For better discussion, here's the heart of the matter, from within
the petition
Auerbach contends, simply enough, that the code section means what
it says: that as a Director of ICANN, he has the absolute right (at
any reasonable time) to inspect, and to copy, any and all of
ICANN's corporate records. Of course, Auerbach has not asked to see
them all, only a small amount, but both by its actions and in its
words, ICANN, primarily through Lynn, contends that it can impose
not only "reasonable time" restraints on Auerbach's rights, but
also substantive restrictions on his right. In acting on its
contentions, ICANN has denied Auerbach his legal right to inspect and
copy ICANN records. Indeed, in denying Auerbach the right to
inspect and copy records as he sees fit, ICANN has acted contrary
to its own Bylaws, as well as S 6334. As quoted in paragraph 5 above,
Article V, Section 21 of the ICANN Bylaws provides that "[e]very
Director shall have the right at any reasonable time to inspect and
copy all books, records and documents of every kind...."
California Corporations Code 5231(a), which also governs the conduct
of California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporations such as ICANN,
provides: A director shall perform the duties of a director,
including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon
which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner
such director believes to be in the best interests of the
corporation and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an
ordinarily prudent person in a like position would
use under similar circumstances.
Windows
(in the context of software) is an arbitrary name
Not quite. To be arbitrary requires that it
has no meaning in connection with the type
of products with which it is being used. (note TYPE, not CLASS)
A "windowing system" obviously has meaning
in connection with a GUI. In fact, that's
the point of "Windows" - i.e., this is a
windowing system for PC machines (like the
windowing systems which existed for other
types of machines). Hence it's not
arbitrary in connection with that
type of software.
The E-Sign Act contains the following definition for an electronic
signature: "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or
logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or
adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record." Further, an
electronic record is "a contract or other record created,
generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means."
Steve Mann is married, and the answer to your question is
in this interview (well, his version of it:-) )
Mann met Betty in 1984. At the time, his then-crude wearable system
required him to "metallicize" his hair with a special silvery paint so
it would conduct electricity. He admits his circle of friends at that
time had gotten a little small, with many people put off by his
technological persona.
"When I first met the person who was later to become my wife, I had
already committed myself to being a cyborg, having modified myself
into that way of existence," Mann recalls. "But she accepted me for
what I was at a time when I was probably the only one on the planet
living this kind of life."
But isn't it just a little absurd to be
reposting two-year old editorials
as "News", while good research ends up trashed
suspiciously because of grudges?
On March 14, 2001, BountyQuest announced that while no one had
uncovered the prior art that would invalidate Amazon's 1-click patent , a few
were able to surface information that could make the patent more difficult to
enforce A pyhrric victory? Perhaps, but one that has called attention to the
exponential growth in overly-broad and often questionable patents.
It isn't obvious to me whether the contest
helped (by turning up near-prior-art), or
hurt (by letting Amazon claim a PR victory).
Just food for thought in view of the settlement.
Look at kuro5hing.org text ads - good idea
on
Slashdot IRC Forum Today
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
For some other ideas, check out how kuro5hin.org's
text ads
are working. I swear, I'm finding the text ads sometimes leading to
sites more enjoyable than the stories.
On reflection, they seem to have the right idea. What Slashdot is doing
seems doubly alienating. First, you're selling
the audience to advertisers with big annoying ads. Then, you're selling
the audience the ability to escape the big annoying ads for a fee.
Of course, if this works, you make money off both ends. But if it
doesn't work, you anger both the audience and the advertisers, who
get a feeling that they are being played-off against one another,
and neither deriving any benefit from the transaction.
Look, bluntly, I wouldn't pay Slashdot to have ad-free pages. It's
just not worth it. People really can give up Slashdot, if it becomes
too annoying. I would pay, gladly, a similar amount to do something
like Kuro5hin.org is doing - advertise to fellow community members
in an affordable way
(I would gloriously, with a big smile, pay that sort of money to run a
Slashdot text ad about
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org))
The problem that I see is that under this model, those who contribute
to slashdot the most, and make the site what it is, are forced to pay
the most.'
Indeed. Though there is a simple solution here - give free credit
for moderated-up comments. OK, that adds a whole new dimension to the
idea of "karma whoring". But even so, it's only a few percent of the
total population, and it's the same fraction that's likely to use
their own technical work-around
for the ads. You could do a lot worse than to give Constant Writers
a break.
I've wondered who gets the task of monitoring this stuff. Can you
imagine what it must be like to have your job being
to read Slashot? (officially, I mean, not counting all the people who
make it their job de facto...)
It's a great idea. It's long known that game theory such as
The Prisoner's Dilemma
can yield a lot of social insight. As that page details:
This classic problem of game theory sheds light on many of the
problems that have plagued ethical and political philosophers
throughout history. It addresses that class of situations in which
there is a fundamental conflict between what is a rational choice for
an individual member of a group and for the group as a whole. It helps
us understand how such dilemmas can be resolved for the greater good.
Putting these ideas into computer games can make the topic less
abstract, more immediate and clear.
But you and I would still be able to legally purchase machines that
weren't, and software developers would be able to continue developing
for them.
Except, per the DMCA, it would be illegal for the software developers
to write anything that duplicated the DRM machines. Hence the practical
result
would be that you could buy other machines, but they wouldn't work
with the content on the DRM machines.
Note there will always be an underground, always some illegal sub-rosa
work-around for a very few people who are dedicated hobbyists.
But the outcome will be 99.99% of the population is locked into the
cartel system. Too many peolpe seem to think that if there is 0.01%
difference, well, that'll be them and who cares about the
rest? The problem is that it's going to be very lonely and risky
place to be.
Think about the implications here - content which
can ONLY be played on special players,
and special players which will ONLY
work with approved, Digital-Rights-Managed,
content. With buy-in from BOTH content and
technology companies.
This is "ganging up on the consumers".
If these two factions ever come to an agreement,
fair use as we know it is dead (even more than
it is already!).
They don't realize what htey have here! A
combination notebook computer AND and a coffee-maker! This could capture the
market all-night, err, I mean overnight:-)
Re:AI hype here - why this won't work
on
ULTra Robo-Taxi
·
· Score: 2
Per the article:
Wherever possible, ULTra will run along the
ground, but some routes might require tracks to be
raised on pillars above roads, creating a truly
futuristic look.
Look at it this way: If this technology worked, the first place to
deploy it would be existing trains. The fact that no such
driverless trains are in existence should be an indicator that there's
less to this than a hype article indicates.
This is because Microsoft
introduced the concept of the CLR, or common language runtime.
Sigh. This is proof that all the hype about "Microsoft innovates" actually
does work (in producing people who believe it, not in producing innovation).
To cite just one example, the author seems never to have heard of the venerable
UCSD P-SYSTEM
Much of the discussion is proceeding as if censorware was a "filter".
That is, as if it were some sort of purification program that filtered
out yucky, harmful, evil toxic material such as (fill in the
blank here, usually "pornography"). Thus, the comments run, why
do you have a RIGHT to bad stuff!.
In fact, censorware is a control system. It is designed to control
what people read. This is a different technical problem. Thus, as
a consequence, it is impelled to ban anonymity, privacy,
language translation
sites, and even e.g. the Google cache, because all
of these represent escapes from control.
Is it s deep wish of mine that this idea get past the reflex reactions,
and into the thought processess, but so far I have failed.
I hope to get more material of this sort released in the near future,
but, frankly and bluntly, the politics of publicity is quite onerous.
(yes, in part there I'm talking about Michael Sims and the story of
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org))
Since when was it a right to receive what ever you want on a freely
provided information channel.
In United States law, this is a critical First Amendment issue in
regard to public institutions:
A limited public forum is created when the government voluntarily
opens a particular forum to the public for expressive activity. See
id. at 45. The government can create a limited public forum for all,
some, or only a single kind of expressive activity. See, e.g.,
Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1259 (finding that the government had made the
public library a limited public forum for the expressive activity of
"communication of the written word"). Even though it is not required
to operate such a forum, once the [begin page 21] government does so
it "is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public
forum." Perry, 460 U.S. at 46. Therefore, content-neutral time, place,
and manner regulations on the expressive activity or activities
allowed are permissible if narrowly tailored to serve a significant
government interest while leaving open ample alternative channels of
communication, see Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1262. Any content-based
restriction, however, must he "narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest."...
If the government provides you with free access, does that give them
the right to censor it? I couldn't begin to speak to the Australian
constitutionality of this, but I've always wondered about the American
constitutionality of similar schemes.
As far as has been answered by the courts so far, the result is a resounding
NO. This is from
Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, involving a
public library using censorware on everyone:
"Although defendant is under no obligation to provide Internet access
to its patrons, it has chosen to do so and is therefore restricted by
the First Amendment in the limitations it is allowed to place on
patron access. Defendant has asserted a broad right to censor the
expressive activity of the receipt and communication of information
through the Internet with a Policy that (1) is not necessary to
further any compelling government interest; (2) is not narrowly
tailored; (3) restricts the access of adult patrons to protected
material just because the material is unfit for minors; (4) provides
inadequate standards for restricting access; and (5) provides
inadequate procedural safeguards to ensure prompt judicial
review. Such a Policy offends the guarantee of free speech in the
First Amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional."
Slashdot Mirror
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
A "windowing system" obviously has meaning in connection with a GUI. In fact, that's the point of "Windows" - i.e., this is a windowing system for PC machines (like the windowing systems which existed for other types of machines). Hence it's not arbitrary in connection with that type of software.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
However, naming something Windows was a bad idea (again, for trademark law)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
It states:
Certain seems to be satified here.Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Grumble, grumble - To Michael Sims: I know it's an interesting article, and it's not censorship that all my recent anticensorware reports, as well as Jonathan Wallace's research have been rejected, maybe because of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
But isn't it just a little absurd to be reposting two-year old editorials as "News", while good research ends up trashed suspiciously because of grudges?
Grievance & Contract Division
of the
National Writer's Union
Well worth it.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
On reflection, they seem to have the right idea. What Slashdot is doing seems doubly alienating. First, you're selling the audience to advertisers with big annoying ads. Then, you're selling the audience the ability to escape the big annoying ads for a fee. Of course, if this works, you make money off both ends. But if it doesn't work, you anger both the audience and the advertisers, who get a feeling that they are being played-off against one another, and neither deriving any benefit from the transaction.
Look, bluntly, I wouldn't pay Slashdot to have ad-free pages. It's just not worth it. People really can give up Slashdot, if it becomes too annoying. I would pay, gladly, a similar amount to do something like Kuro5hin.org is doing - advertise to fellow community members in an affordable way (I would gloriously, with a big smile, pay that sort of money to run a Slashdot text ad about What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org))
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I've wondered who gets the task of monitoring this stuff. Can you imagine what it must be like to have your job being to read Slashot? (officially, I mean, not counting all the people who make it their job de facto ...)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The Game of Diplomacy has a history long pre-dating computer games.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Note there will always be an underground, always some illegal sub-rosa work-around for a very few people who are dedicated hobbyists.
But the outcome will be 99.99% of the population is locked into the cartel system. Too many peolpe seem to think that if there is 0.01% difference, well, that'll be them and who cares about the rest? The problem is that it's going to be very lonely and risky place to be.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
But the result, for users, is the same whether it arises from government-bad mandate, or business-good voluntary cartel-like association.
Think about outcomes. Think about effects. That's my point.
It's really silly to be cheering that they don't want Congress to be involved in the serious effort of fleecing the users!
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
This is "ganging up on the consumers".
If these two factions ever come to an agreement, fair use as we know it is dead (even more than it is already!).
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Think about it. Either:
1) The "object" threshold is high, which means the first time this kills a toddler, there will be a massive lawsuit
or
2) The "object" threshold is low, which means these will be out of commision the moment a piece of trash crosses their path
Neither setting is workable in a city.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
To cite just one example, the author seems never to have heard of the venerable UCSD P-SYSTEM
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
In fact, censorware is a control system. It is designed to control what people read. This is a different technical problem. Thus, as a consequence, it is impelled to ban anonymity, privacy, language translation sites, and even e.g. the Google cache, because all of these represent escapes from control.
Is it s deep wish of mine that this idea get past the reflex reactions, and into the thought processess, but so far I have failed.
See, for example, my reports on:
BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php
BESS vs Google: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php
And, older, SmartFilter's Greatest Evils: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php
I hope to get more material of this sort released in the near future, but, frankly and bluntly, the politics of publicity is quite onerous. (yes, in part there I'm talking about Michael Sims and the story of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org))
This is from Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, a case involving a public library using censorware on everyone.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. However, I did have something to do with that case :-)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
As far as has been answered by the courts so far, the result is a resounding NO. This is from Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, involving a public library using censorware on everyone:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/81123o p.htm
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Note that Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) is not the same as, or even associated with, the US's very own well-known Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
And, sigh, my sig is so poignant these days :-(
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)