Sure, if you define "bright" as "not completely black, but still 99% without any light"
The safe-harbor provisions are still stacked 100% in favour of big-media, and against ISPs and websites (to say nothing of the American people, whom (according to the constitution) copyright is *supposed* to benefit.)
I think you meant, required to benefit. That's why it's in the Constitution. That's why all such laws are completely and irrevocably unConstitutional.
Treaties now... can any lawyers out there enlighten us as to how the Constitution can be overridden in the case of treaties with other countries?
For Windows the best (and free/open source) tool I've found is PDFCreator [pdfforge.org]. It installs a "printer" on your computer that outputs to PDF.
I agree. I like the fact that PDFCreator can automatically open a file in the default PDF reader (I use Foxit, myself, but I hear SumatraPDF is worth looking into) which is great when I'm developing printed reports. Saves a lot of trees.
"to doing whatever the hell I want with my systems."
Considering the 30 year legacy of the PC, we are all free to install any copy of Microsoft Office 2007 we want at work, any copy of Microsoft Windows at home we want. This should allow us to play any computer games we want as long as they're Games for Windows that work on any copy of DirectX 10 we want. This considerable amount of freedom will lead us to the seemingly inevitable freedom of using any Bittorrent client we wish to download and install whatever the hell we want to pirate today to do whatever the hell it is we want.
And what has that to do with the price of hashish in Istanbul?
I'd suggest a black hole. Both to be really sure and because it's fitting.
Well, I think the Sun would be a better choice. If it's true that black holes are portals to alternate universes... well, how would you feel if the people from one of those universes sent all pf their lawyers to us? Downright unneighborly, if you ask me.
It's only an issue because of the scale of the problem. There's a difference between administration of an internal corporate or personal network, and something that affects untold millions of users worldwide. If Google's anti-phishing efforts begin to accrue too much collateral damage, then one will need to reconsider how practical it is. The same applies to real-time black-hole lists for email for that matter: some of them get too damned aggressive as well.
It seems to me that a fair amount of people treat turning on your blinker as divulging secret information to the enemy... In my opinion, if people used their blinker as an indication of what their intentions are instead of using it as a warning device (or not using it at all) it would be a lot safer on the roads.
And the reason they feel that way about their turn signals is the number of people (particularly on expressways) that will immediately move to cut the other driver off as soon as he or she signals. I've also noticed that people who drive along signaling that they'd like to pull in front of someone else almost invariably go ten MPH hours slower than the lane they want to move into. Inconsiderate as hell, but then again, courtesy is dead on American highways.
Then there are people (like my father) who learned to drive in the days before signal usage was a requirement.
Well, in my experience a good part of why the elderly have lower accident rates is because they cause more accidents than they get involved in. People are forced to accommodate their inadequate driving, and sometimes that can't be done successfully. In such cases, the old person just drives off, blissfully unaware that someone else just wrapped their care around a telephone pole trying to avoid a collision.
I don't know as much about Feynman as I probably should, but my impression of him is that, even his trouble-making side came out of intellectual curiosity, not self-destructive escapism.
Yes, but would expect your typical admissions bureaucrat to make that fine distinction? They have two piles: admit, and reject. Not much room for subtleties there.
I was never a party person myself, but I knew plenty of them that got it out of their systems in college and went on to do significant things. Had they been subject to the sort of misguided scrutiny we're discussing here, they'd never have been given the opportunity to make something out of themselves.
I understand that schools only want "the best" incoming students, but they really should find another way to weed out the bad apples. The criteria they're using are too shallow.
'It's typically inappropriate photos â" like holding up a can of beer at a party,' Saracino said
Riiiight. Because nobody who has had a picture taken holding a can of beer could possibly benefit from a higher education, or be a net positive for society.
Cripes. Makes me glad I'm decades past my college days.
True enough I suppose... control of linguistic expression is the first step in any totalitarian program. Okay, "the government has been systematically eliminating our Constitutionally-protected rights for some time now." Is that better?
Also, government does not hold a unique right to employ deadly force. Matter of fact, at least in the U.S. all of us are allowed to employ deadly force in certain circumstances (self-defense, for one... there are others) and many (ahem!) "non-governmental" organizations kill people (they're just not legally sanctioned.) You can't stop people from murdering each other by simply passing laws: for many, the threat of retribution by the legal system is an inadequate deterrent.
The original IBM PC was pretty open... it didn't include schematics but it did have the full BIOS ROM listing. But you're right: my first "PC" was an Apple ][ Standard with Integer BASIC. I eventually got the ROM board with Applesoft BASIC, and a floppy drive (we used the cassette interface initially.) I also liked it because all the chips were socketed so maintenance and hardware-hacking were easy.
Unfortunately the central authority model is on the rise everywhere:
It's the mainframe mentality expressed on a global level. And yes, it's unnerving, particularly for someone like me who was there thirty-odd years ago when the personal computer was born, and has long since been accustomed to doing whatever the hell I want with my systems.
Apple is a private corporation and they can run their service any way they wish as long as they are not in violation of the law. So far as I'm aware, they aren't, so I don't think "rights" come into play here. The devices in question are sold under certain terms, and if you don't like them you're free not to give Apple your money. The cellphone market is competitive as hell, and there are plenty of alternatives (and while the iPhone may be the slickest thing out there right now, the competition will catch up.)
However, otherwise I agree with you: I'd certainly never choose to develop for the iPhone, knowing that Apple might choose to eradicate my hard work at any time. Forget it. Now, I suppose Apple could set up an "Applications Approval Commission" that would prepare guidelines for what is an "acceptable" application for the iPhone at any particular time. Furthermore, this Commission could accept submissions of proposed ideas from independent developers, and would approve/disapprove of those ideas for use on the iPhone. Hell, they might even decide that some of those ideas would be good enough for Apple to develop for itself.
"I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world"
She does realize that violence is a part of the real world, has always been and always will be a part of the real world, and that that is not always bad?
Well, according to the relevant statues, the first type of infringer isn't a pirate (and no, I don't care what Webster's says, the legal definition is different.) He's a copyright infringer, but not a pirate. At least, that's my understanding and no I'm not a lawyer.
The second guy, selling unauthorized copies may be a pirate once he reaches financial thresholds enshrined in the law. You're right though, if you're profiting by your copyright infringement you're going to be in more trouble.
So: you can excuse acts of individual not-for-profit piracy and write it off as free advertising.
Still, the reality is that if Activision is going after a true pirate (as defined by copyright statute, not the RIAA and not Webster's) they're not only within their rights, but obeying the letter and the spirit of the law. If this guy was copying and selling their product, depending upon the level of financial gain involved he may be a real live honest-to-God pirate. Whether you or I believe that piracy is "good" for Activision is irrelevant... they get to decide that, not us.
Frankly, if the RIAA had left file-sharing alone and spent all that court time going after the people and organizations committing acts of real piracy (unauthorized mass-duplication of media for distribution with intent to profit) I wouldn't have anything against them. Instead, they decided to beat the crap out of everyone they can in what can only be described as an ongoing act of terrorism.
The MPAA is involved in similar dysfunctional and misguided lawsuits against torrent indexing sites. I consider that just as wrongheaded: where do the bulk of their losses come from? Downloaders? No, they come from the factories cranking out millions of illegal copies of their product for sale. Most of these are in Asian countries, and often the same plants that make authorized copies turn out illegal ones and sell them on the side.
Seems like Activision took the high road here. Not that I read the article or anything.
Well, it's not quite the same. The reason for the EBS (and the old Conelrad system which predated it) is that TV and radio provide a strictly limited number of channels to the populace, and they get usurped in an emergency to make sure that people are properly informed. Eliminating "unauthorized" sources was irrelevant because in that context there are no unauthorized sources.
In the case of (ahem!) "network management", yeah you're probably right. Keep a lid on what's going on so the people don't freak and panic. And you know what? I don't really have a problem with that, because in many disaster scenarios a panic will kill and maim more people than the event itself.
The problem, as I see it, is that simply having such network controls in place means they'll get used for non-emergency purposes (such as, "we don't want word of {insert political leader here} bribery scandal getting out.")
Right now, there's not much that government (or the private sector) can do to prevent dissemination of specific information via the Internet, short of shutting down major segments of it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that would like to build some automated censorship into the network. The question is whether or not the ability to control information flow in an emergency is worth the risk of that capability being used in other contexts. I don't think it is: if nothing else, the recent history has unequivocally demonstrated that the Federal Government cannot be trusted with our communications network.
I don't know exactly what a "helldesk" is, but I'm pretty sure I've had to call there a few times. There was always the faint odor of brimstone when I hung up the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if you define "bright" as "not completely black, but still 99% without any light"
The safe-harbor provisions are still stacked 100% in favour of big-media, and against ISPs and websites (to say nothing of the American people, whom (according to the constitution) copyright is *supposed* to benefit.)
I think you meant, required to benefit. That's why it's in the Constitution. That's why all such laws are completely and irrevocably unConstitutional.
... can any lawyers out there enlighten us as to how the Constitution can be overridden in the case of treaties with other countries?
Treaties now
Contrary to widely-held belief, Democracy has never been tried on any significant scale. Neither has Communism.
For Windows the best (and free/open source) tool I've found is PDFCreator [pdfforge.org]. It installs a "printer" on your computer that outputs to PDF.
I agree. I like the fact that PDFCreator can automatically open a file in the default PDF reader (I use Foxit, myself, but I hear SumatraPDF is worth looking into) which is great when I'm developing printed reports. Saves a lot of trees.
"to doing whatever the hell I want with my systems."
Considering the 30 year legacy of the PC, we are all free to install any copy of Microsoft Office 2007 we want at work, any copy of Microsoft Windows at home we want. This should allow us to play any computer games we want as long as they're Games for Windows that work on any copy of DirectX 10 we want. This considerable amount of freedom will lead us to the seemingly inevitable freedom of using any Bittorrent client we wish to download and install whatever the hell we want to pirate today to do whatever the hell it is we want.
And what has that to do with the price of hashish in Istanbul?
May I suggest the sun as a destination?
I'd suggest a black hole. Both to be really sure and because it's fitting.
Well, I think the Sun would be a better choice. If it's true that black holes are portals to alternate universes ... well, how would you feel if the people from one of those universes sent all pf their lawyers to us? Downright unneighborly, if you ask me.
Capitalism sometimes has a cold hard steel edge.
More like a distinct lack of vision.
It's only an issue because of the scale of the problem. There's a difference between administration of an internal corporate or personal network, and something that affects untold millions of users worldwide. If Google's anti-phishing efforts begin to accrue too much collateral damage, then one will need to reconsider how practical it is. The same applies to real-time black-hole lists for email for that matter: some of them get too damned aggressive as well.
It seems to me that a fair amount of people treat turning on your blinker as divulging secret information to the enemy... In my opinion, if people used their blinker as an indication of what their intentions are instead of using it as a warning device (or not using it at all) it would be a lot safer on the roads.
And the reason they feel that way about their turn signals is the number of people (particularly on expressways) that will immediately move to cut the other driver off as soon as he or she signals. I've also noticed that people who drive along signaling that they'd like to pull in front of someone else almost invariably go ten MPH hours slower than the lane they want to move into. Inconsiderate as hell, but then again, courtesy is dead on American highways.
Then there are people (like my father) who learned to drive in the days before signal usage was a requirement.
Well, in my experience a good part of why the elderly have lower accident rates is because they cause more accidents than they get involved in. People are forced to accommodate their inadequate driving, and sometimes that can't be done successfully. In such cases, the old person just drives off, blissfully unaware that someone else just wrapped their care around a telephone pole trying to avoid a collision.
I don't know as much about Feynman as I probably should, but my impression of him is that, even his trouble-making side came out of intellectual curiosity, not self-destructive escapism.
Yes, but would expect your typical admissions bureaucrat to make that fine distinction? They have two piles: admit, and reject. Not much room for subtleties there.
I was never a party person myself, but I knew plenty of them that got it out of their systems in college and went on to do significant things. Had they been subject to the sort of misguided scrutiny we're discussing here, they'd never have been given the opportunity to make something out of themselves.
I understand that schools only want "the best" incoming students, but they really should find another way to weed out the bad apples. The criteria they're using are too shallow.
'It's typically inappropriate photos â" like holding up a can of beer at a party,' Saracino said
Riiiight. Because nobody who has had a picture taken holding a can of beer could possibly benefit from a higher education, or be a net positive for society.
Cripes. Makes me glad I'm decades past my college days.
True enough I suppose ... control of linguistic expression is the first step in any totalitarian program. Okay, "the government has been systematically eliminating our Constitutionally-protected rights for some time now." Is that better?
... there are others) and many (ahem!) "non-governmental" organizations kill people (they're just not legally sanctioned.) You can't stop people from murdering each other by simply passing laws: for many, the threat of retribution by the legal system is an inadequate deterrent.
Also, government does not hold a unique right to employ deadly force. Matter of fact, at least in the U.S. all of us are allowed to employ deadly force in certain circumstances (self-defense, for one
The original IBM PC was pretty open ... it didn't include schematics but it did have the full BIOS ROM listing. But you're right: my first "PC" was an Apple ][ Standard with Integer BASIC. I eventually got the ROM board with Applesoft BASIC, and a floppy drive (we used the cassette interface initially.) I also liked it because all the chips were socketed so maintenance and hardware-hacking were easy.
I am an Apple fan to the highest degree
That's rather like admitting in public that you have herpes. It's not fatal, but most people would rather not know.
cph1> dial bob
Caller "bob" unknown. A)bort, I)gnore, R)edial? R
Caller "bob" unknown. A)bort, I)gnore, R)edial? *Cancelled*
cph1> list numbers
Phone list:
0001 bob
0002 bill
0003 ted
0004 betty
0005 cindy
0006 joe
6 numbers found.
cph1> dial bob
Caller "bob" unknown. A)bort, I)gnore, R)edial? *Cancelled*
cph1> fuck
Command "fuck" unknown. A)bort, I)gnore, R)etry?
Unfortunately the central authority model is on the rise everywhere:
It's the mainframe mentality expressed on a global level. And yes, it's unnerving, particularly for someone like me who was there thirty-odd years ago when the personal computer was born, and has long since been accustomed to doing whatever the hell I want with my systems.
It's what Trusted Computing would actually be like: capricious, arbitrary and overpriced.
Are you describing a type of computer technology, or a police state?
Apple is a private corporation and they can run their service any way they wish as long as they are not in violation of the law. So far as I'm aware, they aren't, so I don't think "rights" come into play here. The devices in question are sold under certain terms, and if you don't like them you're free not to give Apple your money. The cellphone market is competitive as hell, and there are plenty of alternatives (and while the iPhone may be the slickest thing out there right now, the competition will catch up.)
However, otherwise I agree with you: I'd certainly never choose to develop for the iPhone, knowing that Apple might choose to eradicate my hard work at any time. Forget it. Now, I suppose Apple could set up an "Applications Approval Commission" that would prepare guidelines for what is an "acceptable" application for the iPhone at any particular time. Furthermore, this Commission could accept submissions of proposed ideas from independent developers, and would approve/disapprove of those ideas for use on the iPhone. Hell, they might even decide that some of those ideas would be good enough for Apple to develop for itself.
"I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world"
She does realize that violence is a part of the real world, has always been and always will be a part of the real world, and that that is not always bad?
What planet are these people on?
They're on planet Earth, of course. Now, what drugs they're taking is another issue. I think I might like to try some.
Well, according to the relevant statues, the first type of infringer isn't a pirate (and no, I don't care what Webster's says, the legal definition is different.) He's a copyright infringer, but not a pirate. At least, that's my understanding and no I'm not a lawyer.
The second guy, selling unauthorized copies may be a pirate once he reaches financial thresholds enshrined in the law. You're right though, if you're profiting by your copyright infringement you're going to be in more trouble.
So: you can excuse acts of individual not-for-profit piracy and write it off as free advertising.
... they get to decide that, not us.
Still, the reality is that if Activision is going after a true pirate (as defined by copyright statute, not the RIAA and not Webster's) they're not only within their rights, but obeying the letter and the spirit of the law. If this guy was copying and selling their product, depending upon the level of financial gain involved he may be a real live honest-to-God pirate. Whether you or I believe that piracy is "good" for Activision is irrelevant
Frankly, if the RIAA had left file-sharing alone and spent all that court time going after the people and organizations committing acts of real piracy (unauthorized mass-duplication of media for distribution with intent to profit) I wouldn't have anything against them. Instead, they decided to beat the crap out of everyone they can in what can only be described as an ongoing act of terrorism.
The MPAA is involved in similar dysfunctional and misguided lawsuits against torrent indexing sites. I consider that just as wrongheaded: where do the bulk of their losses come from? Downloaders? No, they come from the factories cranking out millions of illegal copies of their product for sale. Most of these are in Asian countries, and often the same plants that make authorized copies turn out illegal ones and sell them on the side.
Seems like Activision took the high road here. Not that I read the article or anything.
Well, it's not quite the same. The reason for the EBS (and the old Conelrad system which predated it) is that TV and radio provide a strictly limited number of channels to the populace, and they get usurped in an emergency to make sure that people are properly informed. Eliminating "unauthorized" sources was irrelevant because in that context there are no unauthorized sources.
In the case of (ahem!) "network management", yeah you're probably right. Keep a lid on what's going on so the people don't freak and panic. And you know what? I don't really have a problem with that, because in many disaster scenarios a panic will kill and maim more people than the event itself.
The problem, as I see it, is that simply having such network controls in place means they'll get used for non-emergency purposes (such as, "we don't want word of {insert political leader here} bribery scandal getting out.")
Right now, there's not much that government (or the private sector) can do to prevent dissemination of specific information via the Internet, short of shutting down major segments of it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that would like to build some automated censorship into the network. The question is whether or not the ability to control information flow in an emergency is worth the risk of that capability being used in other contexts. I don't think it is: if nothing else, the recent history has unequivocally demonstrated that the Federal Government cannot be trusted with our communications network.
If the EEs have trouble, just think how bad it is for the poor business major.
True. But the business major is under no illusion that he is a programmer.
and be a helldesk is phenomenal.
I don't know exactly what a "helldesk" is, but I'm pretty sure I've had to call there a few times. There was always the faint odor of brimstone when I hung up the phone.