If you think banning toothpaste in carry-ons == giving up liberty, you've got some issues. It's no wonder that real liberties can be eroded (e.g., wiretaps) when a minor inconvenience like this provokes as big (if not bigger) storm of whining and crying than does something serious. I don't seem to recall a "right to convenient airline flight" in the Bill of Rights, but maybe I overlooked that. I find it incredibly sad that petty annoyances that directly effect people makes them more irate than would something happening to truly infringe on an important right, like freedom of religion or the press.
Flying itself is a convenience, as opposed to slower methods of transportation. If you find it too inconvenient, take another mode of transit. There are posts in this thread whining about the lack of high-speed rail in the U.S. (which would be ridiculously inefficent for 99% of our country; as an aside, it works in Europe and other places because of smaller geographic space and higher population densities), but the fact is that there is bus service (Grayhound) to nearly everywhere you could possibly want to go. There are very few situations I can think of where anyone would actually "need" to fly: the speed of travel makes it far more convenient, so it is the logical option most of the time. In spite of all the bitching and moaning going on here, I bet most if not all of the bitchers and moaners are still going to get on the plane next time, just because it is the more convenient option.
If your rights are being trampled on, stand up and fight. If you insist on confusing 'convenience' with 'right,' though, sit down and shut the hell up.
Individuality? What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the way to express your individuality is to ape exactly what everyone else is doing to express their 'individuality.'
That's the main reason this will fail so horribly: it has zero chance of attracting the core of 'cool' kids that the remeainder of the herd will want to emulate.
I think most people here are missing the point. This isn't about a disc here and a disc there. Nobody is going to be shipping 100+ copies of their vacation video.
That would be all fine and good, except for the fact that the fine print in the shipping documents gives the shipper the right to open your packages. All the big, bold disclaimers in the world won't help you if you expressly give them the permission.
You handed your package off to a third-party: you don't have any privacy right in it. Especially when you consider that (in the fine print) you expressly gave FedEx, UPS, etc., permission to open that package. The only things you have any privacy right in are those that you keep under your control. Once you put those things out where the public can get to them, or even worse, give control of it to a third-party, you might as well take a out full-page ad in the NY Times for all the good it's going to do you to gripe about someone looking in your package.
The problem isn't that these companies are 'trampling' over anyone's privacy rights. The problem is that most people have no idea what their rights really are, and just assume that anything they don't like violates those rights.
Well, I've been getting my Google results in this form for about 2 weeks now (when signed in).
I did in fact notice it -- it shifts the search results up and to the right slightly -- but other than being slightly annoyed that my unchanging Google had changed, didn't think much of it. I'm not quite sure how this is the big deal that it is being made out to be. It gives a bit more room for Google to link related services, but otherwise . . . meh.
Post: "telling fellow students"
Article: "created a blog on a Web site"
Post: "refresh the schools web page in order to slow down the server"
Article: "'hold down F5 to help crash my school server'"
Post: "He is being charged with a felony and is currently being held in jail."
Article: Huh? It says he is facing charges, not that he has been arrested -- very different things.
Post: "According to Canton City Prosecutor Frank Forchione 'This new technology has created a whole wave of crimes, and we're just trying to find ways to solve them.'"
Article: Gives the quote in the context of there having been several incidents where students attacked or otherwise misused the school computer, not specifically about this case.
It's called spin. It's irritating when politicians do it, but to be expected. To have someone submit such a blatantly biased 'summary' to a 'news' site is even more irritating. If doesn't annoy you -- or your definition of a punk doesn't include someone trying to maliciously disrupt a computer system -- more power to you. I just happen to disagree.
Simply take the bare facts of a story, throw in some out-of-context quotes and counter-factual insinuations, and that boring story about some punk's criminal mischief is suddenly about the Man's insane overreaction to a harmless prank!
It's probably only a new concept to you because you haven't really thought about it. Either that, or you are intentionally misunderstanding my post.
When you pick up a Merriam-Webster dictionary to find the definition or spelling of a word, unless you're in the tinfoil-hat brigade you probably believe that the definition or spelling you are looking for will be correct. That's what I meant by having a prima facie way of knowing what to believe: based on a source's reputation for reliability and accuracy, you can make an initial judgment on whether the information from that source is believable. That doesn't mean you automatically believe everything from that source, but unless you have a good reason not to and/or the information is not highly critical, you trust that source.
What I was saying about Wikipedia is that you can't trust any information on its face; it might give you enough information to do the actual research somewhere else, but you go to Wikipedia knowing that it is only slightly more likely to be accurate than not. That's not to say it's not useful, but I was responding to the grandparent saying that you shouldn't believe everything you read. My point is that you should be able to believe some things you read, and that there are reliable sources out there (although even they, of course, should be read with an awareness of their limitations).
if no one is reading incorrect material does it really matter that it's incorrect?
If, indeed, no one was reading it, it would not matter. But even in your example you guess that "less than a thousand people" read the Siegenthaler article. When does it matter that material is incorrect? When more than one thousand people will see it? Ten thousand?
Have they heard the phrase, "don't believe everything you read"?
That's pretty much the whole point of the Reg article: how can you claim that it's an encyclopedia (as opposed to a random jumble of sometimes-accurate trivia) if there is no prima facie way of knowing what to believe? The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be an accurate and definitive source of information; any inaccuracy should be the result of the limits of the state of science/history/etc when it was written.
That said, I find the Wikipedia to be a valuable tool occasionally, but I can't say that I ever actually rely on it to be right. "Don't believe everything you read" is a pretty terrible motto for fans of a resource they claim is at least as good as a print encyclopedia.
The point that you, and the grandparent, are apparently missing is the fact that the 12 month support window is not for the new (Sarge) release, but for the old (Woody) release that came out in 2002. The support for Woody is thus approaching 3 years, and if the developers hold true to form Sarge is looking at approximately the same length of time for support. In any case, you can almost bet it'll be longer than 18 months.
Why do they wait until release day to file a lawsuit?
The timing may seem suspicious, but it's just as likely that they've been in talks with Apple for months -- which went nowhere -- and now is their last chance to enjoin the distribution. Not saying that's the way it is, but that is the way it usually works.
Find a dictionary. Not sure where you got the idea that "only governments censor." It's only a First Amendment issue when the government is involved, but that doesn't change the fact that this is censorsihp: namely, an ISP telling you what communications you can send/receive over your connection.
Per the Constitution, judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This has been interpreted to mean a lifetime tenure barring some criminal act. Impeachment is, most simply, just trial by the legislature. In that sense, I suppose Congress can impeach whomever it wants, but without something to try a judge _for_, it's rather pointless.
"Congress" is comprised of the Senate and House of Representatives. Representatives are elected every 2 years, but senators only every 6.
Congress' power of impeachment cannot be used to remove a judge simply because that judge's decisions are unpopular, any more than it can impeach the president for being of the opposite political party. There must be an actual crime, and even if it is proven, it must be of such a nature that it justifies removing the judge from the bench.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't argue with your assertion that the Supreme Court is result-oriented, but I would argue that the biggest problem is not the court "usurping" congress' authority, but rather allowing congress to expand its own authority way beyond what was intended in the Constitution. The commerce clause, which is the basis for the vast majority of federal law, has been so stretched out of shape that can (& does) cover almost any conceivable subject of legislation.
An almost unlimited Congress scares me a lot more than shoddy reasoning on the Supreme Court. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that there would me much less occasion for "judicial legislating" if there were fewer wide-ranging and poorly-drafted laws.
100 years ago, free speach as you understand it did not exist, police could legally beat a confession out of you, and segregation was legal. The reason all of that changed was because of those darn legislating judges you are so upset about. I'm not saying activist judges are always right, but there is a reason that the judiciary is a separate branch of government, not answerable to the other two.
Close, but no cigar. Art. 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
That clause gives Congress the power to legislate patents and copyrights, but it is limited by the phrases "to promote the progess of science and useful arts" and "for limited times." Therefore a copyright act that does more than that is unconstitutional, and congress does not have power to act unconstitutionally.
As I understand it, their argument on appeal are that the continuous extensions of the period of copyright protection violate the limited times clause, and - separately - that the current system impinges on First Amendment free speech.
The price may be lower in real terms, but the same is true of nearly everything in computers and electronics -- in fact, I can't think of a single example where a product (hardware, software, etc.) is more expensive or even the same price in real dollars as it was 20 years ago. Hell, now you can buy a computer with more processing power than a 1985 mainframe for less than you paid (in 1985 dollars) for a Commodore 64.
The question is not whether prices have dropped, but whether they are artificially high. In other words, has Microsoft's monopoly position kept prices from dropping compared to what they would be if those prices were determined solely by supply and demand? There is no way of knowing for certain, but I would be willing to bet the answer is yes.
As an aside, Corel et al. aren't competing with a $499 product; they're competing with a product that is sold at its list price, sold at vast discounts, and widely pirated (e.g., free). It would make an interesting study, but my guess is that the prices of Microsoft's competitors are probably somewhere near the true market price given the wide range of the actual cost for Microsoft products.
Or, you could RTFA and see that they are actually "buying" spam-vertised products so that they can follow the money trail and get everyong they can. Paying someone to illegally spam is not much different from doing it yourself in the law's eyes, just harder to prove.
Slashdot Mirror
Better read your quotes again.
If you think banning toothpaste in carry-ons == giving up liberty, you've got some issues. It's no wonder that real liberties can be eroded (e.g., wiretaps) when a minor inconvenience like this provokes as big (if not bigger) storm of whining and crying than does something serious. I don't seem to recall a "right to convenient airline flight" in the Bill of Rights, but maybe I overlooked that. I find it incredibly sad that petty annoyances that directly effect people makes them more irate than would something happening to truly infringe on an important right, like freedom of religion or the press.
Flying itself is a convenience, as opposed to slower methods of transportation. If you find it too inconvenient, take another mode of transit. There are posts in this thread whining about the lack of high-speed rail in the U.S. (which would be ridiculously inefficent for 99% of our country; as an aside, it works in Europe and other places because of smaller geographic space and higher population densities), but the fact is that there is bus service (Grayhound) to nearly everywhere you could possibly want to go. There are very few situations I can think of where anyone would actually "need" to fly: the speed of travel makes it far more convenient, so it is the logical option most of the time. In spite of all the bitching and moaning going on here, I bet most if not all of the bitchers and moaners are still going to get on the plane next time, just because it is the more convenient option.
If your rights are being trampled on, stand up and fight. If you insist on confusing 'convenience' with 'right,' though, sit down and shut the hell up.
Individuality? What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the way to express your individuality is to ape exactly what everyone else is doing to express their 'individuality.'
That's the main reason this will fail so horribly: it has zero chance of attracting the core of 'cool' kids that the remeainder of the herd will want to emulate.
Think you've got it backwards there: Vista is nothing more than XP SP3 (that you have to pay out the butt to get instead of download free).
I think most people here are missing the point. This isn't about a disc here and a disc there. Nobody is going to be shipping 100+ copies of their vacation video.
That would be all fine and good, except for the fact that the fine print in the shipping documents gives the shipper the right to open your packages. All the big, bold disclaimers in the world won't help you if you expressly give them the permission.
The problem isn't that these companies are 'trampling' over anyone's privacy rights. The problem is that most people have no idea what their rights really are, and just assume that anything they don't like violates those rights.
I did in fact notice it -- it shifts the search results up and to the right slightly -- but other than being slightly annoyed that my unchanging Google had changed, didn't think much of it. I'm not quite sure how this is the big deal that it is being made out to be. It gives a bit more room for Google to link related services, but otherwise . . . meh.
Post: "telling fellow students" Article: "created a blog on a Web site" Post: "refresh the schools web page in order to slow down the server" Article: "'hold down F5 to help crash my school server'" Post: "He is being charged with a felony and is currently being held in jail." Article: Huh? It says he is facing charges, not that he has been arrested -- very different things. Post: "According to Canton City Prosecutor Frank Forchione 'This new technology has created a whole wave of crimes, and we're just trying to find ways to solve them.'" Article: Gives the quote in the context of there having been several incidents where students attacked or otherwise misused the school computer, not specifically about this case. It's called spin. It's irritating when politicians do it, but to be expected. To have someone submit such a blatantly biased 'summary' to a 'news' site is even more irritating. If doesn't annoy you -- or your definition of a punk doesn't include someone trying to maliciously disrupt a computer system -- more power to you. I just happen to disagree.
New, only on Slashdot, the Outrage-O-Matic!!
Simply take the bare facts of a story, throw in some out-of-context quotes and counter-factual insinuations, and that boring story about some punk's criminal mischief is suddenly about the Man's insane overreaction to a harmless prank!
It's fun for the whole family! Get yours today!
When you pick up a Merriam-Webster dictionary to find the definition or spelling of a word, unless you're in the tinfoil-hat brigade you probably believe that the definition or spelling you are looking for will be correct. That's what I meant by having a prima facie way of knowing what to believe: based on a source's reputation for reliability and accuracy, you can make an initial judgment on whether the information from that source is believable. That doesn't mean you automatically believe everything from that source, but unless you have a good reason not to and/or the information is not highly critical, you trust that source.
What I was saying about Wikipedia is that you can't trust any information on its face; it might give you enough information to do the actual research somewhere else, but you go to Wikipedia knowing that it is only slightly more likely to be accurate than not. That's not to say it's not useful, but I was responding to the grandparent saying that you shouldn't believe everything you read. My point is that you should be able to believe some things you read, and that there are reliable sources out there (although even they, of course, should be read with an awareness of their limitations).
If, indeed, no one was reading it, it would not matter. But even in your example you guess that "less than a thousand people" read the Siegenthaler article. When does it matter that material is incorrect? When more than one thousand people will see it? Ten thousand?
That's pretty much the whole point of the Reg article: how can you claim that it's an encyclopedia (as opposed to a random jumble of sometimes-accurate trivia) if there is no prima facie way of knowing what to believe? The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be an accurate and definitive source of information; any inaccuracy should be the result of the limits of the state of science/history/etc when it was written.
That said, I find the Wikipedia to be a valuable tool occasionally, but I can't say that I ever actually rely on it to be right. "Don't believe everything you read" is a pretty terrible motto for fans of a resource they claim is at least as good as a print encyclopedia.
Monks in Spandex.
The point that you, and the grandparent, are apparently missing is the fact that the 12 month support window is not for the new (Sarge) release, but for the old (Woody) release that came out in 2002. The support for Woody is thus approaching 3 years, and if the developers hold true to form Sarge is looking at approximately the same length of time for support. In any case, you can almost bet it'll be longer than 18 months.
The timing may seem suspicious, but it's just as likely that they've been in talks with Apple for months -- which went nowhere -- and now is their last chance to enjoin the distribution. Not saying that's the way it is, but that is the way it usually works.
Find a dictionary. Not sure where you got the idea that "only governments censor." It's only a First Amendment issue when the government is involved, but that doesn't change the fact that this is censorsihp: namely, an ISP telling you what communications you can send/receive over your connection.
Yes, but since you're spending less on rent/mortgage, groceries, transportation, etc., there is more of the green stuff to throw at the gadgets.
Per the Constitution, judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This has been interpreted to mean a lifetime tenure barring some criminal act. Impeachment is, most simply, just trial by the legislature. In that sense, I suppose Congress can impeach whomever it wants, but without something to try a judge _for_, it's rather pointless.
"Congress" is comprised of the Senate and House of Representatives. Representatives are elected every 2 years, but senators only every 6.
Congress' power of impeachment cannot be used to remove a judge simply because that judge's decisions are unpopular, any more than it can impeach the president for being of the opposite political party. There must be an actual crime, and even if it is proven, it must be of such a nature that it justifies removing the judge from the bench.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't argue with your assertion that the Supreme Court is result-oriented, but I would argue that the biggest problem is not the court "usurping" congress' authority, but rather allowing congress to expand its own authority way beyond what was intended in the Constitution. The commerce clause, which is the basis for the vast majority of federal law, has been so stretched out of shape that can (& does) cover almost any conceivable subject of legislation.
An almost unlimited Congress scares me a lot more than shoddy reasoning on the Supreme Court. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that there would me much less occasion for "judicial legislating" if there were fewer wide-ranging and poorly-drafted laws.
100 years ago, free speach as you understand it did not exist, police could legally beat a confession out of you, and segregation was legal. The reason all of that changed was because of those darn legislating judges you are so upset about. I'm not saying activist judges are always right, but there is a reason that the judiciary is a separate branch of government, not answerable to the other two.
Close, but no cigar. Art. 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
That clause gives Congress the power to legislate patents and copyrights, but it is limited by the phrases "to promote the progess of science and useful arts" and "for limited times." Therefore a copyright act that does more than that is unconstitutional, and congress does not have power to act unconstitutionally.
As I understand it, their argument on appeal are that the continuous extensions of the period of copyright protection violate the limited times clause, and - separately - that the current system impinges on First Amendment free speech.
The price may be lower in real terms, but the same is true of nearly everything in computers and electronics -- in fact, I can't think of a single example where a product (hardware, software, etc.) is more expensive or even the same price in real dollars as it was 20 years ago. Hell, now you can buy a computer with more processing power than a 1985 mainframe for less than you paid (in 1985 dollars) for a Commodore 64.
The question is not whether prices have dropped, but whether they are artificially high. In other words, has Microsoft's monopoly position kept prices from dropping compared to what they would be if those prices were determined solely by supply and demand? There is no way of knowing for certain, but I would be willing to bet the answer is yes.
As an aside, Corel et al. aren't competing with a $499 product; they're competing with a product that is sold at its list price, sold at vast discounts, and widely pirated (e.g., free). It would make an interesting study, but my guess is that the prices of Microsoft's competitors are probably somewhere near the true market price given the wide range of the actual cost for Microsoft products.
You're fired. Go away now.
Be sure to check the label before the squirt test. Might be tough to do afterward.
Or, you could RTFA and see that they are actually "buying" spam-vertised products so that they can follow the money trail and get everyong they can. Paying someone to illegally spam is not much different from doing it yourself in the law's eyes, just harder to prove.