How do you tell "unlawful sound recordings" from legal ones?
I have a whole lot of MP3's on my hard drive -- all of it personally ripped from legally purchased CD's. (Except that which I downloaded, legally, from MP3.com as explicitly permitted by the copyright holder, and much of which I ended up buying on CD anyway.) So, supposing the RIAA, et al. were to scan my computer (as if I'd allow them), how could they tell whether or not the files I have are there legally?
I ask because I am concerned that the answer is "you can't tell, so we'll just have to make *all* copyrighted sound files illegal."
I don't condone copyright violation, and don't want my rights curtailed because of it.
...printing a mention of God on some publicly distributed government items.
Well, it's not just a mention of god, and it's not just some random government item. It's a declaration of trust in god and it's on our currency and coinage.
This is, in effect, our government saying that a) there is a god, b) there is one god, and c) that said god is indeed trusted by the government (and, because of the "we" bit, by the american people.) Furthermore, this is on what is probably one of the most important (to the average Joe) and visible "items" produced by the government.
I, personally, don't trust that god dude any further than I can throw him, and don't really want my government trusting him either. Except, that I don't believe he exists, and don't think my government should be forcing words in my mouth.
So, this is a wonderful event, and I look forward to the next step of getting god out of our wallets.
parents who don't care for the values taught in Public school can afford to send their kids to private school.
Now you're getting it! The government schools teach the basic skills -- reading, writing, 'rithmetic. (etc.) If you want something specialized, such as an education tainted by superstition, well, then by gum it, you're free to send your kids to a private school. If it's not important enough to you to sell your TV and give up beer to have your kid get a catholic/christian/jewish/muslim/antagotheistic education, well, then, it can't be all that important.
It's not the government's job to teach your kids religion. (If you don't want to take responsibility for your kid's religious education, send 'em to me. I'll teach 'em about religion.)
And lastly, those who vote for school vouchers (and who cannot afford a good private school on their own) deserve everything they get. Personally, if vouchers are ever passed here, I'm going to open up Uncle Roger's Private School, where you get a 10% cash rebate off your voucher (to buy beer!) and I'll plop 100 kids in front of disney videos every day while I vacation in Tahiti.
"because Joey doesn't want to recite the oath, no-one is allowed to recite the oath"
That would be sad, and unconstitutional. And I would fight it, tooth and nail. But that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. This ruling isn't about limiting what the general populace can say. Anyone can say whatever they want (well, except for limits on profanity and libel (or is it slander?) and such). This ruling does not prevent anyone from reciting the 1954 version of the pledge. They can even recite it on school grounds. What this ruling is about is making sure that no one has to be forced to pledge themselves to be "under god" by a representative of the government. That the government should notendorse (even as broadly as saying there is a god) any particular religion. (Love them thar rights!)
btw, I have, for 10 years now, given my (now) wife a lecture/rant at the start of each school year, about how having the pledge posted and making the kids say it is unconstitutional. Maybe this year she'll pay attention to me! 8^)
Looks like a neat system -- I've got a SCSI tower it would fit in nicely. Only, there is no pricing info on the web site and no indication that you can buy it anywhere. Is it real or vaporware?
...it's important that it be public knowledge that somebody lives in my home, because if the building catches on fire I want people to let me know and help me get out.
Actually, I could care less who lives in your home. It is not important to me, nor to most of the world. It is important to you, so you choose to share that info. Personally, I don't mind if everyone knows that I, my wife, my brother-in-law and his wife and two kids live here. On the other hand, I choose not to let anyone know about the aliens^h^h^h^h^h^hothers who hang out in the attic.
The phone company publishes your name and phone number in their directory unless you pay an additional fee for an unlisted number.
There's a very basic fallacy here -- "your... phone number". It's not your phone number. It belongs to the phone company. You pay them for exclusive access to a 10-digit number (in the US anyway) and for access to their network. If you stop paying them, they turn around and let someone else pay them for that number.
Now, part of your agreement with the phone company is that they will list your name in their directory. If you don't want your name listed, that's a different agreement with a different price. Again, you choose to enter into the agreement. On a practical level, of course, it makes it easier for your friends and neighbors (or customers) to find out what number you're renting if you're listed, and once upon a time, the same was true of your address. Nowadays, however, there are too many wackos out there to make that safe and too many worthless-scum-who-should-die-horribly... er, I mean telemarketers, to make that desirable. Again, however, it is your choice.
I sat in the hot tub at the YMCA last week listening to a former telephone company repairman (retired about 10 years ago) tell me about how much better off the computer industry because of Microsoft's innovations and that they obviously make a superior product.
I love how people who have no training or experience feel perfectly qualified to offer their "expert" opinions.
For those that home-school -- do you also do surgery on your kids? Do you fix their cavities? My mother used to cut my hair -- and I hated going to school afterwards.
And we have Clifford Stoll -- a second rate astronomer -- passing judgement on how schools educate.
Computers are not miracle devices, they are tools just like anything else. Used properly, they do make a significant difference, especially in early education. They are not a replacement for parent involvement or adequate school funding, but they are very worthwhile. Blanket abandonment of technology in education is no better than unquestioning praise.
What I'd like to see is a laptop that can seperate the keyboard, main unit and monitor (have a little folding stand come out of the bottom maybe. So I could rest the keyboard in my lap, prop the monitor up somewhere (or hang it!) and find a convenient spot to set the main unit. I expect the keyboard could maintain contact with lowpower RF or infrared and have it's own battery.
You have just described the Outbound Laptop almost perfectly. I don't know that anyone actually hung the monitor on the wall, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't. The Computer is built into the monitor, without adding much bulk.
Get just the multiple monitors...
on
Panasonic Dual-LCD PC
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I'm thinking I'd rather see that available as a separate monitor, than as an integrated, all-in-one PC.
Then simply go to Mass, Inc. and pick a system with up to 4 15- or 18-inch LCD screens. I'll take the C3H18, thank you.
(This was posted previously on Slashdot, but it took me a while to find it.)
What kind of proof -- heck, forget proof, what kind of evidence suggests that someone "intercepted" packets? Did someone complain about not being able to access the web site? Did someone not get an e-mail he sent? Or was it some other kind of packet? What exactly was he sending that didn't reach its destination? Why does he suspect the government? (Aside, of course, from the simple fact that he's a numbnut.)
If someone was intercepting all packets, no one would be able to view the web site, e-mail he sent wouldn't arrive, he wouldn't even be able to view other people's websites. All packets would include those sent to other websites so he could view webpages.
My suspiscion is that this idiot was trying to crack another website, couldn't get through, and assumed the FBI was being mean to him.
By saying "intercepted" and "all", the credibility of this claim becomes very low. If he said that "a lot of the packets passed through government servers", I'd believe it -- that's the way the internet works.
At times, Raisethefist.com has recieved over 100 hits from the U.S Department of Defense in a single day. The FBI, police department, NSA (and who else) continuesly monitered the site on a daily basis.
Yeah, so? What's the biggest single entity connected to the internet in the US? I'd guess it's the government. And within that, I'd further guess that the DoD is the biggest department. So, of all the employees of the DoD, there have been 100 hits from them in one day? Big whup. If the guy had 10 pages on his site, that could be as few as 10 distinct users -- I could see someone stumbling on the site, e-mailing a few coworkers, and suddenly there are 100 hits from.gov or.mil or.whatever tld's -- all of them laughing their arses off.
This is verging on redundant, but was any of this monitoring done with a warrant? Is the US Government allowed unfettered ability to monitor (or intercept!) network traffic?
One doesn't need a warrant to view a publicly available web page. (Heck, go take a look at mine if you want.) Intercepting implies preventing something from reaching its destination. I seriously doubt that happened -- perhaps he simply hit his bandwidth cap for the month? I mean, cracking those sites and all must have used some.
Show me some proof that something wrong was done and I'll get upset. Until then, this is some little punk that wants to be able to ignore the rules of our society while still being protected by them. If you ask me, anyone who thinks our laws and constitution should be eliminated should start by waiving all of the rights afforded to them such as the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, etc. If you want true anarchy, then anyone can do anything they want, including walking into your house, bashing you on the head, and taking your computer. Put up or shut up.
I'm not waiting an hour (at best) for an Archos to fill its drive.
Huh? To load 100 hours of music? Heck, I'd gladly wait 10 hours to load 100 hours of music. I'd hook it up in the evening, drag my whole/MP3 directory tree (from the linux server running samba) onto the archos and let it sit all night long while I slept. I can't imagine doing this more than once every few months, at MOST. And with the 20GB drive (over 300 hours of music), I doubt I'd ever do it more than once. Sure, I'd hook it up to copy over new albums as I rip them, but that would only take, what, a few minutes at most?
Numbers can be lots of fun, but in the real world, they don't mean a whole lot by themselves.
It occurs to me that I've probably spent several man-months in music stores selecting and purchasing CD's. What's another 67 minutes to put all that music in the palm of my hand?
There are actually quite a few network cameras available if you don't need a high-speed camera. Most have a built-in webserver, and several run a version of embedded linux. My personal favorite (and Ed's) is the Panasonic KX-HCM10 which can be had for as low as $329.99. The Axis and Samsung cameras are pretty cool too, if you can afford them.
The real advantage to these is that you can simply plug them into your network and watch [whatever] through your web browser. My interest stems from my upcoming need to be able to work and keep an eye on a baby sleeping at the same time. There are, of course, baby monitors that come with little TV's or that plug into your television, and the annoying X10 cameras, but they all require a separate monitor and need extra gear to be viewed in more than one location. With a network camera, not only can we watch the kid from any computer in the house, but relatives can watch too, over the internet. And all I need to do to set it up is plug it in and set the IP address.
To see why it's very handy, check out this article about why someday there will be a headstone with my name on it and a little black antenna sticking up out of the ground in front of it.
cloned humans will be used for slavery (sexual, physical, mental), body parts and experimentation
Ummm.... Cloning = $50K + cost of having a baby. Why not just head to some third world country, deposit $100 and a bit of sperm, pay the normal cost of having a kid, and skip the $50K? More fun, eh? Or, just zip over to some such country and purchase/kidnap/etc. a "body" ready to use?
Luckily, I can't say it happens all the time, but if one were inclined towards slavery and such, there are much easier and cheaper ways to go about it. Heck, there are a lot of people here in the states that will do almost any kind of experiment for a six-pack, carton of cigs, and $20.
keyboard is $59.99, while it has an average cost of $42. The same thing follows for cabling;
[...]
Sure, stores have to make a profit somewhere, but come on! It doesn't take a moron to figure out that these things are cheaper than ever to manufacture!
Cheaper than ever... Since they weren't available previously, I don't see how they can be cheaper, so who's the moron?
But seriously, the cost of parts is not the only thing you pay for. The stowaway is actually $100, so if it really costs $42 in parts, the profit is $58. Now, in addition to the bits of plastic, springs, wires, etc, the company has to pay an engineer or two to figure out how to make it, it has to pay for a place for them to work, payroll taxes, and so on. It even has to pay interest on the money the company borrowed to pay the engineers/rent/etc, until the company can sell a few keyboards.
On top of that, the company has to pay for advertising to let you know about their keyboard, they have to send free samples to magazines and such, they have to pay accountants, secretaries, and janitors.
Of course, Targus/Think Outside doesn't get the whole $58. Office Depot et al gets some of it. They use it to print that weekly ad, rent store space, heat the store, pay clerks to take your money, and even pay for insurance in case you trip and fall and sue them.
And then there is a bit of profit.
So, if you think there is too much profit involved don't buy it.
If it doesn't offer you $100 worth of functionality, don't buy it.
If you need a keyboard that is easy to carry more than you need $100, then go ahead and buy it.
What exactly do you think Kindergarten is? Glorified daycare.
Pardon me for going off-topic, but Kindergarten should *not* be "glorified daycare" -- at least not in a good school. Kids should be learning a lot of stuff which will prepare them for what they learn in first grade, which prepares them for what they learn in second grade,..., which prepares them for life in the real world.
The Complainant has furnished details of a sample number of these registrations in Europe and North America and in each case the trademarks are registered for use in connection with "Light beverages including stout, porter, ale and lager beer".
It would appear that providing a "sample" of "Light beverages including stout, porter, ale and lager beer" is beneficial to your case, especially if you happen to be Guiness.
Can you blame the WIPO? I can't think of too much I wouldn't do if you put a case of Guiness in front of me... (Of course, there wouldn't be much I could do by the time I got done.)
Slashdot Mirror
How do you tell "unlawful sound recordings" from legal ones?
I have a whole lot of MP3's on my hard drive -- all of it personally ripped from legally purchased CD's. (Except that which I downloaded, legally, from MP3.com as explicitly permitted by the copyright holder, and much of which I ended up buying on CD anyway.) So, supposing the RIAA, et al. were to scan my computer (as if I'd allow them), how could they tell whether or not the files I have are there legally?
I ask because I am concerned that the answer is "you can't tell, so we'll just have to make *all* copyrighted sound files illegal."
I don't condone copyright violation, and don't want my rights curtailed because of it.
Well, it's not just a mention of god, and it's not just some random government item. It's a declaration of trust in god and it's on our currency and coinage.
This is, in effect, our government saying that a) there is a god, b) there is one god, and c) that said god is indeed trusted by the government (and, because of the "we" bit, by the american people.) Furthermore, this is on what is probably one of the most important (to the average Joe) and visible "items" produced by the government.
I, personally, don't trust that god dude any further than I can throw him, and don't really want my government trusting him either. Except, that I don't believe he exists, and don't think my government should be forcing words in my mouth.
So, this is a wonderful event, and I look forward to the next step of getting god out of our wallets.
Now you're getting it! The government schools teach the basic skills -- reading, writing, 'rithmetic. (etc.) If you want something specialized, such as an education tainted by superstition, well, then by gum it, you're free to send your kids to a private school. If it's not important enough to you to sell your TV and give up beer to have your kid get a catholic/christian/jewish/muslim/antagotheistic education, well, then, it can't be all that important.
It's not the government's job to teach your kids religion. (If you don't want to take responsibility for your kid's religious education, send 'em to me. I'll teach 'em about religion.)
And lastly, those who vote for school vouchers (and who cannot afford a good private school on their own) deserve everything they get. Personally, if vouchers are ever passed here, I'm going to open up Uncle Roger's Private School, where you get a 10% cash rebate off your voucher (to buy beer!) and I'll plop 100 kids in front of disney videos every day while I vacation in Tahiti.
That would be sad, and unconstitutional. And I would fight it, tooth and nail. But that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. This ruling isn't about limiting what the general populace can say. Anyone can say whatever they want (well, except for limits on profanity and libel (or is it slander?) and such). This ruling does not prevent anyone from reciting the 1954 version of the pledge. They can even recite it on school grounds. What this ruling is about is making sure that no one has to be forced to pledge themselves to be "under god" by a representative of the government. That the government should not endorse (even as broadly as saying there is a god) any particular religion. (Love them thar rights!)
btw, I have, for 10 years now, given my (now) wife a lecture/rant at the start of each school year, about how having the pledge posted and making the kids say it is unconstitutional. Maybe this year she'll pay attention to me! 8^)
Looks like a neat system -- I've got a SCSI tower it would fit in nicely. Only, there is no pricing info on the web site and no indication that you can buy it anywhere. Is it real or vaporware?
It's simple:
Use COBOL!
Actually, I could care less who lives in your home. It is not important to me, nor to most of the world. It is important to you, so you choose to share that info. Personally, I don't mind if everyone knows that I, my wife, my brother-in-law and his wife and two kids live here. On the other hand, I choose not to let anyone know about the aliens^h^h^h^h^h^hothers who hang out in the attic.
There's a very basic fallacy here -- "your ... phone number". It's not your phone number. It belongs to the phone company. You pay them for exclusive access to a 10-digit number (in the US anyway) and for access to their network. If you stop paying them, they turn around and let someone else pay them for that number.
Now, part of your agreement with the phone company is that they will list your name in their directory. If you don't want your name listed, that's a different agreement with a different price. Again, you choose to enter into the agreement. On a practical level, of course, it makes it easier for your friends and neighbors (or customers) to find out what number you're renting if you're listed, and once upon a time, the same was true of your address. Nowadays, however, there are too many wackos out there to make that safe and too many worthless-scum-who-should-die-horribly... er, I mean telemarketers, to make that desirable. Again, however, it is your choice.
I sat in the hot tub at the YMCA last week listening to a former telephone company repairman (retired about 10 years ago) tell me about how much better off the computer industry because of Microsoft's innovations and that they obviously make a superior product.
I love how people who have no training or experience feel perfectly qualified to offer their "expert" opinions.
For those that home-school -- do you also do surgery on your kids? Do you fix their cavities? My mother used to cut my hair -- and I hated going to school afterwards.
And we have Clifford Stoll -- a second rate astronomer -- passing judgement on how schools educate.
Computers are not miracle devices, they are tools just like anything else. Used properly, they do make a significant difference, especially in early education. They are not a replacement for parent involvement or adequate school funding, but they are very worthwhile. Blanket abandonment of technology in education is no better than unquestioning praise.
Ah, see, and people laughed at the CueCat Collectors Club! Buwahahahaaaaa!
Perhaps you mean " Blinkenlights! "?
Take a look at the Vintage Computer Festival. There are a lot of people who are working hard to preserve the history of the computer industry.
Keep in mind that it's also important to show people that what they think is new just might not be.
P.S., You can check out my collection too.
You have just described the Outbound Laptop almost perfectly. I don't know that anyone actually hung the monitor on the wall, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't. The Computer is built into the monitor, without adding much bulk.
Then simply go to Mass, Inc. and pick a system with up to 4 15- or 18-inch LCD screens. I'll take the C3H18, thank you.
(This was posted previously on Slashdot, but it took me a while to find it.)
From the NewsBytes article on FTC crackdown:
Alright! I've got about 10K spam emails saved up that I can send them!
Even better, I think I'll set up an alias on each of my domains for this address, then start posting it on web pages and usenet...
What kind of proof -- heck, forget proof, what kind of evidence suggests that someone "intercepted" packets? Did someone complain about not being able to access the web site? Did someone not get an e-mail he sent? Or was it some other kind of packet? What exactly was he sending that didn't reach its destination? Why does he suspect the government? (Aside, of course, from the simple fact that he's a numbnut.)
If someone was intercepting all packets, no one would be able to view the web site, e-mail he sent wouldn't arrive, he wouldn't even be able to view other people's websites. All packets would include those sent to other websites so he could view webpages.
My suspiscion is that this idiot was trying to crack another website, couldn't get through, and assumed the FBI was being mean to him.
By saying "intercepted" and "all", the credibility of this claim becomes very low. If he said that "a lot of the packets passed through government servers", I'd believe it -- that's the way the internet works.
Yeah, so? What's the biggest single entity connected to the internet in the US? I'd guess it's the government. And within that, I'd further guess that the DoD is the biggest department. So, of all the employees of the DoD, there have been 100 hits from them in one day? Big whup. If the guy had 10 pages on his site, that could be as few as 10 distinct users -- I could see someone stumbling on the site, e-mailing a few coworkers, and suddenly there are 100 hits from .gov or .mil or .whatever tld's -- all of them laughing their arses off.
One doesn't need a warrant to view a publicly available web page. (Heck, go take a look at mine if you want.) Intercepting implies preventing something from reaching its destination. I seriously doubt that happened -- perhaps he simply hit his bandwidth cap for the month? I mean, cracking those sites and all must have used some.
Show me some proof that something wrong was done and I'll get upset. Until then, this is some little punk that wants to be able to ignore the rules of our society while still being protected by them. If you ask me, anyone who thinks our laws and constitution should be eliminated should start by waiving all of the rights afforded to them such as the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, etc. If you want true anarchy, then anyone can do anything they want, including walking into your house, bashing you on the head, and taking your computer. Put up or shut up.
Huh? To load 100 hours of music? Heck, I'd gladly wait 10 hours to load 100 hours of music. I'd hook it up in the evening, drag my whole /MP3 directory tree (from the linux server running samba) onto the archos and let it sit all night long while I slept. I can't imagine doing this more than once every few months, at MOST. And with the 20GB drive (over 300 hours of music), I doubt I'd ever do it more than once. Sure, I'd hook it up to copy over new albums as I rip them, but that would only take, what, a few minutes at most?
Numbers can be lots of fun, but in the real world, they don't mean a whole lot by themselves.
It occurs to me that I've probably spent several man-months in music stores selecting and purchasing CD's. What's another 67 minutes to put all that music in the palm of my hand?
There are quite a few network cameras with built-in webservers that are not so specialized; see my other post on the subject for links.
There are actually quite a few network cameras available if you don't need a high-speed camera. Most have a built-in webserver, and several run a version of embedded linux. My personal favorite (and Ed's) is the Panasonic KX-HCM10 which can be had for as low as $329.99. The Axis and Samsung cameras are pretty cool too, if you can afford them.
Other cameras include the StarDot NetCam, which is also available from ThinkGeek (along with the Axis 2100 and 2120 cameras) and the IQeye cameras.
The real advantage to these is that you can simply plug them into your network and watch [whatever] through your web browser. My interest stems from my upcoming need to be able to work and keep an eye on a baby sleeping at the same time. There are, of course, baby monitors that come with little TV's or that plug into your television, and the annoying X10 cameras, but they all require a separate monitor and need extra gear to be viewed in more than one location. With a network camera, not only can we watch the kid from any computer in the house, but relatives can watch too, over the internet. And all I need to do to set it up is plug it in and set the IP address.
To see why it's very handy, check out this article about why someday there will be a headstone with my name on it and a little black antenna sticking up out of the ground in front of it.
Ummm.... Cloning = $50K + cost of having a baby. Why not just head to some third world country, deposit $100 and a bit of sperm, pay the normal cost of having a kid, and skip the $50K? More fun, eh? Or, just zip over to some such country and purchase/kidnap/etc. a "body" ready to use?
Luckily, I can't say it happens all the time, but if one were inclined towards slavery and such, there are much easier and cheaper ways to go about it. Heck, there are a lot of people here in the states that will do almost any kind of experiment for a six-pack, carton of cigs, and $20.
Cheaper than ever... Since they weren't available previously, I don't see how they can be cheaper, so who's the moron?
But seriously, the cost of parts is not the only thing you pay for. The stowaway is actually $100, so if it really costs $42 in parts, the profit is $58. Now, in addition to the bits of plastic, springs, wires, etc, the company has to pay an engineer or two to figure out how to make it, it has to pay for a place for them to work, payroll taxes, and so on. It even has to pay interest on the money the company borrowed to pay the engineers/rent/etc, until the company can sell a few keyboards.
On top of that, the company has to pay for advertising to let you know about their keyboard, they have to send free samples to magazines and such, they have to pay accountants, secretaries, and janitors.
Of course, Targus/Think Outside doesn't get the whole $58. Office Depot et al gets some of it. They use it to print that weekly ad, rent store space, heat the store, pay clerks to take your money, and even pay for insurance in case you trip and fall and sue them.
And then there is a bit of profit.
So, if you think there is too much profit involved don't buy it.
If it doesn't offer you $100 worth of functionality, don't buy it.
If you need a keyboard that is easy to carry more than you need $100, then go ahead and buy it.
This was posted a while ago, but with a different site. Try this site: http://www.honda-p3.com/ for english text and movies and such.
Pardon me for going off-topic, but Kindergarten should *not* be "glorified daycare" -- at least not in a good school. Kids should be learning a lot of stuff which will prepare them for what they learn in first grade, which prepares them for what they learn in second grade, ..., which prepares them for life in the real world.
From the decision:
It would appear that providing a "sample" of "Light beverages including stout, porter, ale and lager beer" is beneficial to your case, especially if you happen to be Guiness.
Can you blame the WIPO? I can't think of too much I wouldn't do if you put a case of Guiness in front of me... (Of course, there wouldn't be much I could do by the time I got done.)