With a VOIP WiFi "cell phone" you could conceivable talk to anyone in range (peer-to-peer) at no cost, and to anyone connected to the internet if you are in range of a base station.
You even already have an MPL'd H.323 protocol library to provide communication with NetMeeting and GnomeMeeting users. In fact, I've been looking for something like this which could compile on the LinuxARM architecture, in order to turn my iPAQ running Linux into a WiFi cellular phone.
I don't believe anyone in the business world would be willing to stick their neck out for something insecure like this. This is also the reason Linux has difficulty achieving market penetration. It's hard to determine accountability.
If you buy one of these, then your computer will be susceptible on two fronts to that Linux/Windows cross-platform virus. Yet another reason why Lindows is a bad idea...
The market for the lower storage devices is going to explode...
You mean in a similar fashion to the way hard drive sales exploded when they started taxing CD-R media....? Or the way compact car sales exploded when they started adding a "Gas Guzzler" tax to SUVs?
Despite what you may think, given the differences with regards to other aspects of law (i.e. free speech, due process protections granted in the U.S. constitution, etc) Libel law in the US and UK is actually quite similar. Perhaps my point wasn't illustrated clearly enough, but at any rate, I highly doubt this case will be granted any merit given the current state of libel law in a first world nation like the UK.
In 1964, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.
And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.
The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.
For purely private individuals, the test for proving libel is not as difficult. Although Supreme Court rulings such as the Sullivan decision apply everywhere in the United States, most states continue to have their own libel laws that cover private individuals. Usually those laws require that public figures who believe they have been libeled prove that a journalist has been negligent when publishing false information about them. Negligence, like malice, is a legal term that generally means carelessness on the part of a reporter or editor. Because private individuals have more reason than public officials to be left alone in the media, American libel laws recognize that they are entitled to more legal protection against false statements made about them.
In December 1990, for example, a judge on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court won a $6 million libel verdict against the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper because of a series of articles it carried in 1983 that suggested he was guilty of influence peddling. And in one of the largest libel verdicts ever reached against the media, a former district attorney from Texas named Victor Feazell was awarded $58 million in April 1991 after a Dallas television station accused him of accepting bribes to fix drunken driving cases. "This verdict sends a message to the rest of the media to get your facts straight," Feazell said after the jury announced its verdict.
Two months later, a state district court judge not only upheld the judgment but included a provision adding a 10 percent annual interest charge to the award if the station appealed the case and lost. A settlement was reached shortly afterwards.
In this and other cases, the person bringing the libel suit has the burden of proving that he or she has been libeled. In other words, a public figure must prove that a reporter not only published false information but also did so recklessly and maliciously without attempting to determine whether it was true, much like the Andreesen v. Freguson case in which it was implied that Andreesen was a bearded linux hippie that lives in his parents' basement. However, Libel cases are not limited to disputes between the media and the people they cover. In July 1989, the American Express Company admitted to spreading false information about an international banker who controlled New York's Republic National Bank. When the banker's attorney threatened to sue for libel, American Express confessed to its role and agreed to donate $8 million to charities as a settlement in the case.
Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.
The ongoing debate over libel has prompted at least one proposal for a new set of libel laws that would make it easier for public officials and others to prove their cases. The proposal -- drafted by a private committee of lawyers, law professors, and media representatives -- also would eliminate large financial awards that can be assessed against media groups found guilty of libel.
Privatization of something like this has the potential to put a huge dent in big government and save taxpayers a huge chunk of money each year. Nevertheless, support for privatization of the.org domain is far from universal. That's because certain people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
The relatively small number of people or institutions that benefit from a program, including federal employees and their unions, businesses that supply the program, and the communities in which facilities are located -- always fight to preserve it, since they believe their livelihood is on the line. By contrast, the cost of any one program typically is of little concern to most taxpayers, since it amounts to just a tiny fraction -- perhaps pennies -- of their annual tax bill. This makes it very difficult to arouse the public to fight the special interests opposed to privatization.
The trick is to overcome this opposition. Experience has shown that successful privatization programs accommodate the concerns of those who want to maintain the status quo. For example, opposition to privatization could be significantly reduced by providing government workers and managers with shares of stock in the new private enterprise, either at a discounted price or at no cost at all. Education of the bearded linux hippies in the ways of the capitalist system also goes a long way. Another good route is through generous severance packages and no-layoff policies also can diminish opposition among employees whose programs are privatization targets.
Over the past several decades, the U.S. government has created many large, inefficient commercial enterprises like the U.S. Postal Service, Amtrak, the U.S. Government Printing Office, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Why not privatize them all? Let them sink or swim. If they manage to turn a profit, so much the better. If they fail, so be it. But why stop there? The federal government also owns a staggering 700 million acres of land that could be far more productive and better managed if privately owned. The government would profit not only from the sale of these lands, but also from tax revenue generated by their commercial use.
As much as 70 percent of the federal civilian workforce performs routine administrative and service functions that could be done by private companies, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. The Department of Defense has been doing this for years, but other agencies, like the National Park Service, have fought the idea. Maybe it's time to remind the directors of these agencies that they are working for us, not vice versa. Maybe a healthy dose of free enterprise is just the medicine they need to convince them that the customer -- i.e., the U.S. taxpayer -- is always right.
Slashdot Mirror
With a VOIP WiFi "cell phone" you could conceivable talk to anyone in range (peer-to-peer) at no cost, and to anyone connected to the internet if you are in range of a base station.
You even already have an MPL'd H.323 protocol library to provide communication with NetMeeting and GnomeMeeting users. In fact, I've been looking for something like this which could compile on the LinuxARM architecture, in order to turn my iPAQ running Linux into a WiFi cellular phone.
And they deserve it...
I don't believe anyone in the business world would be willing to stick their neck out for something insecure like this. This is also the reason Linux has difficulty achieving market penetration. It's hard to determine accountability.
Good troll, but I'm afraid it's not possible to steal one's own work.
I guess some people just like old tech...
Excuse me, did it occur to you that I wrote the article?
Go ahead, accept it. That is, if you enjoy getting fired.
If you buy one of these, then your computer will be susceptible on two fronts to that Linux/Windows cross-platform virus. Yet another reason why Lindows is a bad idea...
The market for the lower storage devices is going to explode...
You mean in a similar fashion to the way hard drive sales exploded when they started taxing CD-R media....? Or the way compact car sales exploded when they started adding a "Gas Guzzler" tax to SUVs?
After all, if a tax is being paid to make up for lost revenue, then does it legimize the act?
It should. However, then shoplifting would be illegal, as stores incorporate shrinkage into the cost of product.
I see someone's been watching Kevin Smith movies...
But that won't prevent President Bush from saying "Nuke-u-ler", instead of the proper "Nuclear".
Yeah, or when a l1nuX h4X0R decides to run script-kiddie nonsense on a production web server. Rebuilding that thing is fun galore.
The corporations have to make good to their shareholders somehow. What were you expecting?
Yeah, and you can lean to use a WinXP machine, or for that matter, a Lindows machine. Macs are overpriced mediocrity.
What I don't like is the idea that you get to run down your battery to help out some anonymous strangers.
Counter-Strike is too fast-paced for me. I prefer Starcraft.
You're correct. They're just jealous because Macs aren't price-competitive.
I worked at a school district that had one of these setup, for the same purpose. It had a CDROM so you could 'rip' CD's right from the tower.
What are the legal implications of something like this?
No kidding. I think the one good thing Bush could accomplish while in office would be to nuke that god-forsaken country.
I remember that one. Quite entertaining.
Agreed. Lawyers are the bane of all existence. Much like Boy scouts and Catholic priests.
Despite what you may think, given the differences with regards to other aspects of law (i.e. free speech, due process protections granted in the U.S. constitution, etc) Libel law in the US and UK is actually quite similar. Perhaps my point wasn't illustrated clearly enough, but at any rate, I highly doubt this case will be granted any merit given the current state of libel law in a first world nation like the UK.
In 1964, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.
And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.
The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.
For purely private individuals, the test for proving libel is not as difficult. Although Supreme Court rulings such as the Sullivan decision apply everywhere in the United States, most states continue to have their own libel laws that cover private individuals. Usually those laws require that public figures who believe they have been libeled prove that a journalist has been negligent when publishing false information about them. Negligence, like malice, is a legal term that generally means carelessness on the part of a reporter or editor. Because private individuals have more reason than public officials to be left alone in the media, American libel laws recognize that they are entitled to more legal protection against false statements made about them.
In December 1990, for example, a judge on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court won a $6 million libel verdict against the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper because of a series of articles it carried in 1983 that suggested he was guilty of influence peddling. And in one of the largest libel verdicts ever reached against the media, a former district attorney from Texas named Victor Feazell was awarded $58 million in April 1991 after a Dallas television station accused him of accepting bribes to fix drunken driving cases. "This verdict sends a message to the rest of the media to get your facts straight," Feazell said after the jury announced its verdict.
Two months later, a state district court judge not only upheld the judgment but included a provision adding a 10 percent annual interest charge to the award if the station appealed the case and lost. A settlement was reached shortly afterwards.
In this and other cases, the person bringing the libel suit has the burden of proving that he or she has been libeled. In other words, a public figure must prove that a reporter not only published false information but also did so recklessly and maliciously without attempting to determine whether it was true, much like the Andreesen v. Freguson case in which it was implied that Andreesen was a bearded linux hippie that lives in his parents' basement. However, Libel cases are not limited to disputes between the media and the people they cover. In July 1989, the American Express Company admitted to spreading false information about an international banker who controlled New York's Republic National Bank. When the banker's attorney threatened to sue for libel, American Express confessed to its role and agreed to donate $8 million to charities as a settlement in the case.
Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.
The ongoing debate over libel has prompted at least one proposal for a new set of libel laws that would make it easier for public officials and others to prove their cases. The proposal -- drafted by a private committee of lawyers, law professors, and media representatives -- also would eliminate large financial awards that can be assessed against media groups found guilty of libel.
Privatization of something like this has the potential to put a huge dent in big government and save taxpayers a huge chunk of money each year. Nevertheless, support for privatization of the .org domain is far from universal. That's because certain people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
The relatively small number of people or institutions that benefit from a program, including federal employees and their unions, businesses that supply the program, and the communities in which facilities are located -- always fight to preserve it, since they believe their livelihood is on the line. By contrast, the cost of any one program typically is of little concern to most taxpayers, since it amounts to just a tiny fraction -- perhaps pennies -- of their annual tax bill. This makes it very difficult to arouse the public to fight the special interests opposed to privatization.
The trick is to overcome this opposition. Experience has shown that successful privatization programs accommodate the concerns of those who want to maintain the status quo. For example, opposition to privatization could be significantly reduced by providing government workers and managers with shares of stock in the new private enterprise, either at a discounted price or at no cost at all. Education of the bearded linux hippies in the ways of the capitalist system also goes a long way. Another good route is through generous severance packages and no-layoff policies also can diminish opposition among employees whose programs are privatization targets.
Over the past several decades, the U.S. government has created many large, inefficient commercial enterprises like the U.S. Postal Service, Amtrak, the U.S. Government Printing Office, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Why not privatize them all? Let them sink or swim. If they manage to turn a profit, so much the better. If they fail, so be it. But why stop there? The federal government also owns a staggering 700 million acres of land that could be far more productive and better managed if privately owned. The government would profit not only from the sale of these lands, but also from tax revenue generated by their commercial use.
As much as 70 percent of the federal civilian workforce performs routine administrative and service functions that could be done by private companies, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. The Department of Defense has been doing this for years, but other agencies, like the National Park Service, have fought the idea. Maybe it's time to remind the directors of these agencies that they are working for us, not vice versa. Maybe a healthy dose of free enterprise is just the medicine they need to convince them that the customer -- i.e., the U.S. taxpayer -- is always right.