CompTIA asked both candidates about their stances on digital media and legitimate consumer use, and both candidates gave wishy-washy answers that indicated their favorableness to supporting the rights of consumers. But it's fairly obvious that they were both catering to their audience, having been tipped off by the nature of the question.
What should federal policy be toward protecting intellectual property on the Internet - recognizing the harmless role played by mere conduits - and facilitating the free flow of ideas based on those creations?
This just means that yet another opportunity to find out whether either candidate supports limitations on DRM/broadcast flag/DMCA is wasted. Why not ask a more pointed, but less coached, question? "Do you feel the DMCA has provided adequate, insufficient, or excessive protections to copyright holders?" "Do you support or oppose the mandatory compliance of electronic devices with the digital broadcast flag?" "Do you support or oppose the DMCRA?"
Their most recent one was a "survey" between the login screen and server select asking you to choose which item from a list of a few options of free stuff (each valued at around $20) could they offer you in exchange for you applying for a Sony Visa credit card.
Character motion is very choppy, you don't have any way for a character to look in one direction while their body faces another direction, and there are very few emotes to compensate. You can't even get the characters' mouths to move. It really isn't designed for this.
The beauty of Halo is that everyone wears a helmet.:)
The valid point, as has been made many times, is that there is little investigative journalism in the US media.
I'll agree with that statement. Even the CBS Bush document fiasco was the result of CBS journalists being fed information rather than digging up facts for themselves.
Well.... aside from at the local level, and that usually consists of "investigative journalists" harassing and trespassing on the property of some city councillor who was recently arrested for DUI.
Although I am sure we all agree wikipedia is the authoritative and infallible new source,
In the specific case I linked to in my previous post, the Abu Ghraib article was extensive and cited numerous other independent sources. It may not be infallible, but it's certainly as authoritative as any of the sources it cites.
Besides, blog journalism (or distributed or peer-to-peer journalism, if you prefer) is a new driving force in today's media, and it stands to change the way that journalism and politics in the US work between now and the 2008 election. Wikipedia is an extension of that concept.
For *nix? Yes, but they're usually called rootkits plus keyloggers - confusing terminology which contributes to the prevention of novices entering into the arena of "getting ur boxen 0wn3d".
Good point. Like the pictures of abused prisoners in Iraq. They've been around the rest of the world for a year before they finally surfaced in the US. Compared to that, a two day cover up in china isn't scary.
Unless you're talking about the abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein at Abu Ghraib before the US occupation, you're manufacturing facts.
The prison abuse scandal broke in late April 2004 when CBS 60 Minutes II aired several photos showing abuse against US-held prisoners at Abu Ghraib. One year before that, April 2003, US forces were still in the process of securing the bulk of Iraq from whatever parts of the Baathist regime were still fighting at the time. Abu Ghraib and the other prison camps were not fully in place until late 2003, and the reports of prisoner abuse spanned the period from October to December 2003.
Amnesty International did request that an independent investigation be put in place as early as June 2003. They objected to the general conditions of the prison camps, but did not make accusations of violent torture at that time. However, even Cooperative Research notes that photos and other evidence of the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not leaked to the military until January 2004 and to the media in April 2004.
There is also no reason to believe that CBS would wait for months to break this story, as just a few months later they hastily broke another anti-Administration story that turned out to be false.
I think by "outsourcing", the administration simply means outsourcing to private companies rather than doing everything in-house. The term outsourcing didn't always have the phrase "to India" after it, and I think the original meaning (along the lines of subcontracting), instead of the media-hype-friendly definition that gets used more and more these days, is what was intended.
How do you reconcile the fact that these kids are allowed to roam around the mall unsupervised
In a lot of malls, at least in the U.S., they're *not* allowed to roam around the mall unsupervised, at least not in large groups. (Not because of some police or city government policy, but due to the rules the mall management has set up.)
18 USC 597 prohibits paying someone for their vote or soliciting someone else to pay you for your vote.
18 USC 594 prohibits intimidating or coercing someone else to vote or not vote in a particular manner.
There may be additional statutes relevant to this matter, and there may also be case law on the subject. According to this article, the CA Secretary of State shut down similar websites in 2000, citing California statute as justification for doing so.
I know it's usually illegal to offer money for votes. Whether it's illegal to trade votes for other votes, I don't know, but I do know that it's unethical.
Instead of being serious and trying to move the country towards their ideal, the third-party purists maintain their precious ideological purity, their 2-3% and their whining.
I will admit that I would be far more likely to vote Libertarian except for two major sticking points: one, their views on drug policy; and two, the fact that getting a clear answer from them on environmental policy is difficult.
Oh, I guess there's one other issue, and that's that Ohio is currently being described as a "battleground" state, so I feel like I can't vote on principle when I really need to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Isn't that a catch-22? A third party candidate can't get in the debate until he has a chance of winning. A third party candidate can't reasonably be expected to win unless he is able to participate in the debate. The current debate system is designed to leverage that catch-22 against third party candidates and to keep the RNC and DNC in firm control.
The two-party system wasn't designed at all. It's an emergent part of the electoral system combined with increased national communication of news.
In the Presidential electoral system we have today, a person has to have (in most states) the greatest number of votes of any candidate in order to claim the electoral votes for that state. Naturally falling out of this is the tendency for as few parties as possible to be represented. Since there is at least a variety of views expressed by U.S. voters, there will always be more than one party, so the system will tend to support two parties in most cases.
In the old days, politics were sometimes separated by geographic boundaries, and so a fringe-party candidate representing the interests of the South, for example, might carry a few states in the South. But the population of the U.S. has become homogeneous enough - and improved communication technologies have reduced the boundaries between political ideas enough - that third-party candidates have almost no chance of gaining a foothold anywhere.
This has nothing to do with preventing "extremists like Hitler" from being elected. If anything, the resistance of the government against changing the system is due to an unwillingness to give third parties a chance to gain a foothold.
Slashdot Mirror
The really sad thing here is that the Doom movie is likely to be more true to the original than Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy was.
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscod e18/usc_sec_18_00000597----000-.html
CompTIA asked both candidates about their stances on digital media and legitimate consumer use, and both candidates gave wishy-washy answers that indicated their favorableness to supporting the rights of consumers. But it's fairly obvious that they were both catering to their audience, having been tipped off by the nature of the question.
p x#5
http://www.comptia.org/pressroom/election_2004.as
What should federal policy be toward protecting intellectual property on the Internet - recognizing the harmless role played by mere conduits - and facilitating the free flow of ideas based on those creations?
This just means that yet another opportunity to find out whether either candidate supports limitations on DRM/broadcast flag/DMCA is wasted. Why not ask a more pointed, but less coached, question? "Do you feel the DMCA has provided adequate, insufficient, or excessive protections to copyright holders?" "Do you support or oppose the mandatory compliance of electronic devices with the digital broadcast flag?" "Do you support or oppose the DMCRA?"
Considering that roughly 50% of military deaths in Iraq are due to improvised explosive devices....
I'd be satisfied if the intelligence test simply required people to demonstrate competence at punching a hole in a pre-perforated card.
Their most recent one was a "survey" between the login screen and server select asking you to choose which item from a list of a few options of free stuff (each valued at around $20) could they offer you in exchange for you applying for a Sony Visa credit card.
Character motion is very choppy, you don't have any way for a character to look in one direction while their body faces another direction, and there are very few emotes to compensate. You can't even get the characters' mouths to move. It really isn't designed for this.
:)
The beauty of Halo is that everyone wears a helmet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween
It probably does have that popup, but only because the popup is put there by spyware.
The valid point, as has been made many times, is that there is little investigative journalism in the US media.
I'll agree with that statement. Even the CBS Bush document fiasco was the result of CBS journalists being fed information rather than digging up facts for themselves.
Well.... aside from at the local level, and that usually consists of "investigative journalists" harassing and trespassing on the property of some city councillor who was recently arrested for DUI.
Although I am sure we all agree wikipedia is the authoritative and infallible new source,
In the specific case I linked to in my previous post, the Abu Ghraib article was extensive and cited numerous other independent sources. It may not be infallible, but it's certainly as authoritative as any of the sources it cites.
Besides, blog journalism (or distributed or peer-to-peer journalism, if you prefer) is a new driving force in today's media, and it stands to change the way that journalism and politics in the US work between now and the 2008 election. Wikipedia is an extension of that concept.
For *nix? Yes, but they're usually called rootkits plus keyloggers - confusing terminology which contributes to the prevention of novices entering into the arena of "getting ur boxen 0wn3d".
Good point. Like the pictures of abused prisoners in Iraq. They've been around the rest of the world for a year before they finally surfaced in the US. Compared to that, a two day cover up in china isn't scary.
a buse
Unless you're talking about the abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein at Abu Ghraib before the US occupation, you're manufacturing facts.
The prison abuse scandal broke in late April 2004 when CBS 60 Minutes II aired several photos showing abuse against US-held prisoners at Abu Ghraib. One year before that, April 2003, US forces were still in the process of securing the bulk of Iraq from whatever parts of the Baathist regime were still fighting at the time. Abu Ghraib and the other prison camps were not fully in place until late 2003, and the reports of prisoner abuse spanned the period from October to December 2003.
Amnesty International did request that an independent investigation be put in place as early as June 2003. They objected to the general conditions of the prison camps, but did not make accusations of violent torture at that time. However, even Cooperative Research notes that photos and other evidence of the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not leaked to the military until January 2004 and to the media in April 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_
There is also no reason to believe that CBS would wait for months to break this story, as just a few months later they hastily broke another anti-Administration story that turned out to be false.
India, here we come!
I think by "outsourcing", the administration simply means outsourcing to private companies rather than doing everything in-house. The term outsourcing didn't always have the phrase "to India" after it, and I think the original meaning (along the lines of subcontracting), instead of the media-hype-friendly definition that gets used more and more these days, is what was intended.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the plaintiff's favor;
You'll forgive me if I don't consider this to be convincing evidence of legitimacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
How do you reconcile the fact that these kids are allowed to roam around the mall unsupervised
In a lot of malls, at least in the U.S., they're *not* allowed to roam around the mall unsupervised, at least not in large groups. (Not because of some police or city government policy, but due to the rules the mall management has set up.)
18 USC 597 prohibits paying someone for their vote or soliciting someone else to pay you for your vote.
18 USC 594 prohibits intimidating or coercing someone else to vote or not vote in a particular manner.
There may be additional statutes relevant to this matter, and there may also be case law on the subject. According to this article, the CA Secretary of State shut down similar websites in 2000, citing California statute as justification for doing so.
I know it's usually illegal to offer money for votes. Whether it's illegal to trade votes for other votes, I don't know, but I do know that it's unethical.
In other news, Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax can do this already.
Instead of being serious and trying to move the country towards their ideal, the third-party purists maintain their precious ideological purity, their 2-3% and their whining.
I will admit that I would be far more likely to vote Libertarian except for two major sticking points: one, their views on drug policy; and two, the fact that getting a clear answer from them on environmental policy is difficult.
Oh, I guess there's one other issue, and that's that Ohio is currently being described as a "battleground" state, so I feel like I can't vote on principle when I really need to vote for the lesser of two evils.
In the second debate, Bush and Kerry came down on different sides of almost every single issue.
Considering that Kerry's mantra is "Vote for me, I'm not Bush!" that would seem fairly obvious.
Isn't that a catch-22? A third party candidate can't get in the debate until he has a chance of winning. A third party candidate can't reasonably be expected to win unless he is able to participate in the debate. The current debate system is designed to leverage that catch-22 against third party candidates and to keep the RNC and DNC in firm control.
The two-party system wasn't designed at all. It's an emergent part of the electoral system combined with increased national communication of news.
In the Presidential electoral system we have today, a person has to have (in most states) the greatest number of votes of any candidate in order to claim the electoral votes for that state. Naturally falling out of this is the tendency for as few parties as possible to be represented. Since there is at least a variety of views expressed by U.S. voters, there will always be more than one party, so the system will tend to support two parties in most cases.
In the old days, politics were sometimes separated by geographic boundaries, and so a fringe-party candidate representing the interests of the South, for example, might carry a few states in the South. But the population of the U.S. has become homogeneous enough - and improved communication technologies have reduced the boundaries between political ideas enough - that third-party candidates have almost no chance of gaining a foothold anywhere.
This has nothing to do with preventing "extremists like Hitler" from being elected. If anything, the resistance of the government against changing the system is due to an unwillingness to give third parties a chance to gain a foothold.
Hibernate is universally well regarded.
After reading some of the comments on this article, I'm thinking this might be a bit of a stretch.