I think that is section 631. I was referring to "California Penal Code Section 632": where is says any person who, records a confidential communication, whether the parties are in the presence of each other or communicating via a device shall be punished...".
In the case of the kid recording his teacher -- it could be argued that is wasn't public since the public can't just walk into a classroom and watch. I.e.-- just because it is a public school doesn't mean that all communications that occur at the school are public.
the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why."
I can see some future articles... "the most recent measurements of CO2 show it barely rising..." -or- "Recent heating of Ocean has caused an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere causing an increase in cloud cover that is expected to continue to grow for the next 30 years. Scientists believe that that if the ocean warming isn't halted (due to a recent uptick in geothermal activity believed to have been brought on by deep-core drilling attempts to develop cheap geothermal energy) that cloud cover will soon plummet the earth into an ice age not scene for the past 75,000 years.
Even though temperatures should be rising due to trapped heat from excess CO2, the heat first has to get below the increasing cloud cover to be trapped...."
etc...etc...etc.
Probably some ill-founded "hopefulness", but it seems we haven't completely discovered everything about what makes the earth tick and the planet may have a few more surprises up her sleeve before the cancer on her surface causes unprecedented warming... 'Sides, it's a good time to invest in Arctic Ocean-front Beach property...:-)
He kept talking about how he had to do his childhood fantasy monkey movie before the Hobbit. That came, and went (and was terrible, IMO), so why hasn't he moved on already? Some of the actors in the Rings could be used in the Hobbit...maybe Golum, Gandalf...not sure about others though -- Kate B. could provide a narration in her Elvin persona (as she would likely have had some knowledge of it even though, I don't remember her being in the book). l
In some states, like California, recording someone without them being aware of it (even if you are personally there) is illegal. Too many politicians got caught with their pants down and passed a self protective law.:-( lpq
From the original article, it seems the code predates the Novell-MS agreement. That would suggest it didn't come from MS. So why is this a problem?
Can the other distros (which the article claims had previously added the code) add MS compatibility code and have no problem, but when Novell adds the same code, they'll be accused of adding MS-supplied code?
Hopefully Novell will clarify their standing with MS such that any code released by Novell under the GPL is truly free GPL code.
Another area is the restriction that Suse development is limited to hobbyist development only. Commercial developers get no protections when using GPL code from SuSE. Sounds like SuSE may have shot themselves in the foot.
History has shown us that the oppressed almost always, eventually, take up the tools of their oppressors. I see members of the samba team, Moglan, and Redhat all using *F*U*D*.
Perhaps naively, but it:
1) appeared MS gave Novell money now, for Novell making payments later;
2) MS will help sell [Suse] Linux -- that means MS is distributing and bound by GPL2 code;
3) MS promised no patent attacks on Linux software used by Novell. This means the _SOFTWARE_ is free -- the promise wasn't protecting Novell users, per se, but the Linux software. Any other distro that uses the same software will find most of their software is covered by the MS-Novell deal.
To me, that read that almost all Linux software was now free of patent threats from MS -- no matter what distro it is in -- if it is in Novell's distribution, it is covered software.
It makes sense that this wouldn't apply to all GPL software -- since that would expose MS to unlimited loss of patent protection should any GNU software choose to START violating patents. Presumably, Novell might choose to avoid software that blatantly violates patents. But to ask that MS never sue anyone over GPL code due to patent infringement is asking too much out of a vendor-vendor deal.
Seems like some "free" SW people can't accept good news -- they have to kick a gift horse in the mouth and create a problem where one previously did not exist.
Too bad, otherwise intelligent, people are taking such a reactionary stance.:-(
That vision of Ballmer, with his little, bald, slightly-pointed head, looking like he was popping with joy while talking about his squirting content, I really didn't need.
You miss an important point. You are looking at the issue from the perspective of an engineer. Photography has a large artistic component. It isn't an engineering discipline. With artistic works, how much time is spent creating an art work is worthless -- it doesn't really matter. It is the object that is of value in an aesthetic endeavor.
The end result in photography isn't always of the same quality. You are paying photographers for artistic ability -- the better they are, the more they get paid via picture orders. Those with little to no ability may barely make it by or may need to find another business.
I'm sure if you advertised for someone to just come in and sit behind a camera and take snapshots on your camera, where you pay them $100 dollar an hour, you'd find takers. You may not like the quality, but quality would no longer be the issue -- only time.
The Photographers are not imposing their fee structure on you. You accept it.
However, you are equally capable of coming to alternate arrangements.
It sounds like you want to force photographers onto a preset hourly wage. Don't they have the right make a product and sell it for the price they want? In photography you pay for the quality of the output, not the amount of time input.
Photography is not necessarily something you can necessarily put value on, until after the photographs are evaluated. Something that "counts" so much more in art and photography is the quality of the end result. In engineering professions, you expect two different plumbers to do not too dissimilar work. Most do it at, or near the minimum required by law. But certainly one plumbers work won't be valued at 1000 times the work of another. In art and photography, one does have such large differences in the final work.
I would propose that your system would be unworkable. It would allow more incompetent photographers to make a living and severely cut down the rewards available to the finest professional photographers. The finest ones would drop out, the lowest skill level would drop due to the lack of instant feedback (via copies of their work). People would have to pay more, like you said, all photographers would have to raise their rate to compensate for not having residual rights to the originals.
The end result is people pay more for less quality.
I submit that trying to "force" a "pay for time", _only_, reward system would either be detrimental to society or be unworkable at all.
Why must free speech be equated to "no responsibility" speech?
If you are reporting about government or bad-employer activities, that's an area where free speech is needed to protect the speaker, but when it comes to personal sniping against other individuals -- individuals need protection against anonymous sniping.
Taking responsibility for personal attacks is part of learning "responsibility for having free speech". To encourage irresponsibility is too encourage the death of freedom (witness America)...
I called in about some problem or another in a phone I have with Verizon. They wanted to upgrade my phone with a 2-year commitment, or for some phones with a 1 year commitment. The guy told me my current phone doesn't have some cellular-GPS tracking tech in it. All phones sold after 2004(?) had to have the new tech to be "911 capable" -- so someone dialing 911 for an emergency would have their location displayed on the 911 operator's display the same as land-lines currently are. My phone was grandfathered in, but if I ever lose it, any replacement would be of a newer model w/tracking^w"911 compatibility". I don't believe you have to be making a call to be tracked, since they need to know which cell tower has the strongest signal lock with you, when an incoming call needs to be routed to your phone. But for street and address, I don't know if more than one tower is needed or perhaps the 911 enhancement eliminates the need for more than one tower. -l
Dictionaries are "descriptive" as much as "prescriptive". If the language didn't change, how would we discuss new ideas and new technologies?
Ah -- I see, that's the point: if you don't allow new terms into the language, you believe you can prevent change and circumvent discussion about issues for which there are no words to describe (as you don't allow for the new terms). " Brilliant! "
Near as I can tell, even Microsoft has discovered that maintaining compatibility with those stuck in the "DOS-mentality", isn't possible while providing upgraded ways of doing things and attempting to correct insecurities (or flaws, "misunderstandings") present in the older Operating Systems.
If we can't keep 100% compatibility in OS development, how is it logical to expect 100%/backward/ compatibility with older English usage? Should we all still be speaking Latin or Sanskrit (or whatever)? Where do you want to freeze language?
At the risk confirming my ignorance, I open my mouth to ask:
As I understand, "Second Life" (or "SL"), is a "Game"? It is sold by a third-party and uses network servers to allow player? Isn't there a subscription fee for access (besides the outlay for the initial game software)?
If NOAA is working on a project to display their publicly funded data in a virtual setting, that will be displayed in SL, will people be able to access this data on a "free account" in SL, or is the outcome of this project only accessible to people who "pay to play" SL?
Is this a way to get US citizens to pay a second time for access to weather data already collected through public funding?
I appreciate the new "display format" (or I might if I could actually see and/or use it), but if it is only available to private parties playing in the 3rd-party, "pay-to-exist & access" game world, I hope NOAA is being compensated by "SL" for the added benefit NOAA is bringing to the game. --OR--
I could hope that "dummy characters" could be publicly available to use through a free or open-source (SL) client that allows viewing of the NOAA, virtualized, weather data.
Perhaps one could enter the "VR" in a B/W, 2-D, low-res, "avatar" to use "public facilities", but paying members would get full-color, full-res, 3-D "avatar".
Or, alternatively, public-access avatars could be like "ghosts" - not interacting w/surroundings, having limited mobility and limited access to "public facilities". Perhaps a phone-booth metaphor would be useful for talking to people in the game, but "real" (game) interaction would be limited to paying members?
Anyway, anyone know if anything will be accessible to the general public?
Who the hell knows? Ask 5 lawyers and you'll get 5 different answers.
That this is marked "funny" seems odd. It is the job of lawyers to come up with interpretations of the law that support their client. It is then the job to convince a judge or jury of the reality of this position by showing their interpretation, is, at the time, "correct".
There is no absolute right or wrong answer. There is "one correct answer" to the previous poster's question. There is only that, which a lawyer can convince a court of, within the time constraints of the specific court, to be [a] "correct" interpretation of the law.
"Lawyering" isn't about finding "right" or "wrong". It's about salesmanship.
Naw...we aren't even a bit more than most into portraing every issue to be "indoctrinated into us as seeing most situations to be about competition, battles, market (and/or military) wars, needing to "kill" the competition.
Pure coincidence....
We are trained to see and resolve issues through battle metaphors coming from some essentialist view that all issues can be seen as a series of unending, power-over dynamics, battle simulations and victories over a crushed opponent).
These are the training tools to bring out our second nature, as our "innate" response in dealing with "differences" that arise. The most ruthless, cunning and brutal, survive, to pass these traits on to next generation.
Guess we need to keep uping the intensity -- face it, GI'Joes and football are a bit passé and, besides, they never seemed to really catch on that well with women. On the other hand, "Pro" TV wrestling seems to stimulate women more toward fighting... Maybe there's hope there...:-/
Seems like there could be a market case for reserving an area on a disk that isn't visible upon boot unless the "extra" partiton is made visible before the OS boot. After the OS is booted, the hard disk would appear to be a regular hard disk with Track 0, Partition 0 *starting* on the first track past your user-reserved, secure/invisible partition.
For example a secure HD might come with a 30G "hidden" at the beginning or end of the physical disk. Upon boot, if "key" (isn't inserted in computer during boot, the physcial HD (really size 100G) boots up with a 60G disk visable. Without the key (sw, hw, whatever) present on boot, it formats and functions like a 60G HD.
With the key installed, it boots off the hidden partition table. From there you run your "well mannered" OS's, they can boot other OS's or execute an "eject/disable key", and boot into the 60G sandbox where Vista can believe it has the entire device to itself.
Of course the priviledged OS could alternatively, launch the Vista OS within a VM. It could have a dual-boot HW config as though it was a multi-dockable laptop where many hardware changes get ignored: ethernet ports, hard disk, peripheral changes even disk-controllers as my docked laptop at work has a PCI-bridge & bus to a PCI-SCSI-RAID card, while the one at home uses alternate hardware, and an external eSata self-contained RAID box. Screen configs can differ -- mouse and keyboard config, etc. Neat thing -- it's all the same processor, and main-hard disk image, so it really is all the same computer -- laptop configs give much lattitude in changing in/out hardware.
Now if only I can get native XP 3d-accelerated graphics while in the VM...sigh.
Our service provider[1] has recently sent a notice to their announcements list (to which I subscribe) indicating that certain major names[2], including Hotmail and AOL, are no longer accepting mail from our provider. They[2] don't even bounce it properly; they silently drop it. This is all done in the name of fighting spam, so they claim, because our service provider forwards a lot of spam onto them. (Our service provider[1] forwards any mail received at a paying customer's address to any forwarding address requested by that customer, in fact.) The content of any given mail, and the specific people it's going from and to, are irrelevant to this blanket ban.
Two comments about your "I'm a victim" stance: [1] You are choosing to stay with a provider who provides insufficient anti-email harrassment oversite for the [#2] ISP's comfort level. You could talk to your ISP about the problem or choose an ISP who prevents unwanted harrassment of other ISP's users.
[2] The users of these companies choose to have their email automatically filtered by whatever rules their ISP imposes on them. They are free to relocate their email accounts to an ISP that doesn't impose such restrictions. However (if you could contact your customers via a temporary 3rd party address) you can also inform your customers of the problem and tell them to either find another ISP who won't filter unwanted spam out of their email, or to put pressure on their ISP to let all of the unwanted email generated by customers of your ISP [#1] through to their[#2] users.
See how far #2 gets you -- I'm just guessing, but most users would likely prefer to have unwanted spam filtered out and are not so threatened by the possibility of losing an email to risk switching to a non-filtering ISP.
If you wish to be proactive and not have your users bothered with switching, then maybe you need to move to a non-spam supporting ISP? Or, have your own domain and outgoing email server that isn't shared with possible spammers.
Personally, I find the option of a 3rd party filtering my mail less than exciting, so I go with a non-filtering ISP. While my ISP is responsible (AFAIK) in stopping outgoing spam and they do have rules in place against such [mis]use, I still go with the option of using a permanent email domain on a static IP for my outgoing email.
Unless my systems get "hax0r3d & 0wn3d", I believe it unlikely I would find myself in the victimized position you have found yourself in. You still have a choice to remove yourself from such a position.
All said -- in regards to the original story -- it would be very bad precedent for the US to attempt to enforce US laws and court judgements through an international organization like ICANN. If there is anything that is likely to cause fragmentation and internet disruption, it would attempts to by the US to control the internet through the happenstance of ICANN's location in the US. It would be just plain, short-sighted, adminstrative suicide. Unfortunately, this isn't too different from our normal capitalist, survive-through-next-election, future-be-damned, short-sighted government that is currently in power, so it may not seem so unreasonable or short-sighted to the current fools-in-power.
I'd like to think saner heads reigned, but I realize that, realistically, it is unlikely.
Our fearless legal boys, who help all to "get" (understand) the SCO-Linux case wrote recently:
"Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop,' or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment.... Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO."
Let me interrupt my narrative to quickly ask, Why ever would Microsoft guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO? What would be the business purpose here? What would Microsoft's benefit or payback be? What were they hoping for as the return on the investment? And why didn't they wish to invest directly? Pray do explain. Joke. Joke. Anyhow, after the investment was made, Goldfarb says, "Microsoft stopped returning my phone calls and emails, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Emerson was fired from Microsoft."
Now it's all nice of groklaw to interpret the first paragraph for us, but I have to wonder about the naivete of believing the legal statement given in the first paragraph. It's like being accused of manipulating Oil supply by "investing" in oil "prices", paying double or triple what the oil is "really worth", then claiming you did it because someone from "OPEC Corp" said their company would back the investment.
So a shiek from "OPEC Corp", claiming to represent the leadership of OPEC, says they will guarantee your investment in 20 billion, triple-priced barrels. "Here, let's shake on it" he says. Now are you going to believe him? While OPEC Corp would never be caught investing in such market manipulation, they will guarantee your investment if you invest your money. Sure...I'd believe that, wouldn't you?
Do we really believe anyone in "OPEC Corp's" leadership would really support such a plan? Or that Baystar would then simply invest large sums of money on the "say-so" of some dime-a-dozen "VP" from Microsoft with no signed agreement?
Then you made your investment and the sheik disappeared? Uh huh... Abducted by aliens, eh?...
And "we" believe MS would really back such a plan?
Hey! Did I tell you about a bridge you can invest in...as a V.P. in Acme Bridge Corp (ABC), let me tell you about our investment guarantee plan....
How does one get a hold of an RFID reader? Are there writable RFID's? Like can I create my own RFID's and put them on things in my house (with my own numbering system, I'm not sure it would be a privacy issue (?)), so I can constantly find things like my keys, the remotes...etc...?
I'd like to know when something has an RFID in it as well...I bought a pair of leather work gloves at Home Despot the other day. There was no obvious tag -- but she deactivated them anyway and they beeped. I find out later there is a tag sewn into the leather label that is stitched into the glove. Not so easy to remove without a seam ripper.
I like to regularly remove store tags when I get things home, but some of them are getting harder to find. Of real annoyance is my local Longs (a high-priced, "5 & 10" -- that's 5 and 10 Euros, not US cents, as the dollar is deflating in value ~ 7-9% / year since Bush took office). They stick the RFID's on the written labels of medical instructions on over-the-counter medicines, hiding text, and ripping off large parts of the label when removed. But even a small box of No-Doz gets a tag these days with No-Doz rising to $.15/tab in the cheapest size. Inflation, biting into my caffiene in a serious way -- they only used to be ~.10/tab a few years back. Ouch!
I knew it -- Apple is getting a lock on the creation of "pod people".
Move over "Body Snatchers", here come the "Apple Pod People" -- walking around with blank looks on their faces; seeming to be in another world. Sometimes body parts are noted to twitch or spasm in weird, yet rhythmical, patterns, etc.
Or, maybe in locking down the phrase "pod-casting", they have intentions to do their own type of pod-casting, as in "They Live", or the short series, "Threshold"?
The pods cover a critical mass of the general population, then
" "
: an inaudible alien signal that will usher in some bizarre new "reality"...
2. Regular folk should only install software from reasonably trusted sources.
Therein lies the rub. How many packages under MacOS or Windows can you install fromsources that you trust?
I asked a Windows firewall developer who was developing a firewall based on BSD sources. Yet when I wanted to try the product, the developer was all "*clueless*" about why I would would need the sources to run their "special", "free", firewall product . The fact that they didn't, even, understand the need to compile from source made me doubly suspicious as to their intent.
How many of you trust binaries produced by "MS", or a media company (ala Sony rootkit)?
How many of you trust that software installed by, say a security company, like Semantec, will do exactly what it claims to do and nothing else? Even signed, do you trust any program from Microsoft to do only what it is advertised to do and nothing else? Do you trust Apple? What company that sells programs, in binary, do you trust implicitly and without reservation?
I submit that, in _practice_, there are no "trustable source other than source, and even source has its limits.
If it is possible even the source isn't trustable, how can you begin to trust a pre-built binary -- yes, it is signed, but by who? MS? The government?
It seems the alternative to not installing untrusted sources is [practically] to not install anything, and that's just not very practical.:-(
I'm in an area dominated by locals, where the network station feeds often have very cool shows, showing, my local station cuts off the "out-of-area" stations showing sci-fi shows on weekend afternoons, or late evening, with the claim that they have the rights to show those programs at 3-4am (to kill ratings) instead.
I also dislike my local station's (and local cable's) consistent tendancies to cut out parts of national, primetime shows to splice in extra advertising. If my local stations (FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC) didn't corrupt network broadcasts with more advertising and didn't ban other channels showing programs at a "watchable hour" (recording is a hassle), I might agree, but all I've seen with local stations is "abuse".
I'd love it if it cut the other way, but it doesn't.
To get the bogus 'SLAPP' lawsuit [sic] case accepted in Illinois, David Linhardt had fabricated that Spamhaus "operates business in Illinois". Illinois District Court Judge Charles ['Kock-Up'] Kocoras,"... typical of corrupt US judges in the Yankee Trader States, failed to perform due diligence, "failed to seek proof and erroneously ruled his Illinois Discrict Court had jurisdiction over the United Kingdom.
SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Partiticpation are used by companies to silence public participation and outcries against shadey and/or illegal acts performed by those companies. The U.S., Yankee trader, Court system is complicit in protecting these illegal and shadey acts by creating a safe harbor for US companies to use threat and extortion (comply with our demands and pay us now, or our protection-boys in the US Court System will make it worse for you) to silence those who would speak out or attempt to use civil means to hinder or block the offending company's shadey business practices.
Operating outside the juridiction of Corrupt US Courts is one way to express and organize opposition to these companies that manipulate the US Revenge (root meaning of Justice) system. Any entity that successfully fights against this corruption should get the people's whole-hearted support and blessing.
US Civil Law was created to protect companies and the wealthy. It is best administered by having one's own "legal" team of Pharisees team on retainer. If you don't have your own private lawyer, then then non-criminal law wasn't written for you.:-|
Slashdot Mirror
I think that is section 631. I was referring to "California Penal Code Section 632": where is says any person who, records a confidential communication, whether the parties are in the presence of each other or communicating via a device shall be punished...".
In the case of the kid recording his teacher -- it could be argued that is wasn't public since the public can't just walk into a classroom and watch. I.e.-- just because it is a public school doesn't mean that all communications that occur at the school are public.
Seem the URL in the original post has gone stale...
I can see some future articles...
"the most recent measurements of CO2 show it barely rising..."
-or-
"Recent heating of Ocean has caused an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere causing an increase in cloud cover that is expected to continue to grow for the next 30 years. Scientists believe that that if the ocean warming isn't halted (due to a recent uptick in geothermal activity believed to have been brought on by deep-core drilling attempts to develop cheap geothermal energy) that cloud cover will soon plummet the earth into an ice age not scene for the past 75,000 years.
Even though temperatures should be rising due to trapped heat from excess CO2, the heat first has to get below the increasing cloud cover to be trapped...."
etc...etc...etc.
Probably some ill-founded "hopefulness", but it seems we haven't completely discovered everything about what makes the earth tick and the planet may have a few more surprises up her sleeve before the cancer on her surface causes unprecedented warming... 'Sides, it's a good time to invest in Arctic Ocean-front Beach property...:-)
He kept talking about how he had to do his childhood fantasy monkey movie before the Hobbit. That came, and went (and was terrible, IMO), so why hasn't he moved on already? Some of the actors in the Rings could be used in the Hobbit...maybe Golum, Gandalf...not sure about others though -- Kate B. could provide a narration in her Elvin persona (as she would likely have had some knowledge of it even though, I don't remember her being in the book).
l
In some states, like California, recording someone without them being aware of it (even if you are personally there) is illegal. Too many politicians got caught with their pants down and passed a self protective law. :-(
lpq
From the original article, it seems the code predates the Novell-MS agreement. That would suggest it didn't come from MS. So why is this a problem?
Can the other distros (which the article claims had previously added the code) add MS compatibility code and have no problem, but when Novell adds the same code, they'll be accused of adding MS-supplied code?
Hopefully Novell will clarify their standing with MS such that any code released by Novell under the GPL is truly free GPL code.
Another area is the restriction that Suse development is limited to hobbyist development only. Commercial developers get no protections when using GPL code from SuSE. Sounds like SuSE may have shot themselves in the foot.
-l
Nevermind...I was reading off of a misleading summary of the deal.
I agree, the deal appears to suck...:-(
History has shown us that the oppressed almost always, eventually, take up the tools of their oppressors. I see members of the samba team, Moglan, and Redhat all using *F*U*D*.
:-(
Perhaps naively, but it:
1) appeared MS gave Novell money now, for Novell making payments later;
2) MS will help sell [Suse] Linux -- that means MS is distributing and bound by GPL2 code;
3) MS promised no patent attacks on Linux software used by Novell. This means the _SOFTWARE_ is free -- the promise wasn't protecting Novell users, per se, but the Linux software. Any other distro that uses the same software will find most of their software is covered by the MS-Novell deal.
To me, that read that almost all Linux software was now free of patent threats from MS -- no matter what distro it is in -- if it is in Novell's distribution, it is covered software.
It makes sense that this wouldn't apply to all GPL software -- since that would expose MS to unlimited loss of patent protection should any GNU software choose to START violating patents. Presumably, Novell might choose to avoid software that blatantly violates patents. But to ask that MS never sue anyone over GPL code due to patent infringement is asking too much out of a vendor-vendor deal.
Seems like some "free" SW people can't accept good news -- they have to kick a gift horse in the mouth and create a problem where one previously did not exist.
Too bad, otherwise intelligent, people are taking such a reactionary stance.
That vision of Ballmer, with his little, bald, slightly-pointed head, looking like he was popping with joy while talking about his squirting content, I really didn't need.
You miss an important point. You are looking at the issue from the perspective of an engineer. Photography has a large artistic component. It isn't an engineering discipline. With artistic works, how much time is spent creating an art work is worthless -- it doesn't really matter. It is the object that is of value in an aesthetic endeavor.
The end result in photography isn't always of the same quality. You are paying photographers for artistic ability -- the better they are, the more they get paid via picture orders. Those with little to no ability may barely make it by or may need to find another business.
I'm sure if you advertised for someone to just come in and sit behind a camera and take snapshots on your camera, where you pay them $100 dollar an hour, you'd find takers. You may not like the quality, but quality would no longer be the issue -- only time.
The Photographers are not imposing their fee structure on you. You accept it.
However, you are equally capable of coming to alternate arrangements.
It sounds like you want to force photographers onto a preset hourly wage. Don't they have the right make a product and sell it for the price they want? In photography you pay for the quality of the output, not the amount of time input.
Photography is not necessarily something you can necessarily put value on, until after the photographs are evaluated. Something that "counts" so much more in art and photography is the quality of the end result. In engineering professions, you expect two different plumbers to do not too dissimilar work. Most do it at, or near the minimum required by law. But certainly one plumbers work won't be valued at 1000 times the work of another. In art and photography, one does have such large differences in the final work.
I would propose that your system would be unworkable. It would allow more incompetent photographers to make a living and severely cut down the rewards available to the finest professional photographers. The finest ones would drop out, the lowest skill level would drop due to the lack of instant feedback (via copies of their work). People would have to pay more, like you said, all photographers would have to raise their rate to compensate for not having residual rights to the originals.
The end result is people pay more for less quality.
I submit that trying to "force" a "pay for time", _only_, reward system would either
be detrimental to society or be unworkable at all.
-l
Why must free speech be equated to "no responsibility" speech?
If you are reporting about government or bad-employer activities, that's an area where free speech is needed to protect the speaker, but when it comes to personal sniping against other individuals -- individuals need protection against anonymous sniping.
Taking responsibility for personal attacks is part of learning "responsibility for having free speech". To encourage irresponsibility is too encourage the death of freedom (witness America)...
I called in about some problem or another in a phone I have with Verizon. They wanted to upgrade my phone with a 2-year commitment, or for some phones with a 1 year commitment. The guy told me my current phone doesn't have some cellular-GPS tracking tech in it. All phones sold after 2004(?) had to have the new tech to be "911 capable" -- so someone dialing 911 for an emergency would have their location displayed on the 911 operator's display the same as land-lines currently are. My phone was grandfathered in, but if I ever lose it, any replacement would be of a newer model w/tracking^w"911 compatibility". I don't believe you have to be making a call to be tracked, since they need to know which cell tower has the strongest signal lock with you, when an incoming call needs to be routed to your phone. But for street and address, I don't know if more than one tower is needed or perhaps the 911 enhancement eliminates the need for more than one tower.
-l
Dictionaries are "descriptive" as much as "prescriptive". If the language didn't change, how would we discuss new ideas and new technologies?
/backward/ compatibility with older English usage? Should we all still be speaking Latin or Sanskrit (or whatever)? Where do you want to freeze language?
Ah -- I see, that's the point: if you don't allow new terms into the language, you believe you can prevent change and circumvent discussion about issues for which there are no words to describe (as you don't allow for the new terms). " Brilliant! "
Near as I can tell, even Microsoft has discovered that maintaining compatibility with those stuck in the "DOS-mentality", isn't possible while providing upgraded ways of doing things and attempting to correct insecurities (or flaws, "misunderstandings") present in the older Operating Systems.
If we can't keep 100% compatibility in OS development, how is it logical to expect 100%
At the risk confirming my ignorance, I open my mouth to ask:
As I understand, "Second Life" (or "SL"), is a "Game"? It is sold by a third-party and uses network servers to allow player? Isn't there a subscription fee for access (besides the outlay for the initial game software)?
If NOAA is working on a project to display their publicly funded data in a virtual setting, that will be displayed in SL, will people be able to access this data on a "free account" in SL, or is the outcome of this project only accessible to people who "pay to play" SL?
Is this a way to get US citizens to pay a second time for access to weather data already collected through public funding?
I appreciate the new "display format" (or I might if I could actually see and/or use it), but if it is only available to private parties playing in the 3rd-party, "pay-to-exist & access" game world, I hope NOAA is being compensated by "SL" for the added benefit NOAA is bringing to the game. --OR--
I could hope that "dummy characters" could be publicly available to use through a free or open-source (SL) client that allows viewing of the NOAA, virtualized, weather data.
Perhaps one could enter the "VR" in a B/W, 2-D, low-res, "avatar" to use "public facilities", but paying members would get full-color, full-res, 3-D "avatar".
Or, alternatively, public-access avatars could be like "ghosts" - not interacting w/surroundings, having limited mobility and limited access to "public facilities". Perhaps a phone-booth metaphor would be useful for talking to people in the game, but "real" (game) interaction would be limited to paying members?
Anyway, anyone know if anything will be accessible to the general public?
That this is marked "funny" seems odd.
It is the job of lawyers to come up with interpretations of the law that support their client. It is then the job to convince a judge or jury of the reality of this position by showing their interpretation, is, at the time, "correct".
There is no absolute right or wrong answer. There is "one correct answer" to the previous poster's question. There is only that, which a lawyer can convince a court of, within the time constraints of the specific court, to be [a] "correct" interpretation of the law.
"Lawyering" isn't about finding "right" or "wrong". It's about salesmanship.
-l
Naw...we aren't even a bit more than most into portraing every issue to be "indoctrinated into us as seeing most situations to be about competition, battles, market (and/or military) wars, needing to "kill" the competition.
Pure coincidence....
We are trained to see and resolve issues through battle metaphors coming from some essentialist view that all issues can be seen as a series of unending, power-over dynamics, battle simulations and victories over a crushed opponent).
These are the training tools to bring out our second nature, as our "innate" response in dealing with "differences" that arise. The most ruthless, cunning and brutal, survive, to pass these traits on to next generation.
Guess we need to keep uping the intensity -- face it, GI'Joes and football are a bit passé and, besides, they never seemed to really catch on that well with women. On the other hand, "Pro" TV wrestling seems to stimulate women more toward fighting... Maybe there's hope there...:-/
-lpq
Seems like there could be a market case for reserving an area on a disk that isn't visible upon boot unless the "extra" partiton is made visible before the OS boot. After the OS is booted, the hard disk would appear to be a regular hard disk with Track 0, Partition 0 *starting* on the first track past your user-reserved, secure/invisible partition.
For example a secure HD might come with a 30G "hidden" at the beginning or end of the physical disk. Upon boot, if "key" (isn't inserted in computer during boot, the physcial HD (really size 100G) boots up with a 60G disk visable. Without the key (sw, hw, whatever) present on boot, it formats and functions like a 60G HD.
With the key installed, it boots off the hidden partition table. From there you run your "well mannered" OS's, they can boot other OS's or execute an "eject/disable key", and boot into the 60G sandbox where Vista can believe it has the entire device to itself.
Of course the priviledged OS could alternatively, launch the Vista OS within a VM. It could have a dual-boot HW config as though it was a multi-dockable laptop where many hardware changes get ignored: ethernet ports, hard disk, peripheral changes even disk-controllers as my docked laptop at work has a PCI-bridge & bus to a PCI-SCSI-RAID card, while the one at home uses alternate hardware, and an external eSata self-contained RAID box. Screen configs can differ -- mouse and keyboard config, etc. Neat thing -- it's all the same processor, and main-hard disk image, so it really is all the same computer -- laptop configs give much lattitude in changing in/out hardware.
Now if only I can get native XP 3d-accelerated graphics while in the VM...sigh.
-l
Two comments about your "I'm a victim" stance:
[1] You are choosing to stay with a provider who provides insufficient anti-email harrassment oversite for the [#2] ISP's comfort level. You could talk to your ISP about the problem or choose an ISP who prevents unwanted harrassment of other ISP's users.
[2] The users of these companies choose to have their email automatically filtered by whatever rules their ISP imposes on them. They are free to relocate their email accounts to an ISP that doesn't impose such restrictions. However (if you could contact your customers via a temporary 3rd party address) you can also inform your customers of the problem and tell them to either find another ISP who won't filter unwanted spam out of their email, or to put pressure on their ISP to let all of the unwanted email generated by customers of your ISP [#1] through to their[#2] users.
See how far #2 gets you -- I'm just guessing, but most users would likely prefer to have unwanted spam filtered out and are not so threatened by the possibility of losing an email to risk switching to a non-filtering ISP.
If you wish to be proactive and not have your users bothered with switching, then maybe you need to move to a non-spam supporting ISP? Or, have your own domain and outgoing email server that isn't shared with possible spammers.
Personally, I find the option of a 3rd party filtering my mail less than exciting, so I go with a non-filtering ISP. While my ISP is responsible (AFAIK) in stopping outgoing spam and they do have rules in place against such [mis]use, I still go with the option of using a permanent email domain on a static IP for my outgoing email.
Unless my systems get "hax0r3d & 0wn3d", I believe it unlikely I would find myself in the victimized position you have found yourself in. You still have a choice to remove yourself from such a position.
All said -- in regards to the original story -- it would be very bad precedent for the US to attempt to enforce US laws and court judgements through an international organization like ICANN. If there is anything that is likely to cause fragmentation and internet disruption, it would attempts to by the US to control the internet through the happenstance of ICANN's location in the US. It would be just plain, short-sighted, adminstrative suicide. Unfortunately, this isn't too different from our normal capitalist, survive-through-next-election, future-be-damned, short-sighted government that is currently in power, so it may not seem so unreasonable or short-sighted to the current fools-in-power.
I'd like to think saner heads reigned, but I realize that, realistically, it is unlikely.
Now it's all nice of groklaw to interpret the first paragraph for us, but I have to wonder about the naivete of believing the legal statement given in the first paragraph. It's like being accused of manipulating Oil supply by "investing" in oil "prices", paying double or triple what the oil is "really worth", then claiming you did it because someone from "OPEC Corp" said their company would back the investment.
So a shiek from "OPEC Corp", claiming to represent the leadership of OPEC, says they will guarantee your investment in 20 billion, triple-priced barrels. "Here, let's shake on it" he says. Now are you going to believe him? While OPEC Corp would never be caught investing in such market manipulation, they will guarantee your investment if you invest your money. Sure...I'd believe that, wouldn't you?
Do we really believe anyone in "OPEC Corp's" leadership would really support such a plan? Or that Baystar would then simply invest large sums of money on the "say-so" of some dime-a-dozen "VP" from Microsoft with no signed agreement?
Then you made your investment and the sheik disappeared? Uh huh... Abducted by aliens, eh?...
And "we" believe MS would really back such a plan?
Hey! Did I tell you about a bridge you can invest in...as a V.P. in Acme Bridge Corp (ABC), let me tell you about our investment guarantee plan....
;^)
How does one get a hold of an RFID reader? Are there writable RFID's? Like can I create my own RFID's and put them on things in my house (with my own numbering system, I'm not sure it would be a privacy issue (?)), so I can constantly find things like my keys, the remotes...etc...?
I'd like to know when something has an RFID in it as well...I bought a pair of leather work gloves at Home Despot the other day. There was no obvious tag -- but she deactivated them anyway and they beeped. I find out later there is a tag sewn into the leather label that is stitched into the glove. Not so easy to remove without a seam ripper.
I like to regularly remove store tags when I get things home, but some of them are getting harder to find. Of real annoyance is my local Longs (a high-priced, "5 & 10" -- that's 5 and 10 Euros, not US cents, as the dollar is deflating in value ~ 7-9% / year since Bush took office). They stick the RFID's on the written labels of medical instructions on over-the-counter medicines, hiding text, and ripping off large parts of the label when removed. But even a small box of No-Doz gets a tag these days with No-Doz rising to $.15/tab in the cheapest size. Inflation, biting into my caffiene in a serious way -- they only used to be ~.10/tab a few years back. Ouch!
Move over "Body Snatchers", here come the "Apple Pod People" -- walking around with blank looks on their faces; seeming to be in another world. Sometimes body parts are noted to twitch or spasm in weird, yet rhythmical, patterns, etc.
Or, maybe in locking down the phrase "pod-casting", they have intentions to do their own type of pod-casting, as in "They Live", or the short series, "Threshold"?
The pods cover a critical mass of the general population, then : an inaudible alien signal that will usher in some bizarre new "reality"...
|
Pod
Therein lies the rub. How many packages under MacOS or Windows can you install fromsources that you trust?
I asked a Windows firewall developer who was developing a firewall based on BSD sources. Yet when I wanted to try the product, the developer was all "*clueless*" about why I would would need the sources to run their "special", "free", firewall product . The fact that they didn't, even, understand the need to compile from source made me doubly suspicious as to their intent.
How many of you trust binaries produced by "MS", or a media company (ala Sony rootkit)?
How many of you trust that software installed by, say a security company, like Semantec, will do exactly what it claims to do and nothing else? Even signed, do you trust any program from Microsoft to do only what it is advertised to do and nothing else? Do you trust Apple?
What company that sells programs, in binary, do you trust implicitly and without reservation?
I submit that, in _practice_, there are no "trustable source other than source, and even source has its limits.
If it is possible even the source isn't trustable, how can you begin to trust a pre-built binary -- yes, it is signed, but by who? MS? The government?
It seems the alternative to not installing untrusted sources is [practically] to not install anything, and that's just not very practical. :-(
-l
I'm in an area dominated by locals, where the network station feeds often have very cool shows, showing, my local station cuts off the "out-of-area" stations showing sci-fi shows on weekend afternoons, or late evening, with the claim that they have the rights to show those programs at 3-4am (to kill ratings) instead.
I also dislike my local station's (and local cable's) consistent tendancies to cut out parts of national, primetime shows to splice in extra advertising. If my local stations (FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC) didn't corrupt network broadcasts with more advertising and didn't ban other channels showing programs at a "watchable hour" (recording is a hassle), I might agree, but all I've seen with local stations is "abuse".
I'd love it if it cut the other way, but it doesn't.
l
SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Partiticpation are used by companies to silence public participation and outcries against shadey and/or illegal acts performed by those companies. The U.S., Yankee trader, Court system is complicit in protecting these illegal and shadey acts by creating a safe harbor for US companies to use threat and extortion (comply with our demands and pay us now, or our protection-boys in the US Court System will make it worse for you) to silence those who would speak out or attempt to use civil means to hinder or block the offending company's shadey business practices.
Operating outside the juridiction of Corrupt US Courts is one way to express and organize opposition to these companies that manipulate the US Revenge (root meaning of Justice) system. Any entity that successfully fights against this corruption should get the people's whole-hearted support and blessing.
US Civil Law was created to protect companies and the wealthy. It is best administered by having one's own "legal" team of Pharisees team on retainer. If you don't have your own private lawyer, then then non-criminal law wasn't written for you.
-lpq