tea. Here is a little hint: tea is to Eastern culture as wine is to Western culture. Try putting milk and sugar in your wine, and tell me how that tastes. One who needs milk or sugar or lemon cannot claim to enjoy the flavor of tea.
If something as crass and profane as English tea is The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, it is time to move to another universe! B-)
I totally agree that this is not a criminal matter and that guilt is not a factor in this situation. What the post had to do with however was the parent's implication that she was guilty. I quote:
So, my post was commenting on garcia's implication of guilt and not legal guilt. So, in addition to the fact that Jane Doe has not been proved to be guilty and the fact that whether or not she would be guilty is irrelevant to her lawsuit, Wylfing adds that she cannot possibly be guilty as it is a civil matter.This is incorrect. The problem with the DMCA is that the subpoenas are issued without any sort of judicial review or oversight. The court clerks can issue these subpoenas. The RIAA would not be issuing so many if judges had to take time to evaluate the validity of their claims.
The only thing the RIAA has to "prove" when requesting a subpoena is that they are an authorized agent for the copyright holder. They do this by signing a piece of paper. There is nothing to insure that the claim is valid. Here is what the Department of Injustice lawyers said in partial answer to question 9 in this Slashdot interview (which everyone should read):
So, basically, the RIAA can lie on their subpoenas and no one will check. They only have to claim that they are an authorized agent for an affected copyright holder to obtain a subpoena.If that is not a violation of due process, or a lack of it, there is something very wrong with the law.
You have not heard much about the DMCA, have you?
As a couple of others have pointed out, it does not matter if she is guilty or not. She could be the bloody Boston Strangler (and I am sure Jack Valenti would liken her to that) for all anybody should care. Rights are something that everybody has, and they have to be protected.
She is innocent until proven guilty (remember that phrase?). In other words, she is innocent until convicted in another trial with another jury completely unrelated to this.
The RIAA and the record industry as a whole are on trial here, not Jane Doe.
She should have your blessing, too, because she is fighting for your freedom from tyranny.
eWEEK asked:
Who is going to compensate us the users of Linux for all the stress we have suffered over SCO's fraudulent stock manipulation scam? Are they going to pay the entire Linux community all the profits they have made from their artificial inflations of their stock plus punitive damages?Better yet: How about a class action suit against Canopy Group? They have made millions during the course of this scam while threatening busnesses and everyone's freedom. People of the World v. Canopy Group sounds nice. They should pay for our anguish with a multiple of the profit they made by these actions.
I thought this service was already available from another shady vendor.
I guess it is time to embrace, extend, and extinguish another competing solution.
It is interesting to see an oppressive government fighting for its freedom from an oppressive corporation.
It looks like both sides are getting a taste of their own medicine.
I am surprised that I did not see people talking about this right off the bat. Superworms were a concept where worms/viruses would use a P2P type of organization to enhance their infections, remain undetected, and update themselves. In the original paper I read (linked from this Slasdot story), the author postulated that the eventual outcome would be to have two or maybe multiple competing worm distributors battling for control over the entire Internet. Sounds like something from James Bond.
Are we seeing the dawn of Superworms that update our computers and themselves without our knowledge or permission?
In the case of Windoze, I do not mind. Windoze users gave up their freedom when they paid Big Brother Bill to lobby Washington to take away their freedom. But a few or even one individual controlling the entire Internet and, by extrapolation, most if not all world communication: That is frightening.
Yeah, but MS is vulnerable to these exploits out of the box. Somebody usually has to put some time and/or effort in to root a Linux box. Windoze hands the keys to whatever stupid bot/virus is out there.
How many UNIX/Linux viruses have there been again? Was it 3 or 5? It certainly was not several per month like Windoze.
Windoze sucks for lots of reasons... Security is only one.
Okay, that is finally it. I have been holding onto this idea for too long. In a way, I am surprised that I have not seen or read anything like this idea, but here it goes:
What about Open Source/Free Software code having been used by Micro$oft?
Given what is known about Micro$oft, it is reasonable to suspect that Micro$oft has used Open Source/Free Software code to enhance its software.
What do you we know about Micro$oft? We know:
Given all this, it seems more than reasonably likely that Micro$oft has unlawfully appropriated Open Source/Free Software code into its operating system and tools.
This brings me to the question:
If they did use GPL'd code, is the Micro$oft now required to Open Source all of the code that depends on the appropriated code? In this case, Micro$oft might finally be able to acurately claim that Open Source/Free Software is "viral".Can the Open Source/Free Software community receive a billion dollars from Micro$oft, as SCO is asking from IBM? (A billion dollars would go a long way for the EFF :)
Micro$oft may be using its closed source approach to conceal illegal activities. It seems it is time for the Open Source/Free Software community to ask Micro$oft to demonstrate that their code is free of taint before they can continue to accuse Open Source/Free Software programmers of "stealing" code.
Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Or worse, the pot calling the white porcelain cup black?
It should be illegal for the NYTimes to prevent access to those articles. If they do not want to pay to host the sites, fine, they can give them to another archive that will, but that information is ours to access like it would be if we were to visit a library.
This question has two parts:
Part One: As far as what I have read about copyright law in the United States, there seem to be only two criminal offenses in Title 17, the anticircumvention provisions in Chapter 12 and the criminal penalties for "willful" copying of copyrighted works "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or" copying copyrighted works that "have a total retail value of more than $1,000" in Chapter 5 (which is obviously arguable -- especially since the statute goes on to say that having committed the act does not prove guilt).
Unless there are other criminal offenses in Title 17, the vast majority of copyright law is civil and not criminal. How do you justify your use of public funds to help private corporations with their civil cases?
Part Two: Almost everything I have read about copyright, patent, and trademark law has stated that ideas are not property. Copyright, patent, and trademark are specific sets of privileges (not rights, as rights are given by God or nature and cannot be taken away by law) with respect to ideas, but are not ownership over those ideas per se.
If ideas are not property, then what is "intellectual property"? Can you justly call yourself "intellectual property" lawyers when you are actually intellectual privilege lawyers?
I had not realized that the US was such a technological backwater. Do you realize that Japan now has 8 to 12 Mbps Net connections for residential use in Tokyo?
Is not Internet service better than this in Mexico?
Why do you not just get a satellite dish? Is there a place on the continent of North America that is not covered? I do not know what the pricing for something like that might be, but it should not be too much more than ADSL in most places (that have it, that is).
What about a cellular Internet connection? That would probably be very expensive (if, of course, it is available), but it would remain connected wherever you might be.
I would like to see the ebook which has a display that beats my Zaurus C-700. Is there one that gets 640x480? Most of those ebook devices don't fit in one's pocket, either, do they?
Granted, it's not your "average handheld," but it will be in a year or two.
This Cringely quote (from this article) always struck me as strange:
Now I know why. In this post Linus said: Now I know why. Linus was working at transmeta because he was a god of the i386, not the god of Linux.I agree completely. I feel bad for Daniel, but he should be sueing the RIAA for extortion. They call him a theif and start a lawsuit they know they will not win. If he defends, he is broken finantially. If he settles, he pays them for their attack. Now if we contribute money to him, we are also paying the RIAA to sue more students.
The IFPI pulled this same thing in Taiwan (Slashdot's version), and it turned out the same way. When are these highway robbers, these brigands, these privateers, these pirates, going to stop holding a legal gun to our heads to get our money?
If we are the pirates, why are they in possession of all the gold?
In my opinion, the RIAA should be sued for intimidating innocent students. Furthermore, the resulting money should be put into a legal defence fund specifically created to defend unfortunate victims of the RIAA/IFPI's reign of terror.
US residents all live behind the paper curtain. The tyranny of litigation has reached alarming levels.
War Is Safety
Freedom Is Terrorism
Ignorance Is Good-Consumerism
ps: The "Lameness filter" is lame. Maybe I want to use all caps since the thing I was quoting started out that way.
Definitely. Qualcomm sucks. They are monopolists, and they have helped to destroy the cellphone market in the US. Why should their technology be allowed to be used elsewhere until they have decided to stop being so anti-competitive?
People who back freedom do not back monopolies. Does that mean the US government does not back freedom?
Since most (if not all) viruses are Windoze specific, why don't you institute a large Windoze surcharge (and double it if the user happens to be running IIS)?
This would mean that the people generating the traffic would be paying for it, not the people receiving it.
Catbeller said:
You may argue that IRC has substantial noninfringing uses, but so does P2P. P2P is a file sharing system, not a music/movie sharing system. The fact that it is perfectly legal to trade information and that there are more substantial noninfringing uses than infringing ones in P2P has not caused the RIAA or the MPAA to skip a beat.Why would the RIAA/MPAA not use the same tactic against IRC? IRC is not decentralized. It needs servers to run. Not only that, but they would gain the side benefit of shutting down a major avenue of criticism against and communication about their activities.
I would not be even slightly surprised if the RIAA/MPAA were behind the DALnet DDoS attacks, anyway. If it is not them, then it has to be somebody that wants to silence communication. Why would script kiddies want to keep up a sustained attack? I am sure their friends would get bored of them bragging about it for more than a week, and then they would have to find a harder target to get more bragging rights. Long term communications breakdowns do not come from people who are cracking for entertainment. They come from people who want to silence others.
Another substantial element to this new development is that they are not sueing the people supplying the filesharing tools. They are talking about putting people who swap files in Federal Prison. It does not matter how many apps are available, how easy they are to use, or how well they mask your identity. If people are afraid of Federal Prison time, they probably will not use it. The threat of punishment is a deterrent. Look at all the consequences of the DMCA. Most of those are the result of fear about what might happen. If that is not enough, go to ChillingEffects.org to see the effects of cease and desist letters that have never even been exposed to the odor of a courtroom upon legitimate people engaged in legitimate activities.
Conclusion: Bill Clinton has scewed us once again. The law has to be changed.
Is it just me, or did someone else find it surprising that the NYTimes' site did not display the registration page this time?
Does this mean that NYTimes has realized that keeping tabs on customers makes customers angry?
Or does this mean that they are using a more insidious method of data collection?
I guess it is official, then.