> 5. Child spends the next week in the bathroom trying trying to crap out my shoe.
Ah, so you like to beat _and_ spy on your children. You must be a quite lovely individual.
I sincerely hope you don't breed any more than you already have, but I'm not getting my hopes up. If you think kicking the crap out of your kids is a good idea, you're probably also too stupid to figure out how to use that birth control stuff.
No, the median would be two legs. If there were 10 people in the world, one had zero legs, one had 1 leg, and the rest had two legs, the ordered list of legs would look like this:
0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
You would proceed from opposite sides of the list to calculate the median:
0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X
You would then take them mean of 2 & 2 which is 2 since (2+2)/2=2.
I do. Everything you say is true; devices like this are certainly niche, and Micro$oft will probably lose money on this. M$ created this because it would rather lose money than let Linux own this admittedly niche market. Check out this website: http://www.nokiausa.com/770
Origami is basically a clone of the Nokia 770, except that Origami runs inferior software (Windows XP with IE vs. Linux with Opera Mobile), will cost more (>$500 for Origami vs. $360 for the 770), and is significantly heavier (2 lb for Origami vs. 8.1 ounces for the 770). Also, the Origami may have a slightly larger screen (=3 hours for 770). The two devices have the same screen resolution (800x480) and the same wireless connectivity capabilities (WiFi and Bluetooth: neither is a phone).
Remember that in the mid-90's, Micro$oft used its muscle to destroy a competing OS in the almost nonexistent market for pen-computing devices. M$ just wants to make sure it doesn't lose this market to Linux, no matter how small the market may be.
Okay... well, that changes things a bit. "My water comes from my well" to me meant that you literally went to a well, probably on your farm or ranch, to get water. Perhaps I took what you said that literally because I know of some people who don't have running water, and they get water by going to the wells on their farms. Thank you for clearing up my confusion.
First of all, congratulations on completing what must have been a pretty big project. Good analogy with the email server, and, at least in my mind, building or even setting up your own water pumping system gets you major geek cred. Out of curiosity, did the cool-tech factor play a role in your decision to set this up, kind of like how some people run their own email servers even though they really don't have to (like me)? Or was it a purely rational decision, where the lost interest due to paying for the well, pump, etc. was more than offset by the increase in quality and lower maintenance costs?
Since you probably have a large estate (after all, you did say "houses", and I'm assuming that that's not a typo since you also imply you're rich), perhaps this is a quality and low-cost water solution for you, but I'm guessing that it would take some pretty significant construction to do that for everyone. I'm fairly confident in saying that buying a water pump, digging your own well, and then connecting (or hiring someone to connect) this new setup to your house's pipe system probably isn't the cheapest solution for most people, who only have one fairly small house each. For one thing, there would probably be a lot of unused capacity in each pump, which is inefficient. If I have a pump, my neighbor can either buy a pump or buy water service from me. If a new pump for him costs more than the wear and tear on my pump to provide him service, it's better off for both of us if he pays me some amount of money greater than the cost of the wear and tear on my pump and less than the cost of setting up a pump system for himself, and in exchange I let him connect his house to my pump. Though my technical understanding of water technology is probably less than yours, my understanding is that water pumps and pipe systems scale very well, so in a single area it is most efficient for there to be one pipe system, with very large pumps powering it. Thus, it is most efficient for there to be one provider of water service for a town or city, and water service is a natural monopoly.
If I'm wrong, then why aren't more people doing what you did? If it is cheaper and more efficient to buy your own water pump and hook it up to your house, why are so few people doing that?
To answer your sarcastic questions: No, no, and no.
I'm curious now about how you deal with other basic utilities, if you'd care to share. For instance: do you have your own power generator?
"My water comes from my well so obviously water is not a natural monopoly."
I said "water service". If it wasn't clear from that that I meant running water, I'm sorry for the ambiguity.
By the way, I find it interesting that apparently you either live in an area that does not have running water, but does have Internet access, or you find paying for Internet access a better use of money than paying for water service. I'm curious to know which it is (and I'm not being sarcastic).
Bull. Water service, for example, is a natural monopoly because of the ridiculous inefficiency associated with RUNNING COMPETING PIPELINES to EVERY HOUSE. A natural monopoly results whenever there is such an economy of scale that only one provider can efficiently provide the product or service. With new techonologies, these types of products and services are becoming less common, but they still exist.
'Only government is able to grant monopoly status'
Bull. If there is a natural monopoly in an area, the free market will cause there to be only a single provider. Even if there isn't a natural monopoly, given large enough startup costs, the first provider in a market can sometimes maintain his initial monopoly through predatory pricing or the threat of it. This is harder to do when it is illegal, like it is in the U.S.
You made some goods points in your post, but the last two paragraphs are just nonsense. I can understand where you're coming from, though, because I used to think the same way. When I was 10.
I seriously doubt violating the Espionage Act carries the death penalty. Would you please provide sources?
Btw, Google for "Espionage Act" returns mostly results for the "Economic Espionage Act" and the Espionage Act of 1917, which was declared unconstitutional.
> They do not hold the same power as the government. I am sure she can get a job as a prosecutor, small business with similar ethics, EFF, a university, or any number of firms that don't deal in defending IP law.
100% correct, and well-said.
> Did she shoot herself in the foot my declaring to the media that she breaks IP laws at will when she disagrees with them? Hell yes. Now she needs to take responsibility for her stupid actions.
Mmm, probably not. If my employer were scouring the Internet to make sure I agreed with him on everything, I'd get a different one. If what she's saying is true (and the whole story, she was working for small-minded scumbags. It's better she finds out that she's working for small-minded scumbags now rather than later. Right now she has little invested in the firm.
> If she was a defense lawyer and told the media that she thought her client was guilty, she would have been flat our disbarred and prevent from ever practicing law again.
Nah, but her client might sue her or (more likely) the firm for malpractice. Bad analogy, though. She was giving an argument what she believed the law _should be_, _not_ what the law _is_ or what the facts of a particular case are.
As citizens of a democratic state, we should all be giving opinions on what the law _should be_ fairly often, as what the law _should be_ is the domain of the legislature and people, not the domain of lawyers and the courts. Giving opinions on what the law should be is one of our duties as citizens. No job should prevent us from performing this duty (ethically, not legally), and if a job does it is our responsibility to quit or get fired.
> The simple fact of the matter is that she violated the trust that she was given working in a law firm. Law firms should be leery about taking her on, and rightfully so. If she can't stand to protect and maintain that trust, she picked the wrong profession.
She didn't give out confidential client information. She didn't destroy the firm's property. I don't see any trust being violated; what the hell are you talking about?
> When you go into law, you enter a relationship of deep trust. This relationship of trust is absolutely essential of a society to function by rule by law. Violating this trust that is held to almost sacred levels is a damn good way to make your life in that industry difficult.
You develop a relationship of trust with your clients, yes. She didn't violate this in any way with any of the firm's client that I can see. Again, what are you talking about?
> What she did was stupid, plan and simple.
If her sole goal in life was continued employment with this firm, then what she did was stupid. Based on what she has said, I doubt this was the case.
> Hopefully she learned a lesson from it about the responsibility that one takes on when they enter the field of law.
This incident has nothing to do with legal ethics, unless I'm missing something, which I don't think I am.
> Sure, a lot of the stuff I mentioned ia hardware improvements. But what you're missing is that it's Microsoft driving the hardware improvements in many cases, and providing the OS software to make them run. That's more than even Apple does, and Apple owns its hardware.
Well, Apple has driven a lot of hardware improvements, but I won't get into that. I really doubt Microsoft is the only one who can come up with the not-so-bright idea of "Let's build a PDA into a laptop!" It's just that they're the only ones who think that's actually a good idea.
> A secondary LCD screen that offers limited, PDA-like functionality while the main OS is in Suspend. How would you do that with XP? Or Linux? It's not anything you can write in user mode.
It depends on how they're actually doing it. If (as I suspect) they're basically just being retarded and BUILDING A PDA INTO A LAPTOP, with a separate processor and everything, it shouldn't be too hard to just put Linux on there - after all, one of Linux's main strengths is its broad platform support. If this device is sharing information with the main processor, that complicates things a little, but given a known protocol for sharing data it should be pretty simple to write a Linux kernel module for doing this. Finally, it might even be possible to just leave the Windows CE crap thing they put on the "embedded PDA" in place and have Linux act like Windows toward it.
> Touch screens are hardware improvements. But Vista will bring software from Microsoft that makes it easier to use your finger to do things that would normally need a mouse. So you take your big old fat finger and stab the screen with it. A little circle appears, kind of like a radar screen, and it figures out which icon you meant to press. Current touchscreens can't do that. Rocket-science innovation? Maybe not, but Vista will have it and previous versions of Windows Tablet PC won't.
That sort of primitive intelligence sounds like something that can and should be done in the touchscreen firmware. It shouldn't have anything to do with the OS.
> The Power modes thing, I'm still not totally sold on how it works. But I'm interested in seeing it.
I could write a bash shell script to do something like that on my laptop. I haven't and won't because I like running my computer without a swap file, because I don't like bash shell scripting (I would write it in C++ instead:), and because I don't like the idea. When I say off, I want my computer to F*ING TURN OFF!
> The LCD projector thing -- that's not OS? How would you do that with your current-generation video driver?
How would you do it with a current-generation LCD projector? Also, if what you mean is "how would I forward a window to another device with current technology", I'd suggest you check out this website: http://www.x.org/
It's a Knoppix-based LiveCD with a significant concentration on improving Knoppix's hard disk install capability. Distrowatch labels it as #15 in the Top 100.
> I'm so glad I found BSD all those years ago.
I'm glad for you too. I'm a Slackware man myself and haven't had a reason/opportunity to try the BSD's yet. I've heard good things about it, though, and it's certainly better than That Other OS. Just remember, we're all on the same side here. Live and let live:)
If you disagree with me, please state why instead of engaging in an ad hominem attack. I thought the fact that countries don't generally have jurisdiction over each other was obvious from the principle of sovereignty, but since you have now disputed it I will cite evidence to support my statement. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdicti on%5D:
"The United States, but also China or Russia are strong opponents of any kind whatsoever of international jurisdiction."
With regard to cyberspace specifically, the U.S. case _Mattel, Inc. v. Adventure Apparel_ determined in part that passive, noncommercial websites (similar to Wikipedia) were not the subject of jurisdiction outside the physical location of the servers. I think it's clear that the U.S. sees strict limitations on the jurisdiction to which websites are subjected, especially the noncommercial like Wikipedia.
Iraq has nothing to do with this, by the way. The U.S. didn't go to war to enforce its laws in Iraq; it went there (at least nominally) because Iraq had broken several treaties with the U.N. I agree that the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq, but Iraq is a completely unrelated issue.
> Germany applies its laws as it sees fit, just like the US. Generally, the extent to which laws of one nation apply elsewhere are limited by jurisdiction and ability to enforce.
That statement is self-contradictory. Germany cannot think it can apply its law "as it sees fit" to the rest of the world and simultaneously see itself as "limited by jurisdiction".
> In this case, enforcement can happen against the German domain registrar, against any German ISPs involved.
Mmmm, no. A German ISP allows a web surfer to get to the American Nazi Party website. Let's say that has a swatztika on it, making it illegal in Germany (yes, really). Is the ISP liable? No, of course not. Same thing here. Your argument is absurd because if it were true there wouldn't be Internet access in Germany.
> against any German subsidiaries of U.S. companies involved,
1. Only if the U.S. company did something in Germany that is illegal in Germany. 2. There are no companies involved in this case. Wikipedia is a nonprofit.
> and against a US citizen should he step on German soil.
This case, so far, only involves organizations, not people. So the Wikimedia Foundation would be the entity violating the court order. This is not a physical being that can step on German soil, so I think it's safe.
So no, Jimbo Wales won't be arrested the next time he goes to Germany, because Jimbo Wales != Wikimedia Foundation; he just works there.
By the same token, the CEO of the hosting provider for Wikipedia won't be arrested if he goes to Germany either. Neither will the technicians of power company providing juice to Wikipedia's servers.
"No they wouldn't (in fact they don't: animal porn is legal in the Netherlands, illegal in Germany), but that's not the current scenario. Jimbo is not being accused of having broken any German law. It's just a civil matter; "
It doesn't matter whether its civil or criminal in this instance; it's still a case of a country trying to enforce its laws outside its borders. Take our hypothetical case of hacking being legal in Zimbabwe (which it probably isn't). If hacking is not a civil liability when done in Zimbabwe, then if someone hacks my computer system, which let's say is physically located in Zimbabwe, the hacker would not be liable in a civil court for hacking my system. If a U.S. court issued an injunction against this Zimbabwe hacker, it would be invalid since the hacker is outside the U.S.'s jurisdiction.
"the court ruled for this particular temporary injunction that the parents' privacy rights weigh more than Jimbo's right to free speech."
No, they weigh more than _Wikipedia_'s right to free speech. Jimbo happens to work for Wikipedia, but he is not the same entity as Wikipedia. He was probably listed as the contact to receive notices of suit (I can't remember what this is called), but he wasn't listed. If Wikipedia doesn't comply, it could be fined (good luck enforcing that).
"BTW, in the US you can also get fined and arrested if you don't obey court orders."
"A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt, and to present evidence in rebuttal."
So if the countries here were reversed, and Jimbo were charged with contempt of court, he could probably successfully argue (perhaps only on appeal) that the order is invalid since it is a case of the court acting outside its jurisdiction.
"Jimbo Wales, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, was personally named in the first order of the Berlin court (there were two orders, the one in December naming Jimbo, the one in January naming Wikimedia Germany)."
"Disobeying such an order of a German court results in fines or arrest ("Ordnungshaft"), whatever the judge deems appropriate."
I'll take your word on this since you're from there.
"The fact that it's German law and not EU law that's violated is not relevant, since EU countries assist each other all the time in legal matters, just like the U.S. states do."
If the U.K. passed a law saying that no websites could say anything bad about the British Prime Minister, whether the dirt was true or not, do you really think the other E.U. countries would enforce this law against their websites? Yes, the U.S. states assist each other sometimes, and they are constitutionally required to turn over fugitives from justice, but they are not obligated to, and in fact do not, enforce other states' laws within their borders. Since our states are a lot less sovereign than your countries, I doubt that E.U. nations do this either.
"Or let's say he damaged some property of yours in the U.S., for example by hacking into your computer. And let's further assume that hacking is legal in Zimbabwe. So you sue him in the U.S."
Well, then for the U.S. the issue would be whether hacking into someone's computer creates the necessary minimum contacts for the U.S. to have jurisdiction over the case. It probably wouldn't matter anyway, though, since if hacking were legal in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe probably wouldn't enforce a judgment against it.
With regard to the Wikipedia entry, the central question for Germany is this: Does making a website accessible worldwide create the necessary minimum contacts for _every country in the world_ to have jurisdiction over the contents of every website? The answer is, of course, no. Otherwise, pornography sites in the U.S. would be sued by China, Syria, and the like all the time and be forced to shut down. If a German court acts bizarrely and answers yes, Tron's family will then have to file with a U.S. court to make the judgment enforceable in the U.S. Wikipedia could easily ignore Germany entirely and argue in the hearing to make the German judgment enforceable that Germany has no jurisdiction. Wikipedia would almost certainly win.
Finally, Jimbo Wales wouldn't be arrested if he set foot anywhere in the E.U. for the following reasons:
1. This is a local German court, not an E.U. court. German law is arguably being violated, not E.U. law. The same jurisdictional argument that applies to the U.S. applies to other countries in the E.U. So he's fine anywhere except Germany from the git-go.
Assuming he travels to Germany specifically, then...
2. Jimbo Wales would not be a party to the case. The Wikimedia Foundation would be the entity sued since it is hosting the content.
Assuming he is somehow a party, then...
3. This is a civil matter, as you pointed out, not a criminal one. Civil judgments don't lead to arrests.
He wouldn't be fined either if he went to the E.U. or Germany, by arguments 1 and 2.
"If the defendent doesn't show up for the trial, you get a default judgement."
Well, that's technically not right. Even if the respondent doesn't show up, you still have to present a reasonable case. You do almost always win since the other guy isn't there to argue against you.
This fact is irrelevant to the issue of international jurisdiction anyway. Let's say I sue a guy who lives in Zimbabwe for damaging some property I'm holding in Zimbabwe. This guy has no connection whatsoever to the U.S. I sue him in U.S. court. He could show up to the trial and argue that the United States doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter, and he would almost certainly win.
Every complaint has a section where the plaintiff argues that the court under which the complaint is filed has jurisdiction over the matter. Why do you think that is?
I don't know about German law, but the United States generally doesn't believe they have jurisdiction about what people do in other countries. For example, if a 19 year old goes to France, drinks, then comes back to the U.S. and tells everyone how drunk he got, he can't be arrested for his behavior in France, even though drinking under the age of 21 is illegal here. Why do you believe Germany thinks its laws apply to everyone in the world? That seems to me a rather strange position for a country to take.
"They do have jurisdiction over German domain addresses, as well as connectivity between the US and Germany. They can and they will do whatever it takes to enforce German law. They could, for example, fine subsidiaries of network providers unless they start filtering.
I think they are wrong in this case, but don't live under any illusion that they can't get their way."
So, what, you actually think Internet filtering is effective? I recent read an article detailing how even the Great Firewall of China doesn't stop dissidents from spreading information to Chinese citizens over the Internet. It might even have been here; I don't remember. Do you seriously think Germany (a democracy, let's remember) is going to build a nationwide firewall around their entire network infrastructure to stop people FROM SAYING TRON'S REAL NAME?!?
A somewhat less silly approach for Germany would be to attempt to force the German Wikipedia to close. They can't do this either, though, because Germany doesn't have any jurisdiction over the content of a U.S. website that has no relation to Germany except that it's in German. Even if Germany thinks they do under German law, it doesn't matter unless they convince a U.S. court that they have jurisdiction under U.S. law as well. This would be necessary because, the Wikipedia servers are, you know, in the U.S., so German police can't physically walk in and shut them down. They need to get the U.S. to do that, and the U.S. won't do this based on a German court judgement unless a U.S. court renders a judgement that Germany has jurisdiction over the German Wikipedia. U.S. law requires "minimum contacts" for jurisdiction, and it's been decided that a website merely accessible from the territory doesn't cut it.
So, given this, exactly how will Germany "get their way"?
...because he obviously was either on drugs when he wrote that or has gone mad from seclusion.
What the HELL was that, anyway? "Brittleness" of software? What the HELL does he mean? Software can be brittle or robust depending on how it is written; the Linux kernel certainly isn't "brittle". And the whole concept of an "antigora" sounds like something a 13-year old philosopher pulled out of his backside. My time would have been better spent had I skipped the article and read Markov chain-based computer generated nonsense. "Sloppy thinking" doesn't even begin to describe how asinine that "essay" was. Holy crap, I must have temporarily lost 15 IQ points just reading that. I feel so dirty now; I think I need to restudy predicate calculus or something to purge my thinking of that humanities-like bullsh*t. Eww, I feel so violated. Why couldn't the link have been to Goatse instead? At least that's only a desecration of the body and not the mind! AAAAAAH!
> XBox 360 is windows based and running on a PowerPC variant.
According to a Microsoft guy who came to speak at my high school last year, the XBox & XBox 360 are running a non-Windows OS written by Microsoft specifically for the purpose of running on those devices. It implements a subset of the Win32 API (mostly just DirectX) to make porting games from Windows to the XBox easier.
Slashdot Mirror
> 5. Child spends the next week in the bathroom trying trying to crap out my shoe.
Ah, so you like to beat _and_ spy on your children. You must be a quite lovely individual.
I sincerely hope you don't breed any more than you already have, but I'm not getting my hopes up. If you think kicking the crap out of your kids is a good idea, you're probably also too stupid to figure out how to use that birth control stuff.
> eventually we'll have too many managers and have to outsource them too :-0
:(
The source is the Journal of Information _Management_. They're probably a bit biased.
I gave up modding this article because nobody else noted this, so I couldn't mod them up
No, the median would be two legs. If there were 10 people in the world, one had zero legs, one had 1 leg, and the rest had two legs, the ordered list of legs would look like this:
0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
You would proceed from opposite sides of the list to calculate the median:
0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
X X X X X X X X
You would then take them mean of 2 & 2 which is 2 since (2+2)/2=2.
He could do that...
Or he could start searching for a new job so that he doesn't have to work in the negative and inefficient work environment you describe.
> I don't get it.
I do. Everything you say is true; devices like this are certainly niche, and Micro$oft will probably lose money on this. M$ created this because it would rather lose money than let Linux own this admittedly niche market. Check out this website: http://www.nokiausa.com/770
Origami is basically a clone of the Nokia 770, except that Origami runs inferior software (Windows XP with IE vs. Linux with Opera Mobile), will cost more (>$500 for Origami vs. $360 for the 770), and is significantly heavier (2 lb for Origami vs. 8.1 ounces for the 770). Also, the Origami may have a slightly larger screen (=3 hours for 770). The two devices have the same screen resolution (800x480) and the same wireless connectivity capabilities (WiFi and Bluetooth: neither is a phone).
Remember that in the mid-90's, Micro$oft used its muscle to destroy a competing OS in the almost nonexistent market for pen-computing devices. M$ just wants to make sure it doesn't lose this market to Linux, no matter how small the market may be.
Okay ... well, that changes things a bit. "My water comes from my well" to me meant that you literally went to a well, probably on your farm or ranch, to get water. Perhaps I took what you said that literally because I know of some people who don't have running water, and they get water by going to the wells on their farms. Thank you for clearing up my confusion.
First of all, congratulations on completing what must have been a pretty big project. Good analogy with the email server, and, at least in my mind, building or even setting up your own water pumping system gets you major geek cred. Out of curiosity, did the cool-tech factor play a role in your decision to set this up, kind of like how some people run their own email servers even though they really don't have to (like me)? Or was it a purely rational decision, where the lost interest due to paying for the well, pump, etc. was more than offset by the increase in quality and lower maintenance costs?
Since you probably have a large estate (after all, you did say "houses", and I'm assuming that that's not a typo since you also imply you're rich), perhaps this is a quality and low-cost water solution for you, but I'm guessing that it would take some pretty significant construction to do that for everyone. I'm fairly confident in saying that buying a water pump, digging your own well, and then connecting (or hiring someone to connect) this new setup to your house's pipe system probably isn't the cheapest solution for most people, who only have one fairly small house each. For one thing, there would probably be a lot of unused capacity in each pump, which is inefficient. If I have a pump, my neighbor can either buy a pump or buy water service from me. If a new pump for him costs more than the wear and tear on my pump to provide him service, it's better off for both of us if he pays me some amount of money greater than the cost of the wear and tear on my pump and less than the cost of setting up a pump system for himself, and in exchange I let him connect his house to my pump. Though my technical understanding of water technology is probably less than yours, my understanding is that water pumps and pipe systems scale very well, so in a single area it is most efficient for there to be one pipe system, with very large pumps powering it. Thus, it is most efficient for there to be one provider of water service for a town or city, and water service is a natural monopoly.
If I'm wrong, then why aren't more people doing what you did? If it is cheaper and more efficient to buy your own water pump and hook it up to your house, why are so few people doing that?
To answer your sarcastic questions: No, no, and no.
I'm curious now about how you deal with other basic utilities, if you'd care to share. For instance: do you have your own power generator?
"My water comes from my well so obviously water is not a natural monopoly."
I said "water service". If it wasn't clear from that that I meant running water, I'm sorry for the ambiguity.
By the way, I find it interesting that apparently you either live in an area that does not have running water, but does have Internet access, or you find paying for Internet access a better use of money than paying for water service. I'm curious to know which it is (and I'm not being sarcastic).
'There is no such thing as a "natural" monopoly.'
Bull. Water service, for example, is a natural monopoly because of the ridiculous inefficiency associated with RUNNING COMPETING PIPELINES to EVERY HOUSE. A natural monopoly results whenever there is such an economy of scale that only one provider can efficiently provide the product or service. With new techonologies, these types of products and services are becoming less common, but they still exist.
'Only government is able to grant monopoly status'
Bull. If there is a natural monopoly in an area, the free market will cause there to be only a single provider. Even if there isn't a natural monopoly, given large enough startup costs, the first provider in a market can sometimes maintain his initial monopoly through predatory pricing or the threat of it. This is harder to do when it is illegal, like it is in the U.S.
You made some goods points in your post, but the last two paragraphs are just nonsense. I can understand where you're coming from, though, because I used to think the same way. When I was 10.
_If You Love This Planet_ wasn't banned in the U.S. It just had to contain a disclaimer statement.
I seriously doubt violating the Espionage Act carries the death penalty. Would you please provide sources?
Btw, Google for "Espionage Act" returns mostly results for the "Economic Espionage Act" and the Espionage Act of 1917, which was declared unconstitutional.
> They do not hold the same power as the government. I am sure she can get a job as a prosecutor, small business with similar ethics, EFF, a university, or any number of firms that don't deal in defending IP law.
100% correct, and well-said.
> Did she shoot herself in the foot my declaring to the media that she breaks IP laws at will when she disagrees with them? Hell yes. Now she needs to take responsibility for her stupid actions.
Mmm, probably not. If my employer were scouring the Internet to make sure I agreed with him on everything, I'd get a different one. If what she's saying is true (and the whole story, she was working for small-minded scumbags. It's better she finds out that she's working for small-minded scumbags now rather than later. Right now she has little invested in the firm.
> If she was a defense lawyer and told the media that she thought her client was guilty, she would have been flat our disbarred and prevent from ever practicing law again.
Nah, but her client might sue her or (more likely) the firm for malpractice. Bad analogy, though. She was giving an argument what she believed the law _should be_, _not_ what the law _is_ or what the facts of a particular case are.
As citizens of a democratic state, we should all be giving opinions on what the law _should be_ fairly often, as what the law _should be_ is the domain of the legislature and people, not the domain of lawyers and the courts. Giving opinions on what the law should be is one of our duties as citizens. No job should prevent us from performing this duty (ethically, not legally), and if a job does it is our responsibility to quit or get fired.
> The simple fact of the matter is that she violated the trust that she was given working in a law firm. Law firms should be leery about taking her on, and rightfully so. If she can't stand to protect and maintain that trust, she picked the wrong profession.
She didn't give out confidential client information. She didn't destroy the firm's property. I don't see any trust being violated; what the hell are you talking about?
> When you go into law, you enter a relationship of deep trust. This relationship of trust is absolutely essential of a society to function by rule by law. Violating this trust that is held to almost sacred levels is a damn good way to make your life in that industry difficult.
You develop a relationship of trust with your clients, yes. She didn't violate this in any way with any of the firm's client that I can see. Again, what are you talking about?
> What she did was stupid, plan and simple.
If her sole goal in life was continued employment with this firm, then what she did was stupid. Based on what she has said, I doubt this was the case.
> Hopefully she learned a lesson from it about the responsibility that one takes on when they enter the field of law.
This incident has nothing to do with legal ethics, unless I'm missing something, which I don't think I am.
> Sure, a lot of the stuff I mentioned ia hardware improvements. But what you're missing is that it's Microsoft driving the hardware improvements in many cases, and providing the OS software to make them run. That's more than even Apple does, and Apple owns its hardware.
:), and because I don't like the idea. When I say off, I want my computer to F*ING TURN OFF!
Well, Apple has driven a lot of hardware improvements, but I won't get into that. I really doubt Microsoft is the only one who can come up with the not-so-bright idea of "Let's build a PDA into a laptop!" It's just that they're the only ones who think that's actually a good idea.
> A secondary LCD screen that offers limited, PDA-like functionality while the main OS is in Suspend. How would you do that with XP? Or Linux? It's not anything you can write in user mode.
It depends on how they're actually doing it. If (as I suspect) they're basically just being retarded and BUILDING A PDA INTO A LAPTOP, with a separate processor and everything, it shouldn't be too hard to just put Linux on there - after all, one of Linux's main strengths is its broad platform support. If this device is sharing information with the main processor, that complicates things a little, but given a known protocol for sharing data it should be pretty simple to write a Linux kernel module for doing this. Finally, it might even be possible to just leave the Windows CE crap thing they put on the "embedded PDA" in place and have Linux act like Windows toward it.
> Touch screens are hardware improvements. But Vista will bring software from Microsoft that makes it easier to use your finger to do things that would normally need a mouse. So you take your big old fat finger and stab the screen with it. A little circle appears, kind of like a radar screen, and it figures out which icon you meant to press. Current touchscreens can't do that. Rocket-science innovation? Maybe not, but Vista will have it and previous versions of Windows Tablet PC won't.
That sort of primitive intelligence sounds like something that can and should be done in the touchscreen firmware. It shouldn't have anything to do with the OS.
> The Power modes thing, I'm still not totally sold on how it works. But I'm interested in seeing it.
I could write a bash shell script to do something like that on my laptop. I haven't and won't because I like running my computer without a swap file, because I don't like bash shell scripting (I would write it in C++ instead
> The LCD projector thing -- that's not OS? How would you do that with your current-generation video driver?
How would you do it with a current-generation LCD projector? Also, if what you mean is "how would I forward a window to another device with current technology", I'd suggest you check out this website: http://www.x.org/
> What on Earth is Kanotix? Is it Reinvented Wheel Linux number 14,389?
o tix
:)
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=kan
It's a Knoppix-based LiveCD with a significant concentration on improving Knoppix's hard disk install capability. Distrowatch labels it as #15 in the Top 100.
> I'm so glad I found BSD all those years ago.
I'm glad for you too. I'm a Slackware man myself and haven't had a reason/opportunity to try the BSD's yet. I've heard good things about it, though, and it's certainly better than That Other OS. Just remember, we're all on the same side here. Live and let live
> What rock have you been living under?
i on%5D:
If you disagree with me, please state why instead of engaging in an ad hominem attack. I thought the fact that countries don't generally have jurisdiction over each other was obvious from the principle of sovereignty, but since you have now disputed it I will cite evidence to support my statement. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdict
"The United States, but also China or Russia are strong opponents of any kind whatsoever of international jurisdiction."
With regard to cyberspace specifically, the U.S. case _Mattel, Inc. v. Adventure Apparel_ determined in part that passive, noncommercial websites (similar to Wikipedia) were not the subject of jurisdiction outside the physical location of the servers. I think it's clear that the U.S. sees strict limitations on the jurisdiction to which websites are subjected, especially the noncommercial like Wikipedia.
Iraq has nothing to do with this, by the way. The U.S. didn't go to war to enforce its laws in Iraq; it went there (at least nominally) because Iraq had broken several treaties with the U.N. I agree that the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq, but Iraq is a completely unrelated issue.
> Germany applies its laws as it sees fit, just like the US. Generally, the extent to which laws of one nation apply elsewhere are limited by jurisdiction and ability to enforce.
That statement is self-contradictory. Germany cannot think it can apply its law "as it sees fit" to the rest of the world and simultaneously see itself as "limited by jurisdiction".
> In this case, enforcement can happen against the German domain registrar, against any German ISPs involved.
Mmmm, no. A German ISP allows a web surfer to get to the American Nazi Party website. Let's say that has a swatztika on it, making it illegal in Germany (yes, really). Is the ISP liable? No, of course not. Same thing here. Your argument is absurd because if it were true there wouldn't be Internet access in Germany.
> against any German subsidiaries of U.S. companies involved,
1. Only if the U.S. company did something in Germany that is illegal in Germany.
2. There are no companies involved in this case. Wikipedia is a nonprofit.
> and against a US citizen should he step on German soil.
This case, so far, only involves organizations, not people. So the Wikimedia Foundation would be the entity violating the court order. This is not a physical being that can step on German soil, so I think it's safe.
So no, Jimbo Wales won't be arrested the next time he goes to Germany, because Jimbo Wales != Wikimedia Foundation; he just works there.
By the same token, the CEO of the hosting provider for Wikipedia won't be arrested if he goes to Germany either. Neither will the technicians of power company providing juice to Wikipedia's servers.
"No they wouldn't (in fact they don't: animal porn is legal in the Netherlands, illegal in Germany), but that's not the current scenario. Jimbo is not being accused of having broken any German law. It's just a civil matter; "
D :
It doesn't matter whether its civil or criminal in this instance; it's still a case of a country trying to enforce its laws outside its borders. Take our hypothetical case of hacking being legal in Zimbabwe (which it probably isn't). If hacking is not a civil liability when done in Zimbabwe, then if someone hacks my computer system, which let's say is physically located in Zimbabwe, the hacker would not be liable in a civil court for hacking my system. If a U.S. court issued an injunction against this Zimbabwe hacker, it would be invalid since the hacker is outside the U.S.'s jurisdiction.
"the court ruled for this particular temporary injunction that the parents' privacy rights weigh more than Jimbo's right to free speech."
No, they weigh more than _Wikipedia_'s right to free speech. Jimbo happens to work for Wikipedia, but he is not the same entity as Wikipedia. He was probably listed as the contact to receive notices of suit (I can't remember what this is called), but he wasn't listed. If Wikipedia doesn't comply, it could be fined (good luck enforcing that).
"BTW, in the US you can also get fined and arrested if you don't obey court orders."
Yeah, but you're entitled to a hearing. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court%5
"A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt, and to present evidence in rebuttal."
So if the countries here were reversed, and Jimbo were charged with contempt of court, he could probably successfully argue (perhaps only on appeal) that the order is invalid since it is a case of the court acting outside its jurisdiction.
"Jimbo Wales, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, was personally named in the first order of the Berlin court (there were two orders, the one in December naming Jimbo, the one in January naming Wikimedia Germany)."
n t_controversy%5D, the first order was against the Wikimedia _Foundation_, not Jimbo Wales personally, and the second was against Wikimedia Foundation subsidiary Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(hacker)#Curre
"Disobeying such an order of a German court results in fines or arrest ("Ordnungshaft"), whatever the judge deems appropriate."
I'll take your word on this since you're from there.
"The fact that it's German law and not EU law that's violated is not relevant, since EU countries assist each other all the time in legal matters, just like the U.S. states do."
If the U.K. passed a law saying that no websites could say anything bad about the British Prime Minister, whether the dirt was true or not, do you really think the other E.U. countries would enforce this law against their websites? Yes, the U.S. states assist each other sometimes, and they are constitutionally required to turn over fugitives from justice, but they are not obligated to, and in fact do not, enforce other states' laws within their borders. Since our states are a lot less sovereign than your countries, I doubt that E.U. nations do this either.
"Or let's say he damaged some property of yours in the U.S., for example by hacking into your computer. And let's further assume that hacking is legal in Zimbabwe. So you sue him in the U.S."
Well, then for the U.S. the issue would be whether hacking into someone's computer creates the necessary minimum contacts for the U.S. to have jurisdiction over the case. It probably wouldn't matter anyway, though, since if hacking were legal in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe probably wouldn't enforce a judgment against it.
With regard to the Wikipedia entry, the central question for Germany is this: Does making a website accessible worldwide create the necessary minimum contacts for _every country in the world_ to have jurisdiction over the contents of every website? The answer is, of course, no. Otherwise, pornography sites in the U.S. would be sued by China, Syria, and the like all the time and be forced to shut down. If a German court acts bizarrely and answers yes, Tron's family will then have to file with a U.S. court to make the judgment enforceable in the U.S. Wikipedia could easily ignore Germany entirely and argue in the hearing to make the German judgment enforceable that Germany has no jurisdiction. Wikipedia would almost certainly win.
Finally, Jimbo Wales wouldn't be arrested if he set foot anywhere in the E.U. for the following reasons:
1. This is a local German court, not an E.U. court. German law is arguably being violated, not E.U. law. The same jurisdictional argument that applies to the U.S. applies to other countries in the E.U. So he's fine anywhere except Germany from the git-go.
Assuming he travels to Germany specifically, then...
2. Jimbo Wales would not be a party to the case. The Wikimedia Foundation would be the entity sued since it is hosting the content.
Assuming he is somehow a party, then...
3. This is a civil matter, as you pointed out, not a criminal one. Civil judgments don't lead to arrests.
He wouldn't be fined either if he went to the E.U. or Germany, by arguments 1 and 2.
"If the defendent doesn't show up for the trial, you get a default judgement."
Well, that's technically not right. Even if the respondent doesn't show up, you still have to present a reasonable case. You do almost always win since the other guy isn't there to argue against you.
This fact is irrelevant to the issue of international jurisdiction anyway. Let's say I sue a guy who lives in Zimbabwe for damaging some property I'm holding in Zimbabwe. This guy has no connection whatsoever to the U.S. I sue him in U.S. court. He could show up to the trial and argue that the United States doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter, and he would almost certainly win.
Every complaint has a section where the plaintiff argues that the court under which the complaint is filed has jurisdiction over the matter. Why do you think that is?
I don't know about German law, but the United States generally doesn't believe they have jurisdiction about what people do in other countries. For example, if a 19 year old goes to France, drinks, then comes back to the U.S. and tells everyone how drunk he got, he can't be arrested for his behavior in France, even though drinking under the age of 21 is illegal here. Why do you believe Germany thinks its laws apply to everyone in the world? That seems to me a rather strange position for a country to take.
"They do have jurisdiction over German domain addresses, as well as connectivity between the US and Germany. They can and they will do whatever it takes to enforce German law. They could, for example, fine subsidiaries of network providers unless they start filtering.
I think they are wrong in this case, but don't live under any illusion that they can't get their way."
So, what, you actually think Internet filtering is effective? I recent read an article detailing how even the Great Firewall of China doesn't stop dissidents from spreading information to Chinese citizens over the Internet. It might even have been here; I don't remember. Do you seriously think Germany (a democracy, let's remember) is going to build a nationwide firewall around their entire network infrastructure to stop people FROM SAYING TRON'S REAL NAME?!?
A somewhat less silly approach for Germany would be to attempt to force the German Wikipedia to close. They can't do this either, though, because Germany doesn't have any jurisdiction over the content of a U.S. website that has no relation to Germany except that it's in German. Even if Germany thinks they do under German law, it doesn't matter unless they convince a U.S. court that they have jurisdiction under U.S. law as well. This would be necessary because, the Wikipedia servers are, you know, in the U.S., so German police can't physically walk in and shut them down. They need to get the U.S. to do that, and the U.S. won't do this based on a German court judgement unless a U.S. court renders a judgement that Germany has jurisdiction over the German Wikipedia. U.S. law requires "minimum contacts" for jurisdiction, and it's been decided that a website merely accessible from the territory doesn't cut it.
So, given this, exactly how will Germany "get their way"?
> Are there extradition agreements between Mongolia and the USA?
7 692
No, not as of 2002 anyway.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2
It's still being developed in Japan.
...because he obviously was either on drugs when he wrote that or has gone mad from seclusion.
What the HELL was that, anyway? "Brittleness" of software? What the HELL does he mean? Software can be brittle or robust depending on how it is written; the Linux kernel certainly isn't "brittle". And the whole concept of an "antigora" sounds like something a 13-year old philosopher pulled out of his backside. My time would have been better spent had I skipped the article and read Markov chain-based computer generated nonsense. "Sloppy thinking" doesn't even begin to describe how asinine that "essay" was. Holy crap, I must have temporarily lost 15 IQ points just reading that. I feel so dirty now; I think I need to restudy predicate calculus or something to purge my thinking of that humanities-like bullsh*t. Eww, I feel so violated. Why couldn't the link have been to Goatse instead? At least that's only a desecration of the body and not the mind! AAAAAAH!
> XBox 360 is windows based and running on a PowerPC variant.
According to a Microsoft guy who came to speak at my high school last year, the XBox & XBox 360 are running a non-Windows OS written by Microsoft specifically for the purpose of running on those devices. It implements a subset of the Win32 API (mostly just DirectX) to make porting games from Windows to the XBox easier.
(sorry for the repost; I botched the URL)
Yes, it does. See http://www.fredlwm.hpg.ig.com.br/cygwin/lynx/
It'll even run under DOS if you install a packet driver.