Sexuality in advertising is intended to tantalize you so you pay attention to the ad; it is a means to an end. Although it *is* a means of control, it is not there for its own sake. Pornography, on the other hand, exists for the purpose of titillation -- an end in itself. Advertisers use sexuality to dangle a carrot in front of your face; it's a tool for that purpose. There's a major difference between sexuality and pornography. I seriously can't recall seeing any ads with pornographic content (except for those on pornographic web sites, but I never go to those anyway:-P ). I have seen many ads with violent content, however.
...but why does it seem like most internet censorship debates, and all filtering software, is particularly concerned with porn? While I despise censorship, if people want to get all in a huff about porn, that's fine with me -- it's their opinion. But at the same time, why do we see so little resistance to other forms of traffic, such as violence on the web, or hate speech. Yes, I understand that there is a market for porn-filtering, and that's why all the filtering software is designed to block porn -- but why is there (apparently) no market for violence-filtering software (for example)? If a school doesn't want its students to see bare breasts, they'll get NetNanny or whatever, but that won't stop me from accessing some gruesome sites with photos of corpses, or cnn.com, for that matter, with its coverage of some foreign war.
The whole filtering debate is useless, as everything is shades of gray -- like the poster alluded to, showing a baby breast-feeding is not porn to most people. I'll bet it is to someone, though. Violent scenes could essentially be porn to someone; pornography is not about genitals and breasts and butts -- it's about lasciviousness, gluttony, and passivity (not necessarily bad things in themselves, IMHO). The reason you see governments, big business, the wealthy, the powerful, and elite having problems with porn is that they have a hard time using it to control you (well, that's not totally true, but mostly, I think). Violence in the news, on the other hand is a very effective tool for them to get their way (which is usually to fill their pocketbooks), by teaching the public their own filtered view of reality.
I'll try to make this on topic again by saying that you, the poster, as well as anyone else who cares about their freedom, have a duty to NOT participate in such filtering nonsense. Anyone who would be harmed by certain content on the internet should not be using it without parental guidance anyway; filtering software is NOT a suitable replacement for a human being. It is far worse, IMO, for benign content to be accidentally blocked that it is for a child/sensitive viewer to see something that might prod their value system a little bit (heaven forbid!).
Well, I wouldn't recommend that anyone *really* count on us -- if you want serious, permanent, commercial hosting forever,then you certainly should go elsewhere. However, we'll be up and running for at least two more years. As far as the university's AUP, I already said in my original post that we can't help you if it's for commercial purposes. If you just want some free web/email hosting for fun, though, we're available. I've read the university's AUP 7326 times, and I know the guys who are in charge of enforcing it -- as long as it's not pr0n, and not commercial, it's all good. Whatever.. yeah, I admit this is a shameless plug... oh well.;-)
If your site is non-profit, non-pr0n, and doesn't get spectacular amounts of traffic, we'll do it for free at schmim.com. We have (currently) three computers on a university (i.e., FAST) connection and do free email/webhosting/etc. for the fun of it. Our uptime is virtually 100%. Send an email to imran@schmim.com or glenn@schmim.com and we'll talk. (The same goes for everyone who reads this)
This may not be practical for high school classes, but I just took a class at IU Bloomington called "Computers in Education". It was basically just a class for education majors to familiarize themselves with Macs, but the coolest thing we did as part of our grade was to volunteer our help. We could choose to either serve as a support tech for a local retirement home, or to help some (very needy and poor) grade schoolers set up a LAN at a local school. My friend and I were the only ones to choose to help at the school, so we basically ended up building them a new server (a linux box! yay!), and helping the kids get their LAN up and running for games, file sharing, etc. It seemed like a drag at first, but it ended up being one of the most rewarding things I've done in a long time. Yes, computer science is by nature a technical area of study, but to add the human element and actually gain experience working with people and working on real implementations is priceless. Again, I don't know how well this activity would translate to high schoolers (maturity, experience, time constraints, etc.), but it might be worth a try. There's more to computers than coding for 36 hours straight -- the kids might find it fun and worthwhile to actually help some people out by sharing their skills.
Ok, according to Netcraft, www.hotmail.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 SSLeay/0.9.0b on FreeBSD. Since MS is starting to integrate its Win2k servers, when would that change show up? I guess my question is, why does Netcraft claim it's running FreeBSD when it is running both?
I agree with you... but $3-$4 a song?! If I created a 12-song CD (the usual amount of tracks on an album), that would $36-$48, not including shipping & handling. There's no way I would pay that much for a CD, even if I loved every second of it. If anything, that would make me turn to napster even more so than I do now (which is not that much).
Useless, possibly interesting...
on
Geek Flavor
·
· Score: 2
Here are the top referrers to the site. You can get all these stats by going to geekflavor.com/stats. Oh, and although ssh is apparently down, ftp is still up.
It's that bastard Signal 11! Or is it Signai 11? Signal II? SignaI ll? Exploiting the L/l/I/i/|/1 similarity is among the lowest of the low. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Although I agree that in terms of ease of use, reusing code in the Microsoft tradition is a good thing, I'm somewhat worried about having too much of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but increased standardization and code re-use eventually just leads to a more homogenized user experience. If Miguel got his wish, wouldn't we (non-programmers, that is) be more tied down to the standard framework? Isn't it dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket like that?
Sorry if this makes no sense; I just got to work, and it's early.;-)
Sure, maybe we are "stressed" these days, and feel tied to jobs from which we can't escape -- but think about how great it is that these technologies allow us to have careers where we don't have to shovel coal 22 hours a day. I moan about my job sometimes, but if I had to work in the meat-packing industry in turn of the century Chicago, I would kill to be tied down to a tech job.
Don't smack my karma down, please -- I'm just playing devil's advocate.;-)
Just like many warez d00dz argue that their existence is what pushes the demand for increasing bandwidth and computing power, couldn't the cracker argue that A) their existence pushes the demand for increasingly better security models, and B) they keep many network admins employed?
I do tech support, and while I'll never stop complaining about all the users I have to deal with, at the same time I realize that without them, I'd be out of a job.
Ok, if hacking into a government agency is a felony (certainly), then it would be murder charge. I stand corrected -- I must have glanced over that part.
A crime, less severe than murder, involving the wrongful but non-malicious (see malice) killing of another person. There are various categories of manslaughter. In some states voluntary manslaughter is a killing in a sudden rage such as occurs during a quarrel and fight, and involuntary manslaughter is a killing with no intention to cause serious bodily harm, such as by acting without proper caution.
However, I think you could make a case for "reckless homocide," as "reckless" is defined:
"Reckless" can mean anything from "careless and inattentive" or "indifferent to consequences" to a "willful disregard for danger to the life or safety of others."
So of which one the cracker would be guilty depends on the circumstances and/or intent of the cracker. Murder doesn't seem to apply, given the definition:
"Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being that is premeditated (planned in advance) or is with malice aforethought (see that word). Most states divide murder into first and second degrees. First degree murder usually involves a willful and deliberate killing, such as by torture or lying in wait, or killing during the commission of another felony such as arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping. Second degree murder is less serious, but still worse than manslaughter."
Unless the cracker intended to kill the astronaut, and either premeditated the killing or had prior malicious intent, which seems unlikely in this case.
I have only a few minutes of experience with AOL, and that was a long time ago, so I can't say how their payment plans work. With as little as I know about the case and AOL in general, I would say that the case against AOL is very weak as long as AOL's contracts with the users were not misleading or blatantly false. For example, if AOL said to the user "pay us $X.XX per hour and you get everything commercial-free" and then used pop-up ads, they would not be abiding by their contract. If the contract said nothing at all about pop-up ads, well, "buyer beware". There is no warning on newspapers that say "this paper is ad-free", but on the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the newspaper will have ads. When you purchase the paper, you take the risk of having to deal with advertisements.
Now, if there is some microscopic line in the contract that says, "AOL reserves the right to advertise" or something similar, then really, there is no case against AOL, as the user has been warned.
Your idea about having ad time not count towards your hours seems ok, but I can see a lot of problems coming from it. For example, a pop-up ad takes 2 seconds to load on my Athlon with a university T1 connection. On my Pentium 60 over a modem, though, it might take 10 seconds. How do you subtract from online time when there is such a huge discrepancy in the speed and capability between different computers and/or connections? It would be very complicated.
The logic in this suit against AOL seems extremely tenuous. It seems like you could make a couple logical leaps and be at the point where you could sue AOL because you can only read 3 web pages per minute, while someone else can read 10. Just because you are a slow reader, you could make the argument that you are getting less value for your money than some other speed-reader, no? I guess my point is that AOL surely has all kinds of caveats imbedded in their contracts that either explicitly or implicitly nullify any such claims of lower performance and/or less time "well spent" using it's services.
The difference, though, is the hourly rate. By viewing an ad in the newspaper, the newspaper does not begin to cost you more because it takes longer to read. With AOL, every time you view an ad, you pay more since you pay by the hour (usually). I'm not sure that AOL should be sued over this, though -- when you pay AOL for their service you should be aware of the possibility of ads, just like when you pay for a newspaper. It's just part of the cost. If there were no ads in newspapers, it might be less annoying, but then again, you'd be paying a couple dollars for every paper.
Somone else might suggest this, but I don't think Big Business is inherently evil. However, I would say that business, particularly Big Business has goals that, for the most part, conflict with the goals of either society as a whole or the individual. As a result, business tends to gravitate toward behavior that does not serve the public interest, or even flies in the face of it in many cases. I'm hardly a fan of Big Business, and I think that anti-trust violations are of the most serious offenses against the public. But I do think we need to put blame where it's due and not generalize.
Sorry, that was supposed to look like this: I always wanted a GNOME panel 64 pixels high on my PDA! Smack me for not using the preview option before I post...
I did the same thing, and I got the same result as you -- it segfaulted before it finished. Just for kicks, though, I tried to run it with what it *did* install. It runs just fine; no crashes -- yet.
My own take on 3D interfaces is that although everyone seems to look at them as the wave of the future, I think they will probably be relegated to a small niche of specialized use, for example, in medical fields. The 3D interface just doesn't make sense to me from a desktop/home user perspective. What could the average user possibly gain? I suppose it would allow one to interact with more material, but probably at the cost of confusion for the end-user. Hell, my mom still has trouble with the concept of double-clicking -- I wouldn't want to see her try a 3D interface. But maybe that's just FUD, and given time, most users will be sufficiently advanced to take advantage of such a thing. More on topic, though, I am glad that Berlin is making progress; there needs to be some healthy competition for X.
Sorry about the messed up formatting at the top.. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Counterclaim-Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ELIOT SPITZER, attorney ) general of the State of ) New York, in his official ) capacity, et al., ) ) Counterclaim-Defendants. ) )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
These cases are before the Court for disposition of the sole matter presently remaining for decision by the trial court, namely, entry of appropriate relief for the violations of the Sherman Act, 1 and 2, and various state laws committed by the defendant Microsoft Corporation as found by Court in accordance with its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Final judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith. No further proceedings will be required.
The Court has been presented by plaintiffs with a proposed form of final judgment that would mandate both conduct modification and structural reorganization by the defendant when fully implemented. Microsoft has responded with a motion for summary rejection of structural reorganization and a request for months of additional time to oppose the relief sought in all other respects. Microsoft claims, in effect, to have been surprised by the "draconian" and "unprecedented" remedy the plaintiffs recommend. What it proposes is yet another round of discovery, to be followed by a second trial - in essence an ex post and de facto bifurcation of the case already considered and rejected by the Court.
Microsoft's profession of surprise is not credible.(1) From the inception of this case Microsoft knew, from well-established Supreme Court precedents dating from the beginning of the last century, that a mandated divestiture was a possibility, if not a probability, in the event of an adverse result at trial. At the conclusion of the trial the Court's Findings of Fact gave clear warning to Microsoft that the result would likely be adverse, yet the Court delayed entry of its Conclusions of Law for five months, and enlisted the services of a distinguished mediator, to assist Microsoft and the plaintiffs in reaching agreement on a remedy of some description that Microsoft knew was inevitable. Even assuming that Microsoft negotiated in utmost good faith in the course of mediation, it had to have in contemplation the prospect that, were mediation to fail, the prevailing plaintiffs would propose to the Court a remedy most to their liking and least likely to be acceptable to Microsoft. Its failure to anticipate and to prepare to meet such an eventuality gives no reason to afford it an opportunity to do so now.
These cases have been before the Court, and have occupied much of its attention, for the past two years, not counting the antecedent proceedings. Following a full trial Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust violations, notwithstanding its protests to this day that it has committed none. The Court is convinced for several reasons that a final - and appealable - judgment should be entered quickly. It has also reluctantly come to the conclusion, for the same reasons, that a structural remedy has become imperative: Microsoft as it is presently organized and led is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law or accede to an order amending its conduct.
First, despite the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Microsoft does not yet concede that any of its business practices violated the Sherman Act. Microsoft officials have recently been quoted publicly to the effect that the company has "done nothing wrong" and that it will be vindicated on appeal. The Court is well aware that there is a substantial body of public opinion, some of it rational, that holds to a similar view. It is time to put that assertion to the test. If true, then an appellate tribunal should be given early opportunity to confirm it as promptly as possible, and to abort any remedial measures before they have become irreversible as a practical matter.
Second, there is credible evidence in the record to suggest that Microsoft, convinced of its innocence, continues to do business as it has in the past, and may yet do to other markets what it has already done in the PC operating system and browser markets. Microsoft has shown no disposition to voluntarily alter its business protocol in any significant respect. Indeed, it has announced its intention to appeal even the imposition of the modest conduct remedies it has itself proposed as an alternative to the non-structural remedies sought by the plaintiffs.
Third, Microsoft has proved untrustworthy in the past. In earlier proceedings in which a preliminary injunction was entered, Microsoft's purported compliance with that injunction while it was on appeal was illusory and its explanation disingenuous. If it responds in similar fashion to an injunctive remedy in this case, the earlier the need for enforcement measures becomes apparent the more effective they are likely to be.
Finally, the Court believes that extended proceedings on the form a remedy should take are unlikely to give any significantly greater assurance that it will be able to identify what might be generally regarded as an optimum remedy. As has been the case with regard to Microsoft's culpability, opinion as to an appropriate remedy is sharply divided. There is little chance that those divergent opinions will be reconciled by anything short of actual experience. The declarations (and the "offers of proof") from numerous potential witnesses now before the Court provide some insight as to how its various provisions might operate, but for the most part they are merely the predictions of purportedly knowledgeable people as to effects which may or may not ensue if the proposed final judgment is entered. In its experience the Court has found testimonial predictions of future events generally less reliable even than testimony as to historical fact, and cross-examination to be of little use in enhancing or detracting from their accuracy.
In addition to its substantive objections, the proposed final judgment is also criticized by Microsoft as being vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs respond that, to the extent it may be lacking in detail, it is purposely so to allow Microsoft itself to propose such detail as will be least disruptive of its business, failing which plaintiffs will ask the Court to supply it as the need appears.
Plaintiffs won the case, and for that reason alone have some entitlement to a remedy of their choice. Moreover, plaintiffs' proposed final judgment is the collective work product of senior antitrust law enforcement officials of the United States Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of 19 states, in conjunction with multiple consultants.(2) These officials are by reason of office obliged and expected to consider - and to act in - the public interest; Microsoft is not. The proposed final judgment is represented to the Court as incorporating provisions employed successfully in the past, and it appears to the Court to address all the principal objectives of relief in such cases, namely, to terminate the unlawful conduct, to prevent its repetition in the future, and to revive competition in the relevant markets. Microsoft's alternative decree is plainly inadequate in all three respects.
The final judgment proposed by plaintiffs is perhaps more radical than might have resulted had mediation been successful and terminated in a consent decree. It is less so than that advocated by four disinterested amici curiae. It is designed, moreover, to take force in stages, so that the effects can be gauged while the appeal progresses and before it has been fully implemented. And, of course, the Court will retain jurisdiction following appeal, and can modify the judgment as necessary in accordance with instructions from an appellate court or to accommodate conditions changed with the passage of time.
It is, therefore, this _____ day of June, 2000,
ORDERED, that the motion of defendant Microsoft Corporation for summary rejection of the plaintiffs' proposed structural reorganization is denied; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant Microsoft Corporation's "position" as to future proceedings on the issue of remedy is rejected; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that plaintiffs' proposed final judgment, as revised in accordance with the proceedings of May 24, 2000 and Microsoft's comments thereon, be entered as a Final Judgment herein.
______________________ Thomas Penfield Jackson U.S. District Judge
1. Despite their surprise, compounded no doubt by the Court's refusal on May 24th to allow discovery and take testimony on the issue, Microsoft's attorneys were promptly able to tender a 35-page "Offer of Proof," summarizing in detail the testimony 16 witnesses would give to explain why plaintiffs' proposed remedy, in its entirety, is a bad idea. Within a week they added seven more.
2. Two states dissented from the imposition of structural remedies but fully supported the remainder of the relief proposed. The absence of total unanimity merely confirms the collaborative character of the process by which the proposed final judgment was formulated.
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).
Ok, so if libel is a civil wrong, then the authorities really don't have much to say about the issue. The people who were offended need to sue the teenager, no?
Also, there are a lot of conditions in libel cases. Namely, the offended party has to prove that the statements are false, and furthermore that the offender *knew* that they were false, or at least that he never cared whether they were true or not. Secondly, the statements are libelous only if the offended prty can prove that the statements have ruined their reputation or standing in the community. This reminds me of the Falwell vs. Larry Flynt case -- Flynt's statements were so unbelievable and false that no reasonable person would think they were true, therefore, they weren't libelous.
This is all my speculation, as IANAL. Help me out if I'm wrong about anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Sexuality in advertising is intended to tantalize you so you pay attention to the ad; it is a means to an end. Although it *is* a means of control, it is not there for its own sake. Pornography, on the other hand, exists for the purpose of titillation -- an end in itself. Advertisers use sexuality to dangle a carrot in front of your face; it's a tool for that purpose. There's a major difference between sexuality and pornography. I seriously can't recall seeing any ads with pornographic content (except for those on pornographic web sites, but I never go to those anyway :-P ). I have seen many ads with violent content, however.
The whole filtering debate is useless, as everything is shades of gray -- like the poster alluded to, showing a baby breast-feeding is not porn to most people. I'll bet it is to someone, though. Violent scenes could essentially be porn to someone; pornography is not about genitals and breasts and butts -- it's about lasciviousness, gluttony, and passivity (not necessarily bad things in themselves, IMHO). The reason you see governments, big business, the wealthy, the powerful, and elite having problems with porn is that they have a hard time using it to control you (well, that's not totally true, but mostly, I think). Violence in the news, on the other hand is a very effective tool for them to get their way (which is usually to fill their pocketbooks), by teaching the public their own filtered view of reality.
I'll try to make this on topic again by saying that you, the poster, as well as anyone else who cares about their freedom, have a duty to NOT participate in such filtering nonsense. Anyone who would be harmed by certain content on the internet should not be using it without parental guidance anyway; filtering software is NOT a suitable replacement for a human being. It is far worse, IMO, for benign content to be accidentally blocked that it is for a child/sensitive viewer to see something that might prod their value system a little bit (heaven forbid!).
In a word: abstain.
Well, I wouldn't recommend that anyone *really* count on us -- if you want serious, permanent, commercial hosting forever,then you certainly should go elsewhere. However, we'll be up and running for at least two more years. As far as the university's AUP, I already said in my original post that we can't help you if it's for commercial purposes. If you just want some free web/email hosting for fun, though, we're available. I've read the university's AUP 7326 times, and I know the guys who are in charge of enforcing it -- as long as it's not pr0n, and not commercial, it's all good. Whatever.. yeah, I admit this is a shameless plug... oh well. ;-)
If your site is non-profit, non-pr0n, and doesn't get spectacular amounts of traffic, we'll do it for free at schmim.com. We have (currently) three computers on a university (i.e., FAST) connection and do free email/webhosting/etc. for the fun of it. Our uptime is virtually 100%. Send an email to imran@schmim.com or glenn@schmim.com and we'll talk. (The same goes for everyone who reads this)
Glenn
This may not be practical for high school classes, but I just took a class at IU Bloomington called "Computers in Education". It was basically just a class for education majors to familiarize themselves with Macs, but the coolest thing we did as part of our grade was to volunteer our help. We could choose to either serve as a support tech for a local retirement home, or to help some (very needy and poor) grade schoolers set up a LAN at a local school. My friend and I were the only ones to choose to help at the school, so we basically ended up building them a new server (a linux box! yay!), and helping the kids get their LAN up and running for games, file sharing, etc. It seemed like a drag at first, but it ended up being one of the most rewarding things I've done in a long time. Yes, computer science is by nature a technical area of study, but to add the human element and actually gain experience working with people and working on real implementations is priceless. Again, I don't know how well this activity would translate to high schoolers (maturity, experience, time constraints, etc.), but it might be worth a try. There's more to computers than coding for 36 hours straight -- the kids might find it fun and worthwhile to actually help some people out by sharing their skills.
Ok, according to Netcraft, www.hotmail.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 SSLeay/0.9.0b on FreeBSD. Since MS is starting to integrate its Win2k servers, when would that change show up? I guess my question is, why does Netcraft claim it's running FreeBSD when it is running both?
I agree with you... but $3-$4 a song?! If I created a 12-song CD (the usual amount of tracks on an album), that would $36-$48, not including shipping & handling. There's no way I would pay that much for a CD, even if I loved every second of it. If anything, that would make me turn to napster even more so than I do now (which is not that much).
Here are the top referrers to the site. You can get all these stats by going to geekflavor.com/stats. Oh, and although ssh is apparently down, ftp is still up.
Top 23 of 35 Total Referrers
# Hits Referrer
1 954 36.82% - (Direct Request)
2 28 1.08% http://slashdot.org/article.pl
3 8 0.31% http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/savevote.html
4 7 0.27% http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3
5 6 0.23% http://www.nerdperfect.com/
6 5 0.19% http://slashdot.org/yro/00/05/31/1534236.shtml
7 4 0.15% http://slashdot.org/articles/00/07/21/1422251.shtm l
8 2 0.08% http://arcanum.simplenet.com/links.html
9 2 0.08% http://slashdot.org/submit.pl
10 2 0.08% http://slashdot.org/comments.pl
11 2 0.08% http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/05/23/007214.sht ml
12 2 0.08% bookmarks
13 2 0.08% http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/07/15/2030252.s html
14 1 0.04% http://slashdot.org/apache/00/05/22/1858206.shtml
15 1 0.04% news://news.sprint.ca/397CFD3F.5FE204BA@metallicaf an.com
16 1 0.04% http://slashdot.org/articles/00/05/17/2136258.shtm l
17 1 0.04% http://slashdot.org/index.pl
18 1 0.04% http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/05/09/0131249.s html
19 1 0.04% http://www.greatdomains.com/domains/details.asp
20 1 0.04% http://slashdot.org/science/00/05/04/0816244.shtml
21 1 0.04% http://slashdot.org/articles/00/07/24/1617240.shtm l
22 1 0.04% http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filters/
23 1 0.04% http://slashdot.org/articles/00/05/22/1345215.shtm l
It's that bastard Signal 11! Or is it Signai 11? Signal II? SignaI ll? Exploiting the L/l/I/i/|/1 similarity is among the lowest of the low. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Sorry if this makes no sense; I just got to work, and it's early. ;-)
Sure, maybe we are "stressed" these days, and feel tied to jobs from which we can't escape -- but think about how great it is that these technologies allow us to have careers where we don't have to shovel coal 22 hours a day. I moan about my job sometimes, but if I had to work in the meat-packing industry in turn of the century Chicago, I would kill to be tied down to a tech job.
Just like many warez d00dz argue that their existence is what pushes the demand for increasing bandwidth and computing power, couldn't the cracker argue that A) their existence pushes the demand for increasingly better security models, and B) they keep many network admins employed?
I do tech support, and while I'll never stop complaining about all the users I have to deal with, at the same time I realize that without them, I'd be out of a job.
I agree -- people will not choose to restrict themselves with such products unless the benefits far outweigh the cost in freedom. DIVX, anyone?
"We aren't standing still. We're improving the product."
-- Professor Roman Kunikov
Is this professor for real? :^D
Ok, if hacking into a government agency is a felony (certainly), then it would be murder charge. I stand corrected -- I must have glanced over that part.
A crime, less severe than murder, involving the wrongful but non-malicious (see malice) killing of another person. There are various categories of manslaughter. In some states voluntary manslaughter is a killing in a sudden rage such as occurs during a quarrel and fight, and involuntary manslaughter is a killing with no intention to cause serious bodily harm, such as by acting without proper caution.
However, I think you could make a case for "reckless homocide," as "reckless" is defined:
"Reckless" can mean anything from "careless and inattentive" or "indifferent to consequences" to a "willful disregard for danger to the life or safety of others."
So of which one the cracker would be guilty depends on the circumstances and/or intent of the cracker. Murder doesn't seem to apply, given the definition:
"Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being that is premeditated (planned in advance) or is with malice aforethought (see that word). Most states divide murder into first and second degrees. First degree murder usually involves a willful and deliberate killing, such as by torture or lying in wait, or killing during the commission of another felony such as arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping. Second degree murder is less serious, but still worse than manslaughter."
Unless the cracker intended to kill the astronaut, and either premeditated the killing or had prior malicious intent, which seems unlikely in this case.
Now, if there is some microscopic line in the contract that says, "AOL reserves the right to advertise" or something similar, then really, there is no case against AOL, as the user has been warned.
Your idea about having ad time not count towards your hours seems ok, but I can see a lot of problems coming from it. For example, a pop-up ad takes 2 seconds to load on my Athlon with a university T1 connection. On my Pentium 60 over a modem, though, it might take 10 seconds. How do you subtract from online time when there is such a huge discrepancy in the speed and capability between different computers and/or connections? It would be very complicated.
The logic in this suit against AOL seems extremely tenuous. It seems like you could make a couple logical leaps and be at the point where you could sue AOL because you can only read 3 web pages per minute, while someone else can read 10. Just because you are a slow reader, you could make the argument that you are getting less value for your money than some other speed-reader, no? I guess my point is that AOL surely has all kinds of caveats imbedded in their contracts that either explicitly or implicitly nullify any such claims of lower performance and/or less time "well spent" using it's services.
The difference, though, is the hourly rate. By viewing an ad in the newspaper, the newspaper does not begin to cost you more because it takes longer to read. With AOL, every time you view an ad, you pay more since you pay by the hour (usually). I'm not sure that AOL should be sued over this, though -- when you pay AOL for their service you should be aware of the possibility of ads, just like when you pay for a newspaper. It's just part of the cost. If there were no ads in newspapers, it might be less annoying, but then again, you'd be paying a couple dollars for every paper.
Somone else might suggest this, but I don't think Big Business is inherently evil. However, I would say that business, particularly Big Business has goals that, for the most part, conflict with the goals of either society as a whole or the individual. As a result, business tends to gravitate toward behavior that does not serve the public interest, or even flies in the face of it in many cases. I'm hardly a fan of Big Business, and I think that anti-trust violations are of the most serious offenses against the public. But I do think we need to put blame where it's due and not generalize.
Sorry, that was supposed to look like this: I always wanted a GNOME panel 64 pixels high on my PDA! Smack me for not using the preview option before I post...
I always wanted a GNOME panel 64 pixels high on my PDA!
I did the same thing, and I got the same result as you -- it segfaulted before it finished. Just for kicks, though, I tried to run it with what it *did* install. It runs just fine; no crashes -- yet.
- 3-D Monitor From Deep Video Imaging
- More on the 3D DTI Monitor
- 3D Window Manager
My own take on 3D interfaces is that although everyone seems to look at them as the wave of the future, I think they will probably be relegated to a small niche of specialized use, for example, in medical fields. The 3D interface just doesn't make sense to me from a desktop/home user perspective. What could the average user possibly gain? I suppose it would allow one to interact with more material, but probably at the cost of confusion for the end-user. Hell, my mom still has trouble with the concept of double-clicking -- I wouldn't want to see her try a 3D interface. But maybe that's just FUD, and given time, most users will be sufficiently advanced to take advantage of such a thing. More on topic, though, I am glad that Berlin is making progress; there needs to be some healthy competition for X.FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Counterclaim-Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ELIOT SPITZER, attorney ) general of the State of ) New York, in his official ) capacity, et al., ) ) Counterclaim-Defendants. ) )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
These cases are before the Court for disposition of the sole matter presently remaining for decision by the trial court, namely, entry of appropriate relief for the violations of the Sherman Act, 1 and 2, and various state laws committed by the defendant Microsoft Corporation as found by Court in accordance with its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Final judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith. No further proceedings will be required.
The Court has been presented by plaintiffs with a proposed form of final judgment that would mandate both conduct modification and structural reorganization by the defendant when fully implemented. Microsoft has responded with a motion for summary rejection of structural reorganization and a request for months of additional time to oppose the relief sought in all other respects. Microsoft claims, in effect, to have been surprised by the "draconian" and "unprecedented" remedy the plaintiffs recommend. What it proposes is yet another round of discovery, to be followed by a second trial - in essence an ex post and de facto bifurcation of the case already considered and rejected by the Court.
Microsoft's profession of surprise is not credible.(1) From the inception of this case Microsoft knew, from well-established Supreme Court precedents dating from the beginning of the last century, that a mandated divestiture was a possibility, if not a probability, in the event of an adverse result at trial. At the conclusion of the trial the Court's Findings of Fact gave clear warning to Microsoft that the result would likely be adverse, yet the Court delayed entry of its Conclusions of Law for five months, and enlisted the services of a distinguished mediator, to assist Microsoft and the plaintiffs in reaching agreement on a remedy of some description that Microsoft knew was inevitable. Even assuming that Microsoft negotiated in utmost good faith in the course of mediation, it had to have in contemplation the prospect that, were mediation to fail, the prevailing plaintiffs would propose to the Court a remedy most to their liking and least likely to be acceptable to Microsoft. Its failure to anticipate and to prepare to meet such an eventuality gives no reason to afford it an opportunity to do so now.
These cases have been before the Court, and have occupied much of its attention, for the past two years, not counting the antecedent proceedings. Following a full trial Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust violations, notwithstanding its protests to this day that it has committed none. The Court is convinced for several reasons that a final - and appealable - judgment should be entered quickly. It has also reluctantly come to the conclusion, for the same reasons, that a structural remedy has become imperative: Microsoft as it is presently organized and led is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law or accede to an order amending its conduct.
First, despite the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Microsoft does not yet concede that any of its business practices violated the Sherman Act. Microsoft officials have recently been quoted publicly to the effect that the company has "done nothing wrong" and that it will be vindicated on appeal. The Court is well aware that there is a substantial body of public opinion, some of it rational, that holds to a similar view. It is time to put that assertion to the test. If true, then an appellate tribunal should be given early opportunity to confirm it as promptly as possible, and to abort any remedial measures before they have become irreversible as a practical matter.
Second, there is credible evidence in the record to suggest that Microsoft, convinced of its innocence, continues to do business as it has in the past, and may yet do to other markets what it has already done in the PC operating system and browser markets. Microsoft has shown no disposition to voluntarily alter its business protocol in any significant respect. Indeed, it has announced its intention to appeal even the imposition of the modest conduct remedies it has itself proposed as an alternative to the non-structural remedies sought by the plaintiffs.
Third, Microsoft has proved untrustworthy in the past. In earlier proceedings in which a preliminary injunction was entered, Microsoft's purported compliance with that injunction while it was on appeal was illusory and its explanation disingenuous. If it responds in similar fashion to an injunctive remedy in this case, the earlier the need for enforcement measures becomes apparent the more effective they are likely to be.
Finally, the Court believes that extended proceedings on the form a remedy should take are unlikely to give any significantly greater assurance that it will be able to identify what might be generally regarded as an optimum remedy. As has been the case with regard to Microsoft's culpability, opinion as to an appropriate remedy is sharply divided. There is little chance that those divergent opinions will be reconciled by anything short of actual experience. The declarations (and the "offers of proof") from numerous potential witnesses now before the Court provide some insight as to how its various provisions might operate, but for the most part they are merely the predictions of purportedly knowledgeable people as to effects which may or may not ensue if the proposed final judgment is entered. In its experience the Court has found testimonial predictions of future events generally less reliable even than testimony as to historical fact, and cross-examination to be of little use in enhancing or detracting from their accuracy.
In addition to its substantive objections, the proposed final judgment is also criticized by Microsoft as being vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs respond that, to the extent it may be lacking in detail, it is purposely so to allow Microsoft itself to propose such detail as will be least disruptive of its business, failing which plaintiffs will ask the Court to supply it as the need appears.
Plaintiffs won the case, and for that reason alone have some entitlement to a remedy of their choice. Moreover, plaintiffs' proposed final judgment is the collective work product of senior antitrust law enforcement officials of the United States Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of 19 states, in conjunction with multiple consultants.(2) These officials are by reason of office obliged and expected to consider - and to act in - the public interest; Microsoft is not. The proposed final judgment is represented to the Court as incorporating provisions employed successfully in the past, and it appears to the Court to address all the principal objectives of relief in such cases, namely, to terminate the unlawful conduct, to prevent its repetition in the future, and to revive competition in the relevant markets. Microsoft's alternative decree is plainly inadequate in all three respects.
The final judgment proposed by plaintiffs is perhaps more radical than might have resulted had mediation been successful and terminated in a consent decree. It is less so than that advocated by four disinterested amici curiae. It is designed, moreover, to take force in stages, so that the effects can be gauged while the appeal progresses and before it has been fully implemented. And, of course, the Court will retain jurisdiction following appeal, and can modify the judgment as necessary in accordance with instructions from an appellate court or to accommodate conditions changed with the passage of time.
It is, therefore, this _____ day of June, 2000,
ORDERED, that the motion of defendant Microsoft Corporation for summary rejection of the plaintiffs' proposed structural reorganization is denied; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant Microsoft Corporation's "position" as to future proceedings on the issue of remedy is rejected; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that plaintiffs' proposed final judgment, as revised in accordance with the proceedings of May 24, 2000 and Microsoft's comments thereon, be entered as a Final Judgment herein.
______________________
Thomas Penfield Jackson
U.S. District Judge
1. Despite their surprise, compounded no doubt by the Court's refusal on May 24th to allow discovery and take testimony on the issue, Microsoft's attorneys were promptly able to tender a 35-page "Offer of Proof," summarizing in detail the testimony 16 witnesses would give to explain why plaintiffs' proposed remedy, in its entirety, is a bad idea. Within a week they added seven more.
2. Two states dissented from the imposition of structural remedies but fully supported the remainder of the relief proposed. The absence of total unanimity merely confirms the collaborative character of the process by which the proposed final judgment was formulated.
From the legal dictionary at Nolo.com:
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).
Ok, so if libel is a civil wrong, then the authorities really don't have much to say about the issue. The people who were offended need to sue the teenager, no?
Also, there are a lot of conditions in libel cases. Namely, the offended party has to prove that the statements are false, and furthermore that the offender *knew* that they were false, or at least that he never cared whether they were true or not. Secondly, the statements are libelous only if the offended prty can prove that the statements have ruined their reputation or standing in the community. This reminds me of the Falwell vs. Larry Flynt case -- Flynt's statements were so unbelievable and false that no reasonable person would think they were true, therefore, they weren't libelous.
This is all my speculation, as IANAL. Help me out if I'm wrong about anything.