"TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. "
Basically the act said the authors or the ISP (Wikipedia or Wikipedia's ISP) are not liable for any libel information which may be posted since they are not actual publishers or speakers in per se.
So to answer your question, it is not illegal to post libel information on the internet.
I'm using Firefox 1.5 RC3 and all it does is burp a little bit (windows resizing), and thats it. No calc, no new windows, no java prompt box, no crash, just a minor windows resizing.
Plus, I like to add my comment. Of course there will always be someone saying something we don't like, but thats the whole point of free speech. The right to free speech is created to insures that someone will say something that some people will not like to hear. Got problem with your government? Speak out. Got problem with your neighborhood? Speak out. Got problem with your boss? Speak out (anonymous of course). Got problem with slashdot? Speak out (at your own website or blog).
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying free speech is just for people who want to flame each other to death. Free speech is for solving or preventing problems in our society because the very first step to solving problems is to get aware of them. If no one aware of the problems, then no one will solve it. Plus, knowledge is power. Governments rely on our stupidity to successfully oppress us. "Don't worry, no one will hack the RFID in your passports..." Free speech allows the knowledge to come out. It doesn't matter if people like it or not, or whichever if it is true or false, the words must come out anyway.
Basically, we have to accept the good with the bad.
I really hope the videos will include subtitles or closed-captions for people who have hearing problems and/or only know different languages. I was born deaf.
I fear that the American Disability Act of 1995 (which require subtitles or closed-captions on all videos being sold and television shows in America) will not apply on those videos because the videos are being transferred over the internet instead of being sold on tapes and dvds. If they don't include subtitles or closed-captions, I will be extremely pissed and I will not be the only one... There are over 30 million Americans who have hearing problems and we all NEED subtitles/closed-captions.
It's $100 million. But don't forget, the $200,000 trip in space is very short.
From Virgin Galactic site: After these precious minutes soaking up the thrill of space, you will start your return to earth.
Let assume it is 20 minutes flight in space (which is more than resonable amount of time for SpaceShip One.)
200,000 / 20 = 10,000 dollars per minutes.
The trip around the moon usually take about a week (assuming 3 days to moon, 1 day in orbits, 3 days back to Earth).
100,000,000 / ( 7 * 24 * 60 ) = 9,920.63492
So, that mean the $100 million trip around the moon is about $80 a minute cheaper than the $200,000 trip into Earth's orbit. The moon trip seem to be a damn good deal to me compared to Virgin Galactic's trip to the Earth's orbit.
I think PayGoogle is more fitting because Google want more than one source of revenue (AdSense). So by offering payment service, we would be "paying" Google. Therefore... PayGoogle.
Don't forget "There are many exceptions to the 100 episode rule -- shows of fewer episodes that have become syndication successes. The most notable of these is the original Star Trek series which had only 79 episodes available when it ended in 1969."
Slashdot Mirror
Funny that you said broadcast.com...
Mark Cuban is one of two co-founders of broadcast.com, and Yahoo buying broadcast.com for $5.04 billion is where Mark Cuban get most of his wealth.
Communications Decency Act of 1996, in section 230 part C paragraph 1:
"TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. "
Basically the act said the authors or the ISP (Wikipedia or Wikipedia's ISP) are not liable for any libel information which may be posted since they are not actual publishers or speakers in per se.
So to answer your question, it is not illegal to post libel information on the internet.
I'm using Firefox 1.5 RC3 and all it does is burp a little bit (windows resizing), and thats it. No calc, no new windows, no java prompt box, no crash, just a minor windows resizing.
Wonderful post.
Plus, I like to add my comment. Of course there will always be someone saying something we don't like, but thats the whole point of free speech. The right to free speech is created to insures that someone will say something that some people will not like to hear. Got problem with your government? Speak out. Got problem with your neighborhood? Speak out. Got problem with your boss? Speak out (anonymous of course). Got problem with slashdot? Speak out (at your own website or blog).
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying free speech is just for people who want to flame each other to death. Free speech is for solving or preventing problems in our society because the very first step to solving problems is to get aware of them. If no one aware of the problems, then no one will solve it. Plus, knowledge is power. Governments rely on our stupidity to successfully oppress us. "Don't worry, no one will hack the RFID in your passports..." Free speech allows the knowledge to come out. It doesn't matter if people like it or not, or whichever if it is true or false, the words must come out anyway.
Basically, we have to accept the good with the bad.
I really hope the videos will include subtitles or closed-captions for people who have hearing problems and/or only know different languages. I was born deaf.
I fear that the American Disability Act of 1995 (which require subtitles or closed-captions on all videos being sold and television shows in America) will not apply on those videos because the videos are being transferred over the internet instead of being sold on tapes and dvds. If they don't include subtitles or closed-captions, I will be extremely pissed and I will not be the only one... There are over 30 million Americans who have hearing problems and we all NEED subtitles/closed-captions.
Coming out of MS CEO's office: "I'm going to f**king kill LINUX!!!!"
It's $100 million. But don't forget, the $200,000 trip in space is very short.
From Virgin Galactic site: After these precious minutes soaking up the thrill of space, you will start your return to earth.
Let assume it is 20 minutes flight in space (which is more than resonable amount of time for SpaceShip One.)
200,000 / 20 = 10,000 dollars per minutes.
The trip around the moon usually take about a week (assuming 3 days to moon, 1 day in orbits, 3 days back to Earth).
100,000,000 / ( 7 * 24 * 60 ) = 9,920.63492
So, that mean the $100 million trip around the moon is about $80 a minute cheaper than the $200,000 trip into Earth's orbit. The moon trip seem to be a damn good deal to me compared to Virgin Galactic's trip to the Earth's orbit.
An radar machine didn't see the storm of slashdot coming.
LOL
GooglePal or my personal favorite... PayGoogle. :P
I think PayGoogle is more fitting because Google want more than one source of revenue (AdSense). So by offering payment service, we would be "paying" Google. Therefore... PayGoogle.
Don't forget "There are many exceptions to the 100 episode rule -- shows of fewer episodes that have become syndication successes. The most notable of these is the original Star Trek series which had only 79 episodes available when it ended in 1969."
Source: the answer link in the parent post.
Maybe the Enterprise will be lucky.