My name is Seth Finkelstein, the troll is using
the name Seth Finkelstien
I did not post the above message in this thread. I have enough
troubles without troll imposters.
Troll Alert! - #582610 is a troll imposter
on
The Venture Cafe
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
The above account is a fraud
The real Seth Finkelstein has slashdot uid #90154
The name is also a subtle misspelling
My name is Seth Finkelstein, the troll is using
the name Seth Finkelstien
I did not post the above message in this thread.
Troll Alert! - #582610 is a troll imposter
on
The Venture Cafe
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
The above account is a fraud
The real Seth Finkelstein has slashdot uid #90154
The name is also a subtle misspelling
My name is Seth Finkelstein, the troll is using
the name is Seth Finkelstien
I did not post the above message in this thread. People may disagree
with what I say, but I don't do totally off-topic posts
such as the above. The above message was the act of an imposter.
Yea, I'm gonna give you my email address. Don't think so...
Well, you could use a throw-away account. Though I tend to discount
those, since I don't want to deal with trolls. I'm trying to walk a
line between being willing to answer honest questions, and not being
troll-fodder. And being reasonable about discussion.
This is what I mean by muddling through. If I err, have pity on my good heart.
The point about Michael Sims breaking legal
trust in publicizing
my censorware decryptions
is not an assertion
of illegal conduct, but rather that what he did was harmful and destructive
far beyond flame-war/shut-up/let-it-go levels. That he shows a willingness
to do such legally damaging things, should cut me some slack
if my reactions to them aren't as preached.
Name-calling is useless. I've seen it before, and will see it again.
I don't know what more I can tell you. All I can say is that I've
replied to you as best I'm able, and backed-up my reasons. And I've
treated you far more politely than you've treated me.
Jim Tyre posted on a mailing list who "Red" and "AF" were, not Sims.
Umm, no, that was an internal message to Censorware Project
people, very private. And then a handful of people were let see it later,
in confidence. See? You've gotten a crucial fact simply in error.
It's not two years after the fact. He publicized that message
just at the start of the CIPA trial. Another miscomprehension
The facts just don't add up. He has emails documenting things which
contradict what you've said on your site.
I repeat, you may check personally with Bennett Haselton
(bennett[at-sign]peacefire.org) or Jonathan Wallace
(jw[at-sign]bway.net) as to who is telling the truth and who is lying here.
I'll keep this brief: People can e-mail me (sethf[at-sign]sethf.com),
and I'll answer any relevant factual questions. Name-calling is
useless. I don't have open comments in my journal because I don't
want to be crapflooded by trolls. If people fear my supposed horrible
wrath, well, there's nothing I can do about that. I'd point out that I
reply in a fairly restrained manner to a very great deal of name-calling,
which really should give the lie to the he's-a-lunatic accusations.
Further on the point, Michael Sims
broke legal trust, right before the CIPA trial.
That's not ancient history.
On-topic: What he did was a large factor in derailing the anticensorware
work I had planned to coincide for CIPA. That matters.
Again, what would you DO in such a situation? Besides the name-calling,
Michael Sims put material
on the web which publicized to
every censorware company
every detail of every decryption he knew I'd done (it's on my site now because he publicized it,
so I figured I might as well put it up too, in a positive context).
This was extremely destructive given that for the CIPA trial, one
censorware company became very
legally aggressive
How would you handle this? What's wrong in my
Slashdot code proposal ? (besides failing, that's hindsight)
I don't say I'm good at politics. I just try to muddle through. I constantly
ask people to take into account, in judging me, the pressures I face. And
to consider, without facile moralizing,
what they would do if they were in my place.
Mike, now that the site is back up, we are renewing our request
that you transfer us the censorware.org domain. You're not using it
for anything, and it will continue to confuse people and divert
traffic away from this, the rightful Censorware Project site.
Is that lunacy?
I keep asking these questions: Am I wrong for legal worries?
What would you DO in the face of smear-attack and under such pressure?
Would you, if you had such worries, act so nicely as is preached?
I never get an answer which isn't easy preaching or name-calling.
I do think that's on-topic. And I also think the destructiveness done in
hijacking censorware.org is relevant. It's not nice. But how could
such hijacking be a pleasant topic?
Understand, programmers have
been sued
for doing anticensorware work. It's not an easy thing, and
it's legally risky.
It's very, very, easy to write personal attacks. Especially if one is
a journalist and has no cost to whatever one does. It's much harder to
be doing volunteer free-speech work and have to deal with the sabotage
of a Slashdot editor. This is not ancient history, it matters
right now, and the hijacking and attacks continue.
Please don't apply moral equivalence.
Mike, now that the site is back up, we are renewing our request
that you transfer us the censorware.org domain. You're not using it
for anything, and it will continue to confuse people and divert
traffic away from this, the rightful Censorware Project site.
I DIDN'T WRITE THAT. Attacking me as a person does not rebut it.
It's a public plea from Censorware Project for you
to STOP your harmful, destructive, actions. You only get away
with them because Slashdot gives you the reputation to continue.
This isn't a game. This isn't just-a-flame-war. People get sued.
Stop being destructive.
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finkelstein
To: Seth Finkelstein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)
I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering
efforts in
anticensorware work
as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:
"Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a
structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of
so-called "loophole" Web sites. These are Web sites that provide
access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a
URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is
usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a "loophole"
that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display
a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering
company's control list. "Loophole" Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location,
"anonymizer" sites, and translation sites.
Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google,
keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google
will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web
sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages
that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for
some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories
under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a
user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she
would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.
Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user
and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not
access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the
proxy server. One type of proxy service is an "anonymizer." Users may
access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want
the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address
from which they are accessing the site, or to leave "cookies" on their
browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web
page content from one language to another. Rather than directly
accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can
instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering
translation features.
As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such
as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of
blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of
overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached,
for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering
company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these
loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web
via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking."
This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the
censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they
got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law!
These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:
BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a
secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must
blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php
BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) -
BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all
image searching to be pornography. http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php
The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive -
The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library. http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php
Ahem. Just to introduce some complication here, there was just
a news release about this where the (Libertarian)
Cato Institute has "no serious problems":
(this is not false, it's honest-to-god what they said)
May 30, 2002
No Problem With New FBI Surveillance Guidelines, Scholar Says
WASHINGTON--The Justice Department is expected to announce today new
guidelines giving greater latitude to FBI agents to monitor Internet
sites, libraries, and religious institutions without first having to
offer evidence of potential criminal activity. Roger Pilon, vice
president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and a former Justice
Department official, had the following remarks:
"As reported in the press, the new FBI surveillance guidelines present
no serious problems. Especially under post-September 11
circumstances, law enforcement monitoring of public places is simply
good, pro-active police work that violates the rights of no one. The
same is true for topical research not directly related to a specific
crime, which the new guidelines will permit.
"Depending on how the work is conducted, there is always the potential
for abuse, of course. But unless the new latitude leads to
significant abuse, that potential should not preclude officials from
taking an active role not simply in prosecuting but in preventing
crime as well."
There's been quite a trend about this generally, with many
hardcore, cap-L Libertarian pundits. saying similar things
overall. It's been almost amusing to watch.
No atheists in foxholes, and no paens to
personal responsibility in the face of
suicide terrorists (not all have had
"foxhole conversions", but quite a few).
My favorite example of this phenomena is food profiling. I
am not making this up. Here's a
news report about it:
You are what you eat? Federal agents are tracking suspects tied to
the Sept. 11 strikes through supermarket club cards that may
give a hint of ethnic tastes. "Time was, this data was so
disorganized nobody could make sense of it, but not anymore.
They're looking for people based on their supermarket tastes,"
says consultant Larry Ponemon, head of the Privacy Council
business consortium. "Trouble is, there's so much bad data out
there, and how do your know if someone eats like a terrorist?" he asks.
Hmm... I'd say the most interesting part of the
policy is this:
At the same time, we are forced to live in the world as it is, and
that world currently permits software patents. A relatively small
number of very large companies have amassed large numbers of software
patents....
One defense against such misuse is to develop a corresponding
portfolio of software patents for defensive purposes..... In the
interests of our company and in an attempt to protect and promote the
open source community, Red Hat has elected to adopt this same
stance. We do so reluctantly because of the perceived inconsistency
with our stance against software patents; however, prudence dictates
this position.
The idea is very similar to the GPL. Maybe we need a
general "patent GPL" - one which is not a "policy",
which can be changed later, but a stronger assignment of patent
rights to a GPL'ish foundation in defense.
Hmm... I'd say the most interesting part of the
policy is this:
At the same time, we are forced to live in the world as it is, and
that world currently permits software patents. A relatively small
number of very large companies have amassed large numbers of software
patents....
One defense against such misuse is to develop a corresponding
portfolio of software patents for defensive purposes..... In the
interests of our company and in an attempt to protect and promote the
open source community, Red Hat has elected to adopt this same
stance. We do so reluctantly because of the perceived inconsistency
with our stance against software patents; however, prudence dictates
this position.
The idea is very similar to the GPL. Maybe we need a
general "patent GPL" - one which is not a "policy",
which can be changed later, but a stronger assignment of patent
rights to a GPL'ish foundation in defense.
The task goal is to produce ten working two-way prototypes from each
of four teams by the end of 18-months. The languages that will be
translated are Farsi, Dari, Arabic, Pashto, Mandarin, and
Uzbeki.
Does this set off alarm bells for anyone? Those are complicated languages,
and I believe Mandarin in particular is EXTREMELY tonal (i.e., doesn't
work well in speech recognition).
Look, just imagine which you get out of Babelfish. Now take it a few levels
up, to speech. Does this proposal in any way sound
achievable? (again, pun unintended)
Advanced Micro Devices, Intel's rival in processors, will likely cut
prices to match Intel's cut. AMD typically announces price cuts a day
or so after Intel. The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company is also
expected to soon release "Thoroughbred," a faster version of its
Athlon chip, made on the 130-nanometer manufacturing process, for
desktop computers. The company is currently shipping the chip to PC
makers, a spokesman confirmed, and will release the chip to the public
shortly.
Agree or disagree, I believe the phrase
BitKeeper... condemned by free software icon Richard Stallman
mis-states
the issue. It's not the merits of BitKeeper _per se_ which are at
issue. Rather, it is the very idea of the use of it - even if it's
technically better!
Bitkeeper issue
The use of Bitkeeper for the Linux sources has a grave effect on the
free software community, because anyone who wants to closely track
patches to Linux can only do it by installing that non-free program.
There must be dozens or even hundreds of kernel hackers who have done
this. Most of them are gradually convincing themselves that it is ok
to use non-free software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive
dissonance about the presence of Bitkeeper on their machines. What can
be done about this?...
Linux, the kernel, is often thought of as the flagship of free
software, yet its current version is partially non-free. How did this
happen? This problem, like the decision to use Bitkeeper, reflects the
attitude of the original developer of Linux, a person who thinks that
"technically better" is more important than freedom.
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. "Don't
bother us with politics," respond those who don't want to learn.
That's a very profound statement. It's easy to sneer
at it, to dismiss it ad hominem. But he raises important
points which deserve to be addressed in depth.
The Internet is an interstate and international medium. But does
operating a Web Site mean that the operator is subject to personal
jurisdiction in courts wherever the Site is accessible? The answer
obviously is no. This outline describes the types of activity that
likely will permit a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an
Internet actor, consistent with the due process clause of the United
States Constitution.
Courts generally have declined to assert personal
jurisdiction solely on the basis of Web Site advertising. However,
courts have exercised jurisdiction over Web Site operation where
additional and more active contacts with the forum took place, such as
Internet sales to the forum residents, conducting business in the
forum state through numerous contacts, or entering into specific
dealings with forum residents
I'm always skeptical of any gee-whiz predictions of the future.
They tend to have a
bad track record , e.g :
The future isn't what it used to be. Take Tomorrowland. When it opened
in 1955 as one of the five original sections of Disneyland, Walt
Disney himself appeared on the live opening-day telecast and promised
"a step into the future with constructive predictions about things to
come." He may have been a dull public speaker, but in envisioning "the
world of 1987," as it was at one point conceived, he did offer up such
astounding attractions as TWA's Rocket to the Moon and Monsanto's
all-plastic House of the Future ("Hardly a natural material appears
anywhere"). We now know that people still live in wood and brick
houses; and that even if TWA did fly to the moon, no one would go
because the service would be ghastly; and that if Disney could have
given 1950s parkgoers a genuine look at the future, the most amazing
thing about 1987 would have been the presidency of Ronald Reagan,...
Slashdot Mirror
The real Seth Finkelstein has slashdot uid #90154
The name is also a subtle misspelling
My name is Seth Finkelstein, the troll is using the name Seth Finklestein
I did not post the above message in this thread. I have enough troubles without troll imposters.
Repeat, the above message, with a threat of physical violence, WAS POSTED BY A TROLL!
The real Seth Finkelstein has slashdot uid #90154
The name is also a subtle misspelling
My name is Seth Finkelstein, the troll is using the name Seth Finkelstien
I did not post the above message in this thread. I have enough troubles without troll imposters.
The real Seth Finkelstein has slashdot uid #90154
The name is also a subtle misspelling
My name is Seth Finkelstein, the troll is using the name Seth Finkelstien
I did not post the above message in this thread.
The real Seth Finkelstein has slashdot uid #90154
The name is also a subtle misspelling
My name is Seth Finkelstein, the troll is using the name is Seth Finkelstien
I did not post the above message in this thread. People may disagree with what I say, but I don't do totally off-topic posts such as the above. The above message was the act of an imposter.
The real Seth Finkelstein has slashdot uid #90154
The name is also a subtle misspelling
My name is Seth Finkelstein, the troll is using the name is Seth Finkelstien
I did not post the above message in this thread. People may disagree with what I say, but I don't do totally off-topic posts such as the above.
Well, you could use a throw-away account. Though I tend to discount those, since I don't want to deal with trolls. I'm trying to walk a line between being willing to answer honest questions, and not being troll-fodder. And being reasonable about discussion. This is what I mean by muddling through. If I err, have pity on my good heart.
The point about Michael Sims breaking legal trust in publicizing my censorware decryptions is not an assertion of illegal conduct, but rather that what he did was harmful and destructive far beyond flame-war/shut-up/let-it-go levels. That he shows a willingness to do such legally damaging things, should cut me some slack if my reactions to them aren't as preached.
Repeat: I haven't hijacked any domain. I never asked Slashdot to fire Michael Sims. (my Slashdot code proposal was primarily concerned with minimizing my legal risks for anticensorware work). It is not insane babbling to worry about censorware companies suing
Name-calling is useless. I've seen it before, and will see it again.
I don't know what more I can tell you. All I can say is that I've replied to you as best I'm able, and backed-up my reasons. And I've treated you far more politely than you've treated me.
Umm, no, that was an internal message to Censorware Project people, very private. And then a handful of people were let see it later, in confidence. See? You've gotten a crucial fact simply in error.
It's not two years after the fact. He publicized that message just at the start of the CIPA trial. Another miscomprehension
Look, can we take this to e-mail?
I repeat, you may check personally with Bennett Haselton (bennett[at-sign]peacefire.org) or Jonathan Wallace (jw[at-sign]bway.net) as to who is telling the truth and who is lying here.
I wrote a reply just before about not ancient history
I'll keep this brief: People can e-mail me (sethf[at-sign]sethf.com), and I'll answer any relevant factual questions. Name-calling is useless. I don't have open comments in my journal because I don't want to be crapflooded by trolls. If people fear my supposed horrible wrath, well, there's nothing I can do about that. I'd point out that I reply in a fairly restrained manner to a very great deal of name-calling, which really should give the lie to the he's-a-lunatic accusations.
Further on the point, Michael Sims broke legal trust, right before the CIPA trial. That's not ancient history. On-topic: What he did was a large factor in derailing the anticensorware work I had planned to coincide for CIPA. That matters.
Again, what would you DO in such a situation? Besides the name-calling, Michael Sims put material on the web which publicized to every censorware company every detail of every decryption he knew I'd done (it's on my site now because he publicized it, so I figured I might as well put it up too, in a positive context).
This was extremely destructive given that for the CIPA trial, one censorware company became very legally aggressive
How would you handle this? What's wrong in my Slashdot code proposal ? (besides failing, that's hindsight)
I don't say I'm good at politics. I just try to muddle through. I constantly ask people to take into account, in judging me, the pressures I face. And to consider, without facile moralizing, what they would do if they were in my place.
I didn't write this:
Bennett Haselton's comments on Michael Sims' hijacking
I didn't write this:
Jonathan Wallace's comments on Michael Sims' hijacking
Are they, too, madmen? You can ask them if they wrote it.
I didn't write this, the public statement of Censorware Project:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010716063335/http://c ensorware.net/index.html
Is that lunacy?
I keep asking these questions: Am I wrong for legal worries? What would you DO in the face of smear-attack and under such pressure? Would you, if you had such worries, act so nicely as is preached?
I never get an answer which isn't easy preaching or name-calling.
If you read the bulk of my message Court listened to my anticensorware work! , you would note that it is concerned with the court's decision, and how my anticensorware work seems to have entered into it.
I do think that's on-topic. And I also think the destructiveness done in hijacking censorware.org is relevant. It's not nice. But how could such hijacking be a pleasant topic?
Understand, programmers have been sued for doing anticensorware work. It's not an easy thing, and it's legally risky.
Look, how would you feel, if a Slashdot editor had maliciously trashed your group website, stolen the domain from the group, and then used his journalist position to escape consequences? I suggest to you that many of the people counseling never to mention it, would not be so noble and forebearing if they were in a similar situation.
It's very, very, easy to write personal attacks. Especially if one is a journalist and has no cost to whatever one does. It's much harder to be doing volunteer free-speech work and have to deal with the sabotage of a Slashdot editor. This is not ancient history, it matters right now, and the hijacking and attacks continue. Please don't apply moral equivalence.
And I didn't write any of this:
Consider http://web.archive.org/web/20010716063335/http://c ensorware.net/index.html
I DIDN'T WRITE THAT. Attacking me as a person does not rebut it. It's a public plea from Censorware Project for you to STOP your harmful, destructive, actions. You only get away with them because Slashdot gives you the reputation to continue.
This isn't a game. This isn't just-a-flame-war. People get sued. Stop being destructive.
See also Bennett Haselton's comments on the hijacking and Jonathan Wallace's comments]
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finkelstein
To: Seth Finkelstein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)
I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:
"Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called "loophole" Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a "loophole" that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. "Loophole" Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, "anonymizer" sites, and translation sites.
Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.
Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an "anonymizer." Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave "cookies" on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.
As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking."
This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:
BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php
BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php
SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translatorse stevils.php
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/great
The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php
-- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.comu its/19HACK.html
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circ
Ahem. Just to introduce some complication here, there was just a news release about this where the (Libertarian) Cato Institute has "no serious problems":
(this is not false, it's honest-to-god what they said)
There's been quite a trend about this generally, with many hardcore, cap-L Libertarian pundits. saying similar things overall. It's been almost amusing to watch. No atheists in foxholes, and no paens to personal responsibility in the face of suicide terrorists (not all have had "foxhole conversions", but quite a few).
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
half.com - $23.00 ... $31.96
bookpool.com - $24.50
Barnes and Noble
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The idea is very similar to the GPL. Maybe we need a general "patent GPL" - one which is not a "policy", which can be changed later, but a stronger assignment of patent rights to a GPL'ish foundation in defense.
Maybe it's time to revive the League for Programming Freedom, but along these lines.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The idea is very similar to the GPL. Maybe we need a general "patent GPL" - one which is not a "policy", which can be changed later, but a stronger assignment of patent rights to a GPL'ish foundation in defense.
Maybe it's time to revive the League for Programming Freedom, but along these lines.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
(emphasis added)
Does this set off alarm bells for anyone? Those are complicated languages, and I believe Mandarin in particular is EXTREMELY tonal (i.e., doesn't work well in speech recognition).
Look, just imagine which you get out of Babelfish. Now take it a few levels up, to speech. Does this proposal in any way sound achievable? (again, pun unintended)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Spamhaus.org records about MonsterHut
It includes such gems as
MonsterHut's PR
and
Whine: MonsterHut Letter to Spam Clients
(scroll down - the header index is identical for these links, but the material below is different)
Definitely worth looking over, for a profile of a spammer.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
From more coverage at ZDNET:
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
How many people will show up "fashionably late"? :-)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
What RMS actually said was:
That's a very profound statement. It's easy to sneer at it, to dismiss it ad hominem. But he raises important points which deserve to be addressed in depth.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
For example: http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/netjuris/netjuris_1.ht ml
(emphasis added)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Where's my flying car?
But then again, we do have Soma, err, Slashdot :-)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)