Try Altme (www.altme.com). It has chat, calendaring, file posting, access control, users/groups etc. You create user communities called worlds which you can add users to.
The executive branch of every government (local, state, federal) levies taxes without consulting the legislature all the time, getting around little roadblocks like the Constitution by calling them 'fees'.
Surely though, there are some "fees" that really are fees and are intended to recover the administrative cost of doing business. Fees that you pay for your driver's license or vehicle registration renewal, or for city hall to dredge up some document and furnish you a copy are all reasonable in that it takes these agencies money to provide the sercive. These are services that go above and beyond that which you pay taxes for. Do you really want your tax dollar's to cover the employees at the DMV or City hall? What if you don't drive or ever go to city hall? The main distinction here is that the FCC is not just recouping costs for some administrative task. I don't see where they have any real administration to perform in the first place. This is a "tax" not on individuals, but on telco providers who pass it along to the consumer. Fee for service, tax for ???
With regards to your tag line, you should see the movie "Brazil" if you haven't already. Its a Terry Gilliam flick with social commentary on police state governments with freedom fighting terrorists/criminals.
So, having one part of the plane change its angle is now shape shifting? WOW. My laptop is a shapeshifter, because the lid opens. My car must be a shape shifter too, the sunroof can take several positions!
Don't you think that you are being a little bit critical? Your laptop doesn't have to reorient its cpu's when you close your lid. This airplane has to reorient all of its (very powerful) engines to continue to face forwards while the wing changes angle. Your comment makes a complicated engineering feat sound like child's play.
If no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the (electoral college) votes, then the House picks from the three highest (electoral) vote-getters. It does not go to whoever got the most votes (either popular or electoral). Having a third party prominent enough to compete against the Republicans and Democrats would just split the vote such that nobody ever gets a majority and we get a string of Presidents chosen by Congress - ultimately selected by the people, sure, but even more indirectly than in the current electoral college system.
I agree that this is a problem, but only for presidential elections. In theory at least, the executive branch is not the cornerstone of the government. Laws are processed and passed in the legislature. Regardless of what party the president is, if he/she is pressured by public opinion and a large party presence in the legislature, he may be forced into supporting legislation that goes against his party line, especially if he wants to keep his approval rating up.
Anyone know of a hardware raid card with a external SATA port that supports the port multiplier feature? I have only been able to find software raid solutions.
People have an expectation of privacy. They expect you won't be sneaking around peering into their windows at night, and they expect you won't be intercepting and decoding their personal telephone calls.
Expectation of privacy has much to do with the circumstance. Someone standing behind a closed window shade has an expectation of privacy, someone standing in a window visible from the street or a neighbor's house (with no window shade) does not. Even if someone used a visual aid (binoculars, passive light amplification) if the window in question has a clear line of sight, then there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy. The exception would probably be if your house was isolated in some way.
Search Wikipedia for this; there are some interesting facts. FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal. I know, I'm splitting hairs, but I think its important to make the distinction so we don't undermine the right to free speech.
I know that this is the case in Louisiana with regards to gun laws. It is perfectly legal to carry a handgun unconcealed on your person without a permit. The rub is that if someone(s) react(s) to your carrying a gun and a general panic ensues, you the gun carrier are guilty of disturbing the peace. It sounds strange to me that you can be held liable for someone else's reaction, but it boils down to you being the catalyst of that action even though the catalyst is perfectly legal.
Ever try spamgourmet? It allows you to create disposable email addresses. I use it mostly for sites that I know will not respect my privacy (online forums etc). I use your method for banks and reputable businesses. Basically I can create a disposable address on the fly. For instance I give you the addres jaruzel.10.(myusername)@spamgourmet.com. You can send mail to that address 10 times and it will get forwarded to my real address. The 11th mail will get bounced as it no longer exists. You can set the number up to 20. You can also log into their web site and set an exclusive sender who does not decrement the number.
This country has two parties for a reason, and they need to keep each other in check. People have different views so they should be given choices as to what party they will support to represent those views.
This country has two parties for a reason, and it is not really the reason that you said. This country has a two party "tradition" which is to say, that is the way it has commonly been, however; it is not the way it is necessarily supposed to be or designed to be. There are no rules or legislation establishing this tradition, that is just the way that it evolved. The reason that we STILL use it is because both parties recognize how much easier it is to lead the public around by their nose when there are only two parties. I.E. even if you don't like what either party is saying, you will likely like one less than the other. With two parties, unless you agree completely with every issue that your party supports, you are always voting on the "lesser of two evils". To say that every single Democrat or every single Republican (or even a majority of them) agree on most of the points that their party supports is folly. Republicans/Democrats stick with their parties for the strength in numbers effect so that they can have something for the voters to identify with come election time. I posit that you could easily split parties up as such: Far Left, Core Democrat, Moderate Democrat/Republican, Core Republican, and Far Right while still having the presence of fringe parties (Libertarian, Green, Independant etc). This would serve to actually differentiate the real divides in American political views as well as enfranchise the minor parties, making them statistically significant. When I vote, I don't want to vote for the candidate that I dislike the least, I want to vote for the candidate that will actually work towards the policies and initiatives that I agree with. I want an advocate for my views, not someone who is just another mote in the Democrat/Republican cloud.
These are highly non trivial problems. In fact, they're unsolvable to any degree of certainty. They only make sense in a *science fiction* book in which a highly talented author is telling you a story. In the real world, they are meaningless because of their computational intractibility.
In the real world, we use codes of ethics and/or morality. Such codes recognize the fact that there are no absolutes and sometimes making a decision that will ultimately cause harm to someone is inevitable.
Insofar as our current level of technology is concerned, I believe that you are correct. Though, these issues are ultimately solvable by machines as evidenced by the fact that WE are machines. At some point, I believe that we will have the capability of building machines that are capable of learning in a similar fashion to ourselves and that these machines will be able to distinguish things based on the criteria you have listed. As for the laws themselves, of course they are total fiction; however, I think that similar safeguards should be implemented into any autonomous computer system (computer control system, robots, vehicles whatever) to guarantee that machines have an artificially heightened sense of responsibility towards human life. It would be irresponsible to give power over our lives to computers that are unable or unwilling to account for human safety.
At this point you are getting into the realm where a jury would be trying to decide if what you were doing was intentional, or if you were only looking for the latest Linux distribution when you accidentally downloaded all those credit card numbers.
If a company had credit cards for download via anonymous ftp, I expect that they would be liable for criminal negligance. You said that it would be normal to check for a homepage on port 80, just as it might be normal to check for some other public service being available via some other well known port. Just checking a port's status with no criminal intent is perfectly ok. I am saying nothing more, no further intrusion into the system, no stealing credit cards or any other data whatsoever...just checking a port's status. And yes, my original post made reference to "anonymous" ftp.
Someone who leaves FTP service on with no password might be stupid
I didn't say no password on the ftp server, I said anonymous, like so many public ftp servers are configured to do. Some telnet servers don't even ask for a username or password, they just dump you into a prompt, like a cisco router not configured with a password...you telnet to it and you are there in user exec mode. Some people may say that its shady to scan a pc, I say its not in and of itself. Just checking to see if a port is open does not constitute a wrongful act. Of course, most people who are scanning for ports are really looking for something to exploit. Our law is supposed to take into account the intent of ones actions. This is why there are so many different types of murder...1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter etc. If you didn't mean to kill someone, it is treated differently than if you premeditated the murder. If your intent is only to see if a port is open, then there is no wrongdoing, period.
Alright, I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that there was no moral conflict with scanning a server. If there is a port open, it is by definition open for use (port 80 anyone). If someone does not want me to use their server, it is their responsibility to deny me access. If I am running a web server with content that I don't want out in the open, how can I fault someone for accessing it if I left it out in the open. The same applies to an ftp server with an anonymous login, or a telnet session without a password. Enumerating ports on a server is nothing more than determining which ports are open as described above. Its not like these students were instructed to break into servers and steal corporate secrets or credit card numbers.
So often we hear fuss about our petrol supply running out. Sure, perhaps someday it will. But like usual, basic economics will take care of the situtation for us. When one energy source becomes increasingly scarce, it will become more expensive.
Thats all well and good if all you use oil for is fuel. We use oil heavily in the production of all sorts of products, including plastics and a whole plethora of petrochemicals. We should curtail our oil user as a fuel now so that we can continue to use oil for its other users without having to pay 5 times the current price for a plastic toothbrush.
Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T may be powerful, but they're going to have a hell of a fight if they're going up against Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.
Ivan, your argument misses one fact. In BS territory the majority of connectivity is provided by BS. If BS wants to they can force this upon their resellers as well. So earthlink may take on a whole different flavor down here in the south.
I am sure that Cox Communications would be than willing to provide service to businesses in the markets that they share. They have the infrastructure to do so.
Ok, I will bite. Assume that tiered pricing is indroduced. How high does the pricing go? Is there a maximum price to protect consumers like there is a minimum price to protect the industry? Also, in what time frame is the number of downloads sampled. Knowing the music industry, it would be cumulative. Music that is 10 years old would still be expensive because it had high downloads in past years even though recent downloads might not be so hot. So what determines when music that once was popular but isn't anymore gets downgraded in price? If the time frame wasn't extensive you could just wait to buy your music and get it cheaper.
Whats wrong with them? They are ignorant of their options, which in and of itself isn't so horrible. Most people probably don't realize that there are many many sites on the internet that offer free ringtones. Whats more, of the people that know about sites that offer free ringtones, many of them probably don't know that many phones allow you to convert your own ringtones from.wav files (you can use the qualcomm qconv.exe utility to change.wavs into.qcf files for use on qualcomm phones). If you thought that the only way to get a certain ringtone onto your phone was to purchase it from your wireless provider, you might just do it. The main difference in ringtones vs. songs is the percieved difference in availability. IE the conception that ringtones are only available via the provider and the reality that you can get music in oh so many places (radio, retail stores, internet, 2nd hand stores, ebay...).
Dilution is a critical issue with trademarking; a major problem from the point of view of many big corporations. Just ask the people that make Kleenex, Band-Aid, Astroturf, Boogie Board, Coke, etc.
If they were worried about dilution, they shouldn't have used a word as commonplace as WINDOWS. MS doesn't own the word and his product was an application that works within windows, not a rival to Windows itself. Would it have been different if the kid used [mycompanyname] Windows Defender? The Microsoft Windows trademark should only be enforced regarding OS products, not any other application. MS doesn't call Office "MS Windows Office" or its games "MS Windows Age of Empires or MS Windows Halo" nor does it call its browser "MS Windows Internet Explorer". The trademark is very specific in what it applies to. They don't call their Mice "MS Windows Intellimouse." Why don't they name all of their products Windows? Because they aren't. The guy's defender product had nothing to do with Windows the OS except that it ran on it.
Imagine if X Windows was called Windows X instead. Small difference, but look at the pattern: Windows 98, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 3.11. Whether or not you agree with the decision, it would easily hold up in court that computer software named Windows InsertCatchySecondWord would easily confuse people into thinking it was a Microsoft product, and hence the whole diluting thing.
I see your point, however I believe those products that you quoted were actually named Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows 3.11.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the electricity used to generate the light already taxed?
Try Altme (www.altme.com). It has chat, calendaring, file posting, access control, users/groups etc. You create user communities called worlds which you can add users to.
tees. I have two tees worth of data.
Surely though, there are some "fees" that really are fees and are intended to recover the administrative cost of doing business. Fees that you pay for your driver's license or vehicle registration renewal, or for city hall to dredge up some document and furnish you a copy are all reasonable in that it takes these agencies money to provide the sercive. These are services that go above and beyond that which you pay taxes for. Do you really want your tax dollar's to cover the employees at the DMV or City hall? What if you don't drive or ever go to city hall? The main distinction here is that the FCC is not just recouping costs for some administrative task. I don't see where they have any real administration to perform in the first place. This is a "tax" not on individuals, but on telco providers who pass it along to the consumer. Fee for service, tax for ???
With regards to your tag line, you should see the movie "Brazil" if you haven't already. Its a Terry Gilliam flick with social commentary on police state governments with freedom fighting terrorists/criminals.
Don't you think that you are being a little bit critical? Your laptop doesn't have to reorient its cpu's when you close your lid. This airplane has to reorient all of its (very powerful) engines to continue to face forwards while the wing changes angle. Your comment makes a complicated engineering feat sound like child's play.
I agree that this is a problem, but only for presidential elections. In theory at least, the executive branch is not the cornerstone of the government. Laws are processed and passed in the legislature. Regardless of what party the president is, if he/she is pressured by public opinion and a large party presence in the legislature, he may be forced into supporting legislation that goes against his party line, especially if he wants to keep his approval rating up.
So, it this the stuff that they used in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes back when they encased Han Solo in carbonite?
Anyone know of a hardware raid card with a external SATA port that supports the port multiplier feature? I have only been able to find software raid solutions.
Expectation of privacy has much to do with the circumstance. Someone standing behind a closed window shade has an expectation of privacy, someone standing in a window visible from the street or a neighbor's house (with no window shade) does not. Even if someone used a visual aid (binoculars, passive light amplification) if the window in question has a clear line of sight, then there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy. The exception would probably be if your house was isolated in some way.
I know that this is the case in Louisiana with regards to gun laws. It is perfectly legal to carry a handgun unconcealed on your person without a permit. The rub is that if someone(s) react(s) to your carrying a gun and a general panic ensues, you the gun carrier are guilty of disturbing the peace. It sounds strange to me that you can be held liable for someone else's reaction, but it boils down to you being the catalyst of that action even though the catalyst is perfectly legal.
This country has two parties for a reason, and it is not really the reason that you said. This country has a two party "tradition" which is to say, that is the way it has commonly been, however; it is not the way it is necessarily supposed to be or designed to be. There are no rules or legislation establishing this tradition, that is just the way that it evolved. The reason that we STILL use it is because both parties recognize how much easier it is to lead the public around by their nose when there are only two parties. I.E. even if you don't like what either party is saying, you will likely like one less than the other. With two parties, unless you agree completely with every issue that your party supports, you are always voting on the "lesser of two evils".
To say that every single Democrat or every single Republican (or even a majority of them) agree on most of the points that their party supports is folly. Republicans/Democrats stick with their parties for the strength in numbers effect so that they can have something for the voters to identify with come election time. I posit that you could easily split parties up as such: Far Left, Core Democrat, Moderate Democrat/Republican, Core Republican, and Far Right while still having the presence of fringe parties (Libertarian, Green, Independant etc). This would serve to actually differentiate the real divides in American political views as well as enfranchise the minor parties, making them statistically significant.
When I vote, I don't want to vote for the candidate that I dislike the least, I want to vote for the candidate that will actually work towards the policies and initiatives that I agree with. I want an advocate for my views, not someone who is just another mote in the Democrat/Republican cloud.
Insofar as our current level of technology is concerned, I believe that you are correct. Though, these issues are ultimately solvable by machines as evidenced by the fact that WE are machines. At some point, I believe that we will have the capability of building machines that are capable of learning in a similar fashion to ourselves and that these machines will be able to distinguish things based on the criteria you have listed.
As for the laws themselves, of course they are total fiction; however, I think that similar safeguards should be implemented into any autonomous computer system (computer control system, robots, vehicles whatever) to guarantee that machines have an artificially heightened sense of responsibility towards human life. It would be irresponsible to give power over our lives to computers that are unable or unwilling to account for human safety.
If a company had credit cards for download via anonymous ftp, I expect that they would be liable for criminal negligance. You said that it would be normal to check for a homepage on port 80, just as it might be normal to check for some other public service being available via some other well known port. Just checking a port's status with no criminal intent is perfectly ok. I am saying nothing more, no further intrusion into the system, no stealing credit cards or any other data whatsoever...just checking a port's status. And yes, my original post made reference to "anonymous" ftp.
I didn't say no password on the ftp server, I said anonymous, like so many public ftp servers are configured to do. Some telnet servers don't even ask for a username or password, they just dump you into a prompt, like a cisco router not configured with a password...you telnet to it and you are there in user exec mode. Some people may say that its shady to scan a pc, I say its not in and of itself. Just checking to see if a port is open does not constitute a wrongful act. Of course, most people who are scanning for ports are really looking for something to exploit. Our law is supposed to take into account the intent of ones actions. This is why there are so many different types of murder...1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter etc. If you didn't mean to kill someone, it is treated differently than if you premeditated the murder. If your intent is only to see if a port is open, then there is no wrongdoing, period.
Do not taunt happy fun fusion reactor.
Thats all well and good if all you use oil for is fuel. We use oil heavily in the production of all sorts of products, including plastics and a whole plethora of petrochemicals. We should curtail our oil user as a fuel now so that we can continue to use oil for its other users without having to pay 5 times the current price for a plastic toothbrush.
And with Apple, perhaps comes Disney?
I am sure that Cox Communications would be than willing to provide service to businesses in the markets that they share. They have the infrastructure to do so.
Whats wrong with them? They are ignorant of their options, which in and of itself isn't so horrible. Most people probably don't realize that there are many many sites on the internet that offer free ringtones. Whats more, of the people that know about sites that offer free ringtones, many of them probably don't know that many phones allow you to convert your own ringtones from .wav files (you can use the qualcomm qconv.exe utility to change .wavs into .qcf files for use on qualcomm phones). If you thought that the only way to get a certain ringtone onto your phone was to purchase it from your wireless provider, you might just do it. The main difference in ringtones vs. songs is the percieved difference in availability. IE the conception that ringtones are only available via the provider and the reality that you can get music in oh so many places (radio, retail stores, internet, 2nd hand stores, ebay...).
If they were worried about dilution, they shouldn't have used a word as commonplace as WINDOWS. MS doesn't own the word and his product was an application that works within windows, not a rival to Windows itself. Would it have been different if the kid used [mycompanyname] Windows Defender? The Microsoft Windows trademark should only be enforced regarding OS products, not any other application. MS doesn't call Office "MS Windows Office" or its games "MS Windows Age of Empires or MS Windows Halo" nor does it call its browser "MS Windows Internet Explorer". The trademark is very specific in what it applies to. They don't call their Mice "MS Windows Intellimouse." Why don't they name all of their products Windows? Because they aren't. The guy's defender product had nothing to do with Windows the OS except that it ran on it.
I see your point, however I believe those products that you quoted were actually named Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows 3.11.