I pay twice the property tax to live on this side of a toll bridge, rather than the other. The extra taxes go to bridge maintanence, bridge cops, etc, etc..
Does that mean I should be exempt from the toll too? Of course it does, but government doesn't work that way.
The 'loophole' never was a hole. It was deliberate.
Canada is huge, you see, and much of the population is squished along the border. So not coincidentally, this is where much of the media is broadcast from. It's not economic for the big guys to set up a tower in the middle of the Yukon.
This made it possible for small time operators to spread the media to all the little remote corners here and their by rebroadcasting the news, weather and entertainment to people.
I guess now if you live way up in the colden yonder, you're shit out of luck if you want to find out what's happening in the world, unless you want to pay for it via satellite (though I'm not sure if even the remotest areas are in satellite service range).
You forgot the part where they make a stupid campaign promise to 'scrap the GST' that they couldnt possibly keep as an MP from Hamilton east, then they tearfully resign, force a bi-election, run again aganst virtually nobody in a city that has it's main attractions named after her father and win, and basically piss away hundreds of millions on a stupid ass little whiney publicity stunt.
The right to a fair trial is part of the original constitution, and nothing about the first amendment alters it in any way.
Nor does barring the media for publishing the ongoing trial hamper the freedom of the press. They're free to print all the FACTS they want, after the trial when they've been proven to be facts.
Look at Larry King sitting around his little table for an hour with 'expert guests' who do nothing but speculate and come up with 'what if' 'what if' scenarios. You're saying the 'right to exploit the victims' is greater than the accuseds 'right to a fair trial'?
Look at this Laci Peterson case right now. The media already has the noose tied and ready, just waiting to slip it around the husbands neck. No body, no evidence, not even any proof that a crime has even taken place. But the news channels are devoting 6 hours a day minimum to rumours, hearsay, conjecture and fairy tales - because it gets ratings.
Better hope your name doesn't come up in the next 'sensationalist' media-circus that is the american justice system.
Remember Jon Benet Ramsey? Her father is on trial for allegedly raping and killing her.
You sure it's all 'principle and reason'?
Even if it is, the defendant must be proven guilty 'beyond a resonable doubt'. So I think it's fair to ensure the jury is as unbiased as possible, and if something casts 'reasonable doubt' as to their ability to do a fair job, then they are dismissed.
For another example, look at OJ's absolute joke of a trial. This was the opposite effect. It became the "OJ" show, and everyone - jurors included - couldn't wait for the 'happy ending'.
Does "freedom of the press" trump the "right to a fair and expedient trial"?
That isnt even the issue. The details of the trial are made public, just not while the trial is in session.
Ban the foreign press, make all spectators sign a legally binding gag order. Make sure these contracts are binding across borders.
In a more perfect world, journalists would respect the wishes of the court and it would be a non issue.
There's a reason why camera's aren't allowed in a Canadian court, and judges issue publication bans. It taints the outcome of the trial. Now of course journalists would have you believe that "freedom of the press" trumps the "right to a fair trial", but it's simply not true.
The Bernardo case hits close to home, one of the girls bodies was dumped not more than about 10k from where I lived at the time. (I can't remember if it was Leslie Mohaffe or Kristen French) I remember the paranoia, the searching for the cream-colored Camaro, something I haven't experience again until just recently with the DC area sniper's spree ('cuz I live near DC now).
Anyways, there really was enough media exposure on the trial. I followed it in the paper and on the news every day.
Paul and his wife Karla Homolka videotaped their rape, torture and murder of the girls. These tapes were shown in court, and the judge ruled that the contents of the tapes were never to leave the courtroom. The reasons were obvious enough. The public is not served at all by details about how these girls were raped, humiliated and murdered.
One of the American TV tabloids of the time (A Current Affair?) aired excruciating details in one of their little shock pieces. It frankly pissed a lot of people off. There was no reason to do it, except to once again exploit the victims for a few ratings points.
Anyways, I digress.
Keeping the press out of the courtroom is a good idea, IMO. The 3 ring circus' that plays out in big American trials is an absolute joke. I'm absolutely convinced OJ would have been convicted in a Canadian court.
What makes you think he hasn't been using computers and keeping up to date in a covert manner?
I mean he obviously has no respect for laws regarding computer fraud and information theft, what makes you think he obeyed the judgement?
Most parolees aren't allowed to associate with their former running-buddies or be anywhere near drugs or alcohol - yet they do.
Modern day Robin Hood?
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You seem to be held in rather high regard by the nerd community, much like Robin Hood. And just like Robin Hood, there's more myth than truth behind it.
Robin Hood stories are full of daring adventure, inhuman skill with a bow, and the addage of 'robbing the rich to give to the poor'. However, history tells us that if in fact he existed, he was another common thief who mugged women and kept the proceeds for himself.
In much the same way, there are tales of you sitting up all night, technically brilliant, controlling the machines from the inside in. But the truth tells us you sat on the phone like any other con man tricking people into revealing their passwords. And like Robin Hood, you kept the proceeds for yourself. Whether or not you did anything with them is irrelevant.
So why should anyone care who you are, what you think, or give you any more breaks than the next ex-con?
But the people who would want this device would buy it for the GPS, and wouldn't want to pay extra for bluetooth if they'll never use it.
Think about it. If you need GPS, do you think you would be mostly using the thing while you're sitting in your office next to your little bluetooth enabled gizmo?
What's bluetooth going to do for you while you're driving around downtown trying to find some client? When it only takes on the order of 2 seconds to plug in a USB/serial/whatever cable, I
So if this isn't a device you want - go get one with bluetooth and no GPS.
HDDs are prone to failure, ideally a PDA would outlast any piece of hardware. I don't think I'd put too much trust in a PDA that wasn't completely solid state.
That's why you only want the calendar/contacts type of tasks on it. GPS sounds like a more logical inclusion than MP3, frankly. Unless it could record MP3 (ie; take 'memo to selfs' on the go)
Do you want to lose your list of business contacts and scheduled appointments because the HDD full of 20 giggzorz of Britney Spears tunes crashed?
When devices start being designed to do 'everything', I find they do nothing well. You're probably better off to keep the iPod for it's task and the PDA for another.
I mean, get over yourselves. Obviously Palm is selling enough of these to people who do need or want them, and their customers obviously don't particularly care about bluetooth yet.
Eventually, if spam is allowed to proliferate, we will all live in a world with lower APR on our credit cards, countless anonymous women in love with our cocks are that have grown 4" bigger guaranteed.
Enough of this conservative conspiracy.
On a serious note, I hate arbitrarily blocking ports. It won't do shit to stop spam, it's more about the ISPs wanting to block all the ports possible, to reduce the amount of traffic an end user can have.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of action. You cant be prosecuted for anything you believe, or expressing those beliefs. But you can be for harassment, trespassing, indecent behaviour, public drunkeness, etc.
Too many people act like shitbags then try and hide behind 'freedom of speech'.
I never meant to imply that a Disney employee, or Walt himself, wrote them, merely that they weren't stolen from the public domain, but from another creator.
Like Treasure Planet or Hunchback or Winnie the Pooh (one of their biggest franchises - just try and get close to it and they'll beat you to death).
The Beatles wouldn't be signed today. Well, maybe baby-face Paul would if he ditched the three homelier guys.
The Rolling Stones wouldn't get past the odd bar gig.
Janis Joplin? Joe Cocker? Anyone from CSNY? Ha. No hope in hell.
They don't sell audio, they sell image now.
The majority don't want to buy 'good music', they want to affirm some sort of image they associate with. That's why it's boiled down to a handful of cookie-cutter stereotypes: Hardcore Gangsta Rapper(tm), Edgy Club Kid(tm), Hard Rockin Mallcore Punk(tm)
Big corporate concerns cater to the majority - that's what they and their boardrooms and feasibility studies and market focus groups are good for.
Only little independent labels would take a chance on an unknown, gamble on the 5% who are actually interested in music (it's background noise to most).
Shame the government allows the biggies to systematically crush the smaller labels - doubly so since the smaller labels sell a different product (music) to a different audience (music lovers).
The shorter list would be truly original Disney animated features.
I'm being serious. This is a company that built it's empire simply rehashing other people's stories.
Let me think.. Ummm...
Lilo and Stitch The Fox and the Hound Aristocats 101 Dalmations Bambi Fantasia (in a new artwork for old music kind of way)
thats all I got
I'm sure there are a few live action or cartoon shorts that are original works.
Try and make a feature length cartoon about the Hunchback of Notre Dame or the Jungle Book and see how long till Disney is threatening you with C&D orders and lawsuits. That's what really burns. It's as much about stealing our culture as it is about 'protecting' their IP.
Slashdot Mirror
I pay twice the property tax to live on this side of a toll bridge, rather than the other. The extra taxes go to bridge maintanence, bridge cops, etc, etc..
Does that mean I should be exempt from the toll too? Of course it does, but government doesn't work that way.
The 'loophole' never was a hole. It was deliberate.
Canada is huge, you see, and much of the population is squished along the border. So not coincidentally, this is where much of the media is broadcast from. It's not economic for the big guys to set up a tower in the middle of the Yukon.
This made it possible for small time operators to spread the media to all the little remote corners here and their by rebroadcasting the news, weather and entertainment to people.
I guess now if you live way up in the colden yonder, you're shit out of luck if you want to find out what's happening in the world, unless you want to pay for it via satellite (though I'm not sure if even the remotest areas are in satellite service range).
59 cents per CD-R may be livable, but did anyone else notice the 21$ per gig for an MP3 player with a non-removable HDD?
So you get a 20 gig iPod, thats 440$ bucks on top of the price of the unit.
Yowza.
You forgot the part where they make a stupid campaign promise to 'scrap the GST' that they couldnt possibly keep as an MP from Hamilton east, then they tearfully resign, force a bi-election, run again aganst virtually nobody in a city that has it's main attractions named after her father and win, and basically piss away hundreds of millions on a stupid ass little whiney publicity stunt.
And then they work on this.
The right to a fair trial is part of the original constitution, and nothing about the first amendment alters it in any way.
Nor does barring the media for publishing the ongoing trial hamper the freedom of the press. They're free to print all the FACTS they want, after the trial when they've been proven to be facts.
Look at Larry King sitting around his little table for an hour with 'expert guests' who do nothing but speculate and come up with 'what if' 'what if' scenarios. You're saying the 'right to exploit the victims' is greater than the accuseds 'right to a fair trial'?
Look at this Laci Peterson case right now. The media already has the noose tied and ready, just waiting to slip it around the husbands neck. No body, no evidence, not even any proof that a crime has even taken place. But the news channels are devoting 6 hours a day minimum to rumours, hearsay, conjecture and fairy tales - because it gets ratings.
Better hope your name doesn't come up in the next 'sensationalist' media-circus that is the american justice system.
If I reposted and switched 'US' and 'Norway' around in the text, it'd be +5 insightful. /. groupthink. America bad, everyone else good. Bleh
Hmm.
Imagine you show up for jury duty.
Remember Jon Benet Ramsey? Her father is on trial for allegedly raping and killing her.
You sure it's all 'principle and reason'?
Even if it is, the defendant must be proven guilty 'beyond a resonable doubt'. So I think it's fair to ensure the jury is as unbiased as possible, and if something casts 'reasonable doubt' as to their ability to do a fair job, then they are dismissed.
For another example, look at OJ's absolute joke of a trial. This was the opposite effect. It became the "OJ" show, and everyone - jurors included - couldn't wait for the 'happy ending'.
Does "freedom of the press" trump the "right to a fair and expedient trial"?
That isnt even the issue. The details of the trial are made public, just not while the trial is in session.
Ban the foreign press, make all spectators sign a legally binding gag order. Make sure these contracts are binding across borders.
In a more perfect world, journalists would respect the wishes of the court and it would be a non issue.
There's a reason why camera's aren't allowed in a Canadian court, and judges issue publication bans. It taints the outcome of the trial. Now of course journalists would have you believe that "freedom of the press" trumps the "right to a fair trial", but it's simply not true.
The Bernardo case hits close to home, one of the girls bodies was dumped not more than about 10k from where I lived at the time. (I can't remember if it was Leslie Mohaffe or Kristen French) I remember the paranoia, the searching for the cream-colored Camaro, something I haven't experience again until just recently with the DC area sniper's spree ('cuz I live near DC now).
Anyways, there really was enough media exposure on the trial. I followed it in the paper and on the news every day.
Paul and his wife Karla Homolka videotaped their rape, torture and murder of the girls. These tapes were shown in court, and the judge ruled that the contents of the tapes were never to leave the courtroom. The reasons were obvious enough. The public is not served at all by details about how these girls were raped, humiliated and murdered.
One of the American TV tabloids of the time (A Current Affair?) aired excruciating details in one of their little shock pieces. It frankly pissed a lot of people off. There was no reason to do it, except to once again exploit the victims for a few ratings points.
Anyways, I digress.
Keeping the press out of the courtroom is a good idea, IMO. The 3 ring circus' that plays out in big American trials is an absolute joke. I'm absolutely convinced OJ would have been convicted in a Canadian court.
Nothing whatsoever!
Nothing that happens in the politically correct pseudo-communist utopia of Norway has any affect on the US at all.
A higher California court already ruled it's legal to transfer DeCSS over the 'net and to use it for legal purposes.
What makes you think he hasn't been using computers and keeping up to date in a covert manner?
I mean he obviously has no respect for laws regarding computer fraud and information theft, what makes you think he obeyed the judgement?
Most parolees aren't allowed to associate with their former running-buddies or be anywhere near drugs or alcohol - yet they do.
You seem to be held in rather high regard by the nerd community, much like Robin Hood. And just like Robin Hood, there's more myth than truth behind it.
Robin Hood stories are full of daring adventure, inhuman skill with a bow, and the addage of 'robbing the rich to give to the poor'. However, history tells us that if in fact he existed, he was another common thief who mugged women and kept the proceeds for himself.
In much the same way, there are tales of you sitting up all night, technically brilliant, controlling the machines from the inside in. But the truth tells us you sat on the phone like any other con man tricking people into revealing their passwords. And like Robin Hood, you kept the proceeds for yourself. Whether or not you did anything with them is irrelevant.
So why should anyone care who you are, what you think, or give you any more breaks than the next ex-con?
But the people who would want this device would buy it for the GPS, and wouldn't want to pay extra for bluetooth if they'll never use it.
Think about it. If you need GPS, do you think you would be mostly using the thing while you're sitting in your office next to your little bluetooth enabled gizmo?
What's bluetooth going to do for you while you're driving around downtown trying to find some client? When it only takes on the order of 2 seconds to plug in a USB/serial/whatever cable, I
So if this isn't a device you want - go get one with bluetooth and no GPS.
HDDs are prone to failure, ideally a PDA would outlast any piece of hardware. I don't think I'd put too much trust in a PDA that wasn't completely solid state.
That's why you only want the calendar/contacts type of tasks on it. GPS sounds like a more logical inclusion than MP3, frankly. Unless it could record MP3 (ie; take 'memo to selfs' on the go)
Do you want to lose your list of business contacts and scheduled appointments because the HDD full of 20 giggzorz of Britney Spears tunes crashed?
When devices start being designed to do 'everything', I find they do nothing well. You're probably better off to keep the iPod for it's task and the PDA for another.
"I don't need/want one so therefore it's useless"
I mean, get over yourselves. Obviously Palm is selling enough of these to people who do need or want them, and their customers obviously don't particularly care about bluetooth yet.
Just in case you missed the last one
There isn't enough spam.
Eventually, if spam is allowed to proliferate, we will all live in a world with lower APR on our credit cards, countless anonymous women in love with our cocks are that have grown 4" bigger guaranteed.
Enough of this conservative conspiracy.
On a serious note, I hate arbitrarily blocking ports. It won't do shit to stop spam, it's more about the ISPs wanting to block all the ports possible, to reduce the amount of traffic an end user can have.
3.1, 95, 98 and ME are built on top of DOS (or command.com).
NT, 2K and XP are built around the NT kernel.
Linux is built around the linux kernel.
Building 'windows' on top of linux would mean replacing the kernel, and frankly with an inferior one.
I'd much rather see linux built around an open sourced NT kernel.
I think one could successfully argue in court that Slashdot serves no function except for trolls to flex their creative muscles.
It would be like Chuck E Cheese suing little kids for peeing in the balls.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of action. You cant be prosecuted for anything you believe, or expressing those beliefs. But you can be for harassment, trespassing, indecent behaviour, public drunkeness, etc.
Too many people act like shitbags then try and hide behind 'freedom of speech'.
I never meant to imply that a Disney employee, or Walt himself, wrote them, merely that they weren't stolen from the public domain, but from another creator.
Like Treasure Planet or Hunchback or Winnie the Pooh (one of their biggest franchises - just try and get close to it and they'll beat you to death).
The Beatles wouldn't be signed today. Well, maybe baby-face Paul would if he ditched the three homelier guys.
The Rolling Stones wouldn't get past the odd bar gig.
Janis Joplin? Joe Cocker? Anyone from CSNY? Ha. No hope in hell.
They don't sell audio, they sell image now.
The majority don't want to buy 'good music', they want to affirm some sort of image they associate with. That's why it's boiled down to a handful of cookie-cutter stereotypes: Hardcore Gangsta Rapper(tm), Edgy Club Kid(tm), Hard Rockin Mallcore Punk(tm)
Big corporate concerns cater to the majority - that's what they and their boardrooms and feasibility studies and market focus groups are good for.
Only little independent labels would take a chance on an unknown, gamble on the 5% who are actually interested in music (it's background noise to most).
Shame the government allows the biggies to systematically crush the smaller labels - doubly so since the smaller labels sell a different product (music) to a different audience (music lovers).
What's 6% of a bazillion, anyways?
Of course in this economy, lots of industries would give their first born for a mere 6% decline.
>> What does the supreme court have to say about this ?
"STFU"
Haven't you been paying attention?
The shorter list would be truly original Disney animated features.
I'm being serious. This is a company that built it's empire simply rehashing other people's stories.
Let me think.. Ummm...
Lilo and Stitch
The Fox and the Hound
Aristocats
101 Dalmations
Bambi
Fantasia (in a new artwork for old music kind of way)
thats all I got
I'm sure there are a few live action or cartoon shorts that are original works.
Try and make a feature length cartoon about the Hunchback of Notre Dame or the Jungle Book and see how long till Disney is threatening you with C&D orders and lawsuits. That's what really burns. It's as much about stealing our culture as it is about 'protecting' their IP.