I do believe Nader is a man of convictions however, but I don't share those convictions. I don't want to move us toward bigger governement.
And once again you buy into the belief that only a repub or dem could win, that only Gore and Bush are candidates. If this were the simpsons and homer ripped off their masks to reveal that they were actually martian invaders disguised as our candidates, I am sure that you would start arguing about whether it would be better to have citizen Kang in charge versus citzen Kodo, because of course, a third party vote is a wasted vote. It's mental judo. Nobody actually wants gore or bush. How is it then that millions will be fooled into voting for them? Because they believe the lie that they have no choice, that they have no actual control over who wins. The very first election where people stop believing this fiction will be the election that a third party candidate wins. I'm voting for Harry Browne because that's who i want to be president. If you are voting for someone for a different reason, then you have misunderstood how democracy works. If everyone votes for the person they actually want, we will get the leaders we want. If we let ourselves be tricked into voting for scum, we will continue to have scum. Why would Nader care if Gush wins? Gush is the same as Bore, Bore is the same as Gush. They represent the status quo.
"I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs."
"I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking."
"WAKE UP! IT'S THE SAME GUY HOLDING BOTH PUPPETS!"
Bush will rape the environment, as he did in Texas, increase free trade, and limit the power of unions in any way possible.
Duh.... and so will Gore. Vote for your conscience, not against your fear. If you don't, you've earned your shackles.
Best patent ever - method of exercising a cat
on
Patent Warfare
·
· Score: 1
Read harry browne's position. If we eliminate social security taxes, and everyone just put that 15% (can you believe they take 15% of your salary - to tell you how to invest?) in a savings account, people would end up with SUBSTANTIALLY more money at the end. So..... in what way is this a government service? And what if that 2% investment failed? Do you think the govt would actually allow that?
As Michael Moore says, the largest political party is the non-voters. 60% of the population maybe? Now if they all went out and voted for nader..... how would this be throwing away their votes?
This is a complete non-issue. But if you're worried about it, here's what you do: if you live in a swing state, look at the polls the day before the election. If gore, or bush, is going to win by a substantial margin, then don't worry about the issue. Go out and vote for whoever you want to, knowing that the issue is already decided.
If you didn't vote in the last election - feel free to vote any way you want to. The Dems don't own your vote, and heck they're not even expecting it. So vote your conscience! This includes all 18, 19 etc yr olds, please don't fall into the 'throw your vote away' stupidity now. Have you ever seen a herd of water buffalo running from a lion? Didn't you wonder why they whole herd doesn't just pivot and trample the predator? Because they have the hearts of sheep. They can't imagine thinking outside the box. Now have you wondered why the american voters don't just vote for someone real instead of another phony lying, value-less career politician? Because we're sheep. We believe the lions when they tell us to vote them into office so they can continue to trample our rights. But they only have power if we choose to give it to them. Don't be sheep. Show that you're above the politics of greed and fear-mongering. Vote for something you actually believe in.
do you really think that if the US decided that the Coca-Cola company must die that it could just withdraw from the us and go about its business? First it would be tremendously difficult to withdraw from here for most companies. Second, we could use our completely undue influence to get other countries to freeze their assets.
Want a good historical example? Look at the catholic church in europe, a classic multinational. They had property everywere, wealth, tremendous influence. But if the local lords decided hell, we're protestant now, lets seize the catholic church's property the church was unable to resist.
Your statement is false because a) the US is a gigantic market b) the other big market would be Europe, who we have completely too much influence over, c) there is international law and international governmental bodies, d) lawsuits - if you sue rj reynolds for tobacco damage, they can't just get away by stopping us activity, the gov't won't let them. Now, when microsoft buys an island state and starts training a real military, then i'll be scared. But right now the multi-nats depend on the (weaker now than it used to be, yes) infrastructure provided by the nation states. Who has all the nukes? From Dune: "He who can destory a thing, controls a thing."
Governments. Governments are the ones with the armies (for now at least) so they do have ultimate say. Corporations exist only as they are recognized by governmental bodies.
Do you think that nobody wants to shake things up and redistribute power? Check out Harry Browne and Ralph Nader.
So you're fed up with the two major parties. I agree. They completely suck, they're corporate whores, etc. Don't vote for them, they don't represent your ideas and beliefs, they don't need your vote.
But you know why your vote matters? Third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens, (Reform party if you're crazy) appear on ballots in different states based on the number of votes they got in the last election. So if one of them represents your beliefs, vote for them. Then in the next election, it hopefully won't take 30000 signatures to get your favored candidate on the ballot.
Don't believe the media's insistence that there are 2 candidates. There are 6 parties on my ballot for president. Republican, Democrat, and then the ones that matter: Libertarian, Green, Reform, and Constitution. Is your local ballot like that? Shouldn't it be? There are far, far more people than this running for president however. There are always at least a couple hundred people running for president. I'm sure the UFO party's candidate would appreciate your vote. I am sure that there is someone who represents you who's running. You just can't depend on the media to tell you who.
Ever study any philosophy? Particularly ethical philosophy? I doubt it. A post right above you (and please READ preceding comments before spouting off YOUR flatulence) makes the point perfectly. Rights are innate and don't disappear no matter what government says. Hizonner's comment is here:
Re:Groups do not have rights. (Score:2, Insightful)
by Hizonner on Thursday October 26, @01:28PM EST (#235)
(User #38491 Info)
Sigh. What is with you people?
Rights are not conferred by laws. Laws exist to protect rights. The fact that the law gives a corporation certain "rights" does not mean that those rights exist morally.
In fact, corporations' "right" to exist at all is purely legal, not moral. It's granted by the government because corporations are a convenient way to organize large-scale activity. There would be no inconsistency in limiting corporations in any way... as long as the purpose of that limitation wasn't to destroy the rights of the underlying individuals.
Anybody who brings up the law in an argument about what corporations should be able to do is an idiot. The law is subject to change, should it be determined to be wrong.
And by making the playstation 2 able to play (almost) all existing playstation games they are providing a HUGE incentive for their 70 million + current users to stick with them. My understanding is that the X-Box will not be able to play standard windows games. Why the hell not? That would be the only reason to buy an x-box.
People don't like throwing out their entire collection of games. The main advantage of consoles over pcs is stability - not that it doesn't crash (though that it important, and i'll believe in a non-crashing microsoft product when i see it), but the fact that after 3 years, you can still go out and buy games that run on your console. By making ps2 play original playstation games, that means that you can upgrade the console and keep playing all your old games. It means that the platform you invested in in 1996 will continue to be viable into.... when? 2003 maybe? Whereas the computer you bought in 1996 was obsolete by 1997 and none of the new games would run on it. That is SOOOO frustrating!
Lets say you have 30 games for your playstation. And assume the average cost was $40. $40 * 30 = $1200 on games, versus $200 (when it was new) on the hardware. Now you are again looking at spending $200 - $300 on hardware. Are you going to get the one that supports your $1200 investment or not? And if you're a computer gamer who's spent a ton on computer games - why would you go out and buy a windows based product that doesn't support those games? Why not choose a system that has demonstrated (for the first time in history) that they want to continue to allow you to enjoy old favorites, while making a giant library of new titles also available?
Uh....and a car driver does? Are you sure the typical result of a driver in a car isn't something like....driver falls asleep, car skids across 3 lanes of traffic, kills 8 totally innocent people?
I think people in flying machines will be much less likely to kill others if their machine or their piloting fails. I think it's too dangerous to allow a 16 year old behind 2000 pounds of poorly maintained steel. But it happens, and so will this. Personal flight really shouldn't be limited to the ultra-wealthy.
Cars are the worst deathtrap ever. So many people are killed by cars. And it's not like a plane crash were you've never seen it. I'm sure everyone on here has seen fatal car accidents up close and personal. After you see a drivers brains smeared all over the highway - what kind of risk is worse than that?
When you're flying in the air what can you hit? Birds, other flying people, and that's it. When you're driving on the ground you can hit buildings, trees, other cars, pedestrians, anything. People may have a fear of heights that they're unable to overcome. Great. That will leave the sky more open to me and my friends.
Compared to skycars regular cars are 1) slower, 2) probably more dangerous (im kinda assuming any commercial engine for a skycar won't quit in mid flight), 3) way less COOL!
Believe me, there are millions of us out here asking where our rocket packs are!
America is not a democracy. At least not in the classical Athenian sense. We are a representative democratic republic. The way this is supposed to work is: first the candidates get up and tell us what they believe. Ok, this part of the process is completely broken, b/c they all lie and this is the main reason people hate politics. If the candidates would just tell everyone straight out what their actual goals are half of the ills in american politics would vanish. Second, we choose one person to represent us. Third, they vote their conscience in Congress.
I know the actualites don't follow this. But have you ever had a boss who insisted on micro-managing even when he had no idea of the details of your project? The commission has a reason for being - to study all available materials, discuss the matter, and decide the best course to follow. They have access to a body of knowledge not known to that 92% (man they must have cooked that number, MUST have been a leading question) who favor mandatory filtering. They were elected to do a job. Let them do it. Then if the public is unhappy, the remedy is to remove those people in the next election. Don't micro-manage. Don't insist they follow the public's whim (which is largely shaped and controlled by a cynical media machine) on every issue. That's not their job. If that's what's desired, well then let's throw the entire federal system away and go to a system of direct democracy. I am not opposed to such a move. In fact I think it's at least 50 years overdue. The only reason we weren't a direct democracy in the first place is that technoligcal limitations prevented it. But until we do so, saying that you're doing something because the polls show it's what the public wants (and really, it would be just as easy to conduct a poll asking people if their children's right to free speech should be limited using federal funds and get the exact opposite response) is a complete cop-out and not relevant to the job you were elected to do. Elected representatives are supposed to be leaders, they are not supposed to be mindless robots doing what they're told. The government has a duty to prevent a tyranny of the majority, capering to the will of th majority is a failure to uphold this duty.
Lawrence Lessig - why didn't all of you vote 4 him
on
ICANN At-Large Results
·
· Score: 1
He is in the EFF. He has been instrumental leading the fight for rational rules and the rights that most slashdotters care about so much. I think this was a real opportunity for slashdotters to have made an impact on the future of technology policy, and thank you to those of you who did participate, and those of you who didn't have nobody but yourselves to blame if we continue to slide into a Big Brother dystopia.
What the judge is proposing is a statute of limitations of 6 months on such data. So even if it is backed up somewhere it won't be admissible as evidence
NOOOOO!!! If it's backed up then it hasn't been deleted! If rich uncle john writes a will leaving everything to his parrot, and i find out about it and burn it to get the inheritance that would work. UNLESS he had another copy somewhere. See how that's exactly the same thing here? The pile of ashes is no longer a will. The deleted file should no longer be considered a file. BUT if it exists elsewhere, then this idea would have no impact whatsoever.
And your paper shredder function may not work. The detection equipment is getting more and more sophisticated. What if you used such a program and they STILL found enough magnetic traces to reconstruct the file? You have no choice but to take it on faith that those programs will actually do what they say. Whereas if you have a physical document, you can be sure of it yourself.
that the entire legal system will ignore evidence of a crime just cuz we tortured it out of the guy?
yes.
are you telling me the legal profession will ignore evidence of a crime just cuz the evidence was obtained illegaly?
yes.
now can you tell me why if i have a letter in one hand, and a word document in my virtual right hand, when i burn the letter it ceases to become legal evidence, but when i try my damndest to destroy the.doc file it will never ever cease to be legal evidence? assuming they both say the same thing? the law shouldn't treat virtual documents any more stringently than it treats real ones, and real ones can be destroyed.
Only if the recipient deleted it on the first day. This isn't a date after a file is created. It's a date after a file is deleted.
Say someone writes you a lover letter, completely out of the blue. Several, and they wont' stop when you tell them to. If they're on paper, you can burn them when your wife's divorce lawyer tries to take a look at them. But not if they're electronic. Not everything that LOOKS incriminating actually indicates a crime took place. There are other valid reasons for not wanting others to look at them.
And of course the file may not be yours. Ever bought a used computer? Sure you may have reformatted the hard drive. But what if the former owner had all his KKK letters and kiddy porn on there? Well to the cops it will sure look like that should be evidence that's admissible - against you, whether it's yours or not. Should the sins of the former owner be visited on the new owner, even unto the 7th generation? After 7 reformats and wipes the illegal files of the first owner will PROBABLY no longer be there in readable form.
This is not just about email. And it's not about whether the key should really delete it. Its about whether the law should TREAT it as if it's really deleted. People are acting like he said that after 6 months your email or file or whatever vanishes. No. After you DELETE it, 6 months from then no one can come digging around and find its magnetic traces. If the file still exists, then this rule wouldn't apply at all.
If your files were on paper they could be destroyed to the point where they are no longer evidence. This is not possible with electronic documents. But the law can treat it as if it is.
Say someone writes you a lover letter, completely out of the blue. Several, and they wont' stop when you tell them to. If they're on paper, you can burn them when your wife's divorce lawyer tries to take a look at them. But not if they're electronic. Not everything that LOOKS incriminating actually indicates a crime took place. There are other valid reasons for not wanting others to look at them.
And of course the file may not be yours. Ever bought a used computer? Sure you may have reformatted the hard drive. But what if the former owner had all his KKK letters and kiddy porn on there? Well to the cops it will sure look like that should be evidence that's admissible - against you, whether it's yours or not. Should the sins of the former owner be visited on the new owner, even unto the 7th generation? After 7 reformats and wipes the illegal files of the first owner will PROBABLY no longer be there in readable form.
What determines how old it is in a relevant way is..... THE TIME YOU DELETED IT! Sheesh, people are acting like he said that after 6 months your email or file or whatever vanishes. No. After you DELETE it, 6 months from then no one can come digging around and find its magnetic traces. If you still have the email i sent to you saved, then yes it's perfectly admissible.
But we're not just talking emails. Any files. Your personal files. If they were on paper they could be destroyed to the point where they are no longer evidence. This is not possible with electronic documents. But the law can treat it as if it is.
Say someone writes you a lover letter, completely out of the blue. Several, and they wont' stop when you tell them to. If they're on paper, you can burn them when your wife's divorce lawyer tries to take a look at them. But not if they're electronic. Not everything that LOOKS incriminating actually indicates a crime took place. There are other valid reasons for not wanting others to look at them.
And what many people are proposing is that the law is fine, because they are personally skilled enough to delete their files. So when did technical skill start to mean that you have more legal rights than others?
And of course the file may not be yours. Ever bought a used computer? Sure you may have reformatted the hard drive. But what if the former owner had all his KKK letters and kiddy porn on there? Well to the cops it will sure look like that should be evidence that's admissible - against you, whether it's yours or not. Should the sins of the former owner be visited on the new owner, even unto the 7th generation? After 7 reformats and wipes the illegal files of the first owner will PROBABLY no longer be there in readable form.
If I choose to not go to any site ending in.xxx or.sex, why shouldn't i be allowed to implement that decision? There will probably be some kids who find themselves censored. But personally i'm more concerned about the darned involuntary redirects and 200 extra opening windows that i really really don't ever want to experience again. As someone said earlier - if someone else tells me i can't see it, it's censorship. If I choose it, it's a preferences menu.
Sectioning off of the web by content concerns you? You mean like with internet providers having sites that end in.net? And companies having sites that end in.com?
I do see your point about censorware. But really, I am personally sick of being redirected to porn sites, having them pop up a billion ads etc. Also sick of sites that host doubleclick or whatever sneaking their cookies onto my machine. If the ad companies had to serve up ads from a.ads tld and the porn sites had to end with.xxx then I would be able to control my browser, which is something I should be able to do now, by blocking those extensions. What sucks more than what you're afraid of is the current system whereby you a) personally review every cookie, which is a pain in the ass and a job better done by a machine or b) let doubleclick track your movements across their affiliate sites. Cookies were only supposed to be accepted from the site you are at. Not from doubleclicks remote servers. This was not enforced or built into the system. Well here's a possible way to fix that. I don't mind looking at doubleclick's ads. But i don't want to be tracked by them, period. I'm in favor of anything that empowers the user to control their experience, and i think this does that.
Genes are not inventions. Patenting genes is like patenting carbon. It's obscene. All thats required is a marker, and some guess as to what the gene does. Classic example - there is a small village in Italy, kinda inbred i guess. Because a large family developed a unique genetic condition - choloesterol doesn't harm them at all. They were wondering about their weird test results and started consulting with doctors. Eventually they see some specialists in America. Guess what they do. Extract the genes, PATENT them, and tell the family to f**k off, they're not needed anymore. How can your unique genetic heritage be patented by SOMEONE ELSE strictly for their profit? They didn't create it. They never owned or possessed it. They didn't alter it. They just described it. Gene patents are bad - the genome should belong to the species as common property. Software patents are also often bad - ignoring the criticism doens't invalidate it.
Why is it invalid? Because it is a shade of an idea. A trifling device. Because it's obvious and not very different from other systems. Because it STIFLES rather than ENCOURAGES innovation. Want to know what patents are supposed to cover? Here are the words of a Supreme Court justice, from way back in 1882 that pretty much cover this situation:
"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufacturers. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith."
- 1882 by Justice Bradley
If you're dumb enough to store your credit card with us, then doggonit, you're dumb enough to pay us whatever we tell you to for products you didn't know you wanted.
The only one with any real mention of the issues that matter to slashdotters, and he mentions a BUNCH: a report to the court for Napster, a brief he filed defending the right to post cpHack, lead counsel in Eldred v. Reno, opposing retrospectively increasing the copyright term, testified in front of congree opposing censorware, Board Member, RedHat Center for Open Source, Board Member, EFF. I mean c'mon, the EFF? Everyone who hasn't voted, VOTE FOR THIS GUY!
"RELEVANT WORKS
"Open Access": Testimony before FCC and work in ongoing litigation to defend the Internet's end-to-end architecture, by opposing efforts by cable companies to architect broadband to be inconsistent with end-to-end.
Napster: Experts report for Napster opposing judicial regulation of network search technologies.
CyberPatrol: Amicus Brief defending the right to post and link to copies of cpHack, which revealed sites blocked by CyberPatrol
Copyright Term Extension: Lead counsel in Eldred v. Reno, opposing the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act," which retrospectively increased the copyright term.
Censorware: testimony in opposition to efforts by Congress to require identification in cyberspace, and in opposition to "censorware" technologies. .
Board Member, RedHat Center for Open Source
Board Member, EFF
"
"A LIMITED ROLE FOR ICANN
In my view, the challenge for ICANN is to keep its footprint small. Its role is to be a tiny, coordinating body for technical standards made elsewhere; its function is to assure those standards sustain and support the stability and diversity of the Internet.
Its job is not to become the trademark police; it is not to be the tool of intellectual property; its job is not to set policy for the Internet generally (beyond defending the decentralized architecture of the original net); nor to create artificial scarcity, or choke points of power. ICANN cannot be permitted to claim a mandate beyond the narrow tasks described in its charter.
ICANN must be accountable to that charter and to the values it embodies. Its burden is to do this without becoming captured by powerful interests that would seek to manipulate ICANN's position in service of their own limited ends.
If elected, I will work to ensure that ICANN maintains a vigilant focus on a limited, technical coordination role. I will staunchly defend free expression, privacy, open architecture, and security, by ensuring that ICANN stays out of making policy in these areas. And I will work to ensure that the original spirit of openness, diversity, and the free flow of Information -- the original tenets of the constitution of cyberspace -- are preserved.
"
Slashdot Mirror
I was talking about Harry Browne. Who rocks.
I do believe Nader is a man of convictions however, but I don't share those convictions. I don't want to move us toward bigger governement.
And once again you buy into the belief that only a repub or dem could win, that only Gore and Bush are candidates. If this were the simpsons and homer ripped off their masks to reveal that they were actually martian invaders disguised as our candidates, I am sure that you would start arguing about whether it would be better to have citizen Kang in charge versus citzen Kodo, because of course, a third party vote is a wasted vote. It's mental judo. Nobody actually wants gore or bush. How is it then that millions will be fooled into voting for them? Because they believe the lie that they have no choice, that they have no actual control over who wins. The very first election where people stop believing this fiction will be the election that a third party candidate wins. I'm voting for Harry Browne because that's who i want to be president. If you are voting for someone for a different reason, then you have misunderstood how democracy works. If everyone votes for the person they actually want, we will get the leaders we want. If we let ourselves be tricked into voting for scum, we will continue to have scum. Why would Nader care if Gush wins? Gush is the same as Bore, Bore is the same as Gush. They represent the status quo.
"I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs."
"I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking."
"WAKE UP! IT'S THE SAME GUY HOLDING BOTH PUPPETS!"
Bush will rape the environment, as he did in Texas, increase free trade, and limit the power of unions in any way possible.
Duh.... and so will Gore. Vote for your conscience, not against your fear. If you don't, you've earned your shackles.
Sike! This is the stupidest, most retarded, pathetic patent ever. What an insult! No prior art? A method of exercising a cat? By pointing a laser and moving it around? Boy, doesn't this infringe on Edison's patent of exercising a cat by playing with string?
HOW does crap like this make it past a review?
Read harry browne's position. If we eliminate social security taxes, and everyone just put that 15% (can you believe they take 15% of your salary - to tell you how to invest?) in a savings account, people would end up with SUBSTANTIALLY more money at the end. So..... in what way is this a government service? And what if that 2% investment failed? Do you think the govt would actually allow that?
As Michael Moore says, the largest political party is the non-voters. 60% of the population maybe? Now if they all went out and voted for nader..... how would this be throwing away their votes?
This is a complete non-issue. But if you're worried about it, here's what you do: if you live in a swing state, look at the polls the day before the election. If gore, or bush, is going to win by a substantial margin, then don't worry about the issue. Go out and vote for whoever you want to, knowing that the issue is already decided.
If you didn't vote in the last election - feel free to vote any way you want to. The Dems don't own your vote, and heck they're not even expecting it. So vote your conscience! This includes all 18, 19 etc yr olds, please don't fall into the 'throw your vote away' stupidity now. Have you ever seen a herd of water buffalo running from a lion? Didn't you wonder why they whole herd doesn't just pivot and trample the predator? Because they have the hearts of sheep. They can't imagine thinking outside the box. Now have you wondered why the american voters don't just vote for someone real instead of another phony lying, value-less career politician? Because we're sheep. We believe the lions when they tell us to vote them into office so they can continue to trample our rights. But they only have power if we choose to give it to them. Don't be sheep. Show that you're above the politics of greed and fear-mongering. Vote for something you actually believe in.
do you really think that if the US decided that the Coca-Cola company must die that it could just withdraw from the us and go about its business? First it would be tremendously difficult to withdraw from here for most companies. Second, we could use our completely undue influence to get other countries to freeze their assets.
Want a good historical example? Look at the catholic church in europe, a classic multinational. They had property everywere, wealth, tremendous influence. But if the local lords decided hell, we're protestant now, lets seize the catholic church's property the church was unable to resist.
Your statement is false because a) the US is a gigantic market b) the other big market would be Europe, who we have completely too much influence over, c) there is international law and international governmental bodies, d) lawsuits - if you sue rj reynolds for tobacco damage, they can't just get away by stopping us activity, the gov't won't let them. Now, when microsoft buys an island state and starts training a real military, then i'll be scared. But right now the multi-nats depend on the (weaker now than it used to be, yes) infrastructure provided by the nation states. Who has all the nukes? From Dune: "He who can destory a thing, controls a thing."
Governments. Governments are the ones with the armies (for now at least) so they do have ultimate say. Corporations exist only as they are recognized by governmental bodies.
Do you think that nobody wants to shake things up and redistribute power? Check out Harry Browne and Ralph Nader.
So you're fed up with the two major parties. I agree. They completely suck, they're corporate whores, etc. Don't vote for them, they don't represent your ideas and beliefs, they don't need your vote.
But you know why your vote matters? Third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens, (Reform party if you're crazy) appear on ballots in different states based on the number of votes they got in the last election. So if one of them represents your beliefs, vote for them. Then in the next election, it hopefully won't take 30000 signatures to get your favored candidate on the ballot.
Don't believe the media's insistence that there are 2 candidates. There are 6 parties on my ballot for president. Republican, Democrat, and then the ones that matter: Libertarian, Green, Reform, and Constitution. Is your local ballot like that? Shouldn't it be? There are far, far more people than this running for president however. There are always at least a couple hundred people running for president. I'm sure the UFO party's candidate would appreciate your vote. I am sure that there is someone who represents you who's running. You just can't depend on the media to tell you who.
Ever study any philosophy? Particularly ethical philosophy? I doubt it. A post right above you (and please READ preceding comments before spouting off YOUR flatulence) makes the point perfectly. Rights are innate and don't disappear no matter what government says. Hizonner's comment is here:
Re:Groups do not have rights. (Score:2, Insightful) by Hizonner on Thursday October 26, @01:28PM EST (#235) (User #38491 Info) Sigh. What is with you people? Rights are not conferred by laws. Laws exist to protect rights. The fact that the law gives a corporation certain "rights" does not mean that those rights exist morally. In fact, corporations' "right" to exist at all is purely legal, not moral. It's granted by the government because corporations are a convenient way to organize large-scale activity. There would be no inconsistency in limiting corporations in any way... as long as the purpose of that limitation wasn't to destroy the rights of the underlying individuals. Anybody who brings up the law in an argument about what corporations should be able to do is an idiot. The law is subject to change, should it be determined to be wrong.
And by making the playstation 2 able to play (almost) all existing playstation games they are providing a HUGE incentive for their 70 million + current users to stick with them. My understanding is that the X-Box will not be able to play standard windows games. Why the hell not? That would be the only reason to buy an x-box.
People don't like throwing out their entire collection of games. The main advantage of consoles over pcs is stability - not that it doesn't crash (though that it important, and i'll believe in a non-crashing microsoft product when i see it), but the fact that after 3 years, you can still go out and buy games that run on your console. By making ps2 play original playstation games, that means that you can upgrade the console and keep playing all your old games. It means that the platform you invested in in 1996 will continue to be viable into.... when? 2003 maybe? Whereas the computer you bought in 1996 was obsolete by 1997 and none of the new games would run on it. That is SOOOO frustrating!
Lets say you have 30 games for your playstation. And assume the average cost was $40. $40 * 30 = $1200 on games, versus $200 (when it was new) on the hardware. Now you are again looking at spending $200 - $300 on hardware. Are you going to get the one that supports your $1200 investment or not? And if you're a computer gamer who's spent a ton on computer games - why would you go out and buy a windows based product that doesn't support those games? Why not choose a system that has demonstrated (for the first time in history) that they want to continue to allow you to enjoy old favorites, while making a giant library of new titles also available?
Uh....and a car driver does? Are you sure the typical result of a driver in a car isn't something like....driver falls asleep, car skids across 3 lanes of traffic, kills 8 totally innocent people?
I think people in flying machines will be much less likely to kill others if their machine or their piloting fails. I think it's too dangerous to allow a 16 year old behind 2000 pounds of poorly maintained steel. But it happens, and so will this. Personal flight really shouldn't be limited to the ultra-wealthy.
Cars are the worst deathtrap ever. So many people are killed by cars. And it's not like a plane crash were you've never seen it. I'm sure everyone on here has seen fatal car accidents up close and personal. After you see a drivers brains smeared all over the highway - what kind of risk is worse than that?
When you're flying in the air what can you hit? Birds, other flying people, and that's it. When you're driving on the ground you can hit buildings, trees, other cars, pedestrians, anything. People may have a fear of heights that they're unable to overcome. Great. That will leave the sky more open to me and my friends.
Compared to skycars regular cars are 1) slower, 2) probably more dangerous (im kinda assuming any commercial engine for a skycar won't quit in mid flight), 3) way less COOL!
Believe me, there are millions of us out here asking where our rocket packs are!
America is not a democracy. At least not in the classical Athenian sense. We are a representative democratic republic. The way this is supposed to work is: first the candidates get up and tell us what they believe. Ok, this part of the process is completely broken, b/c they all lie and this is the main reason people hate politics. If the candidates would just tell everyone straight out what their actual goals are half of the ills in american politics would vanish. Second, we choose one person to represent us. Third, they vote their conscience in Congress.
I know the actualites don't follow this. But have you ever had a boss who insisted on micro-managing even when he had no idea of the details of your project? The commission has a reason for being - to study all available materials, discuss the matter, and decide the best course to follow. They have access to a body of knowledge not known to that 92% (man they must have cooked that number, MUST have been a leading question) who favor mandatory filtering. They were elected to do a job. Let them do it. Then if the public is unhappy, the remedy is to remove those people in the next election. Don't micro-manage. Don't insist they follow the public's whim (which is largely shaped and controlled by a cynical media machine) on every issue. That's not their job. If that's what's desired, well then let's throw the entire federal system away and go to a system of direct democracy. I am not opposed to such a move. In fact I think it's at least 50 years overdue. The only reason we weren't a direct democracy in the first place is that technoligcal limitations prevented it. But until we do so, saying that you're doing something because the polls show it's what the public wants (and really, it would be just as easy to conduct a poll asking people if their children's right to free speech should be limited using federal funds and get the exact opposite response) is a complete cop-out and not relevant to the job you were elected to do. Elected representatives are supposed to be leaders, they are not supposed to be mindless robots doing what they're told. The government has a duty to prevent a tyranny of the majority, capering to the will of th majority is a failure to uphold this duty.
He is in the EFF. He has been instrumental leading the fight for rational rules and the rights that most slashdotters care about so much. I think this was a real opportunity for slashdotters to have made an impact on the future of technology policy, and thank you to those of you who did participate, and those of you who didn't have nobody but yourselves to blame if we continue to slide into a Big Brother dystopia.
What the judge is proposing is a statute of limitations of 6 months on such data. So even if it is backed up somewhere it won't be admissible as evidence
NOOOOO!!! If it's backed up then it hasn't been deleted! If rich uncle john writes a will leaving everything to his parrot, and i find out about it and burn it to get the inheritance that would work. UNLESS he had another copy somewhere. See how that's exactly the same thing here? The pile of ashes is no longer a will. The deleted file should no longer be considered a file. BUT if it exists elsewhere, then this idea would have no impact whatsoever.
And your paper shredder function may not work. The detection equipment is getting more and more sophisticated. What if you used such a program and they STILL found enough magnetic traces to reconstruct the file? You have no choice but to take it on faith that those programs will actually do what they say. Whereas if you have a physical document, you can be sure of it yourself.
that the entire legal system will ignore evidence of a crime just cuz we tortured it out of the guy?
.doc file it will never ever cease to be legal evidence? assuming they both say the same thing? the law shouldn't treat virtual documents any more stringently than it treats real ones, and real ones can be destroyed.
yes.
are you telling me the legal profession will ignore evidence of a crime just cuz the evidence was obtained illegaly?
yes.
now can you tell me why if i have a letter in one hand, and a word document in my virtual right hand, when i burn the letter it ceases to become legal evidence, but when i try my damndest to destroy the
It's people like you who would be protected by this idea that delete should actually delete..... did you really now know that it didn't?
Only if the recipient deleted it on the first day. This isn't a date after a file is created. It's a date after a file is deleted.
Say someone writes you a lover letter, completely out of the blue. Several, and they wont' stop when you tell them to. If they're on paper, you can burn them when your wife's divorce lawyer tries to take a look at them. But not if they're electronic. Not everything that LOOKS incriminating actually indicates a crime took place. There are other valid reasons for not wanting others to look at them.
And of course the file may not be yours. Ever bought a used computer? Sure you may have reformatted the hard drive. But what if the former owner had all his KKK letters and kiddy porn on there? Well to the cops it will sure look like that should be evidence that's admissible - against you, whether it's yours or not. Should the sins of the former owner be visited on the new owner, even unto the 7th generation? After 7 reformats and wipes the illegal files of the first owner will PROBABLY no longer be there in readable form.
This is not just about email. And it's not about whether the key should really delete it. Its about whether the law should TREAT it as if it's really deleted. People are acting like he said that after 6 months your email or file or whatever vanishes. No. After you DELETE it, 6 months from then no one can come digging around and find its magnetic traces. If the file still exists, then this rule wouldn't apply at all.
If your files were on paper they could be destroyed to the point where they are no longer evidence. This is not possible with electronic documents. But the law can treat it as if it is.
Say someone writes you a lover letter, completely out of the blue. Several, and they wont' stop when you tell them to. If they're on paper, you can burn them when your wife's divorce lawyer tries to take a look at them. But not if they're electronic. Not everything that LOOKS incriminating actually indicates a crime took place. There are other valid reasons for not wanting others to look at them.
And of course the file may not be yours. Ever bought a used computer? Sure you may have reformatted the hard drive. But what if the former owner had all his KKK letters and kiddy porn on there? Well to the cops it will sure look like that should be evidence that's admissible - against you, whether it's yours or not. Should the sins of the former owner be visited on the new owner, even unto the 7th generation? After 7 reformats and wipes the illegal files of the first owner will PROBABLY no longer be there in readable form.
What determines how old it is in a relevant way is..... THE TIME YOU DELETED IT! Sheesh, people are acting like he said that after 6 months your email or file or whatever vanishes. No. After you DELETE it, 6 months from then no one can come digging around and find its magnetic traces. If you still have the email i sent to you saved, then yes it's perfectly admissible.
But we're not just talking emails. Any files. Your personal files. If they were on paper they could be destroyed to the point where they are no longer evidence. This is not possible with electronic documents. But the law can treat it as if it is.
Say someone writes you a lover letter, completely out of the blue. Several, and they wont' stop when you tell them to. If they're on paper, you can burn them when your wife's divorce lawyer tries to take a look at them. But not if they're electronic. Not everything that LOOKS incriminating actually indicates a crime took place. There are other valid reasons for not wanting others to look at them.
And what many people are proposing is that the law is fine, because they are personally skilled enough to delete their files. So when did technical skill start to mean that you have more legal rights than others?
And of course the file may not be yours. Ever bought a used computer? Sure you may have reformatted the hard drive. But what if the former owner had all his KKK letters and kiddy porn on there? Well to the cops it will sure look like that should be evidence that's admissible - against you, whether it's yours or not. Should the sins of the former owner be visited on the new owner, even unto the 7th generation? After 7 reformats and wipes the illegal files of the first owner will PROBABLY no longer be there in readable form.
If I choose to not go to any site ending in .xxx or .sex, why shouldn't i be allowed to implement that decision? There will probably be some kids who find themselves censored. But personally i'm more concerned about the darned involuntary redirects and 200 extra opening windows that i really really don't ever want to experience again. As someone said earlier - if someone else tells me i can't see it, it's censorship. If I choose it, it's a preferences menu.
Sectioning off of the web by content concerns you? You mean like with internet providers having sites that end in .net? And companies having sites that end in .com?
.ads tld and the porn sites had to end with .xxx then I would be able to control my browser, which is something I should be able to do now, by blocking those extensions. What sucks more than what you're afraid of is the current system whereby you a) personally review every cookie, which is a pain in the ass and a job better done by a machine or b) let doubleclick track your movements across their affiliate sites. Cookies were only supposed to be accepted from the site you are at. Not from doubleclicks remote servers. This was not enforced or built into the system. Well here's a possible way to fix that. I don't mind looking at doubleclick's ads. But i don't want to be tracked by them, period. I'm in favor of anything that empowers the user to control their experience, and i think this does that.
I do see your point about censorware. But really, I am personally sick of being redirected to porn sites, having them pop up a billion ads etc. Also sick of sites that host doubleclick or whatever sneaking their cookies onto my machine. If the ad companies had to serve up ads from a
Genes are not inventions. Patenting genes is like patenting carbon. It's obscene. All thats required is a marker, and some guess as to what the gene does. Classic example - there is a small village in Italy, kinda inbred i guess. Because a large family developed a unique genetic condition - choloesterol doesn't harm them at all. They were wondering about their weird test results and started consulting with doctors. Eventually they see some specialists in America. Guess what they do. Extract the genes, PATENT them, and tell the family to f**k off, they're not needed anymore. How can your unique genetic heritage be patented by SOMEONE ELSE strictly for their profit? They didn't create it. They never owned or possessed it. They didn't alter it. They just described it. Gene patents are bad - the genome should belong to the species as common property. Software patents are also often bad - ignoring the criticism doens't invalidate it.
Why is it invalid? Because it is a shade of an idea. A trifling device. Because it's obvious and not very different from other systems. Because it STIFLES rather than ENCOURAGES innovation. Want to know what patents are supposed to cover? Here are the words of a Supreme Court justice, from way back in 1882 that pretty much cover this situation:
"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufacturers. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith." - 1882 by Justice Bradley
If you're dumb enough to store your credit card with us, then doggonit, you're dumb enough to pay us whatever we tell you to for products you didn't know you wanted.
The only one with any real mention of the issues that matter to slashdotters, and he mentions a BUNCH: a report to the court for Napster, a brief he filed defending the right to post cpHack, lead counsel in Eldred v. Reno, opposing retrospectively increasing the copyright term, testified in front of congree opposing censorware, Board Member, RedHat Center for Open Source, Board Member, EFF. I mean c'mon, the EFF? Everyone who hasn't voted, VOTE FOR THIS GUY!
"RELEVANT WORKS "Open Access": Testimony before FCC and work in ongoing litigation to defend the Internet's end-to-end architecture, by opposing efforts by cable companies to architect broadband to be inconsistent with end-to-end. Napster: Experts report for Napster opposing judicial regulation of network search technologies. CyberPatrol: Amicus Brief defending the right to post and link to copies of cpHack, which revealed sites blocked by CyberPatrol Copyright Term Extension: Lead counsel in Eldred v. Reno, opposing the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act," which retrospectively increased the copyright term. Censorware: testimony in opposition to efforts by Congress to require identification in cyberspace, and in opposition to "censorware" technologies. . Board Member, RedHat Center for Open Source Board Member, EFF " "A LIMITED ROLE FOR ICANN In my view, the challenge for ICANN is to keep its footprint small. Its role is to be a tiny, coordinating body for technical standards made elsewhere; its function is to assure those standards sustain and support the stability and diversity of the Internet. Its job is not to become the trademark police; it is not to be the tool of intellectual property; its job is not to set policy for the Internet generally (beyond defending the decentralized architecture of the original net); nor to create artificial scarcity, or choke points of power. ICANN cannot be permitted to claim a mandate beyond the narrow tasks described in its charter. ICANN must be accountable to that charter and to the values it embodies. Its burden is to do this without becoming captured by powerful interests that would seek to manipulate ICANN's position in service of their own limited ends. If elected, I will work to ensure that ICANN maintains a vigilant focus on a limited, technical coordination role. I will staunchly defend free expression, privacy, open architecture, and security, by ensuring that ICANN stays out of making policy in these areas. And I will work to ensure that the original spirit of openness, diversity, and the free flow of Information -- the original tenets of the constitution of cyberspace -- are preserved. "