IT'S NOT UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE MORALITY.
If the government is not legislating morality, what is it legislating? Criminal laws that form the basis of societies are almost always about morality, be it laws against murder, robbery, theft, burglary, rape, assault, etc. The only reason to have any of those laws is our collective sense of morality.
In a way, the.prn domain could act as a red-light district for the web: Easy enough to get to if you want to do that sort of thing, but also easy to stay away from. This separation is not in my mind a bad thing, and the real time to sound the alarm is if there is an attempt to prevent people interested in viewing.prn sites from doing so. "Separate but equal" could work just fine here. (And before you start flaming me, I know how that doctrine was abused, and there would need to be appropriate ways to ensure that there was actual equality.)
I transplanted the brain myself. Don't worry, it was just the one of an average teenager. If it becomes disfunctional, please let me know. Questions and comments relating to this process can be sent to/dev/null.
On a more serious note, maybe this issue hit a libertarian streak in him. It happens to radical right wingers occasionally, that they decide laws are too restrictive.
Actually, colonialism was in place through World War II, putting it slightly over 50 years past us. For example, in the process of turning colonies into independent states a small nation was created on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Other countries created from colonies in this period include most of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Large portions of the Middle East were also carved up right around then, re-forming countries such as Egypt and Jordan. The phrase "The sun never sets on the British empire" was true throughout the first half of the 20th century.
And there was something stopping the inhabitants of these areas from going back to subsistance farming during the colonial period: Being at the wrong end of a British (usually) or French rifle. That tends to be pretty effective motivation. Not that there wasn't resistance (e.g. the Zulu Wars and the Sepoy rebellion).
First of all, do _not_ say that this bill has constitutional problems. The First Amendment argument is dubious at best, and the Copyright Clause does nothing except say that Congress has the job of passing bills like this one.
Get some demographics of people who will be angry at the results of this bill. For example, will this change the votes of college students, geeks, or retiree's? If you can come up with polling numbers, even better. Remember, the most unprincipled politicians will do whatever it takes to get enough votes to remain in office, while more principled ones may sincerely want to represent the interests of these people. If you're talking to someone who is already against the bill, this sort of information provides them with more ammunition for debate.
You might want to talk about the history of the VCR. The movie industry made the same sort of arguments that the RIAA is making now, and so this is a good time to show what actually happens when technologies like this are available.
IANAL, but legally, this analysis is correct. The case law, statutes, and constitution reasonably point you to the conclusions he draws. So don't expect to stike down the DMCA in court, because there's only a very weak constitutional argument against it (free speech), and a fairly good one for it(copyright and interstate commerce clauses). And though it may surprise you after Bush vs Gore, the courts frequently will judge a case on it's merits.
This doesn't say anything about the politics of the situation, such as how the DMCA got there in the first place, or the SSSCA (or whatever it's called, I also call it the Bill of the Really Long Acronym (BOTRLA). This article is not a statement of opinion, or suggesting what the law should be, just what the law is.
Excerpts from the 'fall of Redmond' radio conversations:
"Red Hat, this is Yellow Dog. Come in.' "Red Hat here. We've gotten Balmer. I repeat, we have Balmer in custody." "Mandrake says Gates isn't here today. Debian, can you clear out the marketing department please?" "Roger that, General Raymond. Attacking marketing immediately." "Suse reporting that legal has been secured." ... "Who the hell is that?" "Looks like the FSF showed up. For once them and OSI agree on something." "Hi there, Stallman. Raymond here. What are you boys doing here?" "We came to download the source code for all the MS software to look for GPL violations." "Good thinking. I have Slackware in there now, and I'll let em know your coming." ...
and so on and so forth. Maybe I'll write a more detailed version one day.
"The normal channeling of aggressive instincts into acts of senseless violence."
Re:See slashem for example!!!
on
Nethack 3.4.0
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the Diablo developers all attribute the idea of that game to Nethack. But having played both Diablo's extensively, I can tell you they have nowhere near the complexity of Nethack.
Nethack is a game that even if you know a lot about it you will still find it difficult. That's the true joy of the game, is that it is never easy, right from the beginning.
As a musician and programmer, I can assure you that a lot of effort is going into just the sort of music you mention. But I would argue that a good musician has to do more than that. If what a musician can produce can also be produced by a computer, what's the point of having musicians? Its the death of a profession.
In terms of a new brand of euphony, I'm already seeing a lot of it in the 'contemporary classical' world. The major problem is that modern classical composers are having to undo some of the damage that occured in the 20th century that turned people off of that sort of music.
As someone born and raised in NH, where 'Live free or die!' is proudly displayed on the license plate, I would just like to point out a more serious problem:
The industry wants to make it illegal to possess non-perishable goods(e.g. hard drives) that it is currently legal to possess. In other words, you must upgrade whatever computers you have now or face jail time. It has the same effect as allowing the auto industry to get a law stating no one is allowed to own a car made before 2001.
Our TV's a VCR's do not take ill when we watch infected programs, and our refrigerators never require rebooting.
Yet we have come to tolerate such problems from our personal computers.
This worries me: Many people are convinced that crashing and insecure computers are unavoidable. What does it say about the Art of programming when users expect for things to not work properly?
What is significant, in my mind, is not the 95% of decisions in favor of the complainant, which could legitamately come from domain name squatters, but the discrepency stated between the 1-judge and 3-judge results. When the defendant gets control of half the judging panel, suddenly the panel rules in their favor more than half the time. So if we assume, that on average the cases should be decided the same way regardless of the number of judges, then this result is saying, not surprisingly, that if only 1 side chooses the judge then the judge rules in favor of that side. Gee, I wonder why that might be?
For an example of the results of engineered in vs. added on security, examine Unix and Windows. Unix was from the start a networked multiuser system, and security was paramount. Windows on the other hand was based on DOS which was originally intended for single user non-networked PC's. The result? *nix community worried about a better firewall and password protection, and MS creating a department of 'Security Assurance' to tell customers their software is secure no matter what the truth is.
So yes, designing security in from the beginning is important.
IANAL, but I was born and raised by one, and am fairly certain that it is possible to sue whomever you feel like whenever you want. Your case might be dismissed as frivolous, you might waste money and time, but nothing legally stops you from bringing suit.
But regardless, I have another idea: Calculate monetary harm Microsoft does to each individual (e.g. increased cost of hardware) and try a class action, as a bunch of individual harmed consumers. Monetary damages are relatively easy to get. If enraged consumers can make it unprofitable for MS to be unethical, they will be forced to change their behavior.
So in general I think it is easier to add more complaints and actions as individuals or corporations than it is to have the DOJ taken off the case. Besides that, the remedies DOJ wants are slightly better than nothing. At least Steve Ballmer's wrist will hurt for a little while.
My own personal attitude on this one is that if I get significant use of a bit of commercial software, I'll buy it as a donation to the programmers. It's a token of appreciation, and a way to help them make more good programs. So for me, buying a game from Blizzard serves the same purpose as donating to FSF.
The difference between software and many other products is that it can be duplicated at incredibly low costs. If Alice gets a copy of the latest version of Quake from Bob, it has cost Bob hardly anything. Instead of selling hundreds of Hitchhiker's Guides, software is equivalent to selling 1 Hitchhiker's Guide hundreds of times.
As a current Oberliner, I much appreciate the efforts to install a real operating system on those lab boxen. Now us CS majors are out there teaching actual normal people that there is a safe and easy alternative to MS.
And this article really only touches on the real issue, which nowadays really isn't geek mindshare, its more actually getting users confortable with screens that don't have Start buttons on them, but instead K buttons. And if the current students are familiar with Linux, that means future sysadmins and even CTO's might be properly able to ward off FUD attacks from the Bor^H^H^HMicrosoft.
Slashdot Mirror
In a way, the
I transplanted the brain myself. Don't worry, it was just the one of an average teenager. If it becomes disfunctional, please let me know. Questions and comments relating to this process can be sent to /dev/null.
On a more serious note, maybe this issue hit a libertarian streak in him. It happens to radical right wingers occasionally, that they decide laws are too restrictive.
Actually, colonialism was in place through World War II, putting it slightly over 50 years past us. For example, in the process of turning colonies into independent states a small nation was created on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Other countries created from colonies in this period include most of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Large portions of the Middle East were also carved up right around then, re-forming countries such as Egypt and Jordan. The phrase "The sun never sets on the British empire" was true throughout the first half of the 20th century.
And there was something stopping the inhabitants of these areas from going back to subsistance farming during the colonial period: Being at the wrong end of a British (usually) or French rifle. That tends to be pretty effective motivation. Not that there wasn't resistance (e.g. the Zulu Wars and the Sepoy rebellion).
First of all, do _not_ say that this bill has constitutional problems. The First Amendment argument is dubious at best, and the Copyright Clause does nothing except say that Congress has the job of passing bills like this one.
Get some demographics of people who will be angry at the results of this bill. For example, will this change the votes of college students, geeks, or retiree's? If you can come up with polling numbers, even better. Remember, the most unprincipled politicians will do whatever it takes to get enough votes to remain in office, while more principled ones may sincerely want to represent the interests of these people. If you're talking to someone who is already against the bill, this sort of information provides them with more ammunition for debate.
You might want to talk about the history of the VCR. The movie industry made the same sort of arguments that the RIAA is making now, and so this is a good time to show what actually happens when technologies like this are available.
IANAL, but legally, this analysis is correct. The case law, statutes, and constitution reasonably point you to the conclusions he draws. So don't expect to stike down the DMCA in court, because there's only a very weak constitutional argument against it (free speech), and a fairly good one for it(copyright and interstate commerce clauses). And though it may surprise you after Bush vs Gore, the courts frequently will judge a case on it's merits.
This doesn't say anything about the politics of the situation, such as how the DMCA got there in the first place, or the SSSCA (or whatever it's called, I also call it the Bill of the Really Long Acronym (BOTRLA). This article is not a statement of opinion, or suggesting what the law should be, just what the law is.
Excerpts from the 'fall of Redmond' radio conversations:
"Red Hat, this is Yellow Dog. Come in.'
"Red Hat here. We've gotten Balmer. I repeat, we have Balmer in custody."
"Mandrake says Gates isn't here today. Debian, can you clear out the marketing department please?"
"Roger that, General Raymond. Attacking marketing immediately."
"Suse reporting that legal has been secured."
...
"Who the hell is that?"
"Looks like the FSF showed up. For once them and OSI agree on something."
"Hi there, Stallman. Raymond here. What are you boys doing here?"
"We came to download the source code for all the MS software to look for GPL violations."
"Good thinking. I have Slackware in there now, and I'll let em know your coming."
...
and so on and so forth. Maybe I'll write a more detailed version one day.
"The normal channeling of aggressive instincts into acts of senseless violence."
Actually, the Diablo developers all attribute the idea of that game to Nethack. But having played both Diablo's extensively, I can tell you they have nowhere near the complexity of Nethack.
Nethack is a game that even if you know a lot about it you will still find it difficult. That's the true joy of the game, is that it is never easy, right from the beginning.
And if you'll pardon me, my @ is calling me.
As a musician and programmer, I can assure you that a lot of effort is going into just the sort of music you mention. But I would argue that a good musician has to do more than that. If what a musician can produce can also be produced by a computer, what's the point of having musicians? Its the death of a profession.
In terms of a new brand of euphony, I'm already seeing a lot of it in the 'contemporary classical' world. The major problem is that modern classical composers are having to undo some of the damage that occured in the 20th century that turned people off of that sort of music.
As someone born and raised in NH, where 'Live free or die!' is proudly displayed on the license plate, I would just like to point out a more serious problem:
The industry wants to make it illegal to possess non-perishable goods(e.g. hard drives) that it is currently legal to possess. In other words, you must upgrade whatever computers you have now or face jail time. It has the same effect as allowing the auto industry to get a law stating no one is allowed to own a car made before 2001.
What is significant, in my mind, is not the 95% of decisions in favor of the complainant, which could legitamately come from domain name squatters, but the discrepency stated between the 1-judge and 3-judge results. When the defendant gets control of half the judging panel, suddenly the panel rules in their favor more than half the time. So if we assume, that on average the cases should be decided the same way regardless of the number of judges, then this result is saying, not surprisingly, that if only 1 side chooses the judge then the judge rules in favor of that side. Gee, I wonder why that might be?
For an example of the results of engineered in vs. added on security, examine Unix and Windows. Unix was from the start a networked multiuser system, and security was paramount. Windows on the other hand was based on DOS which was originally intended for single user non-networked PC's. The result? *nix community worried about a better firewall and password protection, and MS creating a department of 'Security Assurance' to tell customers their software is secure no matter what the truth is.
So yes, designing security in from the beginning is important.
IANAL, but I was born and raised by one, and am fairly certain that it is possible to sue whomever you feel like whenever you want. Your case might be dismissed as frivolous, you might waste money and time, but nothing legally stops you from bringing suit.
But regardless, I have another idea: Calculate monetary harm Microsoft does to each individual (e.g. increased cost of hardware) and try a class action, as a bunch of individual harmed consumers. Monetary damages are relatively easy to get. If enraged consumers can make it unprofitable for MS to be unethical, they will be forced to change their behavior.
So in general I think it is easier to add more complaints and actions as individuals or corporations than it is to have the DOJ taken off the case. Besides that, the remedies DOJ wants are slightly better than nothing. At least Steve Ballmer's wrist will hurt for a little while.
My own personal attitude on this one is that if I get significant use of a bit of commercial software, I'll buy it as a donation to the programmers. It's a token of appreciation, and a way to help them make more good programs. So for me, buying a game from Blizzard serves the same purpose as donating to FSF.
The difference between software and many other products is that it can be duplicated at incredibly low costs. If Alice gets a copy of the latest version of Quake from Bob, it has cost Bob hardly anything. Instead of selling hundreds of Hitchhiker's Guides, software is equivalent to selling 1 Hitchhiker's Guide hundreds of times.
This is the sort of article I won't dignify with a response. Oh wait...
As a current Oberliner, I much appreciate the efforts to install a real operating system on those lab boxen. Now us CS majors are out there teaching actual normal people that there is a safe and easy alternative to MS.
And this article really only touches on the real issue, which nowadays really isn't geek mindshare, its more actually getting users confortable with screens that don't have Start buttons on them, but instead K buttons. And if the current students are familiar with Linux, that means future sysadmins and even CTO's might be properly able to ward off FUD attacks from the Bor^H^H^HMicrosoft.