Nearly all the news phones released lately have digital cameras in them. This poses a problem for me, because I'm unable to bring anything into my place of employment that has a camera on it. Some of these new phones are fantastic, but I won't be purchasing them because I'd be unable to bring them to work with me. I'm sure folks in my situation are in a minority, but it's frustrating sometimes to know that something neat like this it out of your grasp.
Where I work, everything that gets stored on the hard drives at work is immediately considered For Official Use Only and most companies that do business with DoD or other Government agencies have very strict rules on information storage (classification notwithstanding). If a web-based Office Suite were to succeed, there would have to be major security for it to be considered for use by most of the US Government and it's many (many) contractors. It's possible, but whoever tried to implement this idea would have to keep in mind that lots of big-name companies are tied by these restrictions.
If one could develop a web-based office suite that met the needs of DoD/Dod contractors, then I think a lot of them might go for that idea. It would allow a military unit in Iraq and a command post at Ft. Bragg to view/edit their files without having to worry about transmitting them back and forth; likewise for contractors who have to travel all over the country. I know some contractors who travel 100+ days/year, so having a central repository of files would be excellent for them. I think if the security needs can be met, web-based office might just work. It'll be interesting to see if anyone can actually implement it though.
I read the article and noticed that the reason behind this plan actually seems to be well-reasoned. The Supreme Court stated that it'd be too difficult to force online retailers to calculate all the different types of tax so they shouldn't be forced to do so. This new plan prevent the difficulty, so there's no more reason to argue from a standpoint of difficulty. I'm still not convinced that I should be paying local/state taxes on goods purchased over the internet, but at least this plan addresses the "main" (or at least the loudest) argument against online taxes.
I think a stronger argument against online taxes would be that Congress regulates interstate commerce, not the states.
It's the porn industry that's going to decide, remember? Who cares what the industry people think...
Sorry, but I just wanted to pre-empt those that are inevitably going to claim that. At any rate, if the article (re: Microsoft) is true, then Blu-Ray probably won't succeed because HD-DVD is already here. I'm still pulling for Blu-Ray, for a variety of reasons, but realistically I realize that most consumers are going to see "HD-DVD" and think "Ooooh... a DVD that will play HD" (fallacy notwithstanding) whereas people will see Blu-Ray and think "What the... what's this crap?"
Alas, at this point it's still all speculation. Perfect for/. so I thought I'd share my own.
If that were my choice, I'd choose to buy the book almost every time. The only times I'd rather just read the book online (or download it) is if the book sucks and I only need a small portion for some reason, or the book is not available to buy. The only book I've ever "pirated" was an out-of-print book that I couldn't find anywhere. For me, I love actually reading books; that is, I love reading physical books that I can hold. I'm currently writing a book (albeit slowly... very slowly) and I'd have absolutely no problems with Google scanning that book in (assuming it gets finished) and letting people view its content online. I'm assuming that most folks are like me and prefer an actual physical book to one online. Sure some people are cheap and would just download it, but I think the Author's Guild is seriously dropping the ball here. Free advertising with Google? Come on, where else can an author find that much exposure for free?
Sun already does. NSA, Yahoo, and Verisign are also sponsors. Looks like TopCoder runs it's own coding challenge independently of Google as well.
What about assimilating Civilizations?
on
Ask Sid Meier
·
· Score: 1
Have you thought of the possibility of allowing civilizations to merge? When the Romans took over a civilization, they generally assimilated the culture and spent years adpating the best of the other culture and creatine citizens out of the defeated Empires. Instead of just "crushing" the enemy and destroying their city to a man, or having a stooge, have you thought of a mechanism to actually let the enemy civ cede their civilization, carte blanche, to the player? The game would incorporate some of the better aspects of the captured civilization, giving the player bonuses for their strategic move, instead of just money.
with my dad. He claimed that you don't have a right to listen to that CD on Linux. He said if you don't like it, buy Windows or don't buy CDs. To this day I still can't understand how that argument holds water. I just thought he was off his rocker and that nobody else could possibly believe that, but it seems that he's not the only one. Can someone even remotely begin to explain to me how an argument like that can even be said with a straight face? I'm against music piracy, but I'm even MORE against people telling me that I don't have a right to play my legally purchased CD on my legally purchased (or built) computer.
If you need the validation of your blog readers to feel better about yourself, then you have problems that a REAL therapist might have problems fixing. I think blogging (what a stupid word that is, anyway) is all about attention. If I want therapy, I'll write in a personal journal so I can reflect on my thoughts later; I won't post my thoughts for millions to see. I'm sure there are people on slashdot that post just for the high karma, so they can feel better about themselves.
"Mmmm, I have good karma... I must be doing okay."
I, for one, would rather worship the flying spaghetti monster than blog for therapy. At least maybe I'd get touched by a noodly appendage instead of feeling sad because only 2 people read my blog, and one of them was my mother.
You're missing the blind Microsoft hatred. It reminds me of elementary school when kid A makes fun of kid B for wearing a shirt that's "stupid", then wears the same shirt the next day. If Microsoft were to release a form of BSD/Linux/[Open Source OS], people would complain about that.
I am glad to notes that most of the comments so far, though, have called Dvorak on his idiocy. Seems not even/. has succumbed fully to lunacy.
Surely people aren't so stupid as to be confused by 7 different types of Windows Vista. If someone had done a similar article about the number of Linux distros out there, would it have been posted on the front page of slashdot? Sure, Microsoft is a power-hungry greedy company convicted of monopolistic activities, but this is going a bit far.
I hereby propose some legitimate reasons to bash Microsoft: 1) They refuse to play nice with Open Source developers. 2) They actively seek to destroy any competition, regardless of whether the competition is actually helping the computer community or not. 3) They are promoting legislation that will change patent law from "first to invent" to "first to file."
Those are all (I think) legitimate complaints against Microsoft. Calling Microsoft "nutty" for releasing 7 versions of an OS is rather stupid and petty. I have no doubt that the average person can simply read a chart that has little checks next to "features" and decide which of the 7 they want. This will actually help people, I think, because it will prevent people from getting extraneous software that might increase their risk of attack.
People often complain about Microsoft bundling too many things in their OS and how there's a lack of flexibility, and now they complain because Microsoft is "too" flexible and might "confuse" the poor ignorant user who is incapable of choosing between 7 different forms of Vista.
The 33-page report is a road map for creating national policies on open technology standards, and comes at a time when several countries - and some state governments - are pursuing plans to reduce their dependence on proprietary software makers, notably Microsoft, by using more free, open-source software.
An ignorant reader who was reading this article might assume that all open-source software was "free as in beer", whereas we all (should) know that not all open-source software falls into that niche. I would hazard a guess and say that most governments would probably be using OSS that included tech support, ergo not free as in beer. While OSS is a good thing (in my mind), I don't want everyone thinking they can get it without any cost, because then they'll be disappointed.
Likewise, what is the definition of "standard"? From dictionary.com:
Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence.
Now, I know this may cause a potential flame war, but isn't it pretty clear that Microsoft (mostly) fits that bill? Obviously many will hit me with "Yeah, except for the excellence part..." and I'll concede that Microsoft Office does not always work propertly. However, it is the most widely recognized and employed office software. Does that not make it seem that Office "is" a standard? I work at a government research lab and everything we do has to be compatible with MS Office.
Sure, everyone wants to crush Microsoft into the ground, but realistically (if I can be so bold as to actually talk realistically), does anyone think we can actually get ENOUGH people to stop using Office that *.doc files will cease to be the standard? I honestly think we're better off trying to find a way to get Microsoft to give developers the information they need to develop software based on the Microsoft standard. Oh yes, I know, that's blasphemy and my karma is now lower than Lucifer's, but if you stop and think for a moment you'll realize that it's the logical and realistic choice.
I read this article before it was even posted on Slashdot (BBC RSS feeds are nice) and I can't really see why there's a big uproar about this, unless there's more to the story than the article mentions. Since when did complying with a government order amount to explicit consent and approval of government actions? Yahoo didn't convict/jail this guy, the Chinese government did.
Yahoo didn't actively seek to jail this Chinese writer. Nowhere in the article does it mention that Yahoo CONTACTED the police and said, "here is a guy you should arrest." While I come to expect this from slashdot, I'm somewhat disturbed that BBC is doing the same thing.
Maybe Yahoo did contact the police and tell them everything, but according to the article all they did was
"[provide] Chinese investigating organs with information that helped link Shi Tao's personal e-mail account and the text of the message to his computer."
Come on people, basic reading skills! Stop reading without thinking.
That assumes that you DO believe that the chemistry behind Carbon-14 dating works. Actually, it assumes that you believe that radioactive decay is constant and that you can accurately determine rate of decay based on an unchanging half-life. I used to believe such things, until I learned an interesting tidbit.
Russian scientists recently (Well, more like 6-7 years ago) discovered that radioactive decay is not constant. They were opening up some of their nuclear weapons and expected to find N amount of radioactive material, because they knew the half-life/decay rate of the material. They discovered, however, that nuclear decay is not constant. Unfortunately, however, I can't cite my source, so don't ask. It's not classified, but it's not 'open source' either.
Note: This doesn't mean that Carbon-14 dating is innacurate, but it just goes along with what Mr. Zdziarski said about always questioning science.
It doesn't matter if people move from Kazaa to BitTorrent to eDonkey, as the article mentions, because the internet traffic still ends up in the same place. At some point, the traffic has to go from your computer to another computer via an ISP or other such service (obviously assuming it's not a LAN).
The MPAA/RIAA has taken to issuing subpoena's to ISPs, so even if eDonkey is "decentralized" the users can still get caught. I don't see what the point is, really. I mean, seriously... if the BBC is posting about it, do you think the over-priced greedy hawk lawyers of the RIAA/MPAA are going to ignore it?
Congratulations. I unofficially nominate your post for the "stupidest posts on/." award.
I suppose you'd tell gunshot victims to buy a bulletproof vest if they don't like getting shot.
You mention a revolution in "the 10-30 years" but fail to specify what period of time this "10-30 years" is covering. Is it the "next" 10-30 years, or the 10-30 year period at the beginning of the next millenium?
If you seriously think that arresting doctors who prescribe drugs illegally is the sign of a police state, than perhaps you ought to find one of these doctors and get him to prescribe you some Haldol.
Re:is it just me is the 299 version utterly pointl
on
J Allard Interviewed
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Of course it's not dumb. I mean, everything Microsoft touches turns to gold. Just look at Windows ME and WebTV... err... nevermind!
That's (mostly) true, but that doesn't mean we should stop doing medical research. All it takes is a single breakthrough/accident (i.e. Penicillin) to change modern medicine. Medical research is very expensive, and time consuming, but it's also worth it, in the long run. So you're right that it's slow, but that still doesn't rain on my parade.
You're partially right, insofar as needing a search warrent. There is the "plain view" exception that allows for a search based upon evidence found in plain view. For instance, if someone's background on his computer was of child porn, and the cops saw it and seized the computer as evidence of child porn, that would not violate the 4th amendment. Also, during a vehicle stop, the plain view doctrine holds true.
Insofar as this case is concerned, it's not really a matter of privacy. The EFF even stated that technicians shouldn't hand over data WITHOUT a warrant. Really all this boils down to is a case of the police being over-zealous in their attempts at capturing someone with child pornography. It's a pity that the missteps of the police are likely to allow a child pornographer to go free.
So in short, the article title is somewhat misleading (surprise, surprise) because this doesn't really deal with "privacy" so much as it deals with the police searching the computer without a warrant, at least insofar as the EFF is concerned.
Am I the only one who instantly thought of Marc Antony's "Honorable Men" speech from Shakespeare's Julius Caeser? I think this "apology" is a brilliant example of modern satire.
For those that haven't read the speech, go here and read it, starting on line 83. It begins with "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears." I think you'll find that it's very similar in style to the ZDNet "apology."
between having the ability to write, and having the ability to be READ. I'd love to say that my website is as popular as Slashdot, but I can't. Actually, if it were as popular as slashdot, my bandwidth would be gone in a day (so please no slashdottings!!).
I think I have something useful to say, and most people who make websites (but obviously not all) think they have something useful and valuable to say. The problem is that most people live in anonymity in real life and online. Google has helped create an online prom in which prom king and prom queen are chosen based on "popularity" and not necessarily any specific quality about them. It's the same with websites... some of the most intellectually stimulating and factually sound websites I've found do not show up anywhere near the top of a Google search relating to those sites.
I don't have any answers on how to fix this problem (I perceive it as a problem, anyway), but I do think something needs to be done. Oftentimes the least reliable sources are touted as truth.
That we make all vehicles illegal. It is clear that without vehicles you could not have drive-by shootings, vehicular manslaughter, and other blights on society. Those carmakers must be punished for making such an insidious product!
Seriously, though, how asanine is it to suggest that a product maker is liable for the misuse of a product? Almost anything can be used illegally by criminals. That doesn't make the products any less good. I am personally against software/music/etc piracy, but I'm even MORE against this kind of legislation and overreaction. What I find most disturbing is the language in Article 3, that says "This Article obliges Member States to consider all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale as a criminal offence. It also covers attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such offences." However, before people get on the bandwagon of "Oh noes!! ISPs and computer makers are now liable" it should be noted that the end of Article 3 states "The infringement must be intentional, that is to say that the act must be deliberate, whether it is an actual infringement, an attempt at infringement, or aiding and abetting or inciting such an offence."
I still think this sort of legislation sets a dangerous precedent. I hope that cooler heads prevail and that any anti-piracy legislation that is passed in the future actually has merit and thought behind it... but sadly I doubt that will be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Nearly all the news phones released lately have digital cameras in them. This poses a problem for me, because I'm unable to bring anything into my place of employment that has a camera on it. Some of these new phones are fantastic, but I won't be purchasing them because I'd be unable to bring them to work with me. I'm sure folks in my situation are in a minority, but it's frustrating sometimes to know that something neat like this it out of your grasp.
Where I work, everything that gets stored on the hard drives at work is immediately considered For Official Use Only and most companies that do business with DoD or other Government agencies have very strict rules on information storage (classification notwithstanding). If a web-based Office Suite were to succeed, there would have to be major security for it to be considered for use by most of the US Government and it's many (many) contractors. It's possible, but whoever tried to implement this idea would have to keep in mind that lots of big-name companies are tied by these restrictions.
If one could develop a web-based office suite that met the needs of DoD/Dod contractors, then I think a lot of them might go for that idea. It would allow a military unit in Iraq and a command post at Ft. Bragg to view/edit their files without having to worry about transmitting them back and forth; likewise for contractors who have to travel all over the country. I know some contractors who travel 100+ days/year, so having a central repository of files would be excellent for them. I think if the security needs can be met, web-based office might just work. It'll be interesting to see if anyone can actually implement it though.
I read the article and noticed that the reason behind this plan actually seems to be well-reasoned. The Supreme Court stated that it'd be too difficult to force online retailers to calculate all the different types of tax so they shouldn't be forced to do so. This new plan prevent the difficulty, so there's no more reason to argue from a standpoint of difficulty. I'm still not convinced that I should be paying local/state taxes on goods purchased over the internet, but at least this plan addresses the "main" (or at least the loudest) argument against online taxes.
I think a stronger argument against online taxes would be that Congress regulates interstate commerce, not the states.
It's the porn industry that's going to decide, remember? Who cares what the industry people think...
/. so I thought I'd share my own.
Sorry, but I just wanted to pre-empt those that are inevitably going to claim that. At any rate, if the article (re: Microsoft) is true, then Blu-Ray probably won't succeed because HD-DVD is already here. I'm still pulling for Blu-Ray, for a variety of reasons, but realistically I realize that most consumers are going to see "HD-DVD" and think "Ooooh... a DVD that will play HD" (fallacy notwithstanding) whereas people will see Blu-Ray and think "What the... what's this crap?"
Alas, at this point it's still all speculation. Perfect for
If that were my choice, I'd choose to buy the book almost every time. The only times I'd rather just read the book online (or download it) is if the book sucks and I only need a small portion for some reason, or the book is not available to buy. The only book I've ever "pirated" was an out-of-print book that I couldn't find anywhere. For me, I love actually reading books; that is, I love reading physical books that I can hold. I'm currently writing a book (albeit slowly... very slowly) and I'd have absolutely no problems with Google scanning that book in (assuming it gets finished) and letting people view its content online. I'm assuming that most folks are like me and prefer an actual physical book to one online. Sure some people are cheap and would just download it, but I think the Author's Guild is seriously dropping the ball here. Free advertising with Google? Come on, where else can an author find that much exposure for free?
Sun already does. NSA, Yahoo, and Verisign are also sponsors. Looks like TopCoder runs it's own coding challenge independently of Google as well.
Have you thought of the possibility of allowing civilizations to merge? When the Romans took over a civilization, they generally assimilated the culture and spent years adpating the best of the other culture and creatine citizens out of the defeated Empires. Instead of just "crushing" the enemy and destroying their city to a man, or having a stooge, have you thought of a mechanism to actually let the enemy civ cede their civilization, carte blanche, to the player? The game would incorporate some of the better aspects of the captured civilization, giving the player bonuses for their strategic move, instead of just money.
I'm sure the Communist Party of China would love to hear that news... ;)
with my dad. He claimed that you don't have a right to listen to that CD on Linux. He said if you don't like it, buy Windows or don't buy CDs. To this day I still can't understand how that argument holds water. I just thought he was off his rocker and that nobody else could possibly believe that, but it seems that he's not the only one. Can someone even remotely begin to explain to me how an argument like that can even be said with a straight face? I'm against music piracy, but I'm even MORE against people telling me that I don't have a right to play my legally purchased CD on my legally purchased (or built) computer.
If you need the validation of your blog readers to feel better about yourself, then you have problems that a REAL therapist might have problems fixing. I think blogging (what a stupid word that is, anyway) is all about attention. If I want therapy, I'll write in a personal journal so I can reflect on my thoughts later; I won't post my thoughts for millions to see. I'm sure there are people on slashdot that post just for the high karma, so they can feel better about themselves.
"Mmmm, I have good karma... I must be doing okay."
I, for one, would rather worship the flying spaghetti monster than blog for therapy. At least maybe I'd get touched by a noodly appendage instead of feeling sad because only 2 people read my blog, and one of them was my mother.
You're missing the blind Microsoft hatred. It reminds me of elementary school when kid A makes fun of kid B for wearing a shirt that's "stupid", then wears the same shirt the next day. If Microsoft were to release a form of BSD/Linux/[Open Source OS], people would complain about that.
/. has succumbed fully to lunacy.
I am glad to notes that most of the comments so far, though, have called Dvorak on his idiocy. Seems not even
Surely people aren't so stupid as to be confused by 7 different types of Windows Vista. If someone had done a similar article about the number of Linux distros out there, would it have been posted on the front page of slashdot? Sure, Microsoft is a power-hungry greedy company convicted of monopolistic activities, but this is going a bit far.
I hereby propose some legitimate reasons to bash Microsoft:
1) They refuse to play nice with Open Source developers.
2) They actively seek to destroy any competition, regardless of whether the competition is actually helping the computer community or not.
3) They are promoting legislation that will change patent law from "first to invent" to "first to file."
Those are all (I think) legitimate complaints against Microsoft. Calling Microsoft "nutty" for releasing 7 versions of an OS is rather stupid and petty. I have no doubt that the average person can simply read a chart that has little checks next to "features" and decide which of the 7 they want. This will actually help people, I think, because it will prevent people from getting extraneous software that might increase their risk of attack.
People often complain about Microsoft bundling too many things in their OS and how there's a lack of flexibility, and now they complain because Microsoft is "too" flexible and might "confuse" the poor ignorant user who is incapable of choosing between 7 different forms of Vista.
From TFA:
An ignorant reader who was reading this article might assume that all open-source software was "free as in beer", whereas we all (should) know that not all open-source software falls into that niche. I would hazard a guess and say that most governments would probably be using OSS that included tech support, ergo not free as in beer. While OSS is a good thing (in my mind), I don't want everyone thinking they can get it without any cost, because then they'll be disappointed.Likewise, what is the definition of "standard"? From dictionary.com:
Now, I know this may cause a potential flame war, but isn't it pretty clear that Microsoft (mostly) fits that bill? Obviously many will hit me with "Yeah, except for the excellence part..." and I'll concede that Microsoft Office does not always work propertly. However, it is the most widely recognized and employed office software. Does that not make it seem that Office "is" a standard? I work at a government research lab and everything we do has to be compatible with MS Office.Sure, everyone wants to crush Microsoft into the ground, but realistically (if I can be so bold as to actually talk realistically), does anyone think we can actually get ENOUGH people to stop using Office that *.doc files will cease to be the standard? I honestly think we're better off trying to find a way to get Microsoft to give developers the information they need to develop software based on the Microsoft standard. Oh yes, I know, that's blasphemy and my karma is now lower than Lucifer's, but if you stop and think for a moment you'll realize that it's the logical and realistic choice.
I read this article before it was even posted on Slashdot (BBC RSS feeds are nice) and I can't really see why there's a big uproar about this, unless there's more to the story than the article mentions. Since when did complying with a government order amount to explicit consent and approval of government actions? Yahoo didn't convict/jail this guy, the Chinese government did.
Yahoo didn't actively seek to jail this Chinese writer. Nowhere in the article does it mention that Yahoo CONTACTED the police and said, "here is a guy you should arrest." While I come to expect this from slashdot, I'm somewhat disturbed that BBC is doing the same thing.
Maybe Yahoo did contact the police and tell them everything, but according to the article all they did was
Come on people, basic reading skills! Stop reading without thinking.That assumes that you DO believe that the chemistry behind Carbon-14 dating works. Actually, it assumes that you believe that radioactive decay is constant and that you can accurately determine rate of decay based on an unchanging half-life. I used to believe such things, until I learned an interesting tidbit.
Russian scientists recently (Well, more like 6-7 years ago) discovered that radioactive decay is not constant. They were opening up some of their nuclear weapons and expected to find N amount of radioactive material, because they knew the half-life/decay rate of the material. They discovered, however, that nuclear decay is not constant. Unfortunately, however, I can't cite my source, so don't ask. It's not classified, but it's not 'open source' either.
Note: This doesn't mean that Carbon-14 dating is innacurate, but it just goes along with what Mr. Zdziarski said about always questioning science.
It doesn't matter if people move from Kazaa to BitTorrent to eDonkey, as the article mentions, because the internet traffic still ends up in the same place. At some point, the traffic has to go from your computer to another computer via an ISP or other such service (obviously assuming it's not a LAN). The MPAA/RIAA has taken to issuing subpoena's to ISPs, so even if eDonkey is "decentralized" the users can still get caught. I don't see what the point is, really. I mean, seriously... if the BBC is posting about it, do you think the over-priced greedy hawk lawyers of the RIAA/MPAA are going to ignore it?
Congratulations. I unofficially nominate your post for the "stupidest posts on /." award.
I suppose you'd tell gunshot victims to buy a bulletproof vest if they don't like getting shot.
You mention a revolution in "the 10-30 years" but fail to specify what period of time this "10-30 years" is covering. Is it the "next" 10-30 years, or the 10-30 year period at the beginning of the next millenium?
If you seriously think that arresting doctors who prescribe drugs illegally is the sign of a police state, than perhaps you ought to find one of these doctors and get him to prescribe you some Haldol.
Of course it's not dumb. I mean, everything Microsoft touches turns to gold. Just look at Windows ME and WebTV... err... nevermind!
That's (mostly) true, but that doesn't mean we should stop doing medical research. All it takes is a single breakthrough/accident (i.e. Penicillin) to change modern medicine. Medical research is very expensive, and time consuming, but it's also worth it, in the long run. So you're right that it's slow, but that still doesn't rain on my parade.
You're partially right, insofar as needing a search warrent. There is the "plain view" exception that allows for a search based upon evidence found in plain view. For instance, if someone's background on his computer was of child porn, and the cops saw it and seized the computer as evidence of child porn, that would not violate the 4th amendment. Also, during a vehicle stop, the plain view doctrine holds true. Insofar as this case is concerned, it's not really a matter of privacy. The EFF even stated that technicians shouldn't hand over data WITHOUT a warrant. Really all this boils down to is a case of the police being over-zealous in their attempts at capturing someone with child pornography. It's a pity that the missteps of the police are likely to allow a child pornographer to go free. So in short, the article title is somewhat misleading (surprise, surprise) because this doesn't really deal with "privacy" so much as it deals with the police searching the computer without a warrant, at least insofar as the EFF is concerned.
Wow that's harsh. I mean, sewing someone for violating a contract? Hopefully this person likes needles.
Am I the only one who instantly thought of Marc Antony's "Honorable Men" speech from Shakespeare's Julius Caeser? I think this "apology" is a brilliant example of modern satire.
For those that haven't read the speech, go here and read it, starting on line 83. It begins with "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears." I think you'll find that it's very similar in style to the ZDNet "apology."
between having the ability to write, and having the ability to be READ. I'd love to say that my website is as popular as Slashdot, but I can't. Actually, if it were as popular as slashdot, my bandwidth would be gone in a day (so please no slashdottings!!). I think I have something useful to say, and most people who make websites (but obviously not all) think they have something useful and valuable to say. The problem is that most people live in anonymity in real life and online. Google has helped create an online prom in which prom king and prom queen are chosen based on "popularity" and not necessarily any specific quality about them. It's the same with websites... some of the most intellectually stimulating and factually sound websites I've found do not show up anywhere near the top of a Google search relating to those sites. I don't have any answers on how to fix this problem (I perceive it as a problem, anyway), but I do think something needs to be done. Oftentimes the least reliable sources are touted as truth.
That we make all vehicles illegal. It is clear that without vehicles you could not have drive-by shootings, vehicular manslaughter, and other blights on society. Those carmakers must be punished for making such an insidious product!
Seriously, though, how asanine is it to suggest that a product maker is liable for the misuse of a product? Almost anything can be used illegally by criminals. That doesn't make the products any less good. I am personally against software/music/etc piracy, but I'm even MORE against this kind of legislation and overreaction. What I find most disturbing is the language in Article 3, that says "This Article obliges Member States to consider all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale as a criminal offence. It also covers attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such offences." However, before people get on the bandwagon of "Oh noes!! ISPs and computer makers are now liable" it should be noted that the end of Article 3 states "The infringement must be intentional, that is to say that the act must be deliberate, whether it is an actual infringement, an attempt at infringement, or aiding and abetting or inciting such an offence."
I still think this sort of legislation sets a dangerous precedent. I hope that cooler heads prevail and that any anti-piracy legislation that is passed in the future actually has merit and thought behind it... but sadly I doubt that will be the case.
The only difference is, Linux programmers crash windows for free. Microsoft Programmers actually get paid to write code that crashes Windows.