I don't get it. I routinely use Google as the first place to look for recipes when I want to cook something, and it's always been the last place, since I've never been disappointed.
Why do people insist on looking for tools they already have in their hand?
My Volvo, a 740 station wagon from 1991, is *extremely* simple and extremely shadetree-mechanic friendly. I put it in the same category as VW on this count. Or, 1950's - 60's American cars.
I have, single handedly and without many tools:
Changed (upgraded) the front and rear suspension, steering rods, and brakes.
Installed aftermarket torsion bars.
Changed the wheel geometry.
Installed an exhaust header and modified throttle body.
Upgraded the cooling system.
Changed the timing belt.
Now, granted, I'm something of an amateur mechanic with a good toolbox, but I didn't need anything special to do this stuff. There is NOTHING on this car that's at all mysterious. Even the electronics for the fuel injection aren't that strange. You open the hood, and it's *sparse* in there. There's no question what wires go where, what hoses are what, etc. And there's room to move around.
What's my point? *ALL* Volvos share this design. If they mess up the design, they'll only mess it up for the US market. Canadian and European models won't get that treatment, nor will any car destined for Israel. (When you pay a 100% tax on a car, you expect to be able to maintain it forever.)
People assume that just because a DVD is encrypted, that the only possible relationship is "producer - consumer."
My problem is, that if there is an automatic suspicion and presumption of guilt, my rights as both a producer and a consumer have been violated. When someone accused the XCopy people, *MY* rights were violated all across the board, even though I was not a party to the case.
The end result is, it's that much harder for an amateur or semi-pro to produce the equivalent output as a pro.
In your case, it's adversely affected your ability to do business.
I think we should take the "defective product" tack. I can't make fair use of this product because it has such a defect: It would make me a dangerous criminal in the eyes of the state were I to use the product.
"Pump and Dump" is vernacular language for something that people seem to think is illegal, or wish was illegal, but it's not illegal. The SCO folks have probably kept their toes ever so slightly on the "legal" side of the line.
They have followed a bold, irresponsible course, they have made many public statements that are plainly false -- but they have also stopped short of securities fraud or perjury.
Maybe they'll mess up and cross that line, but they haven't yet.
In the mean time, you should have been investing in SCO, and making some money off this fiasco. There won't be much warning when it's time to head for the hills, but there will be some. So far, if you'd followed the analysts' advice on SCO, you'd have made money.
There really hasn't been anything for the SEC to be interested in. What crimes do you suggest they have committed, exactly? Until the various court cases are decided, it's all still based on open questions.
The Australian letters are a bit of a counter example. They may have broken Australian laws. I'm sure that has them scared in Utah.
So I can't use CSS on my products? Why not? Why are other producers allowed to use dvd encryption and I am not? Now we're getting into 14th amendment territory as well.
Don't tell me it's okay for someone to abridge my rights just because you don't think "I need that".
I don't personally care about the DVD X-Copy folks, but I do care deeply about the implications when it's been alleged that their product which has other, plainly legal uses, has been deemed wholly illegal.
The more the big media companies control the means of production, the harder it becomes for independent producers.
I still don't understand how anyone can allege criminal intent: My church produces a DVD of original music and stage acts. I copy the DVD using DVD X-Copy. Not only is there no criminal intent, but the mere allegation of criminal intent actually treads on my rights to freedom of speech, and it could infringe on my relgious practice. It's getting close to claiming a hold on my copyrights, or even the public domain.
For the record, I think the US should have gotten out of Vietnam the day they hit Diem; I'm quite happy that Lyndon Johnson is dead, and I'll be happy when Robert McNamara joins him in hell.
I don't think Jane's a hero, but I wish the pro-war folks could come up with something better.
> George Dubya and John Ashcroft should read this.
Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.
"Beyond that, I certainly hope you don't think that making mild-altering illegal actually improves society. You need something to keep the down-trodden in their place.;-)"
Not at all! I'm a marijuana legalization advocate, and I believe that alcohol prohibition would be the fastest catalyst toward that end. A ban on tobacco might do it as well. But banning alcohol in the US would pretty much trigger a full revolution. (They know it of course).
>A great example of this is driver licensing. In >Ohio, they were invented in 1935. The idea that >driving was a "right" was obvious--after all, prior > to 1935, you just put your butt in a car and >drove.
Fair enough.
But the reason the status quo exists is because we the people, on the whole, are adamantly, actively, in support of it. Pretty much any dissent at all is on the fringe, and is conspicuous by its absence.
Essentially, we like it this way. We continually affirm that to our leaders by our quiet enjoyment. (Apathy looks like support, for all intents and purposes!)
Every day that goes by without an uprising or coup d'etat, and every day that goes by without an entire industry folding due to a demonstration of labor solidarity, and every day that the military obeys the orders from its chain of command, is another day under the status quo.
Things are just too damned comfortable in the US for anything else.
It didn't work THEN, because the idea of making a prison industry with a profit motivation, and the idea of expanding the police forces beyond the size and scope that was seen in the 1930s, didn't seem like a realistic alternative. Today, we have actually implemented the systems that were thought to be utterly impossible in the 1930s. Also, the government at the time was so weak that organized crime stood a real chance of overtaking control. Today, we'd respond to that as terrorism or insurrection.
If your reasoning is that a schedule-I classification for alcohol is impossible because of the experiences of the 1930s, you might want to consider that a lot of things have changed since then, particularly in the area of law enforcement and the capacity of the penal system.
>How is "heard you guys have been fighting" >corruption?
It's not. Use of force before making an accusation is. I'm sure at the root of this story there's alcohol use. Sometimes I wish they'd ban that like they banned marijuana. Then at least there'd be a level playing field...
>when you are detained by a peace officer, you are >under "custodial arrest", meaning you can't leave, >but you are not under arrest either.
Do I have the right to remain silent, or don't I?
Do I have the right to consult an attorney before answering any questions, or don't I?
Do I have the right to keep any papers or belongings being inspected or taken away from me, without a duly executed warrant that specifies the items to be searched or taken from me, or don't I?
I get the impression that you would tell me I don't have these rights.
I don't draw a distinction between this corruption, and the supposed "real corruption" that you allude to. It's all the same, the camel's nose under the tent.
If the police officer had a reason to detain or investigate the person in the story, that's an entirely separate matter from the question at hand. Was it the guy's responsibility to provide evidence against himself to the police? This starts with demanding papers. It didn't help or hurt the police investigation that the man chose not to surrender his papers. What will hurt, however, is the blatant violation of the rights of the accused, which appears to have begun well before he was actually accused of any crime at all.
Suspects are presumed innocent. If probable cause exists to make an investigation, then the police should investigate. But the suspect is not required to provide whatever evidence the police would like to have. On the contrary, he is explicitly protected from being required to do so, it's one of the fundamental laws of the land, one of the most important rights afforded to Americans. It's one of the primary things that defines us as a free nation, and citizens who enjoy liberty.
If you disagree, that's your right, but don't tread on mine just because you'd throw yours away.
"Haven't travelled by commercial airliner recently have you?"
Unfortunately you are correct. There's a gray area between rights and privileges. The people who interrogate you at the airport are not police, do not have police powers, and pretty much are not able to do anything except decide whether to let you enter the private property which is the terminal or the aircraft. They can also notify the police if they suspect you of a crime, which is not any sort of exclusive privilege that they have, and you do not.
Yes, the whole system is that way because federal agencies require it. The theory is, those federal agencies have created regulations under public review and scrutiny, and that the people who make decisions in those agencies are in their position of authority because they were appointed by people you elected. And yes, the people at the airport terminal happen to have a real quick way to get the attention of the police, who happen to be on site. But you are NOT passing a checkpoint that is actually operated by a police agency. Not yet anyway.
Government operates with the consent of the governed. By not voting, you voice your consent...
"I think this is ridiculous, since this would imply that you must carry ID at all times just in case."
That's why the Supreme Court will have trouble deciding against this guy's appeal. There isn't a national ID card that they can require, and they, being a Federal court, cannot make a requirement that all citizens of the several states must carry a certain ID, because there isn't one that they can specify in their jurisdiction. They can't order the States to require an id card. They can't create a national id card because that would require an act of Congress.
The question is about whether a State has the authority to require a State ID to be given on demand. The State DOES have that authority, because it isn't expressly forbidden by Federal law. As it should be. Lesson learned: Choose your Local and State government wisely. Be part of the process that puts the local guys in power. Local politicians become national politicians. It's a hell of a lot easier to reach them before they grow up!
IANAL, and I'm especially not a Supreme Court justice on a republican-appointed court.
He HAS a good reason. The BEST reason. He is defending his (and your, and my) rights. Defense of your rights and fundamental freedoms is the ONLY thing worth killing or dying for.
Everything else is trivial.
One of the few things that distinguishes America as a free country is the absense of checkpoints and "papers please" where your very existence is presumed to be a crime until YOU demonstrate that you have a right to exist and that you are free to go.
Some of the latest news in the RedHat case, is that Lehman Brothers came forward with an extortion letter which accuses them of copyright infringement.
Now, if you'll notice the regular press, they pretty much publish SCO's press releases verbatim, and rarely is any mention made of the controversy surrounding their status.
If you look at the financial press, you will see NOTHING about the controversy.
RedHat and IBM are just tech stocks. Nothing there is going to get much attention from the press. I mean, it *is* IBM, but it's still just a tech stock to them, and the whole controversy is a mess. Maybe it's obvious to you and me and PJ, but, to them it's all speculation and rumor.
The fact is, the stock has been climbing. So when the analysts said "strong buy", they were right. The lawsuits don't matter. The fact that they are going down in flames, perhaps even with the execs going to prison, doesn't matter until it happens. Right now it looks like we all should have been buying the stock when they said "buy" (and probably selling off about now!)
But now, SCO has thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of Lehman Brothers. I think that is an even worse choice of adversary than IBM! Lehman Brothers, a financial house. The sort of place that will have SEC auditors on full-time staff, and Secret Service agents for security. NOW the financial press will be forced to pull their head out of the sand, or wherever it's stuck, and report that there might just be a problem here.
Because Lehman Brothers isn't just a tech stock. This isn't something the financial trades can ignore, pretending the issues are too technical or whatever excuse they have, because it's getting on THEIR turf. Also, the brokerage house has the sort of connections that should easily start the press machine reporting on their side of the story.
Threatening Lehman is absolutely the wackiest thing Darl &Co. have done to date. Even dumber than filing a lawsuit against IBM with no evidence. *WAY* dumber. Who are they gonna sue next? Charles Schwab? Are they TRYING to taunt the SEC into investigating? What could be a more foolish move, when you're doing a pump-n-dump scheme, than to make loud (possibly perjurous) threats in the face of the very people who have the ear of the SEC? A company that employs brokers who are the folks that make those "Strong Buy"/"Strong Sell" recommendations that the traders follow? What could possibly be more stupid or suicidal?
I know snowboarders in California that have as many different words for snow, and I'll bet they are different from the words skiiers use, which are different from the words ski-doo'ers use.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the reggae song to remember the log of the quotient is the difference of the logs?
>Water is extraoridinarly heavy.
Um, water really can't be anything except
"ordinarily" heavy, since it happens the be
the standard unit for mass density.
I don't get it.
I routinely use Google as the first place to look for recipes when I want to cook something, and it's always been the last place, since I've never been disappointed.
Why do people insist on looking for tools they already have in their hand?
My Volvo, a 740 station wagon from 1991, is *extremely* simple and extremely shadetree-mechanic friendly. I put it in the same category as VW on this count. Or, 1950's - 60's American cars.
I have, single handedly and without many tools:
Changed (upgraded) the front and rear suspension, steering rods, and brakes.
Installed aftermarket torsion bars.
Changed the wheel geometry.
Installed an exhaust header and modified throttle body.
Upgraded the cooling system.
Changed the timing belt.
Now, granted, I'm something of an amateur mechanic with a good toolbox, but I didn't need anything special to do this stuff. There is NOTHING on this car that's at all mysterious. Even the electronics for the fuel injection aren't that strange. You open the hood, and it's *sparse* in there. There's no question what wires go where, what hoses are what, etc. And there's room to move around.
What's my point? *ALL* Volvos share this design. If they mess up the design, they'll only mess it up for the US market. Canadian and European models won't get that treatment, nor will any car destined for Israel. (When you pay a 100% tax on a car, you expect to be able to maintain it forever.)
Thanks for helping make my point, prockcore.
People assume that just because a DVD is encrypted, that the only possible relationship is "producer - consumer."
My problem is, that if there is an automatic suspicion and presumption of guilt, my rights as both a producer and a consumer have been violated. When someone accused the XCopy people, *MY* rights were violated all across the board, even though I was not a party to the case.
The end result is, it's that much harder for an amateur or semi-pro to produce the equivalent output as a pro.
In your case, it's adversely affected your ability to do business.
I think we should take the "defective product" tack.
I can't make fair use of this product because it has such a defect: It would make me a dangerous criminal in the eyes of the state were I to use the product.
"Pump and Dump" is vernacular language for something that people seem to think is illegal, or wish was illegal, but it's not illegal. The SCO folks have probably kept their toes ever so slightly on the "legal" side of the line.
They have followed a bold, irresponsible course, they have made many public statements that are plainly false -- but they have also stopped short of securities fraud or perjury.
Maybe they'll mess up and cross that line, but they haven't yet.
In the mean time, you should have been investing in SCO, and making some money off this fiasco. There won't be much warning when it's time to head for the hills, but there will be some. So far, if you'd followed the analysts' advice on SCO, you'd have made money.
There really hasn't been anything for the SEC to be interested in. What crimes do you suggest they have committed, exactly? Until the various court cases are decided, it's all still based on open questions.
The Australian letters are a bit of a counter example. They may have broken Australian laws. I'm sure that has them scared in Utah.
So I can't use CSS on my products? Why not? Why are other producers allowed to use dvd encryption and I am not? Now we're getting into 14th amendment territory as well.
Don't tell me it's okay for someone to abridge my rights just because you don't think "I need that".
I don't personally care about the DVD X-Copy folks, but I do care deeply about the implications when it's been alleged that their product which has other, plainly legal uses, has been deemed wholly illegal.
The more the big media companies control the means of production, the harder it becomes for independent producers.
I still don't understand how anyone can allege criminal intent: My church produces a DVD of original music and stage acts. I copy the DVD using DVD X-Copy. Not only is there no criminal intent, but the mere allegation of criminal intent actually treads on my rights to freedom of speech, and it could infringe on my relgious practice. It's getting close to claiming a hold on my copyrights, or even the public domain.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa
For the record, I think the US should have gotten out of Vietnam the day they hit Diem; I'm quite happy that Lyndon Johnson is dead, and I'll be happy when Robert McNamara joins him in hell.
I don't think Jane's a hero, but I wish the pro-war folks could come up with something better.
Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.
- PUBLIUS (Alexander Hamilton)
More like Lipton Tea trying to suppress "The History and Culture of Asia" with litigation, and equally likely to succeed.
"Beyond that, I certainly hope you don't think that making mild-altering illegal actually improves society. You need something to keep the down-trodden in their place. ;-)"
Not at all! I'm a marijuana legalization advocate, and I believe that alcohol prohibition would be the fastest catalyst toward that end. A ban on tobacco might do it as well. But banning alcohol in the US would pretty much trigger a full revolution. (They know it of course).
>A great example of this is driver licensing. In
>Ohio, they were invented in 1935. The idea that
>driving was a "right" was obvious--after all, prior
> to 1935, you just put your butt in a car and
>drove.
Fair enough.
But the reason the status quo exists is because we the people, on the whole, are adamantly, actively, in support of it. Pretty much any dissent at all is on the fringe, and is conspicuous by its absence.
Essentially, we like it this way. We continually affirm that to our leaders by our quiet enjoyment.
(Apathy looks like support, for all intents and purposes!)
Every day that goes by without an uprising or coup d'etat, and every day that goes by without an entire industry folding due to a demonstration of labor solidarity, and every day that the military obeys the orders from its chain of command, is another day under the status quo.
Things are just too damned comfortable in the US for anything else.
It didn't work THEN, because the idea of making a prison industry with a profit motivation, and the idea of expanding the police forces beyond the size and scope that was seen in the 1930s, didn't seem like a realistic alternative. Today, we have actually implemented the systems that were thought to be utterly impossible in the 1930s. Also, the government at the time was so weak that organized crime stood a real chance of overtaking control. Today, we'd respond to that as terrorism or insurrection.
If your reasoning is that a schedule-I classification for alcohol is impossible because of the experiences of the 1930s, you might want to consider that a lot of things have changed since then, particularly in the area of law enforcement and the capacity of the penal system.
>How is "heard you guys have been fighting"
>corruption?
It's not. Use of force before making an accusation is. I'm sure at the root of this story there's alcohol use. Sometimes I wish they'd ban that like they banned marijuana. Then at least there'd be a level playing field...
>when you are detained by a peace officer, you are
>under "custodial arrest", meaning you can't leave,
>but you are not under arrest either.
Do I have the right to remain silent, or don't I?
Do I have the right to consult an attorney before answering any questions, or don't I?
Do I have the right to keep any papers or belongings being inspected or taken away from me, without a duly executed warrant that specifies the items to be searched or taken from me, or don't I?
I get the impression that you would tell me I don't have these rights.
I don't draw a distinction between this corruption, and the supposed "real corruption" that you allude to. It's all the same, the camel's nose under the tent.
If the police officer had a reason to detain or investigate the person in the story, that's an entirely separate matter from the question at hand. Was it the guy's responsibility to provide evidence against himself to the police? This starts with demanding papers. It didn't help or hurt the police investigation that the man chose not to surrender his papers. What will hurt, however, is the blatant violation of the rights of the accused, which appears to have begun well before he was actually accused of any crime at all.
Suspects are presumed innocent. If probable cause exists to make an investigation, then the police should investigate. But the suspect is not required to provide whatever evidence the police would like to have. On the contrary, he is explicitly protected from being required to do so, it's one of the fundamental laws of the land, one of the most important rights afforded to Americans. It's one of the primary things that defines us as a free nation, and citizens who enjoy liberty.
If you disagree, that's your right, but don't tread on mine just because you'd throw yours away.
"Haven't travelled by commercial airliner recently have you?"
Unfortunately you are correct. There's a gray area between rights and privileges. The people who interrogate you at the airport are not police, do not have police powers, and pretty much are not able to do anything except decide whether to let you enter the private property which is the terminal or the aircraft. They can also notify the police if they suspect you of a crime, which is not any sort of exclusive privilege that they have, and you do not.
Yes, the whole system is that way because federal agencies require it. The theory is, those federal agencies have created regulations under public review and scrutiny, and that the people who make decisions in those agencies are in their position of authority because they were appointed by people you elected. And yes, the people at the airport terminal happen to have a real quick way to get the attention of the police, who happen to be on site. But you are NOT passing a checkpoint that is actually operated by a police agency. Not yet anyway.
Government operates with the consent of the governed. By not voting, you voice your consent...
"I think this is ridiculous, since this would imply that you must carry ID at all times just in case."
That's why the Supreme Court will have trouble deciding against this guy's appeal. There isn't a national ID card that they can require, and they, being a Federal court, cannot make a requirement that all citizens of the several states must carry a certain ID, because there isn't one that they can specify in their jurisdiction. They can't order the States to require an id card. They can't create a national id card because that would require an act of Congress.
The question is about whether a State has the authority to require a State ID to be given on demand. The State DOES have that authority, because it isn't expressly forbidden by Federal law. As it should be. Lesson learned: Choose your Local and State government wisely. Be part of the process that puts the local guys in power. Local politicians become national politicians. It's a hell of a lot easier to reach them before they grow up!
IANAL, and I'm especially not a Supreme Court justice on a republican-appointed court.
He HAS a good reason. The BEST reason. He is defending his (and your, and my) rights. Defense of your rights and fundamental freedoms is the ONLY thing worth killing or dying for.
Everything else is trivial.
One of the few things that distinguishes America as a free country is the absense of checkpoints and "papers please" where your very existence is presumed to be a crime until YOU demonstrate that you have a right to exist and that you are free to go.
Some of the latest news in the RedHat case, is that Lehman Brothers came forward with an extortion letter which accuses them of copyright infringement.
Now, if you'll notice the regular press, they pretty much publish SCO's press releases verbatim, and rarely is any mention made of the controversy surrounding their status.
If you look at the financial press, you will see NOTHING about the controversy.
RedHat and IBM are just tech stocks. Nothing there is going to get much attention from the press. I mean, it *is* IBM, but it's still just a tech stock to them, and the whole controversy is a mess. Maybe it's obvious to you and me and PJ, but, to them it's all speculation and rumor.
The fact is, the stock has been climbing. So when the analysts said "strong buy", they were right. The lawsuits don't matter. The fact that they are going down in flames, perhaps even with the execs going to prison, doesn't matter until it happens. Right now it looks like we all should have been buying the stock when they said "buy" (and probably selling off about now!)
But now, SCO has thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of Lehman Brothers. I think that is an even worse choice of adversary than IBM! Lehman Brothers, a financial house. The sort of place that will have SEC auditors on full-time staff, and Secret Service agents for security. NOW the financial press will be forced to pull their head out of the sand, or wherever it's stuck, and report that there might just be a problem here.
Because Lehman Brothers isn't just a tech stock. This isn't something the financial trades can ignore, pretending the issues are too technical or whatever excuse they have, because it's getting on THEIR turf. Also, the brokerage house has the sort of connections that should easily start the press machine reporting on their side of the story.
Threatening Lehman is absolutely the wackiest thing Darl &Co. have done to date. Even dumber than filing a lawsuit against IBM with no evidence. *WAY* dumber. Who are they gonna sue next? Charles Schwab? Are they TRYING to taunt the SEC into investigating? What could be a more foolish move, when you're doing a pump-n-dump scheme, than to make loud (possibly perjurous) threats in the face of the very people who have the ear of the SEC? A company that employs brokers who are the folks that make those "Strong Buy"/"Strong Sell" recommendations that the traders follow? What could possibly be more stupid or suicidal?
I didn't even know there WAS a Michael Jordan OS!
My girlfriend studies Navajo. Compared to Navajo, Japanese is easy.
>Eskimos have 15 different words for snow
I know snowboarders in California that have as many different words for snow, and I'll bet they are different from the words skiiers use, which are different from the words ski-doo'ers use.
I don't see what makes Eskimo so special.
My point is, the real reason for these attacks is an attempt to abolish the *distribution medium*, and that does not begin and end with the internet.
It never has been about copyright control. Copyright is the tool being used to eliminate low-overhead independent distribution.