what i glean from "britneygurl91" is that: a) she likes britney spears b) she thinks "gurl" is a cute spelling c) she was born in 1991. all 3 point to the fact that she is indeed a 12 year old girl. the riaa should know better.
note: I just used that as a silly example of what I would imagine a 12-year old girl's screenname would be; don't know what her actual name was -- sorry about that
I bet if they had any idea that ~~BrItNeYgUrl91*~ was a 12 year old kid they probably wouldn't have really pursued the case. Would looking like a bunch of shithead monsters, or the whole "we don't let anyone get away with it" display, really be worth it to them?
"We've determined that in both the 'User Interface Suckiness' category and the 'Generally Being Unixy' arena, Linux outperformed Microsoft(r) Windows(tm); 20,000%!"
I am SO tempted to use option 5 to talk to a live representative, and have them explain exactly why I should have to pay $699. Maybe we should call several times and compare each of their stories.
People go in and vote for as many candidates as they want (no range or ranking system; just 1 vote for each). You tally up how many votes, total, each candidate got. Whoever ends up with the most votes wins, which makes sense; they are the most "well-liked".
I think it would work reasonably well. It's pretty simple, so even the old farts could understand the procedure and maybe even the theory behind it.
Sure, the real-life stocks for these companies changed a hell of a lot, and it's obviously not a coincidence. But people won't go for this stupid, stupid scheme, set up by the government.
If it isn't a sick and twisted joke, it's a poorly thought-out, completely obvious, absolutely useless trap.
Osama: "No, we didn't blow up the mall of America; why, we bet half a million on Mount Rushmore!"
I just thought of something...say little old Mrs. Henderson and her embroidery business, which makes a small amount of profit, need a website. They hire some web-integrator guy and he sets up a Linux server and a cheesy webpage.
Now, say SCO harassed this lady into getting her to pay for a SCO Unix license. She doesn't have a legal department, and all she sees is that she's somehow liable for stealing something, and buys a license right away.
Months later, they find out SCO was full of shit and in the wrong completely. Was old Mrs. Henderson duped and hornswoggled into buying a license? Well, obviously; but can she get a lawyer and countersue SCO for their aggressive, deceptive tactics? Or is she just up shit's creek, because she should have known better (or hired someone who did)?
Computers are pretty good at chess but the game sort of lends itself to being a bunch of numbers to crunch, which of course computers handle just fine. Language doesn't really quite have the one-to-oneness with a mathematical model. So you can call the Moviephone, speak your movie name (loudly, several times) and get listings, but you won't (for a very very long time) have a machine that can accurately translate.
(offtopic) Kasparov complained about playing with Big Blue or whatever it is now, because it just doesn't have that human "feel" -- it doesn't get nervous and fuck up, or squirm or sweat.
Let's see. Guns are designed to kill things, but everyone has a legal right to own one. However, buying a smartcard reader means you were going to steal TV programming, and the consequences are more severe. I don't get it.
(note: I'm not an anti-gun freak; I'm just sayin'.)
also: does prior restraint fit into all this? I don't know the first thing about law but this concise explanation seems to indicate so:
In essence, prior restraint consti-tutes a label which may be applied fairly to all state restrictions which fetter human action before the fact.
If you bought a device that's used for many, many different things, and you're liable to be sued even though there's no evidence that shows you were about to do so...
I'm the "computer guy" (official title) at my town's library. We have proxy server with that Symantec filter software -- we have a business account from the cable company, and they remotely update the box with a list of sites and their categories.
We have three sections - childrens' (little kids), young adults (about 14-17), and adults. The kids have everything filtered - from sex, sexuality (education, etc), weapons, tobacco, crime, etc. The young adults have some stuff blocked: crime, alcohol, porn, but not sexuality -- my theory is, if they're teaching it in health class in our public high school, we have no business blocking it.
Adults have nothing filtered (the only thing I really filter is.EXE files so people don't download crap and install it, but that's not content-related). We've had issues in the past with people looking at porn, so we put up little signs saying tht "viewing pornographic material is deemed inappropriate use of library computers", but we don't really do anything about it if it's not bothering anyone. The monitors on most adult machines are in those recessed desk-thingies, so what you're doing is not in plain view and won't bother anyone. If they are looking at porn anywhere else, and it's in plain view, we tell them to go upstairs (to the recessed machines) or leave. We don't monitor what people do, and we never correlate their cards with what sites they look at. We don't police anyone.
The system we have is pretty good -- we haven't had anyone's parents complain in a while, and no big problems with adults offending anyone with their porn shit. I think (but can't verify as I'm not a big legal expert, just the Computer Guy) that we're not in a position of liability (yet) for little kids being exposed to really nasty content, and that we're not violating anyone's 1st Amendment rights.
Boies: "This man willfuly ignored the provisions put in place in the United States Constitution! He said so himself! He practically called Thomas Jefferson an idiot!"
That damned terrorist! I heard he comes from Europe too, which I think is right by France. Linux boycott!
Slashdot Mirror
I know alcohol helps me as an artist (well, karaoke singer).
note: I just used that as a silly example of what I would imagine a 12-year old girl's screenname would be; don't know what her actual name was -- sorry about that
I bet if they had any idea that ~~BrItNeYgUrl91*~ was a 12 year old kid they probably wouldn't have really pursued the case. Would looking like a bunch of shithead monsters, or the whole "we don't let anyone get away with it" display, really be worth it to them?
I can't wait until my mom calls me complaining about how she can't email pictures to my sister "while the transaction server is in firehose mode"
Well now you went and totally confused us
"We've determined that in both the 'User Interface Suckiness' category and the 'Generally Being Unixy' arena, Linux outperformed Microsoft(r) Windows(tm); 20,000%!"
(Or perhaps just to run up their phone bill)
Heh... it's like the litigation version of vaporware, sorta
oops crap, didn't read them all
People go in and vote for as many candidates as they want (no range or ranking system; just 1 vote for each). You tally up how many votes, total, each candidate got. Whoever ends up with the most votes wins, which makes sense; they are the most "well-liked".
I think it would work reasonably well. It's pretty simple, so even the old farts could understand the procedure and maybe even the theory behind it.
If it isn't a sick and twisted joke, it's a poorly thought-out, completely obvious, absolutely useless trap.
Osama: "No, we didn't blow up the mall of America; why, we bet half a million on Mount Rushmore!"
Now, say SCO harassed this lady into getting her to pay for a SCO Unix license. She doesn't have a legal department, and all she sees is that she's somehow liable for stealing something, and buys a license right away.
Months later, they find out SCO was full of shit and in the wrong completely. Was old Mrs. Henderson duped and hornswoggled into buying a license? Well, obviously; but can she get a lawyer and countersue SCO for their aggressive, deceptive tactics? Or is she just up shit's creek, because she should have known better (or hired someone who did)?
They were dragging his statue around the parking lot, and people were throwing their shoes at it.
(offtopic) Kasparov complained about playing with Big Blue or whatever it is now, because it just doesn't have that human "feel" -- it doesn't get nervous and fuck up, or squirm or sweat.
They can just use NAT, and not have to waste a whole bunch of routable IP's.
This is all completely legal, and plausibly prohibits the campus officials from being able to identify anyone should they be approached
Faith in humanity down 44%
(note: I'm not an anti-gun freak; I'm just sayin'.)
also: does prior restraint fit into all this? I don't know the first thing about law but this concise explanation seems to indicate so:
In essence, prior restraint consti-tutes a label which may be applied fairly to all state restrictions which fetter human action before the fact.
If you bought a device that's used for many, many different things, and you're liable to be sued even though there's no evidence that shows you were about to do so...
What's their innovation? Letting you play games on PC's, only with really really big controllers?
Why don't they just tell us what the defects are, so they can be fixed?
or, "All I got was 3 copies of of this t-shirt design"
Great, thanks for getting Slashdot filtered from all the libraries in the U.S.
We have three sections - childrens' (little kids), young adults (about 14-17), and adults. The kids have everything filtered - from sex, sexuality (education, etc), weapons, tobacco, crime, etc. The young adults have some stuff blocked: crime, alcohol, porn, but not sexuality -- my theory is, if they're teaching it in health class in our public high school, we have no business blocking it.
Adults have nothing filtered (the only thing I really filter is .EXE files so people don't download crap and install it, but that's not content-related). We've had issues in the past with people looking at porn, so we put up little signs saying tht "viewing pornographic material is deemed inappropriate use of library computers", but we don't really do anything about it if it's not bothering anyone. The monitors on most adult machines are in those recessed desk-thingies, so what you're doing is not in plain view and won't bother anyone. If they are looking at porn anywhere else, and it's in plain view, we tell them to go upstairs (to the recessed machines) or leave. We don't monitor what people do, and we never correlate their cards with what sites they look at. We don't police anyone.
The system we have is pretty good -- we haven't had anyone's parents complain in a while, and no big problems with adults offending anyone with their porn shit. I think (but can't verify as I'm not a big legal expert, just the Computer Guy) that we're not in a position of liability (yet) for little kids being exposed to really nasty content, and that we're not violating anyone's 1st Amendment rights.
Never mind that last minute thing. My current weather report is "Rain". It's not raining here.
That damned terrorist! I heard he comes from Europe too, which I think is right by France. Linux boycott!