The anti-spam law was limited in scope for constitutional reasons. The bill focused on content such as obscenity which could be regulated anyway based on established legal principles.
I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.
Here are some legal concepts I've heard people trying to use to support anti-spam legsilation.
"Captive Audience": This concept, though related to the issue at hand, does not support anti-spam legislation. The fact that you receive the message in your inbox and then have to delete it is directly analogous to the snail-mail equivalent. Just because you have to look away when someone wears a "Fuck the Draft" jacket that offends you doesn't mean your rights have been infringed.
"Time Place and Manner": This legal concept in all likelihood does not apply here. Though it's true that mass spam creates a nuissance on the part of the receiver, laws that inhibit speech need to allow an alternative method of expression. A blanket spam ban would offer no alternatives.
I was reading the news on the Open Office site, and noticed the "Bugs and Issues" link. I clicked on it, and it gave me the following message: "Error occurred while accessing content."
I'm still going to grab the new version, but I'm not sure it's a good sign that their bug list has bugs;)
Determining whether a player is a human or a computer is a very real problem that has been researched extensively.
Take the Internet Chess Club, for example. If you ever wanted to watch grandmasters play live, or even play against one, that's where you go. They offer a 7-day free trial (actually, it's 14 because you can extend your trial for another 7 days). Anyway, computer assistance is the most problematic form of abuse on the service. Normally, if you're going to be using a computer chess program to assist you while playing, you are required to create a "computer account". The ICC allows computer players on their service because it provides an inexhaustible source of very strong opponents. In fact, if you log on and take a look at the highest rated players, you might be surprised to find a long list of computers before a single grandmaster. Keep in mind, though, that we're talking about playing conditions very different from the famous Kasparov Vs. Deep Blue Games. The computers on ICC have extraordinarily high ratings due to the very fast time controls (most common are either 1 or 5 minutes per player per game), and the rating boost they get from all the games they win against weaker players--after all, they're practically playing 24 hours a day!
Now, I have no idea how many players are cheating by using a computer chess program, but I bet that many have. Imagine playing a game against a high rated opponent--meaning that, if you win, you'll gain a load of rating points--and having a grandmaster strength player at your disposal. Wouldn't you be tempted to ask for hints every once in a while;)?
The ICC has released a statement regarding dishonest computer assistance. In it they explain that they have a program that analyizes games to detect computer-like play. Of course, they protect the details of how the system works to prevent anybody from disguising their abuse. Also, they have chat-bot online all the time to whome you report any suspected cheating. Although, I imagine the majority of those reports are from unskilled players like myself after losing to a pro;)
It's considerably cheaper to manufacture two small screens rather than one large one. As the area of the screen increases, certain factors, such as errors in the material, dramatically increase cost.
Personally, I like this design. It provides a comparatively large viewing area for a (hopefully) low cost. The two screens instead of one idea wouldn't work for any other device, but for a book it makes perfect sense!
Hopefully that offensive green color won't be a problem.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The correct analogy would be a law that prohibits political activists from knocking on the door for the reason that it's a bother to turn them away.
IAAL
The anti-spam law was limited in scope for constitutional reasons. The bill focused on content such as obscenity which could be regulated anyway based on established legal principles.
I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.
Here are some legal concepts I've heard people trying to use to support anti-spam legsilation.
"Captive Audience": This concept, though related to the issue at hand, does not support anti-spam legislation. The fact that you receive the message in your inbox and then have to delete it is directly analogous to the snail-mail equivalent. Just because you have to look away when someone wears a "Fuck the Draft" jacket that offends you doesn't mean your rights have been infringed.
"Time Place and Manner": This legal concept in all likelihood does not apply here. Though it's true that mass spam creates a nuissance on the part of the receiver, laws that inhibit speech need to allow an alternative method of expression. A blanket spam ban would offer no alternatives.
I was reading the news on the Open Office site, and noticed the "Bugs and Issues" link. I clicked on it, and it gave me the following message: "Error occurred while accessing content."
;)
I'm still going to grab the new version, but I'm not sure it's a good sign that their bug list has bugs
Determining whether a player is a human or a computer is a very real problem that has been researched extensively.
Take the Internet Chess Club, for example. If you ever wanted to watch grandmasters play live, or even play against one, that's where you go. They offer a 7-day free trial (actually, it's 14 because you can extend your trial for another 7 days). Anyway, computer assistance is the most problematic form of abuse on the service. Normally, if you're going to be using a computer chess program to assist you while playing, you are required to create a "computer account". The ICC allows computer players on their service because it provides an inexhaustible source of very strong opponents. In fact, if you log on and take a look at the highest rated players, you might be surprised to find a long list of computers before a single grandmaster. Keep in mind, though, that we're talking about playing conditions very different from the famous Kasparov Vs. Deep Blue Games. The computers on ICC have extraordinarily high ratings due to the very fast time controls (most common are either 1 or 5 minutes per player per game), and the rating boost they get from all the games they win against weaker players--after all, they're practically playing 24 hours a day!
Now, I have no idea how many players are cheating by using a computer chess program, but I bet that many have. Imagine playing a game against a high rated opponent--meaning that, if you win, you'll gain a load of rating points--and having a grandmaster strength player at your disposal. Wouldn't you be tempted to ask for hints every once in a while;)?
The ICC has released a statement regarding dishonest computer assistance. In it they explain that they have a program that analyizes games to detect computer-like play. Of course, they protect the details of how the system works to prevent anybody from disguising their abuse. Also, they have chat-bot online all the time to whome you report any suspected cheating. Although, I imagine the majority of those reports are from unskilled players like myself after losing to a pro;)
It's considerably cheaper to manufacture two small screens rather than one large one. As the area of the screen increases, certain factors, such as errors in the material, dramatically increase cost.
Personally, I like this design. It provides a comparatively large viewing area for a (hopefully) low cost. The two screens instead of one idea wouldn't work for any other device, but for a book it makes perfect sense!
Hopefully that offensive green color won't be a problem.:)