I don't believe anyone buys a movie based on the fact that in 20 years the copyright will expire.
Not anymore they don't. In fact, most people no longer understand that copyright is an artificial right granted by the government "for a limited time, to promote useful arts and sciences." Most people think it is a natural right, that all people should always have, and always did. Anyone planning on buying or selling works using the copyright system, however, should have a reasonable expectation that the rules will not change every few years. In fact, if you asked most publishing houses in the U.S. when they realistically expect their copyrights to expire, I'll bet most would say, "never."
If they slap him with a stupid debt then that's his life ruined. If he'd have shoplifted the 5 or 6 copies he said he distributed, he'd have been a lot better off legally.
According to the article there were about 2500 downloads from his seed. That is 2500*$130=$325K. Now add in any damage from leaking the public beta to the public, including bad PR caused by the leaky betas, now include Apple's legal fees to get an injunction + restitution. This theoretically cost Apple a lot of money, and it was something he agreed not to do. I mean if I sign an agreement that says I won't take a dump in the food at a restaurant if they let me into the kitchen, then I do that and lots of people get sick, and sue, and their business goes downhill, I'd damn well expect to be sued for the damage caused. This guy has no excuse. He's supposed to be a med student, which further reduces my faith in the profession. He will probably have a lot of debt to pay off and that is a good thing.
P.S. your comments about hijacking a truck are moronic. He is not going to spend 8-10 years in prison for this, he is going to be in debt until he pays for the damage he caused.
It is the thieves that feel it is thier right to steal from people just because they can that have brought this onerrous situation upon us.
I applaud you decision to respect the copyright laws, and not support piracy. On the other hand, I think you are very wrong to think DRM controls have anything to do with piracy. They don't stop anyone from copying a disk, and they are a mere speed bump for anyone who wants to rip content. DRM related laws are not aimed at the lawless, they are useless for stopping piracy. DRM is all about content control for people who obey the laws. Their purpose is to prevent you from moving your already purchased content to a newer format, or displaying it in multiple locations. They are about price fixing in different regions. I'm sorry you have been fooled into believe the smokescreen about piracy. Content producers are not stupid enough to believe that DRM will stop piracy, it is just an excuse.
To make a second point, while I do not violate copyright laws, I think the dirty hands of the content publishers give them little right to complain about copyright violations. Copyright was a two-sided deal, and they have welshed on their half. If copyrights do not enter the public domain and copy-written works are not available for sale at a reasonable price, then the original agreement has been broken and their is no reason why they should have exclusive rights to publish a work. Just because they bribed politicians with the money they made with their government sponsored monopoly, does not make it ethical to fail to fulfill their half of the deal. Of course, corporations are rarely ethical, and generally will do whatever the law allows them to, including change those laws to make more profit. If someone wants to violate these unfair copyright laws, hack content publishers bank accounts, or steal all their staplers, I say "enjoy and good luck."
it's not that Apple will sell one less copy of the new OSX because of it) that it really merits ruining his entire life? And that's exactly what Apple is doing and it'S disgusting.
Apple is suing for an injunction to stop distribution, court costs, whatever damages they suffer as a result of the distribution, whatever profit the defendant made (if any), and whatever punitive damages the court sees fit to award.
2500 copies of the software were known to have been downloaded as a result of this bit torrent posting. Court costs will be several thousand dollars, at least. The other damages will be decided by the judge and/or jury.
The defendant is a student who plans to become a doctor. I have no idea how much money he has, but maybe it is fair that he pays for whatever damage he caused? If he does not have the money, I'm sure a career in medicine will allow him to scrape together a little bit. He is pretty obviously guilty, and if he has half a brain (questionable at this point) he will settle for an undisclosed sum and a public apology, pay it off when he makes the money, and never do something this stupid again.
About the other case. It's about a news site posting rumors, no more, no less. You know, journalists do this all the time, posting information they got from inside sources.
It is illegal under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act for a journalist to publish what they reasonably expect are trade secrets. Their is no exception for journalists, except whistle blower statutes (in the case of government corruption, illegal activity, or public health concerns). They broke the law, for profit. Can you reference any cases where an insider leaked trade secrets, which were then published, and were not prosecuted? Just suing for the name of the leak is Apple being very, very lenient. Several market rags reported Apple stock dropping by several points as the result of this disclosure. They could sue for enough money to ruin the lives of both the leak and the journalist. In this case, all they care about is finding the leak and firing their lying ass. Which in my book, means they are being very, very lenient.
If you buy the retail version of Windows XP it will cost you a couple of hundred dollars, but if you want to upgrade from a previous version of Windows to Windows XP, it costs $99 (for regular consumers or business people, not students).
All of this is trying to compare apples and oranges. For example the difference between Windows 98 SE and Windows ME was window dressing and bug fixes. The difference between ME and XP was mostly bug fixes and some new features (from an end user point of view). In fact, the only reason I upgrade to a new version of Windows is because my company pays for it, or because the old version will not get vital security fixes. On the other hand, each OS X release (aside from the free one) was mostly new features. All the major bug fixes and all the security updates are available for the older versions.
I guess what I am saying is yes, Windows can be upgraded more cheaply than OS X if you always buy the most current release of each OS. Apple is faster to add new functionality and release new versions, and each version costs slightly more than a typical Windows release. On the other hand, you get a lot more for your money in terms of new, useful features. Also, since each version of OS X gets faster instead of slower, you don't have to buy new hardware as often and when you do, you can bring you OS license over to the new machine, if you so desire. With Windows, each OS version is tied to a machine and cannot be transferred to a newer one. It is a very unequal comparison.
What do you do for a living Tim? Are you willing to start working for free now? This is an open and shut case of software piracy. A guy grabbed a limited beta release for developers, then put it up on bittorrent. The other case you mention was pretty clear, for profit, industrial espionage. For all the talk about Apple having an army of rabid lawyers, they are really very good about this sort of thing. In the rumor's site case, they are suing for the identity of the leak, who broke his NDA. They aren't going after money or trying to ruin anyone. In this case, Apple is going after someone who posted a beta of their new OS for anyone who wanted it. If I spent a year writing some new software, then some bastard posted it for free on bittorrent I'd sue his ass too.
Second, it's the web developers publication, if they want to put it on THEIR website, then it is THEIR option to do it, and then if you don't like it, you could have turned off the smart tags.
If a web site designer wants to make links on their pages to random ads or services, they can. If I want to ad links to ads and services to all the web pages I look at, then no one has any right to tell me not to. If Google wants to provide a program to let me do it, no one has any right to tell them not to. Publishers have no right not to have an end user alter their pages. Nor any right to stop Google from selling tools. I suppose you think all pen manufacturer's should pay all book publishers? After all I often write notes in the margins, sometimes I even note potential purchases, all without paying the book seller again.
This, however, is nothing more than paying Google for advertising and Google putting the advertising in someone else's phone book
No this is Google providing software that allows me to add ads to a web page. Publishers have no right to control how you read their content, nor do they have any right to be paid if I use any tools I want to look at ads for things mentioned on their pages, whether it is the Yellow pages, or Google toolbar. If I cache a Slashdot page, then add hypertext links to it before I read it, does Slashdot deserve to be paid? What if I write a script to add the links do they deserve to be paid? If I download a script?
This is just a tool to post-process text. Nothing more, nothing less. You should focus less on making advertisers happy about how much crap they can stuff in front of your eyes, and more about having a functional tool.
It is up to the creator of the website to decide what content goes on it, not you.
You must be a marketer's wet dream. It's my computer, my OS, my browser, and my add-ons. Why the hell do I want all my shit collaborating to feed me ads decided by the designer of the web site? I mean if I'm going to add on more ads and links afterwards, at least I'm going to choose the ads. If I post process text on a web site, it's going to be for my benefit, not so the web site author can push more ads. If you want more ads from web site providers, sign up for their spam mailings.
Your phone book throws itself at you every time you're reading the newspaper and come to a word that exists somewhere in the yellow pages?
In order to use this google service, you have to download their toolbar, install it, then specifically enable it for the page. It may be more convenient once it is set up and running, but it's not like you don't have to go out of your way to use it.
The line between "kid with a website" and "journalist" needs to be drawn somewhere.
No. A kid (20 year old) with a website is a journalist. A ten year old with a toy printing press is a journalist. Anyone who reports is a reporter. There is no need to draw a distinction, because U.S. law does not make one. Nor are journalists given any special protections, except in the case of whistle blower statutes. It is a moot issue.
The website operator is not the user. The person browsing is. If I want to run programs on text in my browser to get more information about certain words, well that's damn useful. I do it all the time with Google lookup, translation, dictionary, thesaurus, etc. services. I can turn them on or off. I can change them, or switch to a different lookup service. Me, the user.
The MS version was built into the OS, and made links designated by either the website, or MS. Why should someone else decide how I parse text I am looking at on my machine? I mean obviously I know what map service, what dictionary, and what online stores I like to purchase from. They don't. Google has done this right by giving me the power, not the website operator, and not OS vendor. I hope they build this as a system service for OS X. I would install it and even might use it occasionally.
So, in effect Google is making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for Google while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege.
Similarly, the Yellow pages provide information on services and goods mentioned on Slashdot. A Slashdot user may read about a new CPU, then look in the yellow pages for a computer store. So, in effect the yellow pages are making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for the yellow pages while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege. Those bastards!
This is a tool the user has to specifically download, then enable for a page. There are even provisions that allow you to set other map providers, etc. as the resource. Google went out of their way to play nice on this one. The alternative is that no one should be allowed to parse the text of a web site and run programs on that text, without reimbursing the owner of the site. Right now I run a number of services on text in every application, including Slashdot in my browser. One of them looks up words in Google. Are you saying this is improper? I mean I might read Slashdot, highlight "AMD 64," right click and select lookup in Google, and then buy one, all without compensating Slashdot. This new Google toolbar feature is the same thing, except streamlined. I probably won't use it, but Slashdot has no right to tell me what programs I can or can't run on their text. They offer it for public consumption and I look at ads while reading it. Their is no reason to pay them twice.
i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources... i really don't
Hypothetical Situation:
I own a major newspaper. I have a colleague who works at a competing major news paper. I pay him $10,000 every week and he gives me all the passwords needed to change the other newspaper's web site, and maybe all their bank account numbers. I publish this information in my newspaper with the title, "Other newspaper completely insecure, anyone can change any of their online articles with these passwords!" The net result is, I profit because the competitions stock goes in the toilet and mine goes up. As a reporter, I did not break the law, my colleague did. You think that I should not be required by the courts to name them? You think I should be immune to a subpoena? I think you are placing way too much faith in the fact that reporters will always be honest and not abuse this new power you want to give them.
We need a secure computer system running Windows 98 with unfettered internet access for all employees. All employees must have complete access to install all programs, but no access to install viruses. Computers must have those nifty thumb-print scanners and have a secure sounding start-up sound. The background of each computer must be the Homeland Security logo on a background of cornflower blue for normal employees, spruce for executive level employees, and variable color for directors. The following is a list of vendors whose products must be installed because they bribed us: Microsoft, Claria, SCO...
Your comments imply that getting a job is a big motivation. Maybe it is for some people, while for others it is not. In any case, sadly, having written such a virus would probably be good resume fodder for a security consultant. Lots of people buy into the whole "evil hacker turned to good" stereotype.
I've known people who played around with writing worms and viruses, mostly as harmless proof of concept code, running in a sequestered environment. Most of them did it, just to see if they could, and as a learning exercise. Certainly you can see the temptation to find out if it would really work in the wild? Maybe this guy was just a lousy amateur programmer who came up with the idea and could not resist trying it. It is a bonehead mistake, and dialing 911 is extra, extra dumb. Hmm, I had a point, but it escapes me now, so I'll shut up.
Same thoughts apply to violence. Everything is set through example.
Nope. Sorry you're just not correct. Your assertion that the nature vs. nurture argument is settled completely in the favor of nurture has been debunked many, many times. You'll have to look pretty hard to find a scientist who is willing to make a claim towards that argument being settled either way.
The truth of the matter is violence, like most any other trait, is partially genetic and partially learned. Your claim is that society makes these people what they are. The truth is that most of a child's interaction with society can be controlled by their parents. Parents have nearly total control over their children's lives. If they grow up without ethics, responsibility, or conscience, then maybe someone needs to look at the parents and their parenting techniques.
Um, yes, a Linux guy changed his mind after seeing the conclusions of the study. That means it's not a valid study?
You make some valid points, and Linux could certainly be more secure than it is. For that matter, if security is a huge concern, Linux will need a serious overhaul to compete with NetBSD (Maybe SELinux is there, I have not researched it). In this particular case, however, I think you have the facts wrong. After a quick bit of googling, it seems that the Linux guy changed his mind after a previous study, which was funded by Microsoft. Now he has done another study, not funded by MS, where he has the same revelation again. It does not sound completely kosher to me. This study is more properly a security study by an MS proponent and a former Linux proponent, now MS proponent based upon statistics collected on vulnerabilities published. This is not really an experiment in security, it is more of a study on published vulnerability statistics. A security experiment would be for a number of competent system administrators to set up boxes, clone the images and run them as virtual machines somewhere, while watching closely for intrusions. Then count the number of successful attacks. I'm not sure what the relevance of this study is (or if their is any).
Bush would do a better job of protecting americans by removing firearms than countering terroism.
Better yet he could give us all force fields, so bullets just bounce off of us, then we'd be safe from both. How exactly do you expect Bush to remove all the guns?
"If not for government sponsored propaganda campaigns, they would never have been made illegal in the first place."
You have NO good evidence for this, if simply that history did not allow this to take place in the US.
Your sentence is a bit garbled, but I think I get the gist of it. I did not provide support for my assertion. That does not, however, mean that the assertion is unsupportable. You have no idea what evidence I have, or do not have.
I really doubt that even without the government blitz campaigns, crack would have remained legalized.
Umm, crack was illegal before it was invented, due to the cocaine content.
The real line here is harm. Is it harming society. Does it harm the user. If those are the very standards you claim, the ONLY drug class that might get legalized would be weed.
This is what is known as a straw-man argument. I in no way support laws designed to keep me from doing things that harm myself. That is a personal choice and not something the government should be involved in at all. If something is harmful to society then it is the concern of the government, but that does not give them the right to dictate actions to individuals. I mean society would benefit if all the sick, mentally handicapped, or just really foolish people died right now and stopped costing society resources. That does not mean the government should go kill them.
The main reasons for outlawing was due to racial control, including the Mexicans and Asians. Hardly a dark-skin only issue.
I was not talking about outlawing at all when I mentioned dark skin. I was talking about racially skewed law enforcement. And Asians and Mexicans can certainly be considered dark-skinned, at least as compared to caucasians.
I'm always amused when I hear comments like these, where on the one hand drugs were introduced to put down the non-white population...
This is another straw-man argument.
you honestly think a dark-skinned persons, as you put it, would be dominant in the corporate legalized hard drug market?
You are on a roll here. This is yet another straw-man. Perhaps you read someone else's post and mistakenly replied to mine? I never made any of these assertions. They are all yours.
I agree completely, I just do not believe that the criminal justice system will use these appropriately. You must admit that they have a very poor track record where that is concerned. Being on a GPS tether is certainly better for an individual than being in a prison. For society, however, I fear it will result in just as many people in prison, but twice that number also being tracked. If you recall the original "black slave class" were not locked up either. In prison they are a drain on the wealth of everyone, thus only a small portion can be locked up. Out of prison, working, but with no rights they can comprise half the population, and aid the concentration of wealth to those who already have wealth and power.
Here's a counter proposal. Embrace GPS as a law-enforcement tool. Punish first-time criminals with GPS fencing...
If you really think that GPS trackers will only be used on first time criminals and that the number of criminals convicted will not go up because of this technology then you are quite the optimist. In my opinion if they come into use at all before the system is fixed, they will be abused, and merely serve to help keep the system broken longer.
Yes, that's what we should do! We should legalize something just because people are getting in trouble for it!
If a significant portion of people are doing something, then we need to either accept that, or figure out why they are doing it and provide an alternative. Have you ever heard of prohibition? It was repealed for exactly the same reasons that the prohibition on drugs should be repealed. Right now we have huge amounts of organized crime, addiction, secrecy, and violence all based around illegal drugs. Drugs which, by themselves, hurt no one except perhaps the person using them. The prohibition on drugs causes more problems than the drugs. Just take a look at a reasonably progressive country. Most all of them treat drugs as a medical problem. You're an addict, OK we'll get you in a program and the health system will give you something to help. Contrast this with the U.S. where we throw them in jail unless they are rich (then they go into a program).
The government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. Well, the people obviously want drugs. If not for government sponsored propaganda campaigns, they would never have been made illegal in the first place. Maybe if a huge number of people are breaking the law, there is something wrong with the law, not the people. Hell, Both Bush and Clinton have admitted to doing drugs. The thing is, the laws are not applied equally, the poor, and the dark skinned get locked up, and tracked. Rich white politicians don't. GPS tracking devices will allow this to go on much longer.
I'm talking about an extension of already accepted societal punishment for a particular set of crimes. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's not a big change from what we already do. Furthermore, it's a damn sight better than locking everyone up.
GPS tethers differ from normal tethers in that the person can work a normal job, while still be monitored constantly. Maybe you don't have a problem with a large part of our society functioning with reduced rights, but I do. The real problem is not management of criminals, it is that people are criminals. You think this is better than locking everyone up, but really there is no way to lock everyone up. There is not enough room in prisons, people willing to be guards, money, or resources. Further, in prison those people are not working for society, on the outside, they still work, and quickly approach the status of slaves.
Only so many people can be locked up for a crime, then society has to change the laws and make something legal. Drugs are rapidly approaching this state. A huge number of people are already locked up. GPS tracking puts those people back on the streets, but does nothing to reduce their numbers. It makes segregating a huge, poor, part of our society into criminals without rights, ok, from an economic standpoint, which is the only perspective some people care about. In fact, it encourages more convictions.
Laws are not applied equally. They are applied based upon race, and religion. They are applied when the police want to "get" someone. Think really hard before endorsing a device that can create a new ultra-low class of society. A class of people who are poor, have no rights, are largely minorities, have poor education, and no prospects. Only so many people can be put in prison, and there they are useless to society. With GPS tracking devices that limit is removed. Removing that limit can have a lot of very real consequences. Oh and one member o this new class of society could be you if a cop decides he does not like you.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe anyone buys a movie based on the fact that in 20 years the copyright will expire.
Not anymore they don't. In fact, most people no longer understand that copyright is an artificial right granted by the government "for a limited time, to promote useful arts and sciences." Most people think it is a natural right, that all people should always have, and always did. Anyone planning on buying or selling works using the copyright system, however, should have a reasonable expectation that the rules will not change every few years. In fact, if you asked most publishing houses in the U.S. when they realistically expect their copyrights to expire, I'll bet most would say, "never."
And they may be right.
If they slap him with a stupid debt then that's his life ruined. If he'd have shoplifted the 5 or 6 copies he said he distributed, he'd have been a lot better off legally.
According to the article there were about 2500 downloads from his seed. That is 2500*$130=$325K. Now add in any damage from leaking the public beta to the public, including bad PR caused by the leaky betas, now include Apple's legal fees to get an injunction + restitution. This theoretically cost Apple a lot of money, and it was something he agreed not to do. I mean if I sign an agreement that says I won't take a dump in the food at a restaurant if they let me into the kitchen, then I do that and lots of people get sick, and sue, and their business goes downhill, I'd damn well expect to be sued for the damage caused. This guy has no excuse. He's supposed to be a med student, which further reduces my faith in the profession. He will probably have a lot of debt to pay off and that is a good thing.
P.S. your comments about hijacking a truck are moronic. He is not going to spend 8-10 years in prison for this, he is going to be in debt until he pays for the damage he caused.
It is the thieves that feel it is thier right to steal from people just because they can that have brought this onerrous situation upon us.
I applaud you decision to respect the copyright laws, and not support piracy. On the other hand, I think you are very wrong to think DRM controls have anything to do with piracy. They don't stop anyone from copying a disk, and they are a mere speed bump for anyone who wants to rip content. DRM related laws are not aimed at the lawless, they are useless for stopping piracy. DRM is all about content control for people who obey the laws. Their purpose is to prevent you from moving your already purchased content to a newer format, or displaying it in multiple locations. They are about price fixing in different regions. I'm sorry you have been fooled into believe the smokescreen about piracy. Content producers are not stupid enough to believe that DRM will stop piracy, it is just an excuse.
To make a second point, while I do not violate copyright laws, I think the dirty hands of the content publishers give them little right to complain about copyright violations. Copyright was a two-sided deal, and they have welshed on their half. If copyrights do not enter the public domain and copy-written works are not available for sale at a reasonable price, then the original agreement has been broken and their is no reason why they should have exclusive rights to publish a work. Just because they bribed politicians with the money they made with their government sponsored monopoly, does not make it ethical to fail to fulfill their half of the deal. Of course, corporations are rarely ethical, and generally will do whatever the law allows them to, including change those laws to make more profit. If someone wants to violate these unfair copyright laws, hack content publishers bank accounts, or steal all their staplers, I say "enjoy and good luck."
it's not that Apple will sell one less copy of the new OSX because of it) that it really merits ruining his entire life? And that's exactly what Apple is doing and it'S disgusting.
Apple is suing for an injunction to stop distribution, court costs, whatever damages they suffer as a result of the distribution, whatever profit the defendant made (if any), and whatever punitive damages the court sees fit to award.
2500 copies of the software were known to have been downloaded as a result of this bit torrent posting. Court costs will be several thousand dollars, at least. The other damages will be decided by the judge and/or jury.
The defendant is a student who plans to become a doctor. I have no idea how much money he has, but maybe it is fair that he pays for whatever damage he caused? If he does not have the money, I'm sure a career in medicine will allow him to scrape together a little bit. He is pretty obviously guilty, and if he has half a brain (questionable at this point) he will settle for an undisclosed sum and a public apology, pay it off when he makes the money, and never do something this stupid again.
About the other case. It's about a news site posting rumors, no more, no less. You know, journalists do this all the time, posting information they got from inside sources.
It is illegal under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act for a journalist to publish what they reasonably expect are trade secrets. Their is no exception for journalists, except whistle blower statutes (in the case of government corruption, illegal activity, or public health concerns). They broke the law, for profit. Can you reference any cases where an insider leaked trade secrets, which were then published, and were not prosecuted? Just suing for the name of the leak is Apple being very, very lenient. Several market rags reported Apple stock dropping by several points as the result of this disclosure. They could sue for enough money to ruin the lives of both the leak and the journalist. In this case, all they care about is finding the leak and firing their lying ass. Which in my book, means they are being very, very lenient.
If you buy the retail version of Windows XP it will cost you a couple of hundred dollars, but if you want to upgrade from a previous version of Windows to Windows XP, it costs $99 (for regular consumers or business people, not students).
All of this is trying to compare apples and oranges. For example the difference between Windows 98 SE and Windows ME was window dressing and bug fixes. The difference between ME and XP was mostly bug fixes and some new features (from an end user point of view). In fact, the only reason I upgrade to a new version of Windows is because my company pays for it, or because the old version will not get vital security fixes. On the other hand, each OS X release (aside from the free one) was mostly new features. All the major bug fixes and all the security updates are available for the older versions.
I guess what I am saying is yes, Windows can be upgraded more cheaply than OS X if you always buy the most current release of each OS. Apple is faster to add new functionality and release new versions, and each version costs slightly more than a typical Windows release. On the other hand, you get a lot more for your money in terms of new, useful features. Also, since each version of OS X gets faster instead of slower, you don't have to buy new hardware as often and when you do, you can bring you OS license over to the new machine, if you so desire. With Windows, each OS version is tied to a machine and cannot be transferred to a newer one. It is a very unequal comparison.
What do you do for a living Tim? Are you willing to start working for free now? This is an open and shut case of software piracy. A guy grabbed a limited beta release for developers, then put it up on bittorrent. The other case you mention was pretty clear, for profit, industrial espionage. For all the talk about Apple having an army of rabid lawyers, they are really very good about this sort of thing. In the rumor's site case, they are suing for the identity of the leak, who broke his NDA. They aren't going after money or trying to ruin anyone. In this case, Apple is going after someone who posted a beta of their new OS for anyone who wanted it. If I spent a year writing some new software, then some bastard posted it for free on bittorrent I'd sue his ass too.
Second, it's the web developers publication, if they want to put it on THEIR website, then it is THEIR option to do it, and then if you don't like it, you could have turned off the smart tags.
If a web site designer wants to make links on their pages to random ads or services, they can. If I want to ad links to ads and services to all the web pages I look at, then no one has any right to tell me not to. If Google wants to provide a program to let me do it, no one has any right to tell them not to. Publishers have no right not to have an end user alter their pages. Nor any right to stop Google from selling tools. I suppose you think all pen manufacturer's should pay all book publishers? After all I often write notes in the margins, sometimes I even note potential purchases, all without paying the book seller again.
This, however, is nothing more than paying Google for advertising and Google putting the advertising in someone else's phone book
No this is Google providing software that allows me to add ads to a web page. Publishers have no right to control how you read their content, nor do they have any right to be paid if I use any tools I want to look at ads for things mentioned on their pages, whether it is the Yellow pages, or Google toolbar. If I cache a Slashdot page, then add hypertext links to it before I read it, does Slashdot deserve to be paid? What if I write a script to add the links do they deserve to be paid? If I download a script?
This is just a tool to post-process text. Nothing more, nothing less. You should focus less on making advertisers happy about how much crap they can stuff in front of your eyes, and more about having a functional tool.
It is up to the creator of the website to decide what content goes on it, not you.
You must be a marketer's wet dream. It's my computer, my OS, my browser, and my add-ons. Why the hell do I want all my shit collaborating to feed me ads decided by the designer of the web site? I mean if I'm going to add on more ads and links afterwards, at least I'm going to choose the ads. If I post process text on a web site, it's going to be for my benefit, not so the web site author can push more ads. If you want more ads from web site providers, sign up for their spam mailings.
Your phone book throws itself at you every time you're reading the newspaper and come to a word that exists somewhere in the yellow pages?
In order to use this google service, you have to download their toolbar, install it, then specifically enable it for the page. It may be more convenient once it is set up and running, but it's not like you don't have to go out of your way to use it.
The line between "kid with a website" and "journalist" needs to be drawn somewhere.
No. A kid (20 year old) with a website is a journalist. A ten year old with a toy printing press is a journalist. Anyone who reports is a reporter. There is no need to draw a distinction, because U.S. law does not make one. Nor are journalists given any special protections, except in the case of whistle blower statutes. It is a moot issue.
all in the hands of the website operator
The website operator is not the user. The person browsing is. If I want to run programs on text in my browser to get more information about certain words, well that's damn useful. I do it all the time with Google lookup, translation, dictionary, thesaurus, etc. services. I can turn them on or off. I can change them, or switch to a different lookup service. Me, the user.
The MS version was built into the OS, and made links designated by either the website, or MS. Why should someone else decide how I parse text I am looking at on my machine? I mean obviously I know what map service, what dictionary, and what online stores I like to purchase from. They don't. Google has done this right by giving me the power, not the website operator, and not OS vendor. I hope they build this as a system service for OS X. I would install it and even might use it occasionally.
So, in effect Google is making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for Google while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege.
Similarly, the Yellow pages provide information on services and goods mentioned on Slashdot. A Slashdot user may read about a new CPU, then look in the yellow pages for a computer store. So, in effect the yellow pages are making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for the yellow pages while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege. Those bastards!
This is a tool the user has to specifically download, then enable for a page. There are even provisions that allow you to set other map providers, etc. as the resource. Google went out of their way to play nice on this one. The alternative is that no one should be allowed to parse the text of a web site and run programs on that text, without reimbursing the owner of the site. Right now I run a number of services on text in every application, including Slashdot in my browser. One of them looks up words in Google. Are you saying this is improper? I mean I might read Slashdot, highlight "AMD 64," right click and select lookup in Google, and then buy one, all without compensating Slashdot. This new Google toolbar feature is the same thing, except streamlined. I probably won't use it, but Slashdot has no right to tell me what programs I can or can't run on their text. They offer it for public consumption and I look at ads while reading it. Their is no reason to pay them twice.
i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources... i really don't
Hypothetical Situation:
I own a major newspaper. I have a colleague who works at a competing major news paper. I pay him $10,000 every week and he gives me all the passwords needed to change the other newspaper's web site, and maybe all their bank account numbers. I publish this information in my newspaper with the title, "Other newspaper completely insecure, anyone can change any of their online articles with these passwords!" The net result is, I profit because the competitions stock goes in the toilet and mine goes up. As a reporter, I did not break the law, my colleague did. You think that I should not be required by the courts to name them? You think I should be immune to a subpoena? I think you are placing way too much faith in the fact that reporters will always be honest and not abuse this new power you want to give them.
Specification for contract:
We need a secure computer system running Windows 98 with unfettered internet access for all employees. All employees must have complete access to install all programs, but no access to install viruses. Computers must have those nifty thumb-print scanners and have a secure sounding start-up sound. The background of each computer must be the Homeland Security logo on a background of cornflower blue for normal employees, spruce for executive level employees, and variable color for directors. The following is a list of vendors whose products must be installed because they bribed us: Microsoft, Claria, SCO...
He references the very funny Terrible Secret of Space.
Your comments imply that getting a job is a big motivation. Maybe it is for some people, while for others it is not. In any case, sadly, having written such a virus would probably be good resume fodder for a security consultant. Lots of people buy into the whole "evil hacker turned to good" stereotype.
I've known people who played around with writing worms and viruses, mostly as harmless proof of concept code, running in a sequestered environment. Most of them did it, just to see if they could, and as a learning exercise. Certainly you can see the temptation to find out if it would really work in the wild? Maybe this guy was just a lousy amateur programmer who came up with the idea and could not resist trying it. It is a bonehead mistake, and dialing 911 is extra, extra dumb. Hmm, I had a point, but it escapes me now, so I'll shut up.
It's not some huge racist or plot
I'm glad it's not some huge racist. I met this 6 foot 3, Nazi skinhead one time, and man was he a huge pain.
Same thoughts apply to violence. Everything is set through example.
Nope. Sorry you're just not correct. Your assertion that the nature vs. nurture argument is settled completely in the favor of nurture has been debunked many, many times. You'll have to look pretty hard to find a scientist who is willing to make a claim towards that argument being settled either way.
The truth of the matter is violence, like most any other trait, is partially genetic and partially learned. Your claim is that society makes these people what they are. The truth is that most of a child's interaction with society can be controlled by their parents. Parents have nearly total control over their children's lives. If they grow up without ethics, responsibility, or conscience, then maybe someone needs to look at the parents and their parenting techniques.
Um, yes, a Linux guy changed his mind after seeing the conclusions of the study. That means it's not a valid study?
You make some valid points, and Linux could certainly be more secure than it is. For that matter, if security is a huge concern, Linux will need a serious overhaul to compete with NetBSD (Maybe SELinux is there, I have not researched it). In this particular case, however, I think you have the facts wrong. After a quick bit of googling, it seems that the Linux guy changed his mind after a previous study, which was funded by Microsoft. Now he has done another study, not funded by MS, where he has the same revelation again. It does not sound completely kosher to me. This study is more properly a security study by an MS proponent and a former Linux proponent, now MS proponent based upon statistics collected on vulnerabilities published. This is not really an experiment in security, it is more of a study on published vulnerability statistics. A security experiment would be for a number of competent system administrators to set up boxes, clone the images and run them as virtual machines somewhere, while watching closely for intrusions. Then count the number of successful attacks. I'm not sure what the relevance of this study is (or if their is any).
Bush would do a better job of protecting americans by removing firearms than countering terroism.
Better yet he could give us all force fields, so bullets just bounce off of us, then we'd be safe from both. How exactly do you expect Bush to remove all the guns?
"If not for government sponsored propaganda campaigns, they would never have been made illegal in the first place."
You have NO good evidence for this, if simply that history did not allow this to take place in the US.
Your sentence is a bit garbled, but I think I get the gist of it. I did not provide support for my assertion. That does not, however, mean that the assertion is unsupportable. You have no idea what evidence I have, or do not have.
I really doubt that even without the government blitz campaigns, crack would have remained legalized.
Umm, crack was illegal before it was invented, due to the cocaine content.
The real line here is harm. Is it harming society. Does it harm the user. If those are the very standards you claim, the ONLY drug class that might get legalized would be weed.
This is what is known as a straw-man argument. I in no way support laws designed to keep me from doing things that harm myself. That is a personal choice and not something the government should be involved in at all. If something is harmful to society then it is the concern of the government, but that does not give them the right to dictate actions to individuals. I mean society would benefit if all the sick, mentally handicapped, or just really foolish people died right now and stopped costing society resources. That does not mean the government should go kill them.
The main reasons for outlawing was due to racial control, including the Mexicans and Asians. Hardly a dark-skin only issue.
I was not talking about outlawing at all when I mentioned dark skin. I was talking about racially skewed law enforcement. And Asians and Mexicans can certainly be considered dark-skinned, at least as compared to caucasians.
I'm always amused when I hear comments like these, where on the one hand drugs were introduced to put down the non-white population...
This is another straw-man argument.
you honestly think a dark-skinned persons, as you put it, would be dominant in the corporate legalized hard drug market?
You are on a roll here. This is yet another straw-man. Perhaps you read someone else's post and mistakenly replied to mine? I never made any of these assertions. They are all yours.
The question comes down to how is it used.
I agree completely, I just do not believe that the criminal justice system will use these appropriately. You must admit that they have a very poor track record where that is concerned. Being on a GPS tether is certainly better for an individual than being in a prison. For society, however, I fear it will result in just as many people in prison, but twice that number also being tracked. If you recall the original "black slave class" were not locked up either. In prison they are a drain on the wealth of everyone, thus only a small portion can be locked up. Out of prison, working, but with no rights they can comprise half the population, and aid the concentration of wealth to those who already have wealth and power.
Here's a counter proposal. Embrace GPS as a law-enforcement tool. Punish first-time criminals with GPS fencing...
If you really think that GPS trackers will only be used on first time criminals and that the number of criminals convicted will not go up because of this technology then you are quite the optimist. In my opinion if they come into use at all before the system is fixed, they will be abused, and merely serve to help keep the system broken longer.
Yes, that's what we should do! We should legalize something just because people are getting in trouble for it!
If a significant portion of people are doing something, then we need to either accept that, or figure out why they are doing it and provide an alternative. Have you ever heard of prohibition? It was repealed for exactly the same reasons that the prohibition on drugs should be repealed. Right now we have huge amounts of organized crime, addiction, secrecy, and violence all based around illegal drugs. Drugs which, by themselves, hurt no one except perhaps the person using them. The prohibition on drugs causes more problems than the drugs. Just take a look at a reasonably progressive country. Most all of them treat drugs as a medical problem. You're an addict, OK we'll get you in a program and the health system will give you something to help. Contrast this with the U.S. where we throw them in jail unless they are rich (then they go into a program).
The government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. Well, the people obviously want drugs. If not for government sponsored propaganda campaigns, they would never have been made illegal in the first place. Maybe if a huge number of people are breaking the law, there is something wrong with the law, not the people. Hell, Both Bush and Clinton have admitted to doing drugs. The thing is, the laws are not applied equally, the poor, and the dark skinned get locked up, and tracked. Rich white politicians don't. GPS tracking devices will allow this to go on much longer.
I'm talking about an extension of already accepted societal punishment for a particular set of crimes. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's not a big change from what we already do. Furthermore, it's a damn sight better than locking everyone up.
GPS tethers differ from normal tethers in that the person can work a normal job, while still be monitored constantly. Maybe you don't have a problem with a large part of our society functioning with reduced rights, but I do. The real problem is not management of criminals, it is that people are criminals. You think this is better than locking everyone up, but really there is no way to lock everyone up. There is not enough room in prisons, people willing to be guards, money, or resources. Further, in prison those people are not working for society, on the outside, they still work, and quickly approach the status of slaves.
Only so many people can be locked up for a crime, then society has to change the laws and make something legal. Drugs are rapidly approaching this state. A huge number of people are already locked up. GPS tracking puts those people back on the streets, but does nothing to reduce their numbers. It makes segregating a huge, poor, part of our society into criminals without rights, ok, from an economic standpoint, which is the only perspective some people care about. In fact, it encourages more convictions.
Laws are not applied equally. They are applied based upon race, and religion. They are applied when the police want to "get" someone. Think really hard before endorsing a device that can create a new ultra-low class of society. A class of people who are poor, have no rights, are largely minorities, have poor education, and no prospects. Only so many people can be put in prison, and there they are useless to society. With GPS tracking devices that limit is removed. Removing that limit can have a lot of very real consequences. Oh and one member o this new class of society could be you if a cop decides he does not like you.