These are DOE personnel we're talking about, not NSA. Considering that our government has such a remarkable amount of clue that it took them a while to realize that software running in embassies worldwide (State Dept., 'tho, not DOE of course) was written by Russians, and that Los Alamos has historically been penetrated through-and-through (by the very scientists who work there)...
Textbooks won't tell you how to design a set of highly miniaturized thermonuclear warheads suitable for delivery via an intercontinental MIRV. And, in general, they don't provide the detail. The theory of U235 fission does NOT automatically lead to the exact engineering details for even a primitive uranium fission device. The latter takes time, skill and money -- or theft and (a fair bit less) money.
Normal explosives also likely won't do the trick -- one would suspect shaped charges are far more useful for an implosion effect.
Procedures for dealing with a nuclear-armed terrorist (i.e. search methods, for instance) are fairly secret for the obvious reason -- if procedures are known and codified, there may be possible countermeasures.
Information known about foreign nuclear capabilities can be VERY important to keep secret -- not only might the info itself not be something normally shared with others (even allies), but one must consider protecting the sources involved.
Articles have indicated that the information concerns how the US would approach the terrorist-hidden-nuke contingency, as well as information on the Russian nuclear program.
That's hardly information that needs to be publicized.
This would seem to be an issue of convenience. Newspapers can be read very selectively and non-sequentially, and can be unfolded to view a LARGE area (much larger than a typical monitor allows) at once. They can be rearranged. They can be highlighted, cut up, folded, and so forth. And you can take 'em with you and read 'em pretty much anywhere, at your leisure.
That's more convenient than the online version.
However, a bootleg movie burned to some digital medium can be more convenient than that in a theatre. You can view it wherever (once DVDs are burnable by the masses, oh my -- there are now notebook-sized portable DVD players), whenever, and however many times you wish. You may be able to pause, rewind, search frame-by-frame for pranks, and whatnot, and you don't have to rip yourself off for the popcorn. Try doing that in a movie theatre. And some folks have NICE home-theatre setups...
The reason, of course, for all that marketing is that many folks don't pop into a store and buy completely random CDs from unfamiliar names, which lowers the incentive for stores to stock them, which reduces the likelihood, which...
Without the marketing of, say, the members of the RIAA, there needs to be an alternative. Something like a non-entangled (w/ RIAA) MP3.com that served as a clearinghouse for newish bands (say, featuring a weekly list of new additions, as well as lists of most popular downloads, etc) MIGHT help if it became well-known and had a revenue model.
Just a note -- AFAIK, that group you mentioned, and others like it, were explicitly constructed according to a formula meant to appeal to female pre-teens and their ilk, with an eye towards looks, a particular range of ages, and so forth (i.e. NOT creativity, musical talent or so forth).
The goal: Revenue from adoring, shrieking fans and their parents. It's not exactly a case of looking for diamonds in the rough.
If memory serves, once Microsoft files its appeal, the DoJ can request that the case be expedited to the US Supreme Court, rather than to the same Court o' Appeals which has frequently criticized Judge Jackson's previous rulings on MS.
Once it reaches the Supreme Court, there are no further appeals.
Acolytes can spread flames faster and far more viciously, as happens on USENET quite frequently. Even unrelated groups like comp.os.linux.misc occasionally get trolled (it wasn't all that long ago that a blatant troll started a LONG firearms thread there).
Alternately, pop by the NYT "Election 2000" forum. It's not that unusual for certain chaps to refer to the President as a rapist, or to the NRA as a Nazi organization, or to other posters as morons; while most folks there are more levelheaded, the ease of insult lures others to hurl such at will.
The campaigns generally AREN'T distributing, say, detailed policy papers, with a few exceptions IIRC -- it's too easy to get nailed for contradicting a promise. They DO use the WWW to try to coordinate events, mobilize people and raise funds, however.
But you'll likely mostly see simply faster, more furious flames...
If Offspring explicitly gives consent to Napster using their products, fine -- that's a gift. But unless that agreement requires reciprocity, it's not granted; it may be not terribly nice to return the favor, but it's not mandatory.
* The article cites that the individual was detained for his own protection -- namely, protective custody -- and released. This is not the same as a criminal arrest.
* The computer was removed for analysis, not as punishment. It takes time to examine the contents of a computer for evidence; would you rather have detective technicians camp out in their home, watching over the machine so nobody tampers with prospective evidence?
* Publishing allegations that somebody is an addict, when it's not true but could be considered plausible, is indeed libel in the U.S. Note that in Canada, it can even be true and considered libel...
They gave banned people the option of getting their account back. All they had to do was submit a legally binding document claiming that they were not sharing copyrighted material, and were willing to be sued in a court of law if this was disputed.
So, the misnaming is fine from THAT point of view.
Of course, since it's an outright conspiracy to provide false information in order to facilitate the commission of crime, it may be quite illegal from another point of view.
Nice non-sequitor. Sharing, say, Metallica songs does nothing to support local bands.
For that matter, the fact that doing so without Metallica's consent appears to be illegal does not prevent a local band from putting up and publicizing a web page with all the.mp3s for free distribution if they choose. THAT is perfectly legal unless they've signed a contract prohibiting this; it's their choice.
* Require ISPs to get 'verified' information -- namely, they must be willing to store such things as CC#'s and addresses, and be willing to provide such information given a court order. Caller ID could also fit into this.
* Require service providers in general to either do the same, or keep sufficiently detailed information to trace backwards to somebody who does. I'm not sure the latter is possible for a multi-user service unless full connection data (including port numbers on both ends) is tracked for EVERY incoming and outgoing connection.
Then, with a sequence of orders, you work backwards until verified info is found. Of course, this would only hold in countries that adopted the same policy and recognized requests from the requester's judiciary... in addition, even the crazier folks might realize that the sheer volume of logs would require that some statute of limitations would be needed to avoid an undue burden...
What if a large country required that all outgoing links go through government-approved filters, or even cease to exist, but subsidized national businesses and online service providers who didn't buck the system?
If they provide similar, if far less varied, services, then there might not be as much of an outcry. You'd lose access to, say, vast quantities of research databases 'round the world, and to anybody else that didn't have a domestic node, but in more traditionally totalitarian states it may pass without that much grumbling.
So how much of the Internet do most folks use? Some news sites, perhaps some online banking and shopping, perhaps some chat sites or online gaming. There's likely not that much brand loyalty, with the exception of banking (most folks not opening up accounts like crazy) and perhaps news ("famous" sources like the NY Times and CNN), so perhaps some substitution would be possible without massive resentment.
Re:Yeah, I'm thinking about getting rid of ACs
on
Privacy vs. Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
*snort*
Funny man, ye mangler-of-ids. Wonder how many folks you fooled...
Managers from other independent stores around the country said their businesses have been affected far more by the growth of big chain stores or by online retailers, such as CDNow and Amazon.com, than by online music-swapping software.
Looks like they're noting that one cannot attribute the entire drop to Napster, or any of its kin.
I believe that in the U.S., the prosecution team can ask the judge to allow testimony regarding prior criminal record in order to impugn a defendant's credibility, if the defendant takes the stand.
However, it seems that if the defendant does take the stand, and does not pre-emptively bring up his own criminal history, there may be ground for an appeal if the prosecution does and an appeals court takes a different view from the judge. The U.S. Supreme Court lately noted that if the defendant brings up his own history, this does NOT provide grounds for an appeal.
...which explains why submachine guns are not uncommon among their police, why H&K specifically designed an anti-terrorist-sniper weapon for the Germans, why the Israeli atheletes were assassinated at Munich, why people were shot at Athens Airport, why the French deal with Algerian bombers, why the ETA assassinates political figures...
* If the Gov't can demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting an amendment, it usually can. For instance, content-based 1st Amendment restrictions appear to be valid if such a need is demonstrated and the restriction is the least restrictive that suffices. It is arguable that, for an untrained individual without an ICBM delivery device, a 20 megaton nuclear warhead is extremely suboptimal and that a compelling interest exists...
* Historically, the "right to bear arms" has, under English rule predating the US Constitution, meant only arms that could be borne by people -- not, say, cannon.
* If a *new*, spiffy (FAST and strong) algorithm is invented in the US, this gives 'em a little time to figure out how to best wrest it from the designer before it gets exported across the world.
* If somebody of interest -- say, in a sensitive job -- does something silly like send a crypto package to a foreign citizen, and they start communicating in code, they might be able to get a search warrant, wiretap order or any other investigative tool. Think discretionary prosecution: they need not examine every case, but this lets 'em legally examine some cases earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
These are DOE personnel we're talking about, not NSA. Considering that our government has such a remarkable amount of clue that it took them a while to realize that software running in embassies worldwide (State Dept., 'tho, not DOE of course) was written by Russians, and that Los Alamos has historically been penetrated through-and-through (by the very scientists who work there)...
Check this year-old article. They've even got submarine-launched nuclear-capable missiles, which are quite useful for blackmail or a first strike.
Textbooks won't tell you how to design a set of highly miniaturized thermonuclear warheads suitable for delivery via an intercontinental MIRV. And, in general, they don't provide the detail. The theory of U235 fission does NOT automatically lead to the exact engineering details for even a primitive uranium fission device. The latter takes time, skill and money -- or theft and (a fair bit less) money.
Normal explosives also likely won't do the trick -- one would suspect shaped charges are far more useful for an implosion effect.
Procedures for dealing with a nuclear-armed terrorist (i.e. search methods, for instance) are fairly secret for the obvious reason -- if procedures are known and codified, there may be possible countermeasures.
Information known about foreign nuclear capabilities can be VERY important to keep secret -- not only might the info itself not be something normally shared with others (even allies), but one must consider protecting the sources involved.
Articles have indicated that the information concerns how the US would approach the terrorist-hidden-nuke contingency, as well as information on the Russian nuclear program.
That's hardly information that needs to be publicized.
This would seem to be an issue of convenience. Newspapers can be read very selectively and non-sequentially, and can be unfolded to view a LARGE area (much larger than a typical monitor allows) at once. They can be rearranged. They can be highlighted, cut up, folded, and so forth. And you can take 'em with you and read 'em pretty much anywhere, at your leisure.
That's more convenient than the online version.
However, a bootleg movie burned to some digital medium can be more convenient than that in a theatre. You can view it wherever (once DVDs are burnable by the masses, oh my -- there are now notebook-sized portable DVD players), whenever, and however many times you wish. You may be able to pause, rewind, search frame-by-frame for pranks, and whatnot, and you don't have to rip yourself off for the popcorn. Try doing that in a movie theatre. And some folks have NICE home-theatre setups...
The reason, of course, for all that marketing is that many folks don't pop into a store and buy completely random CDs from unfamiliar names, which lowers the incentive for stores to stock them, which reduces the likelihood, which...
Without the marketing of, say, the members of the RIAA, there needs to be an alternative. Something like a non-entangled (w/ RIAA) MP3.com that served as a clearinghouse for newish bands (say, featuring a weekly list of new additions, as well as lists of most popular downloads, etc) MIGHT help if it became well-known and had a revenue model.
Just a note -- AFAIK, that group you mentioned, and others like it, were explicitly constructed according to a formula meant to appeal to female pre-teens and their ilk, with an eye towards looks, a particular range of ages, and so forth (i.e. NOT creativity, musical talent or so forth).
The goal: Revenue from adoring, shrieking fans and their parents. It's not exactly a case of looking for diamonds in the rough.
And SOL.EXE the only game in town,
And every MPEG that he takes
Takes Amazon down
And later it's easy to pretend
He'll never FTP again...
-- with apologies to the Carpenters, 'natch.
If memory serves, once Microsoft files its appeal, the DoJ can request that the case be expedited to the US Supreme Court, rather than to the same Court o' Appeals which has frequently criticized Judge Jackson's previous rulings on MS.
Once it reaches the Supreme Court, there are no further appeals.
Acolytes can spread flames faster and far more viciously, as happens on USENET quite frequently. Even unrelated groups like comp.os.linux.misc occasionally get trolled (it wasn't all that long ago that a blatant troll started a LONG firearms thread there).
Alternately, pop by the NYT "Election 2000" forum. It's not that unusual for certain chaps to refer to the President as a rapist, or to the NRA as a Nazi organization, or to other posters as morons; while most folks there are more levelheaded, the ease of insult lures others to hurl such at will.
The campaigns generally AREN'T distributing, say, detailed policy papers, with a few exceptions IIRC -- it's too easy to get nailed for contradicting a promise. They DO use the WWW to try to coordinate events, mobilize people and raise funds, however.
But you'll likely mostly see simply faster, more furious flames...
It's even weaker than that.
If Offspring explicitly gives consent to Napster using their products, fine -- that's a gift. But unless that agreement requires reciprocity, it's not granted; it may be not terribly nice to return the favor, but it's not mandatory.
A few notes.
* The article cites that the individual was detained for his own protection -- namely, protective custody -- and released. This is not the same as a criminal arrest.
* The computer was removed for analysis, not as punishment. It takes time to examine the contents of a computer for evidence; would you rather have detective technicians camp out in their home, watching over the machine so nobody tampers with prospective evidence?
* Publishing allegations that somebody is an addict, when it's not true but could be considered plausible, is indeed libel in the U.S. Note that in Canada, it can even be true and considered libel...
They gave banned people the option of getting their account back. All they had to do was submit a legally binding document claiming that they were not sharing copyrighted material, and were willing to be sued in a court of law if this was disputed.
So, the misnaming is fine from THAT point of view.
Of course, since it's an outright conspiracy to provide false information in order to facilitate the commission of crime, it may be quite illegal from another point of view.
Nice non-sequitor. Sharing, say, Metallica songs does nothing to support local bands.
.mp3s for free distribution if they choose. THAT is perfectly legal unless they've signed a contract prohibiting this; it's their choice.
For that matter, the fact that doing so without Metallica's consent appears to be illegal does not prevent a local band from putting up and publicizing a web page with all the
Hmmm. The one way that comes to mind is --
* Require ISPs to get 'verified' information -- namely, they must be willing to store such things as CC#'s and addresses, and be willing to provide such information given a court order. Caller ID could also fit into this.
* Require service providers in general to either do the same, or keep sufficiently detailed information to trace backwards to somebody who does. I'm not sure the latter is possible for a multi-user service unless full connection data (including port numbers on both ends) is tracked for EVERY incoming and outgoing connection.
Then, with a sequence of orders, you work backwards until verified info is found. Of course, this would only hold in countries that adopted the same policy and recognized requests from the requester's judiciary... in addition, even the crazier folks might realize that the sheer volume of logs would require that some statute of limitations would be needed to avoid an undue burden...
I'm not sure about that.
What if a large country required that all outgoing links go through government-approved filters, or even cease to exist, but subsidized national businesses and online service providers who didn't buck the system?
If they provide similar, if far less varied, services, then there might not be as much of an outcry. You'd lose access to, say, vast quantities of research databases 'round the world, and to anybody else that didn't have a domestic node, but in more traditionally totalitarian states it may pass without that much grumbling.
So how much of the Internet do most folks use? Some news sites, perhaps some online banking and shopping, perhaps some chat sites or online gaming. There's likely not that much brand loyalty, with the exception of banking (most folks not opening up accounts like crazy) and perhaps news ("famous" sources like the NY Times and CNN), so perhaps some substitution would be possible without massive resentment.
*snort*
Funny man, ye mangler-of-ids. Wonder how many folks you fooled...
Does that hold for OEM editions? What about software marked, "For use only with a new computer"?
Managers from other independent stores around the country said their businesses have been affected far more by the growth of big chain stores or by online retailers, such as CDNow and Amazon.com, than by online music-swapping software.
Looks like they're noting that one cannot attribute the entire drop to Napster, or any of its kin.
I believe that in the U.S., the prosecution team can ask the judge to allow testimony regarding prior criminal record in order to impugn a defendant's credibility, if the defendant takes the stand.
However, it seems that if the defendant does take the stand, and does not pre-emptively bring up his own criminal history, there may be ground for an appeal if the prosecution does and an appeals court takes a different view from the judge. The U.S. Supreme Court lately noted that if the defendant brings up his own history, this does NOT provide grounds for an appeal.
...or sequester jurors, but that would likely get expensive quickly, unless Australian courts are far less busy than o'er here.
...which explains why submachine guns are not uncommon among their police, why H&K specifically designed an anti-terrorist-sniper weapon for the Germans, why the Israeli atheletes were assassinated at Munich, why people were shot at Athens Airport, why the French deal with Algerian bombers, why the ETA assassinates political figures...
Two points.
* If the Gov't can demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting an amendment, it usually can. For instance, content-based 1st Amendment restrictions appear to be valid if such a need is demonstrated and the restriction is the least restrictive that suffices. It is arguable that, for an untrained individual without an ICBM delivery device, a 20 megaton nuclear warhead is extremely suboptimal and that a compelling interest exists...
* Historically, the "right to bear arms" has, under English rule predating the US Constitution, meant only arms that could be borne by people -- not, say, cannon.
Two reasons come to mind.
* If a *new*, spiffy (FAST and strong) algorithm is invented in the US, this gives 'em a little time to figure out how to best wrest it from the designer before it gets exported across the world.
* If somebody of interest -- say, in a sensitive job -- does something silly like send a crypto package to a foreign citizen, and they start communicating in code, they might be able to get a search warrant, wiretap order or any other investigative tool. Think discretionary prosecution: they need not examine every case, but this lets 'em legally examine some cases earlier.