That actually would meet the definitions of computer hacking in many states. For example, the PA code is below. (and please don't tell me about the difference between hacking and cracking, I'm just reading the website)
"A person commits the offense of unlawful use of a computer if he, whether in person, electronically or through the intentional distribution of a computer virus:
1. accesses, exceeds authorization to access, alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program or data base or any part thereof, with the intent: to interrupt the normal functioning of an organization or to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive or control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises;"
"Call Comcast for restrictions, minimum requirements, and details about service and prices. Use subject to Comcast High-Speed Internet terms and conditions."
Most cable companies are very cagey about giving you anything in writing. I've asked mine for conditions and they told me that they didn't have anything to send me but to call support for any questions.
It mentions in the article that some of the votes were for bad moves, so I don't think it is just selef-selection.
Your idea of seeing whether "authorities" emerge without some central plan is a good one. I think when you look at a usenet news group you tend to see some people being deferred to, but that may be due more to posting frequency than expertise. Maybe this reality show where a bunch of kids are dumped on an island will shed some insight.
Who gets arrested for making false statements? Who gets arrested for recording people without their consent? Who gets arrested for interrupting people? Which article of the constitution grants congress more rights to free speech than I get?
If you want to believe that those laws were being fairly enforced, and not just used to arrest troublemakers, then its not me with the selective reality.
"Yes you can take actions while PROTESTING the government that will get you arrested. Those actions will land you in jail."
You are right on the money here. Refusing to give your name to a police officer is obstruction and gets you a free ride downtown, for example. There are plenty of laws: trespassing, interfering. They are all different names for the same thing.
You might take a look at this chess game played by Kasparov against 50,000 chessplayers voting on the next move from choices selected by top players, none of whom could beat Kasparov individually. You would think that the "masses" would be crushed, but in fact they tended to recognize the best strategies and ideas and gave Kasparov a lot of trouble, nearly getting a draw.
I apologize. No-one has ever been jailed for criticizing the government.
Elsebeth Baumgartner was jailed for making false statements about the government as determined by the government.
Steve Hindi attempted to record what the government is doing. Obviously can't have that. They probably arrest TV news anchors covering press conferences all the time.
Sherman Martin Austin was charged with putting terrorist information on a website, why is he even on this list?
Elena Sassower interrupted a senator. Obviously her criticism would have been fine if she had just waited until the government said it was OK for her to speak. Maybe in a free speech zone, right?
You convinced me. The government does not retaliate against criticism. It just doesn't happen.
The Board of DIrectors have a responsibility to the shareholders. From what I've seen, the CEOs of most public companies don't seem to feel any needs in that direction. Their only goal is to stay on top, raise their own salaries and make enough friends in high places that they can find a new chair when the music stops.
Wikipedia is not a collection of facts, it's a collection of articles. There is an article on Hyperfine structure but the phrase "volume isotope shift" is so obscure that it only gets 70 hits on Google, many referring to the same paper. So even if your constant were known, then it would probably not pass the "notability" test for an article. Don't forget that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source for information, it is supposed to be a reference to other well-sourced information.
There is primary vandalism of Wikipedia, which is easy to spot. The secondary vandalism is people putting in "facts" which are just their own knowledge, not published or verified. I suspect much of the gripes above are by people who don't understand this and are surprised when their "contributions" were deleted.
I don't know of any well-referenced articles being deleted.
As a wikipedia person, you undoubtedly {{citation needed}} have a monopoly on what is silly and what is not {{neutral point of view}}. And if a question is hard for you to answer, then calling it silly is easier for you isn't it. {{ "?" needed }}
{{ This article is a stub and cites no sources. It needs to be rewritten and links added }}
"supported" and "open-source" are independent. The third independent variable is "being actively developed" which is the missing ingredient with Urchin. Since Ars provides zero details about the two major "issues" and is mostly complaining about not getting upgrades, I'm guessing that they were not bugs but new features that they wanted.
"If a "provisional" nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection is the only rejection remaining in the earlier filed of the two pending applications, while the later-filed application is rejectable on other grounds, the examiner should withdraw that rejection and permit the earlier-filed application to issue as a patent without a terminal disclaimer."
"Why only the GPL?" US civil cases have only one remedy - monetary damages. If GPL developers are not charging for the software it makes it difficult to show actual damages, unlike commercial software which loses revenue to infringement. I believe that the way they get around this is to say they are losing the value of the modifications made by the copyright infringers which they have rights to under the license.
Hey guess what? There's probably a black box in your car that measures what you are doing. Even though you paid for it, the manufacturer doesn't tell you about it, or give you any information about what it does or how to read it out, but it can still be used to void your warranty or as evidence against you by police or insurance companies. Welcome to the future.
Instead of affirmative action, I think we can all agree that the present system is much superior, where the non-merit seats go to the children of the richest alumni.
Slashdot Mirror
hmmm... We need to get the word to 10 million infected users. I know! Maybe we could hire someone to send an email to all of them!
That actually would meet the definitions of computer hacking in many states. For example, the PA code is below. (and please don't tell me about the difference between hacking and cracking, I'm just reading the website)
"A person commits the offense of unlawful use of a computer if he, whether in person, electronically or through the intentional distribution of a computer virus:
1. accesses, exceeds authorization to access, alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program or data base or any part thereof, with the intent: to interrupt the normal functioning of an organization or to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive or control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises;"
"Call Comcast for restrictions, minimum requirements, and details about service and prices. Use subject to Comcast High-Speed Internet terms and conditions."
Most cable companies are very cagey about giving you anything in writing. I've asked mine for conditions and they told me that they didn't have anything to send me but to call support for any questions.
WTF does "cagey" mean anyway?
Unless it was raining chairs...
It mentions in the article that some of the votes were for bad moves, so I don't think it is just selef-selection.
Your idea of seeing whether "authorities" emerge without some central plan is a good one. I think when you look at a usenet news group you tend to see some people being deferred to, but that may be due more to posting frequency than expertise. Maybe this reality show where a bunch of kids are dumped on an island will shed some insight.
Who gets arrested for making false statements?
Who gets arrested for recording people without their consent?
Who gets arrested for interrupting people?
Which article of the constitution grants congress more rights to free speech than I get?
If you want to believe that those laws were being fairly enforced, and not just used to arrest troublemakers, then its not me with the selective reality.
"Yes you can take actions while PROTESTING the government that will get you arrested. Those actions will land you in jail."
You are right on the money here. Refusing to give your name to a police officer is obstruction and gets you a free ride downtown, for example. There are plenty of laws: trespassing, interfering. They are all different names for the same thing.
Be a sheep, I don't care.
You might take a look at this chess game played by Kasparov against 50,000 chessplayers voting on the next move from choices selected by top players, none of whom could beat Kasparov individually. You would think that the "masses" would be crushed, but in fact they tended to recognize the best strategies and ideas and gave Kasparov a lot of trouble, nearly getting a draw.
I apologize. No-one has ever been jailed for criticizing the government.
Elsebeth Baumgartner was jailed for making false statements about the government as determined by the government.
Steve Hindi attempted to record what the government is doing. Obviously can't have that. They probably arrest TV news anchors covering press conferences all the time.
Sherman Martin Austin was charged with putting terrorist information on a website, why is he even on this list?
Elena Sassower interrupted a senator. Obviously her criticism would have been fine if she had just waited until the government said it was OK for her to speak. Maybe in a free speech zone, right?
You convinced me. The government does not retaliate against criticism. It just doesn't happen.
"When has anyone in the US gone to jail for ... [being]... critical of the US government?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsebeth_Baumgartner
http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000069
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Austin
http://victimsoflaw.net/Elena1.htm
I was out of the loop.
-- Bush, Sr.
The Board of DIrectors have a responsibility to the shareholders. From what I've seen, the CEOs of most public companies don't seem to feel any needs in that direction. Their only goal is to stay on top, raise their own salaries and make enough friends in high places that they can find a new chair when the music stops.
Or if you convert it to octal and turn it upside-down it spells: OSOOh
It will be great until the first time somebody puts the form in upside-down and copies it.
Wikipedia is not a collection of facts, it's a collection of articles. There is an article on Hyperfine structure but the phrase "volume isotope shift" is so obscure that it only gets 70 hits on Google, many referring to the same paper. So even if your constant were known, then it would probably not pass the "notability" test for an article. Don't forget that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source for information, it is supposed to be a reference to other well-sourced information.
There is primary vandalism of Wikipedia, which is easy to spot. The secondary vandalism is people putting in "facts" which are just their own knowledge, not published or verified. I suspect much of the gripes above are by people who don't understand this and are surprised when their "contributions" were deleted.
I don't know of any well-referenced articles being deleted.
Klingon
As a wikipedia person, you undoubtedly {{citation needed}} have a monopoly on what is silly and what is not {{neutral point of view}}. And if a question is hard for you to answer, then calling it silly is easier for you isn't it. {{ "?" needed }}
{{ This article is a stub and cites no sources. It needs to be rewritten and links added }}
{{ articles lacking categories }}
So if you know they will be running Windows, it should be OK to prevent loading any other OS? WRONG
"supported" and "open-source" are independent. The third independent variable is "being actively developed" which is the missing ingredient with Urchin. Since Ars provides zero details about the two major "issues" and is mostly complaining about not getting upgrades, I'm guessing that they were not bugs but new features that they wanted.
So are you saying the police should lock up this guy?
"If a "provisional" nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection is the only rejection remaining in the earlier filed of the two pending applications, while the later-filed application is rejectable on other grounds, the examiner should withdraw that rejection and permit the earlier-filed application to issue as a patent without a terminal disclaimer."
Clear now?
"Why only the GPL?"
US civil cases have only one remedy - monetary damages. If GPL developers are not charging for the software it makes it difficult to show actual damages, unlike commercial software which loses revenue to infringement. I believe that the way they get around this is to say they are losing the value of the modifications made by the copyright infringers which they have rights to under the license.
ITYM Samuel Youd.
Hey guess what? There's probably a black box in your car that measures what you are doing. Even though you paid for it, the manufacturer doesn't tell you about it, or give you any information about what it does or how to read it out, but it can still be used to void your warranty or as evidence against you by police or insurance companies. Welcome to the future.
Instead of affirmative action, I think we can all agree that the present system is much superior, where the non-merit seats go to the children of the richest alumni.
Good point. Windows users never make copies of programs.