dude, I fell out of my chair laughing. all my co-workers think I'm crazy.
I've been laughing for almost five minutes. It was a good 3 minutes before I got up off the floor and click the link to see the picture. I thought I had recovered until jimmy popped up on my screen. he almost looks like he is in on the joke.
hmm. Maybe I should become a doctor.
It's hard to outsource medicine.
Or better yet, a lawyer.
I could fight the good fight.
You think they'll let a CS grad into law school?
sounds like a nice nitch.
You know that if you don't do it now while you still can, there will be a day when you can't.
Hell even I've seen that movie, and I'm not a big sci-fi freak.
Based on the timeline in those films, the bots will take over in 50 years, and the last time we'll have been able to kill them all will be in about 25 years.
but someone makes a robot that cares for humans, and he kills all the robots.
So I suggest you start now at building the robot that cares, or you start now at killing all the robots.
Not that I want to become a cracker, but it's a lot more complex than I ever thought.
I'd love to learn more. I've never really had that mob-obsession the rest of America has (sopranos, godfather, etc..) but this on the other hand is fascinating.
hell, I'd even read a Katz book on the topic.
Chris, you should write a book in prison. I'd buy it. Then I'd scan it and upload it to a DorD server in your honor.
beginning of time - someone peeps into someone's house - the most famous guy who did this was named tom. 19?? - someone passes a peeping tom law 1964 - mini-skirt craze 1994 - internet goes mainstream & webcams come out 1994 - someone puts an upskirt cam in a mall 1994 - someone detects that lots of mini-skirt wearing women don't wear panties either 1994 - someone puts upskirt pics on internet and profits 2002 - peeping tom law doesn't apply 2003 - new, cyber peeping tom law passes 2004 - new, wearing skirt without panties law passes 2005 - wearing skirt without panties law proved un-enforceable without hidden upskirt cameras 2006 - cyber peeping tom law repealed for law enforcement 2007 - first bumper sticker that says "when hidden upskirt cameras are illegal, only cops and criminals will see your butt" 2008 - porn sites based on advanced radar based XRay technology developed for airport security replaces upskirt camera websites. 2009 - cyber peeping tom law doesn't apply...etc.
"Hmmm, perhaps we could change a few entries in holy scripture, make venus the new holyland, and send all the extremists and fundamentalists THERE?
"
We tried, but the Church of Scientology threatened us with lawsuits for revealing their 400th level secret - "Venuthresiausx The Holyland known as Venus"
I'd like to become a spammer. It sounds like a good way to make money at someone elses expense.
Here is what my spam would say:
Dear Sir or Madam,
You are recieving this unsolicited email because your government has biased laws that favor large businesses rather than individual people. This, like all other unsolicited email has an opt-out mechanism. Just opt out and your name will be removed from the list. See bottom for details.
But you didn't ask for this mail, did you. Well too bad, there aren't any opt-in laws protecting you by making it illegal to send unsolicited commercial mail. Only opt-out laws. In most cases these are mere recommendations.
Why? Well because your bank, your car insurance company, your health insurance company and several other giant corporations prefer it this way.
But it's costing you time and money. Too bad. So Sad.
The only way it will change is if you make your voice heard. Send this to someone who gives a damn. When enough people give a damn the laws will change. (At that point you can stop sending it). Until then, keep sending it around - after all, it is only SPAM.
To opt-out of receiving future emails please send a formal request. For security purposes we require with your First Name, middle initial, Last Name, social security number, mother's maiden name, date of birth, gender, kindergarten school teacher's name, address, license plate number, driver license number, checking account number, favorite color, and height. Request that fail to provide the above information, for security purposes will be disregarded.
wouldn't it be great to have an anti-palladium pro-linux or pro Apple ad during this years superbowl that shows a user who hasn't paid his palladium tax and now can't access word, photos of family, anything.
His friend next to him is using Linux or Darwin and says that because it's open source, no-one can sneak in any traps like that.
Or something equally enlightening about linux and scary about palladium (non unfounded FUD, if you will).
I'd love to see joe six pack realize in a 30 second ad that microsoft has the power to turn off his computer. BOOM. and there isn't a damn thing he can do about it.
Guns aren't needed to take away lives. You can easily kill people without guns. Hell the 9/11 massacre didn't involve a single gun. Not one fuckin gun. They killed thousands of people without a single bullet.
I'm sorry to repeat this saying but guns don't kill people, people do.
I don't have time to rant but let me make two points.
1) If you are a person who is willing to kill, not only can you do so without a gun (see example above) but hello MURDER IS FUCKIN ILLEGAL. Anyone willing to commit murder isn't going to give a fuck whether or not it's more illegal to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. I mean really, if you are capable of murder, you surely are capable of murder with an illegally acquired gun. And outlawing them won't remove them from society. See prohibition, war on drugs, hell check out how many shootings last year were committed with illegally acquired weapons. Murderers don't care about gun laws.
2) Guns are dangerous. Not because of criminals, but because of ignorant gun owners and their inability to teach thier children safety. The way to solve this problem is not to restrict gun ownership, but to edumacate people. Before I was ever allowed to shoot a gun I went to a six week class that put the fear of God into me. They showed us horror movies (real ones) like in drivers ed. They showed us safety precautions. They brought in people who were victims of gunshots (policemen mostly). Then they had police men demonstrate the full power of various guns on special targets designed to mimic the response of human beings. It was ridiculous. At 100 yards a little 22 would fuck up a person. It's not like in the movies. It's really bad.
By the time I got to shoot, I didn't even want to. Which is how it should be. You should know before you even pick up the weapon how fuckin dangerous and powerful it is.
3) Owning guns isn't about being a cowboy or a texan or a murderer. It's about having the firepower to defend the people against the only people our government wouldn't defend on it's own. That's right, it's about the worst case scenario that has us fighting our own government. Think it can't ever come to that? Pick up a 7th grade history book and read about the American Revolution. Our fore fathers were English nobility. They weren't real soldiers. They were rich priveledged land owners. But they were willing to sleep in the mud and crawl through the dirt and kill thier own countrymen to fight for freedom from the crown. And after suffering a very bloody very deadly war, they still went as far as to include the second ammendment. WHY? because they had been through it for the right reasons, and they wanted to insure that should the PEOPLE ever have to go through it again, they'd be able to.
Get your head out of the sand and think really hard.
After they take away your right to privacy in the name of the war on drugs, and your right to court defense in the name of homeland security, and your right to free speech in the name of the DMCA (i.e. linking) and your right to peaceably assemble (think they don't want to call protesters terrorists? the lumber industry has already called tree huggers "eco-terrorists") and your right to read whatever you want without being judged for it (I mean they aren't even your words, how can you know whether you agree with someone if you don't get to read what they are saying first..what the fuck?) and after they take away every fucking right you were guranteed by the BILL OF RIGHTS you'll have only one fucking option left.
So you see, you won't be able to gather people together to march. And you won't be able to protest, they'll lock you up as a terrorist for no reason with no court date in sight. And you won't be able to write out about it, because free speech will no longer be guranteed, and even if you do, no one will be able to read what you write without themselves being put at risk. And if you did entertain thoughts about how all this is wrong, the database will eventually flag you and they'll find some way of keeping you in check.
And it will be so entrenched that there will be only one option, to restore America.
And you will have given that up because it can take a life if used by a murderer to do so.
Get a clue. Seriously, get a fuckin clue. Gun ownership and free speech go hand in hand.
And by the way, most/.'er offense to the DMCA isn't because we want to steal from corporations. It's because of it's chilling affect(effect) on free speech. And because of the privacy implications of DRM. And because of the balance of power, which is shifting dramatically to a handful of transnational corporations and the politicians they employ. For example, specifically with the DMCA our government doesn't represent the people, they represent the RIAA...who despite their name, 4 of the 5 major labels aren't even based in the US. The lobbying group is, but much of the profits go to some other countries tax pool. So why does our government represent them...cause they are paid to do so. This is not about stealing a song or two, this is about losing our freedoms so that our government can sell out to some foreign (transnational != domestic) entity.
That isn't capitalism, but you are right. It is as important as life.
I'm willing to die for this country. I'm willing to kill for this country. I'd fight against Hitler, and I'd fight against the RIAA. The threat is the same- removal of the bill of rights. And those rights include and are ensured by the 2nd ammendment.
Don't write back just yet. Print this out, read the 7th grade social studies chapter on the revolution. Read something from Thomas Paine or Ben Franklin or Patrick Henry. Read their actual words. Read, then think, then read some more.
then look up the facts in point 1 and 2. Take a gun safety class, and read to see how many shootings are actually done with stolen weapons. Hell, go to a prison and interview some of the people in there for armed robbery, assualt with a deadly weapon or even mudere or manslaughter. Ask them if they would have given a shit whether or not it was more illegal to shoot their victim with a gun than it already was to rob, assualt or kill them. The only thing they'll say is "yeah, i would have got less time." Not "yeah, if I would have known the gun was stolen I wouldn't have shot the guy cause that's an extra 2 years"
Then go look up records on how will making drugs illegal has done to keep them out of the country, and compare that to weapons.
Then after you've done all this reaearch, re-read what I wrote above and do one more thing.
Find someone who lived in Russia when it was the soviet union, or someone who lived in East Germany when it was Communist, or someone who survived a nazi occupation. Not a kid, but someone what truly lived it and escaped to America and ask them what the bill of rights means to them.
Then, you can write back.
Your privledged ass doesn't know what persecution is, and you shouldn't be so willing to give up OUR freedoms because of the potential danger a weapon holds. Especially in light of the fact that gunless threats like the 9/11 attacks are extremely real and extremely dangerous.
I truly believe if you think about it you'll form a conclusion that is much different than the one you have above.
Damn, I ranted. oh well, if just some of this opens one of your eyes half way, it was worth it.
Liberty for All.
We need a political party that wants guns and speech. After all, they are the first and second ammendments. I'm tired of thinking, oh well bush is good because we'll still be allowed to own guns in 4 years, but gore is good because I'll still be able to check out books at a library in 4 years.
And libertarians would sell all the damned forests to the oil companies, and let the poor die on the streets, so they aren't a serious option for a real human.
We need to get all the people with a real fuckin clue and take over the damn world.
I was wrong. Sky Marshals are even worse. Thanks for the enlightening link.
When I was a kid, they tought us about the terrors of communism. They showed one movie that told about innocent russians who would get arrested on trains for talking about God aloud. Then they would teach us about how the soviets show propaganda movies to their people to make them hate the US. They showed us some of those films. I asked if we weren't doing the same thing, with the film we had seen earlier, and was told that the difference was that our movies were true. I've been noticing propaganda for a long time, that is no secret. But now we're also arresting people on planes for no good reason.
Seems to me we're not much better than the people I was taught to hate for their evil ways. This is indeed a scary time.
dude, I think the poster agrees with you. Poster was trying to create an alternative to drug use. did you miss that, just because s/he pointed out how expensive it was to use computers to create a legal alterantive to an illegal drug?
Of course after trying it you might be tempted to use the real thing, but not if you have good people like you sending them to theantidrug.com
(btw, Isn't that ironic. shouldn't the illegal drugs be harder to come by than legal things...but of course, as you pointed out, drugs keep our poor (trailer trash reference) stoned and tripping so that they don't rise up and take the country back from the small minority of elite wealthy who run the place. Convenient, isn't it, that a hit of LSD is 3-20 dollars, despite being completely banned from the country for over 20 years. better to have our hippy trailer trash losers stoned than wondering why in the hell there is so little money for their kids' school and yet so much money to bail out the utility companies, or etc. etc.)
When you say 'get with the program man'...do you mean the 12 step program, or some other program?
Perhaps you mean the program where those that don't like the way things are go home and drink until they forget... or smoke and talk about someday...or trip and look at the pretty colors. So that those who like the way things are can continue to keep things the way they are...if you know what I mean.
I've been with that program. Both sides. One side is nicer than the other, but I feel so much dirtier. That program sucks.
for example...
Chartered Forest is a plan where the government will rent National Forest land to oil companies, timber companies and mining companies.
The stoners living in the trailers will pay taxes so that their government can use that tax money to buy forests "for them", then rent the forests to the companies - making it very difficult for the tax payers to actually enjoy the forests - and in turn the politicians behind it (Bush & co) will inevitably get huge campaign contributions from these same companies.
Luckily with $3.00 acid hits they'll be too high to be outraged about this for very long, and we (corporate loving non-drug using, home owning anti trailer trash americans) can make a quick buck at their expense.
hoo hoo ha ha haaaah haaah
There is a lot more to this drug deal than personal health.
I wish more people would just say no. Just say Hell NO while they are at it. I wish they'd stop drinking and smoking and watching tv and just stop and think about how fucked up things are...
but as soon as you do, you realize that most people don't care enough. And so neither do you.
And together you all decide to drink, or smoke, or trip instead.
And on it goes.
Think about it, what would the true anti-drug be ? If you don't get it by now, go ask someone less fortunate than yourself.
I am a little paranoid, but I wasn't thinking of this like a conspiracy with bribes, but rather like a business move by the USPTO. Here's my bias, in a nutshell. The USPTO should take an idealogical approach to patent granting, making sure it meets all the idealogical standards they define. However it seems to me that they don't really always do that. In fact, it seems that they are driven by an effort to make money - or more correctly save money, not an effort to do the right thing. It's not as bad as if they were a private enterprise, but it is pretty bad.
When a large corporation with lotsa money applies for a patent, you're right,they pay the same fee as everyone else. But much like a bartender will cater to the rich looking well dressed man, the USPTO wants to keep the large corporation coming back, and so it makes it happy.
Maybe not. But then why else would they fail to investigate prior art and obviousness more diligently. It's an assumption, but I'm assuming it's easier and cheaper to simply take the money and grant the patent, than to research the patent app more diligently - especially if it comes from a big corp with money to pay a good lawyer to write it in a nice little package.
(Note, I know that on slashdot we claim to find prior art without even reading the patent. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the really broad patents that cover really generic and obvious devices - especially software.)
However, if you throw one or two armed and trained undercover sky marshals on every flight you'd actually do a lot more to counter real threats of safety, and keep some civil liberties around.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I start to realize that this database isn't about keeping flights safe, its about being big brother. The airplane - hijacking is just a "reason" to go through with this plan.
Why? Because knowledge is power. They want the power of knowing everything about you.
You need to ask yourself what they will do with such power.
have you ever considered your credit card as a weapon. Imagine you file it down and sharpen it up and now you've got a little blade. You could even cut it diagonally so that it appears to be a rectangle but in turn is two blades. There are all sorts of prison style weapons you can bring on to a plane, or make in transit. Hell they still server some juices in glass bottles and you can get a can of soda if you ask for it. You can squish and rip that can and it's razor sharp. You could even take a bottle of water, freeze it like the hikers do, and let it thaw a little. With your coke can knife you cut open your water bottle and you now have an Ice Pick Dagger like in basic instinct. Even your clothing can be used as a weapon. You can strangle someone with a long sleeve shirt or sweater. Hell, even bare hands can be a weapon, just grab the nearest child.
The are only two ways to truly be safe. One is to have wooden benches bolted to the floor, and to have everyone ride completely naked - and hand cuffed.
Or to give everyone on board a gun. Then the terrorist will always be out numbered. It won't prevent deaths, but it will prevent full scale attacks.
Both of these are completely extreme. I think my point is that we need to balance a quest for safety with a respect of privacy and common sense. There is a line of acceptability somewhere between metal detectors and strip searches that last for the entire trip. I think a database that has my entire life history as described above is on the wrong side of that line - and ineffective to boot. It's a bad idea, and it won't make us any safer than we are today.
The USPTO is like congress. If you pay them enough it will happen. They know Amazon will come back for more if they make them happy. They will make Amazon happy.
In America, cash rules.
Corporations have all the cash.
Corporations can patent taking a leak standing up if they want.
This guy is pretty smart and has a good grasp on things.
here are some gems.
"In the United States, one of the most important criteria used to evaluate any proposed restriction on the collection and use of personal information by businesses is the effect that it will have on industry. In Europe that's at most secondary to the individual and societal rights that are affected. "..."as business practices seem to get more and more invasive, I find myself leaning closer to the European approach, even though I'm normally quite wary of regulation. "
<B>How about grading the legislators as well?</B> [he had said earlier that the courts do a good job of learning about technology when interpreting laws that govern it's use]
Unfortunately, I don't think that many legislatures have been anywhere near as scrupulous in learning about technology before trying to make laws to govern it. Take a look at all of the different state spam laws to see what I mean. Only one state has a law that is anywhere near consistent with the practices commonly followed on the Internet--Delaware, where it is a crime to send unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail. The other state spam laws don't focus on the central technical problem with spam, but instead deal with the symptoms, like forging message headers or failing to honor opt-out requests, or with completely different issues, like pornography and other content-related issues. "
<B>What about deep linking? </B> "What about it? I guess I don't understand why everyone is so concerned about it. It's an inherent part of the Web, in the same way that nouns and verbs are essential parts of speech. If you don't want people linking to or accessing certain content on your Web site, you can implement whatever rules you want to in the design or configuration of your site. But if you put content in a public place with its own published address, it's pointless to pretend that the address is a secret, and you shouldn't expect the legal system to enforce that ridiculous notion. "
"I don't think that the Internet really needs much law--it's really just a question of figuring out how best to apply more general laws to the online environment. "
I'm glad to see a lawyer on our side for a change. Makes me want to move to europe though.
Slashdot Mirror
dude, I fell out of my chair laughing. all my co-workers think I'm crazy.
I've been laughing for almost five minutes. It was a good 3 minutes before I got up off the floor and click the link to see the picture. I thought I had recovered until jimmy popped up on my screen. he almost looks like he is in on the joke.
thanks man, thanks
hmm. Maybe I should become a doctor. It's hard to outsource medicine. Or better yet, a lawyer. I could fight the good fight. You think they'll let a CS grad into law school? sounds like a nice nitch.
You know that if you don't do it now while you still can, there will be a day when you can't.
Hell even I've seen that movie, and I'm not a big sci-fi freak.
Based on the timeline in those films, the bots will take over in 50 years, and the last time we'll have been able to kill them all will be in about 25 years.
but someone makes a robot that cares for humans, and he kills all the robots.
So I suggest you start now at building the robot that cares, or you start now at killing all the robots.
sounds pretty interesting.
Not that I want to become a cracker, but it's a lot more complex than I ever thought.
I'd love to learn more. I've never really had that mob-obsession the rest of America has (sopranos, godfather, etc..) but this on the other hand is fascinating.
hell, I'd even read a Katz book on the topic.
Chris, you should write a book in prison. I'd buy it. Then I'd scan it and upload it to a DorD server in your honor.
beginning of time - someone peeps into someone's house - the most famous guy who did this was named tom. ...etc.
19?? - someone passes a peeping tom law
1964 - mini-skirt craze
1994 - internet goes mainstream & webcams come out
1994 - someone puts an upskirt cam in a mall
1994 - someone detects that lots of mini-skirt wearing women don't wear panties either
1994 - someone puts upskirt pics on internet and profits
2002 - peeping tom law doesn't apply
2003 - new, cyber peeping tom law passes
2004 - new, wearing skirt without panties law passes
2005 - wearing skirt without panties law proved un-enforceable without hidden upskirt cameras
2006 - cyber peeping tom law repealed for law enforcement
2007 - first bumper sticker that says "when hidden upskirt cameras are illegal, only cops and criminals will see your butt"
2008 - porn sites based on advanced radar based XRay technology developed for airport security replaces upskirt camera websites.
2009 - cyber peeping tom law doesn't apply
That was a good angle. Thanks! hotmail is a communication vehicle for terrorists. Banned by Patriot Act. HAHAHAH
Now all Microsoft has to do is get /. labeled a terrorist network and no one will be allowed to read any open source news.
It's that easy. The link for FARC is somewhere on here, many of us support the che cafe - if not the FARC.
The FBI could label /. terrorist if MS helped by greasing the wheels of "justice" with some cash and BAM
no more wasting time reading news for nerds. I'll have to settle for news for sheep.
Your second ammendment is there to protect your first ammendment.
"Hmmm, perhaps we could change a few entries in holy scripture, make venus the new holyland, and send all the extremists and fundamentalists THERE? " We tried, but the Church of Scientology threatened us with lawsuits for revealing their 400th level secret - "Venuthresiausx The Holyland known as Venus"
>>Most people who claim that they don't need better say so because they've never SEEN better.
Tell me about it. I thought my first wife was good. But she's nothing like my second wife.
(I should include a link to girlfriend2.0, but I'll let someone else get funny points.)
I'd like to become a spammer. It sounds like a good way to make money at someone elses expense.
Here is what my spam would say:
Dear Sir or Madam,
You are recieving this unsolicited email because your government has biased laws that favor large businesses rather than individual people. This, like all other unsolicited email has an opt-out mechanism. Just opt out and your name will be removed from the list. See bottom for details.
But you didn't ask for this mail, did you. Well too bad, there aren't any opt-in laws protecting you by making it illegal to send unsolicited commercial mail. Only opt-out laws. In most cases these are mere recommendations.
Why? Well because your bank, your car insurance company, your health insurance company and several other giant corporations prefer it this way.
But it's costing you time and money. Too bad. So Sad.
The only way it will change is if you make your voice heard. Send this to someone who gives a damn. When enough people give a damn the laws will change. (At that point you can stop sending it).
Until then, keep sending it around - after all, it is only SPAM.
To opt-out of receiving future emails please send a formal request. For security purposes we require with your First Name, middle initial, Last Name, social security number, mother's maiden name, date of birth, gender, kindergarten school teacher's name, address, license plate number, driver license number, checking account number, favorite color, and height. Request that fail to provide the above information, for security purposes will be disregarded.
wouldn't it be great to have an anti-palladium pro-linux or pro Apple ad during this years superbowl that shows a user who hasn't paid his palladium tax and now can't access word, photos of family, anything.
His friend next to him is using Linux or Darwin and says that because it's open source, no-one can sneak in any traps like that.
Or something equally enlightening about linux and scary about palladium (non unfounded FUD, if you will).
I'd love to see joe six pack realize in a 30 second ad that microsoft has the power to turn off his computer. BOOM. and there isn't a damn thing he can do about it.
Guns aren't needed to take away lives. You can easily kill people without guns. Hell the 9/11 massacre didn't involve a single gun. Not one fuckin gun. They killed thousands of people without a single bullet. I'm sorry to repeat this saying but guns don't kill people, people do. I don't have time to rant but let me make two points. 1) If you are a person who is willing to kill, not only can you do so without a gun (see example above) but hello MURDER IS FUCKIN ILLEGAL. Anyone willing to commit murder isn't going to give a fuck whether or not it's more illegal to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. I mean really, if you are capable of murder, you surely are capable of murder with an illegally acquired gun. And outlawing them won't remove them from society. See prohibition, war on drugs, hell check out how many shootings last year were committed with illegally acquired weapons. Murderers don't care about gun laws. 2) Guns are dangerous. Not because of criminals, but because of ignorant gun owners and their inability to teach thier children safety. The way to solve this problem is not to restrict gun ownership, but to edumacate people. Before I was ever allowed to shoot a gun I went to a six week class that put the fear of God into me. They showed us horror movies (real ones) like in drivers ed. They showed us safety precautions. They brought in people who were victims of gunshots (policemen mostly). Then they had police men demonstrate the full power of various guns on special targets designed to mimic the response of human beings. It was ridiculous. At 100 yards a little 22 would fuck up a person. It's not like in the movies. It's really bad. By the time I got to shoot, I didn't even want to. Which is how it should be. You should know before you even pick up the weapon how fuckin dangerous and powerful it is. 3) Owning guns isn't about being a cowboy or a texan or a murderer. It's about having the firepower to defend the people against the only people our government wouldn't defend on it's own. That's right, it's about the worst case scenario that has us fighting our own government. Think it can't ever come to that? Pick up a 7th grade history book and read about the American Revolution. Our fore fathers were English nobility. They weren't real soldiers. They were rich priveledged land owners. But they were willing to sleep in the mud and crawl through the dirt and kill thier own countrymen to fight for freedom from the crown. And after suffering a very bloody very deadly war, they still went as far as to include the second ammendment. WHY? because they had been through it for the right reasons, and they wanted to insure that should the PEOPLE ever have to go through it again, they'd be able to. Get your head out of the sand and think really hard. After they take away your right to privacy in the name of the war on drugs, and your right to court defense in the name of homeland security, and your right to free speech in the name of the DMCA (i.e. linking) and your right to peaceably assemble (think they don't want to call protesters terrorists? the lumber industry has already called tree huggers "eco-terrorists") and your right to read whatever you want without being judged for it (I mean they aren't even your words, how can you know whether you agree with someone if you don't get to read what they are saying first..what the fuck?) and after they take away every fucking right you were guranteed by the BILL OF RIGHTS you'll have only one fucking option left. So you see, you won't be able to gather people together to march. And you won't be able to protest, they'll lock you up as a terrorist for no reason with no court date in sight. And you won't be able to write out about it, because free speech will no longer be guranteed, and even if you do, no one will be able to read what you write without themselves being put at risk. And if you did entertain thoughts about how all this is wrong, the database will eventually flag you and they'll find some way of keeping you in check. And it will be so entrenched that there will be only one option, to restore America. And you will have given that up because it can take a life if used by a murderer to do so. Get a clue. Seriously, get a fuckin clue. Gun ownership and free speech go hand in hand. And by the way, most /.'er offense to the DMCA isn't because we want to steal from corporations. It's because of it's chilling affect(effect) on free speech. And because of the privacy implications of DRM. And because of the balance of power, which is shifting dramatically to a handful of transnational corporations and the politicians they employ. For example, specifically with the DMCA our government doesn't represent the people, they represent the RIAA...who despite their name, 4 of the 5 major labels aren't even based in the US. The lobbying group is, but much of the profits go to some other countries tax pool. So why does our government represent them...cause they are paid to do so. This is not about stealing a song or two, this is about losing our freedoms so that our government can sell out to some foreign (transnational != domestic) entity.
That isn't capitalism, but you are right. It is as important as life.
I'm willing to die for this country. I'm willing to kill for this country. I'd fight against Hitler, and I'd fight against the RIAA. The threat is the same- removal of the bill of rights. And those rights include and are ensured by the 2nd ammendment.
Don't write back just yet. Print this out, read the 7th grade social studies chapter on the revolution. Read something from Thomas Paine or Ben Franklin or Patrick Henry. Read their actual words. Read, then think, then read some more.
then look up the facts in point 1 and 2. Take a gun safety class, and read to see how many shootings are actually done with stolen weapons. Hell, go to a prison and interview some of the people in there for armed robbery, assualt with a deadly weapon or even mudere or manslaughter. Ask them if they would have given a shit whether or not it was more illegal to shoot their victim with a gun than it already was to rob, assualt or kill them. The only thing they'll say is "yeah, i would have got less time." Not "yeah, if I would have known the gun was stolen I wouldn't have shot the guy cause that's an extra 2 years"
Then go look up records on how will making drugs illegal has done to keep them out of the country, and compare that to weapons.
Then after you've done all this reaearch, re-read what I wrote above and do one more thing.
Find someone who lived in Russia when it was the soviet union, or someone who lived in East Germany when it was Communist, or someone who survived a nazi occupation. Not a kid, but someone what truly lived it and escaped to America and ask them what the bill of rights means to them.
Then, you can write back.
Your privledged ass doesn't know what persecution is, and you shouldn't be so willing to give up OUR freedoms because of the potential danger a weapon holds. Especially in light of the fact that gunless threats like the 9/11 attacks are extremely real and extremely dangerous.
I truly believe if you think about it you'll form a conclusion that is much different than the one you have above.
Damn, I ranted. oh well, if just some of this opens one of your eyes half way, it was worth it.
Liberty for All.
We need a political party that wants guns and speech. After all, they are the first and second ammendments. I'm tired of thinking, oh well bush is good because we'll still be allowed to own guns in 4 years, but gore is good because I'll still be able to check out books at a library in 4 years. And libertarians would sell all the damned forests to the oil companies, and let the poor die on the streets, so they aren't a serious option for a real human. We need to get all the people with a real fuckin clue and take over the damn world.
I was wrong. Sky Marshals are even worse. Thanks for the enlightening link. When I was a kid, they tought us about the terrors of communism. They showed one movie that told about innocent russians who would get arrested on trains for talking about God aloud. Then they would teach us about how the soviets show propaganda movies to their people to make them hate the US. They showed us some of those films. I asked if we weren't doing the same thing, with the film we had seen earlier, and was told that the difference was that our movies were true. I've been noticing propaganda for a long time, that is no secret. But now we're also arresting people on planes for no good reason. Seems to me we're not much better than the people I was taught to hate for their evil ways. This is indeed a scary time.
dude, I think the poster agrees with you. Poster was trying to create an alternative to drug use. did you miss that, just because s/he pointed out how expensive it was to use computers to create a legal alterantive to an illegal drug?
... or smoke and talk about someday...or trip and look at the pretty colors. So that those who like the way things are can continue to keep things the way they are...if you know what I mean.
Of course after trying it you might be tempted to use the real thing, but not if you have good people like you sending them to theantidrug.com
(btw, Isn't that ironic. shouldn't the illegal drugs be harder to come by than legal things...but of course, as you pointed out, drugs keep our poor (trailer trash reference) stoned and tripping so that they don't rise up and take the country back from the small minority of elite wealthy who run the place. Convenient, isn't it, that a hit of LSD is 3-20 dollars, despite being completely banned from the country for over 20 years. better to have our hippy trailer trash losers stoned than wondering why in the hell there is so little money for their kids' school and yet so much money to bail out the utility companies, or etc. etc.)
When you say 'get with the program man'...do you mean the 12 step program, or some other program?
Perhaps you mean the program where those that don't like the way things are go home and drink until they forget
I've been with that program. Both sides. One side is nicer than the other, but I feel so much dirtier. That program sucks.
for example...
Chartered Forest is a plan where the government will rent National Forest land to oil companies, timber companies and mining companies.
The stoners living in the trailers will pay taxes so that their government can use that tax money to buy forests "for them", then rent the forests to the companies - making it very difficult for the tax payers to actually enjoy the forests - and in turn the politicians behind it (Bush & co) will inevitably get huge campaign contributions from these same companies.
Luckily with $3.00 acid hits they'll be too high to be outraged about this for very long, and we (corporate loving non-drug using, home owning anti trailer trash americans) can make a quick buck at their expense.
hoo hoo ha ha haaaah haaah
There is a lot more to this drug deal than personal health.
I wish more people would just say no. Just say Hell NO while they are at it. I wish they'd stop drinking and smoking and watching tv and just stop and think about how fucked up things are...
but as soon as you do, you realize that most people don't care enough. And so neither do you.
And together you all decide to drink, or smoke, or trip instead.
And on it goes.
Think about it, what would the true anti-drug be ? If you don't get it by now, go ask someone less fortunate than yourself.
Just like we don't need a full time staff to run the new copy-machines. or Self-cleaning ovens. hahaha. Was this seen on Amazing Discoveries?
I am a little paranoid, but I wasn't thinking of this like a conspiracy with bribes, but rather like a business move by the USPTO. Here's my bias, in a nutshell. The USPTO should take an idealogical approach to patent granting, making sure it meets all the idealogical standards they define. However it seems to me that they don't really always do that. In fact, it seems that they are driven by an effort to make money - or more correctly save money, not an effort to do the right thing. It's not as bad as if they were a private enterprise, but it is pretty bad. When a large corporation with lotsa money applies for a patent, you're right,they pay the same fee as everyone else. But much like a bartender will cater to the rich looking well dressed man, the USPTO wants to keep the large corporation coming back, and so it makes it happy. Maybe not. But then why else would they fail to investigate prior art and obviousness more diligently. It's an assumption, but I'm assuming it's easier and cheaper to simply take the money and grant the patent, than to research the patent app more diligently - especially if it comes from a big corp with money to pay a good lawyer to write it in a nice little package. (Note, I know that on slashdot we claim to find prior art without even reading the patent. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the really broad patents that cover really generic and obvious devices - especially software.)
However, if you throw one or two armed and trained undercover sky marshals on every flight you'd actually do a lot more to counter real threats of safety, and keep some civil liberties around. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I start to realize that this database isn't about keeping flights safe, its about being big brother. The airplane - hijacking is just a "reason" to go through with this plan. Why? Because knowledge is power. They want the power of knowing everything about you. You need to ask yourself what they will do with such power.
have you ever considered your credit card as a weapon. Imagine you file it down and sharpen it up and now you've got a little blade. You could even cut it diagonally so that it appears to be a rectangle but in turn is two blades. There are all sorts of prison style weapons you can bring on to a plane, or make in transit. Hell they still server some juices in glass bottles and you can get a can of soda if you ask for it. You can squish and rip that can and it's razor sharp. You could even take a bottle of water, freeze it like the hikers do, and let it thaw a little. With your coke can knife you cut open your water bottle and you now have an Ice Pick Dagger like in basic instinct. Even your clothing can be used as a weapon. You can strangle someone with a long sleeve shirt or sweater. Hell, even bare hands can be a weapon, just grab the nearest child.
The are only two ways to truly be safe.
One is to have wooden benches bolted to the floor, and to have everyone ride completely naked - and hand cuffed.
Or to give everyone on board a gun. Then the terrorist will always be out numbered. It won't prevent deaths, but it will prevent full scale attacks.
Both of these are completely extreme. I think my point is that we need to balance a quest for safety with a respect of privacy and common sense. There is a line of acceptability somewhere between metal detectors and strip searches that last for the entire trip. I think a database that has my entire life history as described above is on the wrong side of that line - and ineffective to boot. It's a bad idea, and it won't make us any safer than we are today.
The USPTO is like congress. If you pay them enough it will happen. They know Amazon will come back for more if they make them happy. They will make Amazon happy. In America, cash rules. Corporations have all the cash. Corporations can patent taking a leak standing up if they want.
This guy is pretty smart and has a good grasp on things.
..."as business practices seem to get more and more invasive, I find myself leaning closer to the European approach, even though I'm normally quite wary of regulation. "
here are some gems.
"In the United States, one of the most important criteria used to evaluate any proposed restriction on the collection and use of personal information by businesses is the effect that it will have on industry. In Europe that's at most secondary to the individual and societal rights that are affected. "
<B>How about grading the legislators as well?</B> [he had said earlier that the courts do a good job of learning about technology when interpreting laws that govern it's use]
Unfortunately, I don't think that many legislatures have been anywhere near as scrupulous in learning about technology before trying to make laws to govern it. Take a look at all of the different state spam laws to see what I mean. Only one state has a law that is anywhere near consistent with the practices commonly followed on the Internet--Delaware, where it is a crime to send unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail. The other state spam laws don't focus on the central technical problem with spam, but instead deal with the symptoms, like forging message headers or failing to honor opt-out requests, or with completely different issues, like pornography and other content-related issues. "
<B>What about deep linking? </B>
"What about it? I guess I don't understand why everyone is so concerned about it. It's an inherent part of the Web, in the same way that nouns and verbs are essential parts of speech. If you don't want people linking to or accessing certain content on your Web site, you can implement whatever rules you want to in the design or configuration of your site. But if you put content in a public place with its own published address, it's pointless to pretend that the address is a secret, and you shouldn't expect the legal system to enforce that ridiculous notion. "
"I don't think that the Internet really needs much law--it's really just a question of figuring out how best to apply more general laws to the online environment. "
I'm glad to see a lawyer on our side for a change. Makes me want to move to europe though.