"I'm not going to do that. If you have specific criticisms of the EFF, it's up to you to explain exactly what experiences led you to those criticisms, in sufficient detail that others can easily verify your claims. You've given me no reason to believe that all the effort you're asking of me is going to lead to anything more than, 'Huh. He lost a case and blames the EFF.' "
Actually, it isn't up to me to explain exactly [this or that]. It is simply up to me to voice my opinion about the EFF, nothing more. Should you not desire to do the relevant research (and I notice you haven't done any Westlaw or Lexis research on EFF) and learn the facts, then so be it. I am not required to feed you information. It is up to you to feed yourself. How you do so (if at all) is also up to you.
I don't think my experiences will sway anyone's opinion about anything. They will, however, help the undecided form their opinion.
Learn basic research (ie: how to use a search engine, how to request public documents from your government, how to look up unpublished 9th Circuit Court opinions) and you'll answer your own questions.
You can have laziness and ignorance, or motivation and enlightenment. Pick one.
"I have experience with the EFF, and I say they're great. See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims? Perhaps you should describe your bad experience. If you're not a troll, prove it."
"I have experience with the EFF, and I say they're great. See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims? Perhaps you should describe your bad experience. If you're not a troll, prove it."
I'm already well-known in the online community, and my many legal battles are public record. Not only is it not my job to do your research for you, it is irrelevant and immaterial to my commentary. Just as I have had to research matters on my own, so should you. I have no duty to spoon-feed you my knowledge. This is my last response to you. Get off your armchair if you wish to progress beyond conjecture and meritless posturing, and begin addressing the issues at hand.
"Good point. Where are your facts? Nowhere? Ah well. Good night, and don't let the door hit you on the way out."
That's a fine pollyanna bromide, and while such empty platitudes might boost your ego they do little to support your position. As I reiterated in another post, I have personal experience with the EFF. What I opine regarding this matter is based on said experience. In addition, those without the benefit of said experience are welcome to peruse the public record with regard to such matters. Most court cases involving the EFF clearly demonstrate their lack of skillful legal argument and less than polished or informed oral arguments.
Your non-responsive invective is exactly what I'd expect from someone lacking direct experience in working with the EFF on these matters, yet still trying to deflect foundational criticism.
"There are some fairly important legal victories on that page. It is simply a case, it seems, of harping on the EFF for their failures without recognizing that they're human, and they lose cases. They also win cases."
They're also, for the most part, a bunch of inexperienced idiots who jump into cases for the publicity and headlines. In many cases, the attorneys that they send into court have only the faintest clue as to what they're doing. Their oral arguments are infantile and unpolished, as are their written briefs. In effect, having them argue a case typically means opening yourself up for an easy defeat.
I speak from personal experience with them, in the Kevin Mitnick case as well as the complaints against the FBI to the Attorney General's Office of Professional Responsibility for illegal wiretapping using informants to control SAS/SARTS.
I realize most of the people [who orate opinions] on slashdot do so out of a desire to socialize with their fellow peers, and not because they're qualified to speak on the subject at hand. Still, it is frustrating to read all the rhetoric and bullshit that sprouts up from these serious topics which do have substantial social impact on us all.
Let's not delve into impassioned arguments for or against this. Let us merely examine the EFF's track record in court... and realize they're a detriment to the defendant. I have experience with the EFF, on a personal level. I heard the inane and weak oral testimony of its unprepared lawyers and their asinine ramblings in their legal briefs... the kind of work you'd expect out of a second-year law student, not an organization chartered and established to fight for "electronic freedom."
The EFF is indeed a detriment to any case it takes; any plaintiff or defendant it sides with. Who cares if the author has a "personal bent" against the EFF? You can dismiss the author's agenda and analyze the facts for yourself. Do not block out the message simply because of your dislike for the presentation. Any way you cut it, the EFF's track record suggests incompetence and bumbling almost every step of the way. Had they been participating in moot court at a law school, they would have scored a "D" or an "F".
Let's cut all the rhetoric and call a spade a spade... the EFF is a farce. Stop supporting them.
"it seems you prefer the tenets (or rather lack thereof) of anarchy, since it is the only governmental form that has no direct limits on one's freedoms. Or at least, until someone with a larger club comes around and starts up a feudal system or some other form of government. Anarchist groups can, perhaps, exist for some time. Anarchy is unstable, however, and does not scale well."
That's a fine pollyanna bromine you espouse, but it also describes the USA's political stance. As the one with the larger club, we impose our policies on lesser nations... especially if natural reserves are involved. What do you think we would do if the Saudis refused to sell oil to us [similar to our trade embargo against other countries], or [better yet] they decided to apply a penalty tax of three times (3x) the cost of the oil? We would invade and own them (either directly, or though another nation we finance and train), that's what would happen.
"Established government is necessary if freedoms are to be preserved. Not all governments types do so, and not all that do, do it well. Some freedoms do have to be monitored or limited in order to preserve others. Ideally, one person's freedom should stop where another's starts. Should I be allowed to walk on your lawn, or should you be allowed to kick me off it. Laws are made to help define the boundary of freedoms so that it is easier to determine if I can or cannot walk on your lawn."
Those are nice platitudes, but they assume we are the only nation in this world (and you do wander off-point). In the UK, not only is online gambling legal but there's a specific law allowing online gambling from America. In the USA, online gambling is illegal including gambling "at" those UK sites. What makes you think we're the only ones who can (or should) make laws?
I have a corporation in Panama run all my adult sites (including hosting), and I just provide them with content. The "dot com" domains are all owned by the Panamanian corporation. You can bet your ass Panama is not going to require it to switch to using ".xxx" just because of some silly USA legislation.
The world is bigger than just your backyard, and most of you forget that.
"You lookup the host name and get an IP. Then replace.com with.xxx, and lookup. Is it the same IP? Censor the other domain, or the IP. Ta-da."
You've obviously never heard of name-based virtual hosting, or round-robin DNS (two instances in which your suggestion would fail miserably). You obviously do not have the technical wherewithal to speak intelligently about this subject.
Pornographers, who make far more money from adults with credit cards than kids, can choose to be filtered out more easily from kids, thus wasting a lot less bandwidth on the kids who can't pay for anything anyway."
There already exist filtering tools for such things, and despite the fact they've been around for years and have had wide publicity, said tools are under-utilized. The ".xxx" domain will still require tools to filter it from kids. We don't need another tool... what we need is mandatory legislation that if you're going to have a computer in the house within reach of kids, you must put a "trigger lock" on it (in the form of one of the existing tools). If we did it with handguns, we can do it with computers.
"Teens have rights too, you can't discriminate on the basis of age."
Yes, and older people have rights too! If a high-pitched sound is our preferred form of music, then we have a right to play it ON OUR PREMISES. If you don't like the sound (music) you hear, I suggest you visit another premise that plays the kind of crap you like.
"Scattered all over the world? As I said, the primary root servers are in the US."
As you said? What you failed to say is that you're an idiot masquerading as someone who knows something. I suggest you learn about a subject before offering rebuttal, rather than showing yourself for the fool that you are. Had you bothered to learn anything about the topology and infrastructure behind the various root servers, the word anycast (among others) would have come to the forefront.
I hate reading interesting stories on SlashDot only to find unqualified idiots offering up intellectually bankrupt explanations and passing them off as facts. On the other hand, I enjoy putting fools like you in their place. I guess you do serve a useful purpose -- that of a bad example.
"It really says a lot about the maturity and professionalism of the admins here that they would punish the people who point out the mistake, instead of actually fixing the mistake."
You're kidding, right? Most slashdot users wouldn't be able to spell "dictionary" correctly. How do you expect them to go to dictionary.com unless someone bookmarks it for them or provides an active link?
"Remember that OJ was sued by the family of his ex-wife for unlawful death and they won. He was never convicted and they were technically not involved."
Cite me a case in which a slashdot reader sues the police officer (or post office) because he doesn't like how the P.O. was portrayed on slashdot. Until then, cease and desist your conjecture, or I'll file for a TRO.
"you are unbelievably ignorant in so many ways but I'll point out one of them.. the attack wasn't on new york, it was on america the reason they attacked the twin towers was because they were a symbol in our country and taking them down was supposed to make us feel vulnerable. Whoever moded this insightful is equally as ignorant"
Last I knew, the twin towers (that symbol in our country, as you referred to them) were designed by the Japanese. Had they been designed by Native American Indians, then they might have been a true symbol of our country's ancestors.
"Couldn't he appeal? I would have sued the P.O., the state, and anybody else involved on that witchhunt."
You would not have been able to sue the P.O. (post office), the state, or anybody else involved... because you were never convicted of that crime... he was.
"We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds" -- So that's exactly what we're going to do!
You seem to miss the point, entirely. Throwing science in with science-fiction (creationism and religion) under the guise of an "alternative theory" only serves to undermine or dilute the science. What they're saying is they will not allow "validation by association" -- the teaching of the two side-by-side where creationism is introduced as another plausible theory.
If you want to teach creationism (or religion), better to associate it with Battlestar Galactica or Santa Claus than with "how life forms first inhabited earth."
"Really, aside from the technical aspects of Network Solutions screw-up here, who gives a rat's who owns this domain? it's going to be a sleaze-fest whoever has it."
While we're at it, let's also not allow blacks, Jews and Muslims equal protection under the law. Your comment, to which I respond facetiously, only goes to show how intellectually bankrupt you really are.
Funny you should mention that... I was going to post a lengthy article about that very same thing, then decided "what good will factual information do... this is slashdot, after all."
So, in short... After a run-about with Cohen in federal court in the late 1980's (where my wife represented the defendant that Cohen filed against), he appeared again in the late 1990's with a letter from his attorney, asking that we turn over one of our domain names (sexbytes.com) because it violated his trademark on the word "sex". All that is explained here, for the most part with other bits being available here.
Anyway, Cohen went away after I wrote him a nice letter reminding him of our 1980's encounter and let him know I was adding a few "very interesting" questions to the deposition Gary Kremem was going to be taking of him. He went away like a puppy dog with his tail tucked between his legs... and I lived happily ever after, seducing woman after woman, as explained here.
Many years ago, we (Meow Media, Inc - parent company of Persian Kitty's Adult Links) were sued by Jack Thompson in what later became a landmark sixth circuit court of appeals first amendment case. Granted, we were vindicated after two years of legal expenses... but it still cost us several hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees, expert witness fees, and appeals fees (which required a second set of attorneys).
While Jack Thompson's lawsuit was grinding its way through the court of appeals, another copy-cat attorney by the name of John DeCamp decided to sue us (Meow Media) for the Columbine shootings!
Soon, every attorney with expensive car payments was jumping on the bandwagon, in [what I perceive as] an effort to collect a "nusiance" settlement from us and other defendants. In fact, this practice became so common and popular that PBS FrontLine ran a feature story on our collective plights.
Fortunately, when the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the Paducah lawsuit (and reaffirmed this when they rejected the appeal for reconsideration), the other defendants were quick to drop their lawsuits, else face an action sounding in tort. However, that too required attorney fees and retainers for each case, in each particular venue.
For those of you who have not yet gone through lengthy and cumbersome litigation... there is not much you can do to recover the costs involved with defending yourself from most tort litigation. Sure, we could turn around and sue the families of the deceased children who were killed by the shooter... but that's not exactly good publicity, nor does it make for a sympathetic jury.
So here I sit today, a few hundred thousand dollars poorer, watching history repeat itself.
"I'm confused. You say nerver cells grow at 1mm per year. What about when a kid grows up but a few inches in that year. How does that work then, magic?"
Yea... and what about that guy whom they shrunk, put in a syringe, and accidentally injected into the bloodstream of this confused check-out clerk?
Now THAT must have been painful... to have all the gaps in your nerves squeeze together at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm not going to do that. If you have specific criticisms of the EFF, it's up to you to explain exactly what experiences led you to those criticisms, in sufficient detail that others can easily verify your claims. You've given me no reason to believe that all the effort you're asking of me is going to lead to anything more than, 'Huh. He lost a case and blames the EFF.' "
Actually, it isn't up to me to explain exactly [this or that]. It is simply up to me to voice my opinion about the EFF, nothing more. Should you not desire to do the relevant research (and I notice you haven't done any Westlaw or Lexis research on EFF) and learn the facts, then so be it. I am not required to feed you information. It is up to you to feed yourself. How you do so (if at all) is also up to you.
I don't think my experiences will sway anyone's opinion about anything. They will, however, help the undecided form their opinion.
Learn basic research (ie: how to use a search engine, how to request public documents from your government, how to look up unpublished 9th Circuit Court opinions) and you'll answer your own questions.
You can have laziness and ignorance, or motivation and enlightenment. Pick one.
"I have experience with the EFF, and I say they're great. See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims? Perhaps you should describe your bad experience. If you're not a troll, prove it."
1 94947
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170322&cid=14
Now go away, troll... or learn to use the "search" feature, or read about how to use a search engine.
"I have experience with the EFF, and I say they're great. See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims? Perhaps you should describe your bad experience. If you're not a troll, prove it."
I'm already well-known in the online community, and my many legal battles are public record. Not only is it not my job to do your research for you, it is irrelevant and immaterial to my commentary. Just as I have had to research matters on my own, so should you. I have no duty to spoon-feed you my knowledge. This is my last response to you. Get off your armchair if you wish to progress beyond conjecture and meritless posturing, and begin addressing the issues at hand.
"Good point. Where are your facts? Nowhere? Ah well. Good night, and don't let the door hit you on the way out."
That's a fine pollyanna bromide, and while such empty platitudes might boost your ego they do little to support your position. As I reiterated in another post, I have personal experience with the EFF. What I opine regarding this matter is based on said experience. In addition, those without the benefit of said experience are welcome to peruse the public record with regard to such matters. Most court cases involving the EFF clearly demonstrate their lack of skillful legal argument and less than polished or informed oral arguments.
Your non-responsive invective is exactly what I'd expect from someone lacking direct experience in working with the EFF on these matters, yet still trying to deflect foundational criticism.
"There are some fairly important legal victories on that page. It is simply a case, it seems, of harping on the EFF for their failures without recognizing that they're human, and they lose cases. They also win cases."
They're also, for the most part, a bunch of inexperienced idiots who jump into cases for the publicity and headlines. In many cases, the attorneys that they send into court have only the faintest clue as to what they're doing. Their oral arguments are infantile and unpolished, as are their written briefs. In effect, having them argue a case typically means opening yourself up for an easy defeat.
I speak from personal experience with them, in the Kevin Mitnick case as well as the complaints against the FBI to the Attorney General's Office of Professional Responsibility for illegal wiretapping using informants to control SAS/SARTS.
I realize most of the people [who orate opinions] on slashdot do so out of a desire to socialize with their fellow peers, and not because they're qualified to speak on the subject at hand. Still, it is frustrating to read all the rhetoric and bullshit that sprouts up from these serious topics which do have substantial social impact on us all.
Let's not delve into impassioned arguments for or against this. Let us merely examine the EFF's track record in court... and realize they're a detriment to the defendant. I have experience with the EFF, on a personal level. I heard the inane and weak oral testimony of its unprepared lawyers and their asinine ramblings in their legal briefs... the kind of work you'd expect out of a second-year law student, not an organization chartered and established to fight for "electronic freedom."
The EFF is indeed a detriment to any case it takes; any plaintiff or defendant it sides with. Who cares if the author has a "personal bent" against the EFF? You can dismiss the author's agenda and analyze the facts for yourself. Do not block out the message simply because of your dislike for the presentation. Any way you cut it, the EFF's track record suggests incompetence and bumbling almost every step of the way. Had they been participating in moot court at a law school, they would have scored a "D" or an "F".
Let's cut all the rhetoric and call a spade a spade... the EFF is a farce. Stop supporting them.
"it seems you prefer the tenets (or rather lack thereof) of anarchy, since it is the only governmental form that has no direct limits on one's freedoms. Or at least, until someone with a larger club comes around and starts up a feudal system or some other form of government. Anarchist groups can, perhaps, exist for some time. Anarchy is unstable, however, and does not scale well."
That's a fine pollyanna bromine you espouse, but it also describes the USA's political stance. As the one with the larger club, we impose our policies on lesser nations... especially if natural reserves are involved. What do you think we would do if the Saudis refused to sell oil to us [similar to our trade embargo against other countries], or [better yet] they decided to apply a penalty tax of three times (3x) the cost of the oil? We would invade and own them (either directly, or though another nation we finance and train), that's what would happen.
"Established government is necessary if freedoms are to be preserved. Not all governments types do so, and not all that do, do it well. Some freedoms do have to be monitored or limited in order to preserve others. Ideally, one person's freedom should stop where another's starts. Should I be allowed to walk on your lawn, or should you be allowed to kick me off it. Laws are made to help define the boundary of freedoms so that it is easier to determine if I can or cannot walk on your lawn."
Those are nice platitudes, but they assume we are the only nation in this world (and you do wander off-point). In the UK, not only is online gambling legal but there's a specific law allowing online gambling from America. In the USA, online gambling is illegal including gambling "at" those UK sites. What makes you think we're the only ones who can (or should) make laws?
I have a corporation in Panama run all my adult sites (including hosting), and I just provide them with content. The "dot com" domains are all owned by the Panamanian corporation. You can bet your ass Panama is not going to require it to switch to using ".xxx" just because of some silly USA legislation.
The world is bigger than just your backyard, and most of you forget that.
"You lookup the host name and get an IP. Then replace .com with .xxx, and lookup. Is it the same IP? Censor the other domain, or the IP. Ta-da."
You've obviously never heard of name-based virtual hosting, or round-robin DNS (two instances in which your suggestion would fail miserably). You obviously do not have the technical wherewithal to speak intelligently about this subject.
Pornographers, who make far more money from adults with credit cards than kids, can choose to be filtered out more easily from kids, thus wasting a lot less bandwidth on the kids who can't pay for anything anyway." There already exist filtering tools for such things, and despite the fact they've been around for years and have had wide publicity, said tools are under-utilized. The ".xxx" domain will still require tools to filter it from kids. We don't need another tool... what we need is mandatory legislation that if you're going to have a computer in the house within reach of kids, you must put a "trigger lock" on it (in the form of one of the existing tools). If we did it with handguns, we can do it with computers.
"Teens have rights too, you can't discriminate on the basis of age."
Yes, and older people have rights too! If a high-pitched sound is our preferred form of music, then we have a right to play it ON OUR PREMISES. If you don't like the sound (music) you hear, I suggest you visit another premise that plays the kind of crap you like.
"Scattered all over the world? As I said, the primary root servers are in the US."
As you said? What you failed to say is that you're an idiot masquerading as someone who knows something. I suggest you learn about a subject before offering rebuttal, rather than showing yourself for the fool that you are. Had you bothered to learn anything about the topology and infrastructure behind the various root servers, the word anycast (among others) would have come to the forefront.
I hate reading interesting stories on SlashDot only to find unqualified idiots offering up intellectually bankrupt explanations and passing them off as facts. On the other hand, I enjoy putting fools like you in their place. I guess you do serve a useful purpose -- that of a bad example.
"It really says a lot about the maturity and professionalism of the admins here that they would punish the people who point out the mistake, instead of actually fixing the mistake."
You're kidding, right? Most slashdot users wouldn't be able to spell "dictionary" correctly. How do you expect them to go to dictionary.com unless someone bookmarks it for them or provides an active link?
"you are such an idiot it's almost unbelieveable"
Stop your whining. Move back to Germany.
"I meant in my original post "if I were him I would have sued the PO, etcetera.
Not as a simple slashdot poster:( "
I don't know about slashdot posters, but I do know where you can get some slashdot bumper stickers.
"Remember that OJ was sued by the family of his ex-wife for unlawful death and they won. He was never convicted and they were technically not involved."
Cite me a case in which a slashdot reader sues the police officer (or post office) because he doesn't like how the P.O. was portrayed on slashdot. Until then, cease and desist your conjecture, or I'll file for a TRO.
"you are unbelievably ignorant in so many ways but I'll point out one of them.. the attack wasn't on new york, it was on america the reason they attacked the twin towers was because they were a symbol in our country and taking them down was supposed to make us feel vulnerable. Whoever moded this insightful is equally as ignorant"
Last I knew, the twin towers (that symbol in our country, as you referred to them) were designed by the Japanese. Had they been designed by Native American Indians, then they might have been a true symbol of our country's ancestors.
"Couldn't he appeal? I would have sued the P.O., the state, and anybody else involved on that witchhunt."
You would not have been able to sue the P.O. (post office), the state, or anybody else involved... because you were never convicted of that crime... he was.
> So... was he a gynecologist?
If so, he has yet to snatch a prize.
"We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds" -- So that's exactly what we're going to do!
You seem to miss the point, entirely. Throwing science in with science-fiction (creationism
and religion) under the guise of an "alternative theory" only serves to undermine or dilute
the science. What they're saying is they will not allow "validation by association" -- the
teaching of the two side-by-side where creationism is introduced as another plausible theory.
If you want to teach creationism (or religion), better to associate it with Battlestar Galactica
or Santa Claus than with "how life forms first inhabited earth."
I think I just detected the death of your last few million brain cells. Pardon me while I pick up your spilled electrons.
"Really, aside from the technical aspects of Network Solutions screw-up here, who gives a rat's who owns this domain? it's going to be a sleaze-fest whoever has it."
While we're at it, let's also not allow blacks, Jews and Muslims equal protection under the law.
Your comment, to which I respond facetiously, only goes to show how intellectually bankrupt you really are.
Funny you should mention that... I was going to post a lengthy article about that very same thing, then decided "what good will factual information do... this is slashdot, after all."
So, in short... After a run-about with Cohen in federal court in the late 1980's (where my wife represented the defendant that Cohen filed against), he appeared again in the late 1990's with a letter from his attorney, asking that we turn over one of our domain names (sexbytes.com) because it violated his trademark on the word "sex". All that is explained here, for the most part with other bits being available here.
Anyway, Cohen went away after I wrote him a nice letter reminding him of our 1980's encounter and let him know I was adding a few "very interesting" questions to the deposition Gary Kremem was going to be taking of him. He went away like a puppy dog with his tail tucked between his legs... and I lived happily ever after, seducing woman after woman, as explained here.
Many years ago, we (Meow Media, Inc - parent company of Persian Kitty's Adult Links) were sued by Jack Thompson in what later became a landmark sixth circuit court of appeals first amendment case. Granted, we were vindicated after two years of legal expenses... but it still cost us several hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees, expert witness fees, and appeals fees (which required a second set of attorneys).
While Jack Thompson's lawsuit was grinding its way through the court of appeals, another copy-cat attorney by the name of John DeCamp decided to sue us (Meow Media) for the Columbine shootings!
Soon, every attorney with expensive car payments was jumping on the bandwagon, in [what I perceive as] an effort to collect a "nusiance" settlement from us and other defendants. In fact, this practice became so common and popular that PBS FrontLine ran a feature story on our collective plights.
Fortunately, when the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the Paducah lawsuit (and reaffirmed this when they rejected the appeal for reconsideration), the other defendants were quick to drop their lawsuits, else face an action sounding in tort. However, that too required attorney fees and retainers for each case, in each particular venue.
For those of you who have not yet gone through lengthy and cumbersome litigation... there is not much you can do to recover the costs involved with defending yourself from most tort litigation. Sure, we could turn around and sue the families of the deceased children who were killed by the shooter... but that's not exactly good publicity, nor does it make for a sympathetic jury.
So here I sit today, a few hundred thousand dollars poorer, watching history repeat itself.
"I'm confused. You say nerver cells grow at 1mm per year. What about when a kid grows up but a few inches in that year. How does that work then, magic?"
Yea... and what about that guy whom they shrunk, put in a syringe,
and accidentally injected into the bloodstream of this confused
check-out clerk?
Now THAT must have been painful... to have all the gaps in your
nerves squeeze together at the same time.