Le'me see: because there is no scientific basis for polygraphs (because they are not admissible in court
Reread what was said. There is no scientific basis for polygraphs *and* they're not admissible in court. The latter issue is important because when it comes time to actually, you know, justify a firing, pointing at a polygraph as a basis fails completely because it's not admissible. Ie, from just that standpoint it is fundamentally a waste of time.
... if you agree to something this unscientific, then you cannot possibly claim to be a scientist.
No. More precisely, if you agree to something that's unscientific, acting as if it *is* scientific, then one seriously jeopardizes their claim of being a scientist. It doesn't mean it's impossible that you're a scientist; perhaps you're carrying out a study, as impartial as you can, to test the hypothesis that a polygraph is a valid test of what it claims to be a test of.
By that logic because religion has no scientific basis, anyone who is religious cannot also be a scientist.
Now you're mixing up things. Religion isn't scientific. Religion is founded on a study or otherwise communion with the supernatural. The supernatural, by definition, is not a repeatable experimental space. So, one is not likely a scientist if they believe religion is scientific. But, one can continue to believe that one's religion is true. It's perfectly acceptable to believe that science might not be capable of explaining all phenomenon. The issue is when you start rejecting the phenomenon that science *can* explain or start rejecting the claims that can be refuted.
I mean, we can't at all be sure, at the minimal, that some of the axioms of science are true (especially those extremely long-term consistency assumptions). Science is both a model and a system. If you can develop a better model and system to explain more things or everything, feel free. But certainly there's nothing illogical about pointing out that one is doing such outside the model and system of science. It doesn't make your model incorrect. It most certainly makes it unscientific. Having said all that, polygraphs sure seem to not be correct.
If the purpose of democracy is to elect good government (debatable in itself, probably) then making them vote is against that purpose.
The point of a democracy isn't to elect a good government. The point of a democracy is to let the majority choose their government and live with the consequences. The fundamental problem with all voting systems is that they (a) don't provide for fair governance of the minority (any sort of unanimous voting system allows any one person to hold the whole system hostage; even if a majority of people vote, there may be only a plurality that elects a leader (run-off voting in theory could help reduce this problem)) and (b) don't accord to the fact that not everyone wants to vote at the same time (I certainly didn't vote on when to hold elections) nor does everyone necessarily wish for an office to be filled by those who are running (if a majority of people aren't even voting, it could be said that the majority is voting in a lack of confidence of all candidates, so the majority is indirectly demanding the office be left vacant or the majority si indirectly demanding more competent candidates). If we wanted a "good" government, we'd vote not on candidates but on the qualities that make a good government and further prove which candidate best fits to provide that government.
My point was that the original poster was implying that the PS3 was more complex than a 360 when it isn't.
Original poster's comment:
I'm not sure this is something I would want to brag about. If you made the system so complex that it was impossible to use to its fullest potential, then why did you make it so complex and/or powerful? Sounds like admitting to a lot of wasted effort.
I'd say it's a pretty giant leap to take berating the overengineering of a device to the point that no one will take full advantage of the hardware and implying it's more complex than a 360; was there even a discussion of how much the XBox 360 has been utilized? If anything, it's the Sony guy that implies the PS3 is more complex than the XBox 360. After all, I doubt it'll be a lack of want for computational power that'll stop developers from using the computational power available. The real limitations are time and complexity.
And yes I'm against people stating it's complex to program when it plainly isn't. People who say such things aren't programmers, or if they are they clearly haven't much experience of realtime or multi-threaded programming. I would hope that virtually every lead games developer worth their salt already has enough experience that would make programming a PS3 old hat.
Ie, it is complex, but you think those in the field should already have the experience to mitigate that complexity to the point that it's relative complexity is moot. It sounds more than anything that you're trying to rationalize the fact that is complex. Or trying to argue that most programmers won't use its complexity, so it's somehow not right to call it complex. Or you're bitter that people mention the PS3's complexity without giving equal point to the XBox 360's complexity. Are you at all concerned they don't speak about the Wii, either?
The fact is that each console has its own unique selling points and those strengths will be exercised more by the exclusive titles than by the ports. It doesn't mean that because a handful of 1st gen ports don't bother with the extra capabilities that it "removes the point of ever adding it in the first place".
So, you do agree that the PS3 *does* need that added complexity? So, could you mind not trying to argue that the lack of use of that complexity somehow diminishes the claim of its complexity? The PS3 might be one of the easiest to program of complex devices. That doesn't mean it isn't difficult to effectively utilize or that it's not complex. There's a lot more to complexity than merely difficulty of programming.
I still don't get your point. The PS3 *is* complex. The fact that most games will never take advantage of that complexity doesn't change the fact. As could be pointed out, very few games for the Sega Saturn used more than 50% of the available computing power. Considering they were competing against the PS1, that really didn't matter greatly (the Saturn's failings in hardware support for some 3D effects, as well as the higher console price were the real failings). It sounds like you're just against people "bad-mouthing" the PS3 when the XBox360 has similar issues. I'm sorry to tell you, but that doesn't really change the PS3's hurdles. And chiming in that many developers likely won't ever take advantage of that complexity only further bolsters the point that it greatly removes the point of ever adding it in the first place.
Why do people say the PS3 is complex?... The hardest thing would be figure out which parts of the program should go on SPUs. But that's a problem that all multi-threaded apps face, and it's not specific to the PS3. A 360 which intends to use its 3 cores to their full potential has similar issues. If there is something "hard" about it, it is that so few games need the full potential of the system that it's hard to know what it is.
Most programs that multi-thread out parts of a program do it for scalability purposes. To actually tune a program for a specific piece of hardware to maximize performance (not just to have good scalability), especially when it effectively involves two different types of CPU cores, is complex, even if the API handles a lot of the timing issues. The XBox 360, btw, is complex as well for similar reasons. It's hard to optimize usage of multiple cores. The fact that such a situation is similar to other platforms or that heavy tweaking my not be "necessary" (yea, I'm sure people won't come to expect it..given you basically need a lot of that extra performance to render those HDTV screens beautifully), doesn't really change the fact that it's complex. People just like to bemoan PS3 over the XBox 360 because it's even *more* obtuse than the already complex XBox 360 design.
So our rights were safe as long as we didn't have the means to effectively exercise them.
What are you talking about? Since the inception of copyright you did not have the right to copy a copyrighted work and distribute it without permission.
He said "book", not "copyrighted book". Further, his main point was that "fair use" becoming a widely available option to people, with the availability of digital content, was counteracted by the DMCA and DRM blocking the ability to legally (at least, questionably legally) exercise such "fair use".
But, the costs made doing this in any large scale impractical and therefore made copyright infringement more uncommon and easier to identify and prosecute... and thereby protect the copyright holder.
Not exactly. Copyright came about precisely because it was so easy for publishers to print up "pirated" copies of works. In the American colonies, there were enough printing presses that a large share of the populace read daily newspapers. The fact that computers are now their own printing press certainly has greatly magnified that initial problem, but even today it's possible to track down the source of copyright infringement in many cases. The real problem is that there are so many infringers and that they don't have any direct commercial gain (even if it were merely the cost of the supplies to make the copies), that there's very little motivation to go after every last outfit that's mass copying works.
The DMCA is inherently evil. The DMCA (or something like it) is the only way to protect the integrity of DRM, so DRM must also be evil. If DRM is the only way to protect copyright, then copyright must be evil.
Why is the DMCA inherently evil?
The DMCA is inherently evil because its vague wording could be taken to make computers illegal. More generally, it makes it illegal to use the key included with content or the hardware to use said content, except in a narrow scope of exceptions. Further, it is illegal to provide information to others the information to find or use said key, even if they use it only under the narrow scope of legal exceptions. Together, this greatly hinders the ability to speak and effectively cuts off the ability of a vast majority of people to fair use, as they are too computer illiterate to discover on their own the techniques necessary to exercise their rights, and it's not possible to directly teach them the information to take advantage of their rights.
The DMCA is NOT the only way to protect the integrity of DRM....
From a practical standpoint, the DMCA isn't an effective way to protect the integrity of DRM as the same means that allows copyright infringement which DRM is meant to stop can be used to either (a) disseminate the cracked DRM-protected content or (b) disseminate the information to crack the DRM-protected content. From a legal standpoint, it provides further basis to punish copyright infringers as well as a stronger legal basis to shut down organizations that collaborate to break DRM schemes. From a technical standpoint, DRM is technologically flawed because it includes the key with the lock.
DRM is not the only way to protect copyright (they've been doing that for years without it).
As stated, DRM is not an effective way to protect copyright. In reality, there's no means of protecting copyrighted works. From a legal perspective, DRM is superfluous, as copyright infringement is already illegal. However, also from a legal perspective, the DMCA provides a means of effectively banning all varieties of DRM-cracking technology so long as there exists as least one copyrighted work protected by said DRM scheme. As such, the DMCA provides a very effective legal blockade to greatly hinder the open operation of technology that would allow people to perform le
Ever heard of the story of the ant and the grasshopper? Ever consider that having a market saturated with grasshoppers can have devastating effects on people who can't find work because of the many companies that collapse under their own short-sightedness? I can only guess that you're of the belief that people don't really act like grasshoppers, the consequences of having so many grasshoppers isn't as severe as frequently stated, there aren't nearly enough grasshoppers to make a difference, or that even if all those predictions are true, companies shouldn't be slowed down or stopped because in the end the system will resolve itself without the need for governmental interference, so such is merely a hindrance. I believe that some people do act like grasshoppers; that many grasshoppers can have a severe effect on the populace at large; that ants and grasshoppers aren't informed enough to be able to adequately guess just how many grasshoppers there can be at one time, so the life of the grasshopper is one that's taken by more people than can properly be handled for without some checking counter force; and that the system that people are so intent on worshiping is an idealized model that doesn't exist in the real world, so depending solely on it makes as much sense as depending on God to do everything for you without using what little knowledge you have to be constantly working to prevent the sort of great catastrophes that our imperfect, real-world model might produce. That last part very will might require the intervention of a great many people, possible through the action of force. One can only hope that that will not be done through the actions of a few, as the negative repercussions wouldn't adequate reflect back the negative aspects of their decisions to any sort of proper scale. So, that leaves a democracy (or possibly a representative democracy) to create a government to carry out such actions. Such is a necessary evil because merely relying on things to "work out in the end" is certainly a technically valid approach to life, but it's an approach based on faith and liable to result in the eventual extinction of the human species. I'm rather against the extinction of humans, at least at this point and time.
Murder is a crime regardless whether a business is involved. Bundling an OS with a PC is not a crime...
Actually, it seemingly is a crime in this case. Regardless, my point was that the law does have reason to interfere with what a company's "features" are in some circumstances. Your statement was overly broad and hence wasn't very truthful.
I'm arguing that businesses know their business best and are incented to make the most money for their shareholders. That's what they do and that's what we want them to do because when they compete with each other (which they are in this case) the consumers get the best product for the lowest cost.
That's only partially right. When businesses focus on competing with each other, the end result can very well be the best product for a specific market with a rather minimal cost. That's not always the case. Microsoft Windows is a great example. The desktop OS market place is a problem. While there is a single purpose that needs to be fit, the various products available are incompatible (Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X). Because of this, it's not possible for these products to directly compete against each other. Further, one company (Microsoft) has managed to effectively make themselves the de facto OS for PCs. Yet, such has actually caused an *increase* in the cost of Windows (not only is the NT line more expensive than the 9x line, but OEMs pay much more for XP (on the order of $70+/copy) than they did for Windows 95 (on the order of $8-$24/copy).
With software and much other technology, such a situation greatly voids your claim. Copyright only makes the situation worse. In the end, businesses will provide for what the consumer wants, not what the consumer needs. It's the fact that people are so lacking in information that there's been such extensive lock-in with Windows to make overcoming that lock-in a massive endeavor. Giving consumers a choice is at least one small step in that fight to create that competition you so enjoy.
Consumers know what they want and can bitch at businesses or take their money elsewhere... consumers vote with their wallets. There is competition in this market, PC manufacturers are aggressively pursuing customers, if their was a valid market her that would make a profit it would be served.
Again, you keep restating the same thing. Yes, the market already exists. But the market is so small because of a combination of monopolistic practices, which hinders that "competition" you state so much, and a real fact that people are too ill-informed to work against the lock-in that has formed.
What... OEMs creating illusions about not being able to buy a PC without an OS? What are you talking about? Apparently business that sell PCs without OSes need to do a better job advertising or consumers who REALLY want this OSless PC need to do a little bit more research. Why is it HP's job to educate consumers on all of the possible options out there?
Yes, OEMs create illusions about not being able to buy a PC without an OS. Again, the major OEMs will refuse to sell a desktop PC without an OS. Further, they are the major advertisers because they're the established brands. Yes, those few companies who offer more choices should advertise more. But it's a chicken and egg problem. Even if you gave people the choice, the vast majority of people would still choose Windows because the burden of switching is great and they'd hope that enough other people would switch to have a net beneficial effect on them. In short, people are in a hole the OEMs helped created by being "helpful" at the expense of being "informative".
The reason it's HP's job to educate consumers is because in the long term, it's in their own best interest. Who is the one who will have to eat the cost if Microsoft jacks up their rates for just them with Windows? HP has made itself dependent on Microsoft to exist
I'm saying that law shouldn't be about what features a company should provide.
So, there shouldn't be laws against contract killer companies? After all, it's only after they kill someone that a crime is committed.
Governments have less information about the product and real needs then the consumers or the business.
If that were the case, why is it the case that you were arguing that there were higher support costs because consumers didn't know what software they could or couldn't remove? It sounded like you were arguing that business knows best and that government cannot act in the interest of helping to inform the consumer by segregating those things that really *don't* need to be bundled so people are given an option.
If there really is a market where money can be made selling a stripped down PC then one will emerge.
There already exists "a market" such that you can buy PCs without an OS. However, the issue is more that most consumers are apparently unaware of the situation because most OEMs have created the illusion that one cannot buy a PC unless it includes Windows. They even go out of their way to deny you the option to buy one of their PCs without Windows. So, while a market exists outside of these OEMs, it's fundamentally OEMs where one can get a pre-built machine of a good value. I guess the real question is more why OEMs don't believe "the customer is always right".
The proper way to handle this is complain directly to HP, ask for the option, consider purchasing the hardware from another vendor, etc. not to take it to the courts to force a company to provide a product that they currently do not sell.
People have complained, repeatedly, to HP and other OEMs. Do you see HP selling computers without an OS? Yes, they can buy from another vendor. That really doesn't solve the problem that HP and other OEMs are basically lying to consumers, by repeatedly acting like buying a PC without an OS is no longer a product and can't do anything.
You seem to just dismiss support costs... support costs are huge... support issues are huge.
No, I didn't dismiss support costs. I pointed out that support costs, as you listed them, were a fact of consumer ignorance. Instead of working to resolve that consumer ignorance, you support a system in which companies do the thinking for consumers. That's fundamentally wrong, IMO.
If the costs of supporting an option outweigh the benefit for the business of offering the option they're most likely not going to offer the option (their shareholders will appreciate that type of focus).
Yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Law isn't there to enforce what already happens. It's there to provide a basis of punishment for those who do things that the government believes shouldn't be done. Some believe that furthering ignorance in a market is wrong, even if the alternative is not a maximal return on money for businesses. Some believe the same about dumping toxic waste into ground water.
I think a more accurate car analogy would be requiring car manufacturers to sell their cars without tires.
That's not a good analogy to the situation (and my analogy wasn't towards the current situation). The requirement isn't to sell all PCs without an OS. The requirement is to allow some to buy an OS (Windows or whatever they're offering) with their PC and to allow some to not buy an OS. Even then, your analogy fails. You can't move your car off the showroom floor without either tires or by carrying it at non-trivial expense. The lack of an OS in a computer has no effect on your ability to move it. A better analogy would involve the entire sound system being optional, which ironically enough is a common scenario in many car models.
Please let me pick and choose exactly which pieces of software I want to pay for... and when I make choices that make some of the PC's functionality unuseable (end user consumers would never do that to save a buck) and please pay for the extra support staff to handle all of these calls and complaints and then please pass that cost on to us.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. It sounds like you're saying that consumers are too stupid to make choices when it comes to software on a computer, so OEMs should be "smart" for their consumers, even for those consumers who *are* smart. It's very depressing that the lacking of the foundation of the free market, have adequate information, is the basis to argue that we should simply accept that OEMs should not be required to provide options or information to consumers to allow them to make an informed decision. Are you also a fan of locking the hood of cars with a special key that only the manufacturer possess, since obviously you're too stupid to know how to properly service a car? Would you at all understand that the fact that people *are* too ill-informed should be a basis for law to help better inform the consumer and give them more reasonable options instead of being babied by companies?
The practicality of the creation of such a device is irrelevant to the charges at hand.
That's a pretty ludicrous statement. Let's go over your evidence and why it's flawed.
The demonstration of means, even though such means may prove to be flawed,... and opportunity to commit a terrorist act
If I plan on beheading people with a rubber chicken, then I likely lack the means or opportunity to actually carry out that act. Simply put, while it would be potentially possible to behead people with a rubber chicken, to do so on an airplane would involve taking the whole plane hostage first and then further restraining a person long enough to somehow use the rubber chicken to carry out the act. Simply put, it approaches ludicrous to say beforehand that it can be demonstrated that the means and opportunity exists.
motive... to commit a terrorist act
What was their evidence of motive again? Their unhappiness with the illegal actions of the UK and US? Good thing all of the US doesn't have that motive. We better not even hint at a ludicrous means to assassinate anyone, then, because it might be taken as feasible
combined with the creation of martyrdom videos
Good thing the US doesn't recruit soldiers with martyrdom videos. Oh, I guess they sort of do. They do tend to sugar coat it and otherwise try to gloss over the risk of being a soldier. So, I guess that doesn't count? Now, if the martyrdom videos showed specific intent, you'd have a much stronger argument. But simply generating *any* martyrdom video covers..well..lots of movies and videos.
and possession of other terrorism manuals and associated materials
Freedom of speech surrenders. God forbid they have manuals that they might need in the future to combat an oppressive regime. One could easily conjecture that those manuals were so that they could fight the Pakistani government. But that's not okay, right? I guess we should effectively ban all army training manuals while we're at it, since clearly that's just for killing.
is enough by itself to merit charges and, judging from the evidence collected thus far, conviction of conspiracy to commit mass murder.
Maybe. The real trouble is that, afaik, there is no evidence that they had the liquid bombs nor plane tickets. As stated, several of them didn't even have the necessary passports. It's very difficult to show intent when the actual means don't exist. The other problem is that with conspiracies there is required to be an illegal act committed. Except for the fact that perhaps the "terrorist" training manuals are illegal, nothing they actually did was illegal. They didn't even get as far as an attempt.
It'd be like trying to arrest a person you *knew* had no gun, nor filled out the necessary paperwork to get a gun, whose friend threatened said person would use a gun to kill two people under conspiracy to commit mass murder. That's incredibly tenuous, no matter how many "gun videos" or hatred of those people said person had. Throwing "terrorist" and "airplane" into the equation doesn't really change things.
There is nothing in the law that prevents a parent or guardian from intentionally exposing their children to the naked human body.
"Contributing to the delinquency of a minor."
When schools and libraries allow children access to pornography, they seek to impose their (lack of) morals on our children, against our wishes.
Better watch out. In theory, a person could put up a pornographic poster in public space. Or two people could be kissing each other before being married. The real problem with your statements are that you're confusing two very different issues. In one case (public schools), the government is acting as de facto guardian. In that capacity, it does make sense to enforce the morality of the parent upon the child. But a library is *never* a de facto guardian. In fact, not all public libraries are state actors. Those that are are obligated to follow the 1st amendment, which inherently restricts their ability to impose morality on patrons.
There's no more reason for a library to block minors than a movie theater has reason to. Simply put, a child's parents should be the one imposing their morality on their children, not relying on non-guardians to do their job for them. The claim that since money is involved somehow means government becomes de facto guardian on everything tax payer money touches is ludicrous. The US is actually founded on a government specifically created that *can't* censor. The only real sad part is just how far government interference has been pushed upon private individuals even on their own private property; apparently "public view" is sufficient realm to dictate behavior.
The funny thing, btw, is that public schools do push the morality of blocking porn, even on those who aren't minors. The fact that not all public schools choose to use blocking software is more a testament to some believing they've developed a means to let teachers be guardians instead of letting some 3rd party software developer be guardian for them. I don't know about you, but I'd guess that a teacher is much more flexible to enforcing the individual moralities of the parents of the many students than a single piece of software. Of course, it's really the majority view of morality that gets enforced in public schools, but that's another bigger problem of public schools.
It should be pointed that the few attempts at LEGISLATION that would curtail free speech was sponsored by Democrats.
And how many LEGISLATIONS were sponsored, passed, and overturned as unconstitutional that tried for further broaden child pornography (to cartoons) and to make it infeasible to host pornography online (stricken down as unconstitutional and eventually reworked as only required by commercial sources, as the burden on non-commercial sources was too great). But I guess you don't consider those "speech". Or are you simply being overly selective to ignore that there are few (if any) political parties that don't have an element that have or want to pass legislation to curtail speech?
Next, people like to whine about the suspension of habeas corpus and about warrantless searches, like George Bush invented these things or in responsible for them.
People "whine" when you murder a person in cold blood. It has little to do with the person "inventing" murder. It does have a lot to do with being *responsible* for murder.
Suspension of habeas corpus for prisoners of war has been the standard for nearly 65 years in the United States.
Such is irrelevant. Slavery existed for over 70 years in the United States, yet it clearly was against the Constitution. The fact that there has been a long period of ignoring the Constitution doesn't magically make an act constitutional.
In fact, President Lincoln utilized it during wartime.
Lincoln didn't just utilize it during wartime. He utilized it in a time of rebellion/invasion. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Golly, it looks like Lincoln had a just basis for suspending it. Now, who has invaded the US? Who is rebellion in it? Before you claim that 9/11 is the act, I will make note that the Supreme Court overturned Lincoln's military tribunals conducted in areas were the courts were open. Now, tell me of a place in the US where the courts *aren't* open. If you can't think of one, it rather reasonably follows that there couldn't be a rebellion or invasion, so there's no justification for suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
Also, before moving forward on it, President Bush consulted congress, or as I like to call them elected representatives of the people, and had its full support, included the democrats.
It doesn't matter if every single Congressman unanimously voted that Bush was God. So long as the 4th Amendment stands, unreasonable search and seizure is barred. Any reasonable search needs a Warrant. Now, the least you could claim is that Congress gave Bush Warrants. But there are none. Simply put, the request to wiretap hundreds or thousands of phones because they were "associates" of terrorists for indeterminate time doesn't fulfill the obligation of the Warrant to conduct a search.
Meanwhile, there is a legal standard for searches without warrants.
An illegal standard, sure. If you spend 65 years believing the illegal is legal, it's little wonder you'd think the 4th Amendment being bypassable has any legal foundation.
Indeed, it's provided for in the U.S. Constitution, and the Bush administration followed the standard required by the court.
Oh, really? Feel free to quote me the part of the US Constitution that usurps the 4th Amendment. I'm really all ears on that one.
The claim being made is not just that A (CO2) causes B (increase in surface temp), but that changes in B are necessarily caused by changes in A. Logically, that can only be true if A is the sole cause of B.
Problem one is, the argument isn't A (CO2) causes B (increase in surface temp). Sufficient decreases in solar output can negate increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in a net decrease in surface temperature. Instead, the argument is that A' (increases in CO2 concentrations) causes B' (an increased retention of solar energy that touches the surface). Further, those things that would cause the temperature to increase (increased solar radiation, less cloud cover, etc) don't match the temperature increase. In fact, any temperature rise would be magnified by CO2 which is precisely why we can so clearly measure the effect of CO2 even when there is an increase in solar radiation from the sun.
Btw, there are other greenhouse gases than CO2, so A' causing B' doesn't mean a change in B' necessitates a change in A'. There could C' (an increase in methane concentrations) causing B'. Simply put, we've tried to come up with C's, D's, etc to explain things. And in the end, A' is the best fit.
Perhaps the grandparent wasn't clear enough, but what was being implied was not that it was difficult to create the database filesystem (BeOS had one). The problem is effectively providing an interface to those database entries to all programs. This is especially true given how files have for decades been self-contained. Trying to properly extract "good" information or, more probably, requiring the user to provide "good" information to fill in sufficiently what things are (images and music are good examples) is a pretty dramatic shift and unlikely to be met with grand user acceptance. And so long as users tend to fill in garbage information, they'll tend to get garbage information out, greatly reducing the usefulness of the feature. Leaving it to programmers to provide more of the information may not be best (and doesn't resolve all legacy applications).
Those are the real problems. And nothing about reiser4 solves them, though plugins (which IIRC, spotlight uses) can try to mitigate the problems.
The difference between SMTP and SMS/IM was not relevant to the case.
You're right. As it turns out, the definition of "electronic mail" used within Florida's law basically includes all types of communication.
Emails are as instantaneous as IM unless your on a crappy system.
Yes and no. There's at least four levels of "instantaneous" internet communication available. One is streaming. That is, it's entirely impossible to backspace on information as it truly is sent instantaneously (this would be telnet). The second is a system by which one is guaranteed that another user (or at least their computer) is on the other end and it is possible to send many small messages which collectively are treated as a unit (usually called a log) (this would be IM, IRC, etc). The third is a system by which one isn't necessarily guaranteed the other user is available and each message is treated as a unit, though those messages might very well be treated as a collective "thread" or "tree" (this covers forums (like slashdot), usenet, and email). The fourth is a system specifically designed for the case when one or both users reach some set state; ie, it's a system of escrow (this covers e-wills, which are decidedly rare).
The reason I list all this is because I want to make clear the many different levels, so to speak, of instantaneous communication. While there's many times an overlap or it's simply not clear just where in the spectrum something should exist (as it might contain at certain times some properties similar to many levels), I think it's a bit facetious to contend that email and IMs are the same thing. While the letter of Florida's law has made it clear that at least as far as it is concerned they're the same thing, this isn't remotely the case in any colloquial usage.
Put simply, it isn't out of the realm of the possible for everyone to carry around portable audio editors such that they could speak into it, edit it, and then finally play it when satisfied with others. And at that point, one would reasonably say that what would have been a slanderous remark is now libelous because arguing the protocol isn't likely sufficient to claim reprieve from the letter of the law. At the same time, if one uses written text as if it were speech, one moves closer and closer to what would be libelous text being treated as slanderous. In the end, the wording of the legislation should make it clear that whether it's the forethought that should be considered rather than using confusing words such as "mail" which are much more subjective than the abstract idea of "communication" which was actually meant. Thankfully, they spelled out what they meant with a definition. It's just very sad that reading legalize requires macro expansion on even the most trivial of cases and causes people to have to deeply consider such obtuse things as the protocol (or which definition out of which section to use) because it isn't written more plainly what was meant.
That MIGHT be reasonable... if Linux's marketshare was flat or declining.
But Linux has been seeing double digit growth for years now. Linux server sales are growing faster than Microsoft's server sales. Sure, Microsoft has a larger share of the market right now so it doesn't take as much for Linux to grow faster... but that doesn't matter.
Why would Novell want to "mitigate fear" that would hamper sales when sales are growing at a double digit rate?
I'd have to say you're a bit short-sighted. While Linux is gobbling up server sales at impressive speed, at some point there will be a near saturation point where there will be three main competitors: Linux, *BSDs, and Microsoft. Without some fundamental shift in the market, the relative numbers of those will probably be very similar for many years. Hence, it is in the best interest of Linux distributors to increase Linux penetration even further now. The main issue then is our difference of opinion on whether such a contract will hamper or help sales.
What company was the last company (not SCO) that sued end users for patent violations instead of or in addition to suing the company distributing the infringing product?
Forgent Networks has sued or threatened to sue the JPEG group and people who used their base software (such as Microsoft) for violation of their patent as used in the JPEG standard. They've managed to make on the order of $90 million in licensing fees, even if they never managed to successfully win a case.
Again, Linux sales are growing at double digit rates. There doesn't seem to be much "fear" out there.
There is fear. Whether or not there is significant fear is certainly up for debate, just as it's up for debate on whether the gains for removing at least some such fears is worth the legal conundrum that is the Novell deal. Novell has decided to make such a deal, and I think Microsoft must be happy to remove at least one major Linux player from instituting retribution for the whole SCO affair. In any case, I think it unreasonable to state their is no fear or that absolutely no companies chose to not buy Linux because of said fear.
The fact that SMS and IM are not called "email" is simply a marketing decision.
Two points. One, SMS/IM and email are fundamentally quite different because they function in a different capacity. Among other things, SMS/IM allow for you to know if the recepient is connected at a given moment, they allow for the real time transfer of information, and they're not designed to be edited and well thought-out before being sent. Simply put, there's a reason slander and libel are different words just like SMS/IM and email are. There's simply less weight given to an "off the cuff" remark than one which a person had conceivably several minutes to consider before transmitting.
Two, phones and snail mail have been around for a long time. They're reasonable good analogies for the difference in communication formats. If you saw a law that specifically mentioned snail mail, wouldn't you find it odd for it to be applied to phone calls? The simple fact is, the legislature should have never used the term "electronic mail" if they truly meant communication in real time as well. While they might not have been able to use the term "IM" because the term might not have existed at the time (though IRC was almost certainly around back then), there would be nothing to prevent them from describing their position broadly enough to cover what would be come to be known as IM. To interpret their not including such as a lack of foresight is really second guessing the intelligence of the legislature. Personally, I feel that's a frightening position. It's one thing to strike down a law because the legislature is clearly violate their Constitution. It's quite another when a judge expands beyond what the legislature ever wrote.
"The intended effect of this agreement was to give our joint customers peace of mind...."(emphasis mine)
The purpose wasn't to provide indemnity as much as to remove fears of being sued. It is, after all, the case that the fear of being sued is enough to keep some corporations from using software. Novell's intention was merely to mitigate fear to increase sales. The fact that it has the added bonus of potentially protecting their customers in the future if they happen to violate some patent Microsoft holds doesn't mean they're violating such now. While I might not agree with Novell's actions, I can understand their attempt to get their foot in the door by removing fears of Microsoft suddenly turning sue-friendly.
Downloading everything else is just flat-out wrong. Yes, even those derivative works*.
I still don't get the logic of this. The whole reason a derivative work is innately covered under the original work's copyright is because it's not original enough to be under its own copyright. Otherwise, it'd be a new creative work and the new author would *have* to be the true copyright holder, right? So, if I bought a copy of the original work, shouldn't I by extension have a right to a copy of the derivative work. It is, afterall, a song I feel I "already own in some other form".
So, it'd have to be the case that I can download those remixes because they're new works or I can only download remixes of songs I already have copies of.
Like I said, a lot of people dinged me for this, but you pretty much knew what I meant all along, didn't you?
Truthfully, yes I knew what you meant. The problem is, repeating the mantra that downloading songs without paying for them is bad without qualifying the statement completely ignores people like me who don't go out and listen to, for the most part, Billboard top 40 music (and when I do, it's invariable because it's on TV, radio, or being played by some public institution; ie, someone else is paying for it already). Simply put, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you or others want to make it.
You can't describe the majority position and resolve all legal disputes. The law is, after all, focused most on the corner cases as the law is designed to not interfere with what the majority of people do. If it did, people would feel like they lived in a police state, and there'd be efforts to change the law to resolve this. I'm one of those corner cases. It's the main reason why I responded.
Point one: We must balance interests. Yep, I like it.
We must balance interests. That's why when copyright holders kept further and further extending just what exactly copyright covered, fair use and first sale doctrine became codified in law. Things like the DMCA, however, have greatly pushed back the ability to exercise these rights. This doesn't even get into the fact that copyrighted works falling into the public domain has become something of distant memory. The problem with shouting for "balance" is that exactly what "balance" is varies greatly from person to person. Personally, I see the current situation as greatly out of balance leaning unfair benefit towards the copyright holders.
Point two: Downloading songs without paying for them is bad. I agree with that as well.
Let me give you three interesting examples that I'm personally involved in to see just how much you really hold this to be true.
Example one involves songs from a game. Specifically, over a year ago I bought a Gamecube game, "Tales of Symphonia". Despite criticism of its music, I rather like it as a whole. Now, online it's possible to download music from the game in mp3 format. Strictly speaking, I've paid for the music along with purchase of the game. So, would you say I've paid for it and it's okay? Or is paying for a song not sufficient to make downloading the song bad?
Example two involves other types of songs. This time it's creative works from ocremix.org. If you've never been there, Overclock Remix involves the remixing of songs. Specifically, it covers the creative reinterpretation of an existing work. Such could be very well taken to be a criticism of the original work. Or, it could be taken to be a derivative work. In either case, if I only download remixed songs for games I've bought, is it still bad to not pay ocremix? What if I don't own the game?
Example three involves music from mod archives. If you're not aware, mod music was samples played back at various keys to produce songs and came from the Amgia's sound system supporting 4-channel such music. While a few of those songs are simply remixes/replayings of an existing work, the vast majority are original creative works. Few cost money. So, is it bad to download those songs and listen to them?
Perhaps I'm a weird person to be interested in this music, but all three of these areas to me are more interesting music than the sort of "mainstream" music the RIAA labels tend to cover. It's interesting to me how much the RIAA and others will pain the discussion within that narrow box. But, there's billions of dollars at stake that the RIAA has nothing to do with. So, do you still think it's bad to download songs without paying for them?
Point three: There are fair use provisions in the copyright act that must be respected. How could I disagree?
The only place to disagree is that the fair use provisions in the copyright act are incredibly vague. Fair use is amazingly similar to the Miller test. When it comes down to it, judges are the ones who get to decide what is fair use and what is obscene. But, that's not *how* legislation is supposed to work. For all the grumbling about "legislating from the bench", fair use is specifically designed to force courts to do such.
Trying to read deeply enough into today's judges to get a consistent ruling is challenging enough without having to consider 30 years down the line, when all the works involved will almost certainly still be copyrighted. What use is a law where every judge can have their own interpretation and every interpretation in itself is equally valid? One then is left to merely look at the Supreme Court of the day and go by whatever they say. Considering how precious a compromise fair use was to even *allow* copyright in the first place, it'd seem that the fair use provisions would be spelled out more clearly and most generously to not be co
How does the occurance of that situation make the law useless? Really, it is those who ignored the law who made it useless.
Well, that's not quite right. Laws aren't made to prevent a situation. Laws are made to punish those who create a situation. The problem is, there is no direct punishment for Congress violating the Constitution. On the other hand, the fact that Congress *does* violate the Constitution should be an "alarm bell" to the populace to vote out the Congress. But without any threat of leaving Congress after violating the Constitution resulting in treason or other charges, the new batch of Congressmen will just further violate the Constitution.
The separation of powers was supposed to be an approach to limit the ability of Congress to violate the Constitution, but political parties arose as a means to consolidate power; ie, I'll ignore your abuse if you'll ignore mine. In the end, political parties are the strongest lobbyists of them all, being a means to funnel money to "like-minded" candidates to control Congress, the Presidency, and State offices. Seeing how in other countries a larger variety of parties just consolidate power in a different fashion, I don't know if there's truly a panacea to this problem.
Btw, I do agree generally with your intent. Laws against murders are something of a deterrent against murder, yet no rational person would believe they stop all murders. So, discarding murder laws because there are murders is irrational. It'd just be nice if there were some fashion to punish Congressmen after they leave office for their crimes. Perhaps many civil suits for violation of civil rights?
They don't care if you are gay, for example, they care if you are secretly gay and fear that being revealed because someone could use that on you.
And how many openly gay people have security clearance? Or is them knowing you're gay an excuse to assume that there is someone, somewhere that you'd be fearful to tell? It seems like the only people that you you need not worry will turn against you if pressured are those with absolutely nothing to lose. Since there's no one who really has nothing to lose*, you'll have to hire people with mental defects that think they have nothing to lose. So, the logic extreme is that only sociopaths should have security clearance.
*Even religious extremists believe they have their soul to lose, so they can't be ordered to do whatever you want them to do; other than that, they're pretty close to the ideal.
Slashdot Mirror
Reread what was said. There is no scientific basis for polygraphs *and* they're not admissible in court. The latter issue is important because when it comes time to actually, you know, justify a firing, pointing at a polygraph as a basis fails completely because it's not admissible. Ie, from just that standpoint it is fundamentally a waste of time.
No. More precisely, if you agree to something that's unscientific, acting as if it *is* scientific, then one seriously jeopardizes their claim of being a scientist. It doesn't mean it's impossible that you're a scientist; perhaps you're carrying out a study, as impartial as you can, to test the hypothesis that a polygraph is a valid test of what it claims to be a test of.
Now you're mixing up things. Religion isn't scientific. Religion is founded on a study or otherwise communion with the supernatural. The supernatural, by definition, is not a repeatable experimental space. So, one is not likely a scientist if they believe religion is scientific. But, one can continue to believe that one's religion is true. It's perfectly acceptable to believe that science might not be capable of explaining all phenomenon. The issue is when you start rejecting the phenomenon that science *can* explain or start rejecting the claims that can be refuted.
I mean, we can't at all be sure, at the minimal, that some of the axioms of science are true (especially those extremely long-term consistency assumptions). Science is both a model and a system. If you can develop a better model and system to explain more things or everything, feel free. But certainly there's nothing illogical about pointing out that one is doing such outside the model and system of science. It doesn't make your model incorrect. It most certainly makes it unscientific. Having said all that, polygraphs sure seem to not be correct.
The point of a democracy isn't to elect a good government. The point of a democracy is to let the majority choose their government and live with the consequences. The fundamental problem with all voting systems is that they (a) don't provide for fair governance of the minority (any sort of unanimous voting system allows any one person to hold the whole system hostage; even if a majority of people vote, there may be only a plurality that elects a leader (run-off voting in theory could help reduce this problem)) and (b) don't accord to the fact that not everyone wants to vote at the same time (I certainly didn't vote on when to hold elections) nor does everyone necessarily wish for an office to be filled by those who are running (if a majority of people aren't even voting, it could be said that the majority is voting in a lack of confidence of all candidates, so the majority is indirectly demanding the office be left vacant or the majority si indirectly demanding more competent candidates). If we wanted a "good" government, we'd vote not on candidates but on the qualities that make a good government and further prove which candidate best fits to provide that government.
I'd say it's a pretty giant leap to take berating the overengineering of a device to the point that no one will take full advantage of the hardware and implying it's more complex than a 360; was there even a discussion of how much the XBox 360 has been utilized? If anything, it's the Sony guy that implies the PS3 is more complex than the XBox 360. After all, I doubt it'll be a lack of want for computational power that'll stop developers from using the computational power available. The real limitations are time and complexity.
Ie, it is complex, but you think those in the field should already have the experience to mitigate that complexity to the point that it's relative complexity is moot. It sounds more than anything that you're trying to rationalize the fact that is complex. Or trying to argue that most programmers won't use its complexity, so it's somehow not right to call it complex. Or you're bitter that people mention the PS3's complexity without giving equal point to the XBox 360's complexity. Are you at all concerned they don't speak about the Wii, either?
So, you do agree that the PS3 *does* need that added complexity? So, could you mind not trying to argue that the lack of use of that complexity somehow diminishes the claim of its complexity? The PS3 might be one of the easiest to program of complex devices. That doesn't mean it isn't difficult to effectively utilize or that it's not complex. There's a lot more to complexity than merely difficulty of programming.
I still don't get your point. The PS3 *is* complex. The fact that most games will never take advantage of that complexity doesn't change the fact. As could be pointed out, very few games for the Sega Saturn used more than 50% of the available computing power. Considering they were competing against the PS1, that really didn't matter greatly (the Saturn's failings in hardware support for some 3D effects, as well as the higher console price were the real failings). It sounds like you're just against people "bad-mouthing" the PS3 when the XBox360 has similar issues. I'm sorry to tell you, but that doesn't really change the PS3's hurdles. And chiming in that many developers likely won't ever take advantage of that complexity only further bolsters the point that it greatly removes the point of ever adding it in the first place.
Most programs that multi-thread out parts of a program do it for scalability purposes. To actually tune a program for a specific piece of hardware to maximize performance (not just to have good scalability), especially when it effectively involves two different types of CPU cores, is complex, even if the API handles a lot of the timing issues. The XBox 360, btw, is complex as well for similar reasons. It's hard to optimize usage of multiple cores. The fact that such a situation is similar to other platforms or that heavy tweaking my not be "necessary" (yea, I'm sure people won't come to expect it..given you basically need a lot of that extra performance to render those HDTV screens beautifully), doesn't really change the fact that it's complex. People just like to bemoan PS3 over the XBox 360 because it's even *more* obtuse than the already complex XBox 360 design.
He said "book", not "copyrighted book". Further, his main point was that "fair use" becoming a widely available option to people, with the availability of digital content, was counteracted by the DMCA and DRM blocking the ability to legally (at least, questionably legally) exercise such "fair use".
Not exactly. Copyright came about precisely because it was so easy for publishers to print up "pirated" copies of works. In the American colonies, there were enough printing presses that a large share of the populace read daily newspapers. The fact that computers are now their own printing press certainly has greatly magnified that initial problem, but even today it's possible to track down the source of copyright infringement in many cases. The real problem is that there are so many infringers and that they don't have any direct commercial gain (even if it were merely the cost of the supplies to make the copies), that there's very little motivation to go after every last outfit that's mass copying works.
The DMCA is inherently evil because its vague wording could be taken to make computers illegal. More generally, it makes it illegal to use the key included with content or the hardware to use said content, except in a narrow scope of exceptions. Further, it is illegal to provide information to others the information to find or use said key, even if they use it only under the narrow scope of legal exceptions. Together, this greatly hinders the ability to speak and effectively cuts off the ability of a vast majority of people to fair use, as they are too computer illiterate to discover on their own the techniques necessary to exercise their rights, and it's not possible to directly teach them the information to take advantage of their rights.
From a practical standpoint, the DMCA isn't an effective way to protect the integrity of DRM as the same means that allows copyright infringement which DRM is meant to stop can be used to either (a) disseminate the cracked DRM-protected content or (b) disseminate the information to crack the DRM-protected content. From a legal standpoint, it provides further basis to punish copyright infringers as well as a stronger legal basis to shut down organizations that collaborate to break DRM schemes. From a technical standpoint, DRM is technologically flawed because it includes the key with the lock.
As stated, DRM is not an effective way to protect copyright. In reality, there's no means of protecting copyrighted works. From a legal perspective, DRM is superfluous, as copyright infringement is already illegal. However, also from a legal perspective, the DMCA provides a means of effectively banning all varieties of DRM-cracking technology so long as there exists as least one copyrighted work protected by said DRM scheme. As such, the DMCA provides a very effective legal blockade to greatly hinder the open operation of technology that would allow people to perform le
Ever heard of the story of the ant and the grasshopper? Ever consider that having a market saturated with grasshoppers can have devastating effects on people who can't find work because of the many companies that collapse under their own short-sightedness? I can only guess that you're of the belief that people don't really act like grasshoppers, the consequences of having so many grasshoppers isn't as severe as frequently stated, there aren't nearly enough grasshoppers to make a difference, or that even if all those predictions are true, companies shouldn't be slowed down or stopped because in the end the system will resolve itself without the need for governmental interference, so such is merely a hindrance. I believe that some people do act like grasshoppers; that many grasshoppers can have a severe effect on the populace at large; that ants and grasshoppers aren't informed enough to be able to adequately guess just how many grasshoppers there can be at one time, so the life of the grasshopper is one that's taken by more people than can properly be handled for without some checking counter force; and that the system that people are so intent on worshiping is an idealized model that doesn't exist in the real world, so depending solely on it makes as much sense as depending on God to do everything for you without using what little knowledge you have to be constantly working to prevent the sort of great catastrophes that our imperfect, real-world model might produce. That last part very will might require the intervention of a great many people, possible through the action of force. One can only hope that that will not be done through the actions of a few, as the negative repercussions wouldn't adequate reflect back the negative aspects of their decisions to any sort of proper scale. So, that leaves a democracy (or possibly a representative democracy) to create a government to carry out such actions. Such is a necessary evil because merely relying on things to "work out in the end" is certainly a technically valid approach to life, but it's an approach based on faith and liable to result in the eventual extinction of the human species. I'm rather against the extinction of humans, at least at this point and time.
Actually, it seemingly is a crime in this case. Regardless, my point was that the law does have reason to interfere with what a company's "features" are in some circumstances. Your statement was overly broad and hence wasn't very truthful.
That's only partially right. When businesses focus on competing with each other, the end result can very well be the best product for a specific market with a rather minimal cost. That's not always the case. Microsoft Windows is a great example. The desktop OS market place is a problem. While there is a single purpose that needs to be fit, the various products available are incompatible (Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X). Because of this, it's not possible for these products to directly compete against each other. Further, one company (Microsoft) has managed to effectively make themselves the de facto OS for PCs. Yet, such has actually caused an *increase* in the cost of Windows (not only is the NT line more expensive than the 9x line, but OEMs pay much more for XP (on the order of $70+/copy) than they did for Windows 95 (on the order of $8-$24/copy).
With software and much other technology, such a situation greatly voids your claim. Copyright only makes the situation worse. In the end, businesses will provide for what the consumer wants, not what the consumer needs. It's the fact that people are so lacking in information that there's been such extensive lock-in with Windows to make overcoming that lock-in a massive endeavor. Giving consumers a choice is at least one small step in that fight to create that competition you so enjoy.
Again, you keep restating the same thing. Yes, the market already exists. But the market is so small because of a combination of monopolistic practices, which hinders that "competition" you state so much, and a real fact that people are too ill-informed to work against the lock-in that has formed.
Yes, OEMs create illusions about not being able to buy a PC without an OS. Again, the major OEMs will refuse to sell a desktop PC without an OS. Further, they are the major advertisers because they're the established brands. Yes, those few companies who offer more choices should advertise more. But it's a chicken and egg problem. Even if you gave people the choice, the vast majority of people would still choose Windows because the burden of switching is great and they'd hope that enough other people would switch to have a net beneficial effect on them. In short, people are in a hole the OEMs helped created by being "helpful" at the expense of being "informative".
The reason it's HP's job to educate consumers is because in the long term, it's in their own best interest. Who is the one who will have to eat the cost if Microsoft jacks up their rates for just them with Windows? HP has made itself dependent on Microsoft to exist
So, there shouldn't be laws against contract killer companies? After all, it's only after they kill someone that a crime is committed.
If that were the case, why is it the case that you were arguing that there were higher support costs because consumers didn't know what software they could or couldn't remove? It sounded like you were arguing that business knows best and that government cannot act in the interest of helping to inform the consumer by segregating those things that really *don't* need to be bundled so people are given an option.
There already exists "a market" such that you can buy PCs without an OS. However, the issue is more that most consumers are apparently unaware of the situation because most OEMs have created the illusion that one cannot buy a PC unless it includes Windows. They even go out of their way to deny you the option to buy one of their PCs without Windows. So, while a market exists outside of these OEMs, it's fundamentally OEMs where one can get a pre-built machine of a good value. I guess the real question is more why OEMs don't believe "the customer is always right".
People have complained, repeatedly, to HP and other OEMs. Do you see HP selling computers without an OS? Yes, they can buy from another vendor. That really doesn't solve the problem that HP and other OEMs are basically lying to consumers, by repeatedly acting like buying a PC without an OS is no longer a product and can't do anything.
No, I didn't dismiss support costs. I pointed out that support costs, as you listed them, were a fact of consumer ignorance. Instead of working to resolve that consumer ignorance, you support a system in which companies do the thinking for consumers. That's fundamentally wrong, IMO.
Yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Law isn't there to enforce what already happens. It's there to provide a basis of punishment for those who do things that the government believes shouldn't be done. Some believe that furthering ignorance in a market is wrong, even if the alternative is not a maximal return on money for businesses. Some believe the same about dumping toxic waste into ground water.
That's not a good analogy to the situation (and my analogy wasn't towards the current situation). The requirement isn't to sell all PCs without an OS. The requirement is to allow some to buy an OS (Windows or whatever they're offering) with their PC and to allow some to not buy an OS. Even then, your analogy fails. You can't move your car off the showroom floor without either tires or by carrying it at non-trivial expense. The lack of an OS in a computer has no effect on your ability to move it. A better analogy would involve the entire sound system being optional, which ironically enough is a common scenario in many car models.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. It sounds like you're saying that consumers are too stupid to make choices when it comes to software on a computer, so OEMs should be "smart" for their consumers, even for those consumers who *are* smart. It's very depressing that the lacking of the foundation of the free market, have adequate information, is the basis to argue that we should simply accept that OEMs should not be required to provide options or information to consumers to allow them to make an informed decision. Are you also a fan of locking the hood of cars with a special key that only the manufacturer possess, since obviously you're too stupid to know how to properly service a car? Would you at all understand that the fact that people *are* too ill-informed should be a basis for law to help better inform the consumer and give them more reasonable options instead of being babied by companies?
That's a pretty ludicrous statement. Let's go over your evidence and why it's flawed.
If I plan on beheading people with a rubber chicken, then I likely lack the means or opportunity to actually carry out that act. Simply put, while it would be potentially possible to behead people with a rubber chicken, to do so on an airplane would involve taking the whole plane hostage first and then further restraining a person long enough to somehow use the rubber chicken to carry out the act. Simply put, it approaches ludicrous to say beforehand that it can be demonstrated that the means and opportunity exists.
What was their evidence of motive again? Their unhappiness with the illegal actions of the UK and US? Good thing all of the US doesn't have that motive. We better not even hint at a ludicrous means to assassinate anyone, then, because it might be taken as feasible
Good thing the US doesn't recruit soldiers with martyrdom videos. Oh, I guess they sort of do. They do tend to sugar coat it and otherwise try to gloss over the risk of being a soldier. So, I guess that doesn't count? Now, if the martyrdom videos showed specific intent, you'd have a much stronger argument. But simply generating *any* martyrdom video covers..well..lots of movies and videos.
Freedom of speech surrenders. God forbid they have manuals that they might need in the future to combat an oppressive regime. One could easily conjecture that those manuals were so that they could fight the Pakistani government. But that's not okay, right? I guess we should effectively ban all army training manuals while we're at it, since clearly that's just for killing.
Maybe. The real trouble is that, afaik, there is no evidence that they had the liquid bombs nor plane tickets. As stated, several of them didn't even have the necessary passports. It's very difficult to show intent when the actual means don't exist. The other problem is that with conspiracies there is required to be an illegal act committed. Except for the fact that perhaps the "terrorist" training manuals are illegal, nothing they actually did was illegal. They didn't even get as far as an attempt.
It'd be like trying to arrest a person you *knew* had no gun, nor filled out the necessary paperwork to get a gun, whose friend threatened said person would use a gun to kill two people under conspiracy to commit mass murder. That's incredibly tenuous, no matter how many "gun videos" or hatred of those people said person had. Throwing "terrorist" and "airplane" into the equation doesn't really change things.
"Contributing to the delinquency of a minor."
Better watch out. In theory, a person could put up a pornographic poster in public space. Or two people could be kissing each other before being married. The real problem with your statements are that you're confusing two very different issues. In one case (public schools), the government is acting as de facto guardian. In that capacity, it does make sense to enforce the morality of the parent upon the child. But a library is *never* a de facto guardian. In fact, not all public libraries are state actors. Those that are are obligated to follow the 1st amendment, which inherently restricts their ability to impose morality on patrons.
There's no more reason for a library to block minors than a movie theater has reason to. Simply put, a child's parents should be the one imposing their morality on their children, not relying on non-guardians to do their job for them. The claim that since money is involved somehow means government becomes de facto guardian on everything tax payer money touches is ludicrous. The US is actually founded on a government specifically created that *can't* censor. The only real sad part is just how far government interference has been pushed upon private individuals even on their own private property; apparently "public view" is sufficient realm to dictate behavior.
The funny thing, btw, is that public schools do push the morality of blocking porn, even on those who aren't minors. The fact that not all public schools choose to use blocking software is more a testament to some believing they've developed a means to let teachers be guardians instead of letting some 3rd party software developer be guardian for them. I don't know about you, but I'd guess that a teacher is much more flexible to enforcing the individual moralities of the parents of the many students than a single piece of software. Of course, it's really the majority view of morality that gets enforced in public schools, but that's another bigger problem of public schools.
And how many LEGISLATIONS were sponsored, passed, and overturned as unconstitutional that tried for further broaden child pornography (to cartoons) and to make it infeasible to host pornography online (stricken down as unconstitutional and eventually reworked as only required by commercial sources, as the burden on non-commercial sources was too great). But I guess you don't consider those "speech". Or are you simply being overly selective to ignore that there are few (if any) political parties that don't have an element that have or want to pass legislation to curtail speech?
People "whine" when you murder a person in cold blood. It has little to do with the person "inventing" murder. It does have a lot to do with being *responsible* for murder.
Such is irrelevant. Slavery existed for over 70 years in the United States, yet it clearly was against the Constitution. The fact that there has been a long period of ignoring the Constitution doesn't magically make an act constitutional.
Lincoln didn't just utilize it during wartime. He utilized it in a time of rebellion/invasion. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Golly, it looks like Lincoln had a just basis for suspending it. Now, who has invaded the US? Who is rebellion in it? Before you claim that 9/11 is the act, I will make note that the Supreme Court overturned Lincoln's military tribunals conducted in areas were the courts were open. Now, tell me of a place in the US where the courts *aren't* open. If you can't think of one, it rather reasonably follows that there couldn't be a rebellion or invasion, so there's no justification for suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
It doesn't matter if every single Congressman unanimously voted that Bush was God. So long as the 4th Amendment stands, unreasonable search and seizure is barred. Any reasonable search needs a Warrant. Now, the least you could claim is that Congress gave Bush Warrants. But there are none. Simply put, the request to wiretap hundreds or thousands of phones because they were "associates" of terrorists for indeterminate time doesn't fulfill the obligation of the Warrant to conduct a search.
An illegal standard, sure. If you spend 65 years believing the illegal is legal, it's little wonder you'd think the 4th Amendment being bypassable has any legal foundation.
Oh, really? Feel free to quote me the part of the US Constitution that usurps the 4th Amendment. I'm really all ears on that one.
Problem one is, the argument isn't A (CO2) causes B (increase in surface temp). Sufficient decreases in solar output can negate increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in a net decrease in surface temperature. Instead, the argument is that A' (increases in CO2 concentrations) causes B' (an increased retention of solar energy that touches the surface). Further, those things that would cause the temperature to increase (increased solar radiation, less cloud cover, etc) don't match the temperature increase. In fact, any temperature rise would be magnified by CO2 which is precisely why we can so clearly measure the effect of CO2 even when there is an increase in solar radiation from the sun.
Btw, there are other greenhouse gases than CO2, so A' causing B' doesn't mean a change in B' necessitates a change in A'. There could C' (an increase in methane concentrations) causing B'. Simply put, we've tried to come up with C's, D's, etc to explain things. And in the end, A' is the best fit.
Perhaps the grandparent wasn't clear enough, but what was being implied was not that it was difficult to create the database filesystem (BeOS had one). The problem is effectively providing an interface to those database entries to all programs. This is especially true given how files have for decades been self-contained. Trying to properly extract "good" information or, more probably, requiring the user to provide "good" information to fill in sufficiently what things are (images and music are good examples) is a pretty dramatic shift and unlikely to be met with grand user acceptance. And so long as users tend to fill in garbage information, they'll tend to get garbage information out, greatly reducing the usefulness of the feature. Leaving it to programmers to provide more of the information may not be best (and doesn't resolve all legacy applications).
Those are the real problems. And nothing about reiser4 solves them, though plugins (which IIRC, spotlight uses) can try to mitigate the problems.
You're right. As it turns out, the definition of "electronic mail" used within Florida's law basically includes all types of communication.
Yes and no. There's at least four levels of "instantaneous" internet communication available. One is streaming. That is, it's entirely impossible to backspace on information as it truly is sent instantaneously (this would be telnet). The second is a system by which one is guaranteed that another user (or at least their computer) is on the other end and it is possible to send many small messages which collectively are treated as a unit (usually called a log) (this would be IM, IRC, etc). The third is a system by which one isn't necessarily guaranteed the other user is available and each message is treated as a unit, though those messages might very well be treated as a collective "thread" or "tree" (this covers forums (like slashdot), usenet, and email). The fourth is a system specifically designed for the case when one or both users reach some set state; ie, it's a system of escrow (this covers e-wills, which are decidedly rare).
The reason I list all this is because I want to make clear the many different levels, so to speak, of instantaneous communication. While there's many times an overlap or it's simply not clear just where in the spectrum something should exist (as it might contain at certain times some properties similar to many levels), I think it's a bit facetious to contend that email and IMs are the same thing. While the letter of Florida's law has made it clear that at least as far as it is concerned they're the same thing, this isn't remotely the case in any colloquial usage.
Put simply, it isn't out of the realm of the possible for everyone to carry around portable audio editors such that they could speak into it, edit it, and then finally play it when satisfied with others. And at that point, one would reasonably say that what would have been a slanderous remark is now libelous because arguing the protocol isn't likely sufficient to claim reprieve from the letter of the law. At the same time, if one uses written text as if it were speech, one moves closer and closer to what would be libelous text being treated as slanderous. In the end, the wording of the legislation should make it clear that whether it's the forethought that should be considered rather than using confusing words such as "mail" which are much more subjective than the abstract idea of "communication" which was actually meant. Thankfully, they spelled out what they meant with a definition. It's just very sad that reading legalize requires macro expansion on even the most trivial of cases and causes people to have to deeply consider such obtuse things as the protocol (or which definition out of which section to use) because it isn't written more plainly what was meant.
I'd have to say you're a bit short-sighted. While Linux is gobbling up server sales at impressive speed, at some point there will be a near saturation point where there will be three main competitors: Linux, *BSDs, and Microsoft. Without some fundamental shift in the market, the relative numbers of those will probably be very similar for many years. Hence, it is in the best interest of Linux distributors to increase Linux penetration even further now. The main issue then is our difference of opinion on whether such a contract will hamper or help sales.
Forgent Networks has sued or threatened to sue the JPEG group and people who used their base software (such as Microsoft) for violation of their patent as used in the JPEG standard. They've managed to make on the order of $90 million in licensing fees, even if they never managed to successfully win a case.
There is fear. Whether or not there is significant fear is certainly up for debate, just as it's up for debate on whether the gains for removing at least some such fears is worth the legal conundrum that is the Novell deal. Novell has decided to make such a deal, and I think Microsoft must be happy to remove at least one major Linux player from instituting retribution for the whole SCO affair. In any case, I think it unreasonable to state their is no fear or that absolutely no companies chose to not buy Linux because of said fear.
Two points. One, SMS/IM and email are fundamentally quite different because they function in a different capacity. Among other things, SMS/IM allow for you to know if the recepient is connected at a given moment, they allow for the real time transfer of information, and they're not designed to be edited and well thought-out before being sent. Simply put, there's a reason slander and libel are different words just like SMS/IM and email are. There's simply less weight given to an "off the cuff" remark than one which a person had conceivably several minutes to consider before transmitting.
Two, phones and snail mail have been around for a long time. They're reasonable good analogies for the difference in communication formats. If you saw a law that specifically mentioned snail mail, wouldn't you find it odd for it to be applied to phone calls? The simple fact is, the legislature should have never used the term "electronic mail" if they truly meant communication in real time as well. While they might not have been able to use the term "IM" because the term might not have existed at the time (though IRC was almost certainly around back then), there would be nothing to prevent them from describing their position broadly enough to cover what would be come to be known as IM. To interpret their not including such as a lack of foresight is really second guessing the intelligence of the legislature. Personally, I feel that's a frightening position. It's one thing to strike down a law because the legislature is clearly violate their Constitution. It's quite another when a judge expands beyond what the legislature ever wrote.
The purpose wasn't to provide indemnity as much as to remove fears of being sued. It is, after all, the case that the fear of being sued is enough to keep some corporations from using software. Novell's intention was merely to mitigate fear to increase sales. The fact that it has the added bonus of potentially protecting their customers in the future if they happen to violate some patent Microsoft holds doesn't mean they're violating such now. While I might not agree with Novell's actions, I can understand their attempt to get their foot in the door by removing fears of Microsoft suddenly turning sue-friendly.
I still don't get the logic of this. The whole reason a derivative work is innately covered under the original work's copyright is because it's not original enough to be under its own copyright. Otherwise, it'd be a new creative work and the new author would *have* to be the true copyright holder, right? So, if I bought a copy of the original work, shouldn't I by extension have a right to a copy of the derivative work. It is, afterall, a song I feel I "already own in some other form".
So, it'd have to be the case that I can download those remixes because they're new works or I can only download remixes of songs I already have copies of.
Truthfully, yes I knew what you meant. The problem is, repeating the mantra that downloading songs without paying for them is bad without qualifying the statement completely ignores people like me who don't go out and listen to, for the most part, Billboard top 40 music (and when I do, it's invariable because it's on TV, radio, or being played by some public institution; ie, someone else is paying for it already). Simply put, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you or others want to make it.
You can't describe the majority position and resolve all legal disputes. The law is, after all, focused most on the corner cases as the law is designed to not interfere with what the majority of people do. If it did, people would feel like they lived in a police state, and there'd be efforts to change the law to resolve this. I'm one of those corner cases. It's the main reason why I responded.
We must balance interests. That's why when copyright holders kept further and further extending just what exactly copyright covered, fair use and first sale doctrine became codified in law. Things like the DMCA, however, have greatly pushed back the ability to exercise these rights. This doesn't even get into the fact that copyrighted works falling into the public domain has become something of distant memory. The problem with shouting for "balance" is that exactly what "balance" is varies greatly from person to person. Personally, I see the current situation as greatly out of balance leaning unfair benefit towards the copyright holders.
Let me give you three interesting examples that I'm personally involved in to see just how much you really hold this to be true.
Example one involves songs from a game. Specifically, over a year ago I bought a Gamecube game, "Tales of Symphonia". Despite criticism of its music, I rather like it as a whole. Now, online it's possible to download music from the game in mp3 format. Strictly speaking, I've paid for the music along with purchase of the game. So, would you say I've paid for it and it's okay? Or is paying for a song not sufficient to make downloading the song bad?
Example two involves other types of songs. This time it's creative works from ocremix.org. If you've never been there, Overclock Remix involves the remixing of songs. Specifically, it covers the creative reinterpretation of an existing work. Such could be very well taken to be a criticism of the original work. Or, it could be taken to be a derivative work. In either case, if I only download remixed songs for games I've bought, is it still bad to not pay ocremix? What if I don't own the game?
Example three involves music from mod archives. If you're not aware, mod music was samples played back at various keys to produce songs and came from the Amgia's sound system supporting 4-channel such music. While a few of those songs are simply remixes/replayings of an existing work, the vast majority are original creative works. Few cost money. So, is it bad to download those songs and listen to them?
Perhaps I'm a weird person to be interested in this music, but all three of these areas to me are more interesting music than the sort of "mainstream" music the RIAA labels tend to cover. It's interesting to me how much the RIAA and others will pain the discussion within that narrow box. But, there's billions of dollars at stake that the RIAA has nothing to do with. So, do you still think it's bad to download songs without paying for them?
The only place to disagree is that the fair use provisions in the copyright act are incredibly vague. Fair use is amazingly similar to the Miller test. When it comes down to it, judges are the ones who get to decide what is fair use and what is obscene. But, that's not *how* legislation is supposed to work. For all the grumbling about "legislating from the bench", fair use is specifically designed to force courts to do such.
Trying to read deeply enough into today's judges to get a consistent ruling is challenging enough without having to consider 30 years down the line, when all the works involved will almost certainly still be copyrighted. What use is a law where every judge can have their own interpretation and every interpretation in itself is equally valid? One then is left to merely look at the Supreme Court of the day and go by whatever they say. Considering how precious a compromise fair use was to even *allow* copyright in the first place, it'd seem that the fair use provisions would be spelled out more clearly and most generously to not be co
Well, that's not quite right. Laws aren't made to prevent a situation. Laws are made to punish those who create a situation. The problem is, there is no direct punishment for Congress violating the Constitution. On the other hand, the fact that Congress *does* violate the Constitution should be an "alarm bell" to the populace to vote out the Congress. But without any threat of leaving Congress after violating the Constitution resulting in treason or other charges, the new batch of Congressmen will just further violate the Constitution.
The separation of powers was supposed to be an approach to limit the ability of Congress to violate the Constitution, but political parties arose as a means to consolidate power; ie, I'll ignore your abuse if you'll ignore mine. In the end, political parties are the strongest lobbyists of them all, being a means to funnel money to "like-minded" candidates to control Congress, the Presidency, and State offices. Seeing how in other countries a larger variety of parties just consolidate power in a different fashion, I don't know if there's truly a panacea to this problem.
Btw, I do agree generally with your intent. Laws against murders are something of a deterrent against murder, yet no rational person would believe they stop all murders. So, discarding murder laws because there are murders is irrational. It'd just be nice if there were some fashion to punish Congressmen after they leave office for their crimes. Perhaps many civil suits for violation of civil rights?
So...who are we going to sign the peace treaty with when it's over?
You do realize pointing at a webpage the predicts the future as a reference of past Democrat screw-ups is more a troll than anything, right?
And how many openly gay people have security clearance? Or is them knowing you're gay an excuse to assume that there is someone, somewhere that you'd be fearful to tell? It seems like the only people that you you need not worry will turn against you if pressured are those with absolutely nothing to lose. Since there's no one who really has nothing to lose*, you'll have to hire people with mental defects that think they have nothing to lose. So, the logic extreme is that only sociopaths should have security clearance.
*Even religious extremists believe they have their soul to lose, so they can't be ordered to do whatever you want them to do; other than that, they're pretty close to the ideal.