So can people break into my school locker and it be perfectly alright? After all, the school should have had better security in place.
If a school had lockers that were incredibly easy to break into, and little security in place, I don't think it would be a bad idea to break into a locker, just to prove that I could, as long as I didn't steal anything. It would certainly get you to complain to the school about this lack of security. Otherwise, people are stupid enough to think that just because something _hasn't_ been broken into that it _can't_ be broken into. If the only think keeping your system secure is the threat of punishment for a break-in, then your system isn't secure at all.
The only real problem here is that we have to trust the perps have not kept copies of the SSNs...but to be fair to them they kinda had to steal them to prove the system was unsecured...otherwise people would have just assumed they couldn't get the SSNs. You'd hear people say "well it's not like they managed to steal everybody's SSNs or anything...the system must be secure enough!"
One thing that isn't mentioned in the summary (and I can't get the article to load at the moment) is whether they came forward after they did it, or they were caught. I will say that if I were a student or faculty member I'd rather have some dumbass students stealing my information be the catalyst for better security rather than, say, a ring of actual determined identity thieves making it happen.
So what? So it's more like breaking into a bank. The point remains that they didn't have any right to break in.
Closer, but more specifically it would be like breaking into a bank and stealing from safe-deposit boxes (as compared to just taking money, which can be replaced). Hence the reason that banks are, in general, _much_ harder to break into than school networks.
My point (or more accurately, opinion) is that the school bears as much, if not more, blame as the students. There's a reason banks make sure they are hard to break into. But many schools treat their security like a joke. Hence the reason you hear about things like people managing to download student's private info over wireless networks.
When's the last time you heard about a bunch of kids breaking into a bank and cleaning out the safe-deposit boxes? Or even the cash? There's a reason.
You can't legally break into someone's house just to show you can...
That is a totally different story. What you keep in your house is, in general, your own stuff, so if you fail to properly secure it only you are hurt. But the school is keeping _other_ people's stuff (their sensitive information) and failing to properly secure it. Personally I think it's perfectly reasonable to probe the security of such systems, to make sure they are securing private information properly.
And you can't tell me producing the latest big-screen Hollywood blockbuster movie is *cheaper* than a recording studio session, even with digital special effects and all that.
Yes, but I can tell you that nearly every Hollywood blockbuster more than covers its cost to produce in revenue from theatrical release. So unless there are some _damn_ expensive "special features" on that DVD, it's pretty much pure profit.
Re:I'm going, but so is my staff
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
California alone would be around the 5th largest economy in the world and it has about half the population of France.
USA GDP per capita $40,100
France GDP per capita $28,700
But straight GDP per capita isn't necessarily the best measure of worker efficiency. I'd bet that if you compare GDP to man-hours worked, the numbers for France and California are a little closer. France might even come out ahead. Because having a 40% higher (give or take) GDP per capita isn't as impressive if your people are working 20%-30% (if not higher) more hours per capita each year.
(Often I would waste time actually going and finding these numbers, so my case would be stronger...but today I'm actually trying to get some work done. Damn job.)
Do we have to tell them what religion we are, whether we support the current administration, what political party we are a part of, or whether or not we donated to the presidental re-election fund?
I'll go ya one better...if these things end up having RFID in them, and of course you'll have to have them to vote, how hard would it be to surreptitiously track who you actually voted for?
Hell, might not even have to use stealth mode on that one...most of the ignorant hordes would applaud the idea as a form of "election reform."
But of course, ours is a kind and benevolent government, that would never abuse such information.
In addition to many of the fine suggestions I've seen (return of the public domain, registering digital copies with a central library, etc.), I have to say I would like to see some provision for mandatory media replacement, at a fair price for all copyrighted works.
With the advent of filesharing, the entertainment industry has been adamant that it is the content, not the media, that we are paying for. So if my CD/DVD becomes damaged, I should be able to recieve a replacement copy for no more than the cost of the media, plus the cost of shipping, plus maybe a buck or two for overhead. Granted, on some titles this might be the same as buying it (cheaper CDs, for instance)...but for certain things (more expensive DVD titles, box sets, software, etc), it would make them much easier to replace.
There is no reason I should ever have to pay for the same movie/album/software twice, assuming I can present the original media (however damaged it may be). Software companies generally have a system in place for this already, with instructions for recieving replacements in the manual. Movie/music companies not so much. While some MAY do this for you (though I doubt many would), none are in any way compelled to, and figuring out who to contact is up to you.
I remember I used to shop at a music store in the eastern US called The Wall. With every CD purchase you got a little sticker to put on the case. If that CD got damaged, they would replace it as long as you still had the disc. No questions asked. It was well worth the extra buck or two you paid at the register over other stores.
Why is it that some of you are perfectly ok with carrying around a driver's license...but because you're gonna get a driver's license with a federal stamp on it, you get your panties up in a bunch?
Because having a federal standard on licenses with a federal database to track them it makes it tremendously easier for the federal government to track my movements and actions from sea to shining sea. So unless you have faith that the federal government is a kind and benevolent being (which I sure as hell don't), that equals "bad thing."
I'm no fan of iTunes - it's still DRM'd music. I'd rather own a CD and the rights to the music on that CD - to play it in my car, at home, on my laptop, wherever I wish. Apple and Microsoft are apparently intent on denying these rights;
You know, I'm pretty sure Apple couldn't care less what you do with your music...they would probably have been more than willing to sell unencumbered MP3 files. They make their money off the players, not the music. It's the RIAA that insists on DRM...they control the product. I think anybody complaining because Apple insists on having DRM should have to have a "The RIAA insists on DRM, not Apple" tatoo slapped on their ass. Apple would probably be willing to send you a DVD with a few gig of free pirated starter MP3s if it would convince you to buy an iPod and the RIAA would allow it.
You obviously went to a northern school. Where I believe heavy emphasis is placed on the "we freed the slaves!" mentality. Besides, I believe it's been overused, but history is written by the winners.
Actually I went to high school in Arizona, and I was previously attending college in Montana (where I have taken a couple history courses as well, including one on the 19th century U.S., though it is not my major by a long shot). It really doesn't get more neutral than that (at least not inside the United States) on the issue. Not like I'm from Pennsylvania or anything.
Also, your comparison of people to cars disturbs me. You talk of cars being "beaten around by their owners" to try and make the Union sound bad on this one. The slaves were _people_ being beaten by their owners. Both being owned and being beaten are not appropriate conditions for human beings, a reality that is not appropriately conveyed by your car analogy.
That said, no the north's motives were not truly benevolent either. They would have let the current slave-owning states in the south go on for quite some time without intervening, so it isn't like they marched in all gung-ho about freeing some slaves. But the war WAS fought over slavery. The election of an abolitionist president, and the attempts to confine slavery to the current southern states, sparked the secession. The secession sparked the war. Without slavery there would likely have been no war...it was the foundation of much of the cultural difference between the north and the south (and one might argue still influences the cultural differences to this day).
The Civil War was caused by slavery. Seems simplistic, but it really does boil down to that. Generally the only people who will argue with that assertion are either those that were educated in the south, or racists.
(And before anybody gets upset, that is not to say that all those educated in the south are racists, as that is the reason I listed them seperatly!)
Obviously, this is different from what's being proposed here. I didn't even RTFA and I'm reasonably sure that this ID will not be required to travel in the U.S. I'd bet that you can drive from Maine to California without ever showing your ID to anyone.
If I remember correctly there are, in some states, checkpoints at major points of entry into that state (I seem to remember there being one on I-10 at the AZ/CA border, for instance). Granted, all they ever asked me is if I'm carrying any fruit or animals with me (or something similar)...but what would stop them from also requiring that I show my ID? I am driving, so I am required to have it.
Or, even better, what is to stop them from scanning it via the DHS-preferred RFID method, with or without my knowledge?
In addition, what is to stop any of the state-run toll-collection agencies on the many toll roads across this great land from doing the same? And what is to stop these checkpoints from going up at almost every state border on every interstate...or major highway for that matter? The fact remains that many such checkpoints are already physically present and could easily be converted to use tracking our citizen's interstate movements. May not be every 100 miles, but it would make it difficult to relocate from Maine to California without having one of these IDs on you...especially if such methods as busses require them as well. Unless you've got a good pair of hiking boots.
I think that it might be harder for you to travel from one end of this country to the other without having an ID on you than you think, especially once this law passes.
And I'm not even getting into the ability of police to pull you over for all kinds of technical infractions (which many cops will tell you are just there to allow them to check for larger violations, such as DUI/warrants/drugs).
Why do I care personally? Because I don't like the idea of my movements being tracked. Not because I am doing any thing wrong, mind you...I just never want to have to explain why I have taken multiple 1500+ mile road trips in the same year to anybody. Especially because the actual reason (just felt like getting away for a little while) may or may not be acceptable to the interrogating party depending on the circumstances. Track just about any person's movements long enough, and you can make them look suspicious, given right right circumstances. Even a lack of travel can look suspicious. Which is why the government shouldn't be in the business of tracking it's citizens on a routine basis.
(And to answer the direct quote in a more straightforward manner, while it might be possible to travel from Maine to California without having a driver's license, even with the laws and such as they are today it is a risky proposition, especially considering the penalties for getting caught, which is not as unlikely as you might think on so long a trip.)
The states rights they were fighting for wasn't slavery so much, as it was the right to seceed. The slavery may have caused the secession, but it was the secession that the war was fought over. Lincoln didn't free the slaves until after the war was well under way.
True, that is another way of looking at it (and an accurate one at that). However, this still leaves slavery as the overall reason for the war, as it was the largest issue leading to their secession. The Civil War was basically brought on by the fact that southern society and northern society could no longer happily co-exist, brought on almost entirely by the fact that the south had based most of their economy on the idea that humans should be owned rather than paid.
Still, many southerners today will deny that slavery had anything to do with the war, when it was almost without doubt the root cause. And from what I understand, southern school systems are helping to perpetuate this myth.
I wish we had things set up so these attachments could not be possible. If you're voting on a military spending bill, no off-topic items have any reason to be there. Are you spending money on the military, or are you defining an ID card requirement? They don't belong together.
When was the last time that the idea of the line-item veto was brought up? We really need that. I'd blame it on the Republicans, because I believe they were running Congress last time the idea was being kicked around and failed to pass it...but the Democrats would never go for it either. Congresscritters in general will never go for it, because it takes away their power. Basically, it allows them to force the President to sign things he wouldn't normally sign, because he needs W, X, and Y so they tack Z on there. Granted, any President with balls (or who didn't, you know, favor the idea of a national ID...I believe our current one does) would just veto the whole damn thing.
Personally, I'd rather see the Iraq spending bill get vetoed (or voted down) than see this go through with it. This is yet another reason the expenses for the war over here should be, you know, in the budget rather than added as emergency spending bills.
I'm getting sick of folks saying the South fought for "states rights". The "state right" they were fighting for was slavery, plain and simple.
The problem is that many school systems in the south cater to "interests" that would rather they teach "state's rights" leading to the Civil War rather than slavery. I believe there are textbooks used in southern states that limit the mention of slavery to a sentence or few, and gloss over the possiblity that it may have led to the Civil War. It isn't the fault of (most of) those that argue this side of things, it's the fault of the system that educated them in this way. Wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the descendants of the slave owners, now would we?
And somebody brought up the large numbers of non-slave-owners that fought on the Confederate side as proof that it wasn't about slavery. Newsflash, once the states seceded, they were fighting to defend their homes, their new country. But the reason the states seceded was, for the most part, the federal government's new stance on limiting slavery to states that currently employed it, and not allowing it in new states entering the union. Notice use of the word "slavery?" So indirectly, even the non-slave owners were fighting for slavery. Go figure.
Unless there are two cities in Arizonia called 'Tempe' I don't think you can call it a 'Major' metropolitan area. When I lived there is was a nice small college town.
Tempe today is neither small college town nor major metro area. It is a -part- of a major metro area...a suburb of Phoenix. Which makes this development, to me, less than special...certainly makes the poster look silly.
Trademarks do serve an important function that's useful to the everyday person, in that it clears up confusion, helps us make choices, and makes it a little more difficult for us to get cheated. If I order an iMac from a website, I can be pretty confident that it's an iMac made by Apple Computer, and not some schmuck in his basement using the same name. And if someone tries to do that, Apple can shut him down. Everyone wins except for the scumbag.
Amen to that. Having spent the last 6 months in southwest Asia, and having dabbled in buying some small items from the locals rather than waiting for them to be shipped. Let me tell you, once you leave the modern/western/industrialized world, just because something says "Sony" on the box/item doesn't mean it is. While every now and then some sleaze like TigerDirect uses this system for their own gain (as is my opinion), most of you are, without knowing it, glad this system is in place.
Or, it's a PR stunt by TigerDirect. I would imagine TigerDirects' website has gotten more hits in the past few hours just from this slashdot story than they have all week.
If that's the case it was a really big mistake...I had never heard of TigerDirect, strangely enough, but after reading the comments posted here I know that neither I, nor anybody I know, will ever buy anything from them. I should thank those bastards for indirectly giving me the heads up on how much they suck.
Unless you're a member of the Apple legal team or an employee of Tiger Direct, I find it hard to believe that you can be so certain that TD is in the wrong here.
No, TigerDirect is still in the wrong either way. An to prevent an accusation of fanboyism, I felt that Blizzard has been wrong in their defense of the trademark on "Diablo" as well, and I'm a fan of theirs.
When one tradmarks what is (without argument) a common, widely used word, one has to expect that someday somebody else might want to use it. One cannot buy words in the English (or any other, in the case of Diablo) language...one can only defend a trademarked word if there is any real chance of confusion. Nobody with a brain in their heads is going to confuse Tiger the Apple OS with TigerDirect the online retailer. It simply isn't going to happen. THE NAME IS NOT EVEN THE SAME. TigerDirect probably only trademarked the word "tiger" (notice the lowercase? It's a common word!) on the off chance they could make some bucks when somebody tried to use it.
Word = Extremely Common
Chance of Confusion = Extremely Low
TigerDirect = Extremely Sleazy Money Grab
TigerDirect is not the "little guy" fighting the evil software behemoth here. They are no better than the average domain name squatter. Sad thing is, if this goes to court they could win...judges have made worse decisions in the past. So I'd say Apple is likely to settle.
Maybe this is just the way I am interpreting those definitions, but this leads to some really silly scenarios, such as the following:
You want to watch your favorite TV show, but aren't home at the time so you miss it. You jump online and grab it on Bittorrent. Since one day that TV show might see commercial release, it is an audiovisual work that has a reasonable expectation of commercial release. So if you distribute it now, the new law applies.
But if you wait until it actually comes out on DVD, and then distribute it, the new law does not apply. Take note that this especially applies if one does not rip the DVD, but rather distributes the original broadcast version, because then the DMCA wouldn't be involved.
So with this new law taking effect, it is possible that you would recieve harsher penalites for distributing a show that you recorded on a broadcast medium and is "freely" available for viewing, than if you waited until it was released on a pay-to-view medium (DVD) and copied it then.
Does this seem absolutely insane to anybody else? I didn't see a broadcast exception, and it seems that one really should have been put in there. Or maybe I'm just reading it wrong.
You could bet that the University would cough up names if these kids were dishing out child pornography, and if the Universities didn't give out names then you could bet that criminal charges would be filed against the University executives that made the brain-dead decision.
All this talk of criminal charges...do you realize that the RIAA is pursuing a civil matter, not a criminal one? Do you even realize the difference (hint: it's big)?
The RIAA almost certainly has their ducks in order to press charges against these clowns. After all, building a case against a filesharer is only as difficult as getting their IP address and a list of the files that they have available for download. Verifying that the files in question truly are your property probably would be helpful, but you've got "probable cause" either way.
Well, nobody is pressing charges, they are filing suit. But we'll put that one away for a moment, as it does not releate to the other point you missed. "Probable cause" does not convict, my friend. Probable cause is enough to allow you to collect evidence to convict. So with an IP address and a list of files your "ducks" are most certainly not "in a row," and your "case" is not "built." You need to verify those files before you can claim they are the songs in question...here we go, I just renamed the readme.txt for some program to "Mike Ness - Cheating at Solitaire.mp3." I can now put it on a filesharing network. Can the RIAA sue me for that? Sure. Would they have a case? Nope. Could I sue whatever entity gave my info out solely on that? Probably. See how this gets bad? And this doesn't take into account the possibility of a open/hacked WAP, a hacked box (unthinkable in the Windows world!), etc. Face it, an IP address and a list of files is no evidence at all, really. Even an IP address and verified files aren't a slam dunk.
If the world were as simple as it appears to be to you, maybe it would make sense for the school in question to give any student's personal info out to the RIAA on demand. But it isn't. So yeah. You lose.
Funny part is, I don't even share music on the internet. I just have a certain respect for the legal system, and I don't enjoy seeing anybody shove their hand up it's ass like a sock puppet.
Example:
Firefox* + IE = Improvements for both Firefox AND IE = Users win.
The importance of open source software in this is that certain companies that control large shares of the market tend to just buy out any competitors that come along. OSS projects don't tend to be for sale.
Another reason I try to preach open source is that most open source projects avoid the "Swiss Army Knife" mentality. This makes sense, because it is easier to code something that performs one task well rather than one that does a dozen decently, and because when you're not trying to sell it you don't need to have dozens of features to attract customers. When I want to perform a specific task, I like to have a tool designed for that task. You can use a Swiss Army Knife, or you can use a screwdriver...both will work, but one is likely to work better. The open source community tends to put out a lot of screwdrivers. I like seeing them recognized for that. I love the look on a friend's faced when I hand them a (legally) free app that does exactly what they are trying to do, and better than what they were using before.
*Note: I tend to always use Firefox (or Thunderbird) as examples because of all the open source software, especially that released for Windows and for desktop users, those are by far the most "ready for prime time." They are currently in the process of proving that if you develop a quality alternative, people will use it. This was proven long ago in the server market. Now it's being tested in the desktop arena. I hope they succeed.
In fact, 320kb seem inadequate to me personally. I would very much prefer and pay for flac. The reason is that I'm a sucker for uncompromised source material, which permits me to compile derivates from the material on hand. It's sort of like a compressed, digital image. As soon you have loss you can never reconstruct the original. You can polish it up and mask the unniceties, but you can never get the original material back. Call it a phobia of mine, if you will.
Actually, you do have a point. I myself am a fan of FLAC, and I have quite a few discs encoded with it for backup purposes (one, for instance, is a bootleg that to my knowledge is not impossible to get ahold of for a reasonable price...god forbid it ever got ruined). I also like FLAC because then I can always re-encode in any new lossy format that comes out, or at any bitrate I feel like having.
My opinion (which is of course by no means definitive) is that for buying music online for download, assuming it was a couple bucks cheaper per album, 192 or 256 kilobit is more than reasonable. I mean, if you really need lossless, you might as well pony up the money and buy the CD.
Then again, I recently had a guy try to convince me his 96k mp3s sounded "good enough" when I turned my nose up at copying some of the music off his laptop. Personally, I'd rather just not have the music at that point. I assume you look at me about the same way I looked at him, so I suppose I can understand:).
Slashdot Mirror
So can people break into my school locker and it be perfectly alright? After all, the school should have had better security in place.
If a school had lockers that were incredibly easy to break into, and little security in place, I don't think it would be a bad idea to break into a locker, just to prove that I could, as long as I didn't steal anything. It would certainly get you to complain to the school about this lack of security. Otherwise, people are stupid enough to think that just because something _hasn't_ been broken into that it _can't_ be broken into. If the only think keeping your system secure is the threat of punishment for a break-in, then your system isn't secure at all.
The only real problem here is that we have to trust the perps have not kept copies of the SSNs...but to be fair to them they kinda had to steal them to prove the system was unsecured...otherwise people would have just assumed they couldn't get the SSNs. You'd hear people say "well it's not like they managed to steal everybody's SSNs or anything...the system must be secure enough!"
One thing that isn't mentioned in the summary (and I can't get the article to load at the moment) is whether they came forward after they did it, or they were caught. I will say that if I were a student or faculty member I'd rather have some dumbass students stealing my information be the catalyst for better security rather than, say, a ring of actual determined identity thieves making it happen.
So what? So it's more like breaking into a bank. The point remains that they didn't have any right to break in.
Closer, but more specifically it would be like breaking into a bank and stealing from safe-deposit boxes (as compared to just taking money, which can be replaced). Hence the reason that banks are, in general, _much_ harder to break into than school networks.
My point (or more accurately, opinion) is that the school bears as much, if not more, blame as the students. There's a reason banks make sure they are hard to break into. But many schools treat their security like a joke. Hence the reason you hear about things like people managing to download student's private info over wireless networks.
When's the last time you heard about a bunch of kids breaking into a bank and cleaning out the safe-deposit boxes? Or even the cash? There's a reason.
You can't legally break into someone's house just to show you can...
That is a totally different story. What you keep in your house is, in general, your own stuff, so if you fail to properly secure it only you are hurt. But the school is keeping _other_ people's stuff (their sensitive information) and failing to properly secure it. Personally I think it's perfectly reasonable to probe the security of such systems, to make sure they are securing private information properly.
And you can't tell me producing the latest big-screen Hollywood blockbuster movie is *cheaper* than a recording studio session, even with digital special effects and all that.
Yes, but I can tell you that nearly every Hollywood blockbuster more than covers its cost to produce in revenue from theatrical release. So unless there are some _damn_ expensive "special features" on that DVD, it's pretty much pure profit.
California alone would be around the 5th largest economy in the world and it has about half the population of France.
USA GDP per capita $40,100
France GDP per capita $28,700
But straight GDP per capita isn't necessarily the best measure of worker efficiency. I'd bet that if you compare GDP to man-hours worked, the numbers for France and California are a little closer. France might even come out ahead. Because having a 40% higher (give or take) GDP per capita isn't as impressive if your people are working 20%-30% (if not higher) more hours per capita each year.
(Often I would waste time actually going and finding these numbers, so my case would be stronger...but today I'm actually trying to get some work done. Damn job.)
Do we have to tell them what religion we are, whether we support the current administration, what political party we are a part of, or whether or not we donated to the presidental re-election fund?
I'll go ya one better...if these things end up having RFID in them, and of course you'll have to have them to vote, how hard would it be to surreptitiously track who you actually voted for?
Hell, might not even have to use stealth mode on that one...most of the ignorant hordes would applaud the idea as a form of "election reform."
But of course, ours is a kind and benevolent government, that would never abuse such information.
In addition to many of the fine suggestions I've seen (return of the public domain, registering digital copies with a central library, etc.), I have to say I would like to see some provision for mandatory media replacement, at a fair price for all copyrighted works.
With the advent of filesharing, the entertainment industry has been adamant that it is the content, not the media, that we are paying for. So if my CD/DVD becomes damaged, I should be able to recieve a replacement copy for no more than the cost of the media, plus the cost of shipping, plus maybe a buck or two for overhead. Granted, on some titles this might be the same as buying it (cheaper CDs, for instance)...but for certain things (more expensive DVD titles, box sets, software, etc), it would make them much easier to replace.
There is no reason I should ever have to pay for the same movie/album/software twice, assuming I can present the original media (however damaged it may be). Software companies generally have a system in place for this already, with instructions for recieving replacements in the manual. Movie/music companies not so much. While some MAY do this for you (though I doubt many would), none are in any way compelled to, and figuring out who to contact is up to you.
I remember I used to shop at a music store in the eastern US called The Wall. With every CD purchase you got a little sticker to put on the case. If that CD got damaged, they would replace it as long as you still had the disc. No questions asked. It was well worth the extra buck or two you paid at the register over other stores.
Why is it that some of you are perfectly ok with carrying around a driver's license...but because you're gonna get a driver's license with a federal stamp on it, you get your panties up in a bunch?
Because having a federal standard on licenses with a federal database to track them it makes it tremendously easier for the federal government to track my movements and actions from sea to shining sea. So unless you have faith that the federal government is a kind and benevolent being (which I sure as hell don't), that equals "bad thing."
I'm no fan of iTunes - it's still DRM'd music. I'd rather own a CD and the rights to the music on that CD - to play it in my car, at home, on my laptop, wherever I wish. Apple and Microsoft are apparently intent on denying these rights;
You know, I'm pretty sure Apple couldn't care less what you do with your music...they would probably have been more than willing to sell unencumbered MP3 files. They make their money off the players, not the music. It's the RIAA that insists on DRM...they control the product. I think anybody complaining because Apple insists on having DRM should have to have a "The RIAA insists on DRM, not Apple" tatoo slapped on their ass. Apple would probably be willing to send you a DVD with a few gig of free pirated starter MP3s if it would convince you to buy an iPod and the RIAA would allow it.
You obviously went to a northern school. Where I believe heavy emphasis is placed on the "we freed the slaves!" mentality. Besides, I believe it's been overused, but history is written by the winners.
Actually I went to high school in Arizona, and I was previously attending college in Montana (where I have taken a couple history courses as well, including one on the 19th century U.S., though it is not my major by a long shot). It really doesn't get more neutral than that (at least not inside the United States) on the issue. Not like I'm from Pennsylvania or anything.
Also, your comparison of people to cars disturbs me. You talk of cars being "beaten around by their owners" to try and make the Union sound bad on this one. The slaves were _people_ being beaten by their owners. Both being owned and being beaten are not appropriate conditions for human beings, a reality that is not appropriately conveyed by your car analogy.
That said, no the north's motives were not truly benevolent either. They would have let the current slave-owning states in the south go on for quite some time without intervening, so it isn't like they marched in all gung-ho about freeing some slaves. But the war WAS fought over slavery. The election of an abolitionist president, and the attempts to confine slavery to the current southern states, sparked the secession. The secession sparked the war. Without slavery there would likely have been no war...it was the foundation of much of the cultural difference between the north and the south (and one might argue still influences the cultural differences to this day).
The Civil War was caused by slavery. Seems simplistic, but it really does boil down to that. Generally the only people who will argue with that assertion are either those that were educated in the south, or racists.
(And before anybody gets upset, that is not to say that all those educated in the south are racists, as that is the reason I listed them seperatly!)
Obviously, this is different from what's being proposed here. I didn't even RTFA and I'm reasonably sure that this ID will not be required to travel in the U.S. I'd bet that you can drive from Maine to California without ever showing your ID to anyone.
If I remember correctly there are, in some states, checkpoints at major points of entry into that state (I seem to remember there being one on I-10 at the AZ/CA border, for instance). Granted, all they ever asked me is if I'm carrying any fruit or animals with me (or something similar)...but what would stop them from also requiring that I show my ID? I am driving, so I am required to have it.
Or, even better, what is to stop them from scanning it via the DHS-preferred RFID method, with or without my knowledge?
In addition, what is to stop any of the state-run toll-collection agencies on the many toll roads across this great land from doing the same? And what is to stop these checkpoints from going up at almost every state border on every interstate...or major highway for that matter? The fact remains that many such checkpoints are already physically present and could easily be converted to use tracking our citizen's interstate movements. May not be every 100 miles, but it would make it difficult to relocate from Maine to California without having one of these IDs on you...especially if such methods as busses require them as well. Unless you've got a good pair of hiking boots.
I think that it might be harder for you to travel from one end of this country to the other without having an ID on you than you think, especially once this law passes.
And I'm not even getting into the ability of police to pull you over for all kinds of technical infractions (which many cops will tell you are just there to allow them to check for larger violations, such as DUI/warrants/drugs).
Why do I care personally? Because I don't like the idea of my movements being tracked. Not because I am doing any thing wrong, mind you...I just never want to have to explain why I have taken multiple 1500+ mile road trips in the same year to anybody. Especially because the actual reason (just felt like getting away for a little while) may or may not be acceptable to the interrogating party depending on the circumstances. Track just about any person's movements long enough, and you can make them look suspicious, given right right circumstances. Even a lack of travel can look suspicious. Which is why the government shouldn't be in the business of tracking it's citizens on a routine basis.
(And to answer the direct quote in a more straightforward manner, while it might be possible to travel from Maine to California without having a driver's license, even with the laws and such as they are today it is a risky proposition, especially considering the penalties for getting caught, which is not as unlikely as you might think on so long a trip.)
The states rights they were fighting for wasn't slavery so much, as it was the right to seceed. The slavery may have caused the secession, but it was the secession that the war was fought over. Lincoln didn't free the slaves until after the war was well under way.
True, that is another way of looking at it (and an accurate one at that). However, this still leaves slavery as the overall reason for the war, as it was the largest issue leading to their secession. The Civil War was basically brought on by the fact that southern society and northern society could no longer happily co-exist, brought on almost entirely by the fact that the south had based most of their economy on the idea that humans should be owned rather than paid.
Still, many southerners today will deny that slavery had anything to do with the war, when it was almost without doubt the root cause. And from what I understand, southern school systems are helping to perpetuate this myth.
I wish we had things set up so these attachments could not be possible. If you're voting on a military spending bill, no off-topic items have any reason to be there. Are you spending money on the military, or are you defining an ID card requirement? They don't belong together.
When was the last time that the idea of the line-item veto was brought up? We really need that. I'd blame it on the Republicans, because I believe they were running Congress last time the idea was being kicked around and failed to pass it...but the Democrats would never go for it either. Congresscritters in general will never go for it, because it takes away their power. Basically, it allows them to force the President to sign things he wouldn't normally sign, because he needs W, X, and Y so they tack Z on there. Granted, any President with balls (or who didn't, you know, favor the idea of a national ID...I believe our current one does) would just veto the whole damn thing.
Personally, I'd rather see the Iraq spending bill get vetoed (or voted down) than see this go through with it. This is yet another reason the expenses for the war over here should be, you know, in the budget rather than added as emergency spending bills.
I'm getting sick of folks saying the South fought for "states rights". The "state right" they were fighting for was slavery, plain and simple.
The problem is that many school systems in the south cater to "interests" that would rather they teach "state's rights" leading to the Civil War rather than slavery. I believe there are textbooks used in southern states that limit the mention of slavery to a sentence or few, and gloss over the possiblity that it may have led to the Civil War. It isn't the fault of (most of) those that argue this side of things, it's the fault of the system that educated them in this way. Wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the descendants of the slave owners, now would we?
And somebody brought up the large numbers of non-slave-owners that fought on the Confederate side as proof that it wasn't about slavery. Newsflash, once the states seceded, they were fighting to defend their homes, their new country. But the reason the states seceded was, for the most part, the federal government's new stance on limiting slavery to states that currently employed it, and not allowing it in new states entering the union. Notice use of the word "slavery?" So indirectly, even the non-slave owners were fighting for slavery. Go figure.
but does ASU have babes? Then and only then would it seal the deal to move.
:)
You've most obviously never set foot in Tempe.
Unless there are two cities in Arizonia called 'Tempe' I don't think you can call it a 'Major' metropolitan area. When I lived there is was a nice small college town.
Tempe today is neither small college town nor major metro area. It is a -part- of a major metro area...a suburb of Phoenix. Which makes this development, to me, less than special...certainly makes the poster look silly.
Trademarks do serve an important function that's useful to the everyday person, in that it clears up confusion, helps us make choices, and makes it a little more difficult for us to get cheated. If I order an iMac from a website, I can be pretty confident that it's an iMac made by Apple Computer, and not some schmuck in his basement using the same name. And if someone tries to do that, Apple can shut him down. Everyone wins except for the scumbag.
Amen to that. Having spent the last 6 months in southwest Asia, and having dabbled in buying some small items from the locals rather than waiting for them to be shipped. Let me tell you, once you leave the modern/western/industrialized world, just because something says "Sony" on the box/item doesn't mean it is. While every now and then some sleaze like TigerDirect uses this system for their own gain (as is my opinion), most of you are, without knowing it, glad this system is in place.
Trust me.
Or, it's a PR stunt by TigerDirect. I would imagine TigerDirects' website has gotten more hits in the past few hours just from this slashdot story than they have all week.
If that's the case it was a really big mistake...I had never heard of TigerDirect, strangely enough, but after reading the comments posted here I know that neither I, nor anybody I know, will ever buy anything from them. I should thank those bastards for indirectly giving me the heads up on how much they suck.
If you're not well versed and you're out looking for one of these Tigers, it's very likely that the other will confuse you.
No, I'd say you'd have to be pretty stupid. World of difference between the two.
Unless you're a member of the Apple legal team or an employee of Tiger Direct, I find it hard to believe that you can be so certain that TD is in the wrong here.
No, TigerDirect is still in the wrong either way. An to prevent an accusation of fanboyism, I felt that Blizzard has been wrong in their defense of the trademark on "Diablo" as well, and I'm a fan of theirs.
When one tradmarks what is (without argument) a common, widely used word, one has to expect that someday somebody else might want to use it. One cannot buy words in the English (or any other, in the case of Diablo) language...one can only defend a trademarked word if there is any real chance of confusion. Nobody with a brain in their heads is going to confuse Tiger the Apple OS with TigerDirect the online retailer. It simply isn't going to happen. THE NAME IS NOT EVEN THE SAME. TigerDirect probably only trademarked the word "tiger" (notice the lowercase? It's a common word!) on the off chance they could make some bucks when somebody tried to use it.
Word = Extremely Common
Chance of Confusion = Extremely Low
TigerDirect = Extremely Sleazy Money Grab
TigerDirect is not the "little guy" fighting the evil software behemoth here. They are no better than the average domain name squatter. Sad thing is, if this goes to court they could win...judges have made worse decisions in the past. So I'd say Apple is likely to settle.
/. mods were fishing for a fresh story and hit the I'm Feeling Lucking button...this story is what it returned.
And unfortunately for the rest of us, they weren't. Let's get them back by sending them to Vegas.
Maybe this is just the way I am interpreting those definitions, but this leads to some really silly scenarios, such as the following:
You want to watch your favorite TV show, but aren't home at the time so you miss it. You jump online and grab it on Bittorrent. Since one day that TV show might see commercial release, it is an audiovisual work that has a reasonable expectation of commercial release. So if you distribute it now, the new law applies.
But if you wait until it actually comes out on DVD, and then distribute it, the new law does not apply. Take note that this especially applies if one does not rip the DVD, but rather distributes the original broadcast version, because then the DMCA wouldn't be involved.
So with this new law taking effect, it is possible that you would recieve harsher penalites for distributing a show that you recorded on a broadcast medium and is "freely" available for viewing, than if you waited until it was released on a pay-to-view medium (DVD) and copied it then.
Does this seem absolutely insane to anybody else? I didn't see a broadcast exception, and it seems that one really should have been put in there. Or maybe I'm just reading it wrong.
You could bet that the University would cough up names if these kids were dishing out child pornography, and if the Universities didn't give out names then you could bet that criminal charges would be filed against the University executives that made the brain-dead decision.
All this talk of criminal charges...do you realize that the RIAA is pursuing a civil matter, not a criminal one? Do you even realize the difference (hint: it's big)?
The RIAA almost certainly has their ducks in order to press charges against these clowns. After all, building a case against a filesharer is only as difficult as getting their IP address and a list of the files that they have available for download. Verifying that the files in question truly are your property probably would be helpful, but you've got "probable cause" either way.
Well, nobody is pressing charges, they are filing suit. But we'll put that one away for a moment, as it does not releate to the other point you missed. "Probable cause" does not convict, my friend. Probable cause is enough to allow you to collect evidence to convict. So with an IP address and a list of files your "ducks" are most certainly not "in a row," and your "case" is not "built." You need to verify those files before you can claim they are the songs in question...here we go, I just renamed the readme.txt for some program to "Mike Ness - Cheating at Solitaire.mp3." I can now put it on a filesharing network. Can the RIAA sue me for that? Sure. Would they have a case? Nope. Could I sue whatever entity gave my info out solely on that? Probably. See how this gets bad? And this doesn't take into account the possibility of a open/hacked WAP, a hacked box (unthinkable in the Windows world!), etc. Face it, an IP address and a list of files is no evidence at all, really. Even an IP address and verified files aren't a slam dunk.
If the world were as simple as it appears to be to you, maybe it would make sense for the school in question to give any student's personal info out to the RIAA on demand. But it isn't. So yeah. You lose.
Funny part is, I don't even share music on the internet. I just have a certain respect for the legal system, and I don't enjoy seeing anybody shove their hand up it's ass like a sock puppet.
More options = better experience for end users.
Example:
Firefox* + IE = Improvements for both Firefox AND IE = Users win.
The importance of open source software in this is that certain companies that control large shares of the market tend to just buy out any competitors that come along. OSS projects don't tend to be for sale.
Another reason I try to preach open source is that most open source projects avoid the "Swiss Army Knife" mentality. This makes sense, because it is easier to code something that performs one task well rather than one that does a dozen decently, and because when you're not trying to sell it you don't need to have dozens of features to attract customers. When I want to perform a specific task, I like to have a tool designed for that task. You can use a Swiss Army Knife, or you can use a screwdriver...both will work, but one is likely to work better. The open source community tends to put out a lot of screwdrivers. I like seeing them recognized for that. I love the look on a friend's faced when I hand them a (legally) free app that does exactly what they are trying to do, and better than what they were using before.
*Note: I tend to always use Firefox (or Thunderbird) as examples because of all the open source software, especially that released for Windows and for desktop users, those are by far the most "ready for prime time." They are currently in the process of proving that if you develop a quality alternative, people will use it. This was proven long ago in the server market. Now it's being tested in the desktop arena. I hope they succeed.
In fact, 320kb seem inadequate to me personally. I would very much prefer and pay for flac. The reason is that I'm a sucker for uncompromised source material, which permits me to compile derivates from the material on hand. It's sort of like a compressed, digital image. As soon you have loss you can never reconstruct the original. You can polish it up and mask the unniceties, but you can never get the original material back. Call it a phobia of mine, if you will.
:).
Actually, you do have a point. I myself am a fan of FLAC, and I have quite a few discs encoded with it for backup purposes (one, for instance, is a bootleg that to my knowledge is not impossible to get ahold of for a reasonable price...god forbid it ever got ruined). I also like FLAC because then I can always re-encode in any new lossy format that comes out, or at any bitrate I feel like having.
My opinion (which is of course by no means definitive) is that for buying music online for download, assuming it was a couple bucks cheaper per album, 192 or 256 kilobit is more than reasonable. I mean, if you really need lossless, you might as well pony up the money and buy the CD.
Then again, I recently had a guy try to convince me his 96k mp3s sounded "good enough" when I turned my nose up at copying some of the music off his laptop. Personally, I'd rather just not have the music at that point. I assume you look at me about the same way I looked at him, so I suppose I can understand