I would probably donate to Wikipedia, but I'd want them to do something about their now rampant cronyism and favoritism first. Any interesting topic on Wikipedia not only has annoying nonconstructive people who are (rightly) shunned, but a small number of editors can crap the place up, yet seem able to "do no wrong" because they have connections. It reminds me of the worst part of scientific circles, without the tolerance of open and public debate.
Now, that is not to say that Wikipedia isn't doing something cool, so don't brand me as someone who is against it. Complaining about corruption in a police department, for example, doesn't mean you want the entire police force to disappear. On the whole, Wikipedia is a very useful resource and a good starting point for serious investigation of many topics. I want to see them succeed. However the rapid growth has given them some problems, and until they show that they are trying to address these problems I'm unlikely to donate. That way, I can save my money for a better successor if they end up dying.
So, what do you think the chances are that MS Word 2007 won't emit deprecated elements when it saves a new document? I certainly wouldn't bet against it emitting stuff that isn't "supposed" to be there...
Legal documents have very little formatting, so I would expect the text to dominate. Do you use binary word formats now? Did you know that when just storing 90% plain text, compressed ODF is smaller than binary word formats? Word's basic element is a paragraph. Many things, such as font, line spacing, etc is stored for every single paragraph. If I had to choose between that and the "evil" xml, I'd choose the xml. You also get the bonus that deleted text doesn't show up in the documents you release.
First, did anyone bother to tell you that compressed ODF is usually smaller than the binary MSWord format? Maybe not. Second, with an open spec, you can have your own converter to/from a more efficient internal format. Aren't standards great?
If you want to view the XML itself, say for document recovery purposes, you have to decompress the document file. That's easy enough to do on a system like Linux, that comes with gzip, unzip, and other decompress programs by default. But on Windows it's a massive pain in the ass.
It isn't our fault that MSFT is putting its own values ahead of its user's needs. How hard would it be to add ungzip support to notepad? Zlib is short, has a nice licence, and has been used everywhere you could imagine. Adding support would probably be about as hard as supporting unix-format textfiles (no ^M), which they refused to work with at least through Win2k.
I have the same problem. I have an MS natural keyboard (dislike their software, but love the keyboard), and I've made my windows key bind to all the shortcuts for my window manager: Window+arrow moves the virtual desktop, Window+shift+arrow moves the currently active window. Makes perfect sense to me.
There are reasons, and there are excuses. If population density is the only problem, how come high-speed internet access costs so much more in New York City than Tokyo? They have similar density and size, yet Tokyo has much faster access available at a lower price.
While the US does have a more decentralized population than other developed countries, and that is a challenge, somehow we managed to get phone service to everyone at a price competitive with the rest of the world. The real reason is that when the government decides they want to help, they only ask companies with a vested interest in the status quo for advice. Many states have been cajoled by lobbyists into pasing laws banning municipal broadband. Why would cities need protection from themselves, exactly? Why aren't there laws banning municipal water and sewage for the same reasons? Or is it really that "Verizon doesn't want it.(tm)"
The people who are concerned about "crowd-dusting" have some valid concerns.
Summary:
Will someone come up with a surefire way of neutralizing chips that may be on your body or in your clothing?"
What you see as a problem, I see as a business opportunity: Everyone needs a SnowTech-1000 personal EMP! Protect your loved ones by protecting your anonymity, from corrupt governments, angry neighbors, and evil computer AIs. Pre-order[1] yours today, for only 3 easy payments of $59.95!
[1] In order to protect your national security, we may sell this information to our sales partners, such as certain national public entities.
Well apparently at some point "Do no evil" became "Uphold the law" in some people's minds. The funny thing is that people get angry at Google for following the law in China, but if when they don't enforce the law, other people get angry. It is dumb to expect every company dealing with many thousands of clients to check every one of them. If Google helped these sites, it probably was no more than some emails or phone calls; I doubt they really looked at their business model or anything, as that isn't really relevant to placing ads on their website.
In the past, I've helped people get my GPL'ed libraries working by exchanging a few emails, but I don't know what they are doing with them. Am I guilty if it turns out they are using it to break the law? After all I "worked" with them to get it functioning. If a car salesman sells a car to someone asking for a car "which can cross the state quickly", and that client later commits a murder and goes on the run, is the salesman guilty? He "advised" the client on how to "optimize" his nefarious plan.
No, these people should not be guilty, because it is madness to expect everyone to "enforce" laws on their clients, going only on mere suspicion. The most you should ask of people or companies is to report suspicious activity to the relevant authorities, and let them investigate it. Refusing to do business with a company could actually put you at a greater legal risk if that company turns out to be legitimate.
Ooh that's funny. This was only solvednine years ago. Your comment is about as relevant as making fun of Win98 after the release of Vista. Welcome to the 21st century.
You're right about the XBox, but that's kind of a moot point -- UE3 isn't going to be ported to the original XBox either, at least AFAICT. UE3 really seems to be targeted at DX9-10, even if they do plan on making it run eventually on some lower end PC hardware. So, let's just say the Wii doesn't have shaders in the sense of a 360 or PS3. The definition of a "proper shader" has been a moving target for several years now, and will continue to be that way. In the meantime, we can revel in the Wii's inexpensive hardware and focus on fun gameplay.
Sounds like, from some of the other comments, that the conviction probably had less to do with hate speech laws and more to do with stalking, trespassing, or restraining orders, though.
Nonviolent protest for a cause you believe in is a noble pursuit, but you have to be willing to accept the legal risks. If there are people sympathetic to your plight, serving time in jail will only strengthen your cause. For example, MLK always faced up to punishment, he didn't run away. He also never died in jail, despite a comparatively much more dangerous situation.
Of course, if you went over the line and broke several laws which people consider reasonable (e.g. stalking, etc), nobody is going to support you much. Hard to know in this case, since he didn't actually let the legal avenue play itself out.
...and a stupid defendant for going on the run. I find his claim of fearing for his life just as unfounded as the "threats" used to convict him; It's not like there are huge scientology gangs in prisons.
Amendment IX, and other related amendments include Amendment X and Amendment I.
So, you're saying that it's up to the state, which means we agree. I claimed there is no "right to use the internet" in the constitution, and you are claiming the same, but that a state could specify such a right. That's true, but I doubt any state does specify that right, in which case, it's not a guaranteed right. The equation of internet use with the first amendment is a legal theory, so you'd better have some case history to back it up. The judicial branch fills in the gaps between our laws and constitutional interpretation, so you'd have to show me how the court has decided that the two are linked.
Now, since there are no constitutional amendments or articles from the original United States Constitution that specify that convicted criminals are deprived of the rights protected by the constitution nor any other rights not allowed by the constitution, it can surely be argued that it is unconstitutional.
Ok, well your argument seems to be that all punishment under common law is unconstitutional, except for treason (which is specified in the constitution). Good luck getting a judge to agree with that. Even if that were found to be true, you'd still have to convince the court that internet use is necessary under the first amendment.
This is also unconstitutional. Re-read the first amendment. Any law that stifles the freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, or petition is unconstitutional.
Where did I say there was a law passed? I didn't; I'm talking about punishments in the criminal justice system. If you commit a crime, part of your sentence can remove what is otherwise a legitimate freedom, for the duration of said punishment. This means things like not owning a gun or not being allowed to protest at a hospital if you shot a doctor the last time you were protesting there. There's no law saying nobody protest there, but there's a specific criminal judgement saying a particular person cannot. We have hundreds of years of legal precedent for things like this. No, it's not specified in the constitution, but a common law legal system was simply assumed when the constitution was written. It existed in the UK, in the colonies, and was simply expected to continue. In particular, note the following from the wikipedia article quoted above:
To consider but one example, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - but intepretation (that is, determining the fine boundaries) of each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch, so that the current legal boundaries of the text can only be determined by consulting the common law.
I await your landmark case to prove all criminal punishment is unconstitutional, that internet use is necessary for the first amendment, and that the judicial branch cannot interpret the boundaries of the bill of rights. Good luck!
Why assume anything, when Tivo spells out exactly what they are doing. Of course, you assumed this information didn't exist, and didn't bother to take the 30 seconds to find it.
Do you mean disclosure such as Tivo's privacy policy, which says what data they will collect, and what they will do with it? So I guess you mean this can happen in Canada, since Tivo has told people all along that they'd be collecting this information.
There is nothing to see here. It took less than 30 seconds to find Tivo's policy on viewing habbits data.
Ah yes, the old "throw a brick through a car window and blame it on the window manufacturer" argument. Samy didn't just identify an exploit, he actively exploited it, and even made it self replicating. That's a little bit more than "disclosing", don't you think? Considering that he effectively took down myspace, and probably cost them quite a bit in lost advertising revenue, I think he got off pretty easily.
Personally I really like the idea of community service sentences as punishment for internet crimes. They didn't cause physical damage, but they hurt the internet community by wasting people's time and bandwidth. Now he can pay it back by helping the real community.
Realistically? You can't. It's unenforceable, and it's unconstitutional.
While it's true that it will be difficult to enforce, how on earth is it "unconstitutional"? Where, exactly, in the constitution does it guarantee a "right to use the internet"?
The right to freedom of speech doesn't include a "due process" weasel out clause, it's a right no matter what else you do.
No. Rights are regularly removed when you break the law. Life, liberty, and property can all be taken away for crimes, provided that the punishment is legally justified, and isn't cruel and unusual. The second amendment doesn't have a "weasel out clause" either, yet few would argue that people in prison or on parole should be allowed to own guns.
Also, jumping from "internet use" to "free speech" is a huge leap. Protesters are regularly banned from certain locations if they break the law; They can still exercise their speech, but they have to do it elsewhere or through another method. The internet is no different, as it is one of many ways of exercising free speech. If Samy really needs something on the internet, he can write it on paper and have a friend or relative post it for him.
In the 21st century, it's like banning someone from publishing a newspaper, which no court would ever consider being able to get away with.
Publish a newspaper full of death threats and incitement to break the law, and see where that lands you. The court will have no trouble banning you from using your preferred method to commit a crime. It wouldn't get overturned either, since you forfeited your guarantee of freedom when you began breaking the law. Don't worry though, after the judge bans you from publishing a newspaper, you would still be able to post on myspace and write angry emails.
Its funny, I wish I knew your pain because I, nor my friends who are linux experts, have figured out how to get my wireless network card to work under Ubuntu, even after two clicks PLUS a checkmark!
If your friends really are experts, they would be able to quickly get information on whether or not your card is supported in Linux. There are lists all over the internet detailing what's supported and what isn't. If I were in the situation, I would weigh the cost of buying a $20 natively supported Mini-PCI WiFi card ($10 for PCI) versus the $200+ cost of a Vista upgrade. The money I haven't spent on software while running Linux has more than
Will the lofty claims that "Linux is easier than Windows" ever ring true? I am sooooo tired of computer experts touting Linux as an easy-to-use operating system.
So long as people define "easy-to-use" as "works like the Windows I spent 10 years using+learning", then I guess Linux will never be "easy-to-use".
I am sooooo tired of computer experts touting Linux as an easy-to-use operating system. The reason Vista will succeed is because there are no real contenders.
If you only define success as an absolute popularity contest, then Windows will be the only "success". If you instead define it as "it works for me", then there's no reason Windows, Mac, and Linux can't all succeed and make people happy. Are you unhappy if your car isn't the #1 selling car in the world, or are you happy if it works well and gets you where you need to go?
I wouldn't mind having Balmer over for dinner, as long as I first got a chance to firmly attach all my chairs to the floor. I could show him my collection of Linux machines.
Slashdot Mirror
I would probably donate to Wikipedia, but I'd want them to do something about their now rampant cronyism and favoritism first. Any interesting topic on Wikipedia not only has annoying nonconstructive people who are (rightly) shunned, but a small number of editors can crap the place up, yet seem able to "do no wrong" because they have connections. It reminds me of the worst part of scientific circles, without the tolerance of open and public debate.
Now, that is not to say that Wikipedia isn't doing something cool, so don't brand me as someone who is against it. Complaining about corruption in a police department, for example, doesn't mean you want the entire police force to disappear. On the whole, Wikipedia is a very useful resource and a good starting point for serious investigation of many topics. I want to see them succeed. However the rapid growth has given them some problems, and until they show that they are trying to address these problems I'm unlikely to donate. That way, I can save my money for a better successor if they end up dying.
That would explain all the known unknowns in the proposed OOXML standard.
So, what do you think the chances are that MS Word 2007 won't emit deprecated elements when it saves a new document? I certainly wouldn't bet against it emitting stuff that isn't "supposed" to be there...
Legal documents have very little formatting, so I would expect the text to dominate. Do you use binary word formats now? Did you know that when just storing 90% plain text, compressed ODF is smaller than binary word formats? Word's basic element is a paragraph. Many things, such as font, line spacing, etc is stored for every single paragraph. If I had to choose between that and the "evil" xml, I'd choose the xml. You also get the bonus that deleted text doesn't show up in the documents you release.
First, did anyone bother to tell you that compressed ODF is usually smaller than the binary MSWord format? Maybe not. Second, with an open spec, you can have your own converter to/from a more efficient internal format. Aren't standards great?
It isn't our fault that MSFT is putting its own values ahead of its user's needs. How hard would it be to add ungzip support to notepad? Zlib is short, has a nice licence, and has been used everywhere you could imagine. Adding support would probably be about as hard as supporting unix-format textfiles (no ^M), which they refused to work with at least through Win2k.
I have the same problem. I have an MS natural keyboard (dislike their software, but love the keyboard), and I've made my windows key bind to all the shortcuts for my window manager: Window+arrow moves the virtual desktop, Window+shift+arrow moves the currently active window. Makes perfect sense to me.
There are reasons, and there are excuses. If population density is the only problem, how come high-speed internet access costs so much more in New York City than Tokyo? They have similar density and size, yet Tokyo has much faster access available at a lower price.
While the US does have a more decentralized population than other developed countries, and that is a challenge, somehow we managed to get phone service to everyone at a price competitive with the rest of the world. The real reason is that when the government decides they want to help, they only ask companies with a vested interest in the status quo for advice. Many states have been cajoled by lobbyists into pasing laws banning municipal broadband. Why would cities need protection from themselves, exactly? Why aren't there laws banning municipal water and sewage for the same reasons? Or is it really that "Verizon doesn't want it.(tm)"
Summary:
What you see as a problem, I see as a business opportunity: Everyone needs a SnowTech-1000 personal EMP! Protect your loved ones by protecting your anonymity, from corrupt governments, angry neighbors, and evil computer AIs. Pre-order[1] yours today, for only 3 easy payments of $59.95!
[1] In order to protect your national security, we may sell this information to our sales partners, such as certain national public entities.
Well apparently at some point "Do no evil" became "Uphold the law" in some people's minds. The funny thing is that people get angry at Google for following the law in China, but if when they don't enforce the law, other people get angry. It is dumb to expect every company dealing with many thousands of clients to check every one of them. If Google helped these sites, it probably was no more than some emails or phone calls; I doubt they really looked at their business model or anything, as that isn't really relevant to placing ads on their website.
In the past, I've helped people get my GPL'ed libraries working by exchanging a few emails, but I don't know what they are doing with them. Am I guilty if it turns out they are using it to break the law? After all I "worked" with them to get it functioning. If a car salesman sells a car to someone asking for a car "which can cross the state quickly", and that client later commits a murder and goes on the run, is the salesman guilty? He "advised" the client on how to "optimize" his nefarious plan.
No, these people should not be guilty, because it is madness to expect everyone to "enforce" laws on their clients, going only on mere suspicion. The most you should ask of people or companies is to report suspicious activity to the relevant authorities, and let them investigate it. Refusing to do business with a company could actually put you at a greater legal risk if that company turns out to be legitimate.
Ooh that's funny. This was only solved nine years ago. Your comment is about as relevant as making fun of Win98 after the release of Vista. Welcome to the 21st century.
You're right about the XBox, but that's kind of a moot point -- UE3 isn't going to be ported to the original XBox either, at least AFAICT. UE3 really seems to be targeted at DX9-10, even if they do plan on making it run eventually on some lower end PC hardware. So, let's just say the Wii doesn't have shaders in the sense of a 360 or PS3. The definition of a "proper shader" has been a moving target for several years now, and will continue to be that way. In the meantime, we can revel in the Wii's inexpensive hardware and focus on fun gameplay.
Of course, if you went over the line and broke several laws which people consider reasonable (e.g. stalking, etc), nobody is going to support you much. Hard to know in this case, since he didn't actually let the legal avenue play itself out.
...and a stupid defendant for going on the run. I find his claim of fearing for his life just as unfounded as the "threats" used to convict him; It's not like there are huge scientology gangs in prisons.
To consider but one example, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - but intepretation (that is, determining the fine boundaries) of each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch, so that the current legal boundaries of the text can only be determined by consulting the common law.
I await your landmark case to prove all criminal punishment is unconstitutional, that internet use is necessary for the first amendment, and that the judicial branch cannot interpret the boundaries of the bill of rights. Good luck!
Why assume anything, when Tivo spells out exactly what they are doing. Of course, you assumed this information didn't exist, and didn't bother to take the 30 seconds to find it.
Do you mean disclosure such as Tivo's privacy policy, which says what data they will collect, and what they will do with it? So I guess you mean this can happen in Canada, since Tivo has told people all along that they'd be collecting this information.
There is nothing to see here. It took less than 30 seconds to find Tivo's policy on viewing habbits data.
Ah yes, the old "throw a brick through a car window and blame it on the window manufacturer" argument. Samy didn't just identify an exploit, he actively exploited it, and even made it self replicating. That's a little bit more than "disclosing", don't you think? Considering that he effectively took down myspace, and probably cost them quite a bit in lost advertising revenue, I think he got off pretty easily.
Personally I really like the idea of community service sentences as punishment for internet crimes. They didn't cause physical damage, but they hurt the internet community by wasting people's time and bandwidth. Now he can pay it back by helping the real community.
Also, jumping from "internet use" to "free speech" is a huge leap. Protesters are regularly banned from certain locations if they break the law; They can still exercise their speech, but they have to do it elsewhere or through another method. The internet is no different, as it is one of many ways of exercising free speech. If Samy really needs something on the internet, he can write it on paper and have a friend or relative post it for him. Publish a newspaper full of death threats and incitement to break the law, and see where that lands you. The court will have no trouble banning you from using your preferred method to commit a crime. It wouldn't get overturned either, since you forfeited your guarantee of freedom when you began breaking the law. Don't worry though, after the judge bans you from publishing a newspaper, you would still be able to post on myspace and write angry emails.
He has to tell one million people "I am not your hero."
Nintendo America?
I wouldn't mind having Balmer over for dinner, as long as I first got a chance to firmly attach all my chairs to the floor. I could show him my collection of Linux machines.