Any laws that would regulate spam, making it illegal to send any kind of spam to minors, should be identical to state laws that don't include technical solicitation.
If it's illegal to send a 16 yr. old boy a Playboy, it should also be illegal to send that same boy an email inviting him to a cyber peepshow. Otherwise, the law would be unfair, unbalanced, and unjust.
I have always said that KGB agents must have wept when they realised the information your typical marketing or credit card company have on the american citizen.
But credit card companies don't employ people with guns and badges that can kick in your door and take you to a holding cell without a reason--and thats the difference!
The biggest threat TIA offers the American public is, if you've read the Detailed report to congress, they decide who, when, and where to attack Americans-to protect you and me-Americans.
That was a very interesting article, however I do not like some of Bruce's answers. Whether or not I am allowed to approve, well...thats for someone else to decide. However, I want to give attention to one comment:
Just because it's the atom age, it doesn't mean we'll all have a private atom-powered helicopter. Just because it's the information age, it doesn't mean we're all going to profit or be made happier. It has secondary and tertiary effects that cannot be predicted. You don't envision a phone answering machine and predict the Lewinsky scandal--even though one is impossible without the other.
I personally believe that the efforts individuals make to better understand things, like computer technology, then living in the "information age" will leave that individual with a greater sense of security--And wouldnt that individual be in a greater position to lead the rest of society toward whatever might be better? Like a security expert speaking out against TIA with a solid argument?
no, I dont. Obviously you missed my point. America's economy was shit and domestic production was being overrun. Just look at the automotive industry in the late 70's and 80's.
elected officials haven't always protected only the rights of larger corporations, which just happen to fund campaigns. Only since Regan's switch in the 80's to a more supply-side oriented economic system has the government protected companies more, which I am happy for. Otherwise, inflation and unemployment would have gotten out of hand and I would be posting this in (insert dominating country's language here).
perhaps that trend is getting old for some politicians and they feel they can maker a bigger difference by changing, as the market is slowly diversifying, yet again.
you want recognition for submitting stories, but are too cowardly to whine in your own name>
perhaps there were reasons why your stories were rejected--reasons beyond yours and my conception, as we do not know why some submissions make it and others do not. Hell, they probably don't know either, half the time.
Sure, it would be great to have high quality, detailed scans of ancient art available on the internet. Doing so would allow people like myself to get a taste for an ancient civilization without having to go to a museum, for time and money do not permit me to do so.
However, it seems that this technology would be pretty expensive to run, both labor and mechanical costs. What I want to know is, if this technology was used to provide images for people to view on the Internet, would there be a price? Or any other catch?
Personally, I can't see myself or many others paying a subscription fee to look at scans of tablets, unless the fee was very reasonable--no more than 9.99/yr.
During high school I took an online AP Statistics course. It was horrible; I experienced some of the same fustrations as this guy.
The most important variable in an education is communication, with both the instructor and other students. Although there does exist the possibility to make decent course-related conversation over the Internet, nothing beats live instruction.
Even a bad classroom teacher can still help, in both answering questions quickly and also giving the students a model of how not to approach the course material.
Streamcast bought thousands of CDs with thousands of songs and then transferred the music onto a digital database on computer hard drives and other memory devices without the permission of the copyright owners.
Maybe I missed something, but how the hell does the RIAA know that Streamcast bought thousands of CD's and ripped them? And besides, ripping CD's is perfectly legal, distributing the ripped music is not. So, what...you can sue someone these days because you think they are going to break a copyright?
Even before the Internet, people could photocopy patterns and distribute them to others. But the Internet allows people to rapidly copy and disseminate items without permission from their creator, a trend that's raised the ire of groups such as the Hobby Industry Association.
from what I can tell, the author is arguing that this case is identical to someone freely distributing copyrighted material on the Internet, so that others can avoid the bill; this argument says:
1. if someone wants to distribute copyrighted material, s/he require a medium.
2. and the Internet is more effective a medium over all others.
3. distributing copyrighted material is morally wrong, so
4. the dmca, as it is used to protect companies from digital copyright infringment, was used properly in this case.
This is obviously irrelevvent to the case, because the question is whether or not a dumper-diver should be allowed to sell his "collected merchandise," and not piracy.
The moral argument and negative references to Gendron serve as evidence to show that perhaps the author really doesn't understand the news as much as one might hope.
Slashdot Mirror
And it is available essentially for free, preloaded on hardware from all major manufacturers.
THose manufacturers charge you in the cost of the machine for the Windows liscense.
There is really no reason to use anything else
How about preference, tco, reliability, etc.
said nicely: stfu
Any laws that would regulate spam, making it illegal to send any kind of spam to minors, should be identical to state laws that don't include technical solicitation.
If it's illegal to send a 16 yr. old boy a Playboy, it should also be illegal to send that same boy an email inviting him to a cyber peepshow. Otherwise, the law would be unfair, unbalanced, and unjust.
by age 6, 50 wpm by age 12, now 100+ wpm in university (assuming I'm in the groove where I can think at 100 wpm.)
...I will use the cursive. It helps keep me in the right-brained frame of mind.
(And yes, I do use OO.org.)
with the added value of making something highly utilitarian
I discredit this post, as it seems the author is trying too hard to prove himself.
In the process of proving himself, he also kids himself:
Well, I think typing is artful, and so when I type, I am being just as creative as you think you are.
Some times I wonder if legislatures even fscking read the constitution any more.
We just have to wait for a new precedent to be set, overturning bad laws..like the Patriot Act.
Autotrack works good, assuming that you're legit. I'm not impressed until it can predict the value of a drug dealers lear jet.
I have always said that KGB agents must have wept when they realised the information your typical marketing or credit card company have on the american citizen.
But credit card companies don't employ people with guns and badges that can kick in your door and take you to a holding cell without a reason--and thats the difference!
The biggest threat TIA offers the American public is, if you've read the Detailed report to congress, they decide who, when, and where to attack Americans-to protect you and me-Americans.
I totally agree. But I ask you:
I don't see how collecting all of this data is going to help.
this is something that I've been trying to figure out myself, ever since I first read about TIA--What would help? Or is there even a problem?
That was a very interesting article, however I do not like some of Bruce's answers. Whether or not I am allowed to approve, well...thats for someone else to decide. However, I want to give attention to one comment:
Just because it's the atom age, it doesn't mean we'll all have a private atom-powered helicopter. Just because it's the information age, it doesn't mean we're all going to profit or be made happier. It has secondary and tertiary effects that cannot be predicted. You don't envision a phone answering machine and predict the Lewinsky scandal--even though one is impossible without the other.
I personally believe that the efforts individuals make to better understand things, like computer technology, then living in the "information age" will leave that individual with a greater sense of security--And wouldnt that individual be in a greater position to lead the rest of society toward whatever might be better? Like a security expert speaking out against TIA with a solid argument?
You mean english
no, I dont. Obviously you missed my point. America's economy was shit and domestic production was being overrun. Just look at the automotive industry in the late 70's and 80's.
learn how to read.
Inclosing a 20 dollar bill in the envelope might also help.
elected officials haven't always protected only the rights of larger corporations, which just happen to fund campaigns. Only since Regan's switch in the 80's to a more supply-side oriented economic system has the government protected companies more, which I am happy for. Otherwise, inflation and unemployment would have gotten out of hand and I would be posting this in (insert dominating country's language here).
perhaps that trend is getting old for some politicians and they feel they can maker a bigger difference by changing, as the market is slowly diversifying, yet again.
you want recognition for submitting stories, but are too cowardly to whine in your own name>
perhaps there were reasons why your stories were rejected--reasons beyond yours and my conception, as we do not know why some submissions make it and others do not. Hell, they probably don't know either, half the time.
If I were asian I would be offended, but I'm not..so: will some asain be insulted for me as I laugh?
Sure, it would be great to have high quality, detailed scans of ancient art available on the internet. Doing so would allow people like myself to get a taste for an ancient civilization without having to go to a museum, for time and money do not permit me to do so.
However, it seems that this technology would be pretty expensive to run, both labor and mechanical costs. What I want to know is, if this technology was used to provide images for people to view on the Internet, would there be a price? Or any other catch?
Personally, I can't see myself or many others paying a subscription fee to look at scans of tablets, unless the fee was very reasonable--no more than 9.99/yr.
the real question isn't how much better the 750 is, but how good is the translation?
During high school I took an online AP Statistics course. It was horrible; I experienced some of the same fustrations as this guy.
The most important variable in an education is communication, with both the instructor and other students. Although there does exist the possibility to make decent course-related conversation over the Internet, nothing beats live instruction.
Even a bad classroom teacher can still help, in both answering questions quickly and also giving the students a model of how not to approach the course material.
Streamcast bought thousands of CDs with thousands of songs and then transferred the music onto a digital database on computer hard drives and other memory devices without the permission of the copyright owners.
Maybe I missed something, but how the hell does the RIAA know that Streamcast bought thousands of CD's and ripped them? And besides, ripping CD's is perfectly legal, distributing the ripped music is not. So, what...you can sue someone these days because you think they are going to break a copyright?
Even before the Internet, people could photocopy patterns and distribute them to others. But the Internet allows people to rapidly copy and disseminate items without permission from their creator, a trend that's raised the ire of groups such as the Hobby Industry Association. from what I can tell, the author is arguing that this case is identical to someone freely distributing copyrighted material on the Internet, so that others can avoid the bill; this argument says: 1. if someone wants to distribute copyrighted material, s/he require a medium. 2. and the Internet is more effective a medium over all others. 3. distributing copyrighted material is morally wrong, so 4. the dmca, as it is used to protect companies from digital copyright infringment, was used properly in this case. This is obviously irrelevvent to the case, because the question is whether or not a dumper-diver should be allowed to sell his "collected merchandise," and not piracy. The moral argument and negative references to Gendron serve as evidence to show that perhaps the author really doesn't understand the news as much as one might hope.