It would be much more expensive to train people in Linux, in the short run, anyway. In the long run it would probably be a good thing for the country, as it would probably be enough to kill the country's dependence on Windows (half a million users is a good critical mass). But that's more of a political decision than a strictly economic one. Yes, it would benefit most people, but it would hurt others.
I don't know about you, but I've never eaten a job. If you're doing it for the starving American families, why not just give them the food or money directly?
This is almost 1/2 a trillion dollars that won't be spent on "smart" bombs.
1/2 a billion dollars, right?
Anyway, wouldn't you rather the military use expensive "smart" bombs than cheap "dumb" ones? It's not like a lack of funding is going to stop them from entering into conflicts in the first place.
If you are interested in storing Amazon.com Properties for longer than 24 hours, you may only do so with the written consent of Amazon.com. If you fail to obtain written consent, Amazon.com reserves the right to take legal action.
Sorry, I'd rather scrape the data. Then I can keep it for longer than 24 hours.
I'm surprised there's no anger, but maybe this school is really cool about such things. Maybe they wouldn't have been angry if a student did this and then published it in the school newspaper... You're probably right, though...
Anyone suing someone over a DMCA violation has to pay $1 after they've owned the protection system for 50 years. The federal government has to pay $1 after holding an enemy combatant in prison without trial for 50 years. The RIAA has to pay $1 after ruining an innocent college student's life for 50 years. Spammers have to pay people that they spam $1 after spamming them for 50 years.
Just think of all the dollars we'll be getting 50 years from now!
talk about a huge amount of "content" that clearly has no commercial value but is still really interesting, fun, and/or enlightening
If it's interesting, fun, and/or enlightening, then it most certainly does have commercial value.
I doubt any software is going to have any value at all 50 years from now. Actually, that was the whole point that Eldred was making in the supreme court case, wasn't it?
Why does a newspaper article need to be copyrighted for more than 6 months?
As for the copyright office receiving thousands of submissions per day, they'd also be receiving thousands of dollars per day. Surely a worker being paid $10/hour could handle 10 submissions during each of those hours.
Why 20 years? I'd require registration immediately (and give 6 months grace period). Why should the shit that people spew on Slashdot (or anywhere else on the Internet) be protected for more than 6 months?
No harm done if your little girl's picture, name, address and psychological information are made available to all?
Correct. The mere availability of information does not cause harm. Now if someone used that information in a way which caused harm (for instance, if someone kidnapped my daughter using her address information), then there would be a case for negligence.
In the mean time you could try emotional distress, but that's likely to fail.
You could easily run what you need on a Celeron 500Mhz. In fact, even that would be somewhat of an overkill. Get at least 512 megs of ram. Even a gig isn't so bad. Ram is cheap.
If you'd like to play with failover, buy two of them.
Then with the $2000 you have left, buy yourself a really nice laptop. For, umm, support purposes.
I agree with you completely, but at the same time, what do you expect? If you want someone competent working on your network, you have to pay them. Cut the budget by $17 million, and devastation will result.
It's time to introduce some level of legal accountibility for institutions which allow sensative data to be stolen.
I mean, this is *negligence* or the sort that could easily result in at least a major violation of privacy, or at worst a stolen identity or blackmail.
Companies are already accountable for negligence. But in order to win a case, you have to show damages. I don't see any damages caused by this particular negligence.
The newspapers never admitted to stealing the Watergate documents. They at least claimed that the documents were stolen by an anonymous informant. This case is different, because the paper admits to committing the felony itself, not through an anonymous informant.
I see no reason to hold this paper to any different of a standard than Kevin Mitnick. Personally I'd like to see all hackers pardoned, but until then the law is the law.
I agree that it is the responsibility of every community to support its local library, but many communities are disadvantaged and rely on state/Federal support to help with library service.
Federal funding is given as a percentage of spending. So communities which are disadvantaged and cannot afford a library, such as my own community, probably still can't afford one with federal support. This federal funding is taking money out of disadvantaged communities and giving it to those communities which can already afford massive libraries with lots of computers and an advanced network.
I just don't think that's fair. I am opposed to the CIPA, but I am also opposed to all federal funding for libraries. State funding perhaps could be justified. It would depend on the specifics of the program. Certainly if a library received funding from the state, it should be required to allow all state residents to become library members. Or I guess if the funding was tied to interlibrary loan or something... I don't know. I'd have to see the specific program.
I can just imagine if the library had to close and all 55,000 library users were to arrive at Barnes and Noble to read their favorite books. I doubt very much that B&N would allow them through the door.
As the poster has said, 55,000 patrons don't even show up once a year, let alone all at once. I'm guessing if B&N did get such a demand they'd probably wind up making enough money selling coffee, snacks, and books to build a bigger store to accomodate the extra patronage.
Maybe not. Maybe those 55,000 patrons would lose their library. But if they did lose their library, their property taxes (or rent) would go down, and with the money we save federally we could lower the FICA tax. Personally I think it's a good trade. But maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.
Our services are FREE so that the poor and underprivileged can have access.
So let the poor and underprivileged continue to have free access. Charge the non-poor (which is probably the vast majority of people who visit your library).
Not all 55,000 patrons are active at least once a year(for some it might be 5 years before they visit the library again). Are you willing to pay a membership and an admission fee for any place else you want to go that is also suppsed to be free?
No. I'd be content with just closing down the library. I'll go to Barnes and Noble and read there for free.
Charging for each piece of material loaned would be defeating the purpose of having a free library wouldn't it?
Perhaps. That's up to you to decide. The library benefits your community. Not your state, and certainly not the United States as a whole. The library should therefore be paid for by your community. If the community decides that the value of its property will be raised enough by having a free library, then they can pay for it with their property taxes. If the community doesn't believe that's the case, then they shouldn't have a free library. The people who actually use the library should pay.
Our service population is about 62,000. If we charge for all these services as you suggest, we lose all funding.
You wouldn't lose municipal funding, which is the only funding a municipal library should get.
Would it be fair to the people of the community to have to close this library? NO.
Sure it would be. Like I said, your community is fortunate to have a library in the first place. Is it fair to the people of my community that your library gets federal funding and my community doesn't even have a library in the first place? NO.
Federal library funds benefit the rich communities that can afford to have libraries in the first place, at the expense of the poor communities like mine that can't.
I see. So you'd only have to charge them $10/year each.
I invite you to come look at our budget. YOU can offer your opinions on where to cut back.
Where are you located? Or are you going to send the budget to me?
We have had almost 250,000 people through the doors and have circulated almost 3,000,000 items in the last year.
Wow. Just think. If you charged just 0.15 per item you'd have made up for losing all your federal funding. If you charged a $0.50 admission fee at the door you'd likewise have made up for losing your funding.
If your patrons aren't willing to pay, then you should close your operations. If they are willing to pay, then you shouldn't need help from the federal government. Your town is fortunate enough to have a library. Some towns, like my own, don't even have one. So before you complain maybe you should think about how good you have it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I am too (Firebird 0.6). But I'm using it on Windows.
It would be much more expensive to train people in Linux, in the short run, anyway. In the long run it would probably be a good thing for the country, as it would probably be enough to kill the country's dependence on Windows (half a million users is a good critical mass). But that's more of a political decision than a strictly economic one. Yes, it would benefit most people, but it would hurt others.
At least none of your beloved Iraqis got killed when they landed in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
I don't know about you, but I've never eaten a job. If you're doing it for the starving American families, why not just give them the food or money directly?
This is almost 1/2 a trillion dollars that won't be spent on "smart" bombs.
1/2 a billion dollars, right?
Anyway, wouldn't you rather the military use expensive "smart" bombs than cheap "dumb" ones? It's not like a lack of funding is going to stop them from entering into conflicts in the first place.
C'mon, admit it. You posted that using IE on Windows.
Precisely the point. You'd rather have the money. A company like Disney would rather have the rights.
So this is a win/win situation. I get the money, and Disney gets the rights.
You don't have permission to distribute scraped data
Facts can't be copyrighted.
As for what they mean, I'm sure when I start running a price comparison site or a site competing with Amazon they'll mean one thing: you gotta go.
If you are interested in storing Amazon.com Properties for longer than 24 hours, you may only do so with the written consent of Amazon.com. If you fail to obtain written consent, Amazon.com reserves the right to take legal action.
Sorry, I'd rather scrape the data. Then I can keep it for longer than 24 hours.
I'm surprised there's no anger, but maybe this school is really cool about such things. Maybe they wouldn't have been angry if a student did this and then published it in the school newspaper... You're probably right, though...
Anyone suing someone over a DMCA violation has to pay $1 after they've owned the protection system for 50 years. The federal government has to pay $1 after holding an enemy combatant in prison without trial for 50 years. The RIAA has to pay $1 after ruining an innocent college student's life for 50 years. Spammers have to pay people that they spam $1 after spamming them for 50 years.
Just think of all the dollars we'll be getting 50 years from now!
talk about a huge amount of "content" that clearly has no commercial value but is still really interesting, fun, and/or enlightening
If it's interesting, fun, and/or enlightening, then it most certainly does have commercial value.
I doubt any software is going to have any value at all 50 years from now. Actually, that was the whole point that Eldred was making in the supreme court case, wasn't it?
Is it worth it? I'd rather get $1 today than public domain 50 years from now. In 50 years I'll either be old or dead.
Why does a newspaper article need to be copyrighted for more than 6 months?
As for the copyright office receiving thousands of submissions per day, they'd also be receiving thousands of dollars per day. Surely a worker being paid $10/hour could handle 10 submissions during each of those hours.
Why 20 years? I'd require registration immediately (and give 6 months grace period). Why should the shit that people spew on Slashdot (or anywhere else on the Internet) be protected for more than 6 months?
No harm done if your little girl's picture, name, address and psychological information are made available to all?
Correct. The mere availability of information does not cause harm. Now if someone used that information in a way which caused harm (for instance, if someone kidnapped my daughter using her address information), then there would be a case for negligence.
In the mean time you could try emotional distress, but that's likely to fail.
recieving known stolen goods is a crime.
Perhaps they didn't receive the stolen goods themselves, but rather photocopies of the stolen goods.
First because if the press was convicted for this sort of crime, nobody would ever report this sort of crime could happen.
Yes, and that's a good reason to get rid of hacking crimes completely. There should be no distinction between organized press and unorganized press.
What they did was nowhere near what Kevin Mitnik did.
I think it was rather similar. In both cases, no one got hurt.
You could easily run what you need on a Celeron 500Mhz. In fact, even that would be somewhat of an overkill. Get at least 512 megs of ram. Even a gig isn't so bad. Ram is cheap.
If you'd like to play with failover, buy two of them.
Then with the $2000 you have left, buy yourself a really nice laptop. For, umm, support purposes.
I agree with you completely, but at the same time, what do you expect? If you want someone competent working on your network, you have to pay them. Cut the budget by $17 million, and devastation will result.
But the moment a student would try the same thing, he would be expelled.
What are you suggesting, that they expel the newspaper? If they're not a student, they can't be expelled.
It's time to introduce some level of legal accountibility for institutions which allow sensative data to be stolen.
I mean, this is *negligence* or the sort that could easily result in at least a major violation of privacy, or at worst a stolen identity or blackmail.
Companies are already accountable for negligence. But in order to win a case, you have to show damages. I don't see any damages caused by this particular negligence.
The newspapers never admitted to stealing the Watergate documents. They at least claimed that the documents were stolen by an anonymous informant. This case is different, because the paper admits to committing the felony itself, not through an anonymous informant.
I see no reason to hold this paper to any different of a standard than Kevin Mitnick. Personally I'd like to see all hackers pardoned, but until then the law is the law.
I agree that it is the responsibility of every community to support its local library, but many communities are disadvantaged and rely on state/Federal support to help with library service.
Federal funding is given as a percentage of spending. So communities which are disadvantaged and cannot afford a library, such as my own community, probably still can't afford one with federal support. This federal funding is taking money out of disadvantaged communities and giving it to those communities which can already afford massive libraries with lots of computers and an advanced network.
I just don't think that's fair. I am opposed to the CIPA, but I am also opposed to all federal funding for libraries. State funding perhaps could be justified. It would depend on the specifics of the program. Certainly if a library received funding from the state, it should be required to allow all state residents to become library members. Or I guess if the funding was tied to interlibrary loan or something... I don't know. I'd have to see the specific program.
I can just imagine if the library had to close and all 55,000 library users were to arrive at Barnes and Noble to read their favorite books. I doubt very much that B&N would allow them through the door.
As the poster has said, 55,000 patrons don't even show up once a year, let alone all at once. I'm guessing if B&N did get such a demand they'd probably wind up making enough money selling coffee, snacks, and books to build a bigger store to accomodate the extra patronage.
Maybe not. Maybe those 55,000 patrons would lose their library. But if they did lose their library, their property taxes (or rent) would go down, and with the money we save federally we could lower the FICA tax. Personally I think it's a good trade. But maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.
Our services are FREE so that the poor and underprivileged can have access.
So let the poor and underprivileged continue to have free access. Charge the non-poor (which is probably the vast majority of people who visit your library).
Not all 55,000 patrons are active at least once a year(for some it might be 5 years before they visit the library again). Are you willing to pay a membership and an admission fee for any place else you want to go that is also suppsed to be free?
No. I'd be content with just closing down the library. I'll go to Barnes and Noble and read there for free.
Charging for each piece of material loaned would be defeating the purpose of having a free library wouldn't it?
Perhaps. That's up to you to decide. The library benefits your community. Not your state, and certainly not the United States as a whole. The library should therefore be paid for by your community. If the community decides that the value of its property will be raised enough by having a free library, then they can pay for it with their property taxes. If the community doesn't believe that's the case, then they shouldn't have a free library. The people who actually use the library should pay.
Our service population is about 62,000. If we charge for all these services as you suggest, we lose all funding.
You wouldn't lose municipal funding, which is the only funding a municipal library should get.
Would it be fair to the people of the community to have to close this library? NO.
Sure it would be. Like I said, your community is fortunate to have a library in the first place. Is it fair to the people of my community that your library gets federal funding and my community doesn't even have a library in the first place? NO.
Federal library funds benefit the rich communities that can afford to have libraries in the first place, at the expense of the poor communities like mine that can't.
We have approximately 55,000 patrons registered.
I see. So you'd only have to charge them $10/year each.
I invite you to come look at our budget. YOU can offer your opinions on where to cut back.
Where are you located? Or are you going to send the budget to me?
We have had almost 250,000 people through the doors and have circulated almost 3,000,000 items in the last year.
Wow. Just think. If you charged just 0.15 per item you'd have made up for losing all your federal funding. If you charged a $0.50 admission fee at the door you'd likewise have made up for losing your funding.
If your patrons aren't willing to pay, then you should close your operations. If they are willing to pay, then you shouldn't need help from the federal government. Your town is fortunate enough to have a library. Some towns, like my own, don't even have one. So before you complain maybe you should think about how good you have it.