True, right up to the point where he lied about it in front of a Federal grand jury.
At that point it became a felony.
Remember kids, it wasn't just about sex, it was about perjury.
Have you ever seen the grand jury tape? Well, I have. (Due, incidentally, to it being conveniently "leaked.") They had told Clinton that they were going to investigate his involvement in Whitewater, and that's what he was prepared to testify about. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, they started asking questions about his relationship with Monica. They ambushed him, plain and simple, with questions that had nothing to do with the investigation, and with the sole intent of embarrassing and humiliating him and destroying his reputation.
It would be a little bit like if you got a ticket for DUI, and when you went to court over it (because you're innocent!), the prosecutor started asking you questions about whether you've had an affair with your neighbor, knowing that your wife, family, and the public-at-large is going to see the testimony at some point. It has nothing to do with whether you were driving drunk, but now, you've got to answer. If you were guilty of such an indiscretion, what would you have said to the grand jury?
Yes, he lied. I would have, too. I do blame him for screwing up and having an affair, but I don't blame anyone who does what he did when ambushed in such a despicable manner.
Let's stop kidding ourselves: It was about sex, plain and simple, and the felony he committed is perfectly justified by reason of mitigating circumstances.
Yeah, but just because a lot of our energy is produced by coal doesn't mean that a lot of it can't be produced any other way.
That's the beauty of taking the power needed for moving vehicles away from internal combustion engines and concentrating it at the power plants. Then you can take those many, many fewer power plants and concentrate on making them more clean and efficient instead of all of the millions of vehicles on the roads.
Still, the article's claim is pegging my BS meter something fierce. I'll believe it when I see it.
This report is put out by a company that makes its living by protecting users from software like Internet Explorer. If people stopped using Internet Explorer, how would it make its money? (Okay, that's a little tinfoil-hatish.)
But also consider this:
Those are vulnerabilities that we know of. They're pretty easy to find (oh, and fix) when people can pore over your source code. How many vulnerabilities are in Internet Explorer/Opera/Safari that we don't know of, that aren't getting fixed, and just waiting for someone to figure out to blow up?
That's when you're really thankful of this:
Firefox still leads the pack when it comes to patching though, with only a one-day window of vulnerability.
Re:I can see plenty of prior art on this one....
on
The Culture of Evasion
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The difference being, of course, that "I didn't inhale" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" were matters that could just as well have been kept private without significant financial repercussion or threat to our privacy and freedom, but for the stupidity of those who act out of blind hatred.
Have we really lost all sense of not only what's right and what's wrong, but what's important and what's not?
I do like the idea of extra content; it could really help the format take off. I seriously believe that unless Apple really screws this up (and I don't think they will), it could revolutionize the industry.
The example structure I gave was just that—an example. I'd leave it up to the marketing gurus to decide the exact final prices and structure, but the general concept was to charge a premium rate for one-off high-demand content, give a discount for buying an entire season, give a discount for people willing to wait for a show, and give a deep discount for stuff that's so old that people who normally wouldn't care to watch it might buy it just because it's so cheap.
At any rate, I think that the really interesting thing is that it could totally do away with two middlemen: the television networks and the cable/satellite companies. Studios could market and sell their stuff directly to us, the public. That would take the power to decide what we watch out of the hands of pinhead network executives and put it where it belongs: in our hands, the actual consumers.
If enough people buy a show like Firefly, for example, that they pay their costs and make a little bit of profit, there's a strong incentive to keep making it. There's no idiot in the middle with decision-making power like the guy at Fox who said, "Cancel it." There's no accountability to sponsors. There are no networks fighting for space among a limited cable or satellite bandwidth. There is no mentality that a show must be watched by millions and millions of people to be worth being made. Good stuff all around!
But I seriously doubt I could bring myself to pay $2 an ep to watch it.
Hell, that would probably save me money. I'm one of those weird people who watch little enough television that if I could pay for the shows I watch by episode, it would be cheaper then paying a monthly cable/satellite bill.
I'd love to see some kind of tiered pay structure set up. For example:
$1.99 per episode on the day it's released.
$1.99 x number of episodes - %discount for prepayment for pre-paying for a whole season that you can download whenever you want to.
$1.49 per episode a couple of months after it's released.
$1.49 per episode x number of episodes - %discount for volume purchase for a complete season after all episodes from that season have been released
$0.49 "bargain bin" for shows that are several years old and that never really got good ratings
I doubt the networks would go for it, because it would cut into DVD sales. (Never mind that it would increase overall sales and end up making them lots and lots more money in the end. Remember, they're stupid.)
But if Apple had enough boxes out there to start developing their own content (i.e. pay television and movie studios to develop good-quality content exclusively for them), not only would they revolutionize how we all watch television, they would revolutionize the entire entertainment distribution medium. There's no telling what kind of major impact it would have on television networks and cable/satellite companies.
Of course, you can probably shortly thereafter count on cable/satellite companies paying lots and lots of money to Congresscritters so that they'll legislate what can and can't be shown via iTV, lest they lose major marketshare. (A la the way cable companies legislated what television networks I can and can't watch via DirecTV here in Atlanta. "Sorry, if you want to watch the New York ABC station, you're SOL!") Hopefully by that time though, Apple will have made enough money to fight that kind of fire with bigger and hotter fire.
At any rate, this is definitely an idea that is right on—not ahead of its—time, and I'll be one of the first in line to get a new iTV. Really exciting stuff!
The OVC recommended procedure for tabulating elections relies on a paper ballot that is then fed through a scanner into a locked ballot box so that all originals are saved in case of the need for a recount or audit.
Just for pointing that out, I want another damn +5!
I know I'm preaching to the Slashdot choir, and it's been said a thousand times before, but as long as we have closed voting processes, we're going to have people screwing up by doing things like having voting machines accessible with hotel minibar keys. We hate Microsoft for their closed-source software, yet we continue to accept this kind of idiocy.
Quick question: If we have viable alteratives, such as those presented by the Open Voting Consortium, why do we continue to bother with these stupid Diebold machines? I know, dumb answer, because Diebold pays the people who decide lots and lots of money.
I would say write to your Congresscritters and let them know that you want these screwed up pieces of junk out of our polling locations, but like I said, I know I'm preaching to the Slashdot choir, and you won't do it. >:-( But realistically, just know that until you do, we can look forward to many, many more articles about this kind of thing. Ooh, at least until we see the one that says, "Electronic voting machines hacked! Election results tainted!." Or even better, when we see nothing at all and Richard M. Stallman is mysteriously elected President in a write-in landslide.
sigh Oh well, it was worth a shot. Just give me my damn +5 and go back to reading about lasers on Intel's chips now.
That's one of the most weirdly ridiculous things I've ever seen.
in the modern world, to be informed about current affairs requires the ability to interact with the printed word.
Actually, I would say that it's exactly the opposite. In the modern world, we have so many more alternate means of communicating other than the printed words that you can be illiterate and smarter now than you could ever have been in all of human history. Hello, CNN anyone?
Chew on this: The most stupid people I know are all literate. Every one of them. We're talking stupidity on a scale you can only dream of. And I have a really hard time believing that everyone who is illterate is incapable of being informed of current affairs. More likely? Maybe. But certain? Not a chance.
So where do you draw the line? What if I'm an elected official, and I and my friends decide it should be drawn just above your level of informedness so that we can stay in power? Is it still a good idea? If not, then why should we draw the line somewhere arbitrarily below you?
Do you seriously believe that people without homes have enough time to sit down and objectively research who would be better in office for them?
Are you seriously arrogant enough to believe that homeless people are incapable of doing so?
No?
Then another question: Are you seriously elitist enough to think that a capable, informed homeless person shouldn't be allowed to vote simply because they have no permanent residence?
No?
Then I'm confused, exactly on what basis are you saying that homeless people shouldn't be allowed to vote? Oh yeah:
What stops anybody from using a homeless guys name 100 times acros 50 states?
So your answer is to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people so that 100 illegal votes won't be cast? I'm sorry, but that is not a "valid solution," it's stupid. Am I really the only person here who thinks that taking away someone's legal right to vote is just as bad, if not worse, than fraudulently casting a second vote under someone else's name? Especially since the former has been done systematically, deliberately, maliciously, and in mass numbers?
...something that can be exploited beyond belief.
Well, we've seen Robert F. Kennedy's article proving that eligible voters are being turned away, even cited with legitimate reputable sources, so let's see your proof that homeless people's names are being exploited. How many extra votes is your source estimating are cast? What elections are your source saying were swayed due to this fraud? Come back with those numbers, an we'll compare them and see which system is truly being exploited.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. You made it up. Makes it kind of harder, I suppose.
"Discriminates against the homeless" is a perfect excuse for allowing people to double- and triple-vote. Of course, getting a false driver's license is also a way to multiple-vote.
It doesn't matter, you can't discriminate against the homeless, period. (Duh.) They are, for the most part, citizens, too, and therefore, have the right to vote. If it comes down to discriminating against the homeless or figuring something else out, well, we'll just have to figure something else out. Or else next time, maybe we'll just discriminate against you.
Maybe the Iraqi ink-stain is the best way to ensure single-voting. But I still want each voter to have a signed gov't picture ID.
Why? Does anyone else remember the "good old days" when the people in this country didn't have to show thier "papers" just to exercise their basic rights?
A literacy test would also be useful. But not a poll tax.
I hate to burst your bubble, but I run across people with the nutty idea of keeping certain undesirable U.S. citizens from voting a lot. Wake up, Sherlock, illiterate people have just as much right to choose who represents them as literate people do.
It sure would be personally convenient for me if the country was run by people who catered to people just like me. Unfortuantely, I don't get that luxury, and neither do you. The purpose of government is to represent all of the people: black, red, yellow and white; male and female; smart and stupid; rich and poor; everyone.
He's following company policy. He works there... it is not his problem, it's the companies.
He's a representative of the company. Even if he doesn't personally set the policy, that doesn't make him any less legitimate a target of one's anger. I have friends who feel the incessant need to explain to cashiers are other service reps, "I understand you're just doing your job, but..." That's silly.
Companies hire these kinds of people specifically for the purpose of you getting mad at them so that, if they're lucky, you won't do something that might bother the higher-ups. So feel free to cuss and fuss to your heart's content, that's what they're there for. (And yes, I used to be one of them, and until very recently, part of my job involved appeasing angry people.)
Of course, by the same logic, one should also realize that other than as a cathartic release, fussing and cussing at these people doesn't do any good, because like I said, part of their job is to make sure your ranting ends with them and doesn't bother the people-in-charge. If you do want to make a difference, you'll have to figure out some way to go around these paid bullet-takers to get to the people who actually can make some sort of difference. If they get bothered enough, believe me, the policy will change.
At my job, when people did go over my head or otherwise around me and my boss got bothered, guess what. Whoever's problem that was suddenly became my top priority, whether it was legitimate or not. And if someone went over my boss's head or otherwise went around him, well, I'll leave it to you to imagine just how much attention the problem got.
In an ideal world, if you fuss and cuss at the lowly service rep, what he should do is report to his manager that this customer is very mad and feels like this is a very important problem. If his manager gets enough of these types of complaints, he'd report it to his boss, and it would eventually propagate to someone who sees a pattern of people getting very angry at the service reps, which impacts the company's bottom line, and would make a change. Unfortunately in today's corporate society, what happens more often than not is that the service rep's feedback isn't seen as the constructive feedback that it is, and the rep gets fired for making a stink instead of just keeping his damn mouth shut, so the service reps just sit on these types of problems instead.
A couple of years later, when the company's stock price has tanked because everyone has figured out what lousy customer service they have, the board of directors sits around in a meeting scratching their heads over why things are going so badly, and they end up laying a bunch of people off, thinking that somehow solves their problem.
Can someone explain this overwhelming opinion in every RIAA/MPAA lawsuit thread? I'm sure the fee for filing a lawsuit itself isn't too high, otherwise the lower-classes simply couldn't participate. Assuming you don't have/need a job, what's preventing you from defending yourself?
The plaintiff has to prove his point with a preponderance of evidence. I don't think they'll do that with just an IP address and a log from azureus.
Because it's not as simple as going down to your local courthouse and saying, "Hey, I'm not guilty!
They're not suing you in your home state. They're suing you on the other side of the country, where one of the packets may have passed through. Live in California? Hope you can afford a trip to Vermont. Live in Alabama? Hope you don't mind driving to Washington State.
Oh, by the way, if you don't travel across the country and bother showing up at the appointed date and time, the judge issues a summary judgement against you. You lose, and instead of owing them $2,500, you now owe them everything they asked for, including attorney's fees, filing fees, your-nose-is-too-big fees, everything. It will end up being dozens of thousands of dollars, maybe even six figures. Your paycheck will be garnished. Your credit will be ruined. Forget ever being able to buy a car again, you'll be lucky to be able to buy food. (But that's okay, because no insurance company would ever carry you, anyway...)
But let's say you do make the trip and show up. Now their lawyers file all sorts of motions to keep the case in the courts at least several months. Didn't you know that you'd pretty much have to live wherever it is they're suing you now? Of course, you can just hire a lawyer to represent you, but guess what, they ain't cheap.
So you travel across country, get an apartment, hire a lawyer, and win your case. Guess what. Now they'll appeal the decision, and you get to repeat the process all over again. Then, they'll sue you somewhere else for another song, and you get to do it yet again.
You get the idea. It's not called extortion because it's easy.
This guy has the right idea. The only way to stop this crap is to suck up the expense, get a one-time final ruling on the issue, and then everyone can just hire a lawyer on the cheap to say, "There's the precedent, please uphold it." And for his willingness to go through a lot of time and expense so that the rest of us don't have to, I salute him. I hope he starts a legal defense fund, because I'd be willing to pitch in to help.
The real problem is that no two browsers--let alone no two versions of any one browser--interpret CSS the same way! The Microsoft browser interprets a style sheet one way, Firefox interprets it another way, and Opera a third way.
The problem is not with the CSS standard, the problem is with implementations of that standard. IE has been on a different planet for years when it comes to implementing standards. It's kind of laugable that there's the "Microsoft CSS standard," then there's the real CSS standard.
Firefox does better, and unlike Microsoft, they're actually trying. (And making a damn good effort of it, IMHO, it's actually really close from what I can tell.)
I don't have much experience with Opera, but I haven't had much trouble with it when dealing with CSS.
Remember several years ago when several car manufacturers got busted for putting bad tires on new cars? No one argued that having tires on cars was a broken idea. The same is true in this case. Don't ditch CSS, just fix the friggin' browsers.
Besides, what exactly is the alternative? Putting style tags on each element? For one thing, you'll run into the same problems, and for another, I'm confused as to how that is easier than using CSS. Going back to tag-level formatting? No thanks. Frankly, that was a hideous idea when they came up with it the first time.
It may not necessarily always mean that, but it certainly implies that you're prepared to go that far.
No it doesn't. In fact, I would hope that in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't even come close. I think Americans should rise up and have the DMCA overturned. But I don't think they should arm themselves and take to the streets over it. I think that they should rise up and demand public funding of stem cell research. Again, I don't think they should arm themselves and take to the streets over it. I think that speed bumps on government-owned roads should be outlawed. I don't think... well, you get the idea.
You can have a peaceful uprising (e.g. the Ukraine a few years ago) but as a rule once you mobilise a large angry section of the population, violence will follow.
This may be somewhat true, but it doesn't make it right, and leaders of movements who encourage it are usually more dangerous than whatever it is they're fighting. Only extremely rarely is this kind of thing justified. Read some of the writings and speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi.
And a government would certainly be wise to expect violence and prepare appropriate counter-measures.
If by "counter-measures" you mean "change," I agree. Trying to stop violence with violence is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. Both are pretty spectacular to watch on CNN, but both are also pretty stupid.
That's true, and if the OP meant that online gambling has been outlawed at a federal level or at the state levels, that's fine. But it sounded like he or she was saying, "There's not a law that allows it, so it's illegal." That's patently false, and if that's what he or she thinks, whoever it is should immediately read the Constitution. (Not that our legistlators actually have...)
Along the lines of what you're talking about, though, you're right. I love how the state and federal government is slowly (and not-so-slowly in some cases) making everything illegal. That way, they can arrest any citizen at any time for whatever reason—or no reason at all—because, well, they're doing something illegal. It's truly sad.
I'm glad that someone else here has the common sense to realize that "rise up" doesn't necessarily always mean "pick up your guns and start shooting people." In fact, just as a general rule, I ask all Slashdot readers to please make a mental note that unless I'm speaking of literally defending someone's life from an imminent threat, never assume that anything I say means, "pick up your guns and start shooting people."
*sigh* (I thought that was obvious. My bad, I should have known better.)
The UK government has proposed that suspected cybercriminals could be banned from the Internet or have their PCs seized, even if they've not been convicted.
So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?
I don't care what country you're in, that's just wrong. Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up and ensure that this proposal doesn't see the light of day. I'm sorry, but if someone's not convicted, they're sure as hell not a cybercriminal.
If it is done properly, this could work out well, imo. I love a movie with a good story, for sure, but you know, I don't actually go back and watch those movies more than once. I know what's going to happen in the story after I've watched it through once, so a story centered movie has little point for me to watch again. The movies that I watch over and over have little to no story, from the old Jean Claude Van Damme and Jan-Michael Vincent movies, to newer stuff such as Jet Li, The Rock, or Jackie Chan (which you could argue has a story, but it's hardly important to the movie). These are the movies that I watch again and again, because it's about the action and none or very little of the enjoyment is tied into watching the story unfold.
Wow, I can't believe that I used to be pretty silly, enjoying all of those movies with good stories!;-)
Right now, there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US. Because of that, all online gambling businesses are breaking the law.
wait one minute there.... the absence of a law legalizing online gambling does not, in fact, make the activity illegal. There's no law legalizing mowing your yard (oh God, at least I hope there's not!), but it is legal to do so. IMO, gambling is something should remain regulated at the state level regardless.
Will someone PLEASE mod this up? I've already commented in this thread (wish I could take it back now!) so I can't at the moment.
As for the original poster, what in the world makes you think that there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US? Is it merely that there's no law formally making it legal? PLEASE tell me that there's a reason besides a lack of a law formally making it legal. Because if that's it, please immediately read the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. It's extremely important, it's your friend, and it's what gives you the Constitutional right to do the vast majority of the activities you do every day.
Before I jump to conclusions, my question is this: Are they really guilty of fraud and racketeering (very serious crimes that should be severely punished), or is this just an excuse to try to stop online gambling? I would be interested in seeing and hearing the evidence that gets presented before making up my mind.
Of course, both sides are going to claim what will support their viewpoint.
On the one hand, the DoJ has been itching for any excuse to go after these folks for a long time, which doesn't help the perception of them. If they had remained legally neutral to the matter and just stuck to what the law says, I sure would be more comfortable that they actually have our best interest at heart and that they're not just pandering to right-wing nutcases.
On the other, the online gambling industry is one that is notoriously rife with fraud, and it's entirely possible that these guys are scum that have been doing what they're accused of or worse. For the sake of their industry, I hope that they have realized the scrutiny that they've been under and have made very diligent efforts to stay clean and legitimate and can prove so in court. Otherwise, these two may very well have doomed their entire industry, even the players that are 100% honest and that just want to provide an entertainment service.
I think that the most telling sign of what the truth is is whether the DoJ starts chasing down all online gambling houses for "fraud" and "racketeering." At any rate, it will be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Yes, I believe there is a God. I wake up, and I feel like I'm staring him in the face all day.
...and that's fine. But what isn't fine is when you think that God is telling you that other people are wrong for not waking up and feeling like they're staring him in the face. That it's wrong to have different ideological beliefs from you, that things that you view as morally wrong (homosexuality and such) should be stopped even though they're doing no harm to you. What also isn't fine is God telling you that something with a firm scientific foundation (such as evolution) is wrong, and that you should have some kind of misguided blind faith in something that doesn't have a thread of firm evidence supporting it (such as creationism) instead.
And last, but not least, what should be hopefully obvious is that it is not fine for you to try to impose what God is telling you on other people. That means legislating morality, killing infidels, and so forth. In other words, infringing on our right to see what we see as reality.
If that somehow makes me crippled in other people's eyes, then so be it.
You're only crippled if you put blind faith in religion above all else. Unfortunately, it is the diabolical nature of almost all religions to make that core belief in them required. People who have faith like that try to make it sound like a good thing, but it's not. It's insidious. Such faith is what gives us people like David Koresh, the Heaven's Gate cult, Jim Jones, and the guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Any religion that teaches people that it's not okay to step back, take a look, question whether or not things make sense, and when there is conflict, form new beliefs and live their lives based on those observations instead of an ancient book is, in my opinion, a very crippling force indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
I find this incredibly insensitive. Do you have any idea what hitting that many people would do to a bus?
Have you ever seen the grand jury tape? Well, I have. (Due, incidentally, to it being conveniently "leaked.") They had told Clinton that they were going to investigate his involvement in Whitewater, and that's what he was prepared to testify about. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, they started asking questions about his relationship with Monica. They ambushed him, plain and simple, with questions that had nothing to do with the investigation, and with the sole intent of embarrassing and humiliating him and destroying his reputation.
It would be a little bit like if you got a ticket for DUI, and when you went to court over it (because you're innocent!), the prosecutor started asking you questions about whether you've had an affair with your neighbor, knowing that your wife, family, and the public-at-large is going to see the testimony at some point. It has nothing to do with whether you were driving drunk, but now, you've got to answer. If you were guilty of such an indiscretion, what would you have said to the grand jury?
Yes, he lied. I would have, too. I do blame him for screwing up and having an affair, but I don't blame anyone who does what he did when ambushed in such a despicable manner.
Let's stop kidding ourselves: It was about sex, plain and simple, and the felony he committed is perfectly justified by reason of mitigating circumstances.
Yeah, but just because a lot of our energy is produced by coal doesn't mean that a lot of it can't be produced any other way.
That's the beauty of taking the power needed for moving vehicles away from internal combustion engines and concentrating it at the power plants. Then you can take those many, many fewer power plants and concentrate on making them more clean and efficient instead of all of the millions of vehicles on the roads.
Still, the article's claim is pegging my BS meter something fierce. I'll believe it when I see it.
Consider this, too:
This report is put out by a company that makes its living by protecting users from software like Internet Explorer. If people stopped using Internet Explorer, how would it make its money? (Okay, that's a little tinfoil-hatish.)
But also consider this:
Those are vulnerabilities that we know of. They're pretty easy to find (oh, and fix) when people can pore over your source code. How many vulnerabilities are in Internet Explorer/Opera/Safari that we don't know of, that aren't getting fixed, and just waiting for someone to figure out to blow up?
That's when you're really thankful of this:
The difference being, of course, that "I didn't inhale" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" were matters that could just as well have been kept private without significant financial repercussion or threat to our privacy and freedom, but for the stupidity of those who act out of blind hatred.
Have we really lost all sense of not only what's right and what's wrong, but what's important and what's not?
I know, dumb question.
I do like the idea of extra content; it could really help the format take off. I seriously believe that unless Apple really screws this up (and I don't think they will), it could revolutionize the industry.
The example structure I gave was just that—an example. I'd leave it up to the marketing gurus to decide the exact final prices and structure, but the general concept was to charge a premium rate for one-off high-demand content, give a discount for buying an entire season, give a discount for people willing to wait for a show, and give a deep discount for stuff that's so old that people who normally wouldn't care to watch it might buy it just because it's so cheap.
At any rate, I think that the really interesting thing is that it could totally do away with two middlemen: the television networks and the cable/satellite companies. Studios could market and sell their stuff directly to us, the public. That would take the power to decide what we watch out of the hands of pinhead network executives and put it where it belongs: in our hands, the actual consumers.
If enough people buy a show like Firefly, for example, that they pay their costs and make a little bit of profit, there's a strong incentive to keep making it. There's no idiot in the middle with decision-making power like the guy at Fox who said, "Cancel it." There's no accountability to sponsors. There are no networks fighting for space among a limited cable or satellite bandwidth. There is no mentality that a show must be watched by millions and millions of people to be worth being made. Good stuff all around!
Hell, that would probably save me money. I'm one of those weird people who watch little enough television that if I could pay for the shows I watch by episode, it would be cheaper then paying a monthly cable/satellite bill.
I'd love to see some kind of tiered pay structure set up. For example:
I doubt the networks would go for it, because it would cut into DVD sales. (Never mind that it would increase overall sales and end up making them lots and lots more money in the end. Remember, they're stupid.)
But if Apple had enough boxes out there to start developing their own content (i.e. pay television and movie studios to develop good-quality content exclusively for them), not only would they revolutionize how we all watch television, they would revolutionize the entire entertainment distribution medium. There's no telling what kind of major impact it would have on television networks and cable/satellite companies.
Of course, you can probably shortly thereafter count on cable/satellite companies paying lots and lots of money to Congresscritters so that they'll legislate what can and can't be shown via iTV, lest they lose major marketshare. (A la the way cable companies legislated what television networks I can and can't watch via DirecTV here in Atlanta. "Sorry, if you want to watch the New York ABC station, you're SOL!") Hopefully by that time though, Apple will have made enough money to fight that kind of fire with bigger and hotter fire.
At any rate, this is definitely an idea that is right on—not ahead of its—time, and I'll be one of the first in line to get a new iTV. Really exciting stuff!
Dude, RTF Site:
Just for pointing that out, I want another damn +5!
I know I'm preaching to the Slashdot choir, and it's been said a thousand times before, but as long as we have closed voting processes, we're going to have people screwing up by doing things like having voting machines accessible with hotel minibar keys. We hate Microsoft for their closed-source software, yet we continue to accept this kind of idiocy.
Quick question: If we have viable alteratives, such as those presented by the Open Voting Consortium, why do we continue to bother with these stupid Diebold machines? I know, dumb answer, because Diebold pays the people who decide lots and lots of money.
I would say write to your Congresscritters and let them know that you want these screwed up pieces of junk out of our polling locations, but like I said, I know I'm preaching to the Slashdot choir, and you won't do it. >:-( But realistically, just know that until you do, we can look forward to many, many more articles about this kind of thing. Ooh, at least until we see the one that says, "Electronic voting machines hacked! Election results tainted!." Or even better, when we see nothing at all and Richard M. Stallman is mysteriously elected President in a write-in landslide.
sigh Oh well, it was worth a shot. Just give me my damn +5 and go back to reading about lasers on Intel's chips now.
That's one of the most weirdly ridiculous things I've ever seen.
Actually, I would say that it's exactly the opposite. In the modern world, we have so many more alternate means of communicating other than the printed words that you can be illiterate and smarter now than you could ever have been in all of human history. Hello, CNN anyone?
Chew on this: The most stupid people I know are all literate. Every one of them. We're talking stupidity on a scale you can only dream of. And I have a really hard time believing that everyone who is illterate is incapable of being informed of current affairs. More likely? Maybe. But certain? Not a chance.
So where do you draw the line? What if I'm an elected official, and I and my friends decide it should be drawn just above your level of informedness so that we can stay in power? Is it still a good idea? If not, then why should we draw the line somewhere arbitrarily below you?
Think, man.
Are you seriously arrogant enough to believe that homeless people are incapable of doing so?
No?
Then another question: Are you seriously elitist enough to think that a capable, informed homeless person shouldn't be allowed to vote simply because they have no permanent residence?
No?
Then I'm confused, exactly on what basis are you saying that homeless people shouldn't be allowed to vote? Oh yeah:
So your answer is to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people so that 100 illegal votes won't be cast? I'm sorry, but that is not a "valid solution," it's stupid. Am I really the only person here who thinks that taking away someone's legal right to vote is just as bad, if not worse, than fraudulently casting a second vote under someone else's name? Especially since the former has been done systematically, deliberately, maliciously, and in mass numbers?
Well, we've seen Robert F. Kennedy's article proving that eligible voters are being turned away, even cited with legitimate reputable sources, so let's see your proof that homeless people's names are being exploited. How many extra votes is your source estimating are cast? What elections are your source saying were swayed due to this fraud? Come back with those numbers, an we'll compare them and see which system is truly being exploited.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. You made it up. Makes it kind of harder, I suppose.
It doesn't matter, you can't discriminate against the homeless, period. (Duh.) They are, for the most part, citizens, too, and therefore, have the right to vote. If it comes down to discriminating against the homeless or figuring something else out, well, we'll just have to figure something else out. Or else next time, maybe we'll just discriminate against you.
Why? Does anyone else remember the "good old days" when the people in this country didn't have to show thier "papers" just to exercise their basic rights?
I hate to burst your bubble, but I run across people with the nutty idea of keeping certain undesirable U.S. citizens from voting a lot. Wake up, Sherlock, illiterate people have just as much right to choose who represents them as literate people do.
It sure would be personally convenient for me if the country was run by people who catered to people just like me. Unfortuantely, I don't get that luxury, and neither do you. The purpose of government is to represent all of the people: black, red, yellow and white; male and female; smart and stupid; rich and poor; everyone.
So... That's a yes, right?
He's a representative of the company. Even if he doesn't personally set the policy, that doesn't make him any less legitimate a target of one's anger. I have friends who feel the incessant need to explain to cashiers are other service reps, "I understand you're just doing your job, but..." That's silly.
Companies hire these kinds of people specifically for the purpose of you getting mad at them so that, if they're lucky, you won't do something that might bother the higher-ups. So feel free to cuss and fuss to your heart's content, that's what they're there for. (And yes, I used to be one of them, and until very recently, part of my job involved appeasing angry people.)
Of course, by the same logic, one should also realize that other than as a cathartic release, fussing and cussing at these people doesn't do any good, because like I said, part of their job is to make sure your ranting ends with them and doesn't bother the people-in-charge. If you do want to make a difference, you'll have to figure out some way to go around these paid bullet-takers to get to the people who actually can make some sort of difference. If they get bothered enough, believe me, the policy will change.
At my job, when people did go over my head or otherwise around me and my boss got bothered, guess what. Whoever's problem that was suddenly became my top priority, whether it was legitimate or not. And if someone went over my boss's head or otherwise went around him, well, I'll leave it to you to imagine just how much attention the problem got.
In an ideal world, if you fuss and cuss at the lowly service rep, what he should do is report to his manager that this customer is very mad and feels like this is a very important problem. If his manager gets enough of these types of complaints, he'd report it to his boss, and it would eventually propagate to someone who sees a pattern of people getting very angry at the service reps, which impacts the company's bottom line, and would make a change. Unfortunately in today's corporate society, what happens more often than not is that the service rep's feedback isn't seen as the constructive feedback that it is, and the rep gets fired for making a stink instead of just keeping his damn mouth shut, so the service reps just sit on these types of problems instead.
A couple of years later, when the company's stock price has tanked because everyone has figured out what lousy customer service they have, the board of directors sits around in a meeting scratching their heads over why things are going so badly, and they end up laying a bunch of people off, thinking that somehow solves their problem.
*shrug* Welcome to the corporate world at work!
Because it's not as simple as going down to your local courthouse and saying, "Hey, I'm not guilty!
They're not suing you in your home state. They're suing you on the other side of the country, where one of the packets may have passed through. Live in California? Hope you can afford a trip to Vermont. Live in Alabama? Hope you don't mind driving to Washington State.
Oh, by the way, if you don't travel across the country and bother showing up at the appointed date and time, the judge issues a summary judgement against you. You lose, and instead of owing them $2,500, you now owe them everything they asked for, including attorney's fees, filing fees, your-nose-is-too-big fees, everything. It will end up being dozens of thousands of dollars, maybe even six figures. Your paycheck will be garnished. Your credit will be ruined. Forget ever being able to buy a car again, you'll be lucky to be able to buy food. (But that's okay, because no insurance company would ever carry you, anyway...)
But let's say you do make the trip and show up. Now their lawyers file all sorts of motions to keep the case in the courts at least several months. Didn't you know that you'd pretty much have to live wherever it is they're suing you now? Of course, you can just hire a lawyer to represent you, but guess what, they ain't cheap.
So you travel across country, get an apartment, hire a lawyer, and win your case. Guess what. Now they'll appeal the decision, and you get to repeat the process all over again. Then, they'll sue you somewhere else for another song, and you get to do it yet again.
You get the idea. It's not called extortion because it's easy.
This guy has the right idea. The only way to stop this crap is to suck up the expense, get a one-time final ruling on the issue, and then everyone can just hire a lawyer on the cheap to say, "There's the precedent, please uphold it." And for his willingness to go through a lot of time and expense so that the rest of us don't have to, I salute him. I hope he starts a legal defense fund, because I'd be willing to pitch in to help.
I have a better idea.
Before closing a patient, doctors would wave a receiver over the body to look for the chips which would indicate that something was left inside.
The timing would be a little better, don't you think?
The problem is not with the CSS standard, the problem is with implementations of that standard. IE has been on a different planet for years when it comes to implementing standards. It's kind of laugable that there's the "Microsoft CSS standard," then there's the real CSS standard.
Firefox does better, and unlike Microsoft, they're actually trying. (And making a damn good effort of it, IMHO, it's actually really close from what I can tell.)
I don't have much experience with Opera, but I haven't had much trouble with it when dealing with CSS.
Remember several years ago when several car manufacturers got busted for putting bad tires on new cars? No one argued that having tires on cars was a broken idea. The same is true in this case. Don't ditch CSS, just fix the friggin' browsers.
Besides, what exactly is the alternative? Putting style tags on each element? For one thing, you'll run into the same problems, and for another, I'm confused as to how that is easier than using CSS. Going back to tag-level formatting? No thanks. Frankly, that was a hideous idea when they came up with it the first time.
It was a nice rant, though, but misdirected.
No it doesn't. In fact, I would hope that in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't even come close. I think Americans should rise up and have the DMCA overturned. But I don't think they should arm themselves and take to the streets over it. I think that they should rise up and demand public funding of stem cell research. Again, I don't think they should arm themselves and take to the streets over it. I think that speed bumps on government-owned roads should be outlawed. I don't think... well, you get the idea.
This may be somewhat true, but it doesn't make it right, and leaders of movements who encourage it are usually more dangerous than whatever it is they're fighting. Only extremely rarely is this kind of thing justified. Read some of the writings and speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi.
If by "counter-measures" you mean "change," I agree. Trying to stop violence with violence is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. Both are pretty spectacular to watch on CNN, but both are also pretty stupid.
That's true, and if the OP meant that online gambling has been outlawed at a federal level or at the state levels, that's fine. But it sounded like he or she was saying, "There's not a law that allows it, so it's illegal." That's patently false, and if that's what he or she thinks, whoever it is should immediately read the Constitution. (Not that our legistlators actually have...)
Along the lines of what you're talking about, though, you're right. I love how the state and federal government is slowly (and not-so-slowly in some cases) making everything illegal. That way, they can arrest any citizen at any time for whatever reason—or no reason at all—because, well, they're doing something illegal. It's truly sad.
Oh, and by "love," I really meant "hate." ;-)
I'm glad that someone else here has the common sense to realize that "rise up" doesn't necessarily always mean "pick up your guns and start shooting people." In fact, just as a general rule, I ask all Slashdot readers to please make a mental note that unless I'm speaking of literally defending someone's life from an imminent threat, never assume that anything I say means, "pick up your guns and start shooting people."
*sigh* (I thought that was obvious. My bad, I should have known better.)
I have a fundamental problem with this:
So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?
I don't care what country you're in, that's just wrong. Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up and ensure that this proposal doesn't see the light of day. I'm sorry, but if someone's not convicted, they're sure as hell not a cybercriminal.
If it is done properly, this could work out well, imo. I love a movie with a good story, for sure, but you know, I don't actually go back and watch those movies more than once. I know what's going to happen in the story after I've watched it through once, so a story centered movie has little point for me to watch again. The movies that I watch over and over have little to no story, from the old Jean Claude Van Damme and Jan-Michael Vincent movies, to newer stuff such as Jet Li, The Rock, or Jackie Chan (which you could argue has a story, but it's hardly important to the movie). These are the movies that I watch again and again, because it's about the action and none or very little of the enjoyment is tied into watching the story unfold.
Wow, I can't believe that I used to be pretty silly, enjoying all of those movies with good stories! ;-)
Will someone PLEASE mod this up? I've already commented in this thread (wish I could take it back now!) so I can't at the moment.
As for the original poster, what in the world makes you think that there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US? Is it merely that there's no law formally making it legal? PLEASE tell me that there's a reason besides a lack of a law formally making it legal. Because if that's it, please immediately read the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. It's extremely important, it's your friend, and it's what gives you the Constitutional right to do the vast majority of the activities you do every day.
Before I jump to conclusions, my question is this: Are they really guilty of fraud and racketeering (very serious crimes that should be severely punished), or is this just an excuse to try to stop online gambling? I would be interested in seeing and hearing the evidence that gets presented before making up my mind.
Of course, both sides are going to claim what will support their viewpoint.
On the one hand, the DoJ has been itching for any excuse to go after these folks for a long time, which doesn't help the perception of them. If they had remained legally neutral to the matter and just stuck to what the law says, I sure would be more comfortable that they actually have our best interest at heart and that they're not just pandering to right-wing nutcases.
On the other, the online gambling industry is one that is notoriously rife with fraud, and it's entirely possible that these guys are scum that have been doing what they're accused of or worse. For the sake of their industry, I hope that they have realized the scrutiny that they've been under and have made very diligent efforts to stay clean and legitimate and can prove so in court. Otherwise, these two may very well have doomed their entire industry, even the players that are 100% honest and that just want to provide an entertainment service.
I think that the most telling sign of what the truth is is whether the DoJ starts chasing down all online gambling houses for "fraud" and "racketeering." At any rate, it will be interesting to see how it all turns out.
...and that's fine. But what isn't fine is when you think that God is telling you that other people are wrong for not waking up and feeling like they're staring him in the face. That it's wrong to have different ideological beliefs from you, that things that you view as morally wrong (homosexuality and such) should be stopped even though they're doing no harm to you. What also isn't fine is God telling you that something with a firm scientific foundation (such as evolution) is wrong, and that you should have some kind of misguided blind faith in something that doesn't have a thread of firm evidence supporting it (such as creationism) instead.
And last, but not least, what should be hopefully obvious is that it is not fine for you to try to impose what God is telling you on other people. That means legislating morality, killing infidels, and so forth. In other words, infringing on our right to see what we see as reality.
You're only crippled if you put blind faith in religion above all else. Unfortunately, it is the diabolical nature of almost all religions to make that core belief in them required. People who have faith like that try to make it sound like a good thing, but it's not. It's insidious. Such faith is what gives us people like David Koresh, the Heaven's Gate cult, Jim Jones, and the guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Any religion that teaches people that it's not okay to step back, take a look, question whether or not things make sense, and when there is conflict, form new beliefs and live their lives based on those observations instead of an ancient book is, in my opinion, a very crippling force indeed.