Unbelievably, the idi0t California legislators made it illegal to carry rx medications in anything other than the original containers they were dispensed in. They probably were off their meds at the time.
WSJ writer Chris Rhoades has a nice summary article in the Jan15 online edition:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120035979165090009.html
(free trial sub required for full article)
In the article, Rhoades reports a telling statement from NSI about a change they've made in reaction to criticism of their name-seizing scam.
NSI says that it will make sure names held in reserve won't be made public, a revelation that completely unhinges NSI's argument for "protection". If nobody can detect domain names searched through NSI (thanks to NSI's curious "NOW they won't be made public" fix), then searched names will be completely safe without holding. If, however, someone can detect domain names searched through NSI, then names run the same risk of front-running whether held or not, since NSI will cheerfully sell the name to anyone.
They're both idiots. He for being a rude jerk, she for being a vindictive whiner. Posters taking either side are missing the point. When idiots collide, they generate extremely small, extremely elementary particles that I call "morons". Morons themselves are so tiny they are invisible, but their existence is revealed by the squirmy trail of brainless comments they spew as they zing through the netvapor.
I will admit that the first thing I do with a CD when I buy a new one is CDex [sourceforge.net] it to high quality MP3 format. Then I put it on the shelf never to be played again. Why? Because that's my master copy that won't ever be scratched or stolen or lost. I may use MP3s to play my music, but I don't distribute or download them illegally. I'm well aware that I am copying them without consent but the only person that ever uses those copies is myself so I'm not afraid of a court case. Not one bit.
There's a better reason to not be afraid of a court case. Copying your CDs yourself for backup purposes, remixing, or any other personal use that doesn't involve giving the music to other people, is a permitted use under copyright law. The DMCA doesn't apply at all to your act, since you aren't disseminating the copyrighted work nor are you distributing a means to circumvent copyright. A useful, clear explanation of fair use is online at http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html.
The problems with "If everyone just..." arguments are first, everyone won't, and second, if everyone "just" did do any one thing it would have a huge total effect, but not really a meaningful one.
The idjits at SecureWorks cheerfully slammed Apple for a presumed, and now disproven, vulnerability discovery. But when asked to identify the "third party" of the USB wifi device they actually cracked, they suddenly get protective of the third party's reputation. The company name should be changed to SecureDorks.
Then do without. If you can't buy your school books, do you steal them or do without? If you can't by lunch, do you steal it or do without? If you can't pay your rent, to you steal it or do without? If you're too poor to afford some luxury (and that's what personal music library-building is), then you do without. You don't rip off someone else. You'll only have to do without until you get a real job and start contributing to society. Then you can do with, and perhaps even get on the producer side of the intelletual property equation.
802.11n specifies a slew of technology options that two communicating parties must negotiate. Only by using all of these options can the highest speeds be achieved. Some of the options include channel bonding, multipath (MIMO), delayed acknowledgements, four dimensional subspace propagation, and downhill signalling with lizard farts. You need them ALL to get the theoretical maximum of 300 Mbps (on a 600 Mpbs signalling medium). The only way to get them all is with so-called "green field" deployment (e.g., where no wifi network has gone before).
Microsoft's probem isn't the public perception that it has security problems. It's concrete, measurable, reality that thorns their side. It's Microsoft who floated the "Windows get hacked because its a bigger target" fantasy. But you can take a Mac out of the box and scan it and find zero open ports. A Windows machine has more than a dozen. Those ports are open for Bill's benefit, not for the customers'. Bill wants to keep his fingers in every Windows box, and won't give up that capbility in exhange for better security. Yes, the Mac probably still has some OS flaws that hackers could exploit, and thus Apple can't be complacent. But at least Steve isn't holding the door open to let the hacker inside.
You have the legal right to check out a book at the library. You have a legal right to scan the book. You do not have the right to access the scanned book after returning the library book.
False. You have no right to scan (copy) an entire book that you borrow from the library. That is a copyright violation. Fair Use doctrine never permits more than minor excerpting.
I didn't say copying books wasn't a violation. I was saying that Google isn't enabling copying more than (actually, less than) libraries already do. So Google is not exposing copyright owners to new risks.
If Google's violation goes unchallenged, then it will indeed expose copyright owners to new risks.
But these books are in libraries. There's nothing (except geography) stopping you borrowing the books and scanning them yourself.
You've hit the nail on the head. Copying books out of the library is also a copyright violation. This isn't an opinion, for pete's sake. It's simple logic. The law says x is illegal. You do x. You broke the law.
What you're saying is that the social value of such indexing outweighs the author's rights. The answer to that, then, is CHANGE THE LAW. So far Google has avoided answering the question that I raise: what if everyone starts doing this? What makes Google privileged? Clearly if everyone can do it, then authors are in serious danger of losing their incomes. Google's argument is not compatible with today's copyright law. If society wants to go down this road, than society will have to make legislative arrangements. Given how long it's taken international copyright to come to the current state of loose agreement, such a legal change will take decades.
Similar logic to Google's has been used in the past to destory individual rights. One city police chief required every man in town to provide DNA samples to solve a rape case. He did, in fact, solve the rape case with this technique. But had his abuse gained the weight of legal precedent, all of us would have lost a great deal of personal liberty.
Google aims to seize my individual, consitutional right to protect my written works from unauthorized copying. I aim to stop them.
I'm on my way down to the local public library right now, with my Powerbook and a page scanner. I'm going to scan books in, and put them on my own website for others to search. I won't put the whole book online, of course, just the index. I'll start with "The Google Story"; I'm sure authors David Vise and Mark Malseed won't object -- I'm just following the example of their favorite company, after all. If the librarian objects, I'll simply refer her to Mary Sue Coleman.
Photography on landing is not as important as actually _landing_. Low ceilings and IFR conditions are not a risk one takes lightly with the Shuttle. Flight safety is a completely adequate explanation for the wave-off.
I expect dopey headlines from the traditional media, but Slashdot should do better. Announcing "Shuttle Delayed Due to Cloudy Skies" is like saying "Airliner Crash Due to Ticket Sales." The headline incorrectly gives the impression that the weather problem is not significant.
Cloudy skies are not the issue -- the shuttle lands with cloudy skies all the time. The issue is unstable weather with low ceilings (as low as 500 feet). This is a much more serious condition, as any pilot can confirm. For the shuttle these are marginal conditions. They require conducting the landing under instrument flight rules, with the possibiity of losing visibility just before touchdown. At the shuttle's high speeds, this is much more serious than for commercial aviation.
Attributing the delay to timidity, a publicity stunt, or wanting better photographic conditions is just stupid.
"None" is a very small number. There is, actually, quite a lot of debate on whether global warming is occuring. Enviropanickers religiously pronounce "there is no debate" until challenged, then they say, "well, no serious debate" and then automatically classify any dissenting scientist as "not serious."
Check out "Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media", by Patrick J. Michaels (2004, ISBN 1930865597) for tons of arguments against global warming.
In their book "Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming," (2003, ISBN 1552632121) climatologists Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick point out that there can't be any such thing as a "global temperature" to warm in the first place, and handily demolish both the math and the data promulgated by the pro-fear crowd.
And regarding the "8% per year for 30 years" decline of sea ice, if you do the math using even the percentage-of-the-balance computation (which is not how ice melts in the real world), that statistic would mean that 92% of the sea ice has melted already!
There's lots of money in global fear mongering, and none in global calm mongering. Remember Y2K?
-----------
"There is no vast conspiracy. Only half-vast corruption."
Slashdot Mirror
Unbelievably, the idi0t California legislators made it illegal to carry rx medications in anything other than the original containers they were dispensed in. They probably were off their meds at the time.
Wikipedia: you don't need to print Muhammad's picture. He's not coming back.
WSJ writer Chris Rhoades has a nice summary article in the Jan15 online edition: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120035979165090009.html (free trial sub required for full article) In the article, Rhoades reports a telling statement from NSI about a change they've made in reaction to criticism of their name-seizing scam. NSI says that it will make sure names held in reserve won't be made public, a revelation that completely unhinges NSI's argument for "protection". If nobody can detect domain names searched through NSI (thanks to NSI's curious "NOW they won't be made public" fix), then searched names will be completely safe without holding. If, however, someone can detect domain names searched through NSI, then names run the same risk of front-running whether held or not, since NSI will cheerfully sell the name to anyone.
# mv Slashdot Slashpot
# mv CmdrTaco CmdrWaco
They're both idiots. He for being a rude jerk, she for being a vindictive whiner. Posters taking either side are missing the point. When idiots collide, they generate extremely small, extremely elementary particles that I call "morons". Morons themselves are so tiny they are invisible, but their existence is revealed by the squirmy trail of brainless comments they spew as they zing through the netvapor.
Sometimes you don't have to keep doing something as vigorously as you originally did. It's not a crime.
"but could they really call it anything else?"
I see that italkingnow is available
Another idea: BHGB (Butt Headed Green Box)
practice .ne. perform
There's a better reason to not be afraid of a court case. Copying your CDs yourself for backup purposes, remixing, or any other personal use that doesn't involve giving the music to other people, is a permitted use under copyright law. The DMCA doesn't apply at all to your act, since you aren't disseminating the copyrighted work nor are you distributing a means to circumvent copyright. A useful, clear explanation of fair use is online at http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html.
The problems with "If everyone just..." arguments are first, everyone won't, and second, if everyone "just" did do any one thing it would have a huge total effect, but not really a meaningful one.
If the mainframe were still useful, why would you be able to emulate one on a Mac? http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules/
"The researchers ... nose-thumbing at Apple users who were too secure in their security was misplaced"
... nose-thumbing at Apple users who were too secure in their security was juvenile and irresponsible"
when run through my Slashdot Story Bias Translator and Cabbage Slicer, reads"
"The researchers
"The researcher's claim that they were providing information to Apple now seems off-base, too."
translates to
"The researcher's claim that they were providing information to Apple is a bald-faced lie, too."
The idjits at SecureWorks cheerfully slammed Apple for a presumed, and now disproven, vulnerability discovery. But when asked to identify the "third party" of the USB wifi device they actually cracked, they suddenly get protective of the third party's reputation. The company name should be changed to SecureDorks.
Then do without. If you can't buy your school books, do you steal them or do without? If you can't by lunch, do you steal it or do without? If you can't pay your rent, to you steal it or do without? If you're too poor to afford some luxury (and that's what personal music library-building is), then you do without. You don't rip off someone else. You'll only have to do without until you get a real job and start contributing to society. Then you can do with, and perhaps even get on the producer side of the intelletual property equation.
802.11n specifies a slew of technology options that two communicating parties must negotiate. Only by using all of these options can the highest speeds be achieved. Some of the options include channel bonding, multipath (MIMO), delayed acknowledgements, four dimensional subspace propagation, and downhill signalling with lizard farts. You need them ALL to get the theoretical maximum of 300 Mbps (on a 600 Mpbs signalling medium). The only way to get them all is with so-called "green field" deployment (e.g., where no wifi network has gone before).
Microsoft's probem isn't the public perception that it has security problems. It's concrete, measurable, reality that thorns their side. It's Microsoft who floated the "Windows get hacked because its a bigger target" fantasy. But you can take a Mac out of the box and scan it and find zero open ports. A Windows machine has more than a dozen. Those ports are open for Bill's benefit, not for the customers'. Bill wants to keep his fingers in every Windows box, and won't give up that capbility in exhange for better security. Yes, the Mac probably still has some OS flaws that hackers could exploit, and thus Apple can't be complacent. But at least Steve isn't holding the door open to let the hacker inside.
You have the legal right to check out a book at the library. You have a legal right to scan the book. You do not have the right to access the scanned book after returning the library book.
False. You have no right to scan (copy) an entire book that you borrow from the library. That is a copyright violation. Fair Use doctrine never permits more than minor excerpting.
I didn't say copying books wasn't a violation. I was saying that Google isn't enabling copying more than (actually, less than) libraries already do. So Google is not exposing copyright owners to new risks.
If Google's violation goes unchallenged, then it will indeed expose copyright owners to new risks.
You can't imagine how useful Google's book search is useful for research projects until you actually experience it.
You can't imagine how useful it is for the police to stop every car and search it at will, until you actually experience it.
You can't imagine how useful it is to lock people out of poling places based on their race, until you experience it.
You can't imagine how useful it is to arrest a demonstrator because he opposes the current administration, until you experience it.
You can't imagine how useful it is for employers to refuse to hire women, until you experience it.
You can't imagine how useful it is for landlords to refuse to rent to people with children, until you experience it.
You can't imagne how useful it is for the government to tap your phone and read your mail, until you experience it.
You can't imagine how useful it is for prosecutors to simply throw people in prison without a trial, until you experience it.
You can't imagine how useful it is to deploy the military to quench civil protests, until you experience it.
The violoation of every individual right is unimaginably useful to someone.
But these books are in libraries. There's nothing (except geography) stopping you borrowing the books and scanning them yourself.
You've hit the nail on the head. Copying books out of the library is also a copyright violation. This isn't an opinion, for pete's sake. It's simple logic. The law says x is illegal. You do x. You broke the law.
What you're saying is that the social value of such indexing outweighs the author's rights. The answer to that, then, is CHANGE THE LAW. So far Google has avoided answering the question that I raise: what if everyone starts doing this? What makes Google privileged? Clearly if everyone can do it, then authors are in serious danger of losing their incomes. Google's argument is not compatible with today's copyright law. If society wants to go down this road, than society will have to make legislative arrangements. Given how long it's taken international copyright to come to the current state of loose agreement, such a legal change will take decades. Similar logic to Google's has been used in the past to destory individual rights. One city police chief required every man in town to provide DNA samples to solve a rape case. He did, in fact, solve the rape case with this technique. But had his abuse gained the weight of legal precedent, all of us would have lost a great deal of personal liberty. Google aims to seize my individual, consitutional right to protect my written works from unauthorized copying. I aim to stop them.
I'm on my way down to the local public library right now, with my Powerbook and a page scanner. I'm going to scan books in, and put them on my own website for others to search. I won't put the whole book online, of course, just the index. I'll start with "The Google Story"; I'm sure authors David Vise and Mark Malseed won't object -- I'm just following the example of their favorite company, after all. If the librarian objects, I'll simply refer her to Mary Sue Coleman.
Photography on landing is not as important as actually _landing_. Low ceilings and IFR conditions are not a risk one takes lightly with the Shuttle. Flight safety is a completely adequate explanation for the wave-off.
I expect dopey headlines from the traditional media, but Slashdot should do better. Announcing "Shuttle Delayed Due to Cloudy Skies" is like saying "Airliner Crash Due to Ticket Sales." The headline incorrectly gives the impression that the weather problem is not significant. Cloudy skies are not the issue -- the shuttle lands with cloudy skies all the time. The issue is unstable weather with low ceilings (as low as 500 feet). This is a much more serious condition, as any pilot can confirm. For the shuttle these are marginal conditions. They require conducting the landing under instrument flight rules, with the possibiity of losing visibility just before touchdown. At the shuttle's high speeds, this is much more serious than for commercial aviation. Attributing the delay to timidity, a publicity stunt, or wanting better photographic conditions is just stupid.
Check out "Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media", by Patrick J. Michaels (2004, ISBN 1930865597) for tons of arguments against global warming.
In their book "Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming," (2003, ISBN 1552632121) climatologists Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick point out that there can't be any such thing as a "global temperature" to warm in the first place, and handily demolish both the math and the data promulgated by the pro-fear crowd.
And regarding the "8% per year for 30 years" decline of sea ice, if you do the math using even the percentage-of-the-balance computation (which is not how ice melts in the real world), that statistic would mean that 92% of the sea ice has melted already!
There's lots of money in global fear mongering, and none in global calm mongering. Remember Y2K?
-----------
"There is no vast conspiracy. Only half-vast corruption."