I'm scratching my head wondering why this is directed to ISP's, and not to the people themselves... people can opt to buy personal internet filtering software like NetNanny; why do the ISP's have to get involved? I'm sure NetNanny programs can import a simple text list of sites to block; what's all the fuss about?
The injured party may not be fully aware of his or her rights under the law.
You wouldn't claim that H&R Block floods the IRS with needless tax returns, even though they do solicit business and offer legal/financial advice to people who might not seek it otherwise.
Also, there are laws in some areas that let you counter-sue if a judge determines the case against you to be frivolous.
Yes, actually there are some who do that. It's the same at the local level, where some lawyers pay interns to stand at the local police station photocopying accident forms.
Is there something wrong with that? Would you prefer that injured people be apathetic and not pursue legal action when someone else breaks the law and hurts them?
Sounds reasonable, but what doesn't is working while "keeping a clearer version for himself". I assumed he meant in his "head", which makes my post still stand.
He writes the code normally, tests it normally, but then has a script reduce the variable names etc. before releasing it. He doesn't have to maintain two versions. He maintains one human-readable version, then automatically generates out the bandwidth-optimized version.
But it's not innovative. It's the digital equivalent of "put it on my tab" which is a centuries old business method used by proprietors who had a preexisting credit relationship with their customers.
It's obvious that it should translate to computer purchases, and shouldn't be patentable.
Exactly. This is just another case of "obvious thing" + "on a computer" = patent.
Especially since it's not even that clever of an implementation. Store someone's CC and Shipping info in a database. If they're logged in and click a Buy Now link, use the stored CC and Shipping info to complete the purchase.
There are lots of people who consider themselves religious but aren't nutjobs - my family for example. They believe the bible is partially historical, but mostly a moral guide not meant to be taken literally.
If you / your friends ridicule religious people simply because they're religious, then you're just as bigoted as the fundamentalists.
Just reclassify what you would have called an "exploit" as a "hidden feature".
As in,
"Hey there's a great new hidden feature I found in Internet Explorer for people who need to get remote root access their own systems:
Just load up this javascript + assembly code in a page in the browser, and Internet Explorer will automatically generate a stack overflow, so you can execute the assembly code! What a great new hidden feature I've found."
"Christian" generally means a follower/believer of Jesus Christ. So it's applied generally to all sorts of people who claim to follow Christ, regardless of how that manifests in their actions or religious practices.
Are you saying that there are no moderate christians in australia? Or is it just that you call people protestants, or catholics, or presbyterians (etc.) and only call people "christian" if they were really psycho fundamentalist?
There are plenty of christian religions that don't have these wacky paranoid ideas, and understand that having an imagination is okay, and that they can trust their parishioners to understand what's real and what's fantasy.
I was raised in the United Church of Christ, and while I don't practice much anymore, they were always an accepting group.
Good point; the tech used doesn't make them a logical group. The funny pages in a newspaper might be printed on the same sheet of paper as an article about the Senate foreign relations committee, but it doesn't mean the content is related or groupable in any way.
In my opinion, news and analysis and predictions about which way a popular company's products lines are heading is certainly journalism and news; but I guess the judge thought otherwise.
So I guess it's the judge who decides - I would like to ask the judge what criteria he uses to define a journalist who should be protected under this law, and explain why Thinksecret didn't qualify. And then I'd like to see the legislature clarify the wording in the law.
Thinksecret isn't a 14 year old girl's diary, and that forty year old DC resident may well be delusional and insane and publishing from an asylum.
Is that why I subscribe to the news paper? To read a bunch of journals? No, I read to find useful and generally confirmed information, or at least proof read opinions,
That speaks nothing for the quality of the newspaper. Not all things are of equal value, you know. Not all things should be measured the same way. You could be subscribed to Jeff Gannon's Talon News, for all I know.
I know what you mean... I guess my comment assumes that you can determine who does research and who doesn't. Usually you can tell by comparing your own research to the other person's. If it's way off, then either you've missed something or the person is just making stuff up.
Some sites do just this, such as mediamatters (clearly targets conservatives, but importantly only those that deserve it because they didn't do their research:-) )
Sort of offtopic but found this... Can anyone explain to me the point of this media research center article: 'Targeted' Reporter Works for Communist Paper. It complains that the media is hiding the fact that that italian reporter who just got freed in Iraq but then got shot at by US troops actually works for a communist newspaper. Does that make it okay to shoot at her convoy or something? I just don't know the point of the article... Why didn't they mention if she was from north or south italy, hmmm? Or if she prefers fetuccini or capellini? What is the relevance of her political philosophy?
It seems the MRC expects people to think "well, I'm mad that the US shot at a convoy, but because I know she's a red commie bastard, I instead support what the troops did".
you could just put an anonymous post on some website and not get in trouble for it
You can do that regardless of the ruling. You could also run into the middle of town with a mask on, shout the formula for Coke, then grab a cab out of town, and no one could stop you.
That's why Coke, besides using NDA's, severely limits who knows the formula in the first place.
A blog is an online journal. A journalist is "one who keeps/writes a journal". So how is a TV Anchor more of a "journalist" than a blogger?
The spirit of the law is to let the truth get out without compromising the truth-teller's safety / privacy. I think using it to provide insider info that may break NDA's about upcoming products is unfortunate, but we must defend it or else real whistleblowers, such as someone ratting out a pharmaceutical cover-up, will be afraid to tell their story, and the public will get hurt.
I don't agree with the KKK, for an extreme example, but I do agree with their right to speak their minds; and the same goes for thinksecret.com: I think it's sneaky to sell apple's private product info (paid informants, or just ads on the site) and then protect the transaction under the cover of journalism, but to protect other bloggers conveying more vital issues, we must also protect thinksecret.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if Terence Trent D'Arby's hit "Sign Your Name" was influenced by him having to sign contracts for everything he did with music back then?
:-) )
(and here's some guitar tab that I did if you want to try playing this fun song
>Let the cloning begin!
Great idea! I mean, what could possiblye go wrong? Oops, that's possibly. Heh, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong...
>But its optional by the end-user.
I'm scratching my head wondering why this is directed to ISP's, and not to the people themselves... people can opt to buy personal internet filtering software like NetNanny; why do the ISP's have to get involved? I'm sure NetNanny programs can import a simple text list of sites to block; what's all the fuss about?
In a number of expressions, Nathan uses to capture all letters.
How can this be a good book when it makes such mistakes?
Why is [A-z] wrong, and what's the correct way to do it?
The injured party may not be fully aware of his or her rights under the law.
You wouldn't claim that H&R Block floods the IRS with needless tax returns, even though they do solicit business and offer legal/financial advice to people who might not seek it otherwise.
Also, there are laws in some areas that let you counter-sue if a judge determines the case against you to be frivolous.
Yes, actually there are some who do that. It's the same at the local level, where some lawyers pay interns to stand at the local police station photocopying accident forms.
Is there something wrong with that? Would you prefer that injured people be apathetic and not pursue legal action when someone else breaks the law and hurts them?
Natalie can't fill out the suit.
You could fill out the missing curves with hot grits.
1) Bored websurfer heads over to slashdot.
2) Bored websurfer notices another lame story on the frontpage.
3) Bored websurfer posts uninsightful comment about how lame story submissions are produced.
4) Bored websurfer gets modded up as +1 Insightful.
5) Meta-reply gets modded up as +1 Funny or -1 Presumptious
Sounds reasonable, but what doesn't is working while "keeping a clearer version for himself". I assumed he meant in his "head", which makes my post still stand.
He writes the code normally, tests it normally, but then has a script reduce the variable names etc. before releasing it. He doesn't have to maintain two versions. He maintains one human-readable version, then automatically generates out the bandwidth-optimized version.
How long until the DM had your character wake up from that dream?
But it's not innovative. It's the digital equivalent of "put it on my tab" which is a centuries old business method used by proprietors who had a preexisting credit relationship with their customers.
It's obvious that it should translate to computer purchases, and shouldn't be patentable.
Exactly. This is just another case of "obvious thing" + "on a computer" = patent.
Especially since it's not even that clever of an implementation. Store someone's CC and Shipping info in a database. If they're logged in and click a Buy Now link, use the stored CC and Shipping info to complete the purchase.
How much would it cost in taxes per month for the government to provide free wifi to your town?
Will the government accept private companies' bids on this project?
You know how you can take a normal thing, like reading, and patent it by appending "on the internet"?
Can I patent normal things, but append "when done by Linus"?
Surely that will lead me to profit.
Yup, you're hugely sheltered.
There are lots of people who consider themselves religious but aren't nutjobs - my family for example. They believe the bible is partially historical, but mostly a moral guide not meant to be taken literally.
If you / your friends ridicule religious people simply because they're religious, then you're just as bigoted as the fundamentalists.
Just reclassify what you would have called an "exploit" as a "hidden feature".
As in,
"Hey there's a great new hidden feature I found in Internet Explorer for people who need to get remote root access their own systems:
Just load up this javascript + assembly code in a page in the browser, and Internet Explorer will automatically generate a stack overflow, so you can execute the assembly code! What a great new hidden feature I've found."
"Christian" generally means a follower/believer of Jesus Christ. So it's applied generally to all sorts of people who claim to follow Christ, regardless of how that manifests in their actions or religious practices.
Are you saying that there are no moderate christians in australia? Or is it just that you call people protestants, or catholics, or presbyterians (etc.) and only call people "christian" if they were really psycho fundamentalist?
There are plenty of christian religions that don't have these wacky paranoid ideas, and understand that having an imagination is okay, and that they can trust their parishioners to understand what's real and what's fantasy.
I was raised in the United Church of Christ, and while I don't practice much anymore, they were always an accepting group.
Good point; the tech used doesn't make them a logical group. The funny pages in a newspaper might be printed on the same sheet of paper as an article about the Senate foreign relations committee, but it doesn't mean the content is related or groupable in any way.
In my opinion, news and analysis and predictions about which way a popular company's products lines are heading is certainly journalism and news; but I guess the judge thought otherwise.
So I guess it's the judge who decides - I would like to ask the judge what criteria he uses to define a journalist who should be protected under this law, and explain why Thinksecret didn't qualify. And then I'd like to see the legislature clarify the wording in the law.
Are there fucked-up roleplayers? You bet. ...But you're going to find lunatics in any walk of life, whether hobby or occupation.
Especially people who are so overzealous about religion that they can't deal with a little make-believe.
What did the other people in the convoy say? The italian agents/soldiers escorting her? They weren't communist newspaper reporters.
Thinksecret isn't a 14 year old girl's diary, and that forty year old DC resident may well be delusional and insane and publishing from an asylum.
Is that why I subscribe to the news paper? To read a bunch of journals? No, I read to find useful and generally confirmed information, or at least proof read opinions,
That speaks nothing for the quality of the newspaper. Not all things are of equal value, you know. Not all things should be measured the same way. You could be subscribed to Jeff Gannon's Talon News, for all I know.
I know what you mean... I guess my comment assumes that you can determine who does research and who doesn't. Usually you can tell by comparing your own research to the other person's. If it's way off, then either you've missed something or the person is just making stuff up.
:-) )
Some sites do just this, such as mediamatters (clearly targets conservatives, but importantly only those that deserve it because they didn't do their research
Sort of offtopic but found this...
Can anyone explain to me the point of this media research center article: 'Targeted' Reporter Works for Communist Paper. It complains that the media is hiding the fact that that italian reporter who just got freed in Iraq but then got shot at by US troops actually works for a communist newspaper. Does that make it okay to shoot at her convoy or something? I just don't know the point of the article... Why didn't they mention if she was from north or south italy, hmmm? Or if she prefers fetuccini or capellini? What is the relevance of her political philosophy?
It seems the MRC expects people to think "well, I'm mad that the US shot at a convoy, but because I know she's a red commie bastard, I instead support what the troops did".
you could just put an anonymous post on some website and not get in trouble for it
You can do that regardless of the ruling. You could also run into the middle of town with a mask on, shout the formula for Coke, then grab a cab out of town, and no one could stop you.
That's why Coke, besides using NDA's, severely limits who knows the formula in the first place.
I consider blog writers who don't do much research to be like opinion columnists in a newspaper.
Are opinion columnists considered journalists?
A blog is an online journal. A journalist is "one who keeps/writes a journal". So how is a TV Anchor more of a "journalist" than a blogger?
8 47784
The spirit of the law is to let the truth get out without compromising the truth-teller's safety / privacy. I think using it to provide insider info that may break NDA's about upcoming products is unfortunate, but we must defend it or else real whistleblowers, such as someone ratting out a pharmaceutical cover-up, will be afraid to tell their story, and the public will get hurt.
I don't agree with the KKK, for an extreme example, but I do agree with their right to speak their minds; and the same goes for thinksecret.com: I think it's sneaky to sell apple's private product info (paid informants, or just ads on the site) and then protect the transaction under the cover of journalism, but to protect other bloggers conveying more vital issues, we must also protect thinksecret.
Similar points raised in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141361&cid=11