Wait a minute! We're supposed to "Take back our freedom!" by voting Democrat??
Who was in office when the DMCA was signed? Bill Clinton. Umm, what party was he a member of again?
Here's the frustrating thing. I've talked to so many self-proclaimed "Democrats" who have plenty of good ideas, but don't seem to cohesively and logically put all of it together. They'll make statements I completely agree with, but then turn around and claim that members of their beloved party are all for those statements - when they're clearly (and publically) opposed to them!
Meanwhile, yes, Republicans are really screwing up the country too, in the name of "freedom and democracy", no less.
THIS is why the Libertarian party exists! Right now, nobody who can do basic math would sanely argue that a Libertarian candidate has good odds of getting elected next term. Still, what you CAN do is research the candidates on the major 2 platforms and pick out the ones who side with Libertarian beliefs. Next election, whatever you do - DON'T just pull that lever to vote for everyone on one party! Pick and choose the people who are doing the right things, no matter what title they run under. These days, you have "Republicrats" and "Demicans", and lots of people in between.
This is, perhaps, just a flip-flop of the "status quo" situation we've had in computing all along.
Game developers were always forced to restrict their development to what the hardware manufacturers gave them to work with. Those willing to "push the limits" by buying the most expensive video hardware they could get their hands on were rewarded by having the games with the most "state of the art" graphics when they finally came out. (Some of you may recall the game publisher, Origin, who was among the first to leverage this strategy to great advantage with the whole "Wing Commander" series and the like.)
Now, video drivers and hardware have gotten so complex, their performance depends *greatly* on how they're implemented by a given software developer. His/her method of coding can "make or break" the reputation of the card. So we have rampant cheating on benchmarks and "under the table" deals with game developers to ensure they "embrace and extend" their particular piece of hardware - so it doesn't fail in the marketplace.
I had an instructor in a "Power Tech" course in school who spent a lot of time doing research on such things as differences in gasoline quality from different manufacturers, and quality of motor oil. He insisted that the "3,000 mile oil change" was still a very good idea.
It wasn't so much the fact that the oil itself would stop lubricating the parts after that length of time in the engine, but more a concern over the additives. Apparently, there are a number of additives in the motor oil that help prevent corrosion which start to break down from the heating/cooling cycles - and become less effective after 3,000 miles or so of use.
You're absolutely correct, except I don't think the "end goal" should have anything to do with "reducing the need for backup copies". The whole problem is, the "Fair Use" provisions of the U.S. Copyright Law should be guaranteeing all of us the legal right to make a backup.
I'd hate to see the record companies start offering "free replacements for damaged physical media", and try to use that as legal leverage to take away our rights.
I do, however, contend that they provide horrible value for one's investment when they refuse to offer replacements of any kind. I've had to throw away quite a few originally purchased cassettes of music because the tape wore out or jammed up. I suppose if I go out on Kaaza and try to download those songs to burn to a CD to replace my damaged cassettes, they'll sue me though. What a crock....
Umm, can you back that statement up with some facts?
I can't say I agree with this at all. The Libertarian party is basically formed along the lines of what the founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) believed, when they were helping put together the Constitution.
What about Jefferson's beliefs and values do you feel is only valid in a world where there's a "level playing field"?
As I said, about the only concept the LP seems to endorse which I have trouble with is the idea on keeping borders completely open. During the founding of the U.S. - this policy had much more validity than it has in today's world. So perhaps this just stems from Libertarians lifting the ideas straight from the writings of these political leaders - without considering how much has changed in the last 200 years?
Sometimes, I almost feel like we should send the Statue of Liberty back to France, and say "Thanks - but we're pretty much done with it now. Why don't you use it now?"
Of course, the country was "built by immigrants". It's pretty tough to develop a formerly undeveloped nation without bringing some people in from other places.
After everything is in place and sufficient people are citizens to get everything done that needs doing - I think it's time to re-examine the immigration policies and start tightening things up.
Despite being very much a Libertarian, this is probably the one area where I'm not sure I can quite agree with their philosophy. Libertarians seem to be very big on "open borders" and allowing unlimited immigration. The idea could work, but only on a level playing field, which much of the rest of the world is nowhere near ready to do.
In the current world economy, it's economic suicide for the U.S. to allow all of these H1B Visas. Yes, people in many other countries would love to come over here and improve their lives. But no, we can't just let them do so at our own citizen's expense.
The USA may have become great from welcoming immigrants, but there's also such a thing as having "too much of a good thing". Companies complaining that there aren't enough Americans with the skills and training they require should be funding education and training in the U.S. - instead of outsourcing the jobs.
Re: $250,00 a fair settlement? Certainly....
on
Good Guys 2, Spammers 0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Don't forget, these spammers are actually making considerable profit doing what they do!
At first, you might feel it's excessive to make someone pay out $250,000 for dumping a bunch of spam mail on somebody (presumably by accident, since they couldn't think it made any kind of business sense to send mail tens of thousands of times to the same address?).
If the punishment isn't high enough to make the spammer think twice about his/her actions though, it won't function as a deterrence. (It's fine and good that settlements make amends for wrong done to the person suing, but in cases like this, it's sensible to ensure the money awarded is sufficient to deter the accused from doing the same thing to somebody else. Why cause more people to tie up the court system with similar cases brought against the same guy, if you can put a stop to it the first time?)
Well, last time I checked, "religious tolerance" was an important part of the development of this country.
I don't think it's fair to jump all over a government appointee simply because he or she happens to publish religious papers, or publically announces a particular religious belief.
We do, after all, still print "In God We Trust" on every one of our coins. Senate meetings are opened with prayers (although we recently decided that was only ok for politicians, not for school students!?!). We even grant tax exempt status to clergy in organized religions.
I think the question is not whether Bush says he "feels he is doing God's work" in the middle east, or whether or not he happens to like reading the bible. The question is whether or not he's doing what the majority of U.S. citizens are asking for. Most of the polls I've seen show more folks in support of this war than not - so in that sense, he's doing his job.
The majority of research projects I've seen for the police or military in recent years have been geared towards finding non-lethal ways to stop attackers, or ways to repel various types of weapons.
It's relatively easy to stop an attacker with a big enough gun - but it's not nearly as easy to temporarily stun/paralyze someone with no permanent side-effects.
Much of the technology we still use for these purposes today was developed during World War I. (Typically, things like tear gas.) The "stun guns" often sold for self-protection aren't very reliable. (If it shoots a pair of needles at the person, those needles have to hit their skin somehow, or at least something electrically conductive. Thick clothing can render them completely useless.)
Yeah! That's what surprised me too. I have never heard the "Right of First Sale" doctrine questioned before when it comes to digital works.
If this is, indeed, the case - and the courts do decide that digital works aren't covered by it, that really opens up a whole can of worms.
Among other things, it means Microsoft is right after all, when they want to stop you from reselling unopened/unused OEM versions of their operating systems that were originally bundled with new PCs. (First Sale doctrine is the main argument people had in their favor, when trying to recoup money lost when they were forced to buy their new laptop or desktop system with Windows pre-loaded on it.)
Even the "personal use" exception seems to be under fire these days, as the publishers of digital works keep trying to find more ways to milk extra $'s from people (DMCA, etc.).
Unless things change, one of these days, you just might find it has become illegal to practice existing music without paying for a "musician's license" from the recording industry. (We're sorry, but without a license issued by the original copyright holder - you're simply engaging in attempted illegal reproduction of our copyrighted works, Mr. Musician!)
The indicted today are *NOT* "bigtime distributers of music" at all. The only people truly fitting this description are the folks churning out black-market counterfeit tapes and CDs and *selling them* on the street.
The RIAA still hasn't shown much interest in stopping those people, by comparison. They're too hung up in this "fight the P2P networks!" garbage.
The fact is, even the individuals with the biggest hard drives full of MP3 music to share are giving the stuff away - NOT selling it at a profit. The folks selling counterfeits are much more of a direct threat to music sales, because they're diverting money from customers who are actively trying to BUY music.
One of the big problems I see is the RIAA's seeming interest in the sheer number of files available for free downloading from a single source. What if the person is some teenager on a 33.6K modem connection? His/her vast collection of MP3s doesn't really mean much at all in the "big picture", because the bandwidth limits physically prevent too much music from getting shared around anyway. Theoretically, one guy sharing only one "hot new album" off a T3 could be a much bigger problem... but you know the RIAA isn't looking at it that way.
I'm not necessarily sure an individual should have to go so far as buying their own personal laptop or using their cellphone (instead of the phone right on their desk), just to ensure a degree of privacy.
Granted, those are probably smart measures for one to take, if there's a concern about the employer not respecting his/her privacy.
Still, I think there's implicit trust between the employer and employee. (EG. By the mere fact that your workplace issues you a laptop to use, they're implicitly saying that they trust you enough to take care of this expensive item, and to use it primarily for the benefit of the business.) The same goes for the phone on your desk. (Many employees aren't given their own phone extension or voice mailbox, you know.)
Part of this implicit trust is the employer respecting the privacy of the employee. Just because something is "legal" to do doesn't mean it's good business sense to abuse that legal right. (If I go to my neighbor's house and borrow the phone, I would expect he/she wouldn't be listening in to my whole conversation on a phone extension. I suppose he/she could *legally* do so, since I don't own the phone or phone circuit in question - but it's just not considered the "right thing to do".)
There is no Constitutional right to privacy, in the definitive sense. It's simply a concept we choose to respect (and often hint at through legislating related activities) because it makes sense in a civilized society. I expect an employer to respect my privacy just as I'd expect anyone else to who I deal with on a regular basis. If they don't, they might not be breaking any laws - but I'd certainly consider working elsewhere (and warning others!).
Well, I would hardly call even President Bush "a member of the radical right wing". I think this term is usually reserved for the folks who let religious beliefs be their primary guide in their political views - and who believe in individual freedoms and rights only "as long as it doesn't interfere with my own moral beliefs".
The "War on Drugs" certainly did cost us civil liberties - but honestly, this was an unfortunate side-effect of President Reagan allowing his wife to get her way on the issue, more than anything else. It may well be the biggest mistake Reagan made during his term of office, too.
I don't see the fight to stop our individual rights and freedoms from slipping away as something that follows along any particular party lines. It's an issue that affects *everyone*, conservative or liberal. No matter who is in office, I'd hope they have some respect for these things, because we hardly have a "United States of America" worth mentioning without them.
Ok then, I stand corrected. I guess I was falsely under the impression that the parents of the shooters were suing, because one of the kids got shot and killed by police trying to stop their behavior - or something along those lines.
(Not much sleep last night, so I guess it was getting to me!)
I think my main point is still perfectly valid though. It certainly holds true for past cases where a teen committed suicide and then his/her parents sued someone for supposedly causing the teen to do it. (A la the old "Judas Priest" music lawsuit.)
I think it might be a nice "value added service" to provide customers... (We'll optionally block all traffic for you except the normally used ports, and let you use our web interface to customize it later if need-be.)
I don't think it adds any value to do it by default or require it for all customers, though.
Yes, but the mere fact we're still able to point out this information (names of the "true" inventors and why they didn't end up getting the credit) shows "invention" is a much more concrete concept than "innovation".
As I said before, anyone can change a thing and call it an "innovation". That's subject to personal opinoon though. True invention is harder, and even when a couple people figure out how to invent a product at the same time, over 4 billion other people on the planet quite clearly didn't do so.
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you said. I just felt that the original poster was exaggerating a bit, but trying to make the (valid, IMHO) point that it's extremely difficult to buy a new notebook computer today that doesn't come with Windows pre-loaded on it. (And let's face it, people aren't really selling many new notebooks nowdays with any flavors of Windows other than XP, unless it's "old stock" or something. Microsoft is trying hard to get everybody onto XP and off of Windows '98/ME and even 2000.)
This is especially unfortunate, because folks wanting to run Linux on a new laptop often run into "snags" such as oddball video chipsets that XFree86 doesn't support well, or lack of support for all the power management features in the notebook. It's more of a benefit that some people first realize to get a laptop that's preloaded with Linux and fully functional.
Yes, I believe in this (far fetched) scenario, I would have some responsibility. I don't think any reasonable jury would feel I deserved to be punished for the drive-by shooting though. Whether I leave my car's window rolled up or not, I have a reasonable expectation that my vehicle shouldn't be tampered with by others. Those who do are committing the crime, not me.
I would accept the fact that my vehicle was stolen at least partially because I made it a relatively easy target. In fact, if I did file an imsurance claim in this situation, it's likely my imsurance company would decide not to give me the full value of the car after reading the police report. (There's a real good chance the report would mention something about the vehicle having the window rolled down when it was stolen. They'd wonder why no windows were broken or no doors damaged trying to pop them open otherwise, right?)
Sure, the parents are greiving the loss of their kids. Who wouldn't? That doesn't mean I'm automatically going to "cut them some slack" though. Looks to me like a classic case of poor parenting catching up with them.
First, there's the obvious question of "How did they get ahold of the guns?" But assuming the guns were somehow borrowed/purchased from school buddies and the parents had no way of knowing about it, there's the bigger and even more important issue: Why weren't these kids brought up with a little more respect for human life? Why weren't they taught a little something about responsibility for one's actions? How did they get all the way to their teenage years without having any desire/motivation to do something more with their lives than go out and shoot at cars, trying to live out some video game fantasy?
Teens might be "more impressionable" than adults, but that's only by design. We're all born as babies with a "clean slate", and we strive to fill it with knowledge and information as we go through life. Teenagers may have all of the "basics" down, but their "slate" isn't quite filled with the more complex concepts yet. They're still trying to define their place in society, their personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and draw their own lines in the grey areas between "right" and "wrong" that suit them. If parents don't care enough to assist in any of this - then they might not like the results.
Huh? I don't see your point at all. Obviously, your link points to a firm that's trying to survive as a "niche" business, largely because they're one of the few that offer a line of systems pre-loaded with a variety of OS choices.
I've never heard of their computers until now, and I'm not sure I'd trust buying one of their notebooks either. I've had plenty of experience with "off brand" notebooks, and it wasn't good.
There's too much potential for something to break and then you're out of luck getting replacement parts. The build quality is (sometimes) 2nd. rate, and you may or may not be getting all the performance you should be getting for your dollar. (Hard to say, since these things are rarely reviewed in head-to-head tests in the magazines and reputable web sites that benchmark competing systems.)
Until the top 10 "name brand" systems (like Toshiba, IBM, HP, Dell, etc.) all offer *any* of their computers with or without an OS pre-loaded on them, and offer choices like Linux or BSD as well as Windows - I'd say it still holds generally true you're stuck buying Windows bundled with your new system.
You're absolutely right, however - I find even this to be frustrating.
Some years back, I was working at a small computer store in a quiet part of town (no crime to speak of, etc.). It was a hot summer day so I purposely left my car window rolled down about half-way, parked it behind the store, and went in to do some work for about 20 minutes.
When I got back, I had a note sitting on the driver's seat from the county police. (It was even on their letterhead.) Basically, it was a hand-written warning from the cop that was patrolling the area, saying my car was an easy target for theives and I should make sure not to leave my window down like that again.
Did it harm me in any way? No, of course not... But I still felt like it was stepping on my rights. Who was this guy to tell me what I should or shouldn't do with my car? I was fully aware of the risks involved with leaving my window rolled down. I surveyed the situation and made a willful decision that I'd rather take the (small) chance of theft, vs. the 100% probability my car would be steaming hot when I got back in it.
As far as computer hacking attempts go, I think respectable "white hat" hackers should stick to exchanging information amongst themselves on what flaw they find, using their *own* systems - and go through proper channels to report issues and bugs. If that fails to get results, publish the exploits if they like. But let other people do the illegal hacking using them. Companies that don't do security patches are on their own, as far as I'm concerned. It's not anyone else's responsibility to harass them into compliance. After the "black hat" comes along and screws them over - they'll learn (or maybe even go out of business from the incident).
It seems pretty obvious to me that hackers doing this sort of thing are simply trying to draw as much attention to themselves as possible, in order to boost their ego and enhance their career options.
Plenty of self-proclaimed "white hat hackers" are low-key individuals, who draft up lengthy "codes of conduct" that they agree to follow, as they discuss security holes and exploits on mailing lists or newsgroups. They generally report holes privately, via email, first - and only (hesitatingly) release details on the flaws if the vendors don't respond in sufficient time.
I really don't think Lamo fits in this category at all!
Besides, if he was so confident his activities were legal and ok, why is he running around from state to state, in hiding? If he felt he had a strong case in his favor, you'd think he'd just turn himself in to the FBI right away, so he could show their folly in court and walk away righteous.
This guy just wants to stir up trouble, and was banking on the mass media portraying him in a positive light the whole time, so he'd land a high paying job doing security consulting. It backfired on him, and now he's on the run.
You may be right, but for every classical (or even jazz) listener I've run into, there are probably at least 20 who prefer rock or other contemporary music genres.
Many of the jazz listeners I've met are still enjoying much of their music on vinyl - so I have to somewhat dismiss anything they say about "sound quality". Pops, hiss and warble are every bit as bad as the supposed loss in details on a high bitrate encoded MP3 track.
The recording industry primarily targets the teens and 20-somethings, who are the demographic most likely to regularly purchase music.
As for issues such as "not dealing with recordings over 10 minutes long" or "tracks with no pauses in between", that's easy to overcome and isn't a problem inherent in the format(s). I have a Rio "MP3 car" player which allows playing multiple ripped MP3 tracks back-to-back with no silence in between, so you can properly play material that isn't supposed to have pauses in between "songs".
RIAA and MPAA member companies need to change their business model to one that sells the content in digital format. For starters, it would eliminate the inventory problems and lack of selection that are faced when you have to stock store shelves with CD/cassette product.
If customers still want to take an album home on an audio CD format, no problem. Burn it for them on the spot from a kiosk, with servers in the back room storing all the raw information. If the customer chooses MP3 format with a particular preference for encoding bit rate, burn it to disc in that format for them! Offer the same selection online at a discount, since the customer has to provide thr physical media to put it on after he/she downloads it.
Right now, is this technology practical for DVD movies? Probably not, but I think it can easily be done today for music! Movies could go to this as well, and probably should, as the technology makes it feasible.
P2P comes into the equation, currently, because it illustrates the feasibility and success of distributing music in various digitized formats over the Internet. It fills a void that the recording industry showed no interest in filling.
The way I see it, it all comes down to one question... How "absolute" is the statement?
When a person claims to have "invented" something, it's pretty clear cut. The statement says they came up with a new idea and put that idea into practice. I don't think it's very often that you find a claim of an invention that a large number of people feel "uncertain" about.
When Edison claimed he invented the phonograph or the light bulb, it wasn't a matter of personal opinion. It was fact. Those two devices simply weren't around before then.
Innovation is a matter of opinion. One person's "innovative new way of displaying menu options" in software is another person's "terrible GUI design that should never have been attempted".
Is Microsoft innovative? Perhaps so, and perhaps not. It all depends on which side of the proverbial fence you stand on. (If you're one of their programmers and you're watching you own ideas become reality in new software releases, you're probably on the side that says "Yep, we're innovating!") Are they inventive though? Certainly not! You don't have to look far to see how many of their products contain code purchased outright from others. Even the pinball game included with every copy of Windows since '98 was licensed from Maxis.
Really, I don't think many companies are "inventive" at all anymore - and that's one of our problems. These days, there's more interest in litigation than invention - because it has a higher probability of profit/success.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a minute! We're supposed to "Take back our freedom!" by voting Democrat??
Who was in office when the DMCA was signed? Bill Clinton. Umm, what party was he a member of again?
Here's the frustrating thing. I've talked to so many self-proclaimed "Democrats" who have plenty of good ideas, but don't seem to cohesively and logically put all of it together. They'll make statements I completely agree with, but then turn around and claim that members of their beloved party are all for those statements - when they're clearly (and publically) opposed to them!
Meanwhile, yes, Republicans are really screwing up the country too, in the name of "freedom and democracy", no less.
THIS is why the Libertarian party exists! Right now, nobody who can do basic math would sanely argue that a Libertarian candidate has good odds of getting elected next term. Still, what you CAN do is research the candidates on the major 2 platforms and pick out the ones who side with Libertarian beliefs. Next election, whatever you do - DON'T just pull that lever to vote for everyone on one party! Pick and choose the people who are doing the right things, no matter what title they run under. These days, you have "Republicrats" and "Demicans", and lots of people in between.
This is, perhaps, just a flip-flop of the "status quo" situation we've had in computing all along.
Game developers were always forced to restrict their development to what the hardware manufacturers gave them to work with. Those willing to "push the limits" by buying the most expensive video hardware they could get their hands on were rewarded by having the games with the most "state of the art" graphics when they finally came out. (Some of you may recall the game publisher, Origin, who was among the first to leverage this strategy to great advantage with the whole "Wing Commander" series and the like.)
Now, video drivers and hardware have gotten so complex, their performance depends *greatly* on how they're implemented by a given software developer. His/her method of coding can "make or break" the reputation of the card. So we have rampant cheating on benchmarks and "under the table" deals with game developers to ensure they "embrace and extend" their particular piece of hardware - so it doesn't fail in the marketplace.
I had an instructor in a "Power Tech" course in school who spent a lot of time doing research on such things as differences in gasoline quality from different manufacturers, and quality of motor oil. He insisted that the "3,000 mile oil change" was still a very good idea.
It wasn't so much the fact that the oil itself would stop lubricating the parts after that length of time in the engine, but more a concern over the additives. Apparently, there are a number of additives in the motor oil that help prevent corrosion which start to break down from the heating/cooling cycles - and become less effective after 3,000 miles or so of use.
You're absolutely correct, except I don't think the "end goal" should have anything to do with "reducing the need for backup copies". The whole problem is, the "Fair Use" provisions of the U.S. Copyright Law should be guaranteeing all of us the legal right to make a backup.
I'd hate to see the record companies start offering "free replacements for damaged physical media", and try to use that as legal leverage to take away our rights.
I do, however, contend that they provide horrible value for one's investment when they refuse to offer replacements of any kind. I've had to throw away quite a few originally purchased cassettes of music because the tape wore out or jammed up. I suppose if I go out on Kaaza and try to download those songs to burn to a CD to replace my damaged cassettes, they'll sue me though. What a crock....
Umm, can you back that statement up with some facts?
I can't say I agree with this at all.
The Libertarian party is basically formed along the lines of what the founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) believed, when they were helping put together the Constitution.
What about Jefferson's beliefs and values do you feel is only valid in a world where there's a "level playing field"?
As I said, about the only concept the LP seems to endorse which I have trouble with is the idea on keeping borders completely open. During the founding of the U.S. - this policy had much more validity than it has in today's world. So perhaps this just stems from Libertarians lifting the ideas straight from the writings of these political leaders - without considering how much has changed in the last 200 years?
Sometimes, I almost feel like we should send the Statue of Liberty back to France, and say "Thanks - but we're pretty much done with it now. Why don't you use it now?"
Of course, the country was "built by immigrants". It's pretty tough to develop a formerly undeveloped nation without bringing some people in from other places.
After everything is in place and sufficient people are citizens to get everything done that needs doing - I think it's time to re-examine the immigration policies and start tightening things up.
Despite being very much a Libertarian, this is probably the one area where I'm not sure I can quite agree with their philosophy. Libertarians seem to be very big on "open borders" and allowing unlimited immigration. The idea could work, but only on a level playing field, which much of the rest of the world is nowhere near ready to do.
In the current world economy, it's economic suicide for the U.S. to allow all of these H1B Visas. Yes, people in many other countries would love to come over here and improve their lives. But no, we can't just let them do so at our own citizen's expense.
The USA may have become great from welcoming immigrants, but there's also such a thing as having "too much of a good thing". Companies complaining that there aren't enough Americans with the skills and training they require should be funding education and training in the U.S. - instead of outsourcing the jobs.
Don't forget, these spammers are actually making considerable profit doing what they do!
At first, you might feel it's excessive to make someone pay out $250,000 for dumping a bunch of spam mail on somebody (presumably by accident, since they couldn't think it made any kind of business sense to send mail tens of thousands of times to the same address?).
If the punishment isn't high enough to make the spammer think twice about his/her actions though, it won't function as a deterrence. (It's fine and good that settlements make amends for wrong done to the person suing, but in cases like this, it's sensible to ensure the money awarded is sufficient to deter the accused from doing the same thing to somebody else. Why cause more people to tie up the court system with similar cases brought against the same guy, if you can put a stop to it the first time?)
Well, last time I checked, "religious tolerance" was an important part of the development of this country.
I don't think it's fair to jump all over a government appointee simply because he or she happens to publish religious papers, or publically announces a particular religious belief.
We do, after all, still print "In God We Trust" on every one of our coins. Senate meetings are opened with prayers (although we recently decided that was only ok for politicians, not for school students!?!). We even grant tax exempt status to clergy in organized religions.
I think the question is not whether Bush says he "feels he is doing God's work" in the middle east, or whether or not he happens to like reading the bible. The question is whether or not he's doing what the majority of U.S. citizens are asking for. Most of the polls I've seen show more folks in support of this war than not - so in that sense, he's doing his job.
The majority of research projects I've seen for the police or military in recent years have been geared towards finding non-lethal ways to stop attackers, or ways to repel various types of weapons.
It's relatively easy to stop an attacker with a big enough gun - but it's not nearly as easy to temporarily stun/paralyze someone with no permanent side-effects.
Much of the technology we still use for these purposes today was developed during World War I. (Typically, things like tear gas.) The "stun guns" often sold for self-protection aren't very reliable. (If it shoots a pair of needles at the person, those needles have to hit their skin somehow, or at least something electrically conductive. Thick clothing can render them completely useless.)
Yeah! That's what surprised me too. I have never heard the "Right of First Sale" doctrine questioned before when it comes to digital works.
If this is, indeed, the case - and the courts do decide that digital works aren't covered by it, that really opens up a whole can of worms.
Among other things, it means Microsoft is right after all, when they want to stop you from reselling unopened/unused OEM versions of their operating systems that were originally bundled with new PCs. (First Sale doctrine is the main argument people had in their favor, when trying to recoup money lost when they were forced to buy their new laptop or desktop system with Windows pre-loaded on it.)
Even the "personal use" exception seems to be under fire these days, as the publishers of digital works keep trying to find more ways to milk extra $'s from people (DMCA, etc.).
Unless things change, one of these days, you just might find it has become illegal to practice existing music without paying for a "musician's license" from the recording industry. (We're sorry, but without a license issued by the original copyright holder - you're simply engaging in attempted illegal reproduction of our copyrighted works, Mr. Musician!)
B.S.!
... but you know the RIAA isn't looking at it that way.
The indicted today are *NOT* "bigtime distributers of music" at all. The only people truly fitting this description are the folks churning out black-market counterfeit tapes and CDs and *selling them* on the street.
The RIAA still hasn't shown much interest in stopping those people, by comparison. They're too hung up in this "fight the P2P networks!" garbage.
The fact is, even the individuals with the biggest hard drives full of MP3 music to share are giving the stuff away - NOT selling it at a profit. The folks selling counterfeits are much more of a direct threat to music sales, because they're diverting money from customers who are actively trying to BUY music.
One of the big problems I see is the RIAA's seeming interest in the sheer number of files available for free downloading from a single source. What if the person is some teenager on a 33.6K modem connection? His/her vast collection of MP3s doesn't really mean much at all in the "big picture", because the bandwidth limits physically prevent too much music from getting shared around anyway. Theoretically, one guy sharing only one "hot new album" off a T3 could be a much bigger problem
I'm not necessarily sure an individual should have to go so far as buying their own personal laptop or using their cellphone (instead of the phone right on their desk), just to ensure a degree of privacy.
Granted, those are probably smart measures for one to take, if there's a concern about the employer not respecting his/her privacy.
Still, I think there's implicit trust between the employer and employee. (EG. By the mere fact that your workplace issues you a laptop to use, they're implicitly saying that they trust you enough to take care of this expensive item, and to use it primarily for the benefit of the business.) The same goes for the phone on your desk. (Many employees aren't given their own phone extension or voice mailbox, you know.)
Part of this implicit trust is the employer respecting the privacy of the employee. Just because something is "legal" to do doesn't mean it's good business sense to abuse that legal right. (If I go to my neighbor's house and borrow the phone, I would expect he/she wouldn't be listening in to my whole conversation on a phone extension. I suppose he/she could *legally* do so, since I don't own the phone or phone circuit in question - but it's just not considered the "right thing to do".)
There is no Constitutional right to privacy, in the definitive sense. It's simply a concept we choose to respect (and often hint at through legislating related activities) because it makes sense in a civilized society. I expect an employer to respect my privacy just as I'd expect anyone else to who I deal with on a regular basis. If they don't, they might not be breaking any laws - but I'd certainly consider working elsewhere (and warning others!).
Well, I would hardly call even President Bush "a member of the radical right wing". I think this term is usually reserved for the folks who let religious beliefs be their primary guide in their political views - and who believe in individual freedoms and rights only "as long as it doesn't interfere with my own moral beliefs".
The "War on Drugs" certainly did cost us civil liberties - but honestly, this was an unfortunate side-effect of President Reagan allowing his wife to get her way on the issue, more than anything else. It may well be the biggest mistake Reagan made during his term of office, too.
I don't see the fight to stop our individual rights and freedoms from slipping away as something that follows along any particular party lines. It's an issue that affects *everyone*, conservative or liberal. No matter who is in office, I'd hope they have some respect for these things, because we hardly have a "United States of America" worth mentioning without them.
Ok then, I stand corrected. I guess I was falsely under the impression that the parents of the shooters were suing, because one of the kids got shot and killed by police trying to stop their behavior - or something along those lines.
(Not much sleep last night, so I guess it was getting to me!)
I think my main point is still perfectly valid though. It certainly holds true for past cases where a teen committed suicide and then his/her parents sued someone for supposedly causing the teen to do it. (A la the old "Judas Priest" music lawsuit.)
Absolutely!
I think it might be a nice "value added service" to provide customers... (We'll optionally block all traffic for you except the normally used ports, and let you use our web interface to customize it later if need-be.)
I don't think it adds any value to do it by default or require it for all customers, though.
Yes, but the mere fact we're still able to point out this information (names of the "true" inventors and why they didn't end up getting the credit) shows "invention" is a much more concrete concept than "innovation".
As I said before, anyone can change a thing and call it an "innovation". That's subject to personal opinoon though. True invention is harder, and even when a couple people figure out how to invent a product at the same time, over 4 billion other people on the planet quite clearly didn't do so.
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you said. I just felt that the original poster was exaggerating a bit, but trying to make the (valid, IMHO) point that it's extremely difficult to buy a new notebook computer today that doesn't come with Windows pre-loaded on it. (And let's face it, people aren't really selling many new notebooks nowdays with any flavors of Windows other than XP, unless it's "old stock" or something. Microsoft is trying hard to get everybody onto XP and off of Windows '98/ME and even 2000.)
This is especially unfortunate, because folks wanting to run Linux on a new laptop often run into "snags" such as oddball video chipsets that XFree86 doesn't support well, or lack of support for all the power management features in the notebook. It's more of a benefit that some people first realize to get a laptop that's preloaded with Linux and fully functional.
Yes, I believe in this (far fetched) scenario, I would have some responsibility. I don't think any reasonable jury would feel I deserved to be punished for the drive-by shooting though. Whether I leave my car's window rolled up or not, I have a reasonable expectation that my vehicle shouldn't be tampered with by others. Those who do are committing the crime, not me.
I would accept the fact that my vehicle was stolen at least partially because I made it a relatively easy target. In fact, if I did file an imsurance claim in this situation, it's likely my imsurance company would decide not to give me the full value of the car after reading the police report. (There's a real good chance the report would mention something about the vehicle having the window rolled down when it was stolen. They'd wonder why no windows were broken or no doors damaged trying to pop them open otherwise, right?)
Nope, I'm not buying into that one.
Sure, the parents are greiving the loss of their kids. Who wouldn't? That doesn't mean I'm automatically going to "cut them some slack" though. Looks to me like a classic case of poor parenting catching up with them.
First, there's the obvious question of "How did they get ahold of the guns?" But assuming the guns were somehow borrowed/purchased from school buddies and the parents had no way of knowing about it, there's the bigger and even more important issue: Why weren't these kids brought up with a little more respect for human life? Why weren't they taught a little something about responsibility for one's actions? How did they get all the way to their teenage years without having any desire/motivation to do something more with their lives than go out and shoot at cars, trying to live out some video game fantasy?
Teens might be "more impressionable" than adults, but that's only by design. We're all born as babies with a "clean slate", and we strive to fill it with knowledge and information as we go through life. Teenagers may have all of the "basics" down, but their "slate" isn't quite filled with the more complex concepts yet. They're still trying to define their place in society, their personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and draw their own lines in the grey areas between "right" and "wrong" that suit them. If parents don't care enough to assist in any of this - then they might not like the results.
Huh? I don't see your point at all. Obviously, your link points to a firm that's trying to survive as a "niche" business, largely because they're one of the few that offer a line of systems pre-loaded with a variety of OS choices.
I've never heard of their computers until now, and I'm not sure I'd trust buying one of their notebooks either. I've had plenty of experience with "off brand" notebooks, and it wasn't good.
There's too much potential for something to break and then you're out of luck getting replacement parts. The build quality is (sometimes) 2nd. rate, and you may or may not be getting all the performance you should be getting for your dollar. (Hard to say, since these things are rarely reviewed in head-to-head tests in the magazines and reputable web sites that benchmark competing systems.)
Until the top 10 "name brand" systems (like Toshiba, IBM, HP, Dell, etc.) all offer *any* of their computers with or without an OS pre-loaded on them, and offer choices like Linux or BSD as well as Windows - I'd say it still holds generally true you're stuck buying Windows bundled with your new system.
You're absolutely right, however - I find even this to be frustrating.
Some years back, I was working at a small computer store in a quiet part of town (no crime to speak of, etc.). It was a hot summer day so I purposely left my car window rolled down about half-way, parked it behind the store, and went in to do some work for about 20 minutes.
When I got back, I had a note sitting on the driver's seat from the county police. (It was even on their letterhead.) Basically, it was a hand-written warning from the cop that was patrolling the area, saying my car was an easy target for theives and I should make sure not to leave my window down like that again.
Did it harm me in any way? No, of course not... But I still felt like it was stepping on my rights. Who was this guy to tell me what I should or shouldn't do with my car? I was fully aware of the risks involved with leaving my window rolled down. I surveyed the situation and made a willful decision that I'd rather take the (small) chance of theft, vs. the 100% probability my car would be steaming hot when I got back in it.
As far as computer hacking attempts go, I think respectable "white hat" hackers should stick to exchanging information amongst themselves on what flaw they find, using their *own* systems - and go through proper channels to report issues and bugs. If that fails to get results, publish the exploits if they like. But let other people do the illegal hacking using them. Companies that don't do security patches are on their own, as far as I'm concerned. It's not anyone else's responsibility to harass them into compliance. After the "black hat" comes along and screws them over - they'll learn (or maybe even go out of business from the incident).
It seems pretty obvious to me that hackers doing this sort of thing are simply trying to draw as much attention to themselves as possible, in order to boost their ego and enhance their career options.
Plenty of self-proclaimed "white hat hackers" are low-key individuals, who draft up lengthy "codes of conduct" that they agree to follow, as they discuss security holes and exploits on mailing lists or newsgroups. They generally report holes privately, via email, first - and only (hesitatingly) release details on the flaws if the vendors don't respond in sufficient time.
I really don't think Lamo fits in this category at all!
Besides, if he was so confident his activities were legal and ok, why is he running around from state to state, in hiding? If he felt he had a strong case in his favor, you'd think he'd just turn himself in to the FBI right away, so he could show their folly in court and walk away righteous.
This guy just wants to stir up trouble, and was banking on the mass media portraying him in a positive light the whole time, so he'd land a high paying job doing security consulting. It backfired on him, and now he's on the run.
You may be right, but for every classical (or even jazz) listener I've run into, there are probably at least 20 who prefer rock or other contemporary music genres.
Many of the jazz listeners I've met are still enjoying much of their music on vinyl - so I have to somewhat dismiss anything they say about "sound quality". Pops, hiss and warble are every bit as bad as the supposed loss in details on a high bitrate encoded MP3 track.
The recording industry primarily targets the teens and 20-somethings, who are the demographic most likely to regularly purchase music.
As for issues such as "not dealing with recordings over 10 minutes long" or "tracks with no pauses in between", that's easy to overcome and isn't a problem inherent in the format(s).
I have a Rio "MP3 car" player which allows playing multiple ripped MP3 tracks back-to-back with no silence in between, so you can properly play material that isn't supposed to have pauses in between "songs".
I think you missed my point?
RIAA and MPAA member companies need to change their business model to one that sells the content in digital format. For starters, it would eliminate the inventory problems and lack of selection that are faced when you have to stock store shelves with CD/cassette product.
If customers still want to take an album home on an audio CD format, no problem. Burn it for them on the spot from a kiosk, with servers in the back room storing all the raw information. If the customer chooses MP3 format with a particular preference for encoding bit rate, burn it to disc in that format for them! Offer the same selection online at a discount, since the customer has to provide thr physical media to put it on after he/she downloads it.
Right now, is this technology practical for DVD movies? Probably not, but I think it can easily be done today for music! Movies could go to this as well, and probably should, as the technology makes it feasible.
P2P comes into the equation, currently, because it illustrates the feasibility and success of distributing music in various digitized formats over the Internet. It fills a void that the recording industry showed no interest in filling.
The way I see it, it all comes down to one question... How "absolute" is the statement?
When a person claims to have "invented" something, it's pretty clear cut. The statement says they came up with a new idea and put that idea into practice. I don't think it's very often that you find a claim of an invention that a large number of people feel "uncertain" about.
When Edison claimed he invented the phonograph or the light bulb, it wasn't a matter of personal opinion. It was fact. Those two devices simply weren't around before then.
Innovation is a matter of opinion. One person's "innovative new way of displaying menu options" in software is another person's "terrible GUI design that should never have been attempted".
Is Microsoft innovative? Perhaps so, and perhaps not. It all depends on which side of the proverbial fence you stand on. (If you're one of their programmers and you're watching you own ideas become reality in new software releases, you're probably on the side that says "Yep, we're innovating!") Are they inventive though? Certainly not! You don't have to look far to see how many of their products contain code purchased outright from others. Even the pinball game included with every copy of Windows since '98 was licensed from Maxis.
Really, I don't think many companies are "inventive" at all anymore - and that's one of our problems. These days, there's more interest in litigation than invention - because it has a higher probability of profit/success.