It's even worse than that... we replaced "Oppressive Bad Guy 1 formely sympathetic but now antagonistic to the U.S." with "Oppressive Bad Guy 2 currently sympathetic to the U.S."
I know you're just trying to be funny, but first, he never said that. Republican spin-meisters and the so-called "liberal media" made that up. (When was the last time anyone seriously accused "the media" of being liberal, anyway?) He actually said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet". But was this statement a fair one?
When he was a senator, he supported funding for NSFNet through the High Performance Computing Act that became law in 1991. He wrote guest columns for Byte magazine that reflected an appreciation of technology.
According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act.
The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"
The same is incidentally true of some of his other seemingly far-fetched stories (which, again, are often based on mis-quotes). For instance, from the same article:
Gore described a letter he'd received from a girl in West Tennessee while he was a congressman. Based on the girl's complaint about a poisoned well, he organized an investigation, which in turn led to other pollution sites, culminating in the expose of Love Canal. Referring to the well in Toone, Tennessee, Gore said, "That was the one you didn't hear of--but that was the one that started it all."
This quote was quickly changed to "I was the one that started it all" by the time the media reported it, then to "I was the one who started it all" by the Republicans.
And "Erich Segal, author of Love Story, corroborated that Gore and his Harvard roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, were indeed the models for the story's main character" [played by Ryan O'Neal].
If it had been a "real" boy would this have even made the local news?
Maybe, but a 16-year old boy would have much less responsibility to avoid harming a 13-year old girl than a 48-year old woman does. The fact that the alleged perpetrator is an ADULT and that the victim was a CHILD both change the case substantially.
The state prosecutor in St. Charles County seems incompetent to me. From http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jFSH4QCAxGXxnVtlJ2iiXpppeGIQD90MBEM81 'St. Charles County, Mo., prosecutor Jack Banas says he reviewed laws related to stalking, harassment and child endangerment and couldn't find statutes allowing him to file charges.' From Wikipedia: "Banas stated that he did not interview Grills because, at the time, she was under psychiatric treatment for the involvement in the Meier case, and does not plan to interview her at a later date. The Meiers criticized the prosecutor's statements, saying that Banas did not interview any party other than the Drews and that Banas is solely relying on the testimony of the Drews." This laziness sounds typical of a lot of cases. He didn't appear to interview anyone other than the alleged perpetrator (not even the co-conspirators, let alone the victim), examined no evidence, issued no subpoenas or warrants to gather more evidence, etc.
The Missouri prosecutors' lack of action is what prompted the federal prosecutors to step in; considering the different focus of federal laws, they probably needed to be a little more creative in their charges (which are "one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress" - the latter being quite specific as to intent and not merely about violating TOS or accessing a computer without authorization for some random purpose).
When an adult bullys and harrasses a 13-year old child under fraudulent pretenses with intent to harm, there are other laws that are applicable, that have nothing to do with computers - the same laws that would apply if the fraud and harrassment were done in person or via mail or telephone should apply over the internet. Even moreso when the adult already knew of at least one previous suicide attempt by the victim as well as her treatment for mental illness, so would have been aware of her fragile emotional state.
That there were two adults working together may add various conspiracy charges to the options (which the feds are doing - wise considering conflicting testimony as to Lori Drew's actual level of involvement, her story evolving with time toward less involvement, compared to her initial statement with police). (Ashley Grills, Lori Drew's 18-year old employee, was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony against Drew. The other conspirator was Drew's daughter, a minor. I do not know what involvement Lori Drew's husband had, other than possibly recommending deleting the account after the suicide, which could itself be a crime, ie. conspiracy to destroy evidence.) From http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/teen-accuses-lori-drew-over-myspace-suicide/2008/04/02/1206850964896.html 'Grills said Drew was the primary instigator behind the fake Josh Evans profile... Grills said she and Drew's daughter told Drew they had gone too far but Drew "was like, it's fine, you know, we can set her up".
I think those saying "grow up, the internet is a dangerous place" (who should grow up, adults posting comments here, or a 13-year old girl??) or "she may be a bitch, but it wasn't illegal" are wrong, as are those who say "it's just bits, it's not real" - to which I say, neither are telephone calls, or the written marks on letters, or the mere air distubances of live conversation. There can be quite a bit of liability (criminal or civil) for such actions.
Adults are also held to a higher level of responsibility when dealing with children than children are with each other, or than adults are when dealing with other adults. And there are a number of laws already on the books emphasizing this. Even if they were both children, or both adults, there might still be applicable statutes, but there are additional ones when a
Currently Lori Drew can't be charged with anything else than for breaching MySpace's terms of use.
I don't think I'd say it that way. I'd rather say that the lazy-ass incompetent local prosecutor didn't see fit to interview any witnesses other than the alleged perpetrator (not even her co-conspirators, let alone the victim!), examined no evidence, and generally failed to act in any useful way to bring charges.
I stopped buying computer games years ago because the CD requirement was such a pain. 10-15 years ago I probably spent $100-200 a year on games (when games typically cost $30 or less). Then it started to drop. For the last 5 years, the computer game industry has received ZERO dollars from me, primarily for this reason.
Or we could just fight dirty and hijack their sites, turn their servers into FTP shares of the most popular songs
Probably more effective would be to SUBTLY alter documents on the RIAA website to make them just slightly more extreme, anti-customer, and unsavory-seeming to the average reader (or the average judge). The RIAA probably would not notice for a long time, if ever, but it could further tarnish their image, and could also be used against them later as evidence of their public statements. Only effective, though, if it's done very carefully and subtly so that they never notice and can never prove it even happened.
the developers at Google prefer to go through the horrendous hassle of developing something as complex as a spreadsheet editor using something as archaic as javascript
Oh, I worked for a very large (now over 50,000 employees) corporation that thought it was a great idea to handle all incoming Internet mail with its Lotus Notes servers, where auto-address completion would guess the nearest username and forward unknown mail to those unfortunate employees.
I've found that military/government culture is generally about a decade behind corporate culture. For example, when I was in the Navy they were pushing this "TQL" stuff, which was a bad rehash of the popular 80's TQM "Total quality management" initiatives. Corporate culture had moved past that particular management flavor of the week, but the military was just getting into it.
Some private companies are even more behind. One company I worked for recently didn't start getting on board with this crud until well after 2000. Naturally, it didn't improve quality any, just focused everyone on passing tedious audits every month using made-up data rather than actually doing their jobs well.
The general's answers were also interesting because they demonstrate the gap between what we're used to reading on blogs and in/. comments: unfiltered, highly opinionated pseudo-anonymous people who speak only for themselves. There are no or few repercussions for most people if they make a foolish statement or unfairly lay into someone or whatever. But public officials -- and a general is at the very least a semi-public official -- don't have that luxury. So what such a public official will say will be different in tone and content than what we're used to.
True. In fact, it's easy to get in trouble in non-public discussions such as internal company emails in the same way. Some light criticism that would be quite mild by/. standards can get you written up or even fired in many corporations, even if only a few people saw the message.
This indicates something of a culture gap between the kind of hackers who the general presumably wants to recruit and the generals themselves.
It sounded like he doesn't particularly want to go out of his way recuit any of these kinds of people:
We bring them in from a general practitioner level and take them to expert level in reasonable time... You're right in that we couldn't compete in the cyber world without the experts in the civilian industries who give us the technology in the first place, provide the architectures we use, and even the software we need....
It sounds more like they're only interested in having technicians internally, who will be trained to use the tools provided by private industry. He doesn't even seem to understand the difference between what he's describing and the true experts out there.
The point of copyright was indeed to make it distributable... by protecting ownership of the concept to ensure that there would be profit from the distribution. Here you err in logic. The lack of profit does not eliminate ownership, rather it eliminated the desire to share concepts that are valuable.
You have some things backwards here. I think you are inferring how copyright started from how it is portrayed now by the **AAs. Copyright as it is now bears little resemblance to how it started, or to its justification in the US Constitution, and the **AAs' portrayal isn't even an accurate representation of how it is now.
You seem to think that "ownership" is an integral part of copyright, and that the rest is incidental. "Ownership" is not a part of copyright even today, and was CERTAINLY not a part of the concept when copyright started, in the US at least. That an idea could be "owned" at all was not considered philosophically acceptable - ideas were COMMUNITY PROPERTY by nature. The first US copyright laws (and many updates, as well as many court decisions in the 150 or so years thereafter) took great pains to make this point: copyrights and patents are NOT property! Ideas can NOT be owned! This isn't just me making this up because I'd like everything to be free; both Congress and the courts (including the US Supreme Court) said this pretty explicitly again and again.
Do you leave your name of your school work?... Putting your name on it establishes ownership. It limits others ability to profit from your hard work. Whether there is 1 or 1 gazillion copies is irrelevent.
You are confusing plagiarism with copyright, but regardless, neither is a form of ownership in terms of actual property (other than over the physical piece of paper). Putting your name on it establishes that this represents the work that you did, which helps demonstrate to the instructor that you have actually understood the topic enough to write a meaningful paper about it and taken the time to do so. If someone else copies it in class, it is CHEATING under the academic rules for that class, because they are not doing original work to demonstrate their own mastery of the topic. In theory, you could also assert copyright over your school papers, but I don't really know what good that would do you unless someone was actually publishing the things without your permission (which I find highly unlikely).
Record companies can still be relevant but I think they are going to turn more into media market companies rather than content companies. If I want to be a rock star I have to reach millions of people with my music efficiently. And while I can record my new album on my hot new Pro Tool HD system in my bedroom I can't, myself, create that level in deep market penetration on my own. I think this is where a record label (for lack of a term today) can help me. But this new type of label isn't about stealing my royalties, they are just a promotion machine getting paid a fee to promote my new album to a large audience.
This is a good point. Other than physically getting CDs into stores (which is becoming increasingly irrelevant), promotion is becoming the only really viable function of record companies. (Financiang the making of the recording in the first place is another function, but it's on horrible terms; you'd be far better off getting a small-business loan, or even using your credit card.)
But what I want to see is that promotion to be more driven by the artist: they get to choose how much they want to pay for what kind of promotion, and retain creative control over the message. So really, artists should still do most everything themselves, and hire a promotion company when they want more exposure.
Are other artists as likely to experience this success once such things become more mainstream and less unique?
What makes you think most other artists make this kind of money by the conventional route? In the normal music business, even "successful" artists are more likely to end up in debt to the record company than to make this kind of money.
It doesn't change the fact that you don't own the content. If you bought a book, you own the paper. If you bought a cd, you own the plastic. You don't have a right to distribute that content to 100s of thousands of people. The efforlessness of reproduction does not nullify the ownership of content.
However, the entire justification for copyright (and patent) in the first place was to benefit SOCIETY by making creative ideas MORE WIDELY AVAILABLE. It was considered at the time that an evil such as limited (in both duration and scope) monopoly on distribution would be a necessary incentive to encourage such publication (so that others could then benefit). That presumes that not only is paper expensive, but so are printing presses, etc. - expensive enough that some financial return would be required to pay for the cost of those supplies.
Fast-forward to today, where nearly any media can be created with low-cost (or free) tools and also distributed freely, and the argument about needing to recoup costs to distribute no longer has any meaning.
The point here is that copyright was not meant to reward having a good idea; it was meant to reward DISTRIBUTING that idea. (Similarly, patents are meant to reward PUBLICATION of ideas for others to learn from; that is, to facilitate new ideas building on old ones by making the details of the old ones explicitly public.)
This is interesting to know. I had thought you could get some efficiency by:
1) Grouping everyone, so you know who are singles, doubles, larger groups/families (each group is kept together to board toegether, so long as their seats are also adjacent to each other or nearly so) 2) Generally, start from the back 3) Generally, start from the windows 4) Generally, start with smaller groups (ie, singles)
You could figure that once some number of people toward the back of the plane are let on, they might start blocking the aisles, so you might as well mix some single window seats farther up at the same time (then, once those are filled, single middle seats, and pairs in window+middle seats, etc.). (This all gets complicated fast.)
In addition to your seat number, there would be a boarding group/number, like Southwest has. Then have everyone line up in more-or-less exact order when boarding in the same way that Southwest currently does.
You'd have to start creating this list by the time people start getting boarding passes, so it wouldn't be perfect (ie, some people might buy tickets after the list was mostly final. Unless you shoehorned them in with boarding number "43.1" or whatever, they'd be "out of order"), but it SEEMS like it could gain some efficiency overall. (Emphasis on "seems" since, unlike the parent post, I haven't actually modelled or tested this notion.)
Probably you have a good point: fast people/slow people, excessive luggage, putting luggage in a different part of the plane from where seated, blocked aisles, etc. would all work against any gains such that any logical system doesn't necessarily end up with any advantage over a random one. But I think it's still worth searching for such a solution!
Stewards, please, at then end of each flight, get on the megaphone and say:
Can all passengers with luggage in the overhead bins please remain seated until passengers who do NOT have luggage in the overhead bins have left the aircraft.
Oh, they can ANNOUNCE that, but who will listen? On one flight I was on within the last year, they announced a couple of minutes before arriving at the gate and opening the doors: "there are people on board transferring to three separate flights which are all being held for them because our flight was late. Could everyone please remain seated to let these people off first"
Number of people who paid any attention to this message and remained seated (besides me): zero.
What do you do in an election year when the economy is going down the drain? The standing party generally never wins the presidency when the economy tanks, but hey, I suppose it's worth a shot.
While we can tap cables, maybe we can't tap them all at once. And maybe we want to control what goes in/out. And make a statement.
And let me guess, the hackers who supposedly caused the power outages were from the middle east?
Slashdot Mirror
The Acela express covers 734 km (456 mi) from Washington DC - New York - Boston, and runs up to 240 kph (150 mph) on the Boston-NY leg.
Travel times (including stops) -
Boston-NY: 3.5 hours
NY-DC: 2.75 hours
It's even worse than that... we replaced "Oppressive Bad Guy 1 formely sympathetic but now antagonistic to the U.S." with "Oppressive Bad Guy 2 currently sympathetic to the U.S."
From http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/goreinternet.htm: From http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm (referring to an article by Mountain Democrat columnist David Jacobsen): The same is incidentally true of some of his other seemingly far-fetched stories (which, again, are often based on mis-quotes). For instance, from the same article: This quote was quickly changed to "I was the one that started it all" by the time the media reported it, then to "I was the one who started it all" by the Republicans.
And "Erich Segal, author of Love Story, corroborated that Gore and his Harvard roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, were indeed the models for the story's main character" [played by Ryan O'Neal].
The state prosecutor in St. Charles County seems incompetent to me. From http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jFSH4QCAxGXxnVtlJ2iiXpppeGIQD90MBEM81 'St. Charles County, Mo., prosecutor Jack Banas says he reviewed laws related to stalking, harassment and child endangerment and couldn't find statutes allowing him to file charges.' From Wikipedia: "Banas stated that he did not interview Grills because, at the time, she was under psychiatric treatment for the involvement in the Meier case, and does not plan to interview her at a later date. The Meiers criticized the prosecutor's statements, saying that Banas did not interview any party other than the Drews and that Banas is solely relying on the testimony of the Drews." This laziness sounds typical of a lot of cases. He didn't appear to interview anyone other than the alleged perpetrator (not even the co-conspirators, let alone the victim), examined no evidence, issued no subpoenas or warrants to gather more evidence, etc.
The Missouri prosecutors' lack of action is what prompted the federal prosecutors to step in; considering the different focus of federal laws, they probably needed to be a little more creative in their charges (which are "one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress" - the latter being quite specific as to intent and not merely about violating TOS or accessing a computer without authorization for some random purpose).
When an adult bullys and harrasses a 13-year old child under fraudulent pretenses with intent to harm, there are other laws that are applicable, that have nothing to do with computers - the same laws that would apply if the fraud and harrassment were done in person or via mail or telephone should apply over the internet. Even moreso when the adult already knew of at least one previous suicide attempt by the victim as well as her treatment for mental illness, so would have been aware of her fragile emotional state.
That there were two adults working together may add various conspiracy charges to the options (which the feds are doing - wise considering conflicting testimony as to Lori Drew's actual level of involvement, her story evolving with time toward less involvement, compared to her initial statement with police). (Ashley Grills, Lori Drew's 18-year old employee, was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony against Drew. The other conspirator was Drew's daughter, a minor. I do not know what involvement Lori Drew's husband had, other than possibly recommending deleting the account after the suicide, which could itself be a crime, ie. conspiracy to destroy evidence.) From http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/teen-accuses-lori-drew-over-myspace-suicide/2008/04/02/1206850964896.html 'Grills said Drew was the primary instigator behind the fake Josh Evans profile... Grills said she and Drew's daughter told Drew they had gone too far but Drew "was like, it's fine, you know, we can set her up".
I think those saying "grow up, the internet is a dangerous place" (who should grow up, adults posting comments here, or a 13-year old girl??) or "she may be a bitch, but it wasn't illegal" are wrong, as are those who say "it's just bits, it's not real" - to which I say, neither are telephone calls, or the written marks on letters, or the mere air distubances of live conversation. There can be quite a bit of liability (criminal or civil) for such actions.
Adults are also held to a higher level of responsibility when dealing with children than children are with each other, or than adults are when dealing with other adults. And there are a number of laws already on the books emphasizing this. Even if they were both children, or both adults, there might still be applicable statutes, but there are additional ones when a
I stopped buying computer games years ago because the CD requirement was such a pain. 10-15 years ago I probably spent $100-200 a year on games (when games typically cost $30 or less). Then it started to drop. For the last 5 years, the computer game industry has received ZERO dollars from me, primarily for this reason.
Considering GWT (http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/), they probably code it in Java.
Oh, I worked for a very large (now over 50,000 employees) corporation that thought it was a great idea to handle all incoming Internet mail with its Lotus Notes servers, where auto-address completion would guess the nearest username and forward unknown mail to those unfortunate employees.
Here are a couple of the most pertinent links from his site:
http://music.princeton.edu/~dmitri/whatmakesmusicsoundgood.html
http://music.princeton.edu/~dmitri/ChordGeometries.html
Spot on.
You seem to think that "ownership" is an integral part of copyright, and that the rest is incidental. "Ownership" is not a part of copyright even today, and was CERTAINLY not a part of the concept when copyright started, in the US at least. That an idea could be "owned" at all was not considered philosophically acceptable - ideas were COMMUNITY PROPERTY by nature. The first US copyright laws (and many updates, as well as many court decisions in the 150 or so years thereafter) took great pains to make this point: copyrights and patents are NOT property! Ideas can NOT be owned! This isn't just me making this up because I'd like everything to be free; both Congress and the courts (including the US Supreme Court) said this pretty explicitly again and again.You are confusing plagiarism with copyright, but regardless, neither is a form of ownership in terms of actual property (other than over the physical piece of paper). Putting your name on it establishes that this represents the work that you did, which helps demonstrate to the instructor that you have actually understood the topic enough to write a meaningful paper about it and taken the time to do so. If someone else copies it in class, it is CHEATING under the academic rules for that class, because they are not doing original work to demonstrate their own mastery of the topic. In theory, you could also assert copyright over your school papers, but I don't really know what good that would do you unless someone was actually publishing the things without your permission (which I find highly unlikely).
But what I want to see is that promotion to be more driven by the artist: they get to choose how much they want to pay for what kind of promotion, and retain creative control over the message. So really, artists should still do most everything themselves, and hire a promotion company when they want more exposure.
Fast-forward to today, where nearly any media can be created with low-cost (or free) tools and also distributed freely, and the argument about needing to recoup costs to distribute no longer has any meaning.
The point here is that copyright was not meant to reward having a good idea; it was meant to reward DISTRIBUTING that idea. (Similarly, patents are meant to reward PUBLICATION of ideas for others to learn from; that is, to facilitate new ideas building on old ones by making the details of the old ones explicitly public.)
This is interesting to know. I had thought you could get some efficiency by:
1) Grouping everyone, so you know who are singles, doubles, larger groups/families (each group is kept together to board toegether, so long as their seats are also adjacent to each other or nearly so)
2) Generally, start from the back
3) Generally, start from the windows
4) Generally, start with smaller groups (ie, singles)
You could figure that once some number of people toward the back of the plane are let on, they might start blocking the aisles, so you might as well mix some single window seats farther up at the same time (then, once those are filled, single middle seats, and pairs in window+middle seats, etc.). (This all gets complicated fast.)
In addition to your seat number, there would be a boarding group/number, like Southwest has. Then have everyone line up in more-or-less exact order when boarding in the same way that Southwest currently does.
You'd have to start creating this list by the time people start getting boarding passes, so it wouldn't be perfect (ie, some people might buy tickets after the list was mostly final. Unless you shoehorned them in with boarding number "43.1" or whatever, they'd be "out of order"), but it SEEMS like it could gain some efficiency overall. (Emphasis on "seems" since, unlike the parent post, I haven't actually modelled or tested this notion.)
Probably you have a good point: fast people/slow people, excessive luggage, putting luggage in a different part of the plane from where seated, blocked aisles, etc. would all work against any gains such that any logical system doesn't necessarily end up with any advantage over a random one. But I think it's still worth searching for such a solution!
Number of people who paid any attention to this message and remained seated (besides me): zero.
What do you do in an election year when the economy is going down the drain? The standing party generally never wins the presidency when the economy tanks, but hey, I suppose it's worth a shot.
While we can tap cables, maybe we can't tap them all at once. And maybe we want to control what goes in/out. And make a statement.
And let me guess, the hackers who supposedly caused the power outages were from the middle east?
They're getting slow in their old age. They were SUPPOSED to cut them all at the same time.
How could anyone have experience with them if they're not available for sale (which they're not)?