Our current financial crisis is due, in large part, to our attempts to borrow our way into prosperity. Too many bills came due and there wasn't enough money to pay them all. That money needs to come from somewhere and, for the government, that money comes from taxes.
Our economy is failing and no one can stop that. All these bailout plans are really just trying to cushion the fall. There are tough times ahead. Slowing down this economic crash and rebuilding our economy will take some strategic investments. Those investments will take money and raising that money means raising taxes, cutting spending in other areas, or both. Frankly, the specter of higher taxes makes a heck of a lot more sense right now than any rhetoric about cutting taxes for anyone at any income level.
Who wants to take bets on:
Us not withdrawing from Iraq?
We have created a huge mess in Iraq and it will be difficult, at best, to get ourselves out of it. But, both McCain and the current administration seemed a little too comfortable with this ongoing occupation. While I agree that the US will not be able to withdraw our troops any time soon, I believe that Obama is more likely to move us in that direction and get us closer to achieving that goal.
Whether most slashdotters with decent IT careers end up paying more taxes?
As the economy melts down, taxes are likely to go up. This was going to happen no matter who won. Personally, it seems that when anyone from any party starts talking about tax cuts, my taxes are likely to go up. I make too much money for the poor-people-need-money cuts, I don't have kids for the save-the-children cuts, and I don't make enough for the rich-people-create-jobs cuts. I'm just glad that I haven't been hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax yet.
Don't take this wrong, McCain sucks too. I just wish people would stop drinking from either coolaid.
McCain just sucks more.:-) Seriously, though, off the two, I honestly feel that Obama is better suited for the difficult job ahead. I just hope I'm right.
Scientific research is all about critical thinking and a willingness to go against what the current establishment accepts when there is sufficient evidence to support it. The "best explanation" for the origins of life or for anything else is "best" only when it is the best fit for the facts that we know at the time. As we learn new facts and gain new insights, that best explanation is very likely to change.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it doesn't present any new facts or insights, so it doesn't really change the "best explanation." It doesn't make sense to "teach both" because Evolution and Intelligent Design are not truly equal alternatives to each other.
Evolution is a model for how life changes over time, saying nothing about how life got started in the first place. Intelligent Design is a conjecture that a few things look too complicated to have arisen using that model, therefore something outside the system--an "Intelligent Designer"--must be responsible for assembling those bits. But, those bits fit into the model just fine--they are not "Irreducibly Complex," so there is no need to introduce an external entity to explain them. There is no controversy and, therefore, no need to pretend that there is one.
Perhaps the best place for Intelligent Design in a science classroom would be as an example of bad science, where established facts are ignored and new ones are invented that cannot be tested, studied, or measured. Teach them that critical thinking is not about rejecting an established idea so much as it is about examining the evidence, basis, and underlying foundations of an idea, so they can learn to reject the bad ones.
The short version is that any sufficiently advanced system will have some way of expressing the idea "This statement is false," which the system cannot prove to be either true or false because both answers are wrong. So, as zacronos said, any such endeavor will either be incomplete (it can't express every true/false statement) or it will be self-contradictory (it can express this true/false statement, but it can't determine whether it is true or false without being wrong).
When they got ya, you've got no more chance than a road rabbit...You're walkin' along, not a nickel in your jeans, you're free as the wind. Nobody bothers you. Hundreds of people pass you by in every line of business. Shoes, hats, automobiles, radios, furniture, everything, and they're all nice loveable people. They let you alone...Then you get ahold of some dough and what happens? All those nice, sweet, lovable people become heelots. A lotta heels! They begin creepin' up on ya, tryin' to sell ya something. They get long claws and they get a stranglehold on ya and ya squirm and ya duck and ya holler and ya try to push 'em away, but you haven't got a chance. They've got ya. The first thing you know, you own things - a car, for instance. Now your whole life is messed up with a lot more stuff. You get license fees and number plates and gas and oil and taxes and insurance and identification cards and letters and bills and flat tires and dents and traffic tickets and motorcycle cops and courtrooms and lawyers and fines - and a million and one other things! And what happens? You're not the free and happy guy you used to be. You've gotta have money to pay for all those things. So you go after what the other fella's got. And there you are - you're a heelot yourself.
Wow. You seem way more upset that is warranted. My apologies. Your ideas are not bad, per se, I just don't believe that they truly address the underlying, fundamental flaw with electronic, touch-screen voting systems. The basic problem is that a printout, no matter how it is generated and no matter how it is used, is an indirect representation of the voters intent, in contrast to a paper ballot, filled out directly by the voter, which is a much more direct representation of the voter's intent and much more open to public scrutiny when something like a recount is required.
If the voter is that fucking stupid, then why would we care about his vote anyway?! I mean yeah, literacy tests and whatnot are illegal (and rightly so), but it's certainly not discriminatory to expect people to be able to follow a set of simple, reasonable directions!
In the scenario where the touch-screen voting apparatus is used to create the paper ballot which is then stored and tallied, then I have to agree that anyone who is too stupid to put the resulting ballot in the ballot box probably would have intentionally voted for our current president and, therefore, shouldn't have his vote counted in the first place. Either way, the fundamental problem is that the pile of printouts is disconnected from the votes being placed. Yes, the voter would have the chance to review his votes before handing over the printout, and some would. Most, I fear, would skim them at best, most likely noting the presidential vote and ignoring the rest. So, I feel that having the voter review his or her votes is an inadequate check on the system.
Haven't you ever heard of someone taking a multiple-choice test and failing horribly because they skipped an answer and then put all the answers subsequent to that one row above the one they should have gone in? What if they use the wrong kind of pencil (or a pen)? What if they fill in half a bubble? What if they fill in two bubbles? What if they write an X over the choice they want instead of filling in the bubble?
Yes, filling in a paper ballot has its own set of problems, but it is also much easier to correct for those problems. The counting machines can flag the problem votes and humans can look at the pieces of paper to decipher, for example, the X in the bubble or one filled in with the wrong sort of pen. More importantly, the paper ballots that the counters (or recounters) see are exactly what the voter saw when he or she was casting his or her votes. As for the problem of putting the answers in the wrong row, that's more of a problem when the questions are separated from the answer sheet; with a voting ballot, the questions are printed on the same sheet, next to the ovals or bubbles that need to be filled in, so that's a non-issue.
What was on the screen doesn't matter in the slightest, because the printout -- in plain English -- is the vote, and the voter can verify it simply by reading it before he drops it in the ballot box.
And that is where we must disagree. I much prefer a direct representation of exactly what the voter saw, responded to, and marked as his or her vote to an indirect, possibly correct, representation of the result of his or her touch on an electronic screen.
Here, you're assuming that each and every person, when finished voting will then wait for, pick up, and meticulously verify an additional printout and no one will ignore it, drop it, crumple it up, put it in their pocket, or whatever. Um... yeah. Good luck with that.
4. the voter puts it in a ballot box
Here, you're assuming that the voter is going to take an extra step that looks unnecessary. Again, the person has just finished voting and you're asking him or her to do something extra. Again, good luck with that.
5. 1. either the paper ballot gets tallied directly
In this scenario, all you've done is used a great big, shiny, expensive computer to replace a #2 pencil. And, you've introduced an unnecessary level of indirection. With a fill-in-the-oval paper ballot, the ballot is the piece of paper that the voter interacted with and wrote on. With your scenario, the paper ballot is a secondary artifact that should (but might not) match what the voter intended when he or she touched the fancy-looking touch screen.
2. or the machine's log gets tallied and the paper ballot is retained for spot-checks and recounts
You have a lot more faith in the average person than I do. I don't believe that each and every person will verify each and every vote on his or her ballot and then turn it in, knowing that it is not his or her "real" vote.
In short, you've proposed a system that is marginally better than one without printouts, but it still doesn't solve the fundamental problem that you cannot physically verify what was on the screen, what the voter intended when he or she touched the screen, and whether or not this printout matches that intent. With a fill-in-the-oval type of paper ballot, the final ballot is the same piece of paper that the voter saw, touched, and marked his or her intended votes on. That is definitive in a way that no printout can ever be.
Which is exactly why I favor the fill-in-the-oval type of ballots. They are easy to understand (no butterfly-ballot, "I pushed the wrong button" sort of problems), they are easy to read (Is the oval black or is it white?), they are machine-readable (so machine counting is quick and easy), and, most importantly, they leave behind a directly human-filled-in paper trail (so physical, manual, by-hand, honest-to-goodness recounts and cross-checks are actually possible, when needed).
Touch-screen voting machines, on the other hand, are problematic from the start. There is not and cannot be any true record of what was showing on the screen and where the user touched the screen or what the user intended by touching the screen in that spot. That's the fundamental flaw and no amount of regulations, printouts, or open-source software can fix that. These machines are dangerous precisely because they are so rife with such massive potential for invisible, unverifiable voter fraud and, I truly fear, that is the only reason they were ever even considered in the first place.
Yes, the hand-filled paper ballots are counted by machine, but they are also a directly-verifiable indication of the voter's intent and can be counted by hand when the need arises. Touch-screen voting, by design, will never have that.
Definitely agree. This movie wasn't so much about taking care of the planet as it was about taking notice of your surroundings. It wasn't anti-consumerism so much as anti-complacency. While there are definitely some pro-environmental and anti-corporation flourishes throughout the film, the main thrust of the film seemed to be "Look around, take interest in your surroundings, then get up and do something." and those flourishes existed mainly to serve that theme.
Turning JavaScript off [and] knowingly putting yourself in a very small minority is your choice. Don't rant about it, cope with it and live with your choice.
Whether or not I am part of the majority or the minority in my browsing choices is beside the point. There is still no good reason to use JavaScript to mimic and replace basic HTML functionality, such as submit buttons and hyperlinks. There is no good reason to require JavaScript just to enter a web site. There is certainly no good reason to require both JavaScript and Flash just to enter a web site! I understand the power and the allure of both technologies--I am a web-developer myself and I have done some very interesting things with those technologies--but they also have their place.
Good Idea: Using JavaScript to enhance your menu.
Bad Idea: Using JavaScript to create your whole menu so that your visitor has no navigation whatsoever without it.
As to your other bits of advice:
[S]tart using IE which defaults to not running scripts but make it easy to do so for pages that require it.
How can I say this? Thanks, but no thanks. IE had known exploits with no available patches for 284 days last year. Firefox had the same level of vulnerability for 9 days. Face it, IE has a lot more problems than whether or not it is easy to turn JavaScript on or off.
Maybe there's a FF extension that does the same (I haven't looked)
Good news, Everybody! There is and I use it. That doesn't change the fact that JavaScript shouldn't be used in place of basic HTML functionality. It breaks a lot more than my browsing enjoyment.
There are more important things to in life.
There certainly are, but they aren't the subject of this discussion.
I found that submiting through JavaScript has some pretty uncool things... but some functions did not work when not passing all the parameters and so on.
Why on Earth are you using JavaScript for something as simple as pushing a SUBMIT button? It's a personal pet peeve of mine that so many sites insist on using JavaScript for simple, basic HTML functions. HTML has a perfectly functional SUBMIT function. Use it! There is no good reason to replace it with "javascript:form1.submit();"
[Engaging Rant Mode... Rant Mode Engaged]
In fact, I am sick and tired of sites that need JavaScript just to provide any level of basic functionality. I've seen sites that need JavaScript just to give me an "Enter This Site" link. Even worse, I've seen sites that need JavaScript just to show me some Flash just to give me an "Enter This Site" link. I've seen sites that need JavaScript just to provide menus that aren't completely non-functional. I turn JavaScript off for a reason! Don't make me turn it on again without an equally good reason! And your incompetence with basic HTML tags like <INPUT> and <A> doesn't count!
I fully agree that copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is when I take something away from you and you no longer have it. Copyright infringement is when I do something you don't like without your permission. The only thing I have taken away from you is your ability to say "No." But that's not the real problem here.
The problem here is that the fundamental point of DRM and the DMCA is to give copyright holders the ability to say "No" when nothing else will. Together, DRM and the DMCA enforce the wishes of the copyright holder even when those wishes go far beyond their legal rights. Fair use? It doesn't matter. Removing even a small amount of content from a DRM-protected DVD is strictly illegal under the DMCA no matter how you intend to use it. While fair use still exists as a defense against the charge of "copyright infringement," it is not a defense against the charge of (more-or-less) "safe-cracking" under the DMCA.
Look at it this way, making and using a copy of some content from a DVD potentially breaks two laws: Copyright and the DMCA. If it came to trial, you could claim that you weren't breaking the copyright law because your use falls under the category of Fair Use and, if you're lucky, the judge/jury would agree with you. However, in order to make that copy in the first place, you would have had to get past the DRM "proctection," which means that you have also broken the DMCA law. But, the DMCA does not recognize the Fair Use argument. If the DRM says you can't make a copy and you made a copy, then you've broken the law. Period. It doesn't matter how you planned to use that copy once you've made it, you've made and, therefore, you've broken the law under the DMCA. There's no excuse. There's no "wiggle room." There is no defense. You've lost. Game over. That's just one of many problems with this train-wreck of a law.
I know the OP tried to couch this request in the terms of Fair Use, but it's pointless. Fair Use only applies to your use of a copy. Making that copy, when it breaks past any form of DRM, is completely, totally, and strictly illegal under the DMCA. Period.
The Dow Corning Trust is doling out $4.4 billion dollars [sic] to women who settled...
And just how much of that $4.4 billion is actually being paid to the women who suffered? I'd wager that the vast majority of that money is being collected by the lawyers while the affected individuals get a minimal pittiance.
In a sense, the system is working. It is still punishing the "bad" corporation, but it's doing precious little to relieve the people hurt by that bad behavior.
In the offline world, newspapers and magazines charge for the current issues while the archives are freely available through libraries. Why should it be reversed in the online world?
It's completely backwards to make the current week free and the archives Pay-per-view or subscription-only. It makes much more sense to charge a subscription to the current news (whether to access the current day, the current week, or the current month), and make the older stuff freely available. First of all, there's a lot more people interested in today's news than in last year's news, meaning revenues would be higher. (That means more money for the low IQers in the audience.) It fits in line with the offline business model. It meets the customer's expectations better. And it makes the whole site more Internet-friendly.
Frankly, I don't understand why more sites don't follow that plan. Charge for access to the current week (the most valuable content on your site on any given day) and, after that, let the bloggers and everyone else have at it for free.
On the positive side, I think IBM should just turn over everything, and immediately. I can't even imagine why they haven't done so already
I think IBM is using the discovery phase to clearly establish that none of the alleged infringements come directly from System V code but only from additional code in AIX and Dynix that IBM owns. Once that has been established, both sides can argue their respective views of "derivative works" in the context of what AIX and Dynix code IBM was contractually obligated to keep secret and what code (if any) IBM was free to make available to others, such as by donating it to Linux. In that matter, The SCO Group may have a difficult time since Judge Wells doesn't seem to agree with their definition of "derivative works," as indicated by her previous orders.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally we can tax ourselves into prosperity!
Our current financial crisis is due, in large part, to our attempts to borrow our way into prosperity. Too many bills came due and there wasn't enough money to pay them all. That money needs to come from somewhere and, for the government, that money comes from taxes.
Our economy is failing and no one can stop that. All these bailout plans are really just trying to cushion the fall. There are tough times ahead. Slowing down this economic crash and rebuilding our economy will take some strategic investments. Those investments will take money and raising that money means raising taxes, cutting spending in other areas, or both. Frankly, the specter of higher taxes makes a heck of a lot more sense right now than any rhetoric about cutting taxes for anyone at any income level.
Who wants to take bets on:
Us not withdrawing from Iraq?
We have created a huge mess in Iraq and it will be difficult, at best, to get ourselves out of it. But, both McCain and the current administration seemed a little too comfortable with this ongoing occupation. While I agree that the US will not be able to withdraw our troops any time soon, I believe that Obama is more likely to move us in that direction and get us closer to achieving that goal.
Whether most slashdotters with decent IT careers end up paying more taxes?
As the economy melts down, taxes are likely to go up. This was going to happen no matter who won. Personally, it seems that when anyone from any party starts talking about tax cuts, my taxes are likely to go up. I make too much money for the poor-people-need-money cuts, I don't have kids for the save-the-children cuts, and I don't make enough for the rich-people-create-jobs cuts. I'm just glad that I haven't been hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax yet.
Don't take this wrong, McCain sucks too. I just wish people would stop drinking from either coolaid.
McCain just sucks more. :-) Seriously, though, off the two, I honestly feel that Obama is better suited for the difficult job ahead. I just hope I'm right.
Scientific research is all about critical thinking and a willingness to go against what the current establishment accepts when there is sufficient evidence to support it. The "best explanation" for the origins of life or for anything else is "best" only when it is the best fit for the facts that we know at the time. As we learn new facts and gain new insights, that best explanation is very likely to change.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it doesn't present any new facts or insights, so it doesn't really change the "best explanation." It doesn't make sense to "teach both" because Evolution and Intelligent Design are not truly equal alternatives to each other.
Evolution is a model for how life changes over time, saying nothing about how life got started in the first place. Intelligent Design is a conjecture that a few things look too complicated to have arisen using that model, therefore something outside the system--an "Intelligent Designer"--must be responsible for assembling those bits. But, those bits fit into the model just fine--they are not "Irreducibly Complex," so there is no need to introduce an external entity to explain them. There is no controversy and, therefore, no need to pretend that there is one.
Perhaps the best place for Intelligent Design in a science classroom would be as an example of bad science, where established facts are ignored and new ones are invented that cannot be tested, studied, or measured. Teach them that critical thinking is not about rejecting an established idea so much as it is about examining the evidence, basis, and underlying foundations of an idea, so they can learn to reject the bad ones.
The short version is that any sufficiently advanced system will have some way of expressing the idea "This statement is false," which the system cannot prove to be either true or false because both answers are wrong. So, as zacronos said, any such endeavor will either be incomplete (it can't express every true/false statement) or it will be self-contradictory (it can express this true/false statement, but it can't determine whether it is true or false without being wrong).
Wow. You seem way more upset that is warranted. My apologies. Your ideas are not bad, per se, I just don't believe that they truly address the underlying, fundamental flaw with electronic, touch-screen voting systems. The basic problem is that a printout, no matter how it is generated and no matter how it is used, is an indirect representation of the voters intent, in contrast to a paper ballot, filled out directly by the voter, which is a much more direct representation of the voter's intent and much more open to public scrutiny when something like a recount is required.
In the scenario where the touch-screen voting apparatus is used to create the paper ballot which is then stored and tallied, then I have to agree that anyone who is too stupid to put the resulting ballot in the ballot box probably would have intentionally voted for our current president and, therefore, shouldn't have his vote counted in the first place. Either way, the fundamental problem is that the pile of printouts is disconnected from the votes being placed. Yes, the voter would have the chance to review his votes before handing over the printout, and some would. Most, I fear, would skim them at best, most likely noting the presidential vote and ignoring the rest. So, I feel that having the voter review his or her votes is an inadequate check on the system.
Yes, filling in a paper ballot has its own set of problems, but it is also much easier to correct for those problems. The counting machines can flag the problem votes and humans can look at the pieces of paper to decipher, for example, the X in the bubble or one filled in with the wrong sort of pen. More importantly, the paper ballots that the counters (or recounters) see are exactly what the voter saw when he or she was casting his or her votes. As for the problem of putting the answers in the wrong row, that's more of a problem when the questions are separated from the answer sheet; with a voting ballot, the questions are printed on the same sheet, next to the ovals or bubbles that need to be filled in, so that's a non-issue.
And that is where we must disagree. I much prefer a direct representation of exactly what the voter saw, responded to, and marked as his or her vote to an indirect, possibly correct, representation of the result of his or her touch on an electronic screen.
Okay, let's look at this:
Here, you're assuming that each and every person, when finished voting will then wait for, pick up, and meticulously verify an additional printout and no one will ignore it, drop it, crumple it up, put it in their pocket, or whatever. Um ... yeah. Good luck with that.
Here, you're assuming that the voter is going to take an extra step that looks unnecessary. Again, the person has just finished voting and you're asking him or her to do something extra. Again, good luck with that.
In this scenario, all you've done is used a great big, shiny, expensive computer to replace a #2 pencil. And, you've introduced an unnecessary level of indirection. With a fill-in-the-oval paper ballot, the ballot is the piece of paper that the voter interacted with and wrote on. With your scenario, the paper ballot is a secondary artifact that should (but might not) match what the voter intended when he or she touched the fancy-looking touch screen.
You have a lot more faith in the average person than I do. I don't believe that each and every person will verify each and every vote on his or her ballot and then turn it in, knowing that it is not his or her "real" vote.
In short, you've proposed a system that is marginally better than one without printouts, but it still doesn't solve the fundamental problem that you cannot physically verify what was on the screen, what the voter intended when he or she touched the screen, and whether or not this printout matches that intent. With a fill-in-the-oval type of paper ballot, the final ballot is the same piece of paper that the voter saw, touched, and marked his or her intended votes on. That is definitive in a way that no printout can ever be.
Which is exactly why I favor the fill-in-the-oval type of ballots. They are easy to understand (no butterfly-ballot, "I pushed the wrong button" sort of problems), they are easy to read (Is the oval black or is it white?), they are machine-readable (so machine counting is quick and easy), and, most importantly, they leave behind a directly human-filled-in paper trail (so physical, manual, by-hand, honest-to-goodness recounts and cross-checks are actually possible, when needed).
Touch-screen voting machines, on the other hand, are problematic from the start. There is not and cannot be any true record of what was showing on the screen and where the user touched the screen or what the user intended by touching the screen in that spot. That's the fundamental flaw and no amount of regulations, printouts, or open-source software can fix that. These machines are dangerous precisely because they are so rife with such massive potential for invisible, unverifiable voter fraud and, I truly fear, that is the only reason they were ever even considered in the first place.
Yes, the hand-filled paper ballots are counted by machine, but they are also a directly-verifiable indication of the voter's intent and can be counted by hand when the need arises. Touch-screen voting, by design, will never have that.
Bah! A trebuchet's too good for them!
Definitely agree. This movie wasn't so much about taking care of the planet as it was about taking notice of your surroundings. It wasn't anti-consumerism so much as anti-complacency. While there are definitely some pro-environmental and anti-corporation flourishes throughout the film, the main thrust of the film seemed to be "Look around, take interest in your surroundings, then get up and do something." and those flourishes existed mainly to serve that theme.
Whether or not I am part of the majority or the minority in my browsing choices is beside the point. There is still no good reason to use JavaScript to mimic and replace basic HTML functionality, such as submit buttons and hyperlinks. There is no good reason to require JavaScript just to enter a web site. There is certainly no good reason to require both JavaScript and Flash just to enter a web site! I understand the power and the allure of both technologies--I am a web-developer myself and I have done some very interesting things with those technologies--but they also have their place.
Good Idea: Using JavaScript to enhance your menu.
Bad Idea: Using JavaScript to create your whole menu so that your visitor has no navigation whatsoever without it.
As to your other bits of advice:
How can I say this? Thanks, but no thanks. IE had known exploits with no available patches for 284 days last year. Firefox had the same level of vulnerability for 9 days. Face it, IE has a lot more problems than whether or not it is easy to turn JavaScript on or off.
Good news, Everybody! There is and I use it. That doesn't change the fact that JavaScript shouldn't be used in place of basic HTML functionality. It breaks a lot more than my browsing enjoyment.
There certainly are, but they aren't the subject of this discussion.
Why on Earth are you using JavaScript for something as simple as pushing a SUBMIT button? It's a personal pet peeve of mine that so many sites insist on using JavaScript for simple, basic HTML functions. HTML has a perfectly functional SUBMIT function. Use it! There is no good reason to replace it with "javascript:form1.submit();"
[Engaging Rant Mode ... Rant Mode Engaged]
In fact, I am sick and tired of sites that need JavaScript just to provide any level of basic functionality. I've seen sites that need JavaScript just to give me an "Enter This Site" link. Even worse, I've seen sites that need JavaScript just to show me some Flash just to give me an "Enter This Site" link. I've seen sites that need JavaScript just to provide menus that aren't completely non-functional. I turn JavaScript off for a reason! Don't make me turn it on again without an equally good reason! And your incompetence with basic HTML tags like <INPUT> and <A> doesn't count!
[Disengaging Rant Mode ... Rant Mode Disengaged]
I fully agree that copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is when I take something away from you and you no longer have it. Copyright infringement is when I do something you don't like without your permission. The only thing I have taken away from you is your ability to say "No." But that's not the real problem here.
The problem here is that the fundamental point of DRM and the DMCA is to give copyright holders the ability to say "No" when nothing else will. Together, DRM and the DMCA enforce the wishes of the copyright holder even when those wishes go far beyond their legal rights. Fair use? It doesn't matter. Removing even a small amount of content from a DRM-protected DVD is strictly illegal under the DMCA no matter how you intend to use it. While fair use still exists as a defense against the charge of "copyright infringement," it is not a defense against the charge of (more-or-less) "safe-cracking" under the DMCA.
Look at it this way, making and using a copy of some content from a DVD potentially breaks two laws: Copyright and the DMCA. If it came to trial, you could claim that you weren't breaking the copyright law because your use falls under the category of Fair Use and, if you're lucky, the judge/jury would agree with you. However, in order to make that copy in the first place, you would have had to get past the DRM "proctection," which means that you have also broken the DMCA law. But, the DMCA does not recognize the Fair Use argument. If the DRM says you can't make a copy and you made a copy, then you've broken the law. Period. It doesn't matter how you planned to use that copy once you've made it, you've made and, therefore, you've broken the law under the DMCA. There's no excuse. There's no "wiggle room." There is no defense. You've lost. Game over. That's just one of many problems with this train-wreck of a law.
I know the OP tried to couch this request in the terms of Fair Use, but it's pointless. Fair Use only applies to your use of a copy. Making that copy, when it breaks past any form of DRM, is completely, totally, and strictly illegal under the DMCA. Period.
And just how much of that $4.4 billion is actually being paid to the women who suffered? I'd wager that the vast majority of that money is being collected by the lawyers while the affected individuals get a minimal pittiance.
In a sense, the system is working. It is still punishing the "bad" corporation, but it's doing precious little to relieve the people hurt by that bad behavior.
In the offline world, newspapers and magazines charge for the current issues while the archives are freely available through libraries. Why should it be reversed in the online world?
It's completely backwards to make the current week free and the archives Pay-per-view or subscription-only. It makes much more sense to charge a subscription to the current news (whether to access the current day, the current week, or the current month), and make the older stuff freely available. First of all, there's a lot more people interested in today's news than in last year's news, meaning revenues would be higher. (That means more money for the low IQers in the audience.) It fits in line with the offline business model. It meets the customer's expectations better. And it makes the whole site more Internet-friendly.
Frankly, I don't understand why more sites don't follow that plan. Charge for access to the current week (the most valuable content on your site on any given day) and, after that, let the bloggers and everyone else have at it for free.
I think IBM is using the discovery phase to clearly establish that none of the alleged infringements come directly from System V code but only from additional code in AIX and Dynix that IBM owns. Once that has been established, both sides can argue their respective views of "derivative works" in the context of what AIX and Dynix code IBM was contractually obligated to keep secret and what code (if any) IBM was free to make available to others, such as by donating it to Linux. In that matter, The SCO Group may have a difficult time since Judge Wells doesn't seem to agree with their definition of "derivative works," as indicated by her previous orders.